Viewing 15 posts - 17,416 through 17,430 (of 18,926 total)
This should help you :
Select * from msdb.dbo.SysJobHistory where job_id = '42ADD00B-46AB-4EF5-AD59-DE476FA638D2' order by run_date desc, run_time desc
June 2, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Yes... but AJ already posted the solution. Just open the books online and you'll be able to find the solution.
June 2, 2005 at 11:57 am
Nice thinking... but what happens if the list of keywords is dynamic and you still want to use static sql?
June 2, 2005 at 11:33 am
Can you post the table definition, some sample data along with the expected results so we can easier help you (in case AJ's solution doesn't work in your situation)?
June 2, 2005 at 11:32 am
... With the execption of administrative stored proc that need to do work in many dbs, but not necessarely all at the same time. It can be a good...
June 2, 2005 at 11:30 am
Also, this is exactly why you should always specify the object owner. There are other reasons, even more important than this one, but this is one area where...
June 2, 2005 at 11:27 am
If you want to keep the original data, then you won't have more efficient than this. You can't multiple replaces at one time in sql server so you have...
June 2, 2005 at 9:56 am
ok, now that we have this, can you try to catch the stats of the long execution (or the short one if this is the long running one)?
June 2, 2005 at 9:46 am
Yup
.
June 2, 2005 at 9:44 am
... Unless he wants to change the data and never ahve to worry about his again. But that's his choice to make.
June 2, 2005 at 9:42 am
Ya I reread up on this, and in the disable section of the constraint, they referrence only updates and inserts as affected operations... so I guess truncate/delete is out of...
June 2, 2005 at 9:40 am
I don't see anything out of the ordinary... but then again it's hard to see anything in this context ![]()
However there see to have...
June 2, 2005 at 9:38 am
Nobody... that's why I warned him it could happen but I don't see that happening really often. It takes a tie at the third rank to cause this behavior......
June 2, 2005 at 9:21 am
Oops, let's try it like this
(order by date DESC).
X 2005-03-02 11:27:43.000 2005-03-02 11:31:00.000
X 2005-03-02 11:27:43.000 2005-03-02 11:31:00.000
X 2005-03-04 09:59:54.000 2005-03-04 10:03:13.000
X...
June 2, 2005 at 9:15 am
Viewing 15 posts - 17,416 through 17,430 (of 18,926 total)