Search Results

Search found 100260 results on 4011 pages for 'sql server 2005 sp3'.

Page 276/4011 | < Previous Page | 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283  | Next Page >

  • How do I select the first row per group in an SQL Query?

    - by mafutrct
    I've got this SQL query: SELECT Foo, Bar, SUM(Values) AS Sum FROM SomeTable GROUP BY Foo, Bar ORDER BY Foo DESC, Sum DESC This results in an output similar to this: 47 1 100 47 0 10 47 2 10 46 0 100 46 1 10 46 2 10 44 0 2 I'd like to have only the first row per Foo and ignore the rest. 47 1 100 46 0 100 44 0 2 How do I do that?

    Read the article

  • Parameterizing a SQL IN clause on an integer column?

    - by SkippyFire
    Jeff Atwood asked the original question about parameterizing a SQL IN clause, but I want to do this with an integer column. If I try the code from the original post I get the following exception, which makes sense: Conversion failed when converting the varchar value '%|' to data type int. Anyone try this before?

    Read the article

  • Have I to count transactions before rollback one in catch block in T-SQL?

    - by abatishchev
    I have next block in the end of each my stored procedure for SQL Server 2008 BEGIN TRY BEGIN TRAN -- my code COMMIT END TRY BEGIN CATCH IF (@@trancount > 0) BEGIN ROLLBACK DECLARE @message NVARCHAR(MAX) DECLARE @state INT SELECT @message = ERROR_MESSAGE(), @state = ERROR_STATE() RAISERROR (@message, 11, @state) END END CATCH Is it possible to switch CATCH-block to BEGIN CATCH ROLLBACK DECLARE @message NVARCHAR(MAX) DECLARE @state INT SELECT @message = ERROR_MESSAGE(), @state = ERROR_STATE() RAISERROR (@message, 11, @state) END CATCH or just BEGIN CATCH ROLLBACK END CATCH ?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server: How to get a subitem of sp_helplanguage ?

    - by Quandary
    Question: I can get the SQL Server database language by querying: SELECT @@language And I can get further info via EXEC sp_helplanguage How can I query for a column of sp_helplanguage where name= @@language I do SELECT * FROM sp_helplanguage WHERE name='DEUTSCH' but that obviously doesn't work. What's the correct way to query it ?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2005: Update rows in a specified order (like ORDER BY)?

    - by JMTyler
    I want to update rows of a table in a specific order, like one would expect if including an ORDER BY clause, but SQL Server does not support the ORDER BY clause in UPDATE queries. I have checked out this question which supplied a nice solution, but my query is a bit more complicated than the one specified there. UPDATE TableA AS Parent SET Parent.ColA = Parent.ColA + (SELECT TOP 1 Child.ColA FROM TableA AS Child WHERE Child.ParentColB = Parent.ColB ORDER BY Child.Priority) ORDER BY Parent.Depth DESC; So, what I'm hoping that you'll notice is that a single table (TableA) contains a hierarchy of rows, wherein one row can be the parent or child of any other row. The rows need to be updated in order from the deepest child up to the root parent. This is because TableA.ColA must contain an up-to-date concatenation of its own current value with the values of its children (I realize this query only concats with one child, but that is for the sake of simplicity - the purpose of the example in this question does not necessitate any more verbosity), therefore the query must update from the bottom up. The solution suggested in the question I noted above is as follows: UPDATE messages SET status=10 WHERE ID in (SELECT TOP (10) Id FROM Table WHERE status=0 ORDER BY priority DESC ); The reason that I don't think I can use this solution is because I am referencing column values from the parent table inside my subquery (see WHERE Child.ParentColB = Parent.ColB), and I don't think two sibling subqueries would have access to each others' data. So far I have only determined one way to merge that suggested solution with my current problem, and I don't think it works. UPDATE TableA AS Parent SET Parent.ColA = Parent.ColA + (SELECT TOP 1 Child.ColA FROM TableA AS Child WHERE Child.ParentColB = Parent.ColB ORDER BY Child.Priority) WHERE Parent.Id IN (SELECT Id FROM TableA ORDER BY Parent.Depth DESC); The WHERE..IN subquery will not actually return a subset of the rows, it will just return the full list of IDs in the order that I want. However (I don't know for sure - please tell me if I'm wrong) I think that the WHERE..IN clause will not care about the order of IDs within the parentheses - it will just check the ID of the row it currently wants to update to see if it's in that list (which, they all are) in whatever order it is already trying to update... Which would just be a total waste of cycles, because it wouldn't change anything. So, in conclusion, I have looked around and can't seem to figure out a way to update in a specified order (and included the reason I need to update in that order, because I am sure I would otherwise get the ever-so-useful "why?" answers) and I am now hitting up Stack Overflow to see if any of you gurus out there who know more about SQL than I do (which isn't saying much) know of an efficient way to do this. It's particularly important that I only use a single query to complete this action. A long question, but I wanted to cover my bases and give you guys as much info to feed off of as possible. :) Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How to convert SQL Statement with TOP, COUNT and GROUP BY to return an object list with LINQ

