Search Results

Search found 37647 results on 1506 pages for 'sql performance'.

Page 156/1506 | < Previous Page | 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163  | Next Page >

  • Dynamically changing databases in SQL Server 2000

    - by spuppett
    At work we have a number of databases that we need to do the same operations on. I would like to write 1 SP that would loop over operations and set the database at the beginning of the loop (example to follow). I've tried sp_executesql('USE ' + @db_id) but that only sets the DB for the scope of that stored procedure. I don't really want to loop with hard coded database names because we need to do similar things in many different places and it's tough to remember where things need to change if we add another DB. Any thoughts Example: DECLARE zdb_loop CURSOR FAST_FORWARD FOR SELECT distinct db_id from DBS order by db_id OPEN zdb_loop FETCH NEXT FROM zdb_loop INTO @db_id WHILE @@FETCH_STATUS = 0 BEGIN USE @db_id --Do stuff against 3 or 4 different DBs FETCH NEXT FROM zdb_loop INTO @db_id END CLOSE zdb_loop DEALLOCATE zdb_loop

    Read the article

  • Need help in understanding a SELECT query

    - by Grant Smith
    I have a following query. It uses only one table (Customers) from Northwind database. I completely have no idea how does it work, and what its intention is. I hope there is a lot of DBAs here so I ask for explanation. particularly don't know what the OVER and PARTITION does here. WITH NumberedWomen AS ( SELECT CustomerId ,ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( PARTITION BY c.Country ORDER BY LEN(c.CompanyName) ASC ) women FROM Customers c ) SELECT * FROM NumberedWomen WHERE women > 3 If you needed the db schema, it is here

    Read the article

  • SQL Select Upcoming Birthdays

    - by Crob
    I'm trying to write a stored procedure to select employees who have birthdays that are upcoming. SELECT * FROM Employees WHERE Birthday > @Today AND Birthday < @Today + @NumDays This will not work because the birth year is part of Birthday, so if my birthday was '09-18-1983' that will not fall between '09-18-2008' and '09-25-2008'. Is there a way to ignore the year portion of date fields and just compare month/days? This will be run every monday morning to alert managers of birthdays upcoming, so it possibly will span new years. Here is the working solution that I ended up creating, thanks Kogus. SELECT * FROM Employees WHERE Cast(DATEDIFF(dd, birthdt, getDate()) / 365.25 as int) - Cast(DATEDIFF(dd, birthdt, futureDate) / 365.25 as int) <> 0

    Read the article

  • Conversion failed when converting the varchar value to data type int

    - by desi
    *I have a varchar(1000) column declared as field that contains all numbers, as shown below. And I want to execute the following script. I need this to work please Declare @PostalCode varchar(1000)=0 set @PostalCode ='7005036,7004168,7002314,7001188,6998955' Select hl.* From CountryLocation cl INNER JOIN refPostalCodes pc ON pc.PostalCode = hl.PostalCode where pc.Postalcode in (@PostalCode) and pc.notDeleted = 1

    Read the article

  • Next Identity Key LINQ + SQL Server

    - by user569347
    To represent our course tree structure in our Linq Dataclasses we have 2 columns that could potentially be the same as the PK. My problem is that if I want to Insert a new record and populate 2 other columns with the PK that was generated there is no way I can get the next identity and stop conflict with other administrators who might be doing the same insert at the same time. Case: A Leaf node has right_id and left_id = itself (prereq_id) **dbo.pre_req:** prereq_id left_id right_id op_id course_id is_head is_coreq is_enforced parent_course_id and I basically want to do this: pre_req rec = new pre_req { left_id = prereq_id, right_id = prereq_id, op_id = 3, course_id = query.course_id, is_head = true, is_coreq = false, parent_course_id = curCourse.course_id }; db.courses.InsertOnSubmit(rec); try { db.SubmitChanges(); } Any way to solve my dilemma? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why would SQL be very slow when doing updates?

    - by ooo
    Suddenly doing updates into a few tables have gotten 10 times slower than they used to be. What are some good recommendations to determine root cause and optimization? Could it be that indexing certain columns are causing updates to be slow? Any other recommendations? I guess more important than guesses would be help on the process of identifying the root cause or metrics around performance. Is there anything in Fluent NHibernate that you can use to help identify the root cause of performance issues?

