Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
Great - thanks a bunch guys!
I never would've figured it out, but now that I see what you did it makes sense.
August 28, 2009 at 6:05 am
Yes, I agree that is the most logical approach. I'm kind of caught in the middle. Most users are and have been content for a while. Unfortunately,...
August 6, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I see what you guys are saying. Thanks. I went ahead and did the same test on a LEFT OUTER Join. Similar results - I got the...
August 7, 2008 at 12:05 pm
It does not appear to be a stored procedure, as the query type is set to 'Text' versus 'storedprocedure', and I've looked in the db.
The error it gives when I...
July 29, 2008 at 8:44 am
I tried this on the sample data above. It worked but it took over 90 seconds to process a table with only 16 records and two columns. Is there a...
January 4, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Thank you both for your replies. I did mess mess up the timestamp but you both figured out what I meant. I'm learning tons more about SQL than I thought...
February 16, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Any ideas on how I can group my data as indicated? I'm trying to group the times based on Status but maintain the sequence of Status.
September 10, 2005 at 10:01 am
Sorry, left the date out, but it's part of the timestamp column.
Table 1
08/24/05 7:27 Orange
08/24/05 10:53 Apple
08/24/05 13:47 Prune
Table2
08/24/05 7:35 37
08/24/05 7:36 39
08/24/05 7:37 38
...
08/24/05 11:56 42
08/24/05 11:57 42
...
08/24/05 14:12 23
08/24/05...
August 24, 2005 at 8:43 am
No problem!
Table 1
7:27 Orange
10:53 Apple
13:47 Prune
Table2
7:35 37
7:36 39
7:37 38
...
11:56 42
11:57 42
...
14:12 23
14:13 26
Result Query
7:35 37 Orange
7:36 39 Orange
7:37 38 Orange
...
11:56 42 Apple
11:57 42 Apple
...
14:12 23 Prune
14:13 26 Prune
August 23, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)