Search Results

Search found 27530 results on 1102 pages for 'sql truncate'.

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 678/1102 | < Previous Page | 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685  | Next Page >

  • help with sql query - in access 2007

    - by Gold
    hi i have 2 tables table items has 144602 records table A has 27721 records code in items = BAR8 in A i want to show all records that equal i try this: SELECT Items.Code, A.BAR8 FROM Items INNER JOIN A ON Items.Code = A.BAR8; and i get 28048 records !!! i need to get 27721 , how to do it ? thank's in advance

    Read the article

  • difference between where and nested queries

    - by Chris H
    I'm not able to figure out the difference between these queries. I'm pretty sure that the first one is an equi-join. I'm not sure how the second one ISN'T the same as the first. The sub query in #2 selects all Ids from S, and then it returns all R's that also have those ID's, no? SELECT R.cname FROM R, S, WHERE R.Id = S.Id SELECT R.cname FROM R WHERE R.Id IN (SELECT S.Id FROM S)

    Read the article

  • wanted to get all dates in mysql result

    - by PankajK
    I have mysql table called user(id, name, join_on) join on is a date field what I want is to show in each day how many uses has been created I can use group by but it will only give me the dates when users get added like if date 4/12/10 5 users added 4/13/10 2 users added 4/15/10 7 users added here date 4/14/10 is missing and I want listing of all dates in one month. I have one solution for it by creating another table only for adding date and that table will left join my users table on join_on and will give total result but I don't want to do that as for creating that I need to create and add entries in date table please suggest the different approach for doing so. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • IS NULL vs = NULL in where clause + MSSQL

    - by Nev_Rahd
    Hello How to check a value IS NULL [or] = @param (where @param is null) Ex: Select column1 from Table1 where column2 IS NULL = works fine If I want to replace comparing value (IS NULL) with @param. How can this be done Select column1 from Table1 where column2 = @param = this works fine until @param got some value in it and if is null never finds a record. How can this achieve?

    Read the article

  • How does linq decide between inner & outer joins

    - by user287795
    Hi Usually linq is using an left outer join for its queries but on some cases it decides to use inner join instead. I have a situation where that decision results in wrong results since the second table doesn't always have suitable records and that removes the records from the first table. I'm using a linqdatasource over a dbml where the relevant tables are identical but one holds historical records removed from the first. both have the same primary key. and I'm using a dataloadoption to load both tables at once with out round trips. Would you explain why linq decided to use an inner join here? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Problem with sending "SetCookie" first in php code

    - by Camran
    According to this manual: http://us2.php.net/setcookie I have to set the cookie before anything else. Here is my cookie code: if (isset($_COOKIE['watched_ads'])){ $expir = time()+1728000; //20 days $ad_arr = unserialize($_COOKIE['watched_ads']); $arr_elem = count($ad_arr); if (in_array($ad_id, $ad_arr) == FALSE){ if ($arr_elem>10){ array_shift($ad_arr); } $ad_arr[]=$ad_id; setcookie('watched_ads', serialize($ad_arr), $expir, '/'); } } else { $expir = time()+1728000; //20 days $ad_arr[] = $ad_id; setcookie('watched_ads', serialize($ad_arr), $expir, '/'); } As you can see I am using variables in setting the cookie. The variables comes from a mysql_query and I have to do the query first. But then, if I do, I will get an error message: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by ... The error points to the line where I set the cookie above. What should I do?a

    Read the article

  • Copying Primary key to another field in Access.

    - by BashLover
    Hey, I'm struggling to copy the Primary Key to another field in Access. This is irrelevant , but clarifying on what I'm comparing. ... WHERE Tunniste=" & [Tarkiste] & "" Tunniste = Primary Key , Autonumber , ID (Generated by Access.) Tarkiste = This is the field I want to copy it to compare it. I'm open to suggestions, I've already try'ed with Form_Load, using the following code. Private Sub Form_Load() DoCmd.RunSQL "UPDATE Korut SET [Tarkiste]=('" & Tunniste & "');" End Sub But this copied the same key to all the entries in "Tarkiste" field. In simplicity I want 1:1 copy of field "Tunniste" to "Tarkiste" , whichever method it takes. Started from this question. File Picker Replaces All Rows With The Same Choice.