    Read the article

  • Basic SQL Query, I am newbie

    - by user3530547
    I just started my database and query class on Monday. We met on Monday and just went over the syllabus, and on Wednesday the network at school was down so we couldn't even do the power point lecture. Right now I am working on my first homework assignment and I am almost finished but I am having trouble on one question. Here is is... Write a SELECT statement that returns one column from the Customers table named FullName that joins the LastName and FirstName columns. Format the columns with the last name, a comma, a space, and the first name like this: Doe, John Sort the result set by last name in ascending sequence. Return only the contacts whose last name begins with letters from M to Z. Here is what I have so far... USE md0577283 SELECT FirstName,LastName FROM Customers ORDER BY LastName,FirstName My question is how do I format is Lastname, FirstName like the professor wants and how do I only select names M-Z? If someone could point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. PS With all do respect, I didn't ask for the answer I asked for a nudge in the right direction so why the down vote guys?

    Read the article

  • Creating a SQL lookup

    - by Scott
    I’m in the process of cleaning up a database table. Due to the way some of the data needed to be processed, now I need to go back and perform a “reverse lookup” on the data. For example, a field for one of the records is set to “car” and I need to set that record’s tranportmode field to “1” (for “car”). The lookup tables are already created. I just need to do the reverse lookup part. The cleansed tables will only have the numeric lookup value.

    Read the article

  • UPDATE statement wrapped in an IF EXISTS block

    - by formica
    I'm trying to write a DML script that updates a column but I wanted to make sure the column existed first so I wrapped it in a IF EXISTS block IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS WHERE TABLE_NAME='Client' AND COLUMN_NAME='IsClarityEnabled') BEGIN UPDATE Client SET IsClarityEnabled = 1 WHERE ClientID = 21 END So the weirdness is that it tries to execute the update even if it fails the condition. So column doesn't exist and the UPDATE statement runs and I get an error. Why? Even stranger is that this does work: IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS WHERE TABLE_NAME='Client' AND COLUMN_NAME='IsClarityEnabled') BEGIN EXEC('UPDATE Client SET IsClarityEnabled = 1 WHERE ClientID = 21') END Is there something special about an UPDATE command that causes it to behave this way?

    Read the article

  • how do i insert into two table all at once in a stored procedure?

    - by user996502
    Doing a project for school so any help would be great thank you! I have two tables how do i insert into two tables? so both tables are linked. First table called Customer with primary key called CID that auto increments CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Customer]( [CID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [LastName] [varchar](255) NOT NULL, [FirstName] [varchar](255) NOT NULL, [MiddleName] [varchar](255) NULL, [EmailAddress] [varchar](255) NOT NULL, [PhoneNumber] [varchar](12) NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [PK__CInforma__C1F8DC5968DD69DC] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( And a second table called Employment that has a foreign key linked to the parent table CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Employment]( [EID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [CID] [int] NOT NULL, [Employer] [varchar](255) NOT NULL, [Occupation] [varchar](255) NOT NULL, [Income] [varchar](25) NOT NULL, [WPhone] [varchar](12) NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK__Employme__C190170BC7827524] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (

    Read the article

  • Select a record with highest amount by joining two tables

    - by user2516394
    I've 2 tables Sales & Purchase, Sales table with fields SaleId, Rate, Quantity, Date, CompanyId, UserID. Purchase table with fields PurchaseId, Rate, Quantity, Date, CompanyId, UserID. I want to select a record from either table that have highest Rate*Quantity. SELECT SalesId Or PurchaseId FROM Sales,Purchase where Sales.UserId=Purchase.UserId and Sales.CompanyId=Purchase.CompanyId AND Sales.Date=Current date AND Purchase.Date=Current date AND Sales.UserId=1 AND Purchase.UserId=1 AND Sales.CompanyId=1 AND Purchase.ComoanyId=1

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Query with "ELSE:"

    - by Mike D
    I have various VB6 projects I'm maintaining with some of the queries being passed to the server having "ELSE:" with the colon used in case statements. I'm wondering can someone tell me what the **ll the colon is used for? It causes errors in SQL2005 and greater, but SQL2000 works with no complaints. I'd like to just remove it from the code & re-compile, but I'm afraid it'll break 10 other things in the application.. Thanks in advance...

    Read the article

  • MS SQL: How to get the newest date in a table with several equal keys

    - by Qohelet
    Unfortunately my knowledge related to statements like "group by" and "having" is quite limited, so hopefully you can help me: I have a view -here's an excerpt- (if we have some Europeans here - it's v021 of Winline/Mesonic): ID | Artikelbezeichnung1 | Bez2 | mesoyear _____________________________________________________________________ 1401MA70 | Marga ,Saracena grigio,1S,33,3/33,3 | Marazzi | 1344 1401MA70 | Marga ,Saracena grigio,1S,33,3/33,3 | Marazzi | 1356 1401MA70 | Marga ,Saracena grigio,1S,33,3/33,3 | Marazzi | 1356 1401MA71 | Marga ,Saracena beige,1S,33,3/33,3 | Marazzi | 1344 1401MA71 | Marga ,Saracena beige,1S,33,3/33,3 | Marazzi | 1356 1401MA71 | Marga ,Saracena beige,1S,33,3/33,3 | Marazzi | 1356 2401CR13 | Crista,Mahon rojo,1S,33,3/33,3 | Cristacer | 1332 2401CR13 | Crista,Mahon rojo,1S,33,3/33,3 | Cristacer | 1344 So the ID is not unique and I just need the one with the highest val in "mesoyear". My fist solution was: Select c015 as ID, c003 as Artikelbezeichnung1, c074 as Bez2, mesoyear from CWLDATEN_91.dbo.v021 group by c015 having mesoyear = max(mesoyear) But this doesn't work at all... Msg 8121, Level 16, State 1, Line 8 Column 'CWLDATEN_91.dbo.v021.mesoyear' is invalid in the HAVING clause because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause. So I just removed the "having" statement and it went "better": Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 2 Column 'CWLDATEN_91.dbo.v021.c003' is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause. So I tried to remove the error just by adding things to the "group by". And it worked. Select c015 as ID, c003 as Artikelbezeichnung1, c074 as Bez2, max(mesoyear) from CWLDATEN_91.dbo.v021 group by c015,c003,c074 gives me exactly what I want. But the correct Select contains about 24 columns and some calculations as well. The problem can't be solved just by adding all the columns to the "group by"...? Can someone please help me to find a proper command? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Field to display Previous 30 Day Total

    - by whytheq
    I've got this table: CREATE TABLE #Data1 ( [Market] VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL, [Operator] VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL, [Date] DATETIME NOT NULL, [Measure] VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL, [Amount] NUMERIC(36,10) NOT NULL, --new calculated fields [DailyAvg_30days] NUMERIC(38,6) NULL DEFAULT 0 ) I've populated all the fields apart from DailyAvg_30days. This field needs to show the total for the preceding 30 days e.g. 1. if Date for a particular record is 2nd Dec then it will be the total for the period 3rd Nov - 2nd Dec inclusive. 2. if Date for a particular record is 1st Dec then it will be the total for the period 2nd Nov - 1st Dec inclusive. My attempt to try to find these totals before updating the table is as follows: SELECT a.[Market], a.[Operator], a.[Date], a.[Measure], a.[Amount], [DailyAvg_30days] = SUM(b.[Amount]) FROM #Data1 a INNER JOIN #Data1 b ON a.[Market] = b.[Market] AND a.[Operator] = b.[Operator] AND a.[Measure] = b.[Measure] AND a.[Date] >= b.[Date]-30 AND a.[Date] <= b.[Date] GROUP BY a.[Market], a.[Operator], a.[Date], a.[Measure], a.[Amount] ORDER BY 1,2,4,3 Is this a valid approach or do I need to approach this from a different angle?

