September 22, 2015 at 10:40 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Choosing values
September 22, 2015 at 11:25 pm
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
September 23, 2015 at 1:44 am
Didn't got a chance to use it may be in future. thanks for the refresher Steve. nice question.
September 23, 2015 at 3:18 am
Guessed wrongly that it was zero-based.
I've never used this function and have no intention of starting - it does nothing that cannot already be achieved by other means.
Does anyone know why this (and other similar Access-like functions) were introduced?
September 23, 2015 at 3:38 am
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
September 23, 2015 at 4:45 am
Stewart "Arturius" Campbell (9/23/2015)
I believe it was, inter alia, to make the transition from Access-based databases to SQL Server simpler.
Hadn't spotted that CHOOSE was added in SQL2012 ...
... nor that IIF had been added too. Never understood why IIF was needed (as a function) rather than adding IF or CASE to the language, I have the most horrific nested IIF statements in Excel, with the occasional AND() and/or OR() functions thrown in too. Would have been much easier to write a proper, structured, logic statement instead of nested Logic Functions 🙁
September 23, 2015 at 4:47 am
Good question with an easy answer only because I am restudying the excellent book 'Querying Microsoft SQL Server 2012' ( Exam 70-461 ) since the last fortnight after having discovered that I have forgotten some subtleties about pivoting/unpivoting data. And , to refresh me , I have begun by the start of the book.
September 23, 2015 at 4:52 am
Stewart "Arturius" Campbell (9/22/2015)
Interesting question, thanks SteveAnother of the functions copied from Excel.
I don't think so. These functions have been introduced only to make easier the translation Access towards SQL Server ( the future of Access seems not to be all roses ).
September 23, 2015 at 6:22 am
patricklambin (9/23/2015)
Stewart "Arturius" Campbell (9/22/2015)
Interesting question, thanks SteveAnother of the functions copied from Excel.
I don't think so. These functions have been introduced only to make easier the translation Access towards SQL Server ( the future of Access seems not to be all roses ).
MS Access should have died a long long time ago.
September 23, 2015 at 6:36 am
Thanks for the question. The key is to remember that it is 1-based.
September 23, 2015 at 7:35 am
Yep, never used this one & can't think of a good reason to 🙂
September 23, 2015 at 7:57 am
It's somewhere between the CASE and the Oracle DECODE function. You can do everything with a CASE statement, but until I get up to SQL 2012 :crying:, I won't be able to compare performance against the CASE.
September 23, 2015 at 8:00 am
Manic Star (9/23/2015)
patricklambin (9/23/2015)
Stewart "Arturius" Campbell (9/22/2015)
Interesting question, thanks SteveAnother of the functions copied from Excel.
I don't think so. These functions have been introduced only to make easier the translation Access towards SQL Server ( the future of Access seems not to be all roses ).
MS Access should have died a long long time ago.
MS Access has an audience which is different from the audience of SQL Server.
September 23, 2015 at 8:08 am
Luis Cazares (9/23/2015)
Manic Star (9/23/2015)
patricklambin (9/23/2015)
Stewart "Arturius" Campbell (9/22/2015)
Interesting question, thanks SteveAnother of the functions copied from Excel.
I don't think so. These functions have been introduced only to make easier the translation Access towards SQL Server ( the future of Access seems not to be all roses ).
MS Access should have died a long long time ago.
MS Access has an audience which is different from the audience of SQL Server.
Until they can't do something because of its limitations then it becomes my problem because its a 'database'.
September 23, 2015 at 8:26 am
Luis Cazares (9/23/2015)
Manic Star (9/23/2015)
patricklambin (9/23/2015)
Stewart "Arturius" Campbell (9/22/2015)
Interesting question, thanks SteveAnother of the functions copied from Excel.
I don't think so. These functions have been introduced only to make easier the translation Access towards SQL Server ( the future of Access seems not to be all roses ).
MS Access should have died a long long time ago.
MS Access has an audience which is different from the audience of SQL Server.
I agree with Luis. The problem is not Access. The problem is people/companies using Access for something it was not really intended to be used for.
For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply