Need help converting a CHAR into a Datetime

I have a Database which is having a Counterdate time Column stored in the form of Char(24)

But i need it to be in form of datetime so that i can use the datetime functions on it..When i use the cast or convert inside the function where i am passing this character it gives me error

"Conversion failed when converting datetime from character string."

I am done all permutatiions and combinations for this used

Set @.DE = convert ( datetime, @.ts,121)

Set @.de = cast( @.ts as datetime)

BUT ALWZ give me same error.... also when i copy the whole of the data table into some other database the error doesnt come.. i converts the character into the datetime..

I DONT understand why the Server is behaving wiered..

Hoping to get an answer soon.

With regards

Sharad

Database Developer ,

UIC

Hi Sharad,

Can you post a sample of the (character) data that is causing the issue?

Thanks,

Rob

|||

Sir,

I am just using the performance Logs of the a server and in that the database get automatically generated and hence..

I get the data of datetime column in Char(24) form.. and when i use an function to convert that into a datetime form it gives me error..

take anytime .e.g of the form

"2006-11-15 17:33:22.015"

if this is the time stamp and stored in the char(24) format and I want it to be datetime ...

What any sensible person would do

1. cast it into datetime

2. Convert into datetime..

Both not working ..

With regards

Sharad

|||

PLZ reply if u could Help with this simple STUFF

This CODE I RUN

DECLARE @.DS char(24)

SEt @.ds = '2006-10-27 20:01:13.297'

print @.ds

declare @.de datetime

Set @.de = convert(datetime, @.ds, 121)

print @.de

Output is

:::

2006-10-27 20:01:13.297

Oct 27 2006 8:01PM

But i want output to be exactly same

as 2006-10-27 20:01:13.297

Plz help me with this..

|||

change your statement as below,

DECLARE @.DS char(24)

SEt @.ds = '2006-10-27 20:01:13.297'

print @.ds

declare @.de datetime

Set @.de = convert(datetime, @.ds, 121)

print convert(varchar, @.ds, 121)

Need help building/reading C# SQL Array

I'm stuck and uinder a bit of a time crunch.

I have 5 fields I want to get out of a sql database using a function that I'm writing. I figure it sounds like an array. basically I want to make an array, and fill it up with the results of a sql select, then read the array.

This is what I have so far....

String TempHRAcctCode, TempJobDescription, TempHourlyRate, TempEmplID;
Array TempArray;
TempJobDescription = DDDept.SelectedItem.Text; (to get KeY Value)

SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["MYCONN"].ToString());
connection.Open();
SqlCommand command = new SqlCommand("Select HRAcctCode, HourlyRate , EmplID, ... FROM TimeMyProfile WHERE JobDescription = " + TempJobDescription + " ", connection);
SqlDataReader TempDataReader = command.ExecuteReader;
while TempDataReader.Read
(
... OK I GIVE UP!

Thanks in advance

why you want read as an array ?? If you really want to read these data later then load into aDataSetrather than reading from Data Reader into an array and then later read again the array...

using (SqlDataAdapter da = new SqlDataAdapter(command))
{
DataSet ds = new DataSet();

// Fill the DataSet using default values for DataTable names, etc
da.Fill(ds);

connection.Close();

// Return the dataset
return ds;
}

And you can read the data set like

foreach (DataRow dr in ds.Tables[0] .Rows)

{

string myVar = dr["HourlyRate"].ToString()

}

|||

Funny thing is, as I was typing th equestion I was asking myself the same thing, WHY use an array!
Excellent suggestion, it works GREAAT!

Thanks

Need help bracketing counts

I need to create a view that shows the number of times that clients made payments, how many clients, and how much they paid over a period of time. I'm not sure if I can use a case for this. How can I put something like this together?

I have a tblClients with a clientid field

I have a tblPayments with the clientid, pmtdate, and pmtamount

For example:

1 Payment -- 23 Clients -- $16000

2 Payments -- 12 Clients -- $32000

3 Payments -- 4 Clients -- $13000

etc...

