Search Results

Search found 37012 results on 1481 pages for 'sql query'.

Page 196/1481 | < Previous Page | 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203  | Next Page >

  • SQL indexes for "not equal" searches

    - by bortzmeyer
    The SQL index allows to find quickly a string which matches my query. Now, I have to search in a big table the strings which do not match. Of course, the normal index does not help and I have to do a slow sequential scan: essais=> \d phone_idx Index "public.phone_idx" Column | Type --------+------ phone | text btree, for table "public.phonespersons" essais=> EXPLAIN SELECT person FROM PhonesPersons WHERE phone = '+33 1234567'; QUERY PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Index Scan using phone_idx on phonespersons (cost=0.00..8.41 rows=1 width=4) Index Cond: (phone = '+33 1234567'::text) (2 rows) essais=> EXPLAIN SELECT person FROM PhonesPersons WHERE phone != '+33 1234567'; QUERY PLAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Seq Scan on phonespersons (cost=0.00..18621.00 rows=999999 width=4) Filter: (phone <> '+33 1234567'::text) (2 rows) I understand (see Mark Byers' very good explanations) that PostgreSQL can decide not to use an index when it sees that a sequential scan would be faster (for instance if almost all the tuples match). But, here, "not equal" searches are really slower. Any way to make these "is not equal to" searches faster? Here is another example, to address Mark Byers' excellent remarks. The index is used for the '=' query (which returns the vast majority of tuples) but not for the '!=' query: essais=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT person FROM EmailsPersons WHERE tld(email) = 'fr'; QUERY PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Index Scan using tld_idx on emailspersons (cost=0.25..4010.79 rows=97033 width=4) (actual time=0.137..261.123 rows=97110 loops=1) Index Cond: (tld(email) = 'fr'::text) Total runtime: 444.800 ms (3 rows) essais=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT person FROM EmailsPersons WHERE tld(email) != 'fr'; QUERY PLAN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seq Scan on emailspersons (cost=0.00..27129.00 rows=2967 width=4) (actual time=1.004..1031.224 rows=2890 loops=1) Filter: (tld(email) <> 'fr'::text) Total runtime: 1037.278 ms (3 rows) DBMS is PostgreSQL 8.3 (but I can upgrade to 8.4).

    Read the article

  • MySQL LIMIT 1 but query 15 rows?

    - by Ian
    Basically what I'm trying to do is compare the ID's of rows against 15 results in MySQL, eliminating all but 1 (using NOT IN) and then pull that result. Now normally this would be fine by itself, however the order of the 15 rows I'm doing the SQL query for are constantly changing based on a ranking, so there is a possibility that between the time the ranking updates, and the ajax request (which I submit the ID's for NOT IN) more than just one ID has changed, which would of course bring back more than one row which I do not want. So in short, is there a way in which I can query 15 rows, but only return one? Without having to run two separate queries. Any help is appreciated, thank you. EXAMPLE: Say I have 7 items in my database, and I'm displaying 5 on the page to the user. These are what are being displayed to the user: Apple Orange Kiwi Banana Grape But in the database I also have Peach Blackberry Now what I want to do is if the user deletes an item from their list, it will add another item (based on a ranking they have) Now the issue is, in order to know what they have on their list at the moment I send the remaining items to the database (say they deleted Kiwi, I would send Apple, Orange, Banana, and Grape) So now I select the highest ranked 5 items from are remaining six items, make sure they are not the ones already displayed on the page, and then add the new one to list (either Peach or Blackberry) All good and well, except that if both peach and blackberry now outrank grape, then I will be returning two results instead of just one. Because it would've searched... Apple Orange Banana Peach Blackberry and excluded... Apple Orange Banana Grape Which leaves us with both Peach and Blackberry, instead of just Peach or Blackberry

    Read the article

  • Fix N+1 query in "declarative_authorization" gem using gem "bullet"