    Read the article

  • How can I combine a LINQ query with an IQueryable<Guid>

    - by John
    I have a LINQ query that uses 1 table + a large number of views. I'd like to be able to write something like this: IQueryable<Guid> mostViewedWriters; switch (datePicker) { case DatePicker.Last12Hours: mostViewedWriters = from x in context.tempMostViewed12Hours select x.GuidId; break; case DatePicker.Last24Hours: mostViewedWriters = from x in context.tempMostViewed12Hours select x.GuidId; break; case DatePicker.Last36Hours: mostViewedWriters = from x in context.tempMostViewed12Hours select x.GuidId; break; } var query = from x1 in context.Articles join x2 in context.Authors on x1.AuthorId == x2.AuthorId join x3 in mostViewedWriters on x2.AuthorId == x3.Id select new { x2.AuthorName, x1.ArticleId, x1.ArticleTitle }; The above C# is pseudo-code written to protect the innocent (me). The gist of the question is this: I have a query that is related to the results of a view. That view, however, could be one of many different views. All the views return the same data type. I thought that I might be able to create an IQueryable that would contain the Ids that I need and use that query. Alas, that effort has stalled.

    Read the article

  • copy an identity column into another table

    - by slake
    I have 2 tables that are related,both have identity columns for primary keys and i am using a vb form to insert data into them,My problem is that i cannot get the child table to get the primary key of the parent table and use this as its foreign key in my database. the data is inserted fine though no foreign key constraint is made.I am wondering if a trigger will do it and if so how. All my inserting of data is done in vb. The user wont insert any keys. all these are identity columns that are auto generated. If a trigger is my way out please illustrate with an example. If there is another way i can do this in VB itself then please advise and an example will be greatly appreciated Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • how to select the records whose several fields' combination will equal to a specific value

    - by poiu2000
    Hi all, Assume I have the following style table, col1 col2 and col3 have same value scopes, I want to select the records when two of the 3 columns have a value combination such as ('ab' and 'bc'), in the following example, the first 3 records should be selected. Any good way to do this? I am using Sybase. | id | col1 | col2 | col3 | 1 ab bc null 2 null ab bc 3 ab ab bc 4 de ab xy Thanks.

    Read the article

  • R equivalent of SELECT DISTINCT on two or more fields/variables

    - by wahalulu
    Say I have a dataframe df with two or more columns, is there an easy way to use unique() or other R function to create a subset of unique combinations of two or more columns? I know I can use sqldf() and write an easy "SELECT DISTINCT var1, var2, ... varN" query, but I am looking for an R way of doing this. It occurred to me to try ftable coerced to a dataframe and use the field names, but I also get the cross tabulations of combinations that don't exist in the dataset: uniques <- as.data.frame(ftable(df$var1, df$var2))

    Read the article

  • Creating a multi-row "table" as part of a SELECT

    - by Chad Birch
    I'm not really sure how to describe my question (thus the awful title), but it's related to this recent question. The problem would be easily solved if there was some way for me to create a "table" with 4 rows as part of my SELECT (to use with NOT IN or MINUS). What I mean is, I can do this: SELECT 1, 2, 3, 4; And will receive one row from the database: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | But is there any way to receive the following (without using UNION, I don't really want a query that's potentially thousands of lines long with a long list)? | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 |

    Read the article

  • Problem with Nulls and an UPDATE statement

    - by Dave
    UPDATE TableA SET Value = a.Value * b.AnotherValue FROM TableA AS a INNER JOIN TableB AS b WHERE (Condition is true); Here is the problem. The Value field for TableA does not allow nulls. If the calculation of a.Value * b.AnotherValue yields a null, an error is thrown. Now the question. Is there any way to tell the UPDATE to ignore the SET phase when the result of the calculation is a null and delete the record rather than updating it. This UPDATE is intended to update hundreds of records at a time but will fail if a single null is encountered. Also, please note that using the ISNULL() function and setting the Value to zero is not acceptable. I would like the record to be dropped if a null is encountered. Many thanks in advance for any help rendered.

