Search Results

Search found 62701 results on 2509 pages for 'sql function'.

Page 363/2509 | < Previous Page | 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370  | Next Page >

  • Datatype Conversion

    - by user87
    I am trying to execute the following Query select distinct pincode as Pincode,CAST(Date_val as DATE) as Date, SUM(cast(megh_38 as int)) as 'Postage Realized in Cash', SUM(cast(megh_39 as int)) as 'MO Commission', from dbo.arrow_dtp_upg group by pincode,Date_Val but I am getting an error "Conversion failed when converting the nvarchar value '82.25' to data type int." Am I using a wrong data type?

    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

  • 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

  • How to track auto-generated id's in select-insert statement

    - by k rey
    I have two tables detail and head. The detail table will be written first. Later, the head table will be written. The head is a summary of the detail table. I would like to keep a reference from the detail to the head table. I have a solution but it is not elegant and requires duplicating the joins and filters that were used during summation. I am looking for a better solution. The below is an example of what I currently have. In this example, I have simplified the table structure. In the real world, the summation is very complex. -- Preparation create table #detail ( detail_id int identity(1,1) , code char(4) , amount money , head_id int null ); create table #head ( head_id int identity(1,1) , code char(4) , subtotal money ); insert into #detail ( code, amount ) values ( 'A', 5 ); insert into #detail ( code, amount ) values ( 'A', 5 ); insert into #detail ( code, amount ) values ( 'B', 2 ); insert into #detail ( code, amount ) values ( 'B', 2 ); -- I would like to somehow simplify the following two queries insert into #head ( code, subtotal ) select code, sum(amount) from #detail group by code update #detail set head_id = h.head_id from #detail d inner join #head h on d.code = h.code -- This is the desired end result select * from #detail Desired end result of detail table: detail_id code amount head_id 1 A 5.00 1 2 A 5.00 1 3 B 2.00 2 4 B 2.00 2

    Read the article

  • SQL syntax error in Update statement VB.net

    - by Shane Fagan
    Hi, Im getting a strange syntax error when I run this in VB SQLString = "UPDATE Login SET Password = '" + PasswordTextBox.Text + "'" SQLString += " WHERE UserName = '" + UserNameTextBox.Text + "'" The Username is checked before getting to this part and is definitly in the db. It gives an exception saying syntax error in update statement. Anyone have any ideas whats wrong?

    Read the article

  • SQL Update to the SUM of its joined values

    - by CL4NCY
    Hi, I'm trying to update a field in the database to the sum of its joined values: UPDATE P SET extrasPrice = SUM(E.price) FROM dbo.BookingPitchExtras AS E INNER JOIN dbo.BookingPitches AS P ON E.pitchID = P.ID AND P.bookingID = 1 WHERE E.[required] = 1 When I run this I get the following error: "An aggregate may not appear in the set list of an UPDATE statement." Any ideas?

    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

  • Stored proc executes >30 secs when called from website, but <1 sec when called from ssms

    - by Blootac
    I have a stored procedure that is called by a website to display data. Today the web page has started timing out so I got profiler going and saw the query that was taking too long. I then ran the same query in management studio, under the same user login, and it takes less than a second to return. Is there anything obvious that could be causing this? I can't think of a reason why when ASP calls the stored proc it takes 30 secs but when I call it it's fine. Thanks

    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 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

  • How to exclude rows where matching join is in an SQL tree

    - by Greg K
    Sorry for the poor title, I couldn't think how to concisely describe this problem. I have a set of items that should have a 1-to-1 relationship with an attribute. I have a query to return those rows where the data is wrong and this relationship has been broken (1-to-many). I'm gathering these rows to fix them and restore this 1-to-1 relationship. This is a theoretical simplification of my actual problem but I'll post example table schema here as it was requested. item table: +------------+------------+-----------+ | item_id | name | attr_id | +------------+------------+-----------+ | 1 | BMW 320d | 20 | | 1 | BMW 320d | 21 | | 2 | BMW 335i | 23 | | 2 | BMW 335i | 34 | +------------+------------+-----------+ attribute table: +---------+-----------------+------------+ | attr_id | value | parent_id | +---------+-----------------+------------+ | 20 | SE | 21 | | 21 | M Sport | 0 | | 23 | AC | 24 | | 24 | Climate control | 0 | .... | 34 | Leather seats | 0 | +---------+-----------------+------------+ A simple query to return items with more than one attribute. SELECT item_id, COUNT(DISTINCT(attr_id)) AS attributes FROM item GROUP BY item_id HAVING attributes > 1 This gets me a result set like so: +-----------+------------+ | item_id | attributes | +-----------+------------+ | 1 | 2 | | 2 | 2 | | 3 | 2 | -- etc. -- However, there's an exception. The attribute table can hold a tree structure, via parent links in the table. For certain rows, parent_id can hold the ID of another attribute. There's only one level to this tree. Example: +---------+-----------------+------------+ | attr_id | value | parent_id | +---------+-----------------+------------+ | 20 | SE | 21 | | 21 | M Sport | 0 | .... I do not want to retrieve items in my original query where, for a pair of associated attributes, they related like attributes 20 & 21. I do want to retrieve items where: the attributes have no parent for two or more attributes they are not related (e.g. attributes 23 & 34) Example result desired, just the item ID: +------------+ | item_id | +------------+ | 2 | +------------+ How can I join against attributes from items and exclude these rows? Do I use a temporary table or can I achieve this from a single query? Thanks.

    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

  • sql query not executing

    - by sarah
    Hi, Not able to execute a query ,i need to check if end date is greater than today in the following query Getting an error invalid query select * from table1 where user in ('a') and END_DATE >'2010-05-22' getting an error liter string does not match

    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

  • 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

  • Mysql SQL join question

    - by David
    I am trying to find all deals information along with how many comments they have received. My query select deals.*, count(comments.comments_id) as counts from deals left join comments on comments.deal_id=deals.deal_id where cancelled='N' But now it only shows the deals that have at least one comment. What is the problem?

    Read the article

  • Need help tuning a SQL statement

    - by jeffself
    I've got a table that has two fields (custno and custno2) that need to be searched from a query. I didn't design this table, so don't scream at me. :-) I need to find all records where either the custno or custno2 matches the value returned from a query on the same table based on a titleno. In other words, the user types in 1234 for the titleno. My query searches the table to find the custno associated with the titleno. It also looks for the custno2 for that titleno. Then it needs to do a search on the same table for all other records that have either the custno or custno2 returned in the previous search in the custno or custno2 fields for those other records. Here is what I've come up with: SELECT BILLYR, BILLNO, TITLENO, VINID, TAXPAID, DUEDATE, DATEPIF, PROPDESC FROM TRCDBA.BILLSPAID WHERE CUSTNO IN (select custno from trcdba.billspaid where titleno = '1234' union select custno2 from trcdba.billspaid where titleno = '1234' and custno2 != '') OR CUSTNO2 IN (select custno from trcdba.billspaid where titleno = '1234' union select custno2 from trcdba.billspaid where titleno = '1234' and custno2 != '') The query takes about 5-10 seconds to return data. Can it be rewritten to work faster?

    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 insert query needed

    - by masfenix
    Hey guys, so I have two tables. They are pictured below. I have a master table "all_reports". And a user table "user list". The master table may have users that do not exist in the user list. I need to add them to the user list. The master table may have duplicates in them (check picture). The master list does not contain all the information that the user list requires (no manager, no HR status, no department.. again check picture).

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370  | Next Page >