Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 5,355 total)
Steve,
I am from Germany. Not that I ever intend to do so as I simply don't care about it, but do you know or can you imagine what what will...
June 3, 2005 at 1:12 am
Actually you can use TRUNCATE TABLE within a transaction, so that it can be rolled-back, the pages are allocated again and nothing ever happened. However, when you need to recover,...
June 2, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Aggregate concatenation is very SQL Server specific and can cause unexpected results in certain cases. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;287515
The link to SQL Server MVP Adam Machanic's method was not needed here. This...
June 2, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Dale, you know where to find me.
Yes and no, it did catch my interest, because I enjoy Steve's editorial each day anew. And...
June 2, 2005 at 1:08 pm
A scalar UDF might make the SELECT a bit more cleaner and easier to read, but will kill performance as it works row-by-row, compared to REPLACE which works on sets....
June 2, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Remi, a tie at any rank in the IN clause doesn't affect the resultset. Try this
set nocount on
use northwind
select
t1.CustomerID
, t1.OrderDate
from
orders t1
where
t1.OrderDate in
(
select top 2 with ties
t2.OrderDate
from
orders t2
where
t2.CustomerID =...
June 2, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Something like this?`
use northwind
declare @stmt varchar(8000)
select @stmt=isnull(@stmt+', ','')+customerid
from orders
where employeeid=3
select @stmt
June 2, 2005 at 12:38 pm
err yes...???
SELECT something FROM somewhere WHERE
somedate IN ( ('2005-03-02 11:27:43.000' ,'2005-03-04 09:59:54.000', '2005-03-07 15:23:58.000')
Who needs the forth row here?
June 2, 2005 at 9:18 am
... "This is the place for discussions that are generally off topic but probably of interest to SQL professionals anyway:-)"
The probability of this being interesting for the majority of members here...
June 2, 2005 at 9:14 am
A tie is no real problem when SELECTing the TOP 3 dates for processing in the IN clause anyway.
June 2, 2005 at 9:10 am
I don't think you can see at once what caused the error. This is a bit of trial and error to find out. Anything specific in mind?
June 2, 2005 at 9:08 am
Oops, sorry, for a moment I thought I was reading soc.history.war.* or some other soc.* newsgroup...but then I realized that I'm still on a site dedicated to a computer programm
June 2, 2005 at 9:04 am
From my understanding, I would say it invalidates your logs since TRUNCATE is minimally logged. Only the deallocation of the pages is recorded.
June 2, 2005 at 8:46 am
Thanks for the link. I need to keep that in mind.
June 2, 2005 at 3:24 am
Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 5,355 total)