"Timeout Expired" on large table change

I have a table containing several hundred thousand rows. Once of the
fields in the table is named EODFeedDate. The field is nullable. I've
decided that I do NOT want that field to be nullable. I've unchecked the
"allow nulls" checkbox for the field in Management Studio. I then tried to
save my schema change. I'm getting the following error from Management
Studio:
"Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the
operation or the server is not responding."
I can't figure out what's causing the problem. It's worth nothing that:
- Of the current entries in this table, none of them have EODFeedDate
set to null so making the field non-nullable should cause a conflict.
- No one else is connected to the database. It's a private development
machine -- so it isn't a contention problem.
Any ideas?
David
> "Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the
> operation or the server is not responding."
> I can't figure out what's causing the problem.
I did a google search on this. You have to write a query to workaround this
bug. I've never written query code to modify a table before; I've always
used the UI, so I had some learning to do.
I learned about the ALTER TABLE statement but my execution of that statement
failed. The error message stated that the column could not be made
non-nullable because there is an index on the table that made use of the
column in question. That's when I learned about the DROP INDEX statement. By
using a DROP INDEX in tandem with an ALTER TABLE, I was able to make the
field non-nullable. I then re-created the index using the UI.
I've never spent so much time trying to do something so simple.
David
|||You can have Management Studio generate the script by making the change,
then right clicking the window and selecting "Generate Change Script"
"The One We Call 'Dave'" <ghetto@.englewood.com> wrote in message
news:-MOdnXQku9doHYXZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@.giganews.com...
> I did a google search on this. You have to write a query to workaround
> this bug. I've never written query code to modify a table before; I've
> always used the UI, so I had some learning to do.
> I learned about the ALTER TABLE statement but my execution of that
> statement failed. The error message stated that the column could not be
> made non-nullable because there is an index on the table that made use of
> the column in question. That's when I learned about the DROP INDEX
> statement. By using a DROP INDEX in tandem with an ALTER TABLE, I was able
> to make the field non-nullable. I then re-created the index using the UI.
> I've never spent so much time trying to do something so simple.
> David
>
|||"Michael D'Angelo" <nospamnmdange@.phoenixworx.org> wrote in message
news:uIYUXTHSGHA.4456@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You can have Management Studio generate the script by making the change,
> then right clicking the window and selecting "Generate Change Script"
Doh! I didn't realize that!! Thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to make use of
that in the future.

"Timeout Expired" on large table change

I have a table containing several hundred thousand rows. Once of the
fields in the table is named EODFeedDate. The field is nullable. I've
decided that I do NOT want that field to be nullable. I've unchecked the
"allow nulls" checkbox for the field in Management Studio. I then tried to
save my schema change. I'm getting the following error from Management
Studio:
"Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the
operation or the server is not responding."
I can't figure out what's causing the problem. It's worth nothing that:
- Of the current entries in this table, none of them have EODFeedDate
set to null so making the field non-nullable should cause a conflict.
- No one else is connected to the database. It's a private development
machine -- so it isn't a contention problem.
Any ideas?
David> "Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the
> operation or the server is not responding."
> I can't figure out what's causing the problem.
I did a google search on this. You have to write a query to workaround this
bug. I've never written query code to modify a table before; I've always
used the UI, so I had some learning to do.
I learned about the ALTER TABLE statement but my execution of that statement
failed. The error message stated that the column could not be made
non-nullable because there is an index on the table that made use of the
column in question. That's when I learned about the DROP INDEX statement. By
using a DROP INDEX in tandem with an ALTER TABLE, I was able to make the
field non-nullable. I then re-created the index using the UI.
I've never spent so much time trying to do something so simple.
David|||You can have Management Studio generate the script by making the change,
then right clicking the window and selecting "Generate Change Script"
"The One We Call 'Dave'" <ghetto@.englewood.com> wrote in message
news:-MOdnXQku9doHYXZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@.giganews.com...
> I did a google search on this. You have to write a query to workaround
> this bug. I've never written query code to modify a table before; I've
> always used the UI, so I had some learning to do.
> I learned about the ALTER TABLE statement but my execution of that
> statement failed. The error message stated that the column could not be
> made non-nullable because there is an index on the table that made use of
> the column in question. That's when I learned about the DROP INDEX
> statement. By using a DROP INDEX in tandem with an ALTER TABLE, I was able
> to make the field non-nullable. I then re-created the index using the UI.
> I've never spent so much time trying to do something so simple.
> David
>|||"Michael D'Angelo" <nospamnmdange@.phoenixworx.org> wrote in message
news:uIYUXTHSGHA.4456@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You can have Management Studio generate the script by making the change,
> then right clicking the window and selecting "Generate Change Script"
Doh! I didn't realize that!! Thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to make use of
that in the future.

"Timeout Expired" on large table change

I have a table containing several hundred thousand rows. Once of the
fields in the table is named EODFeedDate. The field is nullable. I've
decided that I do NOT want that field to be nullable. I've unchecked the
"allow nulls" checkbox for the field in Management Studio. I then tried to
save my schema change. I'm getting the following error from Management
Studio:
"Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the
operation or the server is not responding."
I can't figure out what's causing the problem. It's worth nothing that:
- Of the current entries in this table, none of them have EODFeedDate
set to null so making the field non-nullable should cause a conflict.
- No one else is connected to the database. It's a private development
machine -- so it isn't a contention problem.
Any ideas?
David> "Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the
> operation or the server is not responding."
> I can't figure out what's causing the problem.
I did a google search on this. You have to write a query to workaround this
bug. I've never written query code to modify a table before; I've always
used the UI, so I had some learning to do.
I learned about the ALTER TABLE statement but my execution of that statement
failed. The error message stated that the column could not be made
non-nullable because there is an index on the table that made use of the
column in question. That's when I learned about the DROP INDEX statement. By
using a DROP INDEX in tandem with an ALTER TABLE, I was able to make the
field non-nullable. I then re-created the index using the UI.
I've never spent so much time trying to do something so simple. :(
David|||You can have Management Studio generate the script by making the change,
then right clicking the window and selecting "Generate Change Script"
"The One We Call 'Dave'" <ghetto@.englewood.com> wrote in message
news:-MOdnXQku9doHYXZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@.giganews.com...
>> "Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the
>> operation or the server is not responding."
>> I can't figure out what's causing the problem.
> I did a google search on this. You have to write a query to workaround
> this bug. I've never written query code to modify a table before; I've
> always used the UI, so I had some learning to do.
> I learned about the ALTER TABLE statement but my execution of that
> statement failed. The error message stated that the column could not be
> made non-nullable because there is an index on the table that made use of
> the column in question. That's when I learned about the DROP INDEX
> statement. By using a DROP INDEX in tandem with an ALTER TABLE, I was able
> to make the field non-nullable. I then re-created the index using the UI.
> I've never spent so much time trying to do something so simple. :(
> David
>|||"Michael D'Angelo" <nospamnmdange@.phoenixworx.org> wrote in message
news:uIYUXTHSGHA.4456@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You can have Management Studio generate the script by making the change,
> then right clicking the window and selecting "Generate Change Script"
Doh! I didn't realize that!! Thanks for the tip. I'll be sure to make use of
that in the future.

"string or binary data would be truncated" error message

I am getting the message ("string or binary data would be truncated") when trying to update a field in a table in my database, but am unclear as to why. I understand that the error usually occurs when the length of a string exceeds the limit allowed for a field in the database, but in this situation, that constraint should not apply. The length of the field for which I am trying to make the update is a varchar field of length 100. The value for which I am attempting to update is an e-mail address of length 42 of the format xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@.yahoo.com. The initial insertion of the value (via my website) succeeded in inserting the first 40 characters of the address, but cut off the "om" at the end. It doesn't seem to matter how large I make the field in the database as it always gives me this error when I try to make the update. I have tried to change the value in both Query Analyzer and Enterprise Manager, but I invariably receive the same error.

Any ideas?I just posted my best guesses of causes for this here:

http://forums.asp.net/thread/1366165.aspx

Hope it helps,

Joe|||Thanks, your tips actually did help. There was a trigger on the table I was trying to insert into and it was attempting to insert into a table where the email field only allowed for addresses as large as 40 characters.

"Multiple-Step operation cannot be generated Check each status value" Error

Hi All,

I have a field 'Rowguid' of type uniqueidentifier in a table. This field is the last field in the table. In this case if I update a record through the application I don't get any error. Suppose if there are additional fields after the field Rowguid I get the error "Multiple-Step operation cannot be generated Check each status value"

For your reference I have used the following statement to add the RowGuid field

Alter table <tablename>
Add RowGuid uniqueidentifier ROWGUIDCOL NOT NULL Default (newid())

Can anyone please help me.

Thanks

SatheshPost your update statement, and any trigger code on this table.|||Where's Brett when we need him?

Logically, columns don't have any order within a table. It so happens that the current implementation of Microsoft SQL Server has a physical order, but that's implementation dependant. Relying on a column order (logical or physical) is a bug waiting to happen!

The problem is that you are not specifying a column list for your INSERT statement, you are relying on an implied order. Once you add columns so that the rowid is no longer the last column, your assumed order bytes you. If you specify the columns via a column list, this won't be a problem.DROP TABLE BadExample
GO
CREATE TABLE BadExample (
comment NVARCHAR(25)
)
GO

INSERT INTO BadExample
SELECT 'Simple case'

SELECT * FROM BadExample
GO

ALTER TABLE BadExample
ADD RowGuid uniqueidentifier ROWGUIDCOL NOT NULL
DEFAULT (newid())

INSERT INTO BadExample (comment)
SELECT 'Not as simple example'

SELECT * FROM BadExample
GO

ALTER TABLE BadExample
ADD myDate DATETIME NOT NULL
DEFAULT GetDate()
GO

INSERT INTO BadExample (comment, myDate)
SELECT 'This works!', '1950-01-02'

SELECT * FROM BadExample
GO

INSERT INTO BadExample
SELECT 'This fails', '1960-03-04'

SELECT * FROM BadExample-PatP|||The problem is that you are not specifying a column list for your INSERT statement, you are relying on an implied order.How did you come up with that from his post!?

