Search Results

Search found 28024 results on 1121 pages for 'sql 2014'.

Page 661/1121 | < Previous Page | 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668  | Next Page >

  • Multiple conditions with CASE statements

    - by Pavan Reddy
    I need to query some data. here is the query that i have constructed but which isn't workig fine for me. For this example I am using AdventureWorks database. SELECT * FROM [Purchasing].[Vendor] WHERE PurchasingWebServiceURL LIKE case // In this case I need all rows to be returned if @url is '' or 'ALL' or NULL when (@url IS null OR @url = '' OR @url = 'ALL') then ('''%'' AND PurchasingWebServiceURL IS NULL') //I need all records which are blank here including nulls when (@url = 'blank') then (''''' AND PurchasingWebServiceURL IS NULL' ) //n this condition I need all record which are not like a particular value when (@url = 'fail') then ('''%'' AND PurchasingWebServiceURL NOT LIKE ''%treyresearch%''' ) //Else Match the records which are `LIKE` the input value else '%' + @url + '%' end This is not working for me. How can I have multiple where condition clauses in the THEN of the the same CASE? How can I make this work?

    Read the article

  • How can I count existing and non-existing values with MySQL?

    - by jaya malladi
    I am new to MySQL. I have a table with answer ids. Answers can look like this:a1, a2, a3 ..., but due to some problems some are NULL, some are blank, and some are others like 1 a etc. Now I want to calculate the count of ids with a1 a2 a3 distinctly. But how is it possible to do this leaving others like NULL, blanks and garbage. The output should look like this atype count a1 45 a2 0 a3 56 If there is no row entry for a particular answer, the count should be 0.

    Read the article

  • MySQL SELECT WHERE returning empty with long numbers, although they are there

    - by brybam
    Alright, so basically the most simple query ever... I've done this a million times... SELECT * FROM purchased_items WHERE uid = '$uid' if $uid == 123 It works fine and returns all data in rows where uid is 123 if $uid == 351565051447743 It returns empty... I'm positive 351565051447743 is a possible uid in some rows, i literally copied and pasted it into the table. $uid is a string, and is being passed as a string. This is something i've done a million times, and i've never had this simple query not work. Any ideas why this is not working?

    Read the article

  • Load Empty Database table

    - by john White
    I am using SQLexpress and VS2008. I have a DB with a table named "A", which has an IdentitySpecification column named ID. The ID is auto-incremented. Even if the row is deleted, the ID still increases. After several data manipulation, the current ID has reached 15, for example. When I run the application if there's at least 1 row: if I add a new row, the new ID is 16. Everything is fine. If the table is empty (no row): if I add a new row, the new ID is 0, which is an error (I think). And further data manipulation (eg. delete or update) will result in an unhandled exception. Has anyone encountered this? PS. In my table definition, the ID has been selected as follow: Identity Increment = 1; Identity Seed =1; The DB load code is: dataSet = gcnew DataSet(); dataAdapter->Fill(dataSet,"A"); dataTable=dataSet->Tables["A"]; dbConnection->Open(); The Update button method dataAdapter->Update(dataSet,"tblInFlow"); dataSet->AcceptChanges(); dataTable=dataSet->Tables["tblInFlow"]; dataGrid->DataSource=dataTable; If I press Update: if there's at least a row: the datagrid view updates and shows the table correctly. if there's nothing in the table (no data row), the Add method will add a new row, but from ID 0. If I close the program and restart it again: the ID would be 16, which is correct. This is the add method row=dataTable->NewRow(); row["column1"]="something"; dataTable->Rows->Add(row); dataAdapter->Update(dataSet,"A"); dataSet->AcceptChanges(); dataTable=dataSet->Tables["A"];

    Read the article

  • SQL Join query, getting ManagerName

    - by user279521
    I have an tblEmployeeProfile & a tblPersonnel. tblPersonnel is an HR table, that consists of all employees in the company; tblEmployeeProfile contains details about an employee's position. tblPersonnel.PersonnelID tblPersonnel.FirstName tblPersonnel.MiddleName tblPersonnel.LastName tblPersonnel.PhoneNumber tblPersonnel.Email tblEmployeeProfile.EmployeeID tblEmployeeProfile.ManagerID tblEmployeeProfile.DepartmentID tblEmployeeProfile.JobCategoryID tblEmployeeProfile.SalaryID I want to return a record with the following fields: EmployeeID, FirstName, MiddleName, LastName, Email, ManagerFullName where EmployeeID = @EmployeeID *tblEmployeeProfile.ManagerID = tblPersonnel.PersonnelID* I can't seem to get the query correct for getting the ManagerFullName

    Read the article

  • Best way to update/insert into a table based on a remote table.

