Search Results

Search found 27337 results on 1094 pages for 't sql'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 639/1094 | < Previous Page | 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646  | Next Page >

  • Removal of table primary key in MySQL

    - by marionmaiden
    Hello, I've removed the primary key of one table of my MySQL database, but now, when I use the MySQL Administrator and try to edit some data of this table, it doesn't allow me to do this. The button edit that appears in the bottom of the table keeps visible, but disabled to click.

    Read the article

  • Indexed key vs indexed separate columns, which one is faster ?

    - by Jerry
    In MYSQL, from a pure performance perspective, if I have a table with large amount of data with 10/1 read/write ratio. is it faster in read/write performance to have 4 search criteria in separate columns and all indexed or have them combined in to one single string acting as a key and store in one indexed column ? e.g. say this table with 5 columns, first name, last name, sex, country and file where the first four columns will ALWAYS be given as a part of search parameters in a search or have a table with two columns, key and file. where the value of key can be john-smith-male-australia ?? I don't quite get the pros and cons. the point I try to stress is the fact that all parameters will be given.in a search.

    Read the article

  • Strange use of the index in Mysql

    - by user309067
    explain SELECT feed_objects.* FROM feed_objects WHERE (feed_objects.feed_id IN (165,160,159,158,157,153,152,151,150,149,148,147,129,128,127,126,125,124,122,121,120,119,118,117,116,115,114,113,111,110)) ; +----+-------------+--------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+--------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | feed_objects | ALL | by_feed_id | NULL | NULL | NULL | 188 | Using where | +----+-------------+--------------+------+---------------+------+---------+------+------+-------------+ Not used index 'by_feed_id' But when I point less than the values in the "WHERE" - everything is working right explain SELECT feed_objects.* FROM feed_objects WHERE (feed_objects.feed_id IN (165,160,159,158,157,153,152,151,150,149,148,147,129,128,127,125,124)) ; +----+-------------+--------------+-------+---------------+------------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+--------------+-------+---------------+------------+---------+------+------+-------------+ | 1 | SIMPLE | feed_objects | range | by_feed_id | by_feed_id | 9 | NULL | 18 | Using where | +----+-------------+--------------+-------+---------------+------------+---------+------+------+-------------+ Used index 'by_feed_id' What is the problem?

    Read the article

  • sqlite3.OperationalError: database is locked - non-threaded application

    - by James C
    Hi, I have a Python application which throws the standard sqlite3.OperationalError: database is locked error. I have looked around the internet and could not find any solution which worked (please note that there is no multiprocesses/threading going on, and as you can see I have tried raising the timeout parameter). The sqlite file is stored on the local hard drive. The following function is one of many which accesses the sqlite database, and runs fine the first time it is called, but throws the above error the second time it is called (it is called as part of a for loop in another function): def update_index(filepath): path = get_setting('Local', 'web') stat = os.stat(filepath) modified = stat.st_mtime index_file = get_setting('Local', 'index') connection = sqlite3.connect(index_file, 30) cursor = connection.cursor() head, tail = os.path.split(filepath) cursor.execute('UPDATE hwlive SET date=? WHERE path=? AND name=?;', (modified, head, tail)) connection.commit() connection.close() Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • Consolidating values in a junction table

    - by senloe
    I have the following schema: Parcels Segments SegmentsParcels ========= ========== ================= ParcelID SegmentID ParcelID ... Name SegmentID ... id A user of the data wants to consolidate Segments.Names and gave me a list of current Segment.Names mapped to new Segment.Names (all of which currently exist). So now I have this list in a temporary table with the currentID and newID to map to. What I want to do is update the SegmentID in SegmentsParcels based on this map. I could use the statement: update SegmentParcels set segmentID = [newID] from newsegments where segmentID = currentid but this will create some duplicates I have a unique constraint on ParcelID and SegmentID in SegmentParcels. What is the best way to go about this? I considered removing the constraint and then dealing with removing the duplicates (which I did at one point and could probably do again) but I was hoping there was a simpler way.

    Read the article

  • Does anybody have any suggestions on which of these two approaches is better for large delete?

    - by RPS
    Approach #1: DECLARE @count int SET @count = 2000 DECLARE @rowcount int SET @rowcount = @count WHILE @rowcount = @count BEGIN DELETE TOP (@count) FROM ProductOrderInfo WHERE ProductId = @product_id AND bCopied = 1 AND FileNameCRC = @localNameCrc SELECT @rowcount = @@ROWCOUNT WAITFOR DELAY '000:00:00.400' Approach #2: DECLARE @count int SET @count = 2000 DECLARE @rowcount int SET @rowcount = @count WHILE @rowcount = @count BEGIN DELETE FROM ProductOrderInfo WHERE ProductId = @product_id AND FileNameCRC IN ( SELECT TOP(@count) FileNameCRC FROM ProductOrderInfo WITH (NOLOCK) WHERE bCopied = 1 AND FileNameCRC = @localNameCrc ) SELECT @rowcount = @@ROWCOUNT WAITFOR DELAY '000:00:00.400' END

