Search Results

Search found 35003 results on 1401 pages for 'table variable'.

Page 385/1401 | < Previous Page | 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392  | Next Page >

  • Check value at insert

    - by ThreeFingerMark
    Hello, i have this three tables. Table: Item Columns: ItemID, Title, Content, NoChange (Date) Table: Tag Columns: TagID, Title Table: ItemTag Columns: ItemID, TagID In the Item Table is a Field with NoChange, if this field = true no Tag is allowed to insert a ItemTag value with this ItemID. How can i check this in the insert? For Updates i have this Statement: UPDATE ItemTag SET TagID = ? where ItemID = ? AND TagID = ? AND exists ( select ItemID from Item where ItemID = ? AND NoChange is null)"); Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How can I copy a queryset to a new model in django admin?

    - by user3806832
    I'm trying to write an action that allows the user to select the queryset and copy it to a new table. So: John, Mark, James, Tyler and Joe are in a table 1( called round 1) The user selects the action that say to "move to next round" and those same instances that were chosen are now also in the table for "round 2". I started trying with an action but don't really know where to go from here: def Round_2(modeladmin, request, queryset): For X in queryset: X.pk = None perform.short_description = "Move to Round 2" How can I copy them to the next table with all of their information (pk doesn't have to be the same)? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Removing "Using temporary; Using filesort" from this MySQL select+join+group by query

    - by claytontstanley
    I have the following query: select t.Chunk as LeftChunk, t.ChunkHash as LeftChunkHash, q.Chunk as RightChunk, q.ChunkHash as RightChunkHash, count(t.ChunkHash) as ChunkCount from chunksubset as t join chunksubset as q on t.ID = q.ID group by LeftChunkHash, RightChunkHash And the following explain table: id select_type table type possible_keys key key_len ref rows Extra 1 SIMPLE subsets ref PRIMARY,IDIndex,SubsetIndex SubsetIndex 767 const 522014 "Using where; Using temporary; Using filesort" 1 SIMPLE subsets eq_ref PRIMARY,IDIndex,SubsetIndex PRIMARY 771 sotero.subsets.Id,const 1 "Using where; Using index" 1 SIMPLE c ref IDIndex IDIndex 4 sotero.subsets.Id 12 "Using where" 1 SIMPLE c ref IDIndex IDIndex 4 sotero.subsets.Id 12 note the "using temporary; using filesort". When this query is run, I quickly run out of RAM (presumably b/c of the temp table), and then the HDD kicks in, and the query slows to a halt. I thought it might be an index issue, so I started adding a few that sort of made sense: Table Non_unique Key_name Seq_in_index Column_name Collation Cardinality Sub_part Packed Null Index_type Comment Index_comment chunks 0 PRIMARY 1 ChunkId A 17796190 NULL NULL BTREE chunks 1 ChunkHashIndex 1 ChunkHash A 243783 NULL NULL BTREE chunks 1 IDIndex 1 Id A 1483015 NULL NULL BTREE chunks 1 ChunkIndex 1 Chunk A 243783 NULL NULL BTREE chunks 1 ChunkTypeIndex 1 ChunkType A 2 NULL NULL BTREE chunks 1 chunkHashByChunkIDIndex 1 ChunkHash A 243783 NULL NULL BTREE chunks 1 chunkHashByChunkIDIndex 2 ChunkId A 17796190 NULL NULL BTREE chunks 1 chunkHashByChunkTypeIndex 1 ChunkHash A 243783 NULL NULL BTREE chunks 1 chunkHashByChunkTypeIndex 2 ChunkType A 261708 NULL NULL BTREE chunks 1 chunkHashByIDIndex 1 ChunkHash A 243783 NULL NULL BTREE chunks 1 chunkHashByIDIndex 2 Id A 17796190 NULL NULL BTREE But still using the temporary table. The db engine is MyISAM. How can I get rid of the using temporary; using filesort in this query? Just changing to InnoDB w/o explaining the underlying cause is not a particularly satisfying answer. Besides, if the solution is to just add the proper index, then that's much easier than migrating to another db engine.

