Search Results

Search found 37012 results on 1481 pages for 'sql query'.

Page 394/1481 | < Previous Page | 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Timeout in LINQ to SQL inserting millions of records

    - by Bas
    I'm inserting approximently 3 million records in a database using this solution. Eventually when the application has been inserting records for a while (my last run lasted around 4 hours), it gives a timeout with the following SqlException: "SqlExcepetion: Timeout expired. The timeoutperiod elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding." What's the best way to handle this exception? Is there a way to prevent this from happening or should I catch the exception? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • How to include SqlExpresss 2008 (conveniently)

    - by Henk Holterman
    When I make a setup project in VS 2008, and select <Setup Project>, Properties, PreRequisites then i can select SqlExpress2005 to be automatically included. What I am looking for is a walkthrough of how to get SqlExpress2008 included in the same manner. Second choice would be how to get (or make) a MergeModule (MSM) file to do the same.

    Read the article

  • BULK INSERT from one table to another all on the server

    - by steve_d
    I have to copy a bunch of data from one database table into another. I can't use SELECT ... INTO because one of the columns is an identity column. Also, I have some changes to make to the schema. I was able to use the export data wizard to create an SSIS package, which I then edited in Visual Studio 2005 to make the changes desired and whatnot. It's certainly faster than an INSERT INTO, but it seems silly to me to download the data to a different computer just to upload it back again. (Assuming that I am correct that that's what the SSIS package is doing). Is there an equivalent to BULK INSERT that runs directly on the server, allows keeping identity values, and pulls data from a table? (as far as I can tell, BULK INSERT can only pull data from a file) Edit: I do know about IDENTITY_INSERT, but because there is a fair amount of data involved, INSERT INTO ... SELECT is kinda of slow. SSIS/BULK INSERT dumps the data into the table without regards to indexes and logging and whatnot, so it's faster. (Of course creating the clustered index on the table once it's populated is not fast, but it's still faster than the INSERT INTO...SELECT that I tried in my first attempt) Edit 2: The schema changes include (but are not limited to) the following: 1. Splitting one table into two new tables. In the future each will have its own IDENTITY column, but for the migration I think it will be simplest to use the identity from the original table as the identity for the both new tables. Once the migration is over one of the tables will have a one-to-many relationship to the other. 2. Moving columns from one table to another. 3. Deleting some cross reference tables that only cross referenced 1-to-1. Instead the reference will be a foreign key in one of the two tables. 4. Some new columns will be created with default values. 5. Some tables aren’t changing at all, but I have to copy them over due to the "put it all in a new DB" request.

    Read the article

  • What's wrong in this SELECT statement

    - by user522211
    Protected Sub Page_Load(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Me.Load Dim SQLData As New System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection("Data Source=.\SQLEXPRESS;AttachDbFilename=|DataDirectory|\Database.mdf;Integrated Security=True;User Instance=True") Dim cmdSelect As New System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand("SELECT * FROM Table1 WHERE Seats ='" & TextBox1.Text & "'", SQLData) SQLData.Open() Using adapter As New SqlDataAdapter(cmdSelect) Using table As New Data.DataTable() adapter.Fill(table) TextBox1.Text = [String].Join(", ", table.AsEnumerable().[Select](Function(r) r.Field(Of Integer)("seat_select"))) End Using End Using SQLData.Close() End Sub This line will be highlighted with blue line: TextBox1.Text = [String].Join(", ", table.AsEnumerable().[Select](Function(r) r.Field(Of Integer)("seat_select")))

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401  | Next Page >