Viewing 15 posts - 56,356 through 56,370 (of 59,086 total)
Kinda... if you don't consider any type of rounding, the FLOAT 17 digit's in the example I gave came up with the wrong answer...
But, after re-reading your posts, I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 24, 2007 at 7:51 am
>> For the above if there is no backup with in last 24 hrs then it will show null.
Does that mean the query did want you wanted or not?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 24, 2007 at 7:33 am
Yeah... didn't even look at that part, Serqiy... just knew the outer table was the wrong one and quit there... good catch.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 24, 2007 at 7:31 am
Heh... the "golden plate" was correct... somebody forgot to wash the glass though
JacekO is correct... the method being suggested doesn't use...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 24, 2007 at 7:24 am
Oh boy... you sure about that?
FLOAT is based on BINARY math which is also why it's so fast. The problem with Binary math is that you sometimes need more bits...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2007 at 11:33 pm
<insert sound of applause here>
Heh... I absolutely agree on these types of posts and I used to get mad as hell at some of these folks... then it dawned on...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Nicely done, Ed...
What I'd really like to know, though, in the original post, Janet said "I would like to call the function with my own datepart."...
My questions would be......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Heh... must be because SQL Server couldn't easily read your code, either. ![]()
You need the outer join to be on the database table, not...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2007 at 10:45 pm
| The same @Message will be sent every time, it won't change depending on the record. |
Ok... dunno about...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2007 at 10:32 pm
It's always a golden plate... and a lot of it isn't available on the web until Serqiy puts it there... ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I don't have any websites I can direct you to, but here's a couple of my own...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I'm pretty sure that when OSQL is used, any procs called by it are given the same spid. Of course, that's why testing is important.
Thanks for the heads-up...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Than is impressive. Thanks, Paul.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Heh... sorry Lynn... wasn't directed specifically at you... was a general comment. I agree with the idea of them allowing folks to "build comples queries incrementally".
The only thing I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 22, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Just a thought... How do you read sequentially from a table without a cursor or loop? Except for the occasional control loop on processes that handle thousands or millions of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 22, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 56,356 through 56,370 (of 59,086 total)