David,

Peter is correct about a potential problem with my code and, I'm sorry to say, I completely forgot about it because of the way I load data for dupe checks.  If...

Ooooh... Sorry Peter... didn't mean to make that sound as a challenge... seriously, I've not had the opportunity to work with SQL Server 2005 and the method you used truly...

I see no reason why "the database design will need multiple instances of the single table".  I assume they mean "multiple physical copies"?  Can that person give an example of what...

My first question would be... what have you tried?

This smacks of the Oracle-like "sequence" number... the others are correct... why aren't you using the auto-numbering capabilities of an IDENTITY column?

Now, I'll also admit that there are requirements like...

Nope... you should almost never include an Order By in the view... (there are exceptions but this isn't one of them)... if the users want ordered data, they should include it...

Actually, it's not a cross join... I will agree that it creates many tiny triangular joins, but it creates no full cross joins.  And, it deletes a quarter million dupes...

Perhaps it's the difference in language and culture, Sandeep.  You post didn't sound right at all.  There is a way to ask for help especially on these types of forums......

Oooohhh.... now that's just plain evil   Hadn't thought about doing something that nasty

As for professors catching...

The command window will always "open" from the server... you can, however, run remote bat files... you just need to pass all file info as a UNC including the result...

Just my 2 cents... dunno if it is, or not, but the query should NOT be embedded SQL... you app should be calling a stored procedure for this and returning...

Did you just do someone's homework, Peter?  Hope you get an "A"

What would be more interesting is to ask why you think you need a cursor?  What are you trying to do?

http://www.w3schools.com

True... it appears to still have used an index... but notice it did NOT use an INDEX SEEK anywhere... instead, it used an INDEX SCAN which is quite slow compared...