16,013,322 members
Sign in
Sign in
Email
Password
Forgot your password?
Sign in with
home
articles
Browse Topics
>
Latest Articles
Top Articles
Posting/Update Guidelines
Article Help Forum
Submit an article or tip
Import GitHub Project
Import your Blog
quick answers
Q&A
Ask a Question
View Unanswered Questions
View All Questions
View C# questions
View C++ questions
View Javascript questions
View Visual Basic questions
View .NET questions
discussions
forums
CodeProject.AI Server
All Message Boards...
Application Lifecycle
>
Running a Business
Sales / Marketing
Collaboration / Beta Testing
Work Issues
Design and Architecture
Artificial Intelligence
ASP.NET
JavaScript
Internet of Things
C / C++ / MFC
>
ATL / WTL / STL
Managed C++/CLI
C#
Free Tools
Objective-C and Swift
Database
Hardware & Devices
>
System Admin
Hosting and Servers
Java
Linux Programming
Python
.NET (Core and Framework)
Android
iOS
Mobile
WPF
Visual Basic
Web Development
Site Bugs / Suggestions
Spam and Abuse Watch
features
features
Competitions
News
The Insider Newsletter
The Daily Build Newsletter
Newsletter archive
Surveys
CodeProject Stuff
community
lounge
Who's Who
Most Valuable Professionals
The Lounge
The CodeProject Blog
Where I Am: Member Photos
The Insider News
The Weird & The Wonderful
help
?
What is 'CodeProject'?
General FAQ
Ask a Question
Bugs and Suggestions
Article Help Forum
About Us
Search within:
Articles
Quick Answers
Messages
Comments by fordc03 (Top 5 by date)
fordc03
31-Aug-11 11:27am
View
Deleted
Your vote is unfair. SQL 2000 doesn't have partition by. Cube and Rollup are for summarizing data, not running aggregates.
fordc03
31-Aug-11 11:26am
View
Deleted
The template he has written won't do that. You'd have to use Invoice ID for that to work. Typically you'd do a self join on a customerID and t2.InvoiceID <= t1.InvoiceID to get that ordering.
fordc03
31-Aug-11 11:12am
View
Deleted
Reason for my vote of 3
I previously voted this a 2, but upon further reflection he is right that this will do a running total...The query example is simply poorly defined in my opinion and lacks the explanation that this works well only when you have one aggregate that you want to return without condtional filters.
fordc03
29-Aug-11 17:28pm
View
Deleted
Reason for my vote of 2
This is a triangular join and is very resource intensive. You are also not guaranteed order of the sum operation as SQL pulls the data. This kind of query would choke a large data set.
fordc03
29-Aug-11 17:25pm
View
Deleted
Reason for my vote of 4
For most people this is the easiest way to implement a running total. Although many MVP's and diehards will tell you this is not a guaranteed method. It's been pretty reliable for me.