Viewing 15 posts - 56,011 through 56,025 (of 59,098 total)
Thanks... had a feeling that's what you were going to say... was hoping you had something different than we did... we got our 3rd party problem child working without deadlocking using most...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 28, 2007 at 6:12 pm
You running a 5 digit lottery? ![]()
Seriously, though, just because I'm curious everytime I see such a requirement... what is the business logic...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 28, 2007 at 5:59 pm
I guess the way I'd do this is to send the inserts to one file and the deletes to another instead of having a process generate individual inserts/deletes as a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 28, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Kory is spot on... and, (just a reminder)... all of the objects on the Oracle side must be in upper case.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 28, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I've found that our DBA's don't (have to) do much in the area of performance tuning code, only do cursory reviews of code, don't do much when it comes to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 28, 2007 at 5:30 pm
That's almost exactly correct... it would, indeed, be a multi-row insert using a loop in the GUI. Or, you could store each answer in an answer staging table if you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 28, 2007 at 7:01 am
Stephen Falken: Except, that I never could get Joshua to learn the most important lesson.
David Lightman: What's that?
Stephen Falken: Futility. That there's a time when...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 27, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I gotta ask... what will this be used for?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 27, 2007 at 6:32 pm
| For batch inserts you Call GetNextID with a @count parameter *once* |
Yep, I'm aware of that, but then you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 27, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Nope... gave credit where credit was due... I got lazy and said "heck, they probably don't have the right kind of index, anyway, so why bring it up?" You reminded...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 27, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Nope... if you don't have an index, using the function or not has no effect on speed... both are the same for the most part. Only difference is if you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 27, 2007 at 4:52 pm
That too, will work, but as Chris Morris pointed out, any time you do a calculation/function on a column in the WHERE clause, you will decrease performance (A LOT!!) if a...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 27, 2007 at 7:49 am
I found this in Books Online...
When the IDENTITY property is used with CREATE TABLE, Microsoft® SQL Server™ uses the NOT FOR REPLICATION option of CREATE TABLE to override the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 26, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Um... I gotta ask... why wouldn't 0.3333 represent all of the numbers from 0.3332(5) to 0.3333(4) in the TR model?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Well, maybe an Index Scan... but you're (almost) exactly correct... the OR in this case will certainly allow an Index SEEK to occur if the correct index is available.
I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 26, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 56,011 through 56,025 (of 59,098 total)