"Limit to List" equivalent in SQL

In Access, I can limit field options to a list. What is the equivalent in SQL 2005?use a lookup table and enforce referential integrity.|||well, if it's a limited set, with ~0 likelihood of needing to be updated, you can also use a CHECK constraint

for examplecreate table foo
( ...
, gender char(1) null check (coalesce(gender,'M') in ('M','F'))
... )

"IS NOT NULL" is not working

We have data in datetime field and in the simple select statement where
clause "where dateofbusiness is not null" no data is returned. This
works in our other databases. This is a simple select with no
aggregation functions such as count(*) and no group bys. No joins.
We checked for table corruption and rebuilt the table and indexes.
I'm completely at a loss.
Anybody run into this?Run the following and post the results:
select
dateofbusiness
, count (*)
from
MyTable
group by
dateofbusiness
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
.
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104271245.345995.62690@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
We have data in datetime field and in the simple select statement where
clause "where dateofbusiness is not null" no data is returned. This
works in our other databases. This is a simple select with no
aggregation functions such as count(*) and no group bys. No joins.
We checked for table corruption and rebuilt the table and indexes.
I'm completely at a loss.
Anybody run into this?|||Try,
where ISDATE(dateofbusiness) <> 0
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||2003-03-25 00:00:00.000 15
2003-03-26 00:00:00.000 17
2003-03-27 00:00:00.000 73
2003-03-28 00:00:00.000 9
2003-04-11 00:00:00.000 18
2003-04-14 00:00:00.000 131
2003-04-15 00:00:00.000 11
2003-04-25 00:00:00.000 2
2003-04-28 00:00:00.000 18
2003-05-06 00:00:00.000 17
2003-05-08 00:00:00.000 16
2003-05-12 00:00:00.000 23
2003-05-13 00:00:00.000 80
2003-05-16 00:00:00.000 27
2003-05-19 00:00:00.000 15
2003-06-05 00:00:00.000 23
2003-06-16 00:00:00.000 11942
2003-06-17 00:00:00.000 12038
2003-06-18 00:00:00.000 12166
2003-06-19 00:00:00.000 12307
2003-06-20 00:00:00.000 12502
2003-06-21 00:00:00.000 11840
2003-06-22 00:00:00.000 11341
2003-06-23 00:00:00.000 11784
2003-06-24 00:00:00.000 12055
2003-06-25 00:00:00.000 11905
2003-06-26 00:00:00.000 12088
2003-06-27 00:00:00.000 12451
2003-06-28 00:00:00.000 11956
2003-06-29 00:00:00.000 11303
2003-06-30 00:00:00.000 12072
2003-07-01 00:00:00.000 11545
2003-07-02 00:00:00.000 11604
2003-07-03 00:00:00.000 11857
2003-07-04 00:00:00.000 636
2003-07-05 00:00:00.000 11045
2003-07-06 00:00:00.000 10303
2003-07-07 00:00:00.000 11324
2003-07-08 00:00:00.000 11002
2003-07-09 00:00:00.000 11446
2003-07-10 00:00:00.000 11486
2003-07-11 00:00:00.000 12115
2003-07-12 00:00:00.000 11240
2003-07-13 00:00:00.000 10871
2003-07-14 00:00:00.000 11395
2003-07-15 00:00:00.000 11563
2003-07-16 00:00:00.000 19
2003-08-27 00:00:00.000 26
2003-08-28 00:00:00.000 25
2003-09-16 00:00:00.000 805
2003-09-17 00:00:00.000 806
2003-09-18 00:00:00.000 783
2003-09-19 00:00:00.000 365
2003-09-20 00:00:00.000 312
2003-09-21 00:00:00.000 318
2003-09-22 00:00:00.000 334
2003-09-23 00:00:00.000 347
2003-09-24 00:00:00.000 358
2003-09-25 00:00:00.000 390
2003-09-26 00:00:00.000 388
2003-09-27 00:00:00.000 354
2003-09-28 00:00:00.000 340
2003-09-29 00:00:00.000 334
2003-09-30 00:00:00.000 367
2003-10-02 00:00:00.000 2
2003-10-03 00:00:00.000 7
2003-10-06 00:00:00.000 19
2003-10-08 00:00:00.000 13
2003-10-22 00:00:00.000 15
2003-12-01 00:00:00.000 82068
2003-12-02 00:00:00.000 83850
2003-12-03 00:00:00.000 84996
2003-12-04 00:00:00.000 85926
2003-12-05 00:00:00.000 89212
2003-12-06 00:00:00.000 86304
2003-12-07 00:00:00.000 75057
2003-12-08 00:00:00.000 83997
2003-12-09 00:00:00.000 83979
2003-12-10 00:00:00.000 86040
2003-12-11 00:00:00.000 87731
2003-12-12 00:00:00.000 91075
2003-12-13 00:00:00.000 88179
2003-12-14 00:00:00.000 73306
2003-12-15 00:00:00.000 161373
2003-12-16 00:00:00.000 94041
2003-12-17 00:00:00.000 97228
2003-12-18 00:00:00.000 99609
2003-12-19 00:00:00.000 102561
2003-12-20 00:00:00.000 98621
2003-12-21 00:00:00.000 85470
2003-12-22 00:00:00.000 102115
2003-12-23 00:00:00.000 103167
2003-12-24 00:00:00.000 50463
2003-12-26 00:00:00.000 95627
2003-12-27 00:00:00.000 93059
2003-12-28 00:00:00.000 87425
2003-12-29 00:00:00.000 96371
2003-12-30 00:00:00.000 97959
2003-12-31 00:00:00.000 81578
2004-02-01 00:00:00.000 384
2004-02-06 00:00:00.000 26
2004-02-12 00:00:00.000 52
2004-02-17 00:00:00.000 22
2004-02-19 00:00:00.000 17
2004-02-20 00:00:00.000 50
2004-02-21 00:00:00.000 107
2004-02-23 00:00:00.000 90
2004-02-24 00:00:00.000 22
2004-02-27 00:00:00.000 56
2004-03-01 00:00:00.000 56
2004-03-02 00:00:00.000 22
2004-03-05 00:00:00.000 107
2004-03-08 00:00:00.000 22
2004-03-11 00:00:00.000 501
2004-04-22 00:00:00.000 12
2004-04-29 00:00:00.000 22
2004-04-30 00:00:00.000 48
2004-05-03 00:00:00.000 44
2004-05-04 00:00:00.000 19
2004-05-07 00:00:00.000 22
2004-05-10 00:00:00.000 22
2004-05-13 00:00:00.000 1998
2004-05-26 00:00:00.000 15
2004-05-28 00:00:00.000 5
2004-06-01 00:00:00.000 52
2004-06-02 00:00:00.000 44
2004-06-03 00:00:00.000 31
2004-06-04 00:00:00.000 18
2004-06-07 00:00:00.000 18
2004-06-16 00:00:00.000 672
2004-06-17 00:00:00.000 698
2004-06-19 00:00:00.000 2
2004-06-20 00:00:00.000 640
2004-06-21 00:00:00.000 692
2004-06-22 00:00:00.000 326
2004-06-23 00:00:00.000 378
2004-06-24 00:00:00.000 400
2004-06-25 00:00:00.000 348
2004-06-26 00:00:00.000 345
2004-06-29 00:00:00.000 25
2004-06-30 00:00:00.000 82
2004-07-01 00:00:00.000 23
2004-07-08 00:00:00.000 21
2004-07-12 00:00:00.000 21
2004-07-15 00:00:00.000 467
2004-07-19 00:00:00.000 432
2004-07-23 00:00:00.000 427
2004-07-27 00:00:00.000 21
2004-08-08 00:00:00.000 392|||Also try,
"where convert(char(10),dateofbusiness,120) is not null"
and post results,
Jon
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||OK, so there are none that are not null. Could you please post the DDL for
your table and the exact query you ran?
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
.
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104272808.874749.162530@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
2003-03-25 00:00:00.000 15
2003-03-26 00:00:00.000 17
2003-03-27 00:00:00.000 73
2003-03-28 00:00:00.000 9
2003-04-11 00:00:00.000 18
2003-04-14 00:00:00.000 131
2003-04-15 00:00:00.000 11
2003-04-25 00:00:00.000 2
2003-04-28 00:00:00.000 18
2003-05-06 00:00:00.000 17
2003-05-08 00:00:00.000 16
2003-05-12 00:00:00.000 23
2003-05-13 00:00:00.000 80
2003-05-16 00:00:00.000 27
2003-05-19 00:00:00.000 15
2003-06-05 00:00:00.000 23
2003-06-16 00:00:00.000 11942
2003-06-17 00:00:00.000 12038
2003-06-18 00:00:00.000 12166
2003-06-19 00:00:00.000 12307
2003-06-20 00:00:00.000 12502
2003-06-21 00:00:00.000 11840
2003-06-22 00:00:00.000 11341
2003-06-23 00:00:00.000 11784
2003-06-24 00:00:00.000 12055
2003-06-25 00:00:00.000 11905
2003-06-26 00:00:00.000 12088
2003-06-27 00:00:00.000 12451
2003-06-28 00:00:00.000 11956
2003-06-29 00:00:00.000 11303
2003-06-30 00:00:00.000 12072
2003-07-01 00:00:00.000 11545
2003-07-02 00:00:00.000 11604
2003-07-03 00:00:00.000 11857
2003-07-04 00:00:00.000 636
2003-07-05 00:00:00.000 11045
2003-07-06 00:00:00.000 10303
2003-07-07 00:00:00.000 11324
2003-07-08 00:00:00.000 11002
2003-07-09 00:00:00.000 11446
2003-07-10 00:00:00.000 11486
2003-07-11 00:00:00.000 12115
2003-07-12 00:00:00.000 11240
2003-07-13 00:00:00.000 10871
2003-07-14 00:00:00.000 11395
2003-07-15 00:00:00.000 11563
2003-07-16 00:00:00.000 19
2003-08-27 00:00:00.000 26
2003-08-28 00:00:00.000 25
2003-09-16 00:00:00.000 805
2003-09-17 00:00:00.000 806
2003-09-18 00:00:00.000 783
2003-09-19 00:00:00.000 365
2003-09-20 00:00:00.000 312
2003-09-21 00:00:00.000 318
2003-09-22 00:00:00.000 334
2003-09-23 00:00:00.000 347
2003-09-24 00:00:00.000 358
2003-09-25 00:00:00.000 390
2003-09-26 00:00:00.000 388
2003-09-27 00:00:00.000 354
2003-09-28 00:00:00.000 340
2003-09-29 00:00:00.000 334
2003-09-30 00:00:00.000 367
2003-10-02 00:00:00.000 2
2003-10-03 00:00:00.000 7
2003-10-06 00:00:00.000 19
2003-10-08 00:00:00.000 13
2003-10-22 00:00:00.000 15
2003-12-01 00:00:00.000 82068
2003-12-02 00:00:00.000 83850
2003-12-03 00:00:00.000 84996
2003-12-04 00:00:00.000 85926
2003-12-05 00:00:00.000 89212
2003-12-06 00:00:00.000 86304
2003-12-07 00:00:00.000 75057
2003-12-08 00:00:00.000 83997
2003-12-09 00:00:00.000 83979
2003-12-10 00:00:00.000 86040
2003-12-11 00:00:00.000 87731
2003-12-12 00:00:00.000 91075
2003-12-13 00:00:00.000 88179
2003-12-14 00:00:00.000 73306
2003-12-15 00:00:00.000 161373
2003-12-16 00:00:00.000 94041
2003-12-17 00:00:00.000 97228
2003-12-18 00:00:00.000 99609
2003-12-19 00:00:00.000 102561
2003-12-20 00:00:00.000 98621
2003-12-21 00:00:00.000 85470
2003-12-22 00:00:00.000 102115
2003-12-23 00:00:00.000 103167
2003-12-24 00:00:00.000 50463
2003-12-26 00:00:00.000 95627
2003-12-27 00:00:00.000 93059
2003-12-28 00:00:00.000 87425
2003-12-29 00:00:00.000 96371
