October 7, 2013 at 7:41 am
Thanks to OP for submitting the question. Still scratching my head about it being worth two points. But, I'll take them.
They put me that much closer to having enough points to retire. 😉
[font="Verdana"]Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.[/font]
Connect to me on LinkedIn
October 7, 2013 at 8:00 am
raulggonzalez (10/7/2013)
Thanks for the question!It might be good also to point that table variables are not affected either by transaction rollbacks.
As per BOL
Because table variables have limited scope and are not part of the persistent database, they are not affected by transaction rollbacks.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175010.aspx
Cheers
That's why I got this correct, my quick mental reasoning was... "If table variables aren't affected, why would normal variables be?"
🙂 I'll take +2 for this... you made me have to reason, if only a very itty bitty bit too early in the morning.
October 7, 2013 at 10:03 am
Jamsheer (10/7/2013)
PRR.DB (10/6/2013)
Mr. Kapsicum (10/6/2013)
Nice and Easy Question to start the week.🙂
+2
+3 🙂
+4
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
October 7, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Very nice - thank you, Ashish!
October 7, 2013 at 6:21 pm
Nice and easy start to the week .. nice question thanks.
Hope this helps...
Ford Fairlane
Rock and Roll Detective
October 8, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Thanks for an easy 2 pointer!
October 27, 2013 at 12:17 am
I've seen a couple responses referencing table variables as not being affected by begin/save/commit tran statements. Would it be a safer lesson to assert NO local variables are affected by those statements because they are solely intended to effect the persistence layer?
October 30, 2013 at 3:31 am
nice question thank's
Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply