Viewing 15 posts - 56,581 through 56,595 (of 59,086 total)
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 17, 2007 at 12:13 am
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 16, 2007 at 8:13 pm
My first question would be... what have you tried?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 16, 2007 at 8:05 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 16, 2007 at 7:50 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 16, 2007 at 7:41 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 16, 2007 at 5:37 pm
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......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 16, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Oooohhh.... now that's just plain evil
Hadn't thought about doing something that nasty ![]()
As for professors catching...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 15, 2007 at 8:19 am
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 14, 2007 at 8:08 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 14, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Did you just do someone's homework, Peter? Hope you get an "A" ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 14, 2007 at 7:59 pm
What would be more interesting is to ask why you think you need a cursor? What are you trying to do?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 13, 2007 at 10:42 pm
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 12, 2007 at 8:44 pm
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...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 11, 2007 at 9:26 pm
That's exactly what I was talking about... if you "convert the two columns", you destroy most opportunities to use an index if one is available. The method I displayed allows...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 11, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 56,581 through 56,595 (of 59,086 total)