    - by makaroni4
    Currently I am working on one big web application and to make it work faster I decided to refactor all N+1 queries (to decrease number of requests to database, http://rails-bestpractices.com/posts/29-fix-n-1-queries). So I installed gem "bullet" which doesn`t work with Rails 3.1.1 now (you can use fork from https://github.com/flyerhzm/bullet). When using declarative_authorization gem on each page I get same alerts: N+1 Query detected Role => [:permissions] Add to your finder: :include => [:permissions] N+1 Query detected Permission => [:permission_rules] Add to your finder: :include => [:permission_rules] CACHE (0.0ms) SELECT "roles".* FROM "roles" CACHE (0.0ms) SELECT "permissions".* FROM "permissions" WHERE "permissions"."role_id" = 1 CACHE (0.0ms) SELECT "permissions".* FROM "permissions" WHERE "permissions"."role_id" = 2 CACHE (0.0ms) SELECT "permissions".* FROM "permissions" WHERE "permissions"."role_id" = 3 CACHE (0.0ms) SELECT "permissions".* FROM "permissions" WHERE "permissions"."role_id" = 4 CACHE (0.0ms) SELECT "permissions".* FROM "permissions" WHERE "permissions"."role_id" = 6 CACHE (0.0ms) SELECT "permissions".* FROM "permissions" WHERE "permissions"."role_id" = 7 CACHE (0.0ms) SELECT "permissions".* FROM "permissions" WHERE "permissions"."role_id" = 8 CACHE (0.0ms) SELECT "permission_rules".* FROM "permission_rules" INNER JOIN "permission_rules_permissions" ON "permission_rules"."id" = "permission_rules_permissions"."permission_rule_id" WHERE "permission_rules_permissions"."permission_id" = 30 CACHE (0.0ms) SELECT "permission_rules".* FROM "permission_rules" INNER JOIN "permission_rules_permissions" ON "permission_rules"."id" = "permission_rules_permissions"."permission_rule_id" WHERE "permission_rules_permissions"."permission_id" = 31 ... Could you please help me with that and to make this queries faster?

    Read the article

  • Getting counts of 0 from a query with a double group by

    - by Maltiriel
    I'm trying to write a query that gets the counts for a table (call it item) categorized by two different things, call them type and code. What I'm hoping for as output is the following: Type Code Count 1 A 3 1 B 0 1 C 10 2 A 0 2 B 13 2 C 2 And so forth. Both type and code are found in lookup tables, and each item can have just one type but more than one code, so there's also a pivot (aka junction or join) table for the codes. I have a query that can get this result: Type Code Count 1 A 3 1 C 10 2 B 13 2 C 2 and it looks like (with join conditions omitted): SELECT typelookup.name, codelookup.name, COUNT(item.id) FROM typelookup LEFT OUTER JOIN item JOIN itemcodepivot RIGHT OUTER JOIN codelookup GROUP BY typelookup.name, codelookup.name Is there any way to alter this query to get the results I'm looking for? This is in MySQL, if that matters. I'm not actually sure this is possible all in one query, but if it is I'd really like to know how. Thanks for any ideas.

    Read the article

  • Get the first and last posts in a thread

    - by Grampa
    I am trying to code a forum website and I want to display a list of threads. Each thread should be accompanied by info about the first post (the "head" of the thread) as well as the last. My current database structure is the following: threads table: id - int, PK, not NULL, auto-increment name - varchar(255) posts table: id - int, PK, not NULL, auto-increment thread_id - FK for threads The tables have other fields as well, but they are not relevant for the query. I am interested in querying threads and somehow JOINing with posts so that I obtain both the first and last post for each thread in a single query (with no subqueries). So far I am able to do it using multiple queries, and I have defined the first post as being: SELECT * FROM threads t LEFT JOIN posts p ON t.id = p.thread_id ORDER BY p.id LIMIT 0, 1 The last post is pretty much the same except for ORDER BY id DESC. Now, I could select multiple threads with their first or last posts, by doing: SELECT * FROM threads t LEFT JOIN posts p ON t.id = p.thread_id ORDER BY p.id GROUP BY t.id But of course I can't get both at once, since I would need to sort both ASC and DESC at the same time. What is the solution here? Is it even possible to use a single query? Is there any way I could change the structure of my tables to facilitate this? If this is not doable, then what tips could you give me to improve the query performance in this particular situation?