    - by Junior Mayhé
    Hello guys does anyone know how to convert this SQL statement to a LINQ to a List? SELECT TOP(5) COUNT(CategoryId), CategoryName FROM Tickets GROUP BY CategoryName The result would be something like public static List<Categories> List() { MyEntities db = new MyEntities(); /* here it should return a list o Category type */; return db.Category.GroupBy(...).OrderBy(...); }

    Read the article

  • How to switch from VARCHAR to TEXT in SQL 2000?

    - by MatthewMartin
    What do I need to consider before I switch a bunch of fields from VARCHAR(bignumber) to TEXT? Aside from performance, and sometime in the far future TEXT will be deprecated, and aside from the fact that it looks like I need to drop and recreate the table to alter the column's data type? This is for SQL 2000-- I can't do VARCHAR(max) and VARCHAR(8000) isn't large enough.

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to parse an Address field using t-sql or SSIS?

    - by dtaylo04
    I have a data set that I import into a SQL table every night. One field is 'Address_3' and contains the City, State, Zip and Country fields. However, this data isn't standardized. How can I best parse the data that is currently going into 1 field into individual fields. Here are some examples of the data I might receive: 'INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46268 US' 'INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46268-1234 US' 'INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46268-1234' 'INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46268' Thanks in advance! David

    Read the article

  • How to prevent SQL Compact DB to be erased?

    - by Skuta
    Hi, I'm developing an applciation using SQL Compact database in Visual Studio 2008. When I start the application and run the process, the data is being loaded into database for few hours worth of few tens of megabytes. However, when I quite debugging, change something in code (not in DB structure), run the project again, the database is erased. Does anyone know how to prevent this behavior? I need the data to stay in DB to test on it.

    Read the article

  • Generate Delete Statement From Foreign Key Relationships in SQL 2008 ?

    - by Element
    Is it possible via script/tool to generate a delete statement based on the tables fk relations. i.e. I have the table: DelMe(ID) and there are 30 tables with fk references to its ID that I need to delete first, is there some tool/script that I can run that will generate the 30 delete statements based on the FK relations for me ? (btw I know about cascade delete on the relations, I can't use it in this existing db) I'm using Microsoft SQL Server 2008

    Read the article

  • SQL 2000 Not Supported by .NET Framework Data Provider for SQL Server in VS2010's Server Explorer D

    - by Canoehead
    Just tried creating a data connection to a SQL 2000 database in VS2010's Server Explorer using a .NET Framework Data Provider for SQL Server (versus OLE) and found that it didn't work. VS2010 complained that I had to use SQL Server 2005 and up. This used to work in VS2008 (using .NET Framework Data Provider for SQL Server instead of the .NET Framework Data Provider for OLE DB). Is this just a VS2010 restriction or has the ability to connect to SQL 2000 with .NET Framework Data Provider for SQL Server been obsoleted in a post-2.0 version of .NET being used by VS2010? Anyone know why this was done by MS (please don't speculate - I can do that myself ;)?

    Read the article

  • Synchronizing two SQL Server databases using MS Sync Framework

    - by Immortal
    I have one central SQL Server database which can be offline from time to time. I have a desktop application using Local DB Cache (SQL CE) to synchronize with the central database and I also have a web application with its own SQL Server that I'd also would like to keep synchronized. All synchronizations must be bidirectional. Is there a way to synchronize my central database with web application's database in the same way as I synchronize my central database with desktop client? I know about collaboration scenarios and peer-to-peer synchronization but I would like to avoid manual provisioning of databases. I'd like to use integrated sql server 2008 change tracking just like in the SQL CE <-- SQL Server scenario.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283  | Next Page >