    Read the article

  • Service Broker not working after database restore

    - by roryok
    Have a working Service Broker set up on a server, we're in the process of moving to a new server but I can't seem to get Service Broker set up on the new box. Have done the obvious (to me) things like Enabling Broker on the DB, dropping the route, services, contract, queues and even message type and re adding them, setting ALTER QUEUE with STATUS ON SELECT * FROM sys.service_queues gives me a list of the queues, including my own two, which show as activation_enabled, receive_enabled etc. Needless to say the queues aren't working. When I drop messages into them nothing goes in and nothing comes out. Any ideas? I'm sure there's something really obvious I've missed...

    Read the article

  • how to combine the related version in group by

    - by randeepsp
    select count(a),b,c from APPLE join MANGO on (APPLE.link=MANGO.link) join ORANGE on (APPLE.link=ORANGE.link) where id='camel' group by b,c; the column b gives values like 1.0 1.0,R 1.0,B 2.0 2.0,B 2.0,R 3.0,C 3.0,R is there a way to modify the above quer so that all 1.0 and 1.0,R and 1.0,B are merged as 1.0 and 2.0,2.0,B are merged as 2.0 and same way for 3.0 and 4.0

    Read the article

  • What would be the best schema to store the 'address' for different entities?

    - by Cesar
    Suppose we're making a system where we have to store the addrees for buildings, persons, cars, etc. The address 'format' should be something like: State (From a State list) County (From a County List) Street (free text, like '5th Avenue') Number (free text, like 'Chrysler Building, Floor 10, Office No. 10') (Yes I don't live in U.S.A) What would be the best way to store that info: Should I have a Person_Address, Car_Address, ... Or the address info should be in columns on each entity, Could we have just one address table and try to link each row to a different entity? Or are there another 'better' way to handle this type of scenario? How would yo do it?

    Read the article

  • Stored Procedure: Reducing Table Data

    - by SumGuy
    Hi Guys, A simple question about Stored Procedures. I have one stored procedure collecting a whole bunch of data in a table. I then call this procedure from within another stored procedure. I can copy the data into a new table created in the calling procedure but as far as I can see the tables have to be identical. Is this right? Or is there a way to insert only the data I want? For example.... I have one procedure which returns this: SELECT @batch as Batch, @Count as Qty, pd.Location, cast(pd.GL as decimal(10,3)) as [Length], cast(pd.GW as decimal(10,3)) as Width, cast(pd.GT as decimal(10,3)) as Thickness FROM propertydata pd GROUP BY pd.Location, pd.GL, pd.GW, pd.GT I then call this procedure but only want the following data: DECLARE @BatchTable TABLE ( Batch varchar(50), [Length] decimal(10,3), Width decimal(10,3), Thickness decimal(10,3), ) INSERT @BatchTable (Batch, [Length], Width, Thickness) EXEC dbo.batch_drawings_NEW @batch So in the second command I don't want the Qty and Location values. However the code above keeps returning the error: "Insert Error: Column name or number of supplied values does not match table"

    Read the article

  • Select 2 Rows from Table when COUNT of another table

    - by Marcus
    Here is the code that I currently have: SELECT `A`.* FROM `A` LEFT JOIN `B` ON `A`.`A_id` = `B`.`value_1` WHERE `B`.`value_2` IS NULL AND `B`.`userid` IS NULL ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 2 What it currently is supposed to do is select 2 rows from A when the 2 rows A_id being selected are not in value_1 or value_2 in B. And the rows in B are specific to individual users with userid. What I need to do is make it also so that also checks if there are already N rows in B matching a A_id (either in value_1, or value_2) and userid, and if there are more than N rows, it doesn't select the A row.

    Read the article

  • How to check with PHP does a SQL database already have

    - by Dan Horvat
    I've tried to find the answer to this question but none of the answers fit. I have two databases, one has 15.000.000 entries and I want to extract the necessary data and store it in a much smaller database with around 33.000 entries. Both databases are open at the same time. Or at least they should be. While having the big database open and extracting the entries from it, is it possible to check whether the value already exists in the smaller database? I just need some generic way which checks that.

    Read the article

  • How to store MySQL query results in another Table?