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework: Setting EntityReference EntityKey causes exception on save

    - by NYSystemsAnalyst
    I have a table with a ModifiedUserID field that is a foreign key to a User table. In entity framework, I'm loading the first table, but not the users table. I have the user ID of the current user, and would like to set the ModifiedUserID to that value for all entities that have been modified prior to saving. Before calling SaveChanges(), I use the ObjectStateManager to get all modified entities. Since I do not have the user object, but I do have the user ID, I set the EntityReference.EntityKey property as follows: entity.UserReference.EntityKey = New EntityKey("MyContainer.User", "UserID", DatabaseUserID) This works fine, but when I execute SaveChanges(), I receive the following error: A relationship is being added or deleted from an AssociationSet 'FK_Table1_User'. With cardinality constraints, a corresponding 'Table1' must also be added or deleted. Now, I see that setting the EntityReference.EntityKey creates a new AssociationSet entry, but how to I prevent this error?

    Read the article

  • How to make Entity Key Mapping in Entity Framework like sql's foreign key?

    - by programmerist
    I try to give entity map on my entity app. But how can I do it? I try to make it like below: var test = ( from k in Kartlar where k.Rehber..... above codes k.(can not see Rehber or not working ) if you are correct , i can write k.Rehber.ID and others. i can not write: from k in Kartlar where k.Rehber.ID = 123 //assuming that navigation property name is Rehbar and its primary key of Rehbar table is ID && k.Kampanya.ID = 345 //assuming that navigation property name is Kampanya and its primary //key of Kampanya table is ID && k.Birim.ID = 567 //assuming that navigation property name is Birim and its primary key of Birim table is ID select k images you can see: also: You should look : http://i42.tinypic.com/2nqyyc6.png I have a table it includes 3 foreign key field like that: My Table: Kartlar ID (Pkey) RehberID (Fkey) KampanyaID (Fkey) BrimID (Fkey) Name Detail How can i write entity query with LINQ ? select * from Kartlar where RehberID=123 and KampanyaID=345 and BrimID=567 BUT please be careful I can not see RehberID, KampanyaID, BrimID in entity they are foreign key. I should use entity key but how?

    Read the article

  • insert into several inheritance tables with OUTPUT - sql servr 2005

    - by csetzkorn
    Hi, I have a bunch of items – for simplicity reasons – a flat table with unique names seeded via bulk insert: create table #items ( ItemName NVARCHAR(255) ) The database has this structure: create table Statements ( Id INT IDENTITY NOT NULL, Version INT not null, FurtherDetails varchar(max) null, ProposalDateTime DATETIME null, UpdateDateTime DATETIME null, ProposerFk INT null, UpdaterFk INT null, primary key (Id) ) create table Item ( StatementFk INT not null, ItemName NVARCHAR(255) null, primary key (StatementFk) ) Here Item is a child of Statement (inheritance). I would like to insert items in #items using a set based approach (avoiding triggers and loops). Can this be achieved with OUTPUT in my scenario. A ‘loop based’ approach is just too slow where I use something like this: insert into Statements (Version, FurtherDetails, ProposalDateTime, UpdateDateTime, ProposerFk, UpdaterFk) VALUES (1, null, getdate(), getdate(), @user_id, @user_id) etc. This is a start for the OUTPUT based approach – but I am not sure whether this would work in my case as ItemName is only inserted into Item: insert into Statements ( Version, FurtherDetails, ProposalDateTime, UpdateDateTime, ProposerFk, UpdaterFk ) output inserted.Id ... ??? Thanks. Best wishes, Christian

    Read the article

  • How to update the column of datagridview from the text contents of textbox in c# Windows form

    - by user286546
    I have a datagridview with contents from a table. In that I have a column for Remarks which will be 1-2 lines. When I click on the remarks column, I want to open another form that contains the text box. I have linked the text box with the table using the table adapter. Now when I close the form with the text box, I want to show that in the datagridview column. Please help me

    Read the article

  • SQL exclude a column using SELECT * [except columnA] FROM tableA?

    - by uu?????s
    We all know that to select all columns from a table, we can use SELECT * FROM tableA Is there a way to exclude column(s) from a table without specifying all the columns? SELECT * [except columnA] FROM tableA The only way that I know is to manually specify all the columns and exclude the unwanted column. This is really time consuming so I'm looking for ways to save time and effort on this, as well as future maintenance should the table has more/less columns. thanks!

    Read the article

  • Mass update of data in sql from int to varchar

    - by Christopher Kelly
    we have a large table (5608782 rows and growing) that has 3 columns Zip1,Zip2, distance all columns are currently int, we would like to convert this table to use varchars for international usage but need to do a mass import into the new table convert zip < 5 digits to 0 padded varchars 123 becomes 00123 etc. is there a way to do this short of looping over each row and doing the translation programmaticly?

