GSerg

650 reputation

bio	website
	location
	age	30
visits	member for	1 year, 5 months
	seen	May 13 at 22:37
stats	profile views	19

sql must be lowercase.

	650 reputation	bio	website		visits	member for	1 year, 5 months
39 badges		location			seen	May 13 at 22:37

summary answers questions tags badges favorites bounties reputation activity

72 Actions

suggestions reviews revisions comments badges posts accepts all

Apr 10	revised	How can I remove an index scan from a SQL Server SELECT statement? formatting, English improved
Apr 10	suggested	suggested edit on How can I remove an index scan from a SQL Server SELECT statement?
Feb 29	awarded	Enthusiast
Feb 22	accepted	Save Transaction: Is the name local to the stored procedure or not?
Feb 22	comment	Save Transaction: Is the name local to the stored procedure or not? Right. Yes, that makes sense. The code needs another stare which it will get. But then, it's not that big, and in two days I haven't been able to find any possible way for the control flow to not hit both rollbacks, both by executing it in my head and pressing F11 repeatedly. Either someone is a moron or this needs to be properly reproduced and posted to connect. Thanks for your help.
Feb 22	comment	Save Transaction: Is the name local to the stored procedure or not? That is exactly what I cannot understand. If a rollback was stepped over for some reason, then surely switching to the `newid()` thing would not help? But it did help, and it's 100% reproducible; if I switch it back to the constant name, it is misbehaving always, and with the random name it is doing the right thing always.
Feb 22	comment	Save Transaction: Is the name local to the stored procedure or not? Ok. That makes sense. They are global and I've learnt that. But why does it work as naively expected in the example? Does the first rollback make it "forget" the savepoint, so that the second rollback rolls back to the previous savepoint of the same name? And if so, how came it didn't happen in production, where number of rollbacks equals number of `save tran`s?
Feb 22	revised	Save Transaction: Is the name local to the stored procedure or not? typo
Feb 22	asked	Save Transaction: Is the name local to the stored procedure or not?
Feb 19	comment	Insert if not exists, concurrently Possible duplicate of stackoverflow.com/questions/3407857/…
Feb 16	comment	Filtered indices: Why include the filtered-on field? @AlexKuznetsov To enforce uniqueness ignoring null fields, yes. Sometimes for actual queries though, at which point I have to test to see what filtered columns I will need to include.
Feb 15	accepted	Filtered indices: Why include the filtered-on field?
Feb 15	comment	Filtered indices: Why include the filtered-on field? Yes, it sometimes does the right thing. For instance, it does the right thing in regard of `dismantled` in my example, I don't have to include it in the index.
Feb 15	comment	Filtered indices: Why include the filtered-on field? @a1ex07 How is `rank` not part of the index?
Feb 15	asked	Filtered indices: Why include the filtered-on field?
Feb 10	answered	Restrict SQL Server 2008 R2 User to restore only one database (but not others)
Feb 10	comment	How does objectproperty() figure out if a function is deterministic in sql server? @BrianDishaw I'm not sure, to be honest. Apparently because any data-accessing function is not deterministic unless schema bound, and SQL Server expands this behaviour to functions that don't in fact access data. Maybe it's not able to see they don't.
Feb 9	answered	How does objectproperty() figure out if a function is deterministic in sql server?
Feb 8	comment	Window functions cause awful execution plan when called from a view with external parametrized 'where' clause @MartinSmith Yes, pretty much so.
Feb 8	comment	Window functions cause awful execution plan when called from a view with external parametrized 'where' clause One of the requirement was the query is consumable by end users using Excel (that is, by MS Query), and MS Query will not let you do that, at least in versions up to 2003.