What's that supposed to mean??

Not really, but the best pratice for something like that is to plan the expansions ahead of time and doing them off hours so that the users don't suffer from...

in (null) usually fails, that's why I ALWAYS set my variables... but I agree it's not really necessary here.

yes if there's only 1 row then you get the same value...

First thing in the trigger :

Save the rowcount in a variable

SET @rwcnt = @@rowcount

then in the last step of the trigger you can do this :

Update dbo.Numbers set...

Done.

How about :

Select @ID1 = -1, @ID2 = -1

Select @ID1 = min(id), @ID2 = max(id) from inserted

Update whatever set col = '??' where id in (@ID1, @ID2)

What post?

Not quite Sushila, stop being a poet and start acting your feelings out. "He can shove them up his ass." is the phrase you need to use.

Finally he says it .

Well this could answer a few of your questions, but not all of 'em :

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/forums/shwmessage.aspx?forumid=108&messageid=199531

Yup, but I'd go one step better : sort client side .

You just can't do it that way... I'd have one proc for the data and a separate one for the totals that would be loaded on the form_load()... simplest solution...

Thank god for copy/paste .

Don't forget to backup the original so you can revert back.

No... but I'd check to make sure that the updates in the system catalogs are forbiden NOW... in case something really vitals gets whipped out.

Yup you're pushing.. I respect his knowledge but I keep the hero status for other guys.