This may work without looping :

select 'table1', * from t1 where name='Name1'

union

select 'table2', * from t2 where name='Name1'

union

select 'tableN', * from tN where name='Name1'

Cheers

I agree with Colin when stating  "It's really difficult to be precise but I'd probably consider 2000 tables vs 1 table as a really bad idea, as I say it's...

as a start,,,

Stored procedures are the only SURE way to guard against SQL Injection attacks.

Stored procedures offer more security as the application only has execution privileges against procs but not data...

 Hi Malcolm

My take inline below in BOLD:

This might be a dumb question.......

>>> we all learn on daily basis

I have a question regarding...

The query should run fine even on a pc. 19GB is common these days.

just make sure the fields in where clause are covered by an index.

we have tables that cross...

I think Mohammed Uddin  answer is the closest to your need, but,when a row is (physically deleted) it is gone , so it will not help unless you query data...

if you are using sql2005 then you can use DDL triggers.

read on

http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3581846

if you are using sql2000 then when ever a table is created then

insert into a special table the...

I agree with Taj.

If you post some details of any performance problems you may be facing, then may be some of our gurus here offer help.

http://www.sql-server-performance.com

visiting this site on regular basis is a great place for SQL tuning learning...

That is a tough one

No hardware additions ! if you are hitting  the ceiling with the current HW may be it is recommended...

SQL2005 has great support for replication to/from Oracle.

It is simple and traight farward especially if data is flowing in one direction. We use it to support multiple servers and it...

I agree with colin Leversuch-Roberts that Table Partitioning is great ,, BUT only if using SQL2005. So if you plan to move to...

Transactional replication may serve you better. Triggers are OK unless you have heavy update/insert load.

I'd say, if you had efficient enough hardware [fast CPUs, enough memory and efficient disk system,i.e. RAID 1+0 or similar] then i would keep all in one table.

You have to...

I would also

1 - Upgrade to Windows 2003 to benefit from its stability and efficient memory handling compared to W2K.

2 - Install more memory. RAM is cheap these days.

3 - If...