Search Results

Search found 53054 results on 2123 pages for 'sql sample database'.

Page 459/2123 | < Previous Page | 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 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

  • Table rows with identifying parameter in each row SQL SERVER 2008 into single row

    - by LiverpoolsNumber9
    Sorry - my question title is probably as inept at my attempt to do this. I have the following (well, similar) in a table in a CMS pageID key value 201 title Page 201's title 201 description This is 201 201 author Dave 301 title Page 301's title 301 description This is 301 301 author Bob As you've probably guessed, what I need is a query that will produce: pageID title description author 201 Page 201's title This is page 201 Dave 301 Page 301's title This is page 301 Bob If anybody could help, i'd be eternally grateful - I know this is "please send me the code" but I'm absolutely stuck. Thanks in advance.

    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

  • which is better, creating a materialized view or a new table?

    - by Carson
    I have some demanding mysql queries that are needed to grap same up-to-date datasets from 5-7 mysql tables. I am thinking of creating a table or materialized view to gather all demanding columns from other tables, so as to increase performance. If I create that table, I may need to do extra insert / update / delete operation each time other tables updated. if I create materialized view, I am worrying if the performance can be greatly improved. Because data from other tables are changing very frequently. Most likely, the view may need to be created first everytime before selecting it. Any ideas? e.g. how to cache? other extra measures I can do?

    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 Querying for Threaded Messages

    - by Harper
    My site has a messaging feature where one user may message another. The messages support threading - a parent message may have any number of children but only one level deep. The messages table looks like this: Messages - Id (PK, Auto-increment int) - UserId (FK, Users.Id) - FromUserId (FK, Users.Id) - ParentMessageId (FK to Messages.Id) - MessageText (varchar 200) I'd like to show messages on a page with each 'parent' message followed by a collapsed view of the children messages. Can I use the GROUP BY clause or similar construct to retrieve parent messages and children messages all in one query? Right now I am retrieving parent messages only, then looping through them and performing another query for each to get all related children messages. I'd like to get messages like this: Parent1 Child1 Child2 Child3 Parent2 Child1 Parent3 Child1 Child2

    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

  • Oracle (Old?) Joins - A tool/script for conversion?

    - by Grasper
    I have been porting oracle selects, and I have been running across a lot of queries like so: SELECT e.last_name, d.department_name FROM employees e, departments d WHERE e.department_id(+) = d.department_id; ...and: SELECT last_name, d.department_id FROM employees e, departments d WHERE e.department_id = d.department_id(+); Are there any guides/tutorials for converting all of the variants of the (+) syntax? What is that syntax even called (so I can scour google)? Even better.. Is there a tool/script that will do this conversion for me (Preferred Free)? An optimizer of some sort? I have around 500 of these queries to port.. When was this standard phased out? Any info is appreciated.

    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

  • What is the corrrect way to increment a field making up part of a composit key

    - by Tr1stan
    I have a bunch of tables whose primary key is made up of the foreign keys of other tables (Composite key). Therefore for example the attributes (as a very cut down version) might look like this: A[aPK, SomeFields] 1:M B[bPK, aFK, SomeFields] 1:M C[cPK, bFK, aFK, SomeFields] as data this could look like: A[aPK, SomeFields]: 1, Foo 2, Bar B[bPK, aFK, SomeFields]: 1, 1, FooData1 2, 1, FooData2 1, 2, BarData1 2, 2, BarData2 C[cPK, bFK, aFK, SomeFields]: 1, 1, 1, FooData1More 2, 1, 1, FooData1More 1, 2, 1, FooData2More 2, 2, 1, FooData2More 1, 1, 2, BarData1More 2, 1, 2, BarData1More 1, 2, 2, BarData2More 2, 2, 2, BarData2More I've got this running in a MSSQL DBMS and I'm looking for the best way to increment the left most column, in each table when a new tuple is added to it. I can't use the Auto Increment Identity Specification option as that has no idea that it is part of a composite key. I also don't want to use any aggregate function such as: MAX(field)+1 as this will have adverse affects with multiple users inputting data, rolling back etc. There might however be a nice trigger based option here, but I'm not sure. This must be a common issue so I'm hoping that someone has a lovely solution. As a side which may or may not affect the answer, I'm using Entity Framework 1.0 as my ORM, within a c# MVC application.

    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

  • How do you store sets in Cassandra?

    - by Ben W
    I'd like to convert this JSON to a data model in Cassandra, where each of the arrays is a set with no duplicates: var data = { "data1": { "100": [1, 2, 3], "200": [3, 4] }, "data2": { "k1", [1], "k2", [4, 5] } } I'd like to query like this: data["data1"]["100"] to retrieve the sets. Anyone know how you might model this in Cassandra? (The only thing I came up with was columns whose name was a set value and the value of the column was an empty string, but that felt wrong.) It's not OK to serialize the sets as JSON or some other string, which would make this much easier. Also, I should note that it's OK to split data1 and data2 into separate ColumnFamilies, it's not necessary that they're keys in the same one.

    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

  • Difficulty restoring a differential backup in SQL Server, 2 media families are expected or no files are ready for rollforward

    - by digiguru
    I have sql backups copied from server A to server B on a nightly basis. We want to move the sql server from server A to server B without much downtime, but the files are very large. I assumed that performing a differential backup and restore would solve the problem with the databases. Copy full backup from server A to copy to server B (10+gb) Open SQL Server Managment Studio on server B Right mouse on databases Restore Database Type in the new DB-name Choose "From Device" and browse to the backup file Click Okay. This is now resorting the original "full" backup. Test new db with dev application - everything works :) On original database rightmouse on DB Tasks Backup... Backup Type = Differential, Backup to disk, add a new file, and remove the old one (it needs to be a small file to transfer for the smallest amount of outage) Copy the diff backup onto the new db Right mouse on DB Tasks Restore Database This is where I get stuck. If I add both the new differential file, and the original backup to the restore process I get an error The media loaded on "M:\path\to\backup\full.bak" is formatted to support 1 media families, but 2 media families are expected according to the backup device specification. RESTORE HEADERONLY is terminating abnormally. But if I try to restore using just the differential file I get System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: The log or differential backup cannot be restored because no files are ready to rollforward. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo) Any idea how to do it? Is there a better way of restoring backups with limited downtime?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

< Previous Page | 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466  | Next Page >