Heh... a Yak by any other name...

Sure... look at the problems you're having now with trying to keep the data unique.  Which do you think will be more effecient... doing a two line insert (INSERT/SELECT UNION...

Tk,

At the risk of ticking off "Mr Rogers", just some additional information... I believe that "performance tuning" effectiveness ratios are as follows:

1% - Hardware

2% - Server configuration

2% - Proper Indexing

95%...

Finer resolution on locks will sometimes decrease performance... nothing faster than a full table lock because it is only one lock.  Of course, you might not want to do that...

That helps, but better to have the partitions on different physical disks for real performance gains...

No need for a trigger... You can revoke permissions from individual users by column in a table or view.  Lookup REVOKE in Books Online for the full syntax.... but here's a...

It wasn't negative!!! It was friendly advise that you're probably commiting some form of SQL suicide by needing to do this!!!

There's only one...

Is it a bug or did the boys in Redmond just decide to change a default like they did with the CONCATENATE NULL YIELDS NULL setting?

The "system" creates them... As you found out, it only creates them when the first instance is needed whether created by the backup code or use of an IDE.  Best...

Won't have poor performance if it's for multi-row batches... on busy systems, most batch procs will probably need to recompile due to data changes in as little as 5 minutes.  GUI code is another...

I'm thinking that your table is a bit denormalized... it should be like this...

EventID Fighter
1       5
1       10
2 ...

That's a whole lot different than what you asked... but somethin similar to what I posted will still work.  Just set some variables in the process.  Have you read about...

Understood... but you have no criteria for the table... that makes a cross-join.

C'mon Zach... folks helped you out... the least you could do is post your solution

Thanks Remi!