    - by martilyo
    I have two very large enterprise tables in an Oracle 10g database. One table keeps the historical information of the other table. The problem is, I'm getting to the point where the records are just too many that my insert update is taking too long and my session is getting killed by the governor. Here's a pseudocode of my update process: sqlsel := 'SELECT col1, col2, col3, sysdate FROM table2@remote_location dpi WHERE (col1, col2, col3) IN ( SELECT col1, col2, col3 FROM table2@remote_location MINUS SELECT DISTINCT col1, col2, col3 FROM table1 mpc WHERE facility = '''||load_facility||''' )'; EXECUTE IMMEDIATE sqlsel BULK COLLECT INTO table1; I've tried the MERGE statement: MERGE INTO table1 t1 USING ( SELECT col1, col2, col3 FROM table2@remote_location ) t2 ON ( t1.col1 = t2.col1 AND t1.col2 = t2.col2 AND t1.col3 = t2.col3 ) WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT (t1.col1, t1.col2, t1.col3, t1.update_dttm ) VALUES (t2.col1, t2.col2, t2.col3, sysdate ) But there seems to be a confirmed bug on versions prior to Oracle 10.2.0.4 on the merge statement when doing a merge using a remote database. The chance of getting an enterprise upgrade is slim so is there a way to further optimize my first query or write it in another way to have it run best performance wise? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to use a varying database?

    - by nimo
    I want to use a database which name is stored in a variable. How do I do this? I first thought this would work but it doesn't: exec('use '+@db) That will not change database context Suggestions anyone?

    Read the article

  • How to check if an entityset is populated

    - by TheQ
    How can i check if an entityset of a linq-object is populated or not? Example code below. My model have two methods, one joins data, and the other does not: public static Member GetMemberWithSettings(Guid memberId) { using (DataContext db = new DataContext()) { DataLoadOptions dataLoadOptions = new DataLoadOptions(); dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Member>(x => x.Settings); db.LoadOptions = dataLoadOptions; var query = from x in db.Members where x.MemberId == memberId select x; return query.FirstOrDefault(); } } public static Member GetMember(Guid memberId) { using (DataContext db = new DataContext()) { var query = from x in db.Members where x.MemberId == memberId select x; return query.FirstOrDefault(); } } Then my control have the following code: Member member1 = Member.GetMemberWithSettings(memberId); Member member2 = Member.GetMember(memberId); Debug.WriteLine(member1.Settings.Count); Debug.WriteLine(member2.Settings.Count); The last line will generate a "Cannot access a disposed object" exception. I know that i can get rid of that exception just by not disposing the datacontext, but then the last line will generate a new query to the database, and i don't want that. What i would like is something like: Debug.WriteLine((member1.Settings.IsPopulated()) ? member1.Settings.Count : -1); Debug.WriteLine((member2.Settings.IsPopulated()) ? member2.Settings.Count : -1); Is it possible?

    Read the article

  • Group by query design help

    - by Midhat
    Consider this data PK field1 field2 1 a b 2 a (null) 3 x y 4 x z 5 q w I need to get this data select all columns from all rows where field1 has count 1 i tried and finally settled for select * from mytable where field1 in (select field1 from mytable group by field1 having count(field1)>1 ) order by field1 but there has to be a better way than this

    Read the article

  • How to limit select items with L2E/S?

    - by orlon
    This code is a no-go var errors = (from error in db.ELMAH_Error select new { error.Application, error.Host, error.Type, error.Source, error.Message, error.User, error.StatusCode, error.TimeUtc }).ToList(); return View(errors); as it results in a 'requires a model of type IEnumerable' error. The following code of course works fine, but selects all the columns, some of which I'm simply not interested in: var errors = (from error in db.ELMAH_Error select error).ToList(); return View(errors); I'm brand spanking new to MVC2 + L2E, so maybe I'm just not thinking in the right mindset yet, but this seems counter-intuitive. Is there an easy way to select a limited number of columns, or is this just part of using an ORM?

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Select pages that are not tagged?