    Read the article

  • Combining two queries on same table

    - by user1830856
    I've looked through several previous questions but I am struggling to apply the solutions to my specific example. I am having trouble combining query 1 and query 2. My query originally returned (amongst other details) the values "SpentTotal" and "UnderSpent" for all members/users for the current month. My issue has been adding two additional columns to this original quert that will return JUST these two columns (Spent and Overspent) but for the previous months data Original Query #1: set @BPlanKey = '##CURRENTMONTH##' EXECUTE @RC = Minimum_UpdateForPeriod @BPlanKey SELECT cm.clubaccountnumber, bp.Description , msh.PeriodMinObligation, msh.SpentTotal, msh.UnderSpent, msh.OverSpent, msh.BilledDate, msh.PeriodStartDate, msh.PeriodEndDate, msh.OverSpent FROM MinimumSpendHistory msh INNER JOIN BillPlanMinimums bpm ON msh.BillingPeriodKey = @BPlanKey and bpm.BillPlanMinimumKey = msh.BillPlanMinimumKey INNER JOIN BillPlans bp ON bp.BillPlanKey = bpm.BillPlanKey INNER JOIN ClubMembers cm ON cm.parentmemberkey is null and cm.ClubMemberKey = msh.ClubMemberKey order by cm.clubaccountnumber asc, msh.BilledDate asc Query #2, query of all columns for PREVIOUS month, but I only need two (spent and over spent), added to the query from above, joined on the customer number: set @BPlanKeyLastMo = '##PREVMONTH##' EXECUTE @RCLastMo = Minimum_UpdateForPeriod @BPlanKeyLastMo SELECT cm.clubaccountnumber, bp.Description , msh.PeriodMinObligation, msh.SpentTotal, msh.UnderSpent, msh.OverSpent, msh.BilledDate, msh.PeriodStartDate, msh.PeriodEndDate, msh.OverSpent FROM MinimumSpendHistory msh INNER JOIN BillPlanMinimums bpm ON msh.BillingPeriodKey = @BPlanKeyLastMo and bpm.BillPlanMinimumKey = msh.BillPlanMinimumKey INNER JOIN BillPlans bp ON bp.BillPlanKey = bpm.BillPlanKey INNER JOIN ClubMembers cm ON cm.parentmemberkey is null and cm.ClubMemberKey = msh.ClubMemberKey order by cm.clubaccountnumber asc, msh.BilledDate asc Big thank you to any and all that are willing to lend their help and time. Cheers! AJ CREATE TABLE MinimumSpendHistory( [MinimumSpendHistoryKey] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, [BillPlanMinimumKey] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, [ClubMemberKey] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, [BillingPeriodKey] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, [PeriodStartDate] [datetime] NOT NULL, [PeriodEndDate] [datetime] NOT NULL, [PeriodMinObligation] [money] NOT NULL, [SpentTotal] [money] NOT NULL, [CurrentSpent] [money] NOT NULL, [OverSpent] [money] NULL, [UnderSpent] [money] NULL, [BilledAmount] [money] NOT NULL, [BilledDate] [datetime] NOT NULL, [PriorPeriodMinimum] [money] NULL, [IsCommitted] [bit] NOT NULL, [IsCalculated] [bit] NOT NULL, [BillPeriodMinimumKey] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, [CarryForwardCounter] [smallint] NULL, [YTDSpent] [money] NOT NULL, [PeriodToAccumulateCounter] [int] NULL, [StartDate] [datetime] NOT NULL,