2003-12-30 00:00:00.000 97959
2003-12-31 00:00:00.000 81578
2004-02-01 00:00:00.000 384
2004-02-06 00:00:00.000 26
2004-02-12 00:00:00.000 52
2004-02-17 00:00:00.000 22
2004-02-19 00:00:00.000 17
2004-02-20 00:00:00.000 50
2004-02-21 00:00:00.000 107
2004-02-23 00:00:00.000 90
2004-02-24 00:00:00.000 22
2004-02-27 00:00:00.000 56
2004-03-01 00:00:00.000 56
2004-03-02 00:00:00.000 22
2004-03-05 00:00:00.000 107
2004-03-08 00:00:00.000 22
2004-03-11 00:00:00.000 501
2004-04-22 00:00:00.000 12
2004-04-29 00:00:00.000 22
2004-04-30 00:00:00.000 48
2004-05-03 00:00:00.000 44
2004-05-04 00:00:00.000 19
2004-05-07 00:00:00.000 22
2004-05-10 00:00:00.000 22
2004-05-13 00:00:00.000 1998
2004-05-26 00:00:00.000 15
2004-05-28 00:00:00.000 5
2004-06-01 00:00:00.000 52
2004-06-02 00:00:00.000 44
2004-06-03 00:00:00.000 31
2004-06-04 00:00:00.000 18
2004-06-07 00:00:00.000 18
2004-06-16 00:00:00.000 672
2004-06-17 00:00:00.000 698
2004-06-19 00:00:00.000 2
2004-06-20 00:00:00.000 640
2004-06-21 00:00:00.000 692
2004-06-22 00:00:00.000 326
2004-06-23 00:00:00.000 378
2004-06-24 00:00:00.000 400
2004-06-25 00:00:00.000 348
2004-06-26 00:00:00.000 345
2004-06-29 00:00:00.000 25
2004-06-30 00:00:00.000 82
2004-07-01 00:00:00.000 23
2004-07-08 00:00:00.000 21
2004-07-12 00:00:00.000 21
2004-07-15 00:00:00.000 467
2004-07-19 00:00:00.000 432
2004-07-23 00:00:00.000 427
2004-07-27 00:00:00.000 21
2004-08-08 00:00:00.000 392|||And to emphasize futher the same statement with the count(*) function
returned no results. And without the count function and group by it
will return results, however, when keying in on an additional field
such as storeid like "where storeid = 34 and DateofBusiness is not
null" nothing returns. If you filter by store id, i see dateofbusiness
had values in it?
set transaction isolation level read uncommitted
select
dateofbusiness,
count (*)
from
Temp_HstSalesByInterval
where dateofbusiness is not null
group by
dateofbusiness|||John we have already done this as a hotfix to our database,
"rtrim(dateofbusiness) is not null" works, too. However we have over
2000 databases that do not have the hot fix, and other code affecting
the table.
SQL is not doing what its supposed to be doing and I'm looking for an
answer. I don't usually post until....|||Ken,
I did run into this problem in the past and am trying to remember what caused it to happen and how I fixed it. I've tried to replicate the date-time like your example and my query worked just fine.
I thought it had something to do with the hh:mm:ss being all zeros, but I'm not sure that's the problem. I also tried the ansi-null option on the db and it still worked. I also tried the connection object and thought maybe one of the settings was incorrectly set, but that did reproduce your error.
If I find out, I'll post or you can email me at: corncrowe@.aol.com
Jon
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Temp_HstSalesByInterval] (
[DateOfBusiness] [datetime] NULL ,
[FKStoreId] [int] NULL ,
[FKRevenueId] [int] NULL ,
[Period] [int] NULL ,
[Type] [int] NULL ,
[TypeId] [int] NULL ,
[TypeId2] [int] NULL ,
[Amount] [float] NULL ,
[OpenHour] [int] NULL ,
[lCount] [int] NULL ,
[DestinationServer] [int] NULL
) GO
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Temp_HstSalesByInterval] ON
[dbo].[Temp_HstSalesByInterval]([DateOfBusiness] DESC , [FKStoreId],
[DestinationServer]) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
select * from Temp_HstSalesByInterval where fkstoreid = 23 and
dateofbusiness is not null
select * from Temp_HstSalesByInterval where fkstoreid = 23 will return
results and dateofbusiness is populated.|||Ken,
The all zeros in hh:mm:ss is most likely the problem. I asked the other programmer here and we both agreed that we encountered this problem when trying to query a date field with zeros in the hh:mm:ss stamp.
Why or how did you manage to write all zeros on a date/time field? In SQL there is no such thing as 00:00:00?
Sorry,
Jon
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Ken,
Maybe we are wrong about the zeros. But threw that out for you,
Jon
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||> Why or how did you manage to write all zeros on a date/time field? In SQL
there is no such thing as 00:00:00?
Midnight is not a valid time?|||create table lookatdate (d datetime null)
insert lookatdate values ('09/04/2004')
select * from lookatdate
returns 2004-09-04 00:00:00.000|||This never happenend. Jon mistook reading one field as two fields.
09/23/2004 00:00:00:000|||> This never happenend. Jon mistook reading one field as two fields.
> 09/23/2004 00:00:00:000
Okay, maybe another reason to visit the link from FAQ #5006 to generate
insert statements, instead of presenting sample data in heap style...
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/code.htm#inserts|||Well maybe there something to what you are saying, but why does it work
in the other databases on the same server?|||Ken,
I have another suggestion which may sound odd. But consider this:
"Specifies that the Boolean result be negated. The predicate reverses its return values, returning TRUE if the value is not NULL, and FALSE if the value is NULL."
"The WHERE and HAVING clauses in a SELECT statement control the rows from the source tables that are used to build the result set. WHERE and HAVING are filters. They specify a series of search conditions, and only those rows that meet the terms of the search conditions are used to build the result set. Those rows meeting the search conditions are said to be qualified to participate in the result set. (Microsoft)"
I am thinking that when you build the resultset with "not null" it evaluates the criteria as "unknown" and thereby won't produce any resultset. But when you trim or otherwise convert the datatype then the query returns a resultset.
Try a couple other approaches to see if you get a resultset:
select * from tblName
where not (datefield) is null
-or-
select somefield where datefield is not null
I am also wondering if building the resultset with the all "*" isn't masking the issue either? But either way, NOT NULL evaluates to a true condition if the value is not null. Otherwise, I think the field "as defined" is unknown.
I tried to replicate your error with a test database and couldn't. I tried several db_options and ansi null defaults and still couldn't reproduce your error. I do vaguely remember this problem, but can't for the life of me remember what cause it or how I fixed it.
Sorry I couldn't be more of a help,
Jon
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Ken,
The first suggestion is to make sure that FKstoreid 34 actually has data.
If so, then if the query works on other databases on the same server, that
would suggest something is peculiar to the data in that database.
What happens if you restore that particular db to another SQL server with
the same version and run the query? If it still returns no results, that
would suggest definitely something in the data is causing the issue.
At this stage in SQL Server 2000's lifecyle, it seems unlikely that your
data has uncovered a bug in the query engine, but it's possible. Try adding
an identity column as a primary key and see if that makes a difference.
Maybe grouping on a date column in a heap...?
Ron
--
Ron Talmage
SQL Server MVP
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104273359.147443.196280@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> And to emphasize futher the same statement with the count(*) function
> returned no results. And without the count function and group by it
> will return results, however, when keying in on an additional field
> such as storeid like "where storeid = 34 and DateofBusiness is not
> null" nothing returns. If you filter by store id, i see dateofbusiness
> had values in it?
> set transaction isolation level read uncommitted
> select
> dateofbusiness,
> count (*)
> from
> Temp_HstSalesByInterval
> where dateofbusiness is not null
> group by
> dateofbusiness
>|||Hi Ron,
The store exists. we are not doing any group bys or joins. Its a very
simple select statement.
select * from Temp_HstSalesByInterval where fkstoreid = 34 and
dateofbusiness is not null
select * from Temp_HstSalesByInterval where fkstoreid = 34 (without
above) will return
results and dateofbusiness is populated.|||I'm wondering if it's possible to create a new table and populate it with
the contents of the old one - preferably by bcp'ing the data out and back in
again.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104333999.756145.81940@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi Ron,
The store exists. we are not doing any group bys or joins. Its a very
simple select statement.
select * from Temp_HstSalesByInterval where fkstoreid = 34 and
dateofbusiness is not null
select * from Temp_HstSalesByInterval where fkstoreid = 34 (without
above) will return
results and dateofbusiness is populated.|||Hi Jon
select * from tblName
where not (datefield) is null
this produces no records
select somefield where datefield is not null
