Maxim, your 'row(s) affected' count doesn't look right. Leszek, your 'row(s) affected' count is correct. And, of course, your stats are superb!

Here are my stats. Having a hard time with my stas in Part 2. Part 1: (1 row(s) affected) Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0. Tab

Here is some load testing data. You should run each part separately followed by a final run of all three parts together. What stats are people getting? truncate table tc83 -- Part 1: single ProductID with TotalLines and LinesOutOfService all equal in

Follow what you see in the expected output. Thus varchar with the date in yyyy-mm-dd format.

To put it another way, if the sample data contains ProductID 522 and you duplicate the 13 rows into ProductID 523, then your output should generate 7 rows for ProductID 522 followed by 7 rows for ProductID 523. This is what is meant by "handling more than

Logicalman, What excactly are you trying to say? The sample data shown in the challenge description simply involves only a single ProductID. But your solution should handle multiple ProductIDs in the same input table.

Ratna, OK, your results correspond to the solution I posted earlier in the forum. I suppose this problem is hard to grasp because it uses this concept of assigning a tax code. I don't think this sort of algorithm is applied like this in the real worl

Ratna, You are on the right track. You have shown that there are 25 ways to get 1000. This is correct. To this I will add that there are 33 ways to get 500. And there is exactly 1 way to get 100. And there is exactly 1 way to get 10. But if you se

Philippe, If you run your script against the sample data I posted in the discussion forum for this challenge, you'll find the results to be incorrect.

OK, I did not see your change of the invoice number in your sample data. Sorry for any confusion. In any case, I was reluctant to do a copy/paste of what you posted because you are not posting it properly. For some reason, you include all the html tags