    Read the article

  • strange behavior of <> to filter null values

    - by Kerezo
    Hi experts: I have a table Called tblAlarm and it has some records like this: I have another table for determine what user see what message: Now I want to write a query to show Messages that user has not seen if message didinot expired.(for example it's year between BeginYear and EndYear and so on ...). I write this query: SELECT * FROM tblAlarms LEFT OUTER JOIN tblUsersAlarms tua ON tblAlarms.Id=tua.MessageID WHERE @CurrentYear BETWEEN tblAlarms.BeginYear AND tblAlarms.EndYear AND @CurrentMonth BETWEEN tblAlarms.BeginMonth AND tblAlarms.EndMonth AND @CurrentDay BETWEEN tblAlarms.BeginDay AND tblAlarms.EndDay AND (@CurrentHour * 60 + @CurrentMinute) BETWEEN tblAlarms.BeginHour*60 + tblAlarms.BeginMinute AND tblAlarms.EndHour*60 + tblAlarms.EndMinute --AND (tua.UserID <> 128 AND tua.UserID IS NULL) and it returns : but if I unComment last line it does not return any record.How I can determine what messages that users has not been seen? thanks

    Read the article

  • Synchronizing non-DB SQL Server objects

    - by DigDoug
    There are a number of tools available for synchronizing Tables, Indexes, Views, Stored Procedures and objects within a database. (We love RedGate here, and throw a lot of money their way). However, I'm having a very difficult time finding tools that will help with Jobs, Logins and Linked Servers. Do these things exist? Am I missing something obvious?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 05, which is optimal, LIKE %<term>% or CONTAINS() for searching large column

    - by Spud1
    I've got a function written by another developer which I am trying to modify for a slightly different use. It is used by a SP to check if a certain phrase exists in a text document stored in the DB, and returns 1 if the value is found or 0 if its not. This is the query: SELECT @mres=1 from documents where id=@DocumentID and contains(text, @search_term) The document contains mostly XML, and the search_term is a GUID formatted as an nvarchar(40). This seems to run quite slowly to me (taking 5-6 seconds to execute this part of the process), but in the same script file there is also this version of the above, commented out. SELECT @mres=1 from documents where id=@DocumentID and textlike '%' + @search_term + '%' This version runs MUCH quicker, taking 4ms compared to 15ms for the first example. So, my question is why use the first over the second? I assume this developer (who is no longer working with me) had a good reason, but at the moment I am struggling to find it.. Is it possibly something to do with the full text indexing? (this is a dev DB I am working with, so the production version may have better indexing..) I am not that clued up on FTI really so not quite sure at the moment. Thoughts/ideas?

    Read the article

  • Simplifying data search using .NET

    - by Peter
    An example on the asp.net site has an example of using Linq to create a search feature on a Music album site using MVC. The code looks like this - public ActionResult Index(string movieGenre, string searchString) { var GenreLst = new List<string>(); var GenreQry = from d in db.Movies orderby d.Genre select d.Genre; GenreLst.AddRange(GenreQry.Distinct()); ViewBag.movieGenre = new SelectList(GenreLst); var movies = from m in db.Movies select m; if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(searchString)) { movies = movies.Where(s => s.Title.Contains(searchString)); } if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(movieGenre)) { movies = movies.Where(x => x.Genre == movieGenre); } return View(movies); } I have seen similar examples in other tutorials and I have tried them in a real-world business app that I develop/maintain. In practice this pattern doesn't seem to scale well because as the search criteria expands I keep adding more and more conditions which looks and feels unpleasant/repetitive. How can I refactor this pattern? One idea I have is to create a column in every table that is "searchable" which could be a computed column that concatenates all the data from the different columns (SQL Server 2008). So instead of having movie genre and title it would be something like. if (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(searchString)) { movies = movies.Where(s => s.SearchColumn.Contains(searchString)); } What are the performance/design/architecture implications of doing this? I have also tried using procedures that use dynamic queries but then I have just moved the ugliness to the database. E.g. CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[search_music] @title as varchar(50), @genre as varchar(50) AS -- set the variables to null if they are empty IF @title = '' SET @title = null IF @genre = '' SET @genre = null SELECT m.* FROM view_Music as m WHERE (title = @title OR @title IS NULL) AND (genre LIKE '%' + @genre + '%' OR @genre IS NULL) ORDER BY Id desc OPTION (RECOMPILE) Any suggestions? Tips?

