« first day (5166 days earlier)   

Hannah Vernon
Hannah Vernon
01:32
@SeanGallardy can confirm that worked. Crazy that they'd just foist unwanted CoPilot crap on their customers for more money without asking. That should be illegal.
Sean Gallardy
Sean Gallardy
If only that were the case with many things foisted upon us...
 
5 hours later…
Paul White
Paul White
06:46
A New MERGE Bug Appears!
Only available on đť•Ź for the moment
Erik Reasonable Rates Darling
Erik Reasonable Rates Darling
> base table bythe same key
Paul White
Paul White
FFS
Fixed
It had a red squiggle and everything
Last minute edits FTW
Why does everything I try to do recently immediately reveal some long-standing issue
Erik Reasonable Rates Darling
Erik Reasonable Rates Darling
You’re looking in the right places
Had to happen eventually
Like a dandy little Poirot
> this means Instead of
Missed the random cap on first read
Paul White
Paul White
07:09
Good spot. Fixed
Erik Reasonable Rates Darling
Erik Reasonable Rates Darling
Have you changed your mind about join alias ordering?
> ON E.id = B.id;
Paul White
Paul White
No, that's the way I've always written them
Erik Reasonable Rates Darling
Erik Reasonable Rates Darling
Huh
I thought you had said you prefer the opposite in here somewhat recently
Paul White
Paul White
I have had it set that way for years in SQLPrompt
Jun 12, 2024 at 20:50, by Paul White
X join Y on Y.a = X.a has much better logical flow
@ErikReasonableRatesDarling I think that's the conversation you're referencing
Erik Reasonable Rates Darling
Erik Reasonable Rates Darling
07:27
I came to the same conclusion yesterday.
I don’t know how much you care or it matters, but tue second merge is missing the serializable hint included in the first one
Paul White
Paul White
07:46
@ErikReasonableRatesDarling There's no need for serializable isolation in that example
I only use hints where they are needed, not as magic dust
@ErikReasonableRatesDarling Thanks for confirming
 
3 hours later…
Charlieface
Charlieface
10:41
@PaulWhite Interestingly, WHEN MATCHED THEN DELETE correctly transforms it to an inner join dbfiddle.uk/kqxBsuRV
DELETE of a joined view/CTE is allowed on MERGE, even though it's not allowed on a normal DELETE, as I've noted elsewhere
5
Q: Merge Delete on joined tables is allowed but has a bug

CharliefaceTo start off, an updatable CTE, derived table or view may be the target of an UPDATE directly, even if it has multiple base tables, as long as all columns are from the same source table. But they cannot be the target of a DELETE, even if columns from only one table are selected. Msg 4405 Level 16...

sql-server t-sql delete merge derived-tables
Hmmm actually that fiddle is deleting from the wrong table, due to this bug. Flipping the join into a right-join gets the correct table, and doesn't fail, but adds a weird Segment-Sequence-Filter for some reason.

« first day (5166 days earlier)