Search Results

Search found 35019 results on 1401 pages for 'sql documentation'.

Page 349/1401 | < Previous Page | 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356  | Next Page >

• LINQ to SQL filter combobox output

  - by Brendan

  OK so I've got 2 tables for this instance, Users{UserID, Name}, Company{CompanyID, UserID, Name, Payrate} i also have 2 combo boxes, first one is for Users which Displays Name, and the Value is UserID i need the second combobox to get the Names from the Company table, but only showing Companies that are relevant to the selected user. I cant work out how to get it to go... Any ideas???

  Read the article

• getting sql records

  - by droidus

  when i run this code, it returns the topic fine... $query = mysql_query("SELECT topic FROM question WHERE id = '$id'"); if(mysql_num_rows($query) > 0) { $row = mysql_fetch_array($query) or die(mysql_error()); $topic = $row['topic']; } but when I change it to this, it doesn't run at all. why is this happening? $query = mysql_query("SELECT topic, lock FROM question WHERE id = '$id'"); if(mysql_num_rows($query) > 0) { $row = mysql_fetch_array($query) or die(mysql_error()); $topic = $row['topic']; $lockedThread = $row['lock']; echo "here: " . $lockedThread; }

  Read the article

• how to remove repeated record's from results linq to sql

  - by Sadegh

  hi, i want to remove repeated record's from results but distinct don't do this for me! why??? var results = (from words in _Xplorium.Words join wordFiles in _Xplorium.WordFiles on words.WordId equals wordFiles.WordId join files in _Xplorium.Files on wordFiles.FileId equals files.FileId join urls in _Xplorium.Urls on files.UrlId equals urls.UrlId where files.Title.Contains(query) || files.Description.Contains(query) orderby wordFiles.Count descending select new SearchResultItem() { Title = files.Title, Url = urls.Address, Count = wordFiles.Count, CrawledOn = files.CrawledOn, Description = files.Description, Lenght = files.Lenght, UniqueKey = words.WordId + "-" + files.FileId + "-" + urls.UrlId }).Distinct();

  Read the article

• Choosing proper database for a few users application

  - by tomo

  Requirements: tiny WinForms client app (C# 4.0, WinForms or WPF) a few users working simultinausly no database service at all - the whole engine as *.DLLs inside client apps database available as shared folder on one computer at least simple concurrrency checks compatible with nHibernate or EntityFramework / NET 4.0 backup as simple as copying files from shared folder - assuming no running clients at the moment no stored procedures/triggers required data size - a few tables and a few thousands rows after 2 years Nice to have: user access rights encrypted data I'm trying to choose between: MS Access SqlLite SqlServer Compact Edition. Can you recommend which one should be the best for these requirements?

  Read the article

• Best way to return result from business layer to presentation layer when using LINQ-to-SQL

  - by samsur

  I have a business layer that has DTOs that are used in the presentation layer. This application uses entity framework. Here is an example of a class called RoleDTO: public class RoleDTO { public Guid RoleId { get; set; } public string RoleName { get; set; } public string RoleDescription { get; set; } public int? OrganizationId { get; set; } } In the BLL I want to have a method that returns a list of DTO. I would like to know which is the better approach: returning IQueryable or list of DTOs. Although I feel that returning IQueryable is not a good idea because the connection needs to be open. Here are the 2 different methods using the different approaches: First approach public class RoleBLL { private servicedeskEntities sde; public RoleBLL() { sde = new servicedeskEntities(); } public IQueryable<RoleDTO> GetAllRoles() { IQueryable<RoleDTO> role = from r in sde.Roles select new RoleDTO() { RoleId = r.RoleID, RoleName = r.RoleName, RoleDescription = r.RoleDescription, OrganizationId = r.OrganizationId }; return role; } Note: in the above method the DataContext is a private attribute and set in the constructor, so that the connection stays opened. Second approach public static List<RoleDTO> GetAllRoles() { List<RoleDTO> roleDTO = new List<RoleDTO>(); using (servicedeskEntities sde = new servicedeskEntities()) { var roles = from pri in sde.Roles select new { pri.RoleID, pri.RoleName, pri.RoleDescription }; //Add the role entites to the DTO list and return. This is necessary as anonymous types can be returned acrosss methods foreach (var item in roles) { RoleDTO roleItem = new RoleDTO(); roleItem.RoleId = item.RoleID; roleItem.RoleDescription = item.RoleDescription; roleItem.RoleName = item.RoleName; roleDTO.Add(roleItem); } return roleDTO; } } Please let me know, if there is a better approach.