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Limit rows linked to each joined row

    - by SolidSnakeGTI
    Hello, Specifications: MySQL 4.1+ I've certain situation that requires certain result set from MySQL query, let's see the current query first & then ask my question: SELECT thread.dateline AS tdateline, post.dateline AS pdateline, MIN(post.dateline) FROM thread AS thread LEFT JOIN post AS post ON(thread.threadid = post.threadid) LEFT JOIN forum AS forum ON(thread.forumid = forum.forumid) WHERE post.postid != thread.firstpostid AND thread.open = 1 AND thread.visible = 1 AND thread.replycount >= 1 AND post.visible = 1 AND (forum.options & 1) AND (forum.options & 2) AND (forum.options & 4) AND forum.forumid IN(1,2,3) GROUP BY post.threadid ORDER BY tdateline DESC, pdateline ASC As you can see, mainly I need to select dateline of threads from 'thread' table, in addition to dateline of the second post of each thread, that's all under the conditions you see in the WHERE CLAUSE. Since each thread has many posts, and I need only one result per thread, I've used GROUP BY CLAUSE for that purpose. This query will return only one post's dateline with it's related unique thread. My questions are: How to limit returned threads per each forum!? Suppose I need only 5 threads -as a maximum- to be returned for each forum declared in the WHERE CLAUSE 'forum.forumid IN(1,2,3)', how can this be achieved. Is there any recommendations for optimizing this query (of course after solving the first point)? Notes: I prefer not to use sub-queries, but if it's the only solution available I'll accept it. Double queries not recommended. I'm sure there's a smart solution for this situation. Appreciated advice in advance :)

    Read the article

  • Need to use query column value in nested subquery

    - by Dustin
    It seems I cannot use a column from the parent query in a sub query. How can I refactor this query to get what I need? dbo.func_getRelatedAcnts returns a table of related accounts (all children from a given account). Events and Profiles are related to accounts. SELECT COUNT(r.reg_id) FROM registrations r JOIN profiles p ON (r.reg_frn_pro_id = p.pro_id) JOIN events e ON (r.reg_frn_evt_id = e.evt_id) WHERE evt_frn_acnt_id NOT IN (SELECT * FROM dbo.func_getRelatedAcnts(p.pro_frn_acnt_id))

    Read the article

  • LINQ to SQL - Lightweight O/RM?

    - by CoffeeAddict
    I've heard from some that LINQ to SQL is good for lightweight apps. But then I see LINQ to SQL being used for Stackoverflow, and a bunch of other .coms I know (from interviewing with them). Ok, so is this true? for an e-commerce site that's bringing in millions and you're typically only doing basic CRUDs most the time with the exception of an occasional stored proc for something more complex, is LINQ to SQL complete enough and performance-wise good enough or able to be tweaked enough to run happily on an e-commerce site? I've heard that you just need to tweak performance on the DB side when using LINQ to SQL for a better approach. So there are really 2 questions here: 1) Meaning/scope/definition of a "Lightweight" O/RM solution: What the heck does "lightweight" mean when people say LINQ to SQL is a "lightweight O/RM" and is that true??? If this is so lightweight then why do I see a bunch of huge .coms using it? Is it good enough to run major .coms (obviously it looks like it is) and what determines what the context of "lightweight" is...it's such a generic statement. 2) Performance: I'm working on my own .com and researching different O/RMs. I'm not really looking at the Entity Framework (yet), just want to figure out the LINQ to SQL basics here and determine if it will be efficient enough for me. The problem I think is you can't tweak or control the SQL it generates...

    Read the article

  • Is it possible with dynamic TSQL query ?