    Read the article

  • Can compressing Program Files save space *and* give a significant boost to SSD performance?

    - by Christopher Galpin
    Considering solid-state disk space is still an expensive resource, compressing large folders has appeal. Thanks to VirtualStore, could Program Files be a case where it might even improve performance? Discovery In particular I have been reading: SSD and NTFS Compression Speed Increase? Does NTFS compression slow SSD/flash performance? Will somebody benchmark whole disk compression (HD,SSD) please? (may have to scroll up) The first link is particularly dreamy, but maybe head a little too far in the clouds. The third link has this sexy semi-log graph (logarithmic scale!). Quote (with notes): Using highly compressable data (IOmeter), you get at most a 30x performance increase [for reads], and at least a 49x performance DECREASE [for writes]. Assuming I interpreted and clarified that sentence correctly, this single user's benchmark has me incredibly interested. Although write performance tanks wretchedly, read performance still soars. It gave me an idea. Idea: VirtualStore It so happens that thanks to sanity saving security features introduced in Windows Vista, write access to certain folders such as Program Files is virtualized for non-administrator processes. Which means, in normal (non-elevated) usage, a program or game's attempt to write data to its install location in Program Files (which is perhaps a poor location) is redirected to %UserProfile%\AppData\Local\VirtualStore, somewhere entirely different. Thus, to my understanding, writes to Program Files should primarily only occur when installing an application. This makes compressing it not only a huge source of space gain, but also a potential candidate for performance gain. Testing The beginning of this post has me a bit timid, it suggests benchmarking NTFS compression on a whole drive is difficult because turning it off "doesn't decompress the objects". However it seems to me the compact command is perfectly capable of doing so for both drives and individual folders. Could it be only marking them for decompression the next time the OS reads from them? I need to find the answer before I begin my own testing.

    Read the article

  • What tools are people using to measure SQL Server database performance?

    - by Paul McLoughlin
    I've experimented with a number of techniques for monitoring the health of our SQL Servers, ranging from using the Management Data Warehouse functionality built into SQL Server 2008, through other commercial products such as Confio Ignite 8 and also of course rolling my own solution using perfmon, performance counters and collecting of various information from the dynamic management views and functions. What I am finding is that whilst each of these approaches has its own associated strengths, they all have associated weaknesses too. I feel that to actually get people within the organisation to take the monitoring of SQL Server performance seriously whatever solution we roll out has to be very simple and quick to use, must provide some form of a dashboard, and the act of monitoring must have minimal impact on the production databases (and perhaps even more importantly, it must be possible to prove that this is the case). So I'm interested to hear what others are using for this task? Any recommendations?

    Read the article

  • Performance question: Inverting an array of pointers in-place vs array of values

    - by Anders
    The background for asking this question is that I am solving a linearized equation system (Ax=b), where A is a matrix (typically of dimension less than 100x100) and x and b are vectors. I am using a direct method, meaning that I first invert A, then find the solution by x=A^(-1)b. This step is repated in an iterative process until convergence. The way I'm doing it now, using a matrix library (MTL4): For every iteration I copy all coeffiecients of A (values) in to the matrix object, then invert. This the easiest and safest option. Using an array of pointers instead: For my particular case, the coefficients of A happen to be updated between each iteration. These coefficients are stored in different variables (some are arrays, some are not). Would there be a potential for performance gain if I set up A as an array containing pointers to these coefficient variables, then inverting A in-place? The nice thing about the last option is that once I have set up the pointers in A before the first iteration, I would not need to copy any values between successive iterations. The values which are pointed to in A would automatically be updated between iterations. So the performance question boils down to this, as I see it: - The matrix inversion process takes roughly the same amount of time, assuming de-referencing of pointers is non-expensive. - The array of pointers does not need the extra memory for matrix A containing values. - The array of pointers option does not have to copy all NxN values of A between each iteration. - The values that are pointed to the array of pointers option are generally NOT ordered in memory. Hopefully, all values lie relatively close in memory, but *A[0][1] is generally not next to *A[0][0] etc. Any comments to this? Will the last remark affect performance negatively, thus weighing up for the positive performance effects?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163  | Next Page >