  Read the article

• SQL Grouping with multiple joins combining results incorrectly

  - by Matt

  Hi I'm having trouble with my query combining records when it shouldn't. I have two tables Authors and Publications, they are related by Publication ID in a many to many relationship. As each author can have many publications and each publication has many Authors. I want my query to return every publication for a set of authors and include the ID of each of the other authors that have contributed to the publication grouped into one field. (I am working with mySQL) I have tried to picture it graphically below Table: authors Table:publications AuthorID | PublicationID PublicationID | PublicationName 1 | 123 123 | A 1 | 456 456 | B 2 | 123 789 | C 2 | 789 3 | 123 3 | 456 I want my result set to be the following AuthorID | PublicationID | PublicationName | AllAuthors 1 | 123 | A | 1,2,3 1 | 456 | B | 1,3 2 | 123 | A | 1,2,3 2 | 789 | C | 2 3 | 123 | A | 1,2,3 3 | 456 | B | 1,3 This is my query Select Author1.AuthorID, Publications.PublicationID, Publications.PubName, GROUP_CONCAT(TRIM(Author2.AuthorID)ORDER BY Author2.AuthorID ASC)AS 'AuthorsAll' FROM Authors AS Author1 LEFT JOIN Authors AS Author2 ON Author1.PublicationID = Author2.PublicationID INNER JOIN Publications ON Author1.PublicationID = Publications.PublicationID WHERE Author1.AuthorID ="1" OR Author1.AuthorID ="2" OR Author1.AuthorID ="3" GROUP BY Author2.PublicationID But it returns the following instead AuthorID | PublicationID | PublicationName | AllAuthors 1 | 123 | A | 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3 1 | 456 | B | 1,1,3,3 2 | 789 | C | 2 It does deliver the desired output when there is only one AuhorID in the where statement. I have not been able to figure it out, does anyone know where i'm going wrong?

  Read the article

• how to enter manual time stamp in get date ()

  - by Arunachalam

  how to enter manual time stamp in get date () ? select conver(varchar(10),getdate(),120) returns 2010-06-07 now i want to enter my own time stamp in this like 2010-06-07 10.00.00.000 i m using this in select * from sample table where time_stamp ='2010-06-07 10.00.00.000' since i m trying to automate this query i need the current date but i need different time stamp can it be done .

  Read the article

• Is adding a bit mask to all tables in a database useful?

  - by Tom

  A colleague is adding a bit mask to all our database tables. In theory this is so we can track certain properties of each row across the entire system. For example... Is the row shipped with the system or added by the client once they've started using the system Has the row been deleted from the table (soft deletes) Is the row a default value within a set of rows Is this a good idea? Are there other uses where this approach would be beneficial? My preference is these properties are obviously important, and having a dedicated column for each property is justified to make what is happening clearer to fellow developers.

  Read the article

• Invalid SQL Query

  - by svovaf

  I have the next query that in my opinion is a valid one, but I keep getting error telling me that there is a proble on "WHERE em.p4 = ue.p3" - Unknown column 'ue.p3' in 'where clause'. This is the query: SELECT DISTINCT ue.p3 FROM table1 AS ue INNER JOIN table2 AS e ON ue.p3 = e.p3 WHERE EXISTS( SELECT 1 FROM ( SELECT (COUNT(*) >= 1) AS MinMutual FROM table4 AS smm WHERE smm.p1 IN ( SELECT sem.p3 FROM table3 AS sem INNER JOIN table2 AS em ON sem.p3 = em.p3 WHERE em.p4 = ue.p3 AND sem.type = 'friends' AND em.p2 = 'normal' ) AND smm.p5 IN ( 15000,15151 ) ) AS Mutual WHERE Mutual.MinMutual = TRUE) LIMIT 11 If I execute the sub-query which is inside the EXISTS function, everything is O.K. PLEASE HELP!

