Thanks Dave, i will get back soon after resolving this issue My small attempt...

Why are you caching a stream rather than the file itself? Why do you need the physical path of something in Isolated Storage? Sounds like you are using the wrong tools for what you are trying to accomplish.

Thanks.. My small attempt...

A design should be evaluated based on how well it solves the problem. Without stating the exact problem you are trying to solve you can't know the advantages of one design over another. You also don't give an alternative design. Without an alternative to compare it against it has no advantage or disadvantage. What is the advantage of an orange? If the problem to solve is driving a nail and the alternative is a hammer there is no advantage. If the problem to solve is vitamin C intake and the alterntiave is a multi-vitamin, the advantages are taste and refreshment.

pranav95 wrote: It is like a linked list Not at all. A linked list would consist of individual items, each holding one or two pointers to its logical neighbors, and would imply: a separate memory block for each item, no overall memory requirement (except maybe for a head node and a tail node), and certainly no memory requirement larger than the item size itself. A .NET collection is based on an array, most additions do not require any memory requirement at all, and the array's capacity grows by doubling it, which may cause it to become located in the "large object heap" and may even cause fragmentation and out-of-memory situations one would not have with a linked list; OTOH being array-based has advantages, e.g. it allows for an O(1) indexing. :) Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] I only read formatted code with indentation, so please use PRE tags for code snippets. I'm not participating in frackin' Q&A, so if you want my opinion, ask away in a real forum (or on my profile page).

For a method's local variables, value types are indeed stored on the stack and reference types on the heap. Reference types are a little confusing, however, because they are really stored in two parts: the reference, which is stored on the stack just like a value type, and the 'body', which is stored on the heap. Now, lets look at the body of a type (reference type or value type). Reference types and value types can have fields of both types. The fields of a type are (effectively) concatenated together. So the body of a type is the concatenation of the contained value types and the references to the contained reference types. And this body is 'a chunk of memory' which is stored somewhere - on the stack (if its the body of a value type), on the heap (if its the body of a reference type) .. or nestled inside the body of some other type (if its a field in another type). So, it may be more useful to think of value types as being stored 'where they are declared' instead of thinking of them as being stored on the stack, while reference types have their reference stored where the variable is declared, and its body is always stored on the heap.

It's written mostly in C++, with Assembler pieces. If you want to get an idea what's inside .NET Framework, you can download Shared Source Common Language Infrastructure from Microsoft, it's a very good thing to start learning of .NET internals: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=8c09fd61-3f26-4555-ae17-3121b4f51d4d&displaylang=en[^] Die Energie der Welt ist konstant. Die Entropie der Welt strebt einem Maximum zu.

Eddy Vluggen wrote: just by having the correct searchterm. Absolutely, some times you don't know the proper terms to ask for. But that doesn't seem to be the case here, it looks like the poster had already read a bunch of such articles, but was looking for more.

Thank you for the answers.... It was an interview question... i said the latest is C#4.0 but he was not convinced My small attempt...

Absolutely yes. Garbage collector is only one for any number of applications. However it will perform clearance based on application context. And application context is different for each application. Jinal Desai - LIVE Experience is mother of sage....

Uhhh....what? This doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying that you're trying to get which drives are mapped by the user logged into a particular server? In other words, are you trying to find out which shares are bein used by a user logged into a server? A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^] Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP Visual Developer - Visual Basic      2006, 2007, 2008 But no longer in 2009...

Give a try with this... I made this based on my understanding Declare @GetDBNames sysname Declare @DynSql nvarchar(max) declare @result table ([Database_Name] nvarchar(128), [Stored Procedure Name] sysname) Declare DBNames cursor for Select '['+name+']' from master.dbo.sysdatabases open DBNames FETCH NEXT FROM DBNames into @GetDBNames WHILE @@FETCH_STATUS=0 BEGIN SET @DynSql = ' Select Specific_Catalog as Database_Name, Routine_Name as ''Stored Procedure Name'' From '+ @GetDBNames+'.Information_Schema.Routines ' insert @result exec sp_executesql @DynSql FETCH NEXT FROM DBNames into @GetDBNames END Close DBNames Deallocate DBNames select * from @result It gives me all the stored procs names pertaining to the databases. Hope this helps. :) Niladri Biswas

AFAIK SQL Server applies it before or after the join depending on what it thinks would give you the quickest result.

don't understand. plz send codez ASAP to lazy@yahoo.in :) Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Show formatted code inside PRE tags, and give clear symptoms when describing a problem.

That also did.. Right now i have different partition files to keep data for this table My small attempt...

Check http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms812491.aspx[^] himanshu

In SQL Studio Manager, under the Query menu, choose the option, "Display Estimated Execution Plan" while testing your Select / Insert logic to verify that the indexes you have created are actually being used. If an index is not being used, you may want to recosider whether or not you really need it. david

you are great My small attempt...

Solution 1: SELECT COL1 FROM tbl_Test WHERE COL2 = (COL3 * 100); Solution 2: SELECT COL1 FROM tbl_Test WHERE (COL2 = 100 AND COL3 = 1) OR (COL2 = 200 AND COL3 = 2) OR (COL2 = 300 AND COL3 = 3) Solution 3: select COL1 from tbl_Test where ( (COL2=100 and COL3=1) or (COL2=200 and COL3=2) or (COL2=300 and COL3=3) ) Please vote :) Niladri Biswas

Anyway Assuming that For case 1: Input 100,200,300 Output: A B 1 100 1 200 1 300 Solution SELECT MIN(A), B FROM tbl_test WHERE B IN (100, 200, 300) GROUP BY B; For Case 2: I/P: 100 , 200 O/P: A B 1 100 1 200 2 100 2 200 Solution is SELECT A, B FROM tbl_test WHERE B IN (100, 200) ORDER BY A, B; hope this helps. And vote me :) And from next time please define the function mapping your input to output more specifically :) Niladri Biswas