    Read the article

  • limiting mysql results by range of a specific key INCLUDING DUPLICATES

    - by aVC
    I have a query SELECT p.*, m.*, (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM newPhotoonAlert n WHERE n.userIDfor='$id' AND n.threadID=p.threadID and n.seen='0') AS unReadCount FROM posts p JOIN myMembers m ON m.id = p.user_id LEFT JOIN following f ON (p.user_id = f.user_id AND f.follower_id='$id' AND f.request='0' AND f.status='1') JOIN myMembers searcher ON searcher.id = '$id' WHERE ((f.follower_id = searcher.id) OR m.id='$id') AND p.flagged <'5' ORDER BY p.threadID DESC,p.positionID It brings result as expected but I want to add Another CLAUSE to limit the results. Say a sample (minimal shown) set of data looks like this with the above query. threadID postID positionID url 564 1254 2 a.com 564 1245 1 a1.com 541 1215 3 b1.com 541 1212 2 b2.com 541 1210 1 b3.com 523 745 1 c1.com 435 689 2 d2.com 435 688 1 a4.com 256 345 1 s3.com 164 316 1 f1.com . . I want to get ROWS corresponding to 2 DISTINCT threadIDs starting from MAX, but I want to include duplicates as well. Something like AND p.threadID IN (Select just Two of all threadIDs currently selected, but include duplicate rows) So my result should be threadID postID positionID url 564 1254 2 a.com 564 1245 1 a1.com 541 1215 3 b1.com 541 1212 2 b2.com 541 1210 1 b3.com

    Read the article

  • Most efficient way to Update with Linq2Sql

    - by pranay
    can I update my employee record as given in below function or i have to make query of employee collection first and than i update data public int updateEmployee(App3_EMPLOYEE employee) { DBContextDataContext db = new DBContextDataContext(); db.App3_EMPLOYEEs.Attach(employee); db.SubmitChanges(); return employee.PKEY; } or i have to do this public int updateEmployee(App3_EMPLOYEE employee) { DBContextDataContext db = new DBContextDataContext(); App3_EMPLOYEE emp = db.App3_EMPLOYEEs.Single(e => e.PKEY == employee.PKEY); db.App3_EMPLOYEEs.Attach(employee,emp); db.SubmitChanges(); return employee.PKEY; } But i dont want to use second option is there any efficient way to update data

    Read the article

  • Best way to get distinct values from large table

    - by derivation
    I have a db table with about 10 or so columns, two of which are month and year. The table has about 250k rows now, and we expect it to grow by about 100-150k records a month. A lot of queries involve the month and year column (ex, all records from march 2010), and so we frequently need to get the available month and year combinations (ie do we have records for april 2010?). A coworker thinks that we should have a separate table from our main one that only contains the months and years we have data for. We only add records to our main table once a month, so it would just be a small update on the end of our scripts to add the new entry to this second table. This second table would be queried whenever we need to find the available month/year entries on the first table. This solution feels kludgy to me and a violation of DRY. What do you think is the correct way of solving this problem? Is there a better way than having two tables?

    Read the article

  • left join without duplicate values using MIN()

    - by Clipper87
    I have a table_1: id custno 1 1 2 2 3 3 and a table_2: id custno qty descr 1 1 10 a 2 1 7 b 3 2 4 c 4 3 7 d 5 1 5 e 6 1 5 f When I run this query to show the minimum order quantities from every customer: SELECT DISTINCT table_1.custno,table_2.qty,table_2.descr FROM table_1 LEFT OUTER JOIN table_2 ON table_1.custno = table_2.custno AND qty = (SELECT MIN(qty) FROM table_2 WHERE table_2.custno = table_1.custno ) Then I get this result: custno qty descr 1 5 e 1 5 f 2 4 c 3 7 d Customer 1 appears twice each time with the same minimum qty (& a different description) but I only want to see customer 1 appear once. I don't care if that is the record with 'e' as a description or 'f' as a description. How could I do this ? Thx!

    Read the article

  • Query to check the consistency of records

    - by orunner
    I have four tables TableA: id1 id2 id3 value TableB: id1 desc TableC: id2 desc TableD: id3 desc What I need to do is to check if all combinations of id1 id2 id3 from table B C and D exist in the TableA. In other words, table A should contain all possible combinations of id1 id2 and id3 which are stored in the other three tables.

    Read the article

  • Is an index required for columns in ON clause?

    - by newbie
    Do I have to create an index on columns referenced in Joins? E.g. SELECT * FROM left_table INNER JOIN right_table ON left_table.foo = right_table.bar WHERE ... Should I create indexes on left_table(foo), right_table(bar), or both? I noticed different results when I used EXPLAIN (Postgresql) with and without indexes and switching around the order of the comparison (right_table.bar = left_table.foo) I know for sure that indexes are used for the left of the WHERE clause but I am wondering whether I need indexes for columns listed in ON clauses.

    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 | 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685  | Next Page >