This will work, but when you add "and fkstoreid = anynumber" nothing
returns. If you query only on fkstoreid only you will see the results
and dateofbusiness is populated. I did an update to this table to set
datetime field with refreshed values and that did not fix it.
The actual select statement lists the fields not (*). both have the
same affect.|||> select somefield where datefield is not null
> This will work, but when you add "and fkstoreid = anynumber" nothing
> returns.
This does not seem possible. How large is your database? I am wondering if
you would be able to post a copy of it online and someone could try to
reproduce the problem on your actual data. I am guessing there is something
else inaccurate here that you're not catching...|||Hi Tom,
We did this with DTS.|||Ken,
Another (way out there) suggestion. Maybe, just maybe, there is a constraint on the fkStoreId between parent and child? I know this sounds weird, but maybe when you consider the where clause is failing when you combine both the fkStoreId and DateofBusiness fields in the same statement.
The condition is returning false for some reason. I know it's really a long shot, but could there be an issue with the Stores table referential integrity? Is the fkStoreId an orphan? I seriously doubt that this is the culprit, but weirder things have been know to happen in SQL world.
I did create your temp table and inserted rows of data, but couldn't reproduce the error. I don't know what the parent table looks like so I could do anything on that thread.
Good luck,
Jon
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Hi Jon, there is no contstraint defined on fkstoreid. However manually
dropping the nonunique clustered index(DateofBusiness, FKStoreid,
DestinationServer) columns (all allow nulls) and recreated it and now
not null is working finally! :)
The other db man here swears he ran DBCC REINDEX on the table and that
did not fix the issue. Isn't running DBCC REINDEX the same as dropping
and recreating an index? Any know issues with this?|||This is great news. It's hard to say what happened here. If you have a
copy of the database before you did the DBREINDEX, I'd be tempted to run
DBCC CHECKTABLE and see if it found anything.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104344333.997556.246980@.c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi Jon, there is no contstraint defined on fkstoreid. However manually
dropping the nonunique clustered index(DateofBusiness, FKStoreid,
DestinationServer) columns (all allow nulls) and recreated it and now
not null is working finally! :)
The other db man here swears he ran DBCC REINDEX on the table and that
did not fix the issue. Isn't running DBCC REINDEX the same as dropping
and recreating an index? Any know issues with this?|||Jon, when I recreated the nonunique clustered index DateOfBusiness
order was changed from descending to ascending. "IS NOT NULL" on
dateofbusiness works. When it was set back to descending it doesn't
work.
On the same table in other databases, descending does not have an issue
with the "IS NOT NULL" not working. However, this table has 3 million
records and the tables in the other databases have less than 200,000
records.
Throughing this out to see if you can recreate the issue?|||Ken,
Sorry if you did this already, but have you posted the result of
SELECT @.@.VERSION ? Also, is there anything you can see different with
this particular database, such as a compatibility level setting or
something?
Steve Kass
Drew University
Ken wrote:
>Jon, when I recreated the nonunique clustered index DateOfBusiness
>order was changed from descending to ascending. "IS NOT NULL" on
>dateofbusiness works. When it was set back to descending it doesn't
>work.
>On the same table in other databases, descending does not have an issue
>with the "IS NOT NULL" not working. However, this table has 3 million
>records and the tables in the other databases have less than 200,000
>records.
>Throughing this out to see if you can recreate the issue?
>
>|||Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002
14:22:05 Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise
Edition on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790: )
compatability on all databases 8.0|||There has a been a security hotfix issued since then. That would bring the
version to 8.00.818:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9814AE9D-BD44-40C5-ADD3-B8C99618E68D&displaylang=en
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104349480.164105.285990@.c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002
14:22:05 Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise
Edition on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790: )
compatability on all databases 8.0|||Hm. Are the "working" databases on the same instance of SQL Server? If
not, and the others are a later version,
try installing 8.00.818 (or later) and see if the problem goes away.
There are sometimes bug fixes in security hotfixes, since the hotfixes
are cumulative. If that's not the problem, I'll see if I can come up
with some other questions!
SK
Ken wrote:
>Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002
>14:22:05 Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise
>Edition on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790: )
>compatability on all databases 8.0
>
>|||Ken,
"nonunique clustered index DateOfBusiness order was changed from descending to ascending. "IS NOT NULL" on dateofbusiness works. When it was set back to descending it doesn't work."
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Temp_HstSalesByInterval] ON
[dbo].[Temp_HstSalesByInterval]([DateOfBusiness] DESC , [FKStoreId],
[DestinationServer]) ON [PRIMARY]
I was leading toward the index as my next suggestion. The index is a composite and is made up of different datatypes. When you were doing the query the index is backwards (desc) order for date and acs for the other two fields. That's probably why the query never returned anything. I can replicate this error on a test database with 30 million call records using essentially the same logic. I'll let you know later what happens.
I probably wouldn't use mix order for my indices. Maybe that was what I had done in the past and cause a problem? Anyway, glad you were able to correct the problem.
Jon
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Hi Jon, please replicate the error. Why does it only happen on tables
with a large number of rows?
My other thought could still be a data issue depending on what gets
evaluated first?|||> My other thought could still be a data issue depending on what gets
> evaluated first?
The WHERE clause does not work that way. Put the individual clauses in any
order, and the result will be the same...|||Hi Tom,
The hotfix does not address the particular problem in any
documentation. We have a lot of servers (clustered) and my boss never
lets me do anything on a guess, only until I have found the problem and
I can qualify it. If I could validate that the problem was server wide
and this occurrance was a documented bug or issue, I would implement
this asap.
I do appreciate your assistance. Your suggestion may be a fix to this,
but I'm on a supertanker thats not easy to steer or deploy changes.|||I hear ya. Nevertheless, the patch is a security hotfix and closes a
vulnerability. As another poster mentioned, fixes are cumulative and it is
possible that your issue may have been addressed there.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104353652.360283.184350@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Hi Tom,
The hotfix does not address the particular problem in any
documentation. We have a lot of servers (clustered) and my boss never
lets me do anything on a guess, only until I have found the problem and
I can qualify it. If I could validate that the problem was server wide
and this occurrance was a documented bug or issue, I would implement
this asap.
I do appreciate your assistance. Your suggestion may be a fix to this,
but I'm on a supertanker thats not easy to steer or deploy changes.|||Ken,
Maybe this newsgroup thread will help. Sorry I didn't remember this,
but it looks to me like the same bug you're seeing, and 8.00.818 fixed it:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=8.00.818+fix+bug+kass+-turkish&qt_s=Search+Groups
SK
Ken wrote:
>Hi Tom,
>The hotfix does not address the particular problem in any
>documentation. We have a lot of servers (clustered) and my boss never
>lets me do anything on a guess, only until I have found the problem and
>I can qualify it. If I could validate that the problem was server wide
>and this occurrance was a documented bug or issue, I would implement
>this asap.
>I do appreciate your assistance. Your suggestion may be a fix to this,
>but I'm on a supertanker thats not easy to steer or deploy changes.
>
>|||Jon, I have a sneaky suspicioun that its in the data. When we move the
same data to another table it produces the same error. If we move or
create different data it does not. Weird.