    Read the article

  • habtm multiple times with the same model

    - by Ermin
    I am trying to model a publications. A publication can have multiple authors and editors. Since it is possible that one person is an author of one publication and an editor of another, no separate models for Authors and Editors: class Publication < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :authors, :class_name=>'Person' has_and_belongs_to_many :editors, :class_name=>'Person' end The above code doesn't work, because it uses the same join table. Now I now that I can specify the name of the join table, but there is a warning in the API documentation is a warning about that which I don't understand: :join_table: Specify the name of the join table if the default based on lexical order isn’t what you want. WARNING: If you’re overwriting the table name of either class, the table_name method MUST be declared underneath any has_and_belongs_to_many declaration in order to work.

    Read the article

  • SQL Query in NHibernate diction

    - by Jan-Frederik Carl
    I have a SQL Query which works in SQL Management Studio: Select Id From table t Where t.Date= (Select Max(Date) From ( Select * From table where ReferenceId = xy) u) Reason is, from all entries with a certain foreign key, I want to receive the one with the highest date. I tried to reform this Query for use in NHibernate, and I got IQuery query = session.CreateQuery(String.Format( @"Select t.Id From table t Where t.Date = (Select Max(Date) From (Select * From table t where t.ReferenceItem.Id = " + item.ReferenceItem.Id + ")u)")); I get the error message: "In expected" How do I have to form the NHibernate query? What does the "In" mean?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to keep mysql migration running without keeping connection open?

    - by taw
    ALTER TABLE can easily take a few days - and during this time there's a non-negligible chance of connection getting terminated due to network problems. Is it possible to start ALTER TABLE (or CREATE TABLE ... SELECT ...; or some other very long running query) and leave it running without keeping connection open all the time? (the obvious solution of screen + console mysql client won't easily work as there's no ssh running on that server, only mysqld).

    Read the article

  • Non standard interaction among two tables to avoid very large merge

    - by riko
    Suppose I have two tables A and B. Table A has a multi-level index (a, b) and one column (ts). b determines univocally ts. A = pd.DataFrame( [('a', 'x', 4), ('a', 'y', 6), ('a', 'z', 5), ('b', 'x', 4), ('b', 'z', 5), ('c', 'y', 6)], columns=['a', 'b', 'ts']).set_index(['a', 'b']) AA = A.reset_index() Table B is another one-column (ts) table with non-unique index (a). The ts's are sorted "inside" each group, i.e., B.ix[x] is sorted for each x. Moreover, there is always a value in B.ix[x] that is greater than or equal to the values in A. B = pd.DataFrame( dict(a=list('aaaaabbcccccc'), ts=[1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 7, 8, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9])).set_index('a') The semantics in this is that B contains observations of occurrences of an event of type indicated by the index. I would like to find from B the timestamp of the first occurrence of each event type after the timestamp specified in A for each value of b. In other words, I would like to get a table with the same shape of A, that instead of ts contains the "minimum value occurring after ts" as specified by table B. So, my goal would be: C: ('a', 'x') 4 ('a', 'y') 7 ('a', 'z') 5 ('b', 'x') 7 ('b', 'z') 7 ('c', 'y') 8 I have some working code, but is terribly slow. C = AA.apply(lambda row: ( row[0], row[1], B.ix[row[0]].irow(np.searchsorted(B.ts[row[0]], row[2]))), axis=1).set_index(['a', 'b']) Profiling shows the culprit is obviously B.ix[row[0]].irow(np.searchsorted(B.ts[row[0]], row[2]))). However, standard solutions using merge/join would take too much RAM in the long run. Consider that now I have 1000 a's, assume constant the average number of b's per a (probably 100-200), and consider that the number of observations per a is probably in the order of 300. In production I will have 1000 more a's. 1,000,000 x 200 x 300 = 60,000,000,000 rows may be a bit too much to keep in RAM, especially considering that the data I need is perfectly described by a C like the one I discussed above. How would I improve the performance?

