Search Results

Search found 31931 results on 1278 pages for 'sql statement'.

Page 681/1278 | < Previous Page | 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688  | Next Page >

  • Double Inner Join generates unexpected error

    - by Itamar Marom
    In my database I have three tables: Users: UserID (Auto Numbering), UserName, UserPassword and a few other unimportant fields. PrivateMessages: MessageID (Auto Numbering), SenderID and a few other fields defining the message content. MessageStatus: MessageID, ReceiverID, MessageWasRead (Boolean) What I need is a query to which I input a user's id and I get all the private messages he has received. In addition, I also need to receive each message's sender UserName. For this I wrote the following query: SELECT Users.*, PrivateMessages.*, MessageStatus.* FROM PrivateMessages INNER JOIN Users ON PrivateMessages.SenderID = Users.UserID INNER JOIN MessageStatus ON PrivateMessages.MessageID = MessageStatus.MessageID WHERE MessageStatus.ReceiverID=[@userid]; But for some reason when I try saving it in my Access database, I get the following error (translated to English by me, since my office is in a different language): Syntax error (missing operator) at expression: "PrivateMessages.SenderID = Users.UserID INNER JOIN MessageStatus ON PrivateMessages.MessageID = MessageStatus.MessageI". Any ideas what could cause this? Thanks.

    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

  • How to handle Foreign key for optional field in .NET

    - by brz dot net
    What is the best way to handle following situation? A dropdown(for master table) is optional in a particular form. But, In database table the field is constrained with foreign key. If user don't select from dropdown then It creates problem because of foreign key. One solution is to create default option in master table and use it in case of blank selection. but in dropdown, we need to handle this to show on top. Is it perfect solution? Is there any other optimized solution for this? Thanks

    Read the article

  • MySQL left outer join is slow

    - by Ryan Doherty
    Hi, hoping to get some help with this query, I've worked at it for a while now and can't get it any faster: SELECT date, count(id) as 'visits' FROM dates LEFT OUTER JOIN visits ON (dates.date = DATE(visits.start) and account_id = 40 ) WHERE date >= '2010-12-13' AND date <= '2011-1-13' GROUP BY date ORDER BY date ASC That query takes about 8 seconds to run. I've added indexes on dates.date, visits.start, visits.account_id and visits.start+visits.account_id and can't get it to run any faster. Table structure (only showing relevant columns in visit table): create table visits ( `id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `account_id` int(11) NOT NULL, `start` DATETIME NOT NULL, `end` DATETIME NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8; CREATE TABLE `dates` ( `date` date NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`date`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; dates table contains all days from 2010-1-1 to 2020-1-1 (~3k rows). visits table contains about 400k rows dating from 2010-6-1 to yesterday. I'm using the date table so the join will return 0 visits for days there were no visits. Results I want for reference: +------------+--------+ | date | visits | +------------+--------+ | 2010-12-13 | 301 | | 2010-12-14 | 356 | | 2010-12-15 | 423 | | 2010-12-16 | 332 | | 2010-12-17 | 346 | | 2010-12-18 | 226 | | 2010-12-19 | 213 | | 2010-12-20 | 311 | | 2010-12-21 | 273 | | 2010-12-22 | 286 | | 2010-12-23 | 241 | | 2010-12-24 | 149 | | 2010-12-25 | 102 | | 2010-12-26 | 174 | | 2010-12-27 | 258 | | 2010-12-28 | 348 | | 2010-12-29 | 392 | | 2010-12-30 | 395 | | 2010-12-31 | 278 | | 2011-01-01 | 241 | | 2011-01-02 | 295 | | 2011-01-03 | 369 | | 2011-01-04 | 438 | | 2011-01-05 | 393 | | 2011-01-06 | 368 | | 2011-01-07 | 435 | | 2011-01-08 | 313 | | 2011-01-09 | 250 | | 2011-01-10 | 345 | | 2011-01-11 | 387 | | 2011-01-12 | 0 | | 2011-01-13 | 0 | +------------+--------+ Thanks in advance for any help!

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Limit output according to associated ID

    - by Jess
    So here's my situation. I have a books table and authors table. An author can have many books... In my authors page view, the user (logged in) can click an author in a tabled row and be directed to a page displaying the author's books (collected like this URI format: viewauthorbooks.php?author_id=23), very straight forward... However, in my query, I need to display the books for the author only, and not all books stored in the books table (as i currently have!) As I am a complete novice, I used the most simple query of: SELECT * FROM tasks_tb This returns the books for me, but returns every single value (book) in the database, and not ones associated with the selected author. And when I click a different author the same books are displayed for them...I think everyone gets what I'm trying to achieve, I just don't know how to perform the query. I'm guessing that I need to start using more advanced query clauses like INNER JOIN etc. Anyone care to help me out :)

    Read the article

  • PL/SQL How return all attributes in ROW

    - by kunkanwan
    Hi I don't know how can I return all attributes by RETURNING I want something like that: DECLARE v_user USER%ROWTYPE BEGIN INSERT INTO User VALUES (1,'Bill','QWERTY') RETURNING * INTO v_user; END; RETURNING * INTO gets error , how can I replace * ? Have you any idea ? Thanks for your time ;)

    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

  • Updating database row from model

    - by Jamie Dixon
    Hey everyone, I'm haing a few problems updating a row in my database