"IS NOT NULL" is not working

We have data in datetime field and in the simple select statement where
clause "where dateofbusiness is not null" no data is returned. This
works in our other databases. This is a simple select with no
aggregation functions such as count(*) and no group bys. No joins.
We checked for table corruption and rebuilt the table and indexes.
I'm completely at a loss.
Anybody run into this?
Run the following and post the results:
select
dateofbusiness
, count (*)
from
MyTable
group by
dateofbusiness
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
..
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104271245.345995.62690@.f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
We have data in datetime field and in the simple select statement where
clause "where dateofbusiness is not null" no data is returned. This
works in our other databases. This is a simple select with no
aggregation functions such as count(*) and no group bys. No joins.
We checked for table corruption and rebuilt the table and indexes.
I'm completely at a loss.
Anybody run into this?
|||Try,
where ISDATE(dateofbusiness) <> 0
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
|||2003-03-25 00:00:00.00015
2003-03-26 00:00:00.00017
2003-03-27 00:00:00.00073
2003-03-28 00:00:00.0009
2003-04-11 00:00:00.00018
2003-04-14 00:00:00.000131
2003-04-15 00:00:00.00011
2003-04-25 00:00:00.0002
2003-04-28 00:00:00.00018
2003-05-06 00:00:00.00017
2003-05-08 00:00:00.00016
2003-05-12 00:00:00.00023
2003-05-13 00:00:00.00080
2003-05-16 00:00:00.00027
2003-05-19 00:00:00.00015
2003-06-05 00:00:00.00023
2003-06-16 00:00:00.00011942
2003-06-17 00:00:00.00012038
2003-06-18 00:00:00.00012166
2003-06-19 00:00:00.00012307
2003-06-20 00:00:00.00012502
2003-06-21 00:00:00.00011840
2003-06-22 00:00:00.00011341
2003-06-23 00:00:00.00011784
2003-06-24 00:00:00.00012055
2003-06-25 00:00:00.00011905
2003-06-26 00:00:00.00012088
2003-06-27 00:00:00.00012451
2003-06-28 00:00:00.00011956
2003-06-29 00:00:00.00011303
2003-06-30 00:00:00.00012072
2003-07-01 00:00:00.00011545
2003-07-02 00:00:00.00011604
2003-07-03 00:00:00.00011857
2003-07-04 00:00:00.000636
2003-07-05 00:00:00.00011045
2003-07-06 00:00:00.00010303
2003-07-07 00:00:00.00011324
2003-07-08 00:00:00.00011002
2003-07-09 00:00:00.00011446
2003-07-10 00:00:00.00011486
2003-07-11 00:00:00.00012115
2003-07-12 00:00:00.00011240
2003-07-13 00:00:00.00010871
2003-07-14 00:00:00.00011395
2003-07-15 00:00:00.00011563
2003-07-16 00:00:00.00019
2003-08-27 00:00:00.00026
2003-08-28 00:00:00.00025
2003-09-16 00:00:00.000805
2003-09-17 00:00:00.000806
2003-09-18 00:00:00.000783
2003-09-19 00:00:00.000365
2003-09-20 00:00:00.000312
2003-09-21 00:00:00.000318
2003-09-22 00:00:00.000334
2003-09-23 00:00:00.000347
2003-09-24 00:00:00.000358
2003-09-25 00:00:00.000390
2003-09-26 00:00:00.000388
2003-09-27 00:00:00.000354
2003-09-28 00:00:00.000340
2003-09-29 00:00:00.000334
2003-09-30 00:00:00.000367
2003-10-02 00:00:00.0002
2003-10-03 00:00:00.0007
2003-10-06 00:00:00.00019
2003-10-08 00:00:00.00013
2003-10-22 00:00:00.00015
2003-12-01 00:00:00.00082068
2003-12-02 00:00:00.00083850
2003-12-03 00:00:00.00084996
2003-12-04 00:00:00.00085926
2003-12-05 00:00:00.00089212
2003-12-06 00:00:00.00086304
2003-12-07 00:00:00.00075057
2003-12-08 00:00:00.00083997
2003-12-09 00:00:00.00083979
2003-12-10 00:00:00.00086040
2003-12-11 00:00:00.00087731
2003-12-12 00:00:00.00091075
2003-12-13 00:00:00.00088179
2003-12-14 00:00:00.00073306
2003-12-15 00:00:00.000161373
2003-12-16 00:00:00.00094041
2003-12-17 00:00:00.00097228
2003-12-18 00:00:00.00099609
2003-12-19 00:00:00.000102561
2003-12-20 00:00:00.00098621
2003-12-21 00:00:00.00085470
2003-12-22 00:00:00.000102115
2003-12-23 00:00:00.000103167
2003-12-24 00:00:00.00050463
2003-12-26 00:00:00.00095627
2003-12-27 00:00:00.00093059
2003-12-28 00:00:00.00087425
2003-12-29 00:00:00.00096371
2003-12-30 00:00:00.00097959
2003-12-31 00:00:00.00081578
2004-02-01 00:00:00.000384
2004-02-06 00:00:00.00026
2004-02-12 00:00:00.00052
2004-02-17 00:00:00.00022
2004-02-19 00:00:00.00017
2004-02-20 00:00:00.00050
2004-02-21 00:00:00.000107
2004-02-23 00:00:00.00090
2004-02-24 00:00:00.00022
2004-02-27 00:00:00.00056
2004-03-01 00:00:00.00056
2004-03-02 00:00:00.00022
2004-03-05 00:00:00.000107
2004-03-08 00:00:00.00022
2004-03-11 00:00:00.000501
2004-04-22 00:00:00.00012
2004-04-29 00:00:00.00022
2004-04-30 00:00:00.00048
2004-05-03 00:00:00.00044
2004-05-04 00:00:00.00019
2004-05-07 00:00:00.00022
2004-05-10 00:00:00.00022
2004-05-13 00:00:00.0001998
2004-05-26 00:00:00.00015
2004-05-28 00:00:00.0005
2004-06-01 00:00:00.00052
2004-06-02 00:00:00.00044
2004-06-03 00:00:00.00031
2004-06-04 00:00:00.00018
2004-06-07 00:00:00.00018
2004-06-16 00:00:00.000672
2004-06-17 00:00:00.000698
2004-06-19 00:00:00.0002
2004-06-20 00:00:00.000640
2004-06-21 00:00:00.000692
2004-06-22 00:00:00.000326
2004-06-23 00:00:00.000378
2004-06-24 00:00:00.000400
2004-06-25 00:00:00.000348
2004-06-26 00:00:00.000345
2004-06-29 00:00:00.00025
2004-06-30 00:00:00.00082
2004-07-01 00:00:00.00023
2004-07-08 00:00:00.00021
2004-07-12 00:00:00.00021
2004-07-15 00:00:00.000467
2004-07-19 00:00:00.000432
2004-07-23 00:00:00.000427
2004-07-27 00:00:00.00021
2004-08-08 00:00:00.000392
|||Also try,
"where convert(char(10),dateofbusiness,120) is not null"
and post results,
Jon
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
|||OK, so there are none that are not null. Could you please post the DDL for
your table and the exact query you ran?
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
..
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104272808.874749.162530@.z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
2003-03-25 00:00:00.000 15
2003-03-26 00:00:00.000 17
2003-03-27 00:00:00.000 73
2003-03-28 00:00:00.000 9
2003-04-11 00:00:00.000 18
2003-04-14 00:00:00.000 131
2003-04-15 00:00:00.000 11
2003-04-25 00:00:00.000 2
2003-04-28 00:00:00.000 18
2003-05-06 00:00:00.000 17
2003-05-08 00:00:00.000 16
2003-05-12 00:00:00.000 23
