Viewing 15 posts - 55,336 through 55,350 (of 59,067 total)
!= is what most GUI folks write and it's a bit more difficult to read than <>. Other than that, no difference.
August 17, 2007 at 9:31 pm
What is the datatype for startdate and starttime? ![]()
August 17, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Nope... don't need the conversion to varchar for date or time.
August 17, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Since he's converting to DateTime, I'd suggest doing neither. ![]()
August 17, 2007 at 9:23 pm
| Incidentally, if you're using SQL 2005, you can jump straight to the final result fairly elegantly |
Glad to see...
August 15, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Heh... for the same reason most British don't measure heat in British Thermal Units? ![]()
August 15, 2007 at 10:43 pm
There is nothing in the code that needs dynamic SQL. Rewrite the code to take variables. Normally, the only time you need dynamic SQL is for variable table or column...
August 15, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Not sure what they call it in 2k5, but have you done a search on Bulk Copy or BCP in Books Online?
August 15, 2007 at 10:04 pm
David is correct...
First, move the SET NOCOUNT ON statement to before the IF. There's a lot more at stake than just performance if a GUI is involved (pevents false...
August 15, 2007 at 10:01 pm
They left off one very important disaster... and that's what happens when you have normal, healthy database growth and the code written against the database reaches a "tipping point". Lots...
August 15, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I've never found a performance difference between the Ansi INNER JOIN and the Equi-joins found in a WHERE clause. And, contrary to what Remi has experienced (not an argument, just...
August 15, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Just and FYI... there are many times that SQL code simply can't be tuned for performance and will need to be rewritten... sometimes, from the ground up.... 1 to 4...
August 15, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Also, check out GROUP BY and Aggregate Functions in Books Online. You may also want to try the free tutorial at W3Schools.com... won't teach you the specifics of SQL Server but...
August 15, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Correct... I don't believe 4.0 supported correlated sub-queries as appears in the suggested code.
Recommendation would be to see the documentation for 4.0 at MySql.com...
August 15, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Books Online doesn't have the info you want/need?
August 15, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 55,336 through 55,350 (of 59,067 total)