Search Results

Search found 30474 results on 1219 pages for 'relational database'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 309/1219 | < Previous Page | 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316  | Next Page >

  • SQL query duration is longer for smaller dataset?

    - by entens
    I received reports that a my report generating application was not working. After my initial investigation, I found that the SQL transaction was timing out. I'm mystified as to why the query for a smaller selection of items would take so much longer to return results. Quick query (averages 4 seconds to return): SELECT * FROM Payroll WHERE LINEDATE >= '04-17-2010'AND LINEDATE <= '04-24-2010' ORDER BY 'EMPLYEE_NUM' ASC, 'OP_CODE' ASC, 'LINEDATE' ASC Long query (averages 1 minute 20 seconds to return): SELECT * FROM Payroll WHERE LINEDATE >= '04-18-2010'AND LINEDATE <= '04-24-2010' ORDER BY 'EMPLYEE_NUM' ASC, 'OP_CODE' ASC, 'LINEDATE' ASC I could simply increase the timeout on the SqlCommand, but it doesn't change the fact the query is taking longer than it should. Why would requesting a subset of the items take longer than the query that returns more data? How can I optimize this query?

    Read the article

  • how to model a follower stream in appengine?

    - by molicule
    I am trying to design tables to buildout a follower relationship. Say I have a stream of 140char records that have user, hashtag and other text. Users follow other users, and can also follow hashtags. I am outlining the way I've designed this below, but there are two limitaions in my design. I was wondering if others had smarter ways to accomplish the same goal. The issues with this are The list of followers is copied in for each record If a new follower is added or one removed, 'all' the records have to be updated. The code class HashtagFollowers(db.Model): """ This table contains the followers for each hashtag """ hashtag = db.StringProperty() followers = db.StringListProperty() class UserFollowers(db.Model): """ This table contains the followers for each user """ username = db.StringProperty() followers = db.StringListProperty() class stream(db.Model): """ This table contains the data stream """ username = db.StringProperty() hashtag = db.StringProperty() text = db.TextProperty() def save(self): """ On each save all the followers for each hashtag and user are added into a another table with this record as the parent """ super(stream, self).save() hfs = HashtagFollowers.all().filter("hashtag =", self.hashtag).fetch(10) for hf in hfs: sh = streamHashtags(parent=self, followers=hf.followers) sh.save() ufs = UserFollowers.all().filter("username =", self.username).fetch(10) for uf in ufs: uh = streamUsers(parent=self, followers=uf.followers) uh.save() class streamHashtags(db.Model): """ The stream record is the parent of this record """ followers = db.StringListProperty() class streamUsers(db.Model): """ The stream record is the parent of this record """ followers = db.StringListProperty() Now, to get the stream of followed hastags indexes = db.GqlQuery("""SELECT __key__ from streamHashtags where followers = 'myusername'""") keys = [k,parent() for k in indexes[offset:numresults]] return db.get(keys) Is there a smarter way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Creating an appropriate index for a frequently used query in SQL Server

    - by Slauma
    In my application I have two queries which will be quite frequently used. The Where clauses of these queries are the following: WHERE FieldA = @P1 AND (FieldB = @P2 OR FieldC = @P2) and WHERE FieldA = @P1 AND FieldB = @P2 P1 and P2 are parameters entered in the UI or coming from external datasources. FieldA is an int and highly on-unique, means: only two, three, four different values in a table with say 20000 rows FieldB is a varchar(20) and is "almost" unique, there will be only very few rows where FieldB might have the same value FieldC is a varchar(15) and also highly distinct, but not as much as FieldB FieldA and FieldB together are unique (but do not form my primary key, which is a simple auto-incrementing identity column with a clustered index) I'm wondering now what's the best way to define an index to speed up specifically these two queries. Shall I define one index with... FieldB (or better FieldC here?) FieldC (or better FieldB here?) FieldA ... or better two indices: FieldB FieldA and FieldC FieldA Or are there even other and better options? What's the best way and why? Thank you for suggestions in advance!

