current_timestamp vs getdate()

it exists in both ss2k and ss2k5. Yes, they are backward compatible.
--
Venkat
sql server admirer
"Tom W" wrote:

> Is one preferable to the other?
> bol says of that current_timestamp "This function is equivalent to
> GETDATE()."
> Do they both exist in sql 2005? (I only have 2k)
> Is one for backward compatibility?
> gracias
> Tom
> --
>
> E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
> North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
>Getdate() was inherited from Sybase and is not portable. Current_timestamp
was added more recently for ANSI compliance.
Both are available in SQL Server 2005 and there is no indication that
getdate() will be going away, so your choice is just whether you want
portability or not.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"Tom W" <Tom.Williams@.DontSpamMencmail.net> wrote in message
news:ewE3U9glGHA.4044@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Is one preferable to the other?
> bol says of that current_timestamp "This function is equivalent to
> GETDATE()."
> Do they both exist in sql 2005? (I only have 2k)
> Is one for backward compatibility?
> gracias
> Tom
> --
>
> E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
> North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.|||Hi Kalen,
Pardon my ignorance,when you say portable, what does that mean?
Thanks,
--
Venkat
sql server admirer
"Kalen Delaney" wrote:

> Getdate() was inherited from Sybase and is not portable. Current_timestamp
> was added more recently for ANSI compliance.
> Both are available in SQL Server 2005 and there is no indication that
> getdate() will be going away, so your choice is just whether you want
> portability or not.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>
> "Tom W" <Tom.Williams@.DontSpamMencmail.net> wrote in message
> news:ewE3U9glGHA.4044@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>|||Other database products may use this function in their SQL dialect.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"Venkat" <Venkat@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7C16A1DB-25D9-4A18-BEEB-1285A3A2AFCB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Kalen,
> Pardon my ignorance,when you say portable, what does that mean?
> Thanks,
> --
> Venkat
> sql server admirer
>
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
>|||Thanks for being patient with me.
--
Venkat
sql server admirer
"Kalen Delaney" wrote:

> Other database products may use this function in their SQL dialect.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>
> "Venkat" <Venkat@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7C16A1DB-25D9-4A18-BEEB-1285A3A2AFCB@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Is one preferable to the other?
bol says of that current_timestamp "This function is equivalent to
GETDATE()."
Do they both exist in sql 2005? (I only have 2k)
Is one for backward compatibility?
gracias
Tom
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.|||it exists in both ss2k and ss2k5. Yes, they are backward compatible.
--
Venkat
sql server admirer
"Tom W" wrote:

> Is one preferable to the other?
> bol says of that current_timestamp "This function is equivalent to
> GETDATE()."
> Do they both exist in sql 2005? (I only have 2k)
> Is one for backward compatibility?
> gracias
> Tom
> --
>
> E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
> North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
>|||Getdate() was inherited from Sybase and is not portable. Current_timestamp
was added more recently for ANSI compliance.
Both are available in SQL Server 2005 and there is no indication that
getdate() will be going away, so your choice is just whether you want
portability or not.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"Tom W" <Tom.Williams@.DontSpamMencmail.net> wrote in message
news:ewE3U9glGHA.4044@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Is one preferable to the other?
> bol says of that current_timestamp "This function is equivalent to
> GETDATE()."
> Do they both exist in sql 2005? (I only have 2k)
> Is one for backward compatibility?
> gracias
> Tom
> --
>
> E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
> North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.|||Hi Kalen,
Pardon my ignorance,when you say portable, what does that mean?
Thanks,
--
Venkat
sql server admirer
"Kalen Delaney" wrote:

> Getdate() was inherited from Sybase and is not portable. Current_timestamp
> was added more recently for ANSI compliance.
> Both are available in SQL Server 2005 and there is no indication that
> getdate() will be going away, so your choice is just whether you want
> portability or not.
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>
> "Tom W" <Tom.Williams@.DontSpamMencmail.net> wrote in message
> news:ewE3U9glGHA.4044@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>|||Other database products may use this function in their SQL dialect.
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"Venkat" <Venkat@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7C16A1DB-25D9-4A18-BEEB-1285A3A2AFCB@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Kalen,
> Pardon my ignorance,when you say portable, what does that mean?
> Thanks,
> --
> Venkat
> sql server admirer
>
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
>

Cumulative max-length for index on SQL servers... please help

Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
and more can be found there.
almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
> Folks,
> What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
> and/or nonclustered index for:
> a. SQL Server 2000
> b. SQL Server 2005
>
> Any comments much, much appreciated...
> Thank you,
> Al.Folks,
What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
and/or nonclustered index for:
a. SQL Server 2000
b. SQL Server 2005
Any comments much, much appreciated...
Thank you,
Al.|||Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
and more can be found there.
almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
> Folks,
> What is the cumulative max-length of columns in both a clustered
> and/or nonclustered index for:
> a. SQL Server 2000
> b. SQL Server 2005
>
> Any comments much, much appreciated...
> Thank you,
> Al.|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
> and more can be found there.
>
> almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
Number of columns should not be more than 16 and cumulative length
should not be more than 900. But you can use included column opation in
SQL Server 2005 to add more columns.
More help you can find in Create index statement in BOL and Maximum
Capacity Specifications for SQL Server 2005
Regards
Amish Shah|||Tracy McKibben wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Look for "maximum capacity specifications" in Books Online, this info
> and more can be found there.
>
> almurph@.altavista.com wrote:
Number of columns should not be more than 16 and cumulative length
should not be more than 900. But you can use included column opation in
SQL Server 2005 to add more columns.
More help you can find in Create index statement in BOL and Maximum
Capacity Specifications for SQL Server 2005
Regards
Amish Shah