Viewing 15 posts - 8,731 through 8,745 (of 59,067 total)
IMHO, the closest thing to a CROSS APPLY is a "Correlated Sub-Query" with an implicit join, which can return more than one row per input row if you're...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2019 at 1:29 pm
It would appear that the OP has flown the coop instead of answering the question I posed.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2019 at 4:19 am
IMHO, the closest thing to a CROSS APPLY is a "Correlated Sub-Query" with an implicit join, which can return more than one row per input row if you're not careful...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 30, 2019 at 4:14 am
When job hunting, I'm point blank with potential employers or recruiters about what my current salary is. The way I see it, if either party can't match the expectations...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 29, 2019 at 1:44 pm
There are awesome people on this site. There are also some not so awesome people on this site, and heck maybe I'm not one of the awesome people on...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 29, 2019 at 12:59 pm
It will vary depending on what the CU is and does. If the documentation for the CU doesn't contain that information, then there's no way to predetermine it.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 29, 2019 at 12:40 pm
My first recommendation would be to stop using such homegrown methods. Temporal tables work a fantastic treat and the audit table they leave behind is pretty much immutable with virtually...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 29, 2019 at 12:01 pm
Yes, but I wouldn't. I'd do the migration between the servers.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 29, 2019 at 11:51 am
Ahhh... I've got to disagree a bit. Instead of changing to comparability level, SQL Server 2017 does have the ability to use the old cardinality estimator at at...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 29, 2019 at 11:46 am
... and read the following to answer most of your other questions...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 29, 2019 at 2:19 am
I have a table with the following data . Some rows have col2 as null
col1 col2 col3
1 203 1232
2 null 2343
3 502 15566
4 null 4566
5 null 4545
6 601 4545
7...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 29, 2019 at 2:08 am
Ahhh... I've got to disagree a bit. Instead of changing to comparability level, SQL Server 2017 does have the ability to use the old cardinality estimator at at least the...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 28, 2019 at 9:54 pm
Well that's different, on one hand we have associates at work who we will be personally familiar with and often work closely together, and on...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 28, 2019 at 9:42 pm
Be careful now... if you do any work with SET IDENTITY_INSERT ON, you might want to reconsider especially on later versions where they essentially made Trace Flag 1117 ALWAYS active...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 28, 2019 at 9:38 pm
Here's a presentation by Paul Randal on the subject. He's the guy that wrote most of the fragmentation related stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SXxclj_vg
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
August 28, 2019 at 9:03 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 8,731 through 8,745 (of 59,067 total)