Please try this:
SELECT U.Name ,UT.[Code] as UserState, ST.[Code] as SessionState,S.[StateDescription] as SessionStateDescription
FROM Users U
I would think a bit check would be the fastest type of check that could be done. Don't see why 11 -- or 15 or 20 -- would be that much overhead.
SELECT LEFT(name, 40) AS [Database Name],
LEFT(CAST(DATABASEPROPERTYEX(name, 'RECOVERY') AS VARCHAR(30)), 30) AS [Recovery Model]
WHEN NOT EXISTS(
WHERE @ipinput LIKE '%'
AND @ipinput = ZipCode)...
Yes :-). Please try this:
SELECT BasicSearch.StarRate, BasicSearch.date
INNER JOIN (
Generally separate indexes will be fine;as long as the selectivity is high enough, 2 indexes instead of 1 won't matter.
The clus key column(s) will always be added by SQL to every non-clus index, so there is no reason to add it yourself.
DECLARE @action CHAR(1) --Delete/Insert/Update
IF EXISTS(SELECT TOP 1 * FROM inserted)
IF EXISTS(SELECT TOP 1 * FROM deleted)
You will need dynamic SQL for this; I think this should do it, for example: [:D]
@sql NVARCHAR(MAX)DECLARE @SalesId INT
Technically you don't need the derived table, altho the ultimate query plans are the same (at least for a very small # of rows):
You could make the statuses the equivalent of "bit" values, i.e. 1 2 4 8 16 ..., then you could check for any of a list of values by ANDing (&) the...
If it's a covering index -- that is, if all columns in the query result can come from the index -- then SQL will use the index because it's less I/O...
Yes, especially since you don't have a choice [:)]. The leaf pages of the clustered index *are* the table pages.
> now without dropping it can I modify the existing index to clustered. <
No. You cannot alter a column from non-clus to clus "in place". You will...
Since SQL generally works left-to-right, and can short-circuit where appropriate, this version is better:
WHERE (colname1 = 1) AND...
That can happen. It depends on the specific column(s) you're reading from MyTable, if/what the clus index is, and if/what other indexes exist.
Inner joins should be faster than left outer joins, esp. multiple IJs vs. multiple LOJs.
Please try this: it might perform better; usually even temp tables do better than cursors [:)].
CREATE TABLE #DeclineReasons (
id INT IDENTITY(1,...
Yes. Or better yet, make the database read-only except when it is actually being modified, as that will reduce overhead even more.
SELECTing on an...
Separate names with a comma.