Viewing 15 posts - 55,096 through 55,110 (of 59,098 total)
There is no time such as 24:00:00.000 because that would represent the next day ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Heh... a Yak by any other name... ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 8:53 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 8:46 pm
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%...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 8:38 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 8:12 pm
That helps, but better to have the partitions on different physical disks for real performance gains...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 8:08 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 7:34 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 7:19 pm
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?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 7:14 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 7:06 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I'm thinking that your table is a bit denormalized... it should be like this...
EventID Fighter 1 5 1 10 2 ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 6:53 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Understood... but you have no criteria for the table... that makes a cross-join.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 5:55 pm
C'mon Zach... folks helped you out... the least you could do is post your solution ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 11, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 55,096 through 55,110 (of 59,098 total)