    - by eugeneK
    I have very long select query which i need to filter based on some params, i'm trying to avoid having different stored procedures or if statements inside of single stored procedure by using partly dynamic TSQL... I will avoid long select just for example sake select a from b where c=@c or d=@d @c and @d are filter params, only one can filter at the same time but also both filters could be disabled. 0 for each of these means param is disables so i can create nvarchar with where statement in it... How do i integrate in here dynamic query so 'where' can be added to normal query. I cannot add all the query as big nvarchar because there is too many things in it which will require changes ( ie. when's, subqueries, joins)

    Read the article

  • Sql Server 2005 Check Constraint not being applied in execution when using variables

    - by DarylS
    Here is some SQL sample code: --Create 2 Sales tables with constraints based on the saledate create table Sales1(SaleDate datetime, Amount money) ALTER TABLE dbo.Sales1 ADD CONSTRAINT CK_Sales1 CHECK (([SaleDate]>='01 May 2010')) GO create table Sales2(SaleDate datetime, Amount money) ALTER TABLE dbo.Sales2 ADD CONSTRAINT CK_Sales2 CHECK (([SaleDate]<'01 May 2010')) GO --Insert some data into Sales1 insert into Sales1 (SaleDate, Amount) values ('02 May 2010', 50) insert into Sales1 (SaleDate, Amount) values ('03 May 2010', 60) GO --Insert some data into Sales2 insert into Sales2 (SaleDate, Amount) values ('30 Mar 2010', 10) insert into Sales2 (SaleDate, Amount) values ('31 Mar 2010', 20) GO --Create a view that combines these 2 tables create VIEW [dbo].[Sales] AS SELECT SaleDate, Amount FROM Sales1 UNION ALL SELECT SaleDate, Amount FROM Sales2 GO --Get the results --Query 1 select * from Sales where SaleDate < '31 Mar 2010' -- if you look at the execution plan this query only looks at Sales2 (Which is good) --Query 2 DECLARE @SaleDate datetime SET @SaleDate = '31 Mar 2010' select * from Sales where SaleDate < @SaleDate -- if you look at the execution plan this query looks at Sales1 and Sales2 (Which is NOT good) Looking at the execution plan you will see that the two queries are differnt. For Query 1 the only table that is accessed is Sales1 (which is good). For Query 2 both tables are accessed (Which is bad). Why are these execution plans different, and how do i get Query 2 to only access the relevant table when variables are used? I have tried to add indexes for the SaleDate column and that does not seem to help.

    Read the article

  • Can a T-SQL variable represent an entire row?

    - by elbillaf
    I'm coding for MS SQL Server 10. I have two databases that contain dozens of tables. Each table in one database contains a table with the same name in the other database. Tables with the same name have identical format (fields and data types). The contents of the two tables are similar but not identical. I need to update one based on changes made to the other, but only under certain circumstances. I think I want to use a cursor for this, but I can't find a good example to go by. So far, the MSDN examples are reading one field at a time into a variable. I do need to be able to read /modify two fields which are identical in each table, but I gotta believe there's something less tedious than declaring variables for every field of every table. I would like to be able to FETCH an entire row, check a couple of fields and then make a decision of whether I want to write the entire row to the other table after changing two fields - but do I have to declare variables for EVERY field I want to fetch / write? There's no way to just FETCH an entire row and write an entire row?

    Read the article

  • PHP | SQL syntax error when inserting array

    - by Philip
    Hi guys, I am having some trouble inserting an array into the sql database. my error is as follows: Unable to add : You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '06:45:23,i want to leave a comment)' at line 1 My query var_dump is: string(136) "INSERT INTO news_comments (news_id,comment_by,comment_date,comment) VALUES (17263,Philip,2010-05-11 06:45:23,i want to leave a comment)" My question is how can i add an empty value to id as it is the primary key and not news_id my insert function looks like this: function insertQuery($tbl, &$data) { global $mysqli; $_SESSION['errors'] = array(); require_once '../config/mysqli.php'; $query = "INSERT INTO $tbl (".implode(',',array_keys($data)).") VALUES (".implode(',',array_values($data)).")"; var_dump($query); if($result = mysqli_query($mysqli, $query)) { //$id = mysqli_insert_id($mysqli); print 'Very well done sir!'; } else { array_push($_SESSION['errors'], 'Unable to add : ' . mysqli_error($mysqli)); } } Note: arrays are not my strong point so i may be using them in-correctly!