    Read the article

  • What is faster in MySQL? WHERE sub request = 0 or IN list

    - by Nicolas Manzini
    Hello I was wondering what is better in MySQL. I have a SELECT querry that exclude every entry associated to a banned userID currently I have a subquerry clause in the WHERE statement that goes like AND (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM TheBlackListTable WHERE userID = userList.ID AND blackListedID = :userID2 ) = 0 Which will accept every userID not present in the TheBlackListTable Would it be faster to retrieve first all Banned ID in a previous request and replace the previous clause by AND creatorID NOT IN listOfBannedID Thank you!

    Read the article

  • In SQL server, to convert a varchar which have this format (nnn:nn:nn)

    - by user1688917
    I have this varchar format as time accumulation and i want to convert it to an integer to do a SUM and get the total time for a group. The fist part which may be 1, 2, 3, 4 or even five digits represent the accumulation of Hours and then seperated by a colon. then come the second part which is accumulation of minutes and last accumulation of seconds (2 digits each). How to convert this to integer in one query if possile.

    Read the article

  • T-SQL MERGE - finding out which action it took

    - by IanC
    I need to know if a MERGE statement performed an INSERT. In my scenario, the insert is either 0 or 1 rows. Test code: DECLARE @t table (C1 int, C2 int) DECLARE @C1 INT, @C2 INT set @c1 = 1 set @c2 = 1 MERGE @t as tgt USING (SELECT @C1, @C2) AS src (C1, C2) ON (tgt.C1 = src.C1) WHEN MATCHED AND tgt.C2 != src.C2 THEN UPDATE SET tgt.C2 = src.C2 WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET THEN INSERT VALUES (src.C1, src. C2) OUTPUT deleted.*, $action, inserted.*; SELECT inserted.* The last line doesn't compile (no scope, unlike a trigger). I can't get access to @action, or the output. Actually, I don't want any output meta data. How can I do this?

    Read the article

  • Using NULLs in matchup table

    - by TomWilsonFL
    I am working on the accounting portion of a reservation system (think limo company). In the system there are multiple objects that can either be paid or submit a payment. I am tracking all of these "transactions" in three tables called: tx, tx_cc, and tx_ch. tx generates a new tx_id (for transaction ID) and keeps the information about amount, validity, etc. Tx_cc and tx_ch keep the information about the credit card or check used, respectively, which link to other tables (credit_card and bank_account among others). This seems fairly normalized to me, no? Now here is my problem: The payment transaction can take place for a myriad of reasons. Either a reservation is being paid for, a travel agent that booked a reservation is being paid, a driver is being paid, etc. This results in multiple tables, one for each of the entities: agent_tx, driver_tx, reservation_tx, etc. They look like this: CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `driver_tx` ( `tx_id` int(10) unsigned zerofill NOT NULL, `driver_id` int(11) NOT NULL, `reservation_id` int(11) default NULL, `reservation_item_id` int(11) default NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`tx_id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8; Now this transaction is for a driver, but could be applied to an individual item on the reservation or the entire reservation overall. Therefore I demand either reservation_id OR reservation_item_id to be null. In the future there may be other things which a driver is paid for, which I would also add to this table, defaulting to null. What is the rule on this? Opinion? Obviously I could break this out into MANY three column tables, but the amount of OUTER JOINing needed seems outrageous. Your input is appreciated. Peace, Tom

    Read the article

  • mysql subquery strangely slow

    - by aviv
    I have a query to select from another sub-query select. While the two queries look almost the same the second query (in this sample) runs much slower: SELECT user.id ,user.first_name -- user.* FROM user WHERE user.id IN (SELECT ref_id FROM education WHERE ref_type='user' AND education.institute_id='58' AND education.institute_type='1' ); This query takes 1.2s Explain on this query results: id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra 1 PRIMARY user index first_name 152 141192 Using where; Using index 2 DEPENDENT SUBQUERY education index_subquery ref_type,ref_id,institute_id,institute_type,ref_type_2 ref_id 4 func 1 Using where The second query: SELECT -- user.id -- user.first_name user.* FROM user WHERE user.id IN (SELECT ref_id FROM education WHERE ref_type='user' AND education.institute_id='58' AND education.institute_type='1' ); Takes 45sec to run, with explain: id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra 1 PRIMARY user ALL 141192 Using where 2 DEPENDENT SUBQUERY education index_subquery ref_type,ref_id,institute_id,institute_type,ref_type_2 ref_id 4 func 1 Using where Why is it slower if i query only by index fields? Why both queries scans the full length of the user table? Any ideas how to improve? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Concatinate string column value to 5 char long