If you the the "how many clients" value you must also have such a field in the tblPayments table, or is it one purchased client per payment? If so, then

SELECT c.clientid, count(p.clientid) as clientCount,sum(p.pmtamount) as pmtSum
FROM tblClients c
LEFT JOIN tblPayments p ON c.clientid=p.clientid
WHERE p.pmtdate BETWEEN @.startdate AND @.enddate
GROUP BY c.clientid

|||

SELECTCOUNT(t.clientid)as clients,t.tblPaymentsCount,SUM(t.pmtamount)as pmtamountFROM(SELECT clientidas clientid,COUNT(tblPaymentsID)as tblPaymentsCount,SUM(pmtamount)as pmtamountFROM tblPaymentsGROUP BY clientid) tGROUP BY tblPaymentsCountORDER BY tblPaymentsCount

|||

Now that I saw BradFMJ's suggestion I realize that I quite possibly misunderstood the task

Maybe this is what you're after:

SELECTcount(*)as paymentCount,count(DISTINCT clientid)as clientCount,SUM(pmtamount)as pmtSumWHERE pmtdateBETWEEN @.startDateAND @.endDate

Need help assigning runway using time

Hi there,
I am trying to model a simple air traffic control system and have plane, flight_info and runway tables. Flight_info is a relational table and 2 of its attributes are pointers to the plane and runway tables so that I can allocate planes and flights to runways.

The length of the runway needs to be more than the stopping distance of the plane and I have a getStoppingDistance method to use for this. I guess one part will be to compare the length of the runway with the stopping distance.

I also need to assign a runway to a flight for a fixed time for each flight. I'm not sure how I can achieve this. I am thinking that I will need to test the 'state' attribute of the runway table to see if a particular runway is allocated or not and if it isn't, assign it to a flight. But I'm not sure how I would assign it for a fixed time.

Any help or suggestions on this would be great.reset the "state" attribute of runway everytime the flight completes landing. you could write a trigger on flight_info table which shall toggle this runway.state when you update flight_info

Need Help about Initial Snapshot

i have created a publication whereas i have provided a network path to its snapshop folder e.g ( \\server\folder ) at time of creating. When i try to make a Pull Subscription and follow all steps of wizards, it gives me following error "The initial snapshot for publication '' is not yet available". can you guide me what are causes of this problem and how may i solve it?

Thanks for help.
Regards,

After you create the publication, you need to start the snapshot agent. The snapshot agent is what creates the files available for subscriptions to use.|||

Dear Greg,

I did the same but when i try to pull the subscription it gives me the error that it can not take the initial snapshot. I also prefer to get snapshots from FTP but it never works. Please help me if you can.

Lookng forward to your reply.

Regards,

|||

Is this merge replication? If so, is it dynamically filtered, which may require a dynamic snapshot to be run?

If you want to use FTP, follow the steps for Configuring a Publication to Allow Subscribers to Retrieve Snapshot using FTP.

|||

Dear Greg,

I am facing the same problem, I am using Merge Replication. After creation of publication when i m trying to connect the server, it gives error of the initial snapshot is not yet available.

|||Just ran into this myself. Once you have everything good, make sure you run the distribution agent. This might fix it. If not, bring up the replication monitor, expand the publications on the left, right-click on the "trouble" server on the right, and check "mark for reinitialization". Then it'll grab the snapshot. You might also need to start the snapshot agent - expand "replication->local publications", right-click on the publication, and select "monitor snapshot agent". Once it comes up, click start.sql

Need Help about Initial Snapshot

i have created a publication whereas i have provided a network path to its snapshop folder e.g ( \\server\folder ) at time of creating. When i try to make a Pull Subscription and follow all steps of wizards, it gives me following error "The initial snapshot for publication '' is not yet available". can you guide me what are causes of this problem and how may i solve it?

Thanks for help.
Regards,

After you create the publication, you need to start the snapshot agent. The snapshot agent is what creates the files available for subscriptions to use.|||

Dear Greg,

I did the same but when i try to pull the subscription it gives me the error that it can not take the initial snapshot. I also prefer to get snapshots from FTP but it never works. Please help me if you can.

Lookng forward to your reply.

