Well that sucked out loud!!!…

 I had the correct answer staring me in the face but was so flustered by the time element that I didn’t realize it.  I really let one slip away.  There’s just no other way to say it.  In my defense, I was thrown off the trail by one of the books that were given to us.  I was thinking they were looking for use of the OVER clause in the solution.  The book that they specifically mentioned during the introduction – the one with the forward by guest judge Tobias Ternström – talks exclusively about Windowing in SQL Server and how it can be used to calculate running totals - like the problem we were handed in the challenge to calculate the number of parts supplied by multiple vendors.  I was certain that using the OVER clause was the right solution and that I was just following the bread crumbs.  Those crumbs were huge and obvious to me.  Unfortunately, I was WAY over-complicating things.  It was much simpler than that.  I’m just a big doofus for not understanding that.  I was trying to hit a home run and all I needed to do was put the ball in play.  I feel ridiculous.  Even so, the judges were very complimentary of my work.  They liked my code syntax, stored procedure template/header (I was going to go above and beyond and put the answer in a stored proc), and basically gave me credit for the correct answer, just not in the allotted time.  Another thing that I took a ‘ding’ for was that I spent too much time getting the wrapping ready before I had a solution. (Did I mention that they said they were very impressed with my stored proc template. ;-p )  Buck Woody had a comment for me.  He said that I “greased the pig before I made the pig” - evidently a Microsoft-ism.  Don’t worry, Buck, I won’t make that mistake again.

I also created a video blog about this challenge.  You can see it here: 

 

Want more? Judges tell all. The good, the bad and the (sometimes) ugly. >>