statement can be accomplished in one of two ways, primarily depending upon which version of SQL Server you are using.
We’ll briefly explore both options so you can find what works best for you.
The columns that are not on the list retain their original values.
There’s a better way than creating endless temporary tables, though.
In any case it’s better to just rewrite such a query as a join.
If the UPDATE statement just locks the rows that will be affected then maybe I can because rows affected will be different for each UPDATE. Thanks, Vivek It all depends on the lock escalation Imaging if you ad hundereds of current connections and the lock always ascended to table locks.wouldn't be a very good RDBMS, now would it.
Neither of these issues is solvable with the “wrap it in a subquery” trick because they are created at query compile time, whereas the update issue I was able to solve above happens at query run time.
Hi Tom, Due to migration to new system we have to change all our account numbers. June 28, 2005 - pm UTC yes, the predicate in the join for the fictional question without a sample table and data was wrong (everytime I wing it, try to answer WITHOUT TESTING, it comes out wrong. test cases are relevant :) Hi Tom, Thanks for answering my question.
I used to be an oracle wiz but am very rusty after 8 years of project managing, my developer is on leave and the fix he put in place doesn't work, so am trying to fix it myself: This sql runs but the result is all rows are updated and the comment_text is now blank.
If you update values in multiple columns, you use a comma (,) to separate each pair of column and value.