Regards,

|||

Is this merge replication? If so, is it dynamically filtered, which may require a dynamic snapshot to be run?

If you want to use FTP, follow the steps for Configuring a Publication to Allow Subscribers to Retrieve Snapshot using FTP.

|||

Dear Greg,

I am facing the same problem, I am using Merge Replication. After creation of publication when i m trying to connect the server, it gives error of the initial snapshot is not yet available.

Need help about how to avoid bad plan used by the optimizer

Hi,
We had the big table containing about 600M records and the following query
used to take long time (this is subset of the query but this part takes the
most time and is part of this question/discussion):
Select top 1001 col3, col1, col4, col5
From tab1 au --with (index (idx_tab1))
Where au.col6 = 44431 and au.col7 = 857669662 and au.col8 is null
This table have clustered index on col1 and non-clustered index on (col6,
col7, col3).
Since this col6 = 44431 hold about 120M records in this table so whenever we
run the above query with this col6 as predicate, SQL Server always do
clustered index san and takes about 4 min but we apply the non-clustered
index in the query and time reduces to 3 sec. So the bottom line is due to
the skewed statistics SQL Server feels that index scan will be better that
doing the combination of index seek and bookmark lookup and forgets about
that we specified the TOP 1001 and it will be better to do index seek than
clustered scan.
So far this was working and now we have deployed the partition view in the
database and partition this table on (col7, col1) and now the data is spread
out on different partitions that all are on different databases. Now since we
are running this query against view so we can’t apply index hints so we are
wondering what are the other ways we can force optimizer to use non-clustered
seek or come up with better execution plan by seeing that TOP 1001 hint is
specified.
Isn't it the kind of a bug that SQL Server optimizer don't always use the
index seek when TOP clause is specified with small number of rows to be
returned?
Thanks
--Harvinder
Hi,
If you place a covering index on
Col6,col7,col8,col3,col1,col4,col5
on each of your partition tables . Then the optimizer will use this index
to select your row.
One question though which 1001 rows do you want? because the order is no
guaranteed here and you are not ordering or grouping. So sql will return
the first 1001 rows it finds and the order will be first found first get and
depending on the index used this could be different rows.
kind regards
Greg O
Looking to use CLR in SQL 2005. Try some pre-build CLR Functions and SP
AGS SQL 2005 Utilities, over 20+ functions
http://www.ag-software.com/?tabid=38
"harvinder" <harvinder@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4367F496-593E-4118-8128-E4F1FA8815AA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We had the big table containing about 600M records and the following query
> used to take long time (this is subset of the query but this part takes
> the
> most time and is part of this question/discussion):
> Select top 1001 col3, col1, col4, col5
> From tab1 au --with (index (idx_tab1))
> Where au.col6 = 44431 and au.col7 = 857669662 and au.col8 is null
> This table have clustered index on col1 and non-clustered index on (col6,
> col7, col3).
> Since this col6 = 44431 hold about 120M records in this table so whenever
> we
> run the above query with this col6 as predicate, SQL Server always do
> clustered index san and takes about 4 min but we apply the non-clustered
> index in the query and time reduces to 3 sec. So the bottom line is due to
> the skewed statistics SQL Server feels that index scan will be better that
> doing the combination of index seek and bookmark lookup and forgets about
> that we specified the TOP 1001 and it will be better to do index seek than
> clustered scan.
> So far this was working and now we have deployed the partition view in the
> database and partition this table on (col7, col1) and now the data is
> spread
> out on different partitions that all are on different databases. Now since
> we
> are running this query against view so we can't apply index hints so we
> are
> wondering what are the other ways we can force optimizer to use
> non-clustered
> seek or come up with better execution plan by seeing that TOP 1001 hint is
> specified.
> Isn't it the kind of a bug that SQL Server optimizer don't always use the
> index seek when TOP clause is specified with small number of rows to be
> returned?
> Thanks
> --Harvinder
>
|||On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:50:16 -0800, harvinder
<harvinder@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>We had the big table containing about 600M records and the following query
>used to take long time (this is subset of the query but this part takes the
>most time and is part of this question/discussion):
> Select top 1001 col3, col1, col4, col5
> From tab1 au --with (index (idx_tab1))
> Where au.col6 = 44431 and au.col7 = 857669662 and au.col8 is null
>This table have clustered index on col1 and non-clustered index on (col6,
>col7, col3).
>Since this col6 = 44431 hold about 120M records in this table so whenever we
>run the above query with this col6 as predicate, SQL Server always do
>clustered index san and takes about 4 min but we apply the non-clustered
>index in the query and time reduces to 3 sec.
...
>Isn't it the kind of a bug that SQL Server optimizer don't always use the
>index seek when TOP clause is specified with small number of rows to be
>returned?
When you ask for 1001 records, this may be enough for the optimizer to
decide to scan rather than index. What happens if you ask for top 10?
A covering index to fit the query would of course work (we hope!), but
if you have many queries, such combinatorics can kill you. Another
way to go is to put separate indexes on col6 alone and col7 alone and
col8 alone, and see if SQLServer can order them by selectivity, do a
hash match, and get you good results.
Josh

