Viewing 15 posts - 56,011 through 56,025 (of 59,072 total)
Just curious, Noeld... how many databases have you built with a Sequence table of this nature?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 25, 2007 at 2:42 pm
The SET statement does not allow the following...
SET #TempRecordsToCreate.ShortName = CODE_PROGRAM.CODE_VALUE
Remove the code in red and it should work fine...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 25, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Thanks, Sugesh...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 25, 2007 at 6:30 am
I think we scared the OP away... ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 25, 2007 at 12:05 am
>>but it executes faster than your user cursor
Who's "user cursor" solution are you talking about, Sugesh?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Heh... appreciate that, David... now, all I have to do is convince Eamon as to what a terrible mistake using that type of sequence table is ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 11:45 pm
There might be something else going on, but can't tell unless you post the sproc ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Step 1. Nominate the current DBA for a "Darwin Award".
Step 2. Fire the current DBA.
Step 3. Promote the developer to DBA with the caveat that if he doesn't impliment the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 11:33 pm
>>is there a reason you can't do an insert into the sequence table and store scope_identity into a variable
Yes... the sequence table only has one row according to the OP... so...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Correct... in a properly designed database, the assemblies and sub-assemblies would not only be separated, but they would be "normalized" as well. Separate table would also be present to identify...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 4:54 pm
That's why I'm saying you've gotta normalize it... you can submit the answers to the questions all at the same time, just not all in one row. Your current design...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I guess I should explain the other reasons why this is gonna "suck" and why I don't think this resembles a relational database... you're using RBAR (pronounced "ree-bar" and is...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Heh... we had something similar that a 3rd party built into their part of our database... 640 average deadlocks per day with spikes to 4,000 ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Even though SQL Server 2000 doesn't have a pivot function, it's pretty darned easy to make one. So, don't let the lack of a pivot function make you do something...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Heh... it wouldn't be just me that gets annoyed... some folks get downright rude about cross posting.
Anyway, glad to help and thanks for the feedback.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 24, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 56,011 through 56,025 (of 59,072 total)