  Read the article

• SQL to get friends AND friends of friends of a user

  - by Enrique

  My MySQL tables structure is like this. USER int id varchar username FRIEND_LIST int user_id int friend_id For each friend relationship I insert 2 records in FRIEND_LIST. If user 1 is friend of user 2 then the next rows are inserted into FRIEND_LIST 1,2 2,1 I want to get the friends and friends of friends of an specific user. The select should return columns a, b, c. a: user_id b: friend_id c: username (username of friend_id ) If 1 is friend of 2 and 3. 2 is friend of 3, 4 and 5 3 is friend of 5,6,7 Then the query to get 1's friends and friends of friends should return: 1 2 two 1 3 three 2 1 one 2 3 three 2 4 four 2 5 five 3 1 one 3 5 five 3 6 six 3 7 seven Can I get this rows with a single query?

  Read the article

• Unexpected behaviour of Order by clause

  - by Newbie

  I have a table which looks like Col1 col2 col3 col4 col5 1 5 1 4 6 1 4 0 3 7 0 1 5 6 3 1 8 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 4 The script is declare @t table(col1 int, col2 int, col3 int,col4 int,col5 int) insert into @t select 1,5,1,4,6 union all select 1,4,0,3,7 union all select 0,1,5,6,3 union all select 1,8,2,1,5 union all select 4,3,2,1,4 If I do a sorting (ascending), the output is Col1 col2 col3 col4 col5 0 1 5 6 3 1 4 0 3 7 1 5 1 4 6 1 8 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 4 The query is Select * from @t order by col1,col2,col3,col4,col5 But as can be seen that the sorting output is wrong (col2 to col5). I want the output to be every column being sorted in ascending order i.e. Col1 col2 col3 col4 col5 0 1 0 1 3 1 3 1 1 4 1 4 2 3 5 1 5 2 4 6 4 8 5 6 7 Why so and how to overcome this? Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Do the speed of the query depends on the number of rows in the table ?

  - by Omu

  let's say I have this query: select * from table1 r where r.x = 5 do the speed of this query depends on the number of rows that are present in table1 ?

  Read the article

• SQL CASE Question

  - by docsql

  Hiya, I dont know if this can be done but i'd though i'd ask. What I want to do is have a case statement query and if a 1 begin another action. if 0 dont do anything. For Example select CASE WHEN client.deathofdeath = yes THEN 1 do another select in here (which is another table) Else 0 End AS DeathDate From Client client Can this be done?

  Read the article

• heirarchial data from self referencing table in tree form

  - by Beta033

  Ii looks like this has been asked and answered in all the simple cases, excluding the one that i'm having trouble with. I've tried using a recursive CTE to generate this, however maybe a cursor would be better? or maybe a set of recursive functions will do the trick? Can this be done in a cte? consider the following table PrimaryKey ParentKey 1 NULL 2 1 3 6 4 7 5 2 6 1 7 NULL should yield PK 1 -2 --5 -6 --3 7 -4 where the number of - marks equal the depth, my primary difficulty is the ordering.

  Read the article

• Is it a good idea to use a computed column as part of a primary key ?

  - by Brann

  I've got a table defined as : OrderID bigint NOT NULL, IDA varchar(50) NULL, IDB bigint NULL, [ ... 50 other non relevant columns ...] The natural primary key for this table would be (OrderID,IDA,IDB), but this it not possible because IDA and IDB can be null (they can both be null, but they are never both defined at the same time). Right now I've got a unique constraint on those 3 columns. Now, the thing is I need a primary key to enable transactional replication, and I'm faced with two choices : Create an identity column and use it as a primary key Create a non-null computed column C containing either IDA or IDB or '' if both columns were null, and use (OrderID,C) as my primary key. The second alternative seams cleaner as my PK would be meaningful, and is feasible (see msdn link), but since I've never seen this done anywhere, I was wondering if they were some cons to this approach.

  Read the article

• Round time to 5 minute nearest SQL Server

  - by Drako

  i don't know if it can be usefull to somebody but I went crazy looking for a solution and ended up doing it myself. Here is a function that (according to a date passed as parameter), returns the same date and approximate time to the nearest multiple of 5. It is a slow query, so if anyone has a better solution, it is welcome. A greeting. CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[RoundTime] (@Time DATETIME) RETURNS DATETIME AS BEGIN DECLARE @min nvarchar(50) DECLARE @val int DECLARE @hour int DECLARE @temp int DECLARE @day datetime DECLARE @date datetime SET @date = CONVERT(DATETIME, @Time, 120) SET @day = (select DATEADD(dd, 0, DATEDIFF(dd, 0, @date))) SET @hour = (select datepart(hour,@date)) SET @min = (select datepart(minute,@date)) IF LEN(@min) > 1 BEGIN SET @val = CAST(substring(@min, 2, 1) as int) END else BEGIN SET @val = CAST(substring(@min, 1, 1) as int) END IF @val <= 2 BEGIN SET @val = CAST(CAST(@min as int) - @val as int) END else BEGIN IF (@val <> 5) BEGIN SET @temp = 5 - CAST(@min%5 as int) SET @val = CAST(CAST(@min as int) + @temp as int) END IF (@val = 60) BEGIN SET @val = 0 SET @hour = @hour + 1 END IF (@hour = 24) BEGIN SET @day = DATEADD(day,1,@day) SET @hour = 0 SET @min = 0 END END RETURN CONVERT(datetime, CAST(DATEPART(YYYY, @day) as nvarchar) + '-' + CAST(DATEPART(MM, @day) as nvarchar) + '-' + CAST(DATEPART(dd, @day) as nvarchar) + ' ' + CAST(@hour as nvarchar) + ':' + CAST(@val as nvarchar), 120) END

  Read the article

• SQL Server 2005 Create Table with Column Default value range

  - by Matt

  Trying to finish up some homework and ran into a issue for creating tables. How do you declare a column default for a range of numbers. Its reads: "Column Building (default to 1 but can be 1-10)" I can't seem to find ...or know where to look for this information. CREATE TABLE tblDepartment ( Department_ID int NOT NULL IDENTITY, Department_Name varchar(255) NOT NULL, Division_Name varchar(255) NOT NULL, City varchar(255) default 'spokane' NOT NULL, Building int default 1 NOT NULL, Phone varchar(255) ) I tried Building int default 1 Between 1 AND 10 NOT NULL, that didn't work out I tried Building int default 1-10, the table was created but I don't think its correct.

  Read the article

• SQL Structure of DB table with different types of columns

  - by Dmitry Dvornikov

  I have a problem with the optimization of the structure of the database. I'll try to explain it exactly. I create a project, where we can add different values??, but this values must have different types of the columns in the database (eg, int, double , varchar). What is the best way to store the different types of values ??in the database. In the project I'm using Propel 1.6. The point is availability to add value with 'int', 'varchar' and other columns types, to search the table was efficient. In total, I have two ideas. The first is to create a table of "value", which will have columns: "id ", "value_int", "value_double", "value_varchar", etc - with the corresponding column types. Depending on the type of values??, records will be saved with the value in the appropriate column (the rest will be NULL). The second solution is to create separate tables such as "value_int", "value_varchar" etc. There would be columns: "id", "value", which correspond to the relevant types of "value" (ie, such as int, varchar, etc). I must admit that I do not believe any of the above solutions, originally I was thinking about one table "value", where the column would be a "text" type - but this solution would probably be even worse. I would like to know your opinion on this topic, maybe something else would be better. Thanks in advance. EDIT: For example : We have three tables: USER: [table of users] * id * name FIELD: [table of profile fields - where the column 'type' is the type of field, eg int or varchar) * id * type * name VALUE : * id * User_id - ( FK user.id ) * Field_id - ( FK field.id ) * value So we have in each row an user in USER table, and the profile is stored in the VALUE table. Bit each profile field may have a different type (column 'type' in the FIELD table), and based on that I would want this value to add to the appropriate column of the appropriate type.

  Read the article

• sql select statement based on distinct column values....