Need help about how to avoid bad plan used by the optimizer

Hi,
We had the big table containing about 600M records and the following query
used to take long time (this is subset of the query but this part takes the
most time and is part of this question/discussion):
Select top 1001 col3, col1, col4, col5
From tab1 au --with (index (idx_tab1))
Where au.col6 = 44431 and au.col7 = 857669662 and au.col8 is null
This table have clustered index on col1 and non-clustered index on (col6,
col7, col3).
Since this col6 = 44431 hold about 120M records in this table so whenever we
run the above query with this col6 as predicate, SQL Server always do
clustered index san and takes about 4 min but we apply the non-clustered
index in the query and time reduces to 3 sec. So the bottom line is due to
the skewed statistics SQL Server feels that index scan will be better that
doing the combination of index seek and bookmark lookup and forgets about
that we specified the TOP 1001 and it will be better to do index seek than
clustered scan.
So far this was working and now we have deployed the partition view in the
database and partition this table on (col7, col1) and now the data is spread
out on different partitions that all are on different databases. Now since we
are running this query against view so we canâ't apply index hints so we are
wondering what are the other ways we can force optimizer to use non-clustered
seek or come up with better execution plan by seeing that TOP 1001 hint is
specified.
Isn't it the kind of a bug that SQL Server optimizer don't always use the
index seek when TOP clause is specified with small number of rows to be
returned?
Thanks
--HarvinderHi,
If you place a covering index on
Col6,col7,col8,col3,col1,col4,col5
on each of your partition tables . Then the optimizer will use this index
to select your row.
One question though which 1001 rows do you want? because the order is no
guaranteed here and you are not ordering or grouping. So sql will return
the first 1001 rows it finds and the order will be first found first get and
depending on the index used this could be different rows.
kind regards
Greg O
--
Looking to use CLR in SQL 2005. Try some pre-build CLR Functions and SP
AGS SQL 2005 Utilities, over 20+ functions
http://www.ag-software.com/?tabid=38
"harvinder" <harvinder@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4367F496-593E-4118-8128-E4F1FA8815AA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We had the big table containing about 600M records and the following query
> used to take long time (this is subset of the query but this part takes
> the
> most time and is part of this question/discussion):
> Select top 1001 col3, col1, col4, col5
> From tab1 au --with (index (idx_tab1))
> Where au.col6 = 44431 and au.col7 = 857669662 and au.col8 is null
> This table have clustered index on col1 and non-clustered index on (col6,
> col7, col3).
> Since this col6 = 44431 hold about 120M records in this table so whenever
> we
> run the above query with this col6 as predicate, SQL Server always do
> clustered index san and takes about 4 min but we apply the non-clustered
> index in the query and time reduces to 3 sec. So the bottom line is due to
> the skewed statistics SQL Server feels that index scan will be better that
> doing the combination of index seek and bookmark lookup and forgets about
> that we specified the TOP 1001 and it will be better to do index seek than
> clustered scan.
> So far this was working and now we have deployed the partition view in the
> database and partition this table on (col7, col1) and now the data is
> spread
> out on different partitions that all are on different databases. Now since
> we
> are running this query against view so we can't apply index hints so we
> are
> wondering what are the other ways we can force optimizer to use
> non-clustered
> seek or come up with better execution plan by seeing that TOP 1001 hint is
> specified.
> Isn't it the kind of a bug that SQL Server optimizer don't always use the
> index seek when TOP clause is specified with small number of rows to be
> returned?
> Thanks
> --Harvinder
>|||On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:50:16 -0800, harvinder
<harvinder@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>We had the big table containing about 600M records and the following query
>used to take long time (this is subset of the query but this part takes the
>most time and is part of this question/discussion):
> Select top 1001 col3, col1, col4, col5
> From tab1 au --with (index (idx_tab1))
> Where au.col6 = 44431 and au.col7 = 857669662 and au.col8 is null
>This table have clustered index on col1 and non-clustered index on (col6,
>col7, col3).
>Since this col6 = 44431 hold about 120M records in this table so whenever we
>run the above query with this col6 as predicate, SQL Server always do
>clustered index san and takes about 4 min but we apply the non-clustered
>index in the query and time reduces to 3 sec.
...
>Isn't it the kind of a bug that SQL Server optimizer don't always use the
>index seek when TOP clause is specified with small number of rows to be
>returned?
When you ask for 1001 records, this may be enough for the optimizer to
decide to scan rather than index. What happens if you ask for top 10?
A covering index to fit the query would of course work (we hope!), but
if you have many queries, such combinatorics can kill you. Another
way to go is to put separate indexes on col6 alone and col7 alone and
col8 alone, and see if SQLServer can order them by selectivity, do a
hash match, and get you good results.
Josh

