Search Results

Search found 31328 results on 1254 pages for 'sql join'.

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 360/1254 | < Previous Page | 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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 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

  • 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 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

  • Split table and insert with identity link

    - by The King
    Hi.. I have 3 tables similar to the sctructure below CREATE TABLE [dbo].[EmpBasic]( [EmpID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL Primary Key, [Name] [varchar](50), [Address] [varchar](50) ) CREATE TABLE [dbo].[EmpProject]( [EmpID] [int] NOT NULL primary key, // referencing column with EmpBasic [EmpProject] [varchar](50) ) CREATE TABLE [dbo].[EmpFull_Temp]( [ObjectID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL Primary Key, [T1Name] [varchar](50) , [T1Address] [varchar](50) , [T1EmpProject] [varchar](50) ) The EmpFull_Temp table has the records with a dummy object ID column... I want to populate the first 2 tables with the records in this table... But with EmpID as a reference between the first 2 tables. I tried this in a stored procedure... Create Table #IDSS (EmpID bigint, objID bigint) Insert into EmpBasic output Inserted.EmpID, EmpFull_Temp.ObjectID into #IDSS Select T1Name, T1Address from EmpFull_Temp Where ObjectID < 106 Insert into EmpProject Select A.EmpID, B.T1EmpProject from #IDSS as A, EmpFull_Temp as B Where A.ObjID = B.ObjectID But it says.. The multi-part identifier "EmpFull_Temp.ObjectID" could not be bound. Could you please help me in achieving this...

    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

  • TSQL, select values from large many-to-many relationship

    - by eugeneK
    I have two tables Publishers and Campaigns, both have similar many-to-many relationships with Countries,Regions,Languages and Categories. more info Publisher2Categories has publisherID and categoryID which are foreign keys to publisherID in Publishers and categoryID in Categories which are identity columns. On other side i have Campaigns2Categories with campaignID and categoryID columns which are foreign keys to campaignID in Campaigns and categoryID in Categories which again are identities. Same goes for Regions, Languages and Countries relationships I pass to query certain publisherID and want to get campaignIDs of Campaigns that have at least one equal to Publisher value from regions, countries, language or categories thanks

    Read the article

  • SQL statement HAVING MAX(some+thing)=some+thing

    - by Andreas
    I'm having trouble with Microsoft Access 2003, it's complaining about this statement: select cardnr from change where year(date)<2009 group by cardnr having max(time+date) = (time+date) and cardto='VIP' What I want to do is, for every distinct cardnr in the table change, to find the row with the latest (time+date) that is before year 2009, and then just select the rows with cardto='VIP'. This validator says it's OK, Access says it's not OK. This is the message I get: "you tried to execute a query that does not include the specified expression 'max(time+date)=time+date and cardto='VIP' and cardnr=' as part of an aggregate function." Could someone please explain what I'm doing wrong and the right way to do it? Thanks

    Read the article

  • LINQ to SQL: Reusable expression for property?

    - by coenvdwel
    Pardon me for being unable to phrase the title more exact. Basically, I have three LINQ objects linked to tables. One is Product, the other is Company and the last is a mapping table Mapping to store what Company sells which products and by which ID this Company refers to this Product. I am now retrieving a list of products as follows: var options = new DataLoadOptions(); options.LoadWith<Product>(p => p.Mappings); context.LoadOptions = options; var products = ( from p in context.Products select new { ProductID = p.ProductID, //BackendProductID = p.BackendProductID, BackendProductID = (p.Mappings.Count == 0) ? "None" : (p.Mappings.Count > 1) ? "Multiple" : p.Mappings.First().BackendProductID, Description = p.Description } ).ToList(); This does a single query retrieving the information I want. But I want to be able to move the logic behind the BackendProductID into the LINQ object so I can use the commented line instead of the annoyingly nested ternary operator statements for neatness and re-usability. So I added the following property to the Product object: public string BackendProductID { get { if (Mappings.Count == 0) return "None"; if (Mappings.Count > 1) return "Multiple"; return Mappings.First().BackendProductID; } } The list is still the same, but it now does a query for every single Product to get it's BackendProductID. The code is neater and re-usable, but the performance now is terrible. What I need is some kind of Expression or Delegate but I couldn't get my head around writing one. It always ended up querying for every single product, still. Any help would be appreciated!

    Read the article

  • SQL for sorting boolean column as true, null, false

    - by petehern
    My table has three boolean fields: f1, f2, f3. If I do SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY f1, f2, f3 the records will be sorted by these fields in the order false, true, null. I wish to order them with null in between true and false: the correct order should be true, null, false. I am using PostgreSQL.

    Read the article

  • LINQ2SQL: orderby note.hasChildren(), name ascending

    - by Peter Bridger
    I have a hierarchical data structure which I'm displaying in a webpage as a treeview. I want to data to be ordered to first show nodes ordered alphabetically which have no children, then under these nodes ordered alphabetically which have children. Currently I'm ordering all nodes in one group, which means nodes with children appear next to nodes with no children. I'm using a recursive method to build up the treeview, which has this LINQ code at it's heart: var filteredCategory = from c in category orderby c.Name ascending where c.ParentCategoryId == parentCategoryId && c.Active == true select c; So this is the orderby statement I want to enhance. Shown below is the database table structure: [dbo].[Category]( [CategoryId] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [Name] [varchar](100) NOT NULL, [Level] [tinyint] NOT NULL, [ParentCategoryId] [int] NOT NULL, [Selectable] [bit] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_Category_Selectable] DEFAULT ((1)), [Active] [bit] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_Category_Active] DEFAULT ((1))

    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 | 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367  | Next Page >