September 1, 2017 at 12:09 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Table Valued Constructor
September 1, 2017 at 12:18 am
Good question, many thanks Steve.
...
September 1, 2017 at 1:45 am
Except that it's known almost everywhere as a Table Value Constructor, not Valued.
September 1, 2017 at 1:55 am
edwardwill - Friday, September 1, 2017 1:45 AMExcept that it's known almost everywhere as a Table Value Constructor, not Valued.
No, it isn't. Using Google:
"table constructor" -- About 18,400 results (0.42 seconds)
"table value constructor" -- About 7,270 results (0.49 seconds)
"table valued constructor" -- About 780 results (0.47 seconds)
For fast, accurate and documented assistance in answering your questions, please read this article.
Understanding and using APPLY, (I) and (II) Paul White
Hidden RBAR: Triangular Joins / The "Numbers" or "Tally" Table: What it is and how it replaces a loop Jeff Moden
September 1, 2017 at 1:57 am
ChrisM@Work - Friday, September 1, 2017 1:55 AMedwardwill - Friday, September 1, 2017 1:45 AMExcept that it's known almost everywhere as a Table Value Constructor, not Valued.No, it isn't. Using Google:
"table constructor" -- About 18,400 results (0.42 seconds)
"table value constructor" -- About 7,270 results (0.49 seconds)
"table valued constructor" -- About 780 results (0.47 seconds)
Look at the Microsoft link cited in the story itself:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/queries/table-value-constructor-transact-sql
September 1, 2017 at 6:30 am
edwardwill - Friday, September 1, 2017 1:45 AMExcept that it's known almost everywhere as a Table Value Constructor, not Valued.
Pedanticism at work.
Steve this is a great question and I loved the wrong answers, made me start my day with a chuckle.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
September 1, 2017 at 6:37 am
Sean Lange - Friday, September 1, 2017 6:30 AMedwardwill - Friday, September 1, 2017 1:45 AMExcept that it's known almost everywhere as a Table Value Constructor, not Valued.Pedanticism at work.
Steve this is a great question and I loved the wrong answers, made me start my day with a chuckle.
It's not pedanticism. It's being precise, which in software development is normally considered a virtue (though given the woeful standard of QotD questions, I guess that horse has bolted).
September 1, 2017 at 6:54 am
edwardwill - Friday, September 1, 2017 6:37 AMSean Lange - Friday, September 1, 2017 6:30 AMedwardwill - Friday, September 1, 2017 1:45 AMExcept that it's known almost everywhere as a Table Value Constructor, not Valued.Pedanticism at work.
Steve this is a great question and I loved the wrong answers, made me start my day with a chuckle.
It's not pedanticism. It's being precise, which in software development is normally considered a virtue (though given the woeful standard of QotD questions, I guess that horse has bolted).
Actually, to be pedantic, it is by definition being pedantic. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedantic
Or perhaps this one. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pedanticism
I was not intending to be critical, just making a comment. And of course we can't hold any of the MS documentation to task for being accurate. We almost universally agree that CASE is an expression but MS in their own documentation go back and forth between calling it an expression and a statement. I am not saying that one is correct and the other is incorrect but I always call it a table valued constructor, probably because removing the d there is strange when we have table valued parameters. 😉 Clearly the same developer did not name each construct.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
September 1, 2017 at 9:42 am
edwardwill - Friday, September 1, 2017 1:57 AMChrisM@Work - Friday, September 1, 2017 1:55 AMedwardwill - Friday, September 1, 2017 1:45 AMExcept that it's known almost everywhere as a Table Value Constructor, not Valued.No, it isn't. Using Google:
"table constructor" -- About 18,400 results (0.42 seconds)
"table value constructor" -- About 7,270 results (0.49 seconds)
"table valued constructor" -- About 780 results (0.47 seconds)
Look at the Microsoft link cited in the story itself:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/queries/table-value-constructor-transact-sql
That's right Microsoft released it as TVC
September 1, 2017 at 9:51 am
Pedants win here. D removed. Well, not from removed, but from valued. Or Value.
September 5, 2017 at 6:12 pm
IMO, this is one of the best additions to SQL 2008.
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply