meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | California | |
| age | 41 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 3 months |
| seen | yesterday | |
| stats | profile views | 106 |
email is "stackoverflow dit com atthedomain esquared dit mooo dit com", replace dit with . and atthedomain with @
|
Apr 28 |
awarded | Popular Question |
|
Mar 22 |
comment |
What are examples of optional one-to-one relations? Example: Employee <-> Customer |
|
Mar 8 |
accepted | FIFO queue table for multiple workers in SQL Server |
|
Mar 7 |
awarded | Popular Question |
|
Mar 4 |
comment |
Versioning data in Databases Managing Time in Relational Databases -- 30+ parts |
|
Feb 25 |
awarded | Revival |
|
Feb 13 |
comment |
Are view references in a query properly called “derived tables” as such? I guess I just wanted to know the "official" stance: would a true derived table explicated in a query always be introduced with parentheses, or would simply referring to the name of a view (itself a type of "derived table" or "named query") also be properly called "introducing a derived table to the query"? I see a difference between having the actual query contents present, or having them hidden behind a layer of abstraction (behind a name). |
|
Feb 13 |
comment |
Are view references in a query properly called “derived tables” as such? Do you have thoughts on the difference between the definition of a "named query" and a reference to a named query? |
|
Feb 13 |
revised |
Are view references in a query properly called “derived tables” as such? edited title |
|
Feb 12 |
revised |
Are view references in a query properly called “derived tables” as such? Added more info on searching and on where I'm coming from |
|
Feb 12 |
comment |
query optimization: time intervals @Nico in my world that's usually done with square brackets then like [this]. I just like that better than double quotes, I guess. |
|
Feb 12 |
revised |
Are view references in a query properly called “derived tables” as such? added 85 characters in body |
|
Feb 12 |
revised |
Are view references in a query properly called “derived tables” as such? added 53 characters in body |
|
Feb 12 |
asked | Are view references in a query properly called “derived tables” as such? |
|
Feb 12 |
comment |
query optimization: time intervals I have another idea I haven't had time to get working. For what it's worth, your query returns wrong results with overlapping ranges in all tables. |
|
Feb 11 |
comment |
Running total with count? I can see that. I should have said "let's at least use the fastest cursor method -- which could be what you have, but maybe not." :) |
|
Feb 11 |
revised |
Quick way to validate two tables against each other added 18 characters in body |
|
Feb 11 |
comment |
Running total with count? I wasn't. I was adamant that without testing I didn't know. |
|
Feb 11 |
comment |
Running total with count? @AaronBertrand You have proven that the updatable cursor with UPDATE ... WHERE CURRENT is about 1/3rd as fast as a read-only cursor with the UPDATE done separately.
For some reason I figured that perhaps an updateable cursor doing the update could be faster than a non-updateable cursor with doing the update separately. I have been schooled. I have never, once, used an updateable cursor or updated one through WHERE CURRENT in my life. |
|
Feb 11 |
comment |
Running total with count? let us continue this discussion in chat |
