Viewing 15 posts - 58,036 through 58,050 (of 59,067 total)
Thank you for the feed back on your resolution! It's a keeper... ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 5, 2006 at 10:29 pm
>Shouldn't need to index the view if the underlying tables are properly indexed Well that... |
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 5, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Shouldn't need to index the view if the underlying tables are properly indexed... indexing a view also requires the view to be schema bound and that all UDF's addressed by...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 4, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Guess I'm being a bit picky here... where does @a or @b-2 parameters of the function get used in the function? I'm thinking the function posted has some other problems......
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 4, 2006 at 10:34 pm
| Nowhere is the hardware/disksubsystem described |
If his server has less horsepower than my desktop (P4, 1.8Ghz, @MB Ram,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 4, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Is she good at it? ![]()
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 4, 2006 at 10:19 pm
I guess the real question to Josh would be... why is this needed in a single string?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 4, 2006 at 10:15 pm
5 million records should take 5 minutes or less for BCP and even faster for BULK INSERT (it does less data checking). Changing the batch size to 20000 will help get...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 3, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Probably... but I wouldn't... have you ever worked with a TEXT datatype before? It's a pain in the sitting-muscles. I'd likely setup some table with the results of the different...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 3, 2006 at 4:08 pm
There's a fair amount of info in Books Online about "bitwise" operators, the bit data type, using powers of two, etc. Not sure what you're looking for or what your...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 3, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Great... and simple, too...
When you create a table, create your "sequential ID" column with the IDENTITY property...
For example... this will create a table, insert 3 rows, insert 3 more rows,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 3, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Like you said, the code has been running fine except for the occasional hiccup... the problem must be in the data somewhere you are not trapping for an error.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 3, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Keith and Farrell,
Thank you both for your feedback... My bad... the usage should be like this...
SELECT DISTINCT Name,
dbo.ConcatStatus(Name) AS StatusList
FROM yourtable
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 3, 2006 at 3:05 pm
I agree... although your intentions are good, I'm sure, this is nothing more than spamming a forum.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 2, 2006 at 10:01 pm
I have found that most transactions are simply not necessary... for example, if your transactions have no ROLLBACK code, there is no need for the transaction. The WITH (NOLOCK) suggestion...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 2, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 58,036 through 58,050 (of 59,067 total)