BETWEEN

Question

Post reply

BETWEEN

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 49 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

SkyBVI SSCoach Points: 15128 More actions · Answer 1

Does date data type exist in sql server 2005 ?

Regards,

Skybvi

Regards
Sushant Kumar
MCTS,MCP

cengland0 SSCertifiable Points: 6102 More actions · Answer 2

SKYBVI (3/6/2012)
Does date data type exist in sql server 2005 ?
Regards,
Skybvi

No. That's the server version I use most of the time. It was introduced in 2008.

SkyBVI SSCoach Points: 15128 More actions · Answer 3

So, the question was not properly asked. They should mention SQL SERVER 2008

Regards,

Skybvi

Regards
Sushant Kumar
MCTS,MCP

Hugo Kornelis SSC Guru Points: 64790 More actions · Answer 4

SKYBVI (3/6/2012)
So, the question was not properly asked. They should mention SQL SERVER 2008

Why?

SQL Server 2008 was released almost three years ago now. There has already been another major release (confusingly called 2008 R2), and the next major version is around the corner.

At this point, SQL Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 R2 are the only ones in mainstream support. Mainstream support for SQL Server 2005 has ended in April 2011.

I know a lot of companies still run SQL Server 2005 and older versions, but that's no excuse for not upgrading your skillset. This website is about learning more about SQL Server, it should focus mainly on the current and future versions instead of the old versions.

Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server/Data Platform MVP (2006-2016)
Visit my SQL Server blog: https://sqlserverfast.com/blog/
SQL Server Execution Plan Reference: https://sqlserverfast.com/epr/

SkyBVI SSCoach Points: 15128 More actions · Answer 5

Hugo Kornelis (3/6/2012)
SKYBVI (3/6/2012)
So, the question was not properly asked. They should mention SQL SERVER 2008
Why?
SQL Server 2008 was released almost three years ago now. There has already been another major release (confusingly called 2008 R2), and the next major version is around the corner.
At this point, SQL Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 R2 are the only ones in mainstream support. Mainstream support for SQL Server 2005 has ended in April 2011.
I know a lot of companies still run SQL Server 2005 and older versions, but that's no excuse for not upgrading your skillset. This website is about learning more about SQL Server, it should focus mainly on the current and future versions instead of the old versions.

In that case, why do you still have help forums for sql server 2005 and sql server 2000??

You can hide that too...

Regards,

Skybvi

Regards
Sushant Kumar
MCTS,MCP

Hugo Kornelis SSC Guru Points: 64790 More actions · Answer 6

SKYBVI (3/6/2012)
Hugo Kornelis (3/6/2012)
SKYBVI (3/6/2012)
So, the question was not properly asked. They should mention SQL SERVER 2008
Why?
SQL Server 2008 was released almost three years ago now. There has already been another major release (confusingly called 2008 R2), and the next major version is around the corner.
At this point, SQL Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 R2 are the only ones in mainstream support. Mainstream support for SQL Server 2005 has ended in April 2011.
I know a lot of companies still run SQL Server 2005 and older versions, but that's no excuse for not upgrading your skillset. This website is about learning more about SQL Server, it should focus mainly on the current and future versions instead of the old versions.
In that case, why do you still have help forums for sql server 2005 and sql server 2000??
You can hide that too...
Regards,
Skybvi

1. I don't have any forums. I am just a visitor at this site.

2. Probably because there are still people with questions on those versions. No reason not to help them.

Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server/Data Platform MVP (2006-2016)
Visit my SQL Server blog: https://sqlserverfast.com/blog/
SQL Server Execution Plan Reference: https://sqlserverfast.com/epr/

SkyBVI SSCoach Points: 15128 More actions · Answer 7

Hugo Kornelis (3/6/2012)
SKYBVI (3/6/2012)
Hugo Kornelis (3/6/2012)
SKYBVI (3/6/2012)
So, the question was not properly asked. They should mention SQL SERVER 2008
Why?
SQL Server 2008 was released almost three years ago now. There has already been another major release (confusingly called 2008 R2), and the next major version is around the corner.
At this point, SQL Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 R2 are the only ones in mainstream support. Mainstream support for SQL Server 2005 has ended in April 2011.
I know a lot of companies still run SQL Server 2005 and older versions, but that's no excuse for not upgrading your skillset. This website is about learning more about SQL Server, it should focus mainly on the current and future versions instead of the old versions.
In that case, why do you still have help forums for sql server 2005 and sql server 2000??
You can hide that too...
Regards,
Skybvi
1. I don't have any forums. I am just a visitor at this site.
2. Probably because there are still people with questions on those versions. No reason not to help them.

Your statements are contradictory.

Before you were saying that every1 should upgrade to sql server 2008.... and now u r sayin that

[/quote]

2. Probably because there are still people with questions on those versions. No reason not to help them.[/quote]

So that means you understand that plenty people are still on sql server 2005 and less...

So thats what I intend to say in my first post that they should mention sql server 2005...

Regards,

Skybvi

Regards
Sushant Kumar
MCTS,MCP

Hugo Kornelis SSC Guru Points: 64790 More actions · Answer 8

SKYBVI (3/6/2012)
Your statements are contradictory.
Before you were saying that every1 should upgrade to sql server 2008

Nope, that's not what I wrote. Here is a quote (emphasis added, but words unchanged):

"that's no excuse for not upgrading your skillset"

I never mentioned upgrading your database; I know that many companies have a policy or are using a third-party product that has not been certified for newer versions. If you work there, you are stuck with working with those versions for now - but if you are serious about your job, and your future job opportunities, you should still work on your skillset, so that your knowledge is not out of date when you ever need to find another job, or when your employer finally is able and willing to upgrade.