2003-05-13 00:00:00.000 80
2003-05-16 00:00:00.000 27
2003-05-19 00:00:00.000 15
2003-06-05 00:00:00.000 23
2003-06-16 00:00:00.000 11942
2003-06-17 00:00:00.000 12038
2003-06-18 00:00:00.000 12166
2003-06-19 00:00:00.000 12307
2003-06-20 00:00:00.000 12502
2003-06-21 00:00:00.000 11840
2003-06-22 00:00:00.000 11341
2003-06-23 00:00:00.000 11784
2003-06-24 00:00:00.000 12055
2003-06-25 00:00:00.000 11905
2003-06-26 00:00:00.000 12088
2003-06-27 00:00:00.000 12451
2003-06-28 00:00:00.000 11956
2003-06-29 00:00:00.000 11303
2003-06-30 00:00:00.000 12072
2003-07-01 00:00:00.000 11545
2003-07-02 00:00:00.000 11604
2003-07-03 00:00:00.000 11857
2003-07-04 00:00:00.000 636
2003-07-05 00:00:00.000 11045
2003-07-06 00:00:00.000 10303
2003-07-07 00:00:00.000 11324
2003-07-08 00:00:00.000 11002
2003-07-09 00:00:00.000 11446
2003-07-10 00:00:00.000 11486
2003-07-11 00:00:00.000 12115
2003-07-12 00:00:00.000 11240
2003-07-13 00:00:00.000 10871
2003-07-14 00:00:00.000 11395
2003-07-15 00:00:00.000 11563
2003-07-16 00:00:00.000 19
2003-08-27 00:00:00.000 26
2003-08-28 00:00:00.000 25
2003-09-16 00:00:00.000 805
2003-09-17 00:00:00.000 806
2003-09-18 00:00:00.000 783
2003-09-19 00:00:00.000 365
2003-09-20 00:00:00.000 312
2003-09-21 00:00:00.000 318
2003-09-22 00:00:00.000 334
2003-09-23 00:00:00.000 347
2003-09-24 00:00:00.000 358
2003-09-25 00:00:00.000 390
2003-09-26 00:00:00.000 388
2003-09-27 00:00:00.000 354
2003-09-28 00:00:00.000 340
2003-09-29 00:00:00.000 334
2003-09-30 00:00:00.000 367
2003-10-02 00:00:00.000 2
2003-10-03 00:00:00.000 7
2003-10-06 00:00:00.000 19
2003-10-08 00:00:00.000 13
2003-10-22 00:00:00.000 15
2003-12-01 00:00:00.000 82068
2003-12-02 00:00:00.000 83850
2003-12-03 00:00:00.000 84996
2003-12-04 00:00:00.000 85926
2003-12-05 00:00:00.000 89212
2003-12-06 00:00:00.000 86304
2003-12-07 00:00:00.000 75057
2003-12-08 00:00:00.000 83997
2003-12-09 00:00:00.000 83979
2003-12-10 00:00:00.000 86040
2003-12-11 00:00:00.000 87731
2003-12-12 00:00:00.000 91075
2003-12-13 00:00:00.000 88179
2003-12-14 00:00:00.000 73306
2003-12-15 00:00:00.000 161373
2003-12-16 00:00:00.000 94041
2003-12-17 00:00:00.000 97228
2003-12-18 00:00:00.000 99609
2003-12-19 00:00:00.000 102561
2003-12-20 00:00:00.000 98621
2003-12-21 00:00:00.000 85470
2003-12-22 00:00:00.000 102115
2003-12-23 00:00:00.000 103167
2003-12-24 00:00:00.000 50463
2003-12-26 00:00:00.000 95627
2003-12-27 00:00:00.000 93059
2003-12-28 00:00:00.000 87425
2003-12-29 00:00:00.000 96371
2003-12-30 00:00:00.000 97959
2003-12-31 00:00:00.000 81578
2004-02-01 00:00:00.000 384
2004-02-06 00:00:00.000 26
2004-02-12 00:00:00.000 52
2004-02-17 00:00:00.000 22
2004-02-19 00:00:00.000 17
2004-02-20 00:00:00.000 50
2004-02-21 00:00:00.000 107
2004-02-23 00:00:00.000 90
2004-02-24 00:00:00.000 22
2004-02-27 00:00:00.000 56
2004-03-01 00:00:00.000 56
2004-03-02 00:00:00.000 22
2004-03-05 00:00:00.000 107
2004-03-08 00:00:00.000 22
2004-03-11 00:00:00.000 501
2004-04-22 00:00:00.000 12
2004-04-29 00:00:00.000 22
2004-04-30 00:00:00.000 48
2004-05-03 00:00:00.000 44
2004-05-04 00:00:00.000 19
2004-05-07 00:00:00.000 22
2004-05-10 00:00:00.000 22
2004-05-13 00:00:00.000 1998
2004-05-26 00:00:00.000 15
2004-05-28 00:00:00.000 5
2004-06-01 00:00:00.000 52
2004-06-02 00:00:00.000 44
2004-06-03 00:00:00.000 31
2004-06-04 00:00:00.000 18
2004-06-07 00:00:00.000 18
2004-06-16 00:00:00.000 672
2004-06-17 00:00:00.000 698
2004-06-19 00:00:00.000 2
2004-06-20 00:00:00.000 640
2004-06-21 00:00:00.000 692
2004-06-22 00:00:00.000 326
2004-06-23 00:00:00.000 378
2004-06-24 00:00:00.000 400
2004-06-25 00:00:00.000 348
2004-06-26 00:00:00.000 345
2004-06-29 00:00:00.000 25
2004-06-30 00:00:00.000 82
2004-07-01 00:00:00.000 23
2004-07-08 00:00:00.000 21
2004-07-12 00:00:00.000 21
2004-07-15 00:00:00.000 467
2004-07-19 00:00:00.000 432
2004-07-23 00:00:00.000 427
2004-07-27 00:00:00.000 21
2004-08-08 00:00:00.000 392
|||John we have already done this as a hotfix to our database,
"rtrim(dateofbusiness) is not null" works, too. However we have over
2000 databases that do not have the hot fix, and other code affecting
the table.
SQL is not doing what its supposed to be doing and I'm looking for an
answer. I don't usually post until....
|||Ken,
I did run into this problem in the past and am trying to remember what caused it to happen and how I fixed it. I've tried to replicate the date-time like your example and my query worked just fine.
I thought it had something to do with the hh:mm:ss being all zeros, but I'm not sure that's the problem. I also tried the ansi-null option on the db and it still worked. I also tried the connection object and thought maybe one of the settings was incorr
ectly set, but that did reproduce your error.
If I find out, I'll post or you can email me at: corncrowe@.aol.com
Jon
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
|||CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Temp_HstSalesByInterval] (
[DateOfBusiness] [datetime] NULL ,
[FKStoreId] [int] NULL ,
[FKRevenueId] [int] NULL ,
[Period] [int] NULL ,
[Type] [int] NULL ,
[TypeId] [int] NULL ,
[TypeId2] [int] NULL ,
[Amount] [float] NULL ,
[OpenHour] [int] NULL ,
[lCount] [int] NULL ,
[DestinationServer] [int] NULL
) GO
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Temp_HstSalesByInterval] ON
[dbo].[Temp_HstSalesByInterval]([DateOfBusiness] DESC , [FKStoreId],
[DestinationServer]) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
select * from Temp_HstSalesByInterval where fkstoreid = 23 and
dateofbusiness is not null
select * from Temp_HstSalesByInterval where fkstoreid = 23 will return
results and dateofbusiness is populated.
|||Ken,
The all zeros in hh:mm:ss is most likely the problem. I asked the other programmer here and we both agreed that we encountered this problem when trying to query a date field with zeros in the hh:mm:ss stamp.
Why or how did you manage to write all zeros on a date/time field? In SQL there is no such thing as 00:00:00?
Sorry,
Jon
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com