    Read the article

  • One to One relationship in MySQL

    - by Botto
    I'm trying to make a one to one relationship in a MySQL DB. I'm using the InnoDB engine and the basic table looks like this: CREATE TABLE `foo` ( `fooID` INT(11) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT, `name` TEXT NOT NULL ) CREATE TABLE `bar` ( `barName` VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL, `fooID` INT(11) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, CONSTRAINT `contact` FOREIGN KEY (`fooID`) REFERENCES `foo`(`fooID`) ) Now once I have set up these I alter the foo table so that the fooID also becomes a foreign key to the fooID in bar. The only issue I am facing with this is that there will be a integrity issue when I try to insert into either. I would like some help, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Faster way to update 250k rows with SQL

    - by pablo
    I need to update about 250k rows on a table and each field to update will have a different value depending on the row itself (not calculated based on the row id or the key but externally). I tried with a parametrized query but it turns out to be slow (I still can try with a table-value parameter, SqlDbType.Structured, in SQL Server 2008, but I'd like to have a general way to do it on several databases including MySql, Oracle and Firebird). Making a huge concat of individual updates is also slow. What about creating a temp table and running an update joining my table and the tmp one? Will it work faster?

    Read the article

  • How I can make Recycle Bin for Database ?Application?

    - by Wael Dalloul
    Hi, I have database application, I want to allow the user to restore the deleted records from the database, like in windows we have Recycle bin for files I want to do the same thing but for database records, Assume that I have a lot of related tables that have a lot of fields. Edit: let's say that I have the following structures: Reports table RepName primary key ReportData Users table ID primary key Name UserReports table RepName primary key UserID primary key IsDeleted now if I put isdeleted field in UserReports table, the user can't add same record again if it marked as deleted, because the record is already and this will make duplication.

    Read the article

  • making sure "expiration_date - X" falls on a valid "date_of_price" (if not, use the next valid date_

    - by bobbyh
    I have two tables. The first table has two columns: ID and date_of_price. The date_of_price field skips weekend days and bank holidays when markets are closed. table: trading_dates ID date_of_price 1 8/7/2008 2 8/8/2008 3 8/11/2008 4 8/12/2008 The second table also has two columns: ID and expiration_date. The expiration_date field is the one day in each month when options expire. table: expiration_dates ID expiration_date 1 9/20/2008 2 10/18/2008 3 11/22/2008 I would like to do a query that subtracts a certain number of days from the expiration dates, with the caveat that the resulting date must be a valid date_of_price. If not, then the result should be the next valid date_of_price. For instance, say we are subtracting 41 days from the expiration_date. 41 days prior to 9/20/2008 is 8/10/2008. Since 8/10/2008 is not a valid date_of_price, we have to skip 8/10/2008. The query should return 8/11/2008, which is the next valid date_of_price. Any advice would be appreciated! :-)

    Read the article

  • Calculating and saving space in Postgresql

    - by punkish
    I have a table in Pg like so CREATE TABLE t ( a BIGSERIAL NOT NULL, -- 8 b b SMALLINT, -- 2 b c SMALLINT, -- 2 b d REAL, -- 4 b e REAL, -- 4 b f REAL, -- 4 b g INTEGER, -- 4 b h REAL, -- 4 b i REAL, -- 4 b j SMALLINT, -- 2 b k INTEGER, -- 4 b l INTEGER, -- 4 b m REAL, -- 4 b CONSTRAINT a_pkey PRIMARY KEY (a) ) The above adds up to 50 bytes per row. My experience is that I need another 40% to 50% for system overhead, without even any user-created indexes to the above. So, about 75 bytes per row. I will have many, many rows in the table, potentially upward of 145 billion rows, so the table is going to be pushing 13-14 Terabytes. What tricks, if any, could I use to compact this table? My possible ideas below -- Convert the REAL values to INTEGERs. If they can stored as SMALLINT, that is a saving of 2 bytes per field. Convert the columns b .. m into an array. I don't need to search on those columns, but I do need to be able to return one column's value at a time. So, if I need column g, I could do something like SELECT a, arr[5] FROM t; Would I save space with the array option? Would there be a speed penalty? Any other ideas?

    Read the article

  • SQL to concatenate column values from multiple rows

    - by HonorGod
    Would it be possible to construct SQL to concatenate column values from multiple rows? The following is an example: Table A PID A B C Table B PID SEQ Desc A 1 Have A 2 a nice A 3 day. B 1 Nice Work. C 1 Yes C 2 we can C 3 do C 4 this work! Output of the SQL should be - PID Desc A Have a nice day. B Nice Work. C Yes we can do this work! So basically the Desc column for out put table is a concatenation of the SEQ values from Table B? Any help with the SQL?