I also wrote (completely unchanged):

"This website is about learning more about SQL Server, it should focus mainly on the current and future versions instead of the old versions."

Do you notice the word "mainly" in there?

But to prevent further misunderstandings, let me put it in a different way: I expect all articles, snippets, questions, answers, blog posts, etc etc, that do not explicitly mention a version of SQL Server to apply to all current mainstream versions. At this point, that would be SQL Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 R2. I don't think it's reasonable to expect authors to go and check for compatibility on all past versions - for where does it stop? If we include SQL Server 2005, why not SQL Server 2000? And 7.0? How about 6,5, 6.0, or even 4.2? Versions before that? (I wouldn't know them; 4.2 was my first SQL Server experience).

If a question is about a SQL Server 2005 feature that doesn't work anymore in SQL Server 2008, I expect the version to be included. If it's about a new SQL Server 2012 feature, I also expect the version included (even it the question runs after launch and release of SQL Server 2012).

If today's question had been run two years ago, I would have agreed that the version had to be included. But now? No.

Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server/Data Platform MVP (2006-2016)
Visit my SQL Server blog: https://sqlserverfast.com/blog/
SQL Server Execution Plan Reference: https://sqlserverfast.com/epr/

adb2303 SSCertifiable Points: 7588 More actions · Answer 9

I'd have thought for the sake of avoiding these repeated debates, it'd be worth taking the extra 2 seconds to put the version in the question...

cengland0 SSCertifiable Points: 6102 More actions · Answer 10

adb2303 (3/6/2012)
I'd have thought for the sake of avoiding these repeated debates, it'd be worth taking the extra 2 seconds to put the version in the question...

I agree. Along with which collations they are using and defaults such as if things are case sensitive or if ANSI_NULLS is on or off. All those make differences sometimes but they are not mentioned ahead of time.

SkyBVI SSCoach Points: 15128 More actions · Answer 11

Hugo Kornelis (3/6/2012)
SKYBVI (3/6/2012)
Your statements are contradictory.
Before you were saying that every1 should upgrade to sql server 2008
Nope, that's not what I wrote. Here is a quote (emphasis added, but words unchanged):
"that's no excuse for not upgrading your skillset"
I never mentioned upgrading your database; I know that many companies have a policy or are using a third-party product that has not been certified for newer versions. If you work there, you are stuck with working with those versions for now - but if you are serious about your job, and your future job opportunities, you should still work on your skillset, so that your knowledge is not out of date when you ever need to find another job, or when your employer finally is able and willing to upgrade.
I also wrote (completely unchanged):
"This website is about learning more about SQL Server, it should focus mainly on the current and future versions instead of the old versions."
Do you notice the word "mainly" in there?
But to prevent further misunderstandings, let me put it in a different way: I expect all articles, snippets, questions, answers, blog posts, etc etc, that do not explicitly mention a version of SQL Server to apply to all current mainstream versions. At this point, that would be SQL Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 R2. I don't think it's reasonable to expect authors to go and check for compatibility on all past versions - for where does it stop? If we include SQL Server 2005, why not SQL Server 2000? And 7.0? How about 6,5, 6.0, or even 4.2? Versions before that? (I wouldn't know them; 4.2 was my first SQL Server experience).
If a question is about a SQL Server 2005 feature that doesn't work anymore in SQL Server 2008, I expect the version to be included. If it's about a new SQL Server 2012 feature, I also expect the version included (even it the question runs after launch and release of SQL Server 2012).
If today's question had been run two years ago, I would have agreed that the version had to be included. But now? No.

You are correct, but few months back, we had a discussion here that the sql server version would be mentioned to avoid any conflict/debate in future.

Actaully, going by the question, I was looking at a answer like Error BUT i couldn't find it..

The answer is different for diff version and we would have thought that it is for sql server 2008 as there is no option like ERROR.

Just a thought 🙂

Regards,

Skybvi

Regards
Sushant Kumar
MCTS,MCP

David Conn SSCertifiable Points: 6010 More actions · Answer 12

A few of these posts have been going on about strings and collation sequences. A DATE value is represented as 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

Note I prefer the ISO notation which isn't as misleading as 'yyyy/mm/dd' but the values being tested were dates so the Date Value in quotes was correct. The question wasn't testing Strings.

R.P.Rozema SSChampion Points: 12317 More actions · Answer 13

Yeez, it's a game. And the only thing you can win is 'points'...

Get a life guys.

Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden[/url]
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Hidden RBAR - Jeff Moden[/url]
Cross Tabs and Pivots - Jeff Moden[/url]
Catch-all queries - Gail Shaw[/url]

If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?

OzYbOi d(-_-)b SSCarpal Tunnel Points: 4054 More actions · Answer 14

OzYbOi d(-_-)b

SSCarpal Tunnel

Points: 4054

March 8, 2012 at 1:48 pm

#1456803

nice easy, straight forward question - cheers

Alexander Suprun SSCertifiable Points: 6253 More actions · Answer 15

There is no correct answer to the question, because the query may return either 6 or None records.

Here is my result:

Alex Suprun