<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>SQL Server Performance &#187; NULL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sql-server-performance.com/tag/null/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sql-server-performance.com</link>
	<description>SQL Server Performance Tuning</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 08:10:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Adding Column to a SQL Server Table</title>
		<link>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/2011/add-column-sql-server-table/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/2011/add-column-sql-server-table/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:12:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dinesh Asanka</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General DBA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Add Column]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AddColumn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[existing records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NULL]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sql-server-performance.com/?=1952</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Adding a column to a table is&#160; common task for&#160; DBAs. You can add a column to a table which is a nullable column or which has default values. But are these two operations are similar internally and which method is optimal? Let us start this with an example. I created a database and a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/2011/add-column-sql-server-table/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ERROR_PROCEDURE does not return a schema name</title>
		<link>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/2011/error-procedure-doesnt-return-schema-name/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/2011/error-procedure-doesnt-return-schema-name/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 01:12:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Frank Kalis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General DBA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BEGIN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERROR_PROCEDURE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NULL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OBJECT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schema]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sql-server-performance.com/?=1926</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent blog entry I read reminded me again that I wanted to rant about an issue in SQL Server for quite some time now&#8230; SQL Server 2005 introduced the separation between user and schema. Though schemata already existed&#160; before SQL Server 2005, they really became usable with this version, imho. At the same time&#160; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/2011/error-procedure-doesnt-return-schema-name/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
