[SQLServer:Memory Manager][Connection Memory (KB)] 0.001

[SQLServer:Memory Manager][Granted Workspace Memory (KB)]0.345

[SQLServer:Memory Manager][Lock Memory (KB)] ...

Sorry, SQL Server 2005 (9.0.4035) 64-bit, Windows Server 2008 SP1 64-bit.

Also, it's 4 physical dual-core Xeons, not 8 physical.

I'm confused - is the query that you killed the query that you were using to do index maintenance? And that was running for 4 days before you killed it?...

Why are you using a switch and an IIF? Seems like you should be able to get by with just the IIF.

Forgive my pessimism and, with all due respect to Gail, I don't think it's really applicable here. OP said that it's the client's requirement that the input string be attempted...

I would agree with Michael's recommendation here. It's poor design to be using a LIKE operator in a query that does a comparison against every colum in the table. And...

There's probably a much better way to do this, but I'll just spitball this idea as something different...what if you created a computed column that contained a concatenation of the...

Oh wow, that sucks. I knew a guy that prefixed every sproc that he designed with his name initials...he was a bit full of himself.

So, the overall feeling that I'm...

I'm not super familiar with the performance impact of WCF in this sort of a setup, but I can tell you this - SQL Server, at a basic level, requires...

Again, this error means that you have a conditional evaluation (<, >, =, <>, etc.) where SQL is expecting one value to evaluate against, but you are supplying many. Look...

uh, yeah...what Lowell said, too. both are issues.

Ok, I don't understand this line, given the context of the sproc:

Select birth_date from juvenile Where @birth_date >= GETDATE() - (18*365.25)

This just doesn't make sense. You're selecting from the juvenile...

I think you need to move your last close parens to after NULL.

EDIT: No, that's not it. That code by itself executes fine, using a sample table I created. When...

What schema does the table belong to?

Was there a problem? It seems like this would work, even if it's a bit less intuitive than using a datediff.