This may or may not be the answer you're looking for, but here's some info I've collected during our move to 64-Bit SQL Server 2005.

http://www.amosfivesix.com/sql/34-64-bit-sql-server-ssis-packages-with-excel-and-access-data

http://www.amosfivesix.com/sql/35-more-sql-server-64-bit-issues

Very nice script. Thank you. Would have loved to have had this two weeks ago when I was documenting our schedules by hand.

I had the same problem copy and pasting...

We're starting to use TortoiseSVN and it seems to work well. Previously we just made backup copies in the filesystem. We don't so anything fancy - no solutions or projects,...

I like the use of ROW_NUMBER() OVER to get rid of the STUFF. Does anyone have an idea which would be faster?

As Adam pointed out, if you add ",TYPE" after the FOR XML PATH, you won't need to CAST to XML. TYPE makes FOR XML return its data as an the...

Thanks Adam. I just found that solution somewhere else right after I posted. Here's all my references:

Coalesce is not the answer to string concatentation in T-SQL

http://msmvps.com/blogs/robfarley/archive/2007/04/08/coalesce-is-not-the-answer-to-string-concatentation-in-t-sql.aspx

FOR Clause (Transact-SQL)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173812(SQL.90).aspx

TYPE Directive in...

I've been using Solution 2, FOR XML PATH, for a while with good results. I use STUFF as SSChampion mentions to get rid of the extra separator.

One other thing to...