Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 81 total)
I wouldn't recommend using aliases; they are a deprecated feature and discouraged by Microsoft. Instead, I would limit the number of people who have privileges to create objects and educate...
October 31, 2002 at 8:40 am
You might consider creating a separate domain for your DMZ, and then creating a one-way trust between your DMZ's domain and your domain, with your DMZ's domain trusting your domain....
October 31, 2002 at 8:36 am
According to Kalen Delaney's Inside Microsoft SQL Server 2000:
"A process never receives acknowledgement that a transaction has been committed unless it is on disk in the transaction log." (Emphasis added)
As...
October 31, 2002 at 8:31 am
Unfortunately, there is no way to do that. Sysadmins, by definition, can always do everything on a SQL Server. Your best bet is to limit access to sysadmin accounts to...
October 30, 2002 at 2:40 pm
I agree with Greg. The INFORMATION_SCHEMA views exist in the ANSI standard, which is part of the reason that Microsoft included them. Consequently, as Microsoft continues and improves their support...
October 30, 2002 at 2:33 pm
It's not that simple. What you're talking about - on the surface - sounds like a typical "OR" operator, but the problem is that if you have a row that...
October 30, 2002 at 10:50 am
Yes, that can be the annoying thing about traversing such relationships. You might check out a book by Joe Celko entitled SQL for Smarties. In that book, as I recall,...
October 28, 2002 at 9:25 am
Okay. I don't know how I missed that. Anyway, let's start by filtering down the set of rows you want to UPDATE:
UPDATE tbl_Disc_Tracks
SET...
October 27, 2002 at 3:45 pm
Look a little more closely at the response. Let's look at your first problem: you need to update tbl_disc_tracks so that the value for the TrackId is the value of...
October 27, 2002 at 12:11 am
I think you're making this overly complex for yourself. Try this:
UPDATE tbl_disc_tracks
SET TrackID = (SELECT MIN(TrackID)
...
October 25, 2002 at 11:51 am
Given the particular columns that you are projecting from your query, why not simply add a DISTINCT clause:
SELECT DISTINCT ...
I wouldn't recommend this if you were doing a SELECT *...,...
October 25, 2002 at 11:31 am
Just a comment on the NOT EXISTS clause. You might want to reevaluate how SQL 2000 optimizes this clause; it is much more intelligent and can understand what you are...
October 25, 2002 at 10:59 am
Did you look at the option of using query/index hints to force the plan to use a better index for the query?
Matthew Burr
October 25, 2002 at 10:32 am
In terms of experience using OO databases, I have none, so I can't tell you the positives or negatives of that.
In terms of storing a recursive parent/child relationship, that is...
October 25, 2002 at 10:27 am
Is there any specific reason that the different departmental data needs to be in separate databases?
The reason I ask is this: you might consider creating multiple schemas that are housed...
October 25, 2002 at 10:06 am
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 81 total)