    - by Taz
    How to store results from following query into another table. Considering there is an appropriate table already created. SELECT labels.label,shortabstracts.ShortAbstract,images.LinkToImage,types.Type FROM ner.images,ner.labels,ner.shortabstracts,ner.types WHERE labels.Resource=images.Resource AND labels.Resource=shortabstracts.Resource AND labels.Resource=types.Resource;

    Read the article

  • Increase and decrease row value by 1 in MySQL

    - by Elliott
    Hi I have a MySQL database table "points" the user can click a button and a point should be removed from their account, the button they pressed has an ID of another user, therefore their account must increase by one. I have it working in jQuery and checked the varibles/posts in Firebug, and it does send the correct data, such as: userid= 1 posterid = 4 I think the problem is with my PHP page: <?php include ('../functions.php'); $userid=mysql_real_escape_string($_POST['user_id']); $posterid=mysql_real_escape_string($_POST['poster_id']); if (loggedin()) { include ('../connection.php'); $query1 = "UPDATE `points` SET `points` = `points` - 1 WHERE `userID` = '$userid'"; $result1=mysql_query($query1); $query2 = "UPDATE `points` SET `points` = `points` + 1 WHERE `userID` = '$posterid'"; $result2=mysql_query($query2); if ($result1 && result2) { echo "Successful"; return 1; } else { echo mysql_error(); return 0; } } ?> Any ideas? Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • Does Table.InsertOnSubmit create a copy of the original table?

    - by Bryan
    Using InsertOnSubmit seems to have some memory overhead. I have a System.Data.Linq.Table<User> table. When I do table.InsertOnSubmit(user) and then int count = table.Count(), the memory usage of my application increases by roughly the size of the User table, but the count is the number of items before user was inserted. So I'm guess an enumeration after InsertOnSubmit will create a copy of the table. Is that true?

    Read the article

  • Database Design Question: GUID + Natural Numbers

    - by Alan
    For a database I'm building, I've decided to use natural numbers as the primary key. I'm aware of the advantages that GUID's allow, but looking at the data, the bulk of row's data were GUID keys. I want to generate XML records from the database data, and one problem with natural numbers is that I don't want to expose my database key's to the outside world, and allow users to guess "keys." I believe GUID's solve this problem. So, I think the solution is to generate a sparse, unique iD derived from the natural ID (hopefully it would be 2-way), or just add an extra column in the database and store a guid (or some other multibyte id) The derived value is nicer because there is no storage penalty, but it would be easier to reverse and guess compared to a GUID. I'm (buy) curious as to what others on SO have done, and what insights they have.

    Read the article

  • How to return a message from my repository class to my controller and then to my view in asp.net-mvc

    - by Pandiya Chendur
    I use this for checking an existing emailId in my table and inserting it...It works fine how to show message to user when he tries to register with an existing mailId.... if (!taxidb.Registrations.Where(u => u.EmailId == reg.EmailId).Any()) { taxidb.Registrations.InsertOnSubmit(reg); taxidb.SubmitChanges(); } and my controller has this, RegistrationBO reg = new RegistrationBO(); reg.UserName = collection["UserName"]; reg.OrgName = collection["OrgName"]; reg.Address = collection["Address"]; reg.EmailId = collection["EmailId"]; reg.Password = collection["Password"]; reg.CreatedDate = System.DateTime.Now; reg.IsDeleted = Convert.ToByte(0); regrep.registerUser(reg); Any sugesstion how to show "EmailID" already exists to the user with asp.net mvc...

    Read the article

  • Relational databases are not suited for my application - what's the alternative?

    - by waitinforatrain
    Hi, I'm writing a CMS in PHP that allows the user to define different fields (e.g. a Blog page could have fields for Title (string), Content (rich text), Picture (file)). I need the user to be able to add and remove fields dynamically, and the only way I can think of to do it with relational DBs is to serialise all these values and store them in one cell. This seems like a slow approach and like I'm trying to fit something dynamic within a static structure. Could someone recommend anything that is PHP-compatible that would make this easier?

    Read the article

  • Check for active connection in NHibernate

    - by Dofs
    I have a system with a few different databases, and I would like to check if a certain database is down, and if so display a message to the user. Is it possible in NHibernate to check if there is an active connection to the database, without having to request data and then catch the exception?

    Read the article

  • HQL 'parsename' equivalent

    - by jaume
    I've discovered PARSENAME function as a good choice to order IP address stored in Database. Here there is an example. My issue is I'm using Hibernate with named queries in a xml mapping file and I am trying to avoid the use of session.createSQLQuery(..) function. I'm wondering if exists any PARSENAME equivalent function for HQL queries. I'm searching for it and cannot find anything. Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • Union Distinct rows but order them by number of occurrences in mysql

    - by Baversjo
    Hi I have the following query: SELECT o.id,o.name FROM object o WHERE ( o.description LIKE '%Black%' OR o.name LIKE '%Black%' ) UNION ALL SELECT o2.id,o2.name FROM object o2 WHERE ( o2.description LIKE '%iPhone%' OR o2.name LIKE '%iPhone%' ) Which procude the following: id name 2 New Black iPhone 1 New White iPhone 2 New Black iPhone I would like to UNION DISTINCT, but I would also like the result ordered by the number of occurrences of each identical row (primary: id).

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646  | Next Page >