September 29, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Well, I wound up doing some unit testing yesterday with both the XML version I'd written and a slightly altered version of yours (really the only change that I wound up making was that I used a "numbers" table we already had set up instead of the CTE). Both returned accurate results on all the tests I had, but your version, perhaps not surprisingly, ran in about half the time the XML version did, overall. Since I'm also a bit more confident that it'll return accurate results, I'm planning to go with your example.
Now, it just needs to get through QA, of course. I'll let you know if anything else turns up with it. Thanks again!
September 29, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Very cool... Thanks for taking the time for the feedback. 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
September 30, 2009 at 4:51 pm
has this been completed yet?
Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 17 (of 17 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply