Speed up a oracle sql delete query
Delete with Left Join in Oracle 10g
How to accomplish SQL Server 2012+2014 high availability Maybe I'm searching for the wrong thing, but I can't see how I can do this.  I have two servers:   Server A (has SQL Server 2012 installed) Server B (has SQL Server 2014 installed)   Server A provides an API via IIS. The code both inserts and gets data from the database depending on the API call.  Server B does exactly the same for its local database.  I would like to have it so that the two databases are consistent copies of each other. I do believe this is what HA accomplishes.   So a load balancer, for example, might direct API calls to A sometimes, and B sometimes, but the data needs to be consistent either way.  I found some documentation on HA for SQL Server 2012, but not on how to do this for a mixed environment of 2012 and 2014.  Any help or pointers to documentation would be great! Thanks. Positive euphemism for "harped on" How can I replace harped on with a more positive expression?  The production manager harped on the new quality assurance regulations for nearly an hour. Difference between @interface definition in .h and .m file How to avoid the wrinkle at the poles of the UV sphere? I think the answer is yes but I know a lot of people disagree. So, I would like to ask these people when exactly does it stop being me.  Let's say I want to upload my brain into a computer using the following procedure:  I have each of my neurons replaced by electronic neurons. By electronic neurons I mean chips with the necessary hardware and software to perform the exact same function that the neuron being replaced was performing. This means that given the same inputs that the biological neuron was given it would produce the same outputs. Then I connect that electronic neuron to all the neurons that former biological neuron was connected to.   At the end of this process is it still me? If not when did it stop being me? When one neuron was replaced? When 1,000 were replaced? When 1,000,000 were replaced?  (assuming it is still me)  Then, I divide these electronic neurons into groups and for each group I perform the following:   Write software to simulate the group of electrical neurons in my computer such that given the same inputs that go into the group of electronic neurons in my brain, it will produce the same outputs. Replace each group of neurons with another chip that communicates with my computer. Each of the chips will communicate to the corresponding software module in order to determine how to transform its inputs into the necessary outputs. Connect all of the inputs and outputs of the group of electronic neurons to that new chip.   At the end of this process is it still me? If not when did it stop being me? When one group was replaced? When 1,000 were replaced? When 1,000,000 were replaced?  (assuming it is still me) Now, what I have is a bunch of these new chips in my head, connected to each other and for each of these chips I have a small neural network software module in my computer. So, now for each pair of chip/software module I do this:   Transfer all connections going into and out of the chip into the computer version (i.e. connect the software module to the other software modules that represent the other chips that this chip is connected to) Disconnect the chip from the other chips and remove it   At the end of this process is it still me? If not when did it stop being me? When one of the new chips was replaced? When 1,000 were replaced? When 1,000,000 were replaced?  If it is still me then I have successfully moved my brain into a computer without ceasing being myself.  So, again the question is if at the end it is not me anymore when exactly does it stop being me and why does it stop being me?  EDIT: This question assumes that our universe and everything in it (including ourselves) follows the (testable) laws of physics. As it stands it also assumes that neuroscience is mostly right, although the question could also be considered without that requirement if instead of neural simulations we were to implement physics simulation of the brain. Of course this is a lot less practical. However, if your view is that our minds have a supernatural component then the question does not make any sense.  It was also pointed out that this is related to the Ship of Theseus, i.e. is something still the same if all its parts have been changed. With regards to that I think it is useful to consider that most of the cells in our body (not including brain cells) are regularly replaced anyway and some people even get entire organs replaced. Yet, we don't say that they stopped being themselves. Note, however, that if you are assuming a supernatural component of the mind that this explanation is not really adequate or relevant. What is the symbol ''$\divideontimes$'' (DIVIDE TIMES) for? I looked "$\divideontimes$" up on Google and now I know that it's Unicode U+22c7 but when would it be used?  I am guessing that $5 \divideontimes 5 = 25$ and $1$...? Object-oriented shell for *nix A positive integer is divisible by $3$ iff 3 divides the sum of its digits I am having trouble proving the two following questions:    If $p|N$, $q|N$ and gcd(p,q)=1, then prove that $pq|N$ If $x$ is non zero positive integer number, then prove that $3|x$ if and only if 3 divides the sum of all digits of $x$.   For both questions I tried to use theorems of discrete mathematics, but I could not find the way to solve them. Why is the Mann–Whitney U test significant when the medians are equal? I've received a results from a Mann-Whitney rank test that I don't understand.  The median of the 2 populations is identical (6.9). The uppper and lower quantiles of each population are:   6.64 &amp; 7.2 6.60 &amp; 7.1   The p-value resulting from the test comparing these populations is 0.007. How can these populations be significantly different? Is it due to the spread about the median? A boxplot comparing the 2 shows that the second one has far more outliers than the first. Thanks for any suggestions. Using contracted forms ("don't", "let's") in a formal text How compelled should I feel to use non-contracted forms (do not rather than don't and so on) when writing in a rather formal text, say an academic paper? In one case I am afraid to seem too stilted, in the other, too casual. Are there good guidelines?  And are there differences in this regard between British and American English?  (In this  there was not much more than "Contractions are more frequent in informal than formal contexts".) Schwarz's Lemma and functions with positive real part Problem:     Let $D = \{ z \in \mathbb C : |z| &lt; 1 \}$. Suppose $f : D \to \mathbb C$ is a non-constant analytic function such that $\mathrm{Re} f(z) \geq 0$ for all $z \in D$.      (a) Show that $\mathrm{Re} f(z) \neq 0$ for all $z \in D$.      (b) Using a Möbius transformation and Schwarz's lemma, prove that if   $f(0) = 1$, then $$ |f(z)| \leq {1+|z| \over 1-|z|}. $$   What can be said if $f(0) \neq 1$?      (c) Show that if $f(0) = 1$, then $f$ also satisfies $$ |f(z)| \geq {1-|z| \over 1+|z|}. $$   Progress:  (a) We can use the open mapping theorem.  (b) We can compose a Möbius transformation $m$ that sends the right-half plane to $D$ with $f$. Then $h = m \circ f$ satisfies the hypotheses of Schwarz's lemma by construction. Simple manipulations of the inequality from Schwarz's lemma give the result.  (c) Looking at part (a), we know that $\mathrm{Re} f(z) \neq 0$, and so $f(z) \neq 0$. Thus, we can use the function $g = 1/f$ in the statement of part (b).  Question:  What about when $f(0) \neq 1$? I don't think you can get anything from $f(z)-f(0)+1$ unless $\mathrm{Re} f(0) &lt; 1$. And you can't in general rearrange the inputs of $f$ because $1$ isn't necessarily in the image of $f$. Also, I don't think you can get anything from $f(z)/f(0)$ unless $f(0)$ is real, because otherwise the range of $f(z)/f(0)$ could extend into the left-half plane. Effect of space time relativity on the age of the universe? So we all heard about the twins paradox to explain einstein's time space relativity.  Wikipedia Quote :" In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to a naive application of time dilation, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. "  So what if the universe has been travelling at varying speeds (increasing or descreasing), wouldn't this effect our measurements on age of the universe? If anonymity is so important, why is it not universal? A frequent argument brought up in support of voting anonymity is that it can lead to potential grudges. Certainly the review system is of the same nature.  I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that voting is anonymous and reviewing is not. Either both should be public--and this would be fine since public reviewing has been successful--or both should be anonymous--and I assume this would be the desired option since this community holds anonymity so dear.  One could say that voting rates the posts, the actual meat of the site, while reviewing is based on clarifying the purpose of the site and cleaning it up.   answer makes the point that the community can trust that votes are a good measure of quality for the very reason that they do not know who cast them; the mentality that a high-ranking member may have supported something could blur the line between "science" and "politics/religion."  Reviewing, then, can be seen as a judgment of specific members rather than quality of edit/questions, which seems to fall precisely under the "politics/religion" umbrella--the review system is much more vulnerable to grudges due to this.  So let's discuss the differences and the implications of these disjointed anonymity policies. I'm stuck with this integral  $\int\frac {\cos^4x}{\sin^3x} dx$    which I rewrote as  $\int \csc^3x \cos^4xdx$  then after using the half angle formula twice for $\cos^4x$ I got this  $\frac 14\int \csc^3x (1+\cos(2x))(1+\cos(2x))dx$   then after solving those products I got these integrals  $\frac 14 \{\int \csc^3xdx+2\int \csc^3x \cos(2x)dx + \int \csc^3x \cos^2(2x)dx\}$  I do know how to solve the $\int \csc^3xdx$ one but I'm totally lost on the other ones, any tips/help/advice would be highly appreciated! thanks in advance guys! How to assign from a function which returns more than one value? How to remove duplicate values from an array in PHP How can I remove duplicate values from an array in PHP? Operator Exponential $e^A e^B = e^{A+B}$ This question comes from an exam in my functional analysis class.  Suppose $X$ is a Banach space, and $T \in B(X,X)$ is a bounded linear operator on $X$. For any non-negative integer $n$, let $$S_n=\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{1}{k!} T^k$$ where $T^k$ is the composition of $T$ with itself $k$ times and $T^0=I$.  We can show that for any integer $k&gt;0$, $\Vert T^k \Vert \le \Vert T \Vert ^k$. Then we can show that $S_n \in B(X,X)$ and there is some $S \in B(X,X)$ such that $S_n \to S$. We write $S = e^T$ for this operator.  Finally, We were asked to show that $e^T$ has an inverse, and that it is $e^{-T}$. My thought is to prove the following claim first: if $A,B \in B(X,X)$ and $AB = BA$, then $e^A  e^B = e^{A+B}$. If the claim is true, it follows that $e^T e^{-T}=I$.  The claim can be proven provided that the product series can be computed with the Cauchy rule.  $$e^Ae^B=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\frac{A^i}{i!}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{B^j}{j!}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\sum_{l=0}^{k}\frac{A^lB^{k-l}}{l!(k-l)!}$$ $$=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k!}\sum_{l=0}^{k}\frac{k!}{l!(k-l)!}A^lB^{k-l}= \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k!}(A+B)^k= e^{A+B}$$  But why can the product series be summed in the Cauchy way? I know for real-number series, by Cauchy's theorem, if $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n$ and $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} b_n$ are absolutely convergent to $A$ and $B$, respectively, then we can add $a_i b_j$ in any way, and the resulting series will converge to $AB$. Does this proposition still hold for commutable operators? (It would be greatly appreciated if ideas of proof or reference is suggested.) Does excessive markup affect SEO? Making Map Book of pages with same area shown but different layers turned on/off In ArcMap a Map Book is best suited for a series of features that each get their own page. It allows you to pick a feature and generate a Map Book Page for each feature including any additional information you wish to add to each page via dynamic text, charts, etc. Is there an alternative for say a series of pages showing the EXACT same area but with different layers turned on and off? We have a Capital Improvements document that I have to create showing the City Boundaries on every page. One page has all police and fire stations listed, another shows proposed water systems, another shows expressways and highways and work being done near or on them... etc., ad nauseum. Is there some way to set this up so that I DON'T have to created a separate MXD for each Map Page of this document? which vectors are perpendicular to each other?  $\vec a = (1, -2, 3)$, $\vec b = (5, 4, 1)$, $\vec c = (1, 0, -5)$  Do i just take the dot product of 2 of them. If the dot product they are at $90^\circ$? But how do i know if there perpendicular?