    - by lauthiamkok
    Hi, I have a db with two tables like these below, page table pg_id title 1 a 2 b 3 c 4 d tagged table tagged_id pg_id 1 1 2 4 I want to select the pages which are tagged, I tried with this query below but doesn't work, SELECT * FROM root_pages LEFT JOIN root_tagged ON ( root_tagged.pg_id = root_pages.pg_id ) WHERE root_pages.pg_id != root_tagged.pg_id It returns zero - Showing rows 0 - 1 (2 total, Query took 0.0021 sec) But I want it to return pg_id title 2 b 3 c My query must have been wrong?? How can I return the pages which are not tagged correctly? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Oracle 10g multiple DELETE statements

    - by bmw0128
    I'm building a dml file that first deletes records that may be in the table, then inserts records. Example: DELETE from foo where field1='bar'; DELETE from foo where fields1='bazz'; INSERT ALL INTO foo(field1, field2) values ('bar', 'x') INTO foo(field1, field2) values ('bazz', 'y') SELECT * from DUAL; When I run the insert statement by itself, it runs fine. When I run the deletes, only the last delete runs. Also, it seems to be necessary to end the multiple insert with the select, is that so? If so, why is that necessary? In the past, when using MySQL, I could just list multiple delete and insert statements, all individually ending with a semicolon, and it would run fine.

    Read the article

  • customizing rowsource query in combobox ACCESS

    - by every_answer_gets_a_point
    i have 4 comboboxes and each of them need to have the same query in the rowsource, except there is a slight variation on each query if rowsource = somequery i need it to be select * from somequery where something like 'something1'; the next one needs to be select * from somequery where something like 'something2'; is there a way to customize the rowsource property in this way?

    Read the article

  • How do I use on delete cascade in mysql?

    - by Marius
    I have a database of components. Each component is of a specific type. That means there is a many-to-one relationship between a component and a type. When I delete a type, I would like to delete all the components which has a foreign key of that type. But if I'm not mistaken, cascade delete will delete the type when the component is deleted. Is there any way to do what I described?

    Read the article

  • Oracle select query

    - by Jasim
    I have a table like this C1 C2 C3 Code 1 2 3 33 1 2 3 34 2 4 1 14 1 2 3 14 i want to select only those record whose code is appearing only in single row. ie, in this case rows with code 33 and 34.. as they appear only once in this table. How can i write a query for that

    Read the article

  • c# Column datatype Date type (NOT DateTime)

    - by Sha Le
    Hi All: I want know is there good way to detect Column DataType for Date field (NOT DateTime)? This what currently I do: switch (dt.Columns[col].DataType.FullName) { case "System.DateTime": formatedVal = Formatter.GetDateTime(val); break; // which is NOT possible, but something equivalent am looking for case "System.Date": formatedVal = Formatter.GetDate(val); break; default: formatedVal = val.ToString(); break; } Thanks a bunch. :-)

    Read the article

  • Rails 3 fields_for agressive loading?

    - by Seth
    Hi all, I'm trying to optimize (limit) queries in a view. I am using the fields_for function. I need to reference various properties of the object, such as username for display purposes. However, this is a rel table, so I need to join with my users table. The result is N sub-queries, 1 for each field in fields_for. It's difficult to explain, but I think you'll understand what I'm asking if I paste my code: <%= form_for @election do |f| %> <%= f.fields_for :voters do |voter| %> <%= voter.hidden_field :id %> <%= voter.object.user.preferred_name %> <% end %> <% end %> I have like 10,000 users, and many times each election will include all 10,000 users. That's 10,000 subqueries every time this view is loaded. I want fields_for to JOIN on users. Is this possible? I'd like to do something like: ... <%= f.fields_for :voters, :joins => :users do |voter| %> ... <% end %> ... But that, of course, doesn't work :(

    Read the article

  • best database design for city zip & state tables

    - by ryan a
    My application will need to reference addresses. Street info will be stored with my main objects but the rest needs to be stored seperately to reduce redundancy. How should I store/retrieve ZIPs, cities and states? Here are some of my ideas. single table solution (cant do relationships) [locations] locationID locationParent (FK for locationID - 0 for state entries) locationName (city, state) locationZIP two tables (with relationships, FK constraints, ref integrity) [state] stateID stateName [city] cityID stateID (FK for state.stateID) cityName zipCode three tables [state] stateID stateName [city] cityID stateID (FK for state.stateID) cityName [zip] zipID cityID (FK for city.cityID) zipName Then I read into ZIP codes amd how they are assigned. They aren't specifically related to cities. Some cities have more than one ZIP (ok will still work) but some ZIPs are in more than one city (oh snap) and some other ZIPs (very few) are in more than one state! Also some ZIPs are not even in the same state as the address they belong to at all. Seems ZIPs are made for carrier route identification and some remote places are best served by post offices in neighboring cities or states. Does anybody know of a good (not perfect) solution that takes this into consideration to minimize discrepencies as the database grows?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668  | Next Page >