Viewing 15 posts - 7,741 through 7,755 (of 8,416 total)
Hey Bruce,
if Col3 is not X, then don't bother filtering
That assumes that the condition on Col3 is evaluated first and that the condition on Col2 shouldn't be evaluated if the...
June 18, 2009 at 3:39 am
Ah. I see.
This should do the trick, I think:
-- This table specifies how many rows to return for each row_id in the data table
DECLARE@Top TABLE (row_id INT NOT NULL,...
June 18, 2009 at 3:08 am
Hey,
Did you happen to save the actual execution plan? That would make it easy to rule in or out some of the more usual causes (perhaps involving order-preserving exchanges).
Otherwise,...
June 17, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Yet other options include:
1. Creating a view (possibly indexed) over PSPerson and adding a column which contains the CASE.
2. Adding a computed column for the CASE to the...
June 17, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Jeff Moden (6/17/2009)
June 17, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I used both 2005 and 2008 - though the posted execution plan was from my 2005 instance.
The fascinating thing, as Barry remarked, is the rows-in-reverse-order thing. I also assumed...
June 17, 2009 at 3:00 pm
crussell (6/17/2009)
June 17, 2009 at 2:48 pm
GilaMonster (6/17/2009)
And even then there's still no guarantee that it will work in the next hotfix, CU, SP or version.
Oh I wouldn't worry about that.
The good news is that we...
June 17, 2009 at 7:54 am
Ray Laubert (6/17/2009)
Thanks for catching it and letting me know.
No worries. The answer was still clearly discernible from the information given.
🙂
June 17, 2009 at 7:46 am
GilaMonster (6/17/2009)
Weren't you the one who said earlier in this thread that you'd never seen an update that didn't work in clustered index order?
Yes indeed. And that was rather...
June 17, 2009 at 7:34 am
Lynn Pettis (6/17/2009)
June 17, 2009 at 7:19 am
Hugo,
Just for the record, I include myself in the set of members who should submit a question!
Scary!
Paul
June 17, 2009 at 7:10 am
tony.sawyer (6/17/2009)
Erm - is there a link that we don't have to install an ActiveX control - my network admin isn't keen on that sort of thing...
Not to my knowledge....
June 17, 2009 at 7:08 am
Hmm. I got my point, but two *columns* ???
Two rows would have been better perhaps?
Or even two lots of one row?
Oh well.
June 17, 2009 at 7:03 am
David Burrows (6/17/2009)
Don't be put off by the bemoaning of the few. 🙂
Some QOTD have suffered with the answers but I think that...
June 17, 2009 at 6:58 am
Viewing 15 posts - 7,741 through 7,755 (of 8,416 total)