"IS NOT NULL" is not working

We have data in datetime field and in the simple select statement where
clause "where dateofbusiness is not null" no data is returned. This
works in our other databases. This is a simple select with no
aggregation functions such as count(*) and no group bys. No joins.
We checked for table corruption and rebuilt the table and indexes.
I'm completely at a loss.
Anybody run into this?Run the following and post the results:
select
dateofbusiness
, count (*)
from
MyTable
group by
dateofbusiness
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
.
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104271245.345995.62690@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
We have data in datetime field and in the simple select statement where
clause "where dateofbusiness is not null" no data is returned. This
works in our other databases. This is a simple select with no
aggregation functions such as count(*) and no group bys. No joins.
We checked for table corruption and rebuilt the table and indexes.
I'm completely at a loss.
Anybody run into this?|||Try,
where ISDATE(dateofbusiness) <> 0
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com|||2003-03-25 00:00:00.000 15
2003-03-26 00:00:00.000 17
2003-03-27 00:00:00.000 73
2003-03-28 00:00:00.000 9
2003-04-11 00:00:00.000 18
2003-04-14 00:00:00.000 131
2003-04-15 00:00:00.000 11
2003-04-25 00:00:00.000 2
2003-04-28 00:00:00.000 18
2003-05-06 00:00:00.000 17
2003-05-08 00:00:00.000 16
2003-05-12 00:00:00.000 23
2003-05-13 00:00:00.000 80
2003-05-16 00:00:00.000 27
2003-05-19 00:00:00.000 15
2003-06-05 00:00:00.000 23
2003-06-16 00:00:00.000 11942
2003-06-17 00:00:00.000 12038
2003-06-18 00:00:00.000 12166
2003-06-19 00:00:00.000 12307
2003-06-20 00:00:00.000 12502
2003-06-21 00:00:00.000 11840
2003-06-22 00:00:00.000 11341
2003-06-23 00:00:00.000 11784
2003-06-24 00:00:00.000 12055
2003-06-25 00:00:00.000 11905
2003-06-26 00:00:00.000 12088
2003-06-27 00:00:00.000 12451
2003-06-28 00:00:00.000 11956
2003-06-29 00:00:00.000 11303
2003-06-30 00:00:00.000 12072
2003-07-01 00:00:00.000 11545
2003-07-02 00:00:00.000 11604
2003-07-03 00:00:00.000 11857
2003-07-04 00:00:00.000 636
2003-07-05 00:00:00.000 11045
2003-07-06 00:00:00.000 10303
2003-07-07 00:00:00.000 11324
2003-07-08 00:00:00.000 11002
2003-07-09 00:00:00.000 11446
2003-07-10 00:00:00.000 11486
2003-07-11 00:00:00.000 12115
2003-07-12 00:00:00.000 11240
2003-07-13 00:00:00.000 10871
2003-07-14 00:00:00.000 11395
2003-07-15 00:00:00.000 11563
2003-07-16 00:00:00.000 19
2003-08-27 00:00:00.000 26
2003-08-28 00:00:00.000 25
2003-09-16 00:00:00.000 805
2003-09-17 00:00:00.000 806
2003-09-18 00:00:00.000 783
2003-09-19 00:00:00.000 365
2003-09-20 00:00:00.000 312
2003-09-21 00:00:00.000 318
2003-09-22 00:00:00.000 334
2003-09-23 00:00:00.000 347
2003-09-24 00:00:00.000 358
2003-09-25 00:00:00.000 390
2003-09-26 00:00:00.000 388
2003-09-27 00:00:00.000 354
2003-09-28 00:00:00.000 340
2003-09-29 00:00:00.000 334
2003-09-30 00:00:00.000 367
2003-10-02 00:00:00.000 2
2003-10-03 00:00:00.000 7
2003-10-06 00:00:00.000 19
2003-10-08 00:00:00.000 13
2003-10-22 00:00:00.000 15
2003-12-01 00:00:00.000 82068
2003-12-02 00:00:00.000 83850
2003-12-03 00:00:00.000 84996
2003-12-04 00:00:00.000 85926
2003-12-05 00:00:00.000 89212
2003-12-06 00:00:00.000 86304
2003-12-07 00:00:00.000 75057
2003-12-08 00:00:00.000 83997
2003-12-09 00:00:00.000 83979
2003-12-10 00:00:00.000 86040
2003-12-11 00:00:00.000 87731
2003-12-12 00:00:00.000 91075
2003-12-13 00:00:00.000 88179
2003-12-14 00:00:00.000 73306
2003-12-15 00:00:00.000 161373
2003-12-16 00:00:00.000 94041
2003-12-17 00:00:00.000 97228
2003-12-18 00:00:00.000 99609
2003-12-19 00:00:00.000 102561
2003-12-20 00:00:00.000 98621
2003-12-21 00:00:00.000 85470
2003-12-22 00:00:00.000 102115
2003-12-23 00:00:00.000 103167
2003-12-24 00:00:00.000 50463
2003-12-26 00:00:00.000 95627
2003-12-27 00:00:00.000 93059
2003-12-28 00:00:00.000 87425
2003-12-29 00:00:00.000 96371
2003-12-30 00:00:00.000 97959
2003-12-31 00:00:00.000 81578
2004-02-01 00:00:00.000 384
2004-02-06 00:00:00.000 26
2004-02-12 00:00:00.000 52
2004-02-17 00:00:00.000 22
2004-02-19 00:00:00.000 17
2004-02-20 00:00:00.000 50
2004-02-21 00:00:00.000 107
2004-02-23 00:00:00.000 90
2004-02-24 00:00:00.000 22
2004-02-27 00:00:00.000 56
2004-03-01 00:00:00.000 56
2004-03-02 00:00:00.000 22
2004-03-05 00:00:00.000 107
2004-03-08 00:00:00.000 22
2004-03-11 00:00:00.000 501
2004-04-22 00:00:00.000 12
2004-04-29 00:00:00.000 22
2004-04-30 00:00:00.000 48
2004-05-03 00:00:00.000 44
2004-05-04 00:00:00.000 19
2004-05-07 00:00:00.000 22
2004-05-10 00:00:00.000 22
2004-05-13 00:00:00.000 1998
2004-05-26 00:00:00.000 15
2004-05-28 00:00:00.000 5
2004-06-01 00:00:00.000 52
2004-06-02 00:00:00.000 44
2004-06-03 00:00:00.000 31
2004-06-04 00:00:00.000 18
2004-06-07 00:00:00.000 18
2004-06-16 00:00:00.000 672
2004-06-17 00:00:00.000 698
2004-06-19 00:00:00.000 2
2004-06-20 00:00:00.000 640
2004-06-21 00:00:00.000 692
2004-06-22 00:00:00.000 326
2004-06-23 00:00:00.000 378
2004-06-24 00:00:00.000 400
2004-06-25 00:00:00.000 348
2004-06-26 00:00:00.000 345
2004-06-29 00:00:00.000 25
2004-06-30 00:00:00.000 82
2004-07-01 00:00:00.000 23
2004-07-08 00:00:00.000 21
2004-07-12 00:00:00.000 21
2004-07-15 00:00:00.000 467
2004-07-19 00:00:00.000 432
2004-07-23 00:00:00.000 427
2004-07-27 00:00:00.000 21
2004-08-08 00:00:00.000 392|||Also try,
"where convert(char(10),dateofbusiness,120) is not null"
and post results,
Jon
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com|||OK, so there are none that are not null. Could you please post the DDL for
your table and the exact query you ran?
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com
.
"Ken" <kshapley@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1104272808.874749.162530@.z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
2003-03-25 00:00:00.000 15
2003-03-26 00:00:00.000 17
2003-03-27 00:00:00.000 73
2003-03-28 00:00:00.000 9
2003-04-11 00:00:00.000 18
2003-04-14 00:00:00.000 131
2003-04-15 00:00:00.000 11
2003-04-25 00:00:00.000 2
2003-04-28 00:00:00.000 18
2003-05-06 00:00:00.000 17
2003-05-08 00:00:00.000 16
2003-05-12 00:00:00.000 23
2003-05-13 00:00:00.000 80
2003-05-16 00:00:00.000 27
2003-05-19 00:00:00.000 15
2003-06-05 00:00:00.000 23
2003-06-16 00:00:00.000 11942
2003-06-17 00:00:00.000 12038
2003-06-18 00:00:00.000 12166
2003-06-19 00:00:00.000 12307
2003-06-20 00:00:00.000 12502
2003-06-21 00:00:00.000 11840
2003-06-22 00:00:00.000 11341
2003-06-23 00:00:00.000 11784
2003-06-24 00:00:00.000 12055
2003-06-25 00:00:00.000 11905
2003-06-26 00:00:00.000 12088
2003-06-27 00:00:00.000 12451
2003-06-28 00:00:00.000 11956
2003-06-29 00:00:00.000 11303
2003-06-30 00:00:00.000 12072
2003-07-01 00:00:00.000 11545
2003-07-02 00:00:00.000 11604
2003-07-03 00:00:00.000 11857
2003-07-04 00:00:00.000 636
2003-07-05 00:00:00.000 11045
2003-07-06 00:00:00.000 10303
2003-07-07 00:00:00.000 11324
2003-07-08 00:00:00.000 11002
2003-07-09 00:00:00.000 11446
2003-07-10 00:00:00.000 11486
2003-07-11 00:00:00.000 12115
2003-07-12 00:00:00.000 11240
2003-07-13 00:00:00.000 10871
2003-07-14 00:00:00.000 11395
2003-07-15 00:00:00.000 11563
2003-07-16 00:00:00.000 19
2003-08-27 00:00:00.000 26
2003-08-28 00:00:00.000 25
2003-09-16 00:00:00.000 805
2003-09-17 00:00:00.000 806
2003-09-18 00:00:00.000 783
2003-09-19 00:00:00.000 365
2003-09-20 00:00:00.000 312
2003-09-21 00:00:00.000 318
2003-09-22 00:00:00.000 334
2003-09-23 00:00:00.000 347
2003-09-24 00:00:00.000 358
2003-09-25 00:00:00.000 390
2003-09-26 00:00:00.000 388
2003-09-27 00:00:00.000 354
2003-09-28 00:00:00.000 340
2003-09-29 00:00:00.000 334
2003-09-30 00:00:00.000 367
2003-10-02 00:00:00.000 2
2003-10-03 00:00:00.000 7
2003-10-06 00:00:00.000 19
2003-10-08 00:00:00.000 13
2003-10-22 00:00:00.000 15
2003-12-01 00:00:00.000 82068
2003-12-02 00:00:00.000 83850
2003-12-03 00:00:00.000 84996
2003-12-04 00:00:00.000 85926
2003-12-05 00:00:00.000 89212
2003-12-06 00:00:00.000 86304
2003-12-07 00:00:00.000 75057
2003-12-08 00:00:00.000 83997
2003-12-09 00:00:00.000 83979
2003-12-10 00:00:00.000 86040
2003-12-11 00:00:00.000 87731
2003-12-12 00:00:00.000 91075
2003-12-13 00:00:00.000 88179
2003-12-14 00:00:00.000 73306
2003-12-15 00:00:00.000 161373
2003-12-16 00:00:00.000 94041
2003-12-17 00:00:00.000 97228
2003-12-18 00:00:00.000 99609
2003-12-19 00:00:00.000 102561
2003-12-20 00:00:00.000 98621
2003-12-21 00:00:00.000 85470
2003-12-22 00:00:00.000 102115
2003-12-23 00:00:00.000 103167
2003-12-24 00:00:00.000 50463
2003-12-26 00:00:00.000 95627
2003-12-27 00:00:00.000 93059
2003-12-28 00:00:00.000 87425
2003-12-29 00:00:00.000 96371
2003-12-30 00:00:00.000 97959
2003-12-31 00:00:00.000 81578
2004-02-01 00:00:00.000 384
2004-02-06 00:00:00.000 26
2004-02-12 00:00:00.000 52
2004-02-17 00:00:00.000 22
2004-02-19 00:00:00.000 17
2004-02-20 00:00:00.000 50
2004-02-21 00:00:00.000 107
2004-02-23 00:00:00.000 90
2004-02-24 00:00:00.000 22
2004-02-27 00:00:00.000 56
2004-03-01 00:00:00.000 56
2004-03-02 00:00:00.000 22
2004-03-05 00:00:00.000 107
2004-03-08 00:00:00.000 22
2004-03-11 00:00:00.000 501
2004-04-22 00:00:00.000 12
2004-04-29 00:00:00.000 22
2004-04-30 00:00:00.000 48
2004-05-03 00:00:00.000 44
2004-05-04 00:00:00.000 19
2004-05-07 00:00:00.000 22
2004-05-10 00:00:00.000 22
2004-05-13 00:00:00.000 1998
2004-05-26 00:00:00.000 15
2004-05-28 00:00:00.000 5
2004-06-01 00:00:00.000 52
2004-06-02 00:00:00.000 44
2004-06-03 00:00:00.000 31
2004-06-04 00:00:00.000 18
2004-06-07 00:00:00.000 18
2004-06-16 00:00:00.000 672
2004-06-17 00:00:00.000 698
2004-06-19 00:00:00.000 2
2004-06-20 00:00:00.000 640
2004-06-21 00:00:00.000 692
2004-06-22 00:00:00.000 326
2004-06-23 00:00:00.000 378
2004-06-24 00:00:00.000 400
2004-06-25 00:00:00.000 348
2004-06-26 00:00:00.000 345
2004-06-29 00:00:00.000 25
2004-06-30 00:00:00.000 82
2004-07-01 00:00:00.000 23
2004-07-08 00:00:00.000 21
2004-07-12 00:00:00.000 21
2004-07-15 00:00:00.000 467
2004-07-19 00:00:00.000 432
2004-07-23 00:00:00.000 427
2004-07-27 00:00:00.000 21
2004-08-08 00:00:00.000 392|||And to emphasize futher the same statement with the count(*) function
returned no results. And without the count function and group by it
will return results, however, when keying in on an additional field
such as storeid like "where storeid = 34 and DateofBusiness is not
null" nothing returns. If you filter by store id, i see dateofbusiness
had values in it?
set transaction isolation level read uncommitted
select
dateofbusiness,
count (*)
from
Temp_HstSalesByInterval
where dateofbusiness is not null
group by
dateofbusiness|||John we have already done this as a hotfix to our database,
"rtrim(dateofbusiness) is not null" works, too. However we have over
2000 databases that do not have the hot fix, and other code affecting
the table.
SQL is not doing what its supposed to be doing and I'm looking for an
answer. I don't usually post until....|||Ken,
Maybe we are wrong about the zeros. But threw that out for you,
Jon
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com|||> Why or how did you manage to write all zeros on a date/time field? In SQL
there is no such thing as 00:00:00?
Midnight is not a valid time?

