Viewing 15 posts - 6,526 through 6,540 (of 8,416 total)
On the second point:
There are a couple of reasons for getting more than one row (allow me to gloss over most of them for a moment).
Usually though it is because...
November 20, 2009 at 3:18 am
That really does seem like it would be best done in a procedure, with the calculated difference value returned in an OUTPUT parameter. Is there any particular reason you...
November 20, 2009 at 2:56 am
If you are using Enterprise Edition, you could consider partitioning the LOB table.
Placing archive data on read-only file groups within the partitioning scheme would mean you could use the READ_WRITE_FILEGROUPS...
November 20, 2009 at 2:28 am
On the face of it, this sounds more like a procedure with an output parameter than a function.
Functions tend to suck badly as soon as they involve data access.
If you...
November 20, 2009 at 2:17 am
Hey C# Screw!
So not your last post after all then 😉
Other side of the Pacific, if you don't mind!
For an example of how to capture CPU time (worker time) forgive...
November 20, 2009 at 1:48 am
timothyawiseman (5/9/2008)
November 20, 2009 at 1:40 am
Charles Kincaid (5/9/2008)
November 20, 2009 at 1:38 am
srienstr (5/9/2008)
There's generally no need to do a delete without criteria, as truncate will perform better with less logging:
exec dbo.sp_msforeachtable 'truncate table test.dbo.[?]'
That said, I'm sure it depends and...
November 20, 2009 at 1:35 am
Anatol Romanov-404520 (5/9/2008)
November 20, 2009 at 1:29 am
rnjohnson10 (5/8/2008)
November 20, 2009 at 1:25 am
Jeff Moden (11/19/2009)
November 19, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Same here 🙂
November 19, 2009 at 9:47 pm
November 19, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Connect item created for the unexpectedly slow performance with Windows collations.
https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=512459
Please vote for it!
Thanks
Paul
November 19, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Paul White (11/19/2009)
November 19, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 6,526 through 6,540 (of 8,416 total)