Search Results

Search found 28052 results on 1123 pages for 't sql tuesday'.

Page 597/1123 | < Previous Page | 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604  | Next Page >

  • Match entities fulfilling filter (strict superset of search)

    - by Jon
    I have an entity (let's say Person) with a set of arbitrary attributes with a known subset of values. I need to search for all of these entities that match all my filter conditions. That is, given a set of Attributes A, I need to find all people that have a set of Attributes that are a superset of A. For example, my table structures look like this: Person: id | name 1 | John Doe 2 | Jane Roe 3 | John Smith Attribute: id | attr_name 1 | Sex 2 | Eye Color ValidValue: id | attr_id | value_name 1 | 1 | Male 2 | 1 | Female 3 | 2 | Blue 4 | 2 | Green 5 | 2 | Brown PersonAttributes id | person_id | attr_id | value_id 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 6 | 3 | 2 | 4 In JPA, I have entities built for all of these tables. What I'd like to do is perform a search for all entities matching a given set of attribute-value pairs. For instance, I'd like to be able to find all males (John Doe and John Smith), all people with green eyes (Jane Roe or John Smith), or all females with green eyes (Jane Roe). I see that I can already take advantage of the fact that I only really need to match on value_id, since that's already unique and tied to the attr_id. But where can I go from there? I've been trying to do something like the following, given that the ValidValue is unique in all cases: select distinct p from Person p join p.personAttributes a where a.value IN (:values) Then I've tried putting my set of required values in as "values", but that gives me errors no matter how I try to structure that. I also have to get a little more complicated, as follows, but at this point I'd be happy with solving the first problem cleanly. However, if it's possible, the Attribute table actually has a field for default value: id | attr_name | default_value 1 | Sex | 1 2 | Eye Color | 5 If the value you're searching on happens to be the default value, I want it to return any people that have no explicit value set for that attribute, because in the application logic, that means they inherit the default value. Again, I'm more concerned about the primary question, but if someone who can help with that also has some idea of how to do this one, I'd be extremely grateful.

    Read the article

  • How to query two tables based on whether or not record exists in a third?

    - by Katherine
    I have three tables, the first two fairly standard: 1) PRODUCTS table: pid pname, etc 2) CART table: cart_id cart_pid cart_orderid etc The third is designed to let people save products they buy and keep notes on them. 3) MYPRODUCTS table: myprod_id myprod_pid PRODUCTS.prod_id = CART.cart_prodid = MYPRODUCTS.myprod_pid When a user orders, they are presented with a list of products on their order, and can optionally add that product to myproducts. I am getting the info necessary for them to do this, with a query something like this for each order: SELECT cart.pid, products.pname, products.pid FROM products, cart WHERE products.pid = cart_prodid AND cart_orderid=orderid This is fine the first time they order. However, if they subsequently reorder a product which they have already added to myproducts, then it should NOT be possible for them to add it to myproducts again - basically instead of 'Add to MyProducts' they need to see 'View in MyProducts'. I am thinking I can separate the products using two queries: Products never added to MyProducts By somehow identifying whether the user has the product in MyProducts already, and if so excluding it from the query above. Products already in MyProducts By reversing the process above. I need some pointers on how to do this though.

    Read the article

  • Problem reading from 3 tables in mysql

    - by user225269
    What do I do, I need to fetch data from 3 tables in mysql, here is my current query. All of the tables contain the IDNO which has 03A45 number. But this query isnt returning any results: SELECT * FROM father, mother, parents WHERE father.IDNO=mother.IDNO=parents.IDNO AND mother.IDNO='03A45' AND father.IDNO='03A45' AND parents.IDNO='03A45' What would be the correct query for this? All of the tables have the IDNO as primary key.

    Read the article

  • Databases Views with Parameters

    - by asrijaal
    Hi there, I know that is it possible to create a View with Parameters at MSSQL, does anyone knows if I can achieve something similar with a DB2 database? I have a more complicated query which includes a user number which I want to pass as param to the view.

    Read the article

  • Ampersand in sqlite query

    - by Denis Gorodetskiy
    How to construct sqlite query containing ampersand in filter: SELECT id FROM mediainfo WHERE album="Betty & Kate"; I use sqlite C interface (sqlite3_bind_text() and ? marks while query building) but neither C query nor SQLite Administrator return any data

    Read the article

  • What is the Null Character literal in TSQL?

    - by David in Dakota
    I am wondering what the literal for a Null character (e.g. '\0') is in TSQL. Note: not a NULL field value, but the null character (see link). I have a column with a mix of typical and a null character. I'm trying to replace the null character with a different value. I would have thought that the following would work but it is unsuccessfull: select REPLACE(field_with_nullchar, char(0), ',') from FOO where BAR = 20

    Read the article

  • privmsg system db schema

    - by Bartek
    I'm making a PM-system on my site. And I want to know ultimate db schema. I have always just used only 1 table. But my users have started complained that the messages in their outbox suddently dissapers =D Thats because if the other users deletes it, the one who sent it wont see it to. So im thinking of making another table with the same fields So im thinking something like this: privmsgs id | to | from | subject | message | date -- -- ---- ------- ------- ---- 1 76 893 blabla. blabla. 20100404 sent_msgs id | to | from | subject | message | date -- -- ---- ------- ------- ---- 1 76 893 blabla. blabla. 20100404 Whatya think? Sorry for my bad english

    Read the article

  • Using the ASP.NET membership provider database with your own database?