    Read the article

  • saving values of editText in replaced fragment

    - by Eppo
    I have a 2 fragment layout, on the left fragment, i have a list of the different table names, on the right, i open up a different table depending on what is clicked on the right fragment. my intention, is that the first list item is clicked, then values will be entered on the table, next the second list item is clicked, the next table opens up and those values are entered. what would be the best way to store the values of the results entered in the editboxes, so i can process them all at once? I'm sure i can use onPause to save them all, but would that be the best way? Thanks

    Read the article

  • PHP - Nested Looping Trouble

    - by Jeremy A
    I have an HTML table that I need to populate with the values grabbed from a select statement. The table cols are populated by an array (0,1,2,3). Each of the results from the query will contain a row 'GATE' with a value of (0-3), but there will not be any predictability to those results. One query could pull 4 rows with 'GATE' values of 0,1,2,3, the next query could pull two rows with values of 1 & 2, or 1 & 3. I need to be able to populate this HTML table with values that correspond. So HTML COL 0 would have the TTL_NET_SALES of the db row which also has the GATE value of 0. <?php $gate = array(0,1,2,3); $gate_n = count($gate); /* Database = my_table.ID my_table.TT_NET_SALES my_table.GATE my_table.LOCKED */ $locked = "SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE locked = true"; $locked_n = count($locked); /* EXAMPLE RETURN Row 1: my_table['ID'] = 1 my_table['TTL_NET_SALES'] = 1000 my_table['GATE'] = 1; Row 2: my_table['ID'] = 2 my_table['TTL_NET_SALES'] = 1500 my_table['GATE'] = 3; */ print "<table border='1'>"; print "<tr><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td>"; print "<tr>"; for ($i=0; $i<$locked_n; $i++) { for ($g=0; $g<$gate_n; $g++) { if (!is_null($locked['TTL_NET_SALES'][$i]) && $locked['GATE'][$i] == $gate[$g]) { print "<td>$".$locked['TTL_NET_SALES'][$i]."</td>"; } else { print "<td>-</td>"; } } } print "</tr>"; print "</table>"; /* What I want to see: <table border='1'> <tr> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>-</td> <td>1000</td> <td>-</td> <td>1500</td> </tr> </table> */ ?>

    Read the article

  • Fluent Nhibernate left join

    - by Ronnie
    I want to map a class that result in a left outer join and not in an innner join. My composite user entity is made by one table ("aspnet_users") and an some optional properties in a second table (like FullName in "users"). public class UserMap : ClassMap<User> { public UserMap() { Table("aspnet_Users"); Id(x => x.Id, "UserId").GeneratedBy.Guid(); Map(x => x.UserName, "UserName"); Map(x => x.LoweredUserName, "LoweredUserName"); Join("Users",mm=> { mm.Map(xx => xx.FullName); }); } } this mapping result in an inner join select so no result come out is second table as no data. I'd like to generate an left join. Is this possible only at query level?

    Read the article

  • MEMORY(HEAP) vs. InnoDB in a Read and Write Environment

    - by Johannes
    I want to program a real-time application using MySQL. It needs a small table (less than 10000 rows) that will be under heavy read (scan) and write (update and some insert/delete) load. I am really speaking of 10000 updates or selects per second. These statements will be executed on only a few (less than 10) open mysql connections. The table is small and does not contain any data that needs to be stored on disk. So I ask which is faster: InnoDB or MEMORY (HEAP)? My thoughts are: Both engines will probably serve SELECTs directly from memory, as even InnoDB will cache the whole table. What about the UPDATEs? (innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit?) My main concern is the locking behavior: InnoDB row lock vs. MEMORY table lock. Will this present the bottleneck in the MEMORY implementation? Thanks for your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • mysql foreign key problem.

    - by JP19
    Hi, What is wrong with the foreign key addition here: mysql> create table notes ( id int (11) NOT NULL auto_increment PRIMARY KEY, note_type_id smallint(5) NOT NULL, data TEXT NOT NULL, created_date datetime NOT NULL, modified_date timestamp NOT NULL on update now()) Engine=InnoDB; Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.08 sec) mysql> create table notetypes ( id smallint (5) NOT NULL auto_increment PRIMARY KEY, type varchar(255) NOT NULL UNIQUE) Engine=InnoDB; Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.00 sec) mysql> alter table `notes` add constraint foreign key(`note_type_id`) references `notetypes`.`id` on update cascade on delete restrict; ERROR 1005 (HY000): Can't create table './admin/#sql-43e_b762.frm' (errno: 150) Thanks JP

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392  | Next Page >