    - by mrp
    Scenario: I have a table1(col1 char(5)); A value in table1 may '001' or '01' or '1'. Requirement: Whatever value in col1, I need to retrive it in 5 char length concatenate with leading '0' to make it 5 char long. Technique I applied: select right(('00000' + col1),5) from table1; I didn't see any reason, why it doesn't work? but it didn't. Can anyone help me, how I can achieve the desired result?

    Read the article

  • Desimal data Type Display scale part as zero

    - by Wael Dalloul
    I have Decimal field in SQLserver 2005 table, Price decimal(18, 4) if I write 12 it will be converted to 12.0000, if I write 12.33 it will be converted into 12.3300. Always it's putting zero to the right of the decimal point in the count of Scale Part(4). I was using these in SQL Server 2000, it was not behaving like this, in SQL Server 2000 if I put 12.5 it will be stored as 12.5 not as 12.5000 what SQLServer2005 do. My Question is how to stop SQL Server 2005 from putting zeros to the right of the decimal point?

    Read the article

  • Question about joins and table with Millions of rows

    - by xRobot
    I have to create 2 tables: Magazine ( 10 millions of rows with these columns: id, title, genres, printing, price ) Author ( 180 millions of rows with these columns: id, name, magazine_id ) . Every author can write on ONLY ONE magazine and every magazine has more authors. So if I want to know all authors of Motors Magazine, I have to use this query: SELECT * FROM Author, Magazine WHERE ( Author.id = Magazine.id ) AND ( genres = 'Motors' ) The same applies to Printing and Price column. To avoid these joins with tables of millions of rows, I thought to use this tables: Magazine ( 10 millions of rows with this column: id, title, genres, printing, price ) Author ( 180 millions of rows with this column: id, name, magazine_id, genres, printing, price ) . and this query: SELECT * FROM Author WHERE genres = 'Motors' Is it a good approach ? I can use Postgresql or Mysql.

    Read the article

  • What is the most efficient procedure for implementing a sortable ajax list on the backend?

    - by HenryL
    The most common method is to assign a sequential order field for each item in the list and do an update that maintains the sequence with every ajax sort operation. Unfortunately, this requires an update to each item of the list every time someone sorts. This is fine for small lists, but what's the best way to implement sorting for larger lists that are constantly updated? I am looking for something that minimizes DB IO.

    Read the article

  • Two radically different queries against 4 mil records execute in the same time - one uses brute force.

    - by IanC
    I'm using SQL Server 2008. I have a table with over 3 million records, which is related to another table with a million records. I have spent a few days experimenting with different ways of querying these tables. I have it down to two radically different queries, both of which take 6s to execute on my laptop. The first query uses a brute force method of evaluating possibly likely matches, and removes incorrect matches via aggregate summation calculations. The second gets all possibly likely matches, then removes incorrect matches via an EXCEPT query that uses two dedicated indexes to find the low and high mismatches. Logically, one would expect the brute force to be slow and the indexes one to be fast. Not so. And I have experimented heavily with indexes until I got the best speed. Further, the brute force query doesn't require as many indexes, which means that technically it would yield better overall system performance. Below are the two execution plans. If you can't see them, please let me know and I'll re-post then in landscape orientation / mail them to you. Brute-force query: Index-based exception query: My question is, based on the execution plans, which one look more efficient? I realize that thing may change as my data grows.

    Read the article

  • How do I perform 'WHERE' on groups of rows?

    - by Drew
    I have a table, which looks like: +-----------+----------+ + person_id + group_id + +-----------+----------+ + 1 + 10 + + 1 + 20 + + 1 + 30 + + 2 + 10 + + 2 + 20 + + 3 + 10 + +-----------+----------+ I need a query such that only person_ids with groups 10 AND 20 AND 30 are returned (only person_id: 1). I am not sure how to do this, as from what I can see it would require me to group the rows by person_id and then select the rows which contain all group_ids. I'm looking for something which will preserve the use of keys without resorting to string operations on group_concat() or such.