    Read the article

  • SELECT SQL Variable - should i avoid using this syntax and always use SET?

    - by Sholom
    Hi All, This may look like a duplicate to here, but it's not. I am trying to get a best practice, not a technical answer (which i already (think) i know). New to SQL Server and trying to form good habits. I found a great explanation of the functional differences between SET @var = and SELECT @var = here: http://vyaskn.tripod.com/differences_between_set_and_select.htm To summarize what each has that the other hasn't (see source for examples): SET: ANSI and portable, recommended by Microsoft. SET @var = (SELECT column_name FROM table_name) fails when the select returns more then one value, eliminating the possibility of unpredictable results. SET @var = (SELECT column_name FROM table_name) will set @var to NULL if that's what SELECT column_name FROM table_name returned, thus never leaving @var at it's prior value. SELECT: Multiple variables can be set in one statement Can return multiple system variables set by the prior DML statement SELECT @var = column_name FROM table_name would set @var to (according to my testing) the last value returned by the select. This could be a feature or a bug. Behavior can be changed with SELECT @j = (SELECT column_name FROM table_name) syntax. Speed. Setting multiple variables with a single SELECT statement as opposed to multiple SET/SELECT statements is much quicker. He has a sample test to prove his point. If you could design a test to prove the otherwise, bring it on! So, what do i do? (Almost) always use SET @var =, using SELECT @var = is messy coding and not standard. OR Use SELECT @var = freely, it could accomplish more for me, unless the code is likely to be ported to another environment. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Arabic SQL query (on Oracle DB) returns empty result

    - by unprecedented
    I have this query (that runs on Oracle 10g database): SELECT ge.*, ge.concept AS glossarypivot FROM s_glossary_entries ge WHERE (ge.glossaryid = '161' OR ge.sourceglossaryid = '161') AND (ge.approved != 0 OR ge.userid = 361) AND concept = '?' ORDER BY ge.concept The query must display all words that begin with the arabic letter "?" but unfortunately, it returns empty result .. However, if I run the same query on the same database which runs on MYSQL, it works well and displays the correct result .. What should I do in order to get this query working the right way on oracle 10 database? P.S. the oracle database character set is : "AL32UTF8" thank you so much in advance

    Read the article

  • SQL Standard Regarding Left Outer Join and Where Conditions

    - by Ryan
    I am getting different results based on a filter condition in a query based on where I place the filter condition. My questions are: Is there a technical difference between these queries? Is there anything in the SQL standard that explains the different resultsets in the queries? Given the simplified scenario: --Table: Parent Columns: ID, Name, Description --Table: Child Columns: ID, ParentID, Name, Description --Query 1 SELECT p.ID, p.Name, p.Description, c.ID, c.Name, c.Description FROM Parent p LEFT OUTER JOIN Child c ON (p.ID = c.ParentID) WHERE c.ID IS NULL OR c.Description = 'FilterCondition' --Query 2 SELECT p.ID, p.Name, p.Description, c.ID, c.Name, c.Description FROM Parent p LEFT OUTER JOIN Child c ON (p.ID = c.ParentID AND c.Description = 'FilterCondition') I assumed the queries would return the same resultsets and I was surprised when they didn't. I am using MS SQL2005 and in the actual queries, query 1 returned ~700 rows and query 2 returned ~1100 rows and I couldn't detect a pattern on which rows were returned and which rows were excluded. There were still many rows in query 1 with child rows with data and NULL data. I prefer the style of query 2 (and I think it is more optimal), but I thought the queries would return the same results.

