finding minimum value

How to find the minimum value from time Timestamp column ?

I want get the eralier timestamp vlaues from the avaliable list

when iam using Aggregate transformation ..its again giving all the list of vlaues

Thanks
Niru

If you have only one minimum per data set I would use the Script component to get it manually.

Thanks.

|||no i have lot of set of duplicate values with in the same column....I have to get the Minimum ones in those sets ..like

5
5
3
3

Desired result:

5
5

|||

I still do not understand your scenario.

If you have a data like this:

A B

1 1

1 2

2 7

2 8

You can use the Aggregate component to group on column A and find a minimum on B, so it would produce:

A B

1 1

2 7

Is that what you are looking for?

Finding Last Updated with a timestamp

Hi All

I know an SQL Server timestamp seems to be as useful as rocking horse for
show jumping, but I'm hoping you know a 'fudge' to get me round a problem or
at least confirm that it isn't possible.

I have 2 tables, one called ACCOUNTS and one called STOCK.

These tables have the usual ints, varchars, etc and have a timestamp field
as well.

My end user wants to see a simple list of the details in these tables
(individually - no joins present here), but sorted from most recently
updated to never touched.

As the timestamp seems to update each time a transaction hits it I though
this would be perfect, but I've had the following mixed results:

1) I did a simple ORDER BY TIMESTAMP DESC, but because the order is
alphanumeric I don't get a true 'recent to old' list.

2) So I did ORDER BY CAST(TIMESTAMP AS INT) DESC. There is a numeric sort
now, but the timestamp values seem to be hit and miss so that an account
that I know should be near the top is around about the middle.

Do you know how I can achieve the results I want?

Is the timestamp a waste of time?

Thanks

RobbieHi

Timestamp is not a character field.. as stated in books online:

A nonnullable timestamp column is semantically equivalent to a binary(8)
column. A nullable timestamp column is semantically equivalent to a
varbinary(8) column.

When you select the column in QA, it will be displayed as a hexadecimal
number.

If you include DDL ( Create table statements etc... ) and example data (as
Insert statements) along with your query and the output, it may be clearer
what is occuring.

John

"Astra" <info@.NoEmail.com> wrote in message news:40f7b5ea$1_4@.127.0.0.1...
> Hi All
> I know an SQL Server timestamp seems to be as useful as rocking horse for
> show jumping, but I'm hoping you know a 'fudge' to get me round a problem
or
> at least confirm that it isn't possible.
> I have 2 tables, one called ACCOUNTS and one called STOCK.
> These tables have the usual ints, varchars, etc and have a timestamp field
> as well.
> My end user wants to see a simple list of the details in these tables
> (individually - no joins present here), but sorted from most recently
> updated to never touched.
> As the timestamp seems to update each time a transaction hits it I though
> this would be perfect, but I've had the following mixed results:
> 1) I did a simple ORDER BY TIMESTAMP DESC, but because the order is
> alphanumeric I don't get a true 'recent to old' list.
> 2) So I did ORDER BY CAST(TIMESTAMP AS INT) DESC. There is a numeric
sort
> now, but the timestamp values seem to be hit and miss so that an account
> that I know should be near the top is around about the middle.
> Do you know how I can achieve the results I want?
> Is the timestamp a waste of time?
> Thanks
> Robbie|||Astra (info@.NoEmail.com) writes:
> My end user wants to see a simple list of the details in these tables
> (individually - no joins present here), but sorted from most recently
> updated to never touched.
> As the timestamp seems to update each time a transaction hits it I though
> this would be perfect, but I've had the following mixed results:
> 1) I did a simple ORDER BY TIMESTAMP DESC, but because the order is
> alphanumeric I don't get a true 'recent to old' list.
> 2) So I did ORDER BY CAST(TIMESTAMP AS INT) DESC. There is a numeric
> sort now, but the timestamp values seem to be hit and miss so that an
> account that I know should be near the top is around about the middle.

Since timestamp is 8 bytes and int only 4, a cast to int could lead to
funny things.

On the other hand, ORDER BY TIMESTAMP DESC will give you the rows in
some order that pertains to updates - and inserts. But it can be a bit
rough. Say that you at some point reloaded the table because of some
maintenance thing, that gave you new timestamp values.

So you are probably better off adding a "moddate" column, which you
update in case of "true" updates, either through stored procedures or a
trigger.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.aspsql