meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 10 months |
| seen | 1 hour ago | |
| stats | profile views | 24 |
|
Sep 22 |
answered | Where does my.cnf get stored in Linux? |
|
Sep 20 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Sep 20 |
revised |
Database design for dynamic Meta fields of an entity that shall be queried intensively added short clarification |
|
Sep 20 |
answered | Database design for dynamic Meta fields of an entity that shall be queried intensively |
|
Sep 18 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Sep 18 |
accepted | Which areas of a DBA's knowledge should a developer delve into? |
|
Sep 16 |
answered | Which is quicker: Select of existing row vs Update where no row exists? |
|
Sep 16 |
awarded | Student |
|
Sep 16 |
asked | Which areas of a DBA's knowledge should a developer delve into? |
|
Sep 15 |
comment |
Should fields that aren't needed often be kept in separate tables? +1 for: "To sum it up, I think you've got a bigger performance problem in using an ORM than in storing the descriptions in the same tag table." |
|
Sep 12 |
comment |
MySQL Auto_increment going 2 by 2 As the documentation says, it's not possible to set it db or table-wise. I'm sorry, I can't help you here. Maybe you are trying to achieve something with the autoincrement feature that it wasn't intended for. |
|
Sep 12 |
answered | MySQL Auto_increment going 2 by 2 |
|
Sep 12 |
comment |
Weird error on simple query in MsAccess ORDER BY should work with 2010, but it's not really sorting on the whole field content. But the problem in your case is the combination with DISTINCT, as Access is truncating internally the memo field to sort on it (like in my above sample). And that conflicts with DISTINCT. |
|
Sep 12 |
answered | Weird error on simple query in MsAccess |
|
Sep 7 |
awarded | Critic |
|
Sep 2 |
answered | What types of corruption can DBCC CheckDB miss? |
|
Sep 2 |
comment |
Logical operators OR AND in condition and order of conditions in WHERE No, current versions aren't patched, AFAIK. I meant that future versions will work again how it should be. |
|
Sep 2 |
comment |
Logical operators OR AND in condition and order of conditions in WHERE @Jack: Thanks for pointing this out. Looks like it has been fixed in June, so that case will work again as expected. |
|
Sep 2 |
answered | Logical operators OR AND in condition and order of conditions in WHERE |
|
Aug 30 |
answered | Changing column width |