    - by Shaharyar
    Hello everybody, We are developing an ASP.NET MVC Application that currently uses it's own databse ApplicationData for the domain models and another one Membership for the user management / membership provider. We do access restrictions using data-annotations in our controllers. [Authorize(Roles = "administrators, managers")] This worked great for simple use cases. As we are scaling our application our customer wants to restrict specific users to access specific areas of our ApplicationData database. Each of our products contains a foreign key referring to the region the product was assembled in. A user story would be: Users in the role NewYorkManagers should only be able to edit / see products that are assembled in New York. We created a placeholder table UserRightsRegions that contains the UserId and the RegionId. How can I link both the ApplicationData and the Membership databases in order to work properly / having cross-database-key-references? (Is something like this even possible?) All help is more than appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Are database triggers evil?

    - by WW
    Are database triggers a bad idea? In my experience they are evil, because they can result in surprising side effects, and are difficult to debug (especially when one trigger fires another). Often developers do not even think of looking if there is a trigger. On the other hand, it seems like if you have logic that must occur evertime a new FOO is created in the database then the most foolproof place to put it is an insert trigger on the FOO table. The only time we're using triggers is for really simple things like setting the ModifiedDate.

    Read the article

  • Replace duplicate spaces with single space in TSQL

    - by Chris
    I need to ensure that a given field does not have more than one space (not concerned about all white space, just space) between characters. So 'single spaces only' Needs to turn into 'single spaces only' The below will not work select replace('single spaces only',' ',' ') as it would result in 'single spaces only' I would really prefer to stick with native TSQL rather than a CLR based solution. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • upload image during registration in asp.net

    - by Vikrant
    I am developing a student registration form in asp.net. there are two tables viz std_registration and gallery(having pic_id and pic_url). During registration, before the click of submit button i want to retrieve pic_id from gallery table and then pass it to the insert query of registration table. image upload is an optional part. if no image is uploaded i want a default image to get uploaded. pls help me on this. thanx.

    Read the article

  • Is there a special character in mySql that would return always true in WHERE clauses?

    - by rm.
    Is there a character, say, $, SELECT * FROM Persons WHERE firstName='Peter' AND areaCode=$; such that the statement would return the same as SELECT * FROM Persons WHERE firstName='Peter' i.e. areaCode=$ would always return always true and, thus, effectively “turns of” the criteria areaCode=... I’m writing a VBA code in Excel that fetches some rows based on a number of criteria. The criteria can either be enabled or disabled. A character like $ would make the disabling so much easier.

    Read the article

  • Converting to Byte Array after reading a BLOB from SQL in C#

    - by Soham
    Hi All, I need to read a BLOB and store it in a byte[], before going forward with Deserializing; Consider: //Reading the Database with DataAdapterInstance.Fill(DataSet); DataTable dt = DataSet.Tables[0]; foreach (DataRow row in dt.Rows) { byte[] BinDate = Byte.Parse(row["Date"].ToString()); // convert successfully to byte[] } I need help in this C# statement, as I am not able to convert an object type into a byte[]. Note, "Date" field in the table is a blob and not of type Date; Help appreciated; Soham

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Sync Framework - Local DB and Remote DB have to have the same schema?

    - by Josh
    When using MSF, is it implied in the technology that the sync tables are supposed to be 1-1? The reason I'm wondering is that if I'm synching from a SQL2005 database to a SQLCE, I might want the CE one to be a little more flattened out so I can get data out with a simpler SELECT statement (as CE does not support sprocs). For example, I might have a tblCustomer, tblOrder, and tblCustomerOrder in the central database, but in the local databases one table with all the data might be preferred. Of course I'd still want the updates to reflect back and forth between the two databases. Does MSF make this possible, or does the local DB have to have the same tables as the central?

    Read the article

  • Split function in where clause

    - by abhishek-khandelwal
    hello friends I am using following query in linq In product table following type of data are stored abc-def bcd=fgh abc-xyz var query=from prod in db.Product join cat in db.category on prod.categoryId=cat.categoryID where prod.productName.split('-')[0]=="abc" but in that query it product annoumous problem Please give some suggestion to split in where caluse

    Read the article

  • Enforcing a query in MySql to use a specific index

    - by Hossein
    Hi, I have large table. consisting of only 3 columns (id(INT),bookmarkID(INT),tagID(INT)).I have two BTREE indexes one for each bookmarkID and tagID columns.This table has about 21 Million records. I am trying to run this query: SELECT bookmarkID,COUNT(bookmarkID) AS count FROM bookmark_tag_map GROUP BY tagID,bookmarkID HAVING tagID IN (-----"tagIDList"-----) AND count >= N which takes ages to return the results.I read somewhere that if make an index in which it has tagID,bookmarkID together, i will get a much faster result. I created the index after some time. Tried the query again, but it seems that this query is not using the new index that I have made.I ran EXPLAIN and saw that it is actually true. My question now is that how I can enforce a query to use a specific index? also comments on other ways to make the query faster are welcome. Thanks