Need help about how to avoid bad plan used by the optimizer

Hi,
We had the big table containing about 600M records and the following query
used to take long time (this is subset of the query but this part takes the
most time and is part of this question/discussion):
Select top 1001 col3, col1, col4, col5
From tab1 au --with (index (idx_tab1))
Where au.col6 = 44431 and au.col7 = 857669662 and au.col8 is null
This table have clustered index on col1 and non-clustered index on (col6,
col7, col3).
Since this col6 = 44431 hold about 120M records in this table so whenever we
run the above query with this col6 as predicate, SQL Server always do
clustered index san and takes about 4 min but we apply the non-clustered
index in the query and time reduces to 3 sec. So the bottom line is due to
the skewed statistics SQL Server feels that index scan will be better that
doing the combination of index seek and bookmark lookup and forgets about
that we specified the TOP 1001 and it will be better to do index seek than
clustered scan.
So far this was working and now we have deployed the partition view in the
database and partition this table on (col7, col1) and now the data is spread
out on different partitions that all are on different databases. Now since w
e
are running this query against view so we can’t apply index hints so we ar
e
wondering what are the other ways we can force optimizer to use non-clustere
d
seek or come up with better execution plan by seeing that TOP 1001 hint is
specified.
Isn't it the kind of a bug that SQL Server optimizer don't always use the
index seek when TOP clause is specified with small number of rows to be
returned?
Thanks
--HarvinderHi,
If you place a covering index on
Col6,col7,col8,col3,col1,col4,col5
on each of your partition tables . Then the optimizer will use this index
to select your row.
One question though which 1001 rows do you want? because the order is no
guaranteed here and you are not ordering or grouping. So sql will return
the first 1001 rows it finds and the order will be first found first get and
depending on the index used this could be different rows.
kind regards
Greg O
--
Looking to use CLR in SQL 2005. Try some pre-build CLR Functions and SP
AGS SQL 2005 Utilities, over 20+ functions
http://www.ag-software.com/?tabid=38
"harvinder" <harvinder@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4367F496-593E-4118-8128-E4F1FA8815AA@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We had the big table containing about 600M records and the following query
> used to take long time (this is subset of the query but this part takes
> the
> most time and is part of this question/discussion):
> Select top 1001 col3, col1, col4, col5
> From tab1 au --with (index (idx_tab1))
> Where au.col6 = 44431 and au.col7 = 857669662 and au.col8 is null
> This table have clustered index on col1 and non-clustered index on (col6,
> col7, col3).
> Since this col6 = 44431 hold about 120M records in this table so whenever
> we
> run the above query with this col6 as predicate, SQL Server always do
> clustered index san and takes about 4 min but we apply the non-clustered
> index in the query and time reduces to 3 sec. So the bottom line is due to
> the skewed statistics SQL Server feels that index scan will be better that
> doing the combination of index seek and bookmark lookup and forgets about
> that we specified the TOP 1001 and it will be better to do index seek than
> clustered scan.
> So far this was working and now we have deployed the partition view in the
> database and partition this table on (col7, col1) and now the data is
> spread
> out on different partitions that all are on different databases. Now since
> we
> are running this query against view so we can't apply index hints so we
> are
> wondering what are the other ways we can force optimizer to use
> non-clustered
> seek or come up with better execution plan by seeing that TOP 1001 hint is
> specified.
> Isn't it the kind of a bug that SQL Server optimizer don't always use the
> index seek when TOP clause is specified with small number of rows to be
> returned?
> Thanks
> --Harvinder
>|||On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:50:16 -0800, harvinder
<harvinder@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>We had the big table containing about 600M records and the following query
>used to take long time (this is subset of the query but this part takes the
>most time and is part of this question/discussion):
> Select top 1001 col3, col1, col4, col5
> From tab1 au --with (index (idx_tab1))
> Where au.col6 = 44431 and au.col7 = 857669662 and au.col8 is null
>This table have clustered index on col1 and non-clustered index on (col6,
>col7, col3).
>Since this col6 = 44431 hold about 120M records in this table so whenever w
e
>run the above query with this col6 as predicate, SQL Server always do
>clustered index san and takes about 4 min but we apply the non-clustered
>index in the query and time reduces to 3 sec.
...
>Isn't it the kind of a bug that SQL Server optimizer don't always use the
>index seek when TOP clause is specified with small number of rows to be
>returned?
When you ask for 1001 records, this may be enough for the optimizer to
decide to scan rather than index. What happens if you ask for top 10?
A covering index to fit the query would of course work (we hope!), but
if you have many queries, such combinatorics can kill you. Another
way to go is to put separate indexes on col6 alone and col7 alone and
col8 alone, and see if SQLServer can order them by selectivity, do a
hash match, and get you good results.
Josh

Need Help

Hi there,

I want to achive the following but stuck big time.

I got a table with the following values for eg

ID Name Created
1 ABC 01/02/06
1 DEF 03/02/06
1 ABC 04/02/06
2 SDF 02/02/06
3 DEF 03/02/06
3 ABC 04/02/06

I want to achive it as

ID Name1 Name2 Name3
1 ABC DEF ABC
2 SDF
3 DEF ABC

Is there any way around this. I'm using views from SLQ server database.

ThanksU can write a procedure to export data in that format to a text file, then use that text file to make ur report. There may be an easy way as well
Raheem AHmed

Need files from Companion CD of SQL Server 2000 High Availability

Dear All,
Last time I bought ebook entitle "Microsoft SQL Server 2000 High
Availability".
I need the files below :
- LRQ.zip
-Sysperfinfo_Examples.sql
-Database_Capacity_ and_Disk_Capacity_Monitor.zip
-Defrag.zip
Please some one could send me the files.
Thanks
Robert LieRobert Lie wrote:
> Dear All,
> Last time I bought ebook entitle "Microsoft SQL Server 2000 High
> Availability".
> I need the files below :
> - LRQ.zip
> -Sysperfinfo_Examples.sql
> -Database_Capacity_ and_Disk_Capacity_Monitor.zip
> -Defrag.zip
> Please some one could send me the files.
> Thanks
> Robert Lie
Have you checked the author's or publishers web site?
--
David Gugick
Imceda Software
www.imceda.com

Need a good insert statement

Hi, I need some help. I've spent nearly a w of work and lunch time trying
to crack this nut, and I guess I am finally stuck.
I have a table with financial data like invoices. The tables are huge.
Hundreds of millions of rows per year.
I want to store some additional information related to gambling in one of
these tables.
I want to put this new data way off in the corner of the table temporarily
until I am able to come back to work.
For reasons that are private, I do not want to create a new table.
So if I could stick this information out starting at say row 104,000 and
column 333,000 that would be great. No one's going to look there. And if
they do it will look like some kind of mistake. I can't figure out how to
get the data there.
Any good Ideas would naturally be of great help. Also, since I am in sort of
a hurry (tax day is april 15) I would really appreciate it if I could just
get some of those "only the quality answers." I know a lot of people like to
yik yak, but I just need da facts. Thanks a lot!Hi
I'm not sure I understand you. Do you want to add additional column? If you
do , use ALTER TABLE TableName ADD Column.....
If you want to do paging I'd recomend you vist Aaron's web site
www.aspfaq.com .
"TargetBleigh" <ddsd*f.com> wrote in message
news:2c6dnRzmUNP2ec3fRVn-1g@.comcast.com...
> Hi, I need some help. I've spent nearly a w of work and lunch time
trying
> to crack this nut, and I guess I am finally stuck.
> I have a table with financial data like invoices. The tables are huge.
> Hundreds of millions of rows per year.
> I want to store some additional information related to gambling in one of
> these tables.
> I want to put this new data way off in the corner of the table temporarily
> until I am able to come back to work.
> For reasons that are private, I do not want to create a new table.
> So if I could stick this information out starting at say row 104,000 and
> column 333,000 that would be great. No one's going to look there. And if
> they do it will look like some kind of mistake. I can't figure out how to
> get the data there.
> Any good Ideas would naturally be of great help. Also, since I am in sort
of
> a hurry (tax day is april 15) I would really appreciate it if I could just
> get some of those "only the quality answers." I know a lot of people like
to
> yik yak, but I just need da facts. Thanks a lot!
>

Near Real time updating of fact table

-what is the best method that to implement the near real time updating of a
fact table without affecting all those users who are reading from it?
-fact table in question is only 1.8gb in size, 3.1 million rows, expect near
real time updating of approx 1000 new fact table records every 15 min,
occassionaly updates of historical (modified) fact table records - this is
where i assume write locks v read lock conflict may occur
- i am only concerned for the crystal report users who are using the fact
table via sql views ie relational db, the cube at present can stay as write
an night and read during the day
- any help greatly appreciated
U can use DTS for this, keep in mind that DTS is version sensitive.
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
|||Can you please elaborate on DTS being version sensitive?
I am also trying to achieve this in my data warehouse environment and very
curious to find out how.
Thanks,
Jay
"Rakesh Doebe via droptable.com" wrote:

> U can use DTS for this, keep in mind that DTS is version sensitive.
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
>
|||Can you please elaborate on DTS being version sensitive?
I am also trying to achieve this in my data warehouse environment.
Thanks,
Jay
"Rakesh Doebe via droptable.com" wrote:

> U can use DTS for this, keep in mind that DTS is version sensitive.
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
>

Near Real time updating of fact table

-what is the best method that to implement the near real time updating of a
fact table without affecting all those users who are reading from it?
-fact table in question is only 1.8gb in size, 3.1 million rows, expect near
real time updating of approx 1000 new fact table records every 15 min,
occassionaly updates of historical (modified) fact table records - this is
where i assume write locks v read lock conflict may occur
- i am only concerned for the crystal report users who are using the fact
table via sql views ie relational db, the cube at present can stay as write
an night and read during the day
- any help greatly appreciatedU can use DTS for this, keep in mind that DTS is version sensitive.
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com|||Can you please elaborate on DTS being version sensitive?
I am also trying to achieve this in my data warehouse environment and very
curious to find out how.
Thanks,
Jay
"Rakesh Doebe via droptable.com" wrote:

> U can use DTS for this, keep in mind that DTS is version sensitive.
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
>|||Can you please elaborate on DTS being version sensitive?
I am also trying to achieve this in my data warehouse environment.
Thanks,
Jay
"Rakesh Doebe via droptable.com" wrote:

> U can use DTS for this, keep in mind that DTS is version sensitive.
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
>