tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.comments2014-02-17T11:32:58.374-05:00GlyphsJohn Voorhishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17811333679663173135noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-2455644908680742782010-03-03T10:57:14.546-05:002010-03-03T10:57:14.546-05:00Thank you so much! I was stuck with this problem ...Thank you so much! I was stuck with this problem for the last 2 days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-77471469021038095232010-02-23T11:16:35.869-05:002010-02-23T11:16:35.869-05:00We are only using for semi - public access (not to...We are only using for semi - public access (not totally open, just for events, conferences, etc.) Traffic however is segregated in the limited testing I have done. Others in the CITRT are using them for both Private and Public. The best option for info there is to tweet questions to the #CITRT hashtag. <br /><br />As for how they are wired, it is flexible, you can have either approach.John Voorhishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17811333679663173135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-77571741875902496162010-02-22T23:07:52.973-05:002010-02-22T23:07:52.973-05:00Nice article. Curious to know if your using the p...Nice article. Curious to know if your using the public / private configuration. Have you tried to verify the traffic is segregated - one network can not see the other. Are you using this for your Church internal users or public access or both?<br /><br />Curious how the devices are wired together. Sound like your pluging them together on the same wired subnet. Or are the ones that are not 'master' simply operating as a WiFi repeater without being wired into the same wired subnet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-88137776758236310602010-02-22T23:00:52.407-05:002010-02-22T23:00:52.407-05:00Thanks for posting these images. I've been lo...Thanks for posting these images. I've been looking at Open-Mesh fro our Church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-32130501314774065162010-02-11T10:52:59.361-05:002010-02-11T10:52:59.361-05:00Did Stephen's comment answer why it happened f...Did Stephen's comment answer why it happened for you? As Stephen said, the SQL is being evaluated for each value in your column in order to decide if it should be included (prior to being executed), and 'yes' >= '151' is not defined, so it chokes before it returns something. <br /><br />Stephen, your solution should work on 2000 also, since you're using a derived table.<br /><br />To me, it looks like a design flaw, if you're planning on storing numbers then use a corresponding datatype (int/float/decimal/whatever works best). This may not be possible if you can't change the design, and you'd need to clean your rows with 'yes'. Once you did that, your original query would work just fine.<br /><br />Hope that helps,<br /><br />Jonjonmcrawfordhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/jonmcrawfordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-23800366904041076462010-02-10T17:36:50.549-05:002010-02-10T17:36:50.549-05:00John,
What I think is going on is the Query Optim...John,<br /><br />What I think is going on is the Query Optimizer is taking your queries as suggestions only - you are trying to be explicit about "do this first then do this" but it is ignoring you and trying to optimize the query. In doing so at some point it is looking at your Value >= 151 test against the whole table and sees the non-numeric value and chokes. But I could be wrong. I was able to code a possible non-UDF solution that may work for you.<br /><br />You may try the following (developed and tested on SQL 2008 only. I tested with Compatibility Level set to SQL 2005 and still worked.):<br /><br />SELECT *<br />FROM <br />(SELECT ID,<br />Value OriginalValue,<br />CASE WHEN ISNUMERIC(Value) = 1 THEN CAST(Value AS decimal(5, 1))<br /> ELSE NULL END ValueNumeric,<br />CASE WHEN ISNUMERIC(Value) = 0 THEN Value <br /> ELSE NULL END ValueCharacter<br />FROM new_data) X<br />WHERE X.ID IN ('R1', 'R2')<br />AND X.ValueNumeric >= 121<br /><br />Please let me know if this works or not. I have a couple more ideas if this doesn't.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />StephenStephen Horne (Bluedog67)http://www.bluedog67.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-69477155334766040832010-02-10T17:28:02.668-05:002010-02-10T17:28:02.668-05:00Not sure if the last comment posted or not. Have y...Not sure if the last comment posted or not. Have you tried pulling out all of the values for that particular custom field into a temp table and working with just that subset? Maybe cast as a numeric instead of int and/or add another case statement for decimals?Peter Schotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234754312915202260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-11808205380542372802010-02-10T16:53:11.067-05:002010-02-10T16:53:11.067-05:00Hi Peter -
MS SQL 2005. I tried that exact code...Hi Peter - <br /><br />MS SQL 2005. I tried that exact code previously - just shifted the error to a decimal value.John Voorhishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17811333679663173135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-43698085909936000542010-02-10T16:42:22.662-05:002010-02-10T16:42:22.662-05:00Had to double-check this to see that I wasn't ...Had to double-check this to see that I wasn't on a SQL Server site. Your problem is that SQL is trying to do an implicit conversion of all values and throws an error when it hits "yes".<br /><br />You may want to try:<br />CASE WHEN ISNUMERIC(Value) = 1 THEN CAST(Value as int) ELSE 0 END as Value<br /><br />That will force your non-numeric value data to evaluate to 0 and treat the rest as int (or whatever mixture of float/int/numeric you may need).<br /><br />I'm assuming this is for one of those custom field table setups that are allowed in some systems. If so, I'd even consider creating a view out of it and saving it for that custom field, assuming that this particular field will always have numeric values.Peter Schotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234754312915202260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-15224749037672789632009-06-19T00:41:27.807-04:002009-06-19T00:41:27.807-04:00For Mac users, Nambu is a better Twitter browser (...For Mac users, Nambu is a better Twitter browser (in my opinion) than either Tweetdeck or Seesmic. <br /><br />To download Nambu just hop over to Nambu.com<br /><br />Thanks for the twibes, mention, josh. I'll go add myself there now.barefootmeghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10896090938982099546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-17834413464904659052009-06-17T14:04:34.952-04:002009-06-17T14:04:34.952-04:00My favorite comment on the above:
"@Underth...My favorite comment on the above: <br /><br />"@UndertheMtn: I just learned about twitter tags from . . . my church denomination. Am clearly not as ahead of tech curve as I thought! #pcaga"John Voorhishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17811333679663173135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-52228417833330091372009-06-17T12:56:45.063-04:002009-06-17T12:56:45.063-04:00It might be mentioned that another good place to l...It might be mentioned that another good place to look to see all of the information together is at www.twibes.com/PCA. This is something you can join if you are already on Twitter and it pulls together all the PCA tweets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-21996831051632207242009-06-17T11:44:38.721-04:002009-06-17T11:44:38.721-04:00Sorry Ken - I missed that you are using TweetDeck ...Sorry Ken - I missed that you are using TweetDeck - Click the Magnifying Glass icon in the Upper Left hand corner (8th icon over) and enter #pcagaJohn Voorhishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17811333679663173135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-67401173981923441982009-06-17T11:40:59.617-04:002009-06-17T11:40:59.617-04:00Many thanks! KPMany thanks! KPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-59855797870876637162009-06-17T11:38:01.468-04:002009-06-17T11:38:01.468-04:00Hi Ken -
To put it another way, those who are po...Hi Ken - <br /><br />To put it another way, those who are posting about the PCA GA are putting #pcaga in thier tweets. To see what they are posting go to http://search.twitter.com and enter #pcaga to see those tweets, or use a desktop client like those mention to search for #pcaga. <br /><br />Only if you wanted to Tweet a comment about the GA do you put #pcaga in the tweet.John Voorhishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17811333679663173135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4996149233067070764.post-26840884154278342412009-06-17T11:33:03.201-04:002009-06-17T11:33:03.201-04:00Okay, I am a complete twitter idiot. I have Tweet...Okay, I am a complete twitter idiot. I have Tweet Deck. Where do I enter the hashtag that will allow me to follow the "unofficial" tweets?<br /><br />I tried putting #PCAGA in the tweet line, and that did nothing.<br /><br />Ken Pierce<br />Trinity PCA<br />Jackson MSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com