    Read the article

  • create table based on a user defined type

    - by Glen
    Suppose I have a user defined type: CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE TEST_TYPE AS OBJECT ( f1 varchar2(10), f2 number(5) ); Now, I want to create a table to hold these types. I can do the following: create table test_type_table ( test_type_field test_type ); This gives me a table with one column, test_type_field. Is there an easy and automated way to instead create a table such that it has 2 columns, f1 and f2?. So that it's the equivilent to writing: create table test_type_table ( f1 varchar2(10), f2 number(5) );

    Read the article

  • Union and If Exists - not working together - Please help

    - by needshelp
    I need to get dummy values if they do no rows returned from table. The If exists works by itself, but gives error with a Union. Can someone please guide me with a solution or a workaround? create table test1 (col1 varchar(10)) create table test2 (col1 varchar(10)) create table test3 (col1 varchar(10)) insert test1 values ('test1-row1') insert test1 values ('test1-row2') insert test2 values ('test2-row1') insert test2 values ('test2-row2') select col1 from test1 union select col1 from test2 union if exists (select * from test3) select col1 from test3 else select 'dummy'

    Read the article

  • Tables with no Primary Key

    - by Matt Hamilton
    I have several tables whose only unique data is a uniqueidentifier (a Guid) column. Because guids are non-sequential (and they're client-side generated so I can't use newsequentialid()), I have made a non-primary, non-clustered index on this ID field rather than giving the tables a clustered primary key. I'm wondering what the performance implications are for this approach. I've seen some people suggest that tables should have an auto-incrementing ("identity") int as a clustered primary key even if it doesn't have any meaning, as it means that the database engine itself can use that value to quickly look up a row instead of having to use a bookmark. My database is merge-replicated across a bunch of servers, so I've shied away from identity int columns as they're a bit hairy to get right in replication. What are your thoughts? Should tables have primary keys? Or is it ok to not have any clustered indexes if there are no sensible columns to index that way?

    Read the article

  • Select from multiple tables, remove duplicates

    - by staze
    I have two tables in a SQLite DB, and both have the following fields: idnumber, firstname, middlename, lastname, email, login One table has all of these populated, the other doesn't have the idnumber, or middle name populated. I'd LIKE to be able to do something like: select idnumber, firstname, middlename, lastname, email, login from users1,users2 group by login; But I get an "ambiguous" error. Doing something like: select idnumber, firstname, middlename, lastname, email, login from users1 union select idnumber, firstname, middlename, lastname, email, login from users2; LOOKS like it works, but I see duplicates. my understanding is that union shouldn't allow duplicates, but maybe they're not real duplicates since the second user table doesn't have all the fields populated (e.g. "20, bob, alan, smith, [email protected], bob" is not the same as "NULL, bob, NULL, smith, [email protected], bob"). Any ideas? What am I missing? All I want to do is dedupe based on "login". Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Should I include user_id in multiple tables?

    - by Drarok
    I'm at the planning stages of a multi-user application where each user will only have access their own data. There'll be a few tables that relate to each other, so I could use JOINs to ensure they're accessing only their data, but should I include user_id in each table? Would this be faster? It would certainly make some of the queries easier in the long run. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Alternative to sql NOT IN?

    - by Alex
    Hi, I am trying to make a materialized view in Oracle (I am a newbie, btw). For some reason, it doesn't like the presence of sub-query in it. I've been trying to use LEFT OUTER JOIN instead, but it's returning different data set now. Put simply, here's the code I'm trying to modify: SELECT * FROM table1 ros, table2 bal, table3 flx WHERE flx.name = 'XXX' AND flx.value = bal.value AND NVL (ros.ret, 'D') = Nvl (flx.attr16, 'D') AND ros.value = bal.segment3 AND ros.type IN ( 'AL', 'AS', 'PL' ) AND bal.period = 13 AND bal.code NOT IN (SELECT bal1.code FROM table2 bal1 WHERE bal1.value = flx.value AND bal1.segment3 = ros.value AND bal1.flag = bal.flag AND bal1.period = 12 AND bal1.year = bal.year) And here's one of my attempt: SELECT * FROM table1 ros, table2 bal, table3 flx LEFT OUTER JOIN table2 bal1 ON bal.code = bal1.code WHERE bal1.code is null AND bal1.segment3 = ros.value AND bal.segment3 = ros.value AND bal1.flag = bal.flag AND bal1.year = bal.year AND flx.name = 'XXX' AND flx.value = bal.value AND bal1.value = flx.value AND bal1.period_num = 12 AND NVL (ros.type, 'D') = NVL (flx.attr16, 'D') AND ros.value = bal.segment3 AND ros.type IN ( 'AL', 'AS', 'PL' ) AND bal.period = 13; This drives me nuts! Thanks in advance for the help :)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604  | Next Page >