Search Results

Search found 27339 results on 1094 pages for 'sql dmv'.

Page 672/1094 | < Previous Page | 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679  | Next Page >

  • is Payment table needed when you have an invoice table like this?

    - by EBAGHAKI
    this is my invoice table: Invoice Table: invoice_id creation_date due_date payment_date status enum('not paid','paid','expired') user_id total_price I wonder if it's Useful to have a payment table in order to record user payments for invoices. payment table can be like this: payment_id payment_date invoice_id price_paid status enum('successful', 'not successful')

    Read the article

  • How to repair "order by" after union of 2 selects from 1 tables

    - by 4e4el
    I have a dropDownList on my form, where i need to have union of values from 2 colums of table [ost]. Type of this columns is currency. I have russian version of access, default value of curency in "rur" and i need "uah". I need to change format and save "order by". I use this query: (SELECT distinct FORMAT([Sum1] ,'# ##0.00" uah.";-# ##0.00" uah."') FROM ost) Union (SELECT distinct FORMAT([Sum2],'# ##0.00" uah.";-# ##0.00" uah."') FROM ost) ORDER BY 1

    Read the article

  • Does the order of the columns in a SELECT statement make a difference?

    - by Frank Computer
    This question was inspired by a previous question posted on SO, "Does the order of the WHERE clause make a differnece?". Would it improve a SELECT statement's performance if the the columns used in the WHERE section are placed at the begining of the SELECT statement? example: SELECT customer.id, transaction.id, transaction.efective_date, transaction.a, [...] FROM customer, transaction WHERE customer.id = transaction.id; I do know that limiting the list of columns to only the needed ones in a SELECT statement improves performance as opposed to using SELECT * because the current list is smaller.

    Read the article

  • How to count number of occurences for all different values in database column?

    - by drasto
    I have a Postgre database that has say 10 columns. The fifth column is called column5. There are 100 rows in the database and possible values of column5 are c5value1, c5value2, c5value3...c5value29, c5value30. I would like to print out a table that shows how many times each value occurs. So the table would look like this: Value(of column5) number of occurrences of the value c5value1 1 c5value2 5 c5value3 3 c5value4 9 c5value5 1 c5value6 1 . . . . . . What is the command that does that? Thanks for help

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Query Cacheing (How do I use memcache?)

    - by Rachel
    I have an query like: SELECT id as OfferId FROM offers WHERE concat(partycode, connectioncode) = ? AND CURDATE() BETWEEN offer_start_date AND offer_end_date AND id IN ("121211, 123341,151512,5145626 "); Now I want to cache the results of this query using memcache and so my question is How can I cache an query using memcache. I am currently using CURDATE() which cannot be used if we want to implement caching and so how can I get current date functionality without using CURDATE() function ?

    Read the article

  • how to select distinct rows for a column

    - by Satoru.Logic
    Hi, all. I have a table x that's like the one bellow: id | name | observed_value | 1 | a | 100 | 2 | b | 200 | 3 | b | 300 | 4 | a | 150 | 5 | c | 300 | I want to make a query so that in the result set I have exactly one record for one name: (1, a, 100) (2, b, 200) (5, c, 300) If there are multiple records corresponding to a name, say 'a' in the table above, I just pick up one of them. In my current implementation, I make a query like this: select x.* from x , (select distinct name, min(observed_value) as minimum_val from x group by name) x1 where x.name = x1.name and x.observed_value = x1.observed_value; But I think there may be some better way around, please tell me if you know, thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • how to pull and display range (min-max) data for each page in pagination?

    - by Ty W
    I have a table of data that is searchable and sortable, but likely to produce hundreds or thousands of results for broad searches. Assuming the user searches for "foo" and sorts the foos in descending price order I'd like to show a quick-jump select menu like so: <option value="1">Page 1 ($25,000,000 - $1,625,000)</option> <option value="2">Page 2 ($1,600,000 - $1,095,000)</option> <option value="3">Page 3 ($1,095,000 - $815,000)</option> <option value="4">Page 4 ($799,900 - $699,000)</option> ... Is there an efficient way of querying for this information directly from the DB? I've been grabbing all of the matching records and using PHP to calculate the min and max value for each page which seems inefficient and likely to cause scaling problems. The only possible technique I've been able to come up with is some way of having a calculated variable that increments every X records (X records to a page), grouping by that, and selecting MIN/MAX for each page grouping... unfortunately I haven't been able to come up with a way to generate that variable.

    Read the article

  • MYSQL: COUNT with GROUP BY, LEFT JOIN and WHERE clause doesn't return zero values

    - by Paul Norman
    Hi guys, thanks in advance for any help on this topic! I'm sure this has a very simply answer, but I can't seem to find it (not sure what to search on!). A standard count / group by query may look like this: SELECT COUNT(`t2`.`name`) FROM `table_1` `t1` LEFT JOIN `table_2` `t2` ON `t1`.`key_id` = `t2`.`key_id` GROUP BY `t1`.`any_col` and this works as expected, returning 0 if no rows are found. So does: SELECT COUNT(`t2`.`name`) FROM `table_1` `t1` LEFT JOIN `table_2` `t2` ON `t1`.`key_id` = `t2`.`key_id` WHERE `t1`.`another_column` = 123 However: SELECT COUNT(`t2`.`name`) FROM `table_1` `t1` LEFT JOIN `table_2` `t2` ON `t1`.`key_id` = `t2`.`key_id` WHERE `t1`.`another_column` = 123 GROUP BY `t1`.`any_col` only works if there is at least one row in table_1 and fails miserably returning an empty result set if there are zero rows. I would really like this to return 0! Anyone enlighten me on this? Beer can be provided in exchange if you are in London ;-)

    Read the article

  • Facing trouble in retrieving relevant records

    - by Umaid
    SELECT * from MainCategory where Month = 'May' and Day in ((cast(strftime('%d',date('now','-1 day')) as Integer)),(cast(strftime('%d',date('now')) as Integer)),(cast(strftime('%d',date('now','+1 day')) as Integer))); Whenever I run this query in sqlite so it returns me 33 records instead of 3. I am insterested in fetching on 3 records of the current month but unable to do so, so plz assist. --Please note: if you can't assist so plz don't post irrelevant answer. I have also modified and try to make it simple but not achieve Select day, month from MainCategory where Month = 'May' and day in ((date('now','-1 day')),(date('now')),(date('now','+1 day')))

    Read the article

  • Combine First, Middle Initial, Last name and Suffix in T-SQL (No extra spaces)

    - by Paul
    I'm trying not to reinvent the wheel here...I have these four fields [tbl_Contacts].[FirstName], [tbl_Contacts].[MiddleInitial], [tbl_Contacts].[LastName], [tbl_Contacts].[Suffix] And I want to create a FullName field in a view, but I can't have extra spaces if fields are blank...So I can't do FirstName + ' ' + MiddleInitial + ' ' + LastName + ' ' + Suffix...Because if there is no middle initial or suffix I'd have 2 extra spaces in the field. I think I need a Case statement, but I thought someone would have a handy method for this...Also, the middleinitial and suffix may be null.

    Read the article

  • Redundancy in doing sum()

    - by Abhi
    table1 - id, time_stamp, value This table consists of 10 id's. Each id would be having a value for each hour in a day. So for 1 day, there would be 240 records in this table. table2 - id Table2 consists of a dynamically changing subset of id's present in table1. At a particular instance, the intention is to get sum(value) from table1, considering id's only in table2, grouping by each hour in that day, giving the summarized values a rank and repeating this each day. the query is at this stage: select time_stamp, sum(value), rank() over (partition by trunc(time_stamp) order by sum(value) desc) rn from table1 where exists (select t2.id from table2 t2 where id=t2.id) and time_stamp >= to_date('05/04/2010 00','dd/mm/yyyy hh24') and time_stamp <= to_date('25/04/2010 23','dd/mm/yyyy hh24') group by time_stamp order by time_stamp asc If the query is correct, can this be made more efficient, considering that, table1 will actually consist of thousand's of id's instead of 10 ? EDIT: I am using sum(value) 2 times in the query, which I am not able to get a workaround such that the sum() is done only once. Pls help on this

