Viewing 15 posts - 56,281 through 56,295 (of 59,098 total)
Yeah... and it get's worse... check it out... didn't use to work this way... ![]()
select str(612.005, 10, 2) UNION ALL
select str(612.015, 10, 2) UNION...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 9:48 pm
You are correct... the STR function doesn't appear to be working there... I'll blame it on installing SP4 ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Yeah... the definitions on the reference I made are not exactly correct... here's the long post I was talking about... the 3rd post (Andrew) on the first page on the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Found this to be quick and easy. |
That's exactly what I've been ranting about ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Thank you very much... always good to see timings on these types of experiments even if they're "unscientific"
And thanks for the feedback...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Great... thanks for the feedback, Magnus...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I created an 8 million row table and have tried all the scenarios you have... I cannot get it to fail in the manner which you speak of. I think...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Yes, but not for dynamic SQL...
The error that you are getting is becaue you are using EXEC the wrong way to execute dynamic SQL... you have...
EXECUTE @STR
... and it should be...
EXECUTE...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Ah... how rude of me... forgot to post how long my code took... Using SQL Server Developer's Edition (same as Enterprise Edition), sp4, 1.8 Ghz single cpu, 1 Gig RAM,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 5:03 pm
p.s.
Heh... looks like David and I got our rounding examples from the same source...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankers%27_rounding#Round-to-even_method
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Heh... I've been all through this on one unbelievably long post before and then I struck gold quite by accident... Unbeknowst to most, the STR function does Banker's rounding "auto-magically"... ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 4:43 pm
>>Wait..don't tell me both columns are NULLable, too...;-))
Heh... dunno... like I said, they cut off my ability to pry any further... but the way they do things in that particular...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Very cool... thanks for sharing!
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Yes, please post the query... chances are, the criteria in the WHERE clause is what's keeping the index from being used...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 7:15 am
Heh... you DO have a way with words! Good thing I had a DBA with the same type of extremely dry humor you do ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 31, 2007 at 5:51 am
Viewing 15 posts - 56,281 through 56,295 (of 59,098 total)