Viewing 15 posts - 2,596 through 2,610 (of 2,617 total)
Lynn Pettis (11/27/2008)
jacroberts (11/27/2008)
Lynn Pettis (11/27/2008)
jacroberts (11/27/2008)
timothyawiseman (11/27/2008)
jacroberts (11/25/2008)
timothyawiseman (11/24/2008)[hr
This is true, for a small number of rows. Your RBAR TVF will become ineffecient should requirements change and the...
November 27, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Lynn Pettis (11/27/2008)
jacroberts (11/27/2008)
timothyawiseman (11/27/2008)
jacroberts (11/25/2008)
timothyawiseman (11/24/2008)[hr
This is true, for a small number of rows. Your RBAR TVF will become ineffecient should requirements change and the number of rows...
November 27, 2008 at 10:41 am
timothyawiseman (11/27/2008)
jacroberts (11/25/2008)
timothyawiseman (11/24/2008)[hr
>>The problem is that your example did not show a case where efficiency is not a concern.
>>But, in your example you say there is no need to...
November 27, 2008 at 9:43 am
Adam Machanic (11/25/2008)
Is it me or do you seem to be in the minority here?
Minority here on SSC where people are a bit more educated about these things, but certainly...
November 25, 2008 at 12:32 pm
peter (11/25/2008)
jacroberts (11/25/2008)
Adam Machanic (11/25/2008)
Anyone can take any example and change it so it performance is important.
You're absolutely right! Why do you suppose that it happens to be so...
November 25, 2008 at 11:58 am
Adam Machanic (11/25/2008)
Anyone can take any example and change it so it performance is important.
You're absolutely right! Why do you suppose that it happens to be so easy?
Is it...
November 25, 2008 at 9:24 am
Adam Machanic (11/25/2008)
If you have a daily report that is run in batch, with no user waiting at the end of a button for the result, it doesn't matter if...
November 25, 2008 at 8:27 am
timothyawiseman (11/24/2008)[hr
>>The problem is that your example did not show a case where efficiency is not a concern.
>>But, in your example you say there is no need to worry about...
November 25, 2008 at 4:19 am
timothyawiseman (11/24/2008)
jacroberts (11/24/2008)
Performance isn't always an issue as in my previous example.
I agree with Jeff that performance should always be a concern. After all, you may eventually need that...
November 24, 2008 at 5:24 pm
You could also create tables with different number bases e.g for binary:
WITH Digits (i,s)
AS
(
SELECT 0 AS [Value], '0' AS String UNION ALL SELECT 1, '1'...
November 24, 2008 at 11:04 am
Adam Machanic (11/24/2008)
Joe Celko (11/24/2008)
CREATE TABLE Sequence (seq INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY);
WITH Digits (i)
AS
(VALUES (0),...
November 24, 2008 at 11:02 am
Performance isn't always an issue as in my previous example.
November 24, 2008 at 7:10 am
It depends how much performance is an issue, for a lot of queries it is not. For example, if there is a daily report that runs in batch it would...
November 24, 2008 at 6:34 am
I'd consider using a table valued function instead that only returns the rows I'm interested in:
e.g.:
CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[Nums]
(
@StartNum int,
@EndNum int
)
RETURNS @table...
November 24, 2008 at 5:28 am
Can you show use the before and after SQL so we can see how well it did?
November 11, 2008 at 10:18 am
Viewing 15 posts - 2,596 through 2,610 (of 2,617 total)