Viewing 15 posts - 56,116 through 56,130 (of 59,071 total)
Dearest Moderator's,
How can I make it so I'm no longer "watching" (unsubscribe) this topic?
We've gone from "Banker's Rounding" to actual "Digital Truncation"...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Oh, bugger... I forgot about the check constraint thingy... Andy, I've temporarily lost my mind and my notes... can you review/provide a brief summary how the check constraints improves the performance...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 10:19 pm
It depends... ![]()
How many stocks do you need to do this for and how often? Very well may be better to do it...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Recommend you write a macro to export the section of the spreadsheet as a tab or comma delimited text file and import the text file.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 9:49 pm
EXEC (@CMD)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I'll take Ray's suggestion 1 step further... Don't let the developer's even see the production database... create a developer's database as a "snapshot" of production, give them dbo privs to...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Dunno how it works in 2k5, but in 2k, you could open Enterprise Manager, right click on a table and select "Design Table"... the "Description" for each column is where...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 6:49 pm
SQL Server doesn't know how to spell "mapped drive"... you're stuck with the UNC approach... which isn't so bad... don't have to worry about the drive letter ever changing --Jeff Moden Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.
Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)
June 14, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Sorry I'm late with this reply...
The answer is...
.... rewrite sp_OA_portfolio_earnings to handle more than one row at a time. ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Also (to add to what's already been said), you have a large number of implicit conversions that may slow things down... 1 (in code) is an implicit INT but you're columns...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Yes... I think you've done it the correct way for the right reason(s). And such "partioning" of data is a tried and true method (although I don't care much for...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 6:04 pm
That number is correct... check in Books Online under "specifications-SQL Server objects"
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Click on the Windows START button... open "ALL PROGRAMS" or some such. Find the Microsoft SQL Server folder and click on it... find the QUERY ANALYZER icon and click on...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Please tell me you didn't add a dollar sign to some numeric data and store it as a varchar...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Gotta love embedded SQL... and not trying to be a snit about this... check out the discussing beginning to unfold at the following URL... it's similar to many other discussions...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 14, 2007 at 6:41 am
Viewing 15 posts - 56,116 through 56,130 (of 59,071 total)