Thank you so much - I'll try to take a look at it.

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL Server and related topics.

They're related due to the name From1 is connected to Price1 and From2 to Price2 and so forth. It is an unfortunate format, but it is what I have to work with :)

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL Server and related topics.

I have a problem I'm looking to solve with XSLT, but I'm a bit stumped at how to implement the syntax. I basically have a XML file with a structure narrowed down to this: <ITEM> <NAMEVALUE>    <NAME>From1</NAME>    <VALUE>From1 Value</VALUE> </NAMEVALUE> <NAMEVALUE>    <NAME>From2</NAME>    <VALUE>From2 Value</VALUE> </NAMEVALUE> <NAMEVALUE>    <NAME>Price1</NAME>    <VALUE>Price1 Value</VALUE> </NAMEVALUE> <NAMEVALUE>    <NAME>Price2</NAME>    <VALUE>Price2 Value</VALUE> </NAMEVALUE> . . . . </ITEM> (I can't change the format of the delivered file). I would like to transform it into something equivalent to: <Prices> <Price from="From1 Value">Price1 Value</Price> <Price from="From2 Value">Price2 Value</Price> </Prices> And I'm quite bugged down in it. I can most likely fix it using scripts in my XML file and some temporary variables, but I was wondering if it would be possible to either use more pure XSL syntaxt to solve this problem.

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL Server and related topics.

Bassam Saoud wrote:

I thought all questions are good.Thats what we were thought in schools anyways! It seems you need a masters degree in computer science to post a question !

Well, School lied to you then. There seriously are stupid/bad questions, and many of them get posted on forums as well.

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

Nice quote, and very fitting :)

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

Beginning to? Sounded like it from post number 2. :doh:

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

Raise it one more for me :D But good hardware is a requirement. Many peoples problems with vista comes from shoddy hardware and drivers (then again - so did many peoples problems with XP, 2K, 98 and 95 - ME was just messed up :D)

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

I'm very happy with mine, although it takes some getting use to. But I do regret not waiting for the Pro version with the slide out keyboard :D

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

Take a loot at http://www.red-gate.com/[^] They have some good DB tools which might help you

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

Or you should be able to install SQL Server 2005 in place of (i believe it is called) SQL Server 2000.

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

Try:

Convert(DATETIME, 'your datestring in dd/mm/yyyy format here', 103)

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

I have trouble understanding your question so I can't provide much actual help; however looking at the query one thing puzzles me. Why do you have similar selects both outside your "WHILE" loops as well as inside? To me it looks like it will cause problems with the loop over FETCH NEXT. Removing duplicate functionality could help you reduce the complexity of your query making it more manageable, and it could possible be from those double selects that your problems arise.

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

How are the information stored?

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

Hmm - unfortunately I can't give you other help then yes - I've installed SQL Server (developer edition) on my Vista (x64). I did not have any such problems as you mention - but I do recall there was a large service pack (for SQL Server 2005 for Vista. Don't know if that might be the way to go

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

Danes call a @ for "snable a" - translated into "trunk a" (trunk like an elephant).

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

Although be aware that as far as I know, ROWCOUNT is being deprecated in 2K5 and it is removed from SQL Server 2K8 (or perhaps the one after 2K8)

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

Make sure that the connecting user only have access to the bare minimum he requires. Such as only execute on sprocs and not access to change the sprocs, or direct access to the underlying tables.

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

I must admit that I like the books from the Microsoft Press series. The "administrator's companion" is a good help to start setting up databases, so you can see whether you can avoid contractors.

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

As I'm sure you know - it depends on your database design and how you access the tables. I think they are made this way by default to ensure at least some "workable" indexes for default databases from people who haven't looked too much into indexation. Because if you mainly access a table via - for example - foreign keys and extract 2 or 3 specific rows of data, it makes sense - to me at least :D - to make that your clustered index. Also if your PK is primarily an identity or similar number which mattes little then I would also say it makes sense to keep that index non-clustered, because it usually means you'll access data not in the index anyway and the benefits of the clustered index diminishes. However if your primary key consists of "relevant data" and you need to access this data only - and often - then it is beneficial to have it as clustered. In my opinion - it is as all things with databases, a case-by-case evaluation, but as mention first - my main guess is that it is made to simply have some "default" clustered indexes for the default databases, and those who know what they are doing will evaluate whether it is a beneficial index and change it if not anyway.

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

In SQL Server they are clustered as default. But you can make then non-clustered and use the clustered index for yourself.

--------------------------- Blogging about SQL, Technology and many other things

modified on Friday, June 20, 2008 12:20 AM