@AndriyM Good point, to be honest, I don't remember if windowed count runs on 2008 or if that was a 2012 improvement. — Aaron Bertrand ♦11 hours ago
At first I was like, "How can someone like Aaron not remember that support for OVER (PARTITION BY) for aggregate functions was first introduced in 2005, then support for OVER (ORDER BY) was added in 2012?" I guess I must envy him the amount (and depth) of his knowledge that causes him to forget such things.
Not to mention the fact that in my day-to-day work I deal only with the (now sooooo old) 2008 R2 – that probably makes it easier for me to remember the time of introduction of certain features of T-SQL.
I often get the moniker Andreas instead of Andras (a practical simple form of the original András)
the last one was, after receiving an invitation that was aimed at someone else, 'ah, you are an other Andreas!' 'the trick is I am not an Andreas at all'
I can't use not null, because [ Num, Dat ] can be NULL. But, if Num have value, Dat must have a value also. And yes, the design/modeling of this tables is not good, but unfortunately I can not change :( — Yitzhak Stone8 mins ago
I wonder why so many posters in SO and here comment with "design is poor but I can't change the design"
This case doesn't look poor design anyway.
But changing a column to not nullable doesn't sound like such a big change.
It's an interesting point. Personally, I wouldn't find "give it a try" at all problematic if it weren't for the formatting. Caps and large font turn it into a tagline, which is pretty explicitly discouraged.
For example, another user might write, "let me know what you think" at the end. It would have much the same meaning, but I doubt it would be edited out if formatted as regular text.