    Read the article

  • SQL queries to determine all values that would satisfy an arbitrary query

    - by jasterm007
    I'm trying to figure out how to efficiently run a set of queries that will provide a new table of all values that would return results for an arbitrary query. Say my table has a schema like: id name age city What is an efficient way to list all values that would return results for an arbitrary query, say "NOT city=X AND age BETWEEN Y and Z"? My naive approach for this would be to use a script and recurse through all possible combinations of {city, age, age} and see which SELECTs return more than 0 results, but that seems incredibly inefficient. I've also tried building large joins on {city, age, age} as well and basically using that table as an argument list to the query, but that quickly becomes an impossibility for queries on many columns. For simple conjunctive equality queries, i.e. "name=X and age=Y", this is much simpler, as I can do something like SELECT name, age, count(*) AS count FROM main GROUP BY name, age HAVING count > 0 But I'm having difficulty coming up with a general approach for anything more complicated than that. Any pointers in the right direction would be most helpful, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Automatically Persisting a Complex Java Object

    - by VeeArr
    For a project I am working on, I need to persist a number of POJOs to a database. The POJOs class definitions are sometimes highly nested, but they should flatten okay, as the nesting is tree-like and contains no cycles (and the base elements are eventually primitives/Strings). It is preferred that the solution used create one table per data type and that the tables will have one field per primitive member in the POJO. Subclassing and similar problems are not issues for this particular project. Does anybody know of any existing solutions that can: Automatically generate a CREATE TABLE definition from the class definition Automatically generate a query to persist an object to the database, given an instance of the object Automatically generate a query to retrieve an object from the database and return it as a POJO, given a key. Solutions that can do this with minimum modifications/annotions to the class files and minimum external configuration are preferred. Example: Java classes //Class to be persisted class TypeA { String guid; long timestamp; TypeB data1; TypeC data2; } class TypeB { int id; int someData; } class TypeC { int id; int otherData; } Could map to CREATE TABLE TypeA ( guid CHAR(255), timestamp BIGINT, data1_id INT, data1_someData INT, data2_id INt, data2_otherData INT ); Or something similar.

    Read the article

  • select records from table in the order in which i inserted

    - by echo
    consider a tale is as follows, EmployeeId | Name | Phone_Number Now, i insert 10 records... When i query them back, select * from myTable they are not selected in the order i inserted. I can obviously keep an autoincrement index and ORDER BY index. But i dont want to alter the table. How can i do this without altering the table?

    Read the article

  • Multisite Enabling a Table

    - by Joe Fitzgibbons
    I am creating a table (table A) that will have a number of columns(of course) and there will be another table (table B) that holds metadata associated to rows in table A. I am working with a multi site implementation that has one database for the whole shabang. Rows in table A could belong to any number of sites but must belong to at least one. The problem I have is I am not sure what the best practice is for defining what site each row in table A belongs to. I want performance and scalability. There is no finite number of sites going forward. Rows in table A could belong to any number of sites in the future. Right now there are only 3. My initial thoughts are to have a primary site ID in Table A and then metadata in table B will have rows defining additional sites as needed. Another thought is to have a column in Table A for each site and it is a boolean as to wether it belongs to that site. Lastly I have thought about having another table to map rows in Table A to each site. What is the best way to associate rows in a table with any number of sites with performance and scalability in mind?

    Read the article

  • What sort of schema can I use to accommodate manual date based data entries?

    - by meder
    I have an admin where users from multiple properties can enter in monthly statistics for twitter/facebook followers. We do not have access to the real data/db so this is why a manual entry. The form looks like this: Type ( radio, select **one** only ): - Twitter - Facebook Followers/Fans ( textfield ): Property (dropdown): Hotel A, Hotel B Date Start: mm/dd/yyyy (textfield) Date End: mm/dd/yyyy (textfield) Question 1.1: Since I am only keeping track of month per month, the date start/end fields which I have already created might be too specific. Would it be a better idea just to have a start month/year and and month/year if that's the only thing I care about? Question 1.2: What schema could I use for month to month statistics if I were to change the date start and end textfields to start month/year and end month/year dropdowns?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679  | Next Page >