Viewing 15 posts - 58,951 through 58,965 (of 59,063 total)
Using EXEC (@SQL1+@SQL2...@SQL4), have been able to do up to 32k. Target of exec has to be in ( ). Didn't try it but was once told the limit was...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 27, 2004 at 10:26 pm
You can also create roles and assign individuals to roles. That way, if you need to change the permissions for a whole group of people, you just change the permissions...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 24, 2004 at 7:59 am
The systax of the GRANT command should be as follows:
GRANT permissiontype ON sqlobject TO grouporrole
See "Books on Line" under "GRANT, GRANT (described)" for a complete list...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 22, 2004 at 8:33 pm
WHEN ABS(DATEDIFF(ss, x, y) ) <= 3
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 21, 2004 at 8:49 pm
I believe you are looking for the GRANT command. See "Books on Line" for details.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 21, 2004 at 8:34 pm
>it works until the caseno column contains an value that can't be converted to int.
Mike, you are absolutely correct. I was aiming at the original question and I guess I...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 21, 2004 at 8:12 pm
I don't think you'll see much of a problem because "IS" shares are not exclusive and rank as one of the lowest locks. I haven't had a problem with it,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 20, 2004 at 10:34 pm
You may have better luck with OpenRowset. Here's a copy of the example in "Books On Line"...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 20, 2004 at 10:25 pm
Someone isn't doing something right on Kim's machine... the following example shows that, although it may not be a good idea, implicit transactions as Kim described should work just fine...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 20, 2004 at 10:19 pm
Not sure, folks, but I think the original question was about having temp tables with the same name running in stored procedures that run at the same time. The answer,...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 20, 2004 at 10:09 pm
You've made it a bit difficult on yourself... the following should do nicely and should do 70,000 records in something less than 10 seconds on a good server...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 5, 2004 at 2:52 pm
Yeah, Wayne has confirmed what I've heard... you can do some really nasty things through xp_shell. Maybe you shouldn't go there. Just create the BCP job in a batch file...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 1, 2004 at 10:26 pm
Of course, Microsoft documentation is always 100% correct ![]()
What you may want to try, instead, is calling BCP using xp_shell... that is unless you...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 1, 2004 at 7:17 am
Calvin,
If your server is set to CONCATENIZATION OF NULL YIELDS NULL, then you will need either COALESCE or ISNULL unless you preset the variable to something other than NULL.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 30, 2004 at 10:19 pm
Richard,
I believe that, with SQL 2000, there is a BULK INSERT role where you no longer have to grant a user "SA" rights just so they can use the BULK...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 30, 2004 at 10:07 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 58,951 through 58,965 (of 59,063 total)