Viewing 15 posts - 451 through 465 (of 8,416 total)
Greed. Steve pays me $50 per post.
May 31, 2012 at 9:49 am
ChrisM@Work (5/31/2012)
I wouldn't know, haven't had much opportunity to lurk here or elsewhere recently - but here are two alternatives which are measurably faster if you run them enough times:
Thanks,...
May 31, 2012 at 9:45 am
ScottPletcher (5/31/2012)
Interesting. I used a start-up proc to set the flag, so it was almost immediately on.
Ok that cuts the scope a bit. I wonder how many allocations...
May 31, 2012 at 9:44 am
Greg Snidow (5/31/2012)
I hope my description of that record to Lynn will clarify things a bit.
Aha, ok this is an easy tweak - we just need to traverse the records...
May 31, 2012 at 9:40 am
ScottPletcher (5/31/2012)
DBCC TRACEON
Ah well that might explain some of what you saw then. Using it as a start-up flag might give you more complete coverage.
May 31, 2012 at 9:05 am
Greg Snidow (5/31/2012)
I'll have to completely break down you code to see if I can re-create it before I fully understand it. Like Dwain said, I'm very recursively challenged.
Have...
May 31, 2012 at 8:49 am
Set-based iteration solution:
-- Important index
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX
[UQ dbo.PAYMENTS ID_CASH_TRAN, ACCT_NUM, TS_PMT (AT_PMT, CD_PMT_SRC)]
ON dbo.PAYMENTS
(ID_CASH_TRAN, ACCT_NUM, TS_PMT)
INCLUDE (AT_PMT, CD_PMT_SRC);
GO
-- Set-based iteration holding...
May 31, 2012 at 8:37 am
Lynn Pettis (5/31/2012)
It happens to be the one that Paul found with his solution.
Yes I highlighted that difference in my first post. I wonder if Greg missed it.
May 31, 2012 at 7:46 am
Greg Snidow (5/31/2012)
May 31, 2012 at 6:36 am
Greg Snidow (5/31/2012)
Thank you Paul. I was actually in the process of letting you know what a dunce I am for not trying that first. DOH!
Not at all,...
May 31, 2012 at 6:18 am
Greg Snidow (5/31/2012)
I am trying to get the timestamp of the NSF included in your output, but I keep messing it up 🙂
I omitted that column from the final SELECT...
May 31, 2012 at 5:56 am
Hugo Kornelis (5/31/2012)
And here is yet another variation, (using an option that I would not mind being removed from the product)
Ah, IGNORE_DUP_KEY, a rich vein for QotD questions 🙂
CREATE TABLE...
May 31, 2012 at 4:41 am
John Mitchell-245523 (5/31/2012)
May 31, 2012 at 4:38 am
I understand this behaviour, really I do, but it will never be fully intuitive; especially since SQL Server has such bizarre rules concerning which errors do what (terminate the statement,...
May 31, 2012 at 4:12 am
Assuming the changes to be made are in a table...(with the same sample data as before)
-- Table to hold set of changes
DECLARE @Updates AS TABLE
(
id_task ...
May 31, 2012 at 2:27 am
Viewing 15 posts - 451 through 465 (of 8,416 total)