    Read the article

  • SQL Query takes about 10 - 20 minutes

    - by masfenix
    I have a select from (nothing to complex) Select * from VIEW This view has about 6000 records and about 40 columns. It comes from a Lotus Notes SQL database. So my ODBC drive is the LotusNotesSQL driver. The query takes about 30 seconds to execute. The company I worked for used EXCEL to run the query and write everything to the worksheet. Since I am assuming it writes everything cell by cell, it used to take up to 30 - 40 minutes to complete. I then used MS access. I made a replica local table on Access to store the data. My first try was INSERT INTO COLUMNS OF LOCAL TABLE FROM (SELECT * FROM VIEW) note that this is pseudocode. This ran successfully, but again took up to 20 - 30 minutes. Then I used VBA to loop through the data and insert it in manually (using an INSERT statement) for each seperate record. This took about 10 - 15 minutes. This has been my best case yet. What i need to do after: After i have the data, I need to filter through it by department. The thing is if I put a where clause in the SQL query (the time jumps from 30 seconds to execute the query, to about 10 minutes + the time to write to local table/excel). I dont know why. MAYBE because the columns are all text columns? If we change some of the columns to integer, would that make it faster in terms of the where clause? I am looking for suggestions on how to approach this. My boss has said we could employ some Java based solution. Will this help? I am not a java person but a c#, and maybe I'll convince them to use c# as well, but i am mainly looking for suggestions on how to cut down the time. I've already cut it down from 40 minutes to 10 minutes, but the want it under 2 minutes. Just to recap: Query takes about 30 seconds to exceute Query takes about 15 - 40 minutes to be used locally in excel/acess Need it under 2 minutes Could use java based solution You may suggest other solutions instead of java.

    Read the article

  • My update query executes but doesn't update

    - by Kindson
    I have this update query. UPDATE production_shr_01 SET total_hours = hours, total_weight = weight, percentage = total_hours / 7893.3 WHERE (status = 'X') The query executes fine but the problem is that when this query executes, it doesn't update the percentage field. What might be the problem?

    Read the article

  • How to loop through an array return from the Query of Mysql

    - by Jerry
    This might be easy for you guys but i could't get it. I have a php class that query the database and return the query result. I assign the result to an array and wants to use it on my main.php script. I have tried to use echo $var[0] or echo $var[1] but the output are 'array' instead of my value. Anyone can help me about this issue? Thanks a lot! My php class <?php class teamQuery { function teamQuery(){ } function getAllTeam(){ $connection = mysql_connect(DB_SERVER,DB_USER,DB_PASS); if (!$connection) { die("Database connection failed: " . mysql_error()); } $db_select = mysql_select_db(DB_NAME,$connection); if (!$db_select) { die("Database selection failed: " . mysql_error()); } $teamQuery=mysql_query("SELECT * FROM team", $connection); if (!$teamQuery){ die("database has errors: ".mysql_error()); } $ret = array(); while($row=mysql_fetch_array($teamQuery)){ $ret[]=$row; } mysql_free_result($teamQuery); return $ret; } } ?> My php on the main.php $getTeam=new teamQuery(); $team=$getTeam->getAllTeam(); //echo $team[0] or team[1] output 'array' string! // while($team){ // do something } can't work either // How to loop through the values?? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Access database query locks ability to edit table?

    - by Sattvic
    I created a query in Microsoft Access like the one below: SELECT Deliverables.ID, Deliverables.Title, Deliverables.Summary, Deliverables.Header_Code, Deliverables.Header_Code.Value, Deliverables.Sort_order, Deliverables.Pillar, Deliverables.Pillar.Value, Deliverables.Misc_ID FROM Deliverables WHERE (((Deliverables.Pillar.Value)="Link Building")); But my problem is that this query locks my fields and I cannot make changes to the table using the query view. Any suggestions? I am using Microsoft Access 2007

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203  | Next Page >