February 25, 2019 at 9:51 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item MOT identity
February 25, 2019 at 9:52 pm
Nice question, thanks Steve
once again, BOL is questionable....
____________________________________________
Space, the final frontier? not any more...
All limits henceforth are self-imposed.
“libera tute vulgaris ex”
February 26, 2019 at 1:15 am
Went for the documentation answer - 1 and 1.
Ouch!
February 26, 2019 at 2:02 am
paul s-306273 - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 1:15 AMWent for the documentation answer - 1 and 1.
Ouch!
+1
...
February 26, 2019 at 2:02 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Monday, February 25, 2019 9:51 PMComments posted to this topic are about the item MOT identity
OPS! I don't find the updated documentation and I can't try it.
In the example script the clause "WITH (MEMORY_OPTIMIZED=ON)" is missing.
February 26, 2019 at 4:57 am
Not quite correct. Try using 0 for increment Y. It is disallowed.
February 26, 2019 at 5:26 am
paul s-306273 - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 1:15 AMWent for the documentation answer - 1 and 1.
Ouch!
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more you know, the more you know that you dont know
February 26, 2019 at 6:41 am
Are you sure that's right? In the page the answer links to, I see this:
As others have pointed out, this documentation also contradicts your answer:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/in-memory-oltp/implementing-identity-in-a-memory-optimized-table?view=sql-server-2017
Thank you
Be still, and know that I am God - Psalm 46:10
February 26, 2019 at 6:50 am
This is what I get in SQL Server 2017 when I attempt to create a memory-optimized table with initial and increment both equal to 5:
February 26, 2019 at 7:28 am
I liked the question too and got it right but although 0 is a valid integer it is not ever valid for the increment "Y" value.
February 26, 2019 at 3:04 pm
I don't get it. All the documentation links posted say it has to be 1 and 1 for memory-optimized tables. The example posted above shows an error message stating it has to be 1 and 1. The code in the question does not include WITH(MEMORY_OPTIMIZED=ON) so technically anything could be used for the IDENTITY in just that fragment. But it is stated that memory-optimized is the intended goal and that fragment is not terminated with a semicolon. One would assume that WITH(MEMORY_OPTIMIZED=ON) is the next line after the code shown.
So where is the evidence that anything other than (1,1) works with memory optimized tables?
February 26, 2019 at 8:55 pm
Apologies for this. I misplaced the testing script, but only 1 should be allowed.
Not sure what I was thinking.
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply
This website stores cookies on your computer.
These cookies are used to improve your website experience and provide more personalized services to you, both on this website and through other media.
To find out more about the cookies we use, see our Privacy Policy