    Read the article

  • MySQL Table structure of thumb UP & DOWN for comments system ?

    - by Axel
    Hello, i already created a table for comments but i want to add the feature of thumb Up and Down for comments like Digg and Youtube, i use php & mysql and i'm wondering What's the best table scheme to implement that so comments with many likes will be on the top. This is my current comments table : comments(id,user,article,comment,stamp) Note: Only registred will be able to vote, so there isn't need to restrict the votes by IP Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to figure out which record has been deleted in an effiecient way?

    - by janetsmith
    Hi, I am working on an in-house ETL solution, from db1 (Oracle) to db2 (Sybase). We needs to transfer data incrementally (Change Data Capture?) into db2. I have only read access to tables, so I can't create any table or trigger in Oracle db1. The challenge I am facing is, how to detect record deletion in Oracle? The solution which I can think of, is by using additional standalone/embedded db (e.g. derby, h2 etc). This db contains 2 tables, namely old_data, new_data. old_data contains primary key field from tahle of interest in Oracle. Every time ETL process runs, new_data table will be populated with primary key field from Oracle table. After that, I will run the following sql command to get the deleted rows: SELECT old_data.id FROM old_data WHERE old_data.id NOT IN (SELECT new_data.id FROM new_data) I think this will be a very expensive operation when the volume of data become very large. Do you have any better idea of doing this? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Update query with conditional?

    - by dmontain
    I'm not sure if this possible. If not, let me know. I have a PDO mysql that updates 3 fields. $update = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field1=:field1, field2=:field2, field3=:field3 WHERE key=:key"); But I want field3 to be updated only when $update3 = true; (meaning that the update of field3 is controlled by a conditional statement) Is this possible to accomplish with a single query? I could do it with 2 queries where I update field1 and field2 then check the boolean and update field3 if needed in a separate query. //run this query to update only fields 1 and 2 $update_part1 = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field1=:field1, field2=:field2 WHERE key=:key"); //if field3 should be update, run a separate query to update it separately if ($update3){ $update_part2 = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field3=:field3 WHERE key=:key"); } But hopefully there is a way to accomplish this in 1 query?

    Read the article

  • Advantage Data Architect doesn't accept 'output to', are there any other options for outputting a ta

    - by likesalmon
    I'm trying to output the results of a SELECT query to a tab delimited text file in Advantage Data Architect. I know I can use the 'Export to' feature to do this, but there are a lot of tables and that is going to take forever. I would rather use the SQL editor, but I found out it does not accept the OUTPUT TO argument, even though that command is part of Sybase SQL. I would like to do this: SELECT * FROM tablename; OUTPUT TO 'C:/ExportDirectory' DELIMITED BY '\t' FORMAT TEXT; Is there another way?

    Read the article

  • Search sort by parameter match count in the query? PostgreSQL

    - by Ben Dauphinee
    I am working on a search query in PostgreSQL, and one of the things I do is sort my query results by the number of parameters matched. I have no clue how this can be done. Does anyone have a suggestion or solution? Table brand color type engine Ford Blue 4-door V8 Maserati Blue 2-door V12 Saturn Green 4-door V8 GM Yellow 1-door V4 Current Query SELECT brand FROM table WHERE color = 'Blue' or type = '4-door' or engine = 'V8' Result Should Be Ford (3 match) Saturn (2 match) Maserati (1 match)

    Read the article

  • Hierarchical Hibernate, how many queries are executed?

    - by ghost1
    So I've been dealing with a home brew DB framework that has some seriously flaws, the justification for use being that not using an ORM will save on the number of queries executed. If I'm selecting all possibile records from the top level of a joinable object hierarchy, how many separate calls to the DB will be made when using an ORM (such as Hibernate)? I feel like calling bullshit on this, as joinable entities should be brought down in one query , right? Am I missing something here? note: lazy initialization doesn't matter in this scenario as all records will be used.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316  | Next Page >