  - by chandru_cp

  select distinct * from Drivers where IsDeleted=0 gives me this, I want select * based on distinct DriverMobNo column

  Read the article

• Keeping DB Table sorted using multi-field formula (Microsoft SQL)

  - by user298167

  Hello Everybody. I have a Job Table which has two interesting columns: Creation Date and Importance (high - 3, medium 2, low - 1). Job's priority calculated like this: Priority = Importance * (time passed since creation). The problem is, Every time I would like to pick 200 jobs with highest priority, I dont want to resort the table. Is there a way to keep rows sorted? I was also thinking about having three tables one for High, Medium and Low and then sort those by Creation Date. Thanks

  Read the article

• MIME type of SQL Server Database BACKUP file

  - by Ashish Gupta

  I am not able to find an answer to this. Does anybody know this? I want to enable the download of .bak file and for that I need to know the mime type so that i configure the same in the IIS for .bak file. Any help is appreciated.

  Read the article

• MSSql Query solution cum Suggestion Required

  - by Nirmal

  Hello All... I have a following scenario in my MSSql 2005 database. zipcodes table has following fields and value (just a sample): zipcode latitude longitude ------- -------- --------- 65201 123.456 456.789 65203 126.546 444.444 and "place" table has following fields and value : id name zip latitude longitude -- ---- --- -------- --------- 1 abc 65201 NULL NULL 2 def 65202 NULL NULL 3 ghi 65203 NULL NULL 4 jkl 65204 NULL NULL Now, my requirement is like I want to compare my zip codes of "place" table and update the available latitude and longitude fields from "zipcode" table. And there are some of the zipcodes which has no entry in "zipcode" table, so that should remain null. And the major issue is like I have more then 50,00,000 records in my db. So, query should support this feature. I have tried some of the solutions but unfortunately not getting proper output. Any help would be appreciated...

  Read the article

• SQL for total count and count within that where condition is true

  - by twmulloy

  Hello, I have a single user table and I'm trying to come up with a query that returns the total count of all users grouped by date along with the total count of users grouped by date who are of a specific client. Here is what I have thus far, where there's the total count of users grouped by date, but can't seem to figure out how to get the count of those users where user.client_id = x SELECT user.created, COUNT(user.id) AS overall_count FROM user GROUP BY DATE(user.created) trying for a row result like this: [created] => 2010-05-15 19:59:30 [overall_count] => 10 [client_count] => (some fraction of overall count, the number of users where user.client_id = x grouped by date)

  Read the article

• return only the last select results from stored procedure

  - by Madalina Dragomir

  The requirement says: stored procedure meant to search data, based on 5 identifiers. If there is an exact match return ONLY the exact match, if not but there is an exact match on the not null parameters return ONLY these results, otherwise return any match on any 4 not null parameters... and so on My (simplified) code looks like: create procedure xxxSearch @a nvarchar(80), @b nvarchar(80)... as begin select whatever from MyTable t where ((@a is null and t.a is null) or (@a = t.a)) and ((@b is null and t.b is null) or (@b = t.b))... if @@ROWCOUNT = 0 begin select whatever from MyTable t where ((@a is null) or (@a = t.a)) and ((@b is null) or (@b = t.b))... if @@ROWCOUNT = 0 begin ... end end end As a result there can be more sets of results selected, the first ones empty and I only need the last one. I know that it is easy to get the only the last result set on the application side, but all our stored procedure calls go through a framework that expects the significant results in the first table and I'm not eager to change it and test all the existing SPs. Is there a way to return only the last select results from a stored procedure? Is there a better way to do this task ?

  Read the article

• Sql server 2008 query

  - by Prashant

  I am trying to implement versioning of data I have two tables Client and Address. I have to display in the UI, the various updates in the order in which they were made but with the correct client version so, Client Table Address Table ---------- ---------- Client Version Modified Date Address Version ModifiedDate CV1 T1 AV1 T2 CV2 T4 AV2 T3 CV3 T5 My result should be CV1 AV1 (first version) CV1 AV2 (as AV1 was updated at T3) CV2 AV2 (as Client got updated to CV2 at T4) CV3 AV2 (As client has got updated at T5)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356  | Next Page >