"Datetime field overflow" w/ MAX in subselect?

Hey guys--hoping you can help with a problematic query. When I run it, I get an error, copied here from the ColdFusion application of which it's a part: "ODBC Error Code = 22008 (Datetime field overflow) [MERANT][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Syntax error converting character string to smalldatetime data type."

And here's the query:

SELECT *
FROM Stories
WHERE (StoryID IN
(SELECT MAX(PublishTime) AS PublishTime
FROM Stories
WHERE (Fixture_Code IN ('test1', 'test2'))
GROUP BY Fixture_Code))

The subselect works great when run by itself; it's only when it's a subselect that I get type errors. PublishTime is a smalldatetime column. The above query actually runs without an error if my values for WHERE IN are values that don't exist in the the Fixture_Code column anywhere--obviously I get back an empty set, but no error.

In case it's not clear, I'm trying in the subselect to pick the single most recent record for each of a list of fixture codes, so that I can then go back and get full information on each of those stories. If someone can tell me a better way to, essentially, do a query where the result set contains only one row (the most recent) for each of my "fixture codes", I'm open to that too.

Thanks again for any help.The error occurs because you are comparing PublishTime (smalldatetime) from the subselect with StoryID (I assume integer or character). Like compare apples to oranges. You could try this:
SELECT s.*
FROM Stories s,
(
SELECT MAX(PublishTime) AS PublishTime,
Fixture_Code
FROM Stories
GROUP BY Fixture_Code
) x
WHERE s.Fixture_Code = x.Fixture_Code
AND s.PublishTime = x.PublishTimeSo this will return the most recent record for each Fixture_Code.|||Ahh, okay. That makes perfect sense. Your code works great... thanks a lot for the help; as you may have guessed I'm still learning the elusive art of subselects :)|||Although, when I tweak the query to specify only the list of fixtures I want, plus bring in another table join to get a fixture name in addition to the fixture code, I get one row that's duplicated in the results.

SELECT s.*, Fixture_Name
FROM Stories s INNER JOIN
(SELECT MAX(PublishTime) AS PublishTime, Fixture_Code
FROM Stories
GROUP BY Fixture_Code) x
JOIN FixtureCodes ON x.Fixture_Code = FixtureCodes.Fixture_ID
ON s.Fixture_Code = x.Fixture_Code AND s.PublishTime = x.PublishTime AND s.Fixture_Code IN ('test1','test2','test3','test4','test5','test6',' test7','test8')

Very easily taken care of with DISTINCT but if anyone cared to further edify me with the reason that's happening, I'd be grateful :) Thanks again to all.

"Colescing" values in a field?

Hello all, i am wondering if i can do the following with simple TSQL
statements without needing to resort to using cursors... i am having a hard
time trying to think of a way, but TSQL isnt my 'native' sql programming
language (i 'grew up' on PL/SQL), so im hoping someone else can think of
something of how to do this.
I have a field which has essentially sequential values, say,
1,2,3,4,5,6..... but for certain reasons they are not sequence assigned
(they are actually alphanumeric, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, etc...). After time,
records get added and deleted, and the sequnce winds up with holes in it...
1A, 1B, 1D, 1G, ...
Is there a slick or elegent T/SQL statement i can run to coalesce these
values back down to fill in the gaps?
So the above holed sequence of 1A, 1B, 1D, 1G would wind up being 1A, 1B,
1C, 1D.
Thanks in advance.
- Arthur Dent.one obvious way, but perhaps not very elegant would be to insert the
values into a temporary table with an extra identity field, then use
that to remap your values with an update statement|||Arthur Dent wrote:
> Hello all, i am wondering if i can do the following with simple TSQL
> statements without needing to resort to using cursors... i am having a ha
rd
> time trying to think of a way, but TSQL isnt my 'native' sql programming
> language (i 'grew up' on PL/SQL), so im hoping someone else can think of
> something of how to do this.
> I have a field which has essentially sequential values, say,
> 1,2,3,4,5,6..... but for certain reasons they are not sequence assigned
> (they are actually alphanumeric, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, etc...). After time,
> records get added and deleted, and the sequnce winds up with holes in it..
.
> 1A, 1B, 1D, 1G, ...
> Is there a slick or elegent T/SQL statement i can run to coalesce these
> values back down to fill in the gaps?
> So the above holed sequence of 1A, 1B, 1D, 1G would wind up being 1A, 1B,
> 1C, 1D.
> Thanks in advance.
> - Arthur Dent.
Is SQL Server a word processor or a DBMS? How about putting the values
in a table rather than delimiting them in a column?
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||One question comes to mind... WHY?
Another one would be... is this column being referenced by another table?
I would lean towards doing this in a client application.
"Arthur Dent" <hitchhikersguideto-news@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eJvDfhYWGHA.1200@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hello all, i am wondering if i can do the following with simple TSQL
> statements without needing to resort to using cursors... i am having a
> hard time trying to think of a way, but TSQL isnt my 'native' sql
> programming language (i 'grew up' on PL/SQL), so im hoping someone else
> can think of something of how to do this.
> I have a field which has essentially sequential values, say,
> 1,2,3,4,5,6..... but for certain reasons they are not sequence assigned
> (they are actually alphanumeric, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, etc...). After time,
> records get added and deleted, and the sequnce winds up with holes in
> it...
> 1A, 1B, 1D, 1G, ...
> Is there a slick or elegent T/SQL statement i can run to coalesce these
> values back down to fill in the gaps?
> So the above holed sequence of 1A, 1B, 1D, 1G would wind up being 1A, 1B,
> 1C, 1D.
> Thanks in advance.
> - Arthur Dent.
>|||I think you guys misread it, I interpreted 1,2,3,4,5,6..... as being
1
2
3
4
5
6|||Will wrote:
> I think you guys misread it, I interpreted 1,2,3,4,5,6..... as being
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
Perhaps you are right. If Arthur had included DDL and some proper
sample data then we wouldn't have to resort to guessing.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||I understood it the same way you did Will.
So you should change your post to:
>I think you guy misread it, ... :-)
"Will" <william_pegg@.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1144336766.712050.287240@.j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I think you guys misread it, I interpreted 1,2,3,4,5,6..... as being
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
>|||> One question comes to mind... WHY?
Obviously to make the result set pretty as must have been the intention of
whoever invented this lovely key generator. :)
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/

"Can Grow" field in Header

Hi

There are two fileds in the header. They are kept one below another. For both "Can Grow" option is checked. While printing the lower field is not moving downward as the upper one is growing. So both the fields are merged and printing on the same line.

How can I get rid of this?

Please Help.

Thanks in Advance.This is a bug in crystal reports|||You need to give space between them

doesn't work in LIKE wildcards?

I have table of stocks that includes a varchar field that can optionally hold
a formula. You can identify formulas because the first character is "=". You
can also include the names of other stocks in the formula by surrounding the
ticker in !'s. For instance:
=!MSFT! * 2
I need to find all the formulas that do contain a ticker in them, so that I
can look up the stocks they refer to.
The obvious solution is ... WHERE formula LIKE '=%!'. The obvious solution
does not work. Removing the ! returns all the formulas. Anyone know what
would cause this? ! does not appear in the docs as a reserved word or
wildcard.
MauryHello Maury,
> I have table of stocks that includes a varchar field that can
> optionally hold a formula. You can identify formulas because the first
> character is "=". You can also include the names of other stocks in
> the formula by surrounding the ticker in !'s. For instance:
> =!MSFT! * 2
> I need to find all the formulas that do contain a ticker in them, so
> that I can look up the stocks they refer to.
> The obvious solution is ... WHERE formula LIKE '=%!'. The obvious
> solution does not work. Removing the ! returns all the formulas.
> Anyone know what would cause this? ! does not appear in the docs as a
> reserved word or wildcard.
> Maury
>
I think it's the fact that you didn't add a trailing %
where formula like %!%
Jesse Houwing
jesse.houwing at sogeti.n|||Ohh geez, nevermind!

using Inner join when the field in my data table has the Null default value:

I have a datatable : Data_Table and a look up table: Lk_table. Myfield that Iuse in Inner Join is defined in both thedata and look table.

So I build my query like this:

SELECT * FROM dbo. Data_Table INNER JOIN

dbo. Lk_table ON dbo.Data_Table.MyField = dbo.Lk_table.Myfield

The pb, sometimes Ihave myfield still with its default null value in the datatable: Data_Table.So, I end up getting 0 record when I execute the query shown above.

How do I turn that around so that even if myfield in Data_Tableis Null, I still get the records from Data_Table. (I don t want a set ofrecords including all possible values from the look up table: Lk_Table)

Try to use LEFT join instead of inner join:

SELECT * FROM dbo. Data_Table LEFT JOIN dbo. Lk_table
ON dbo.Data_Table.MyField = dbo.Lk_table.Myfield

|||

Try to use LEFT join instead of inner join:

SELECT * FROM dbo. Data_Table LEFT JOIN dbo. Lk_table
ON dbo.Data_Table.MyField = dbo.Lk_table.Myfield

Or use such query:

SELECT * FROM dbo. Data_Table ,dbo. Lk_table
WHERE dbo.Data_Table.MyField = dbo.Lk_table.Myfield

OR dbo.Data_Table.MyField is null