To start with you can’t do this: The HAVING clause can only contain things which are attributes of the aggregate groups. In addition, 1, 2, 3 is not valid in GROUP BY in SQL Server – I think that’s only valid in ORDER BY. Can you explain why this isn’t what you are looking for:
We face this error when we are selecting data from more than one tables by joining tables and at least one of the selected columns (it will also happen when use * to select all columns) exist with same name in more than one tables (our selected/joined tables). In that case we must have to specify from which table we are … Read more
How to delete all the records in SQL Server 2008?
It’s declaring the string as nvarchar data type, rather than varchar You may have seen Transact-SQL code that passes strings around using an N prefix. This denotes that the subsequent string is in Unicode (the N actually stands for National language character set). Which means that you are passing an NCHAR, NVARCHAR or NTEXT value, as opposed to … Read more
SQL is primarily a set-orientated language – it’s generally a bad idea to use a loop in it. In this case, a similar result could be achieved using a recursive CTE:
They don’t have the same structure… I can guarantee they are different I know you’ve already created it… There is already an object named ‘tbltable1’ in the database What you may want is this (which also fixes your other issue):
I have tested the following and this does work. The answer by gordyii was close but had the multiplication of 100 in the wrong place and had some missing parenthesis.
I’m getting this error msg 8115, level 16, state 2, line 18Arithmetic overflow error converting expression to data type int. with this SQL query
To start with you can’t do this: The HAVING clause can only contain things which are attributes of the aggregate groups. In addition, 1, 2, 3 is not valid in GROUP BY in SQL Server – I think that’s only valid in ORDER BY. Can you explain why this isn’t what you are looking for:
Should you instead be setting the identity insert to on within the stored procedure? It looks like you’re setting it to on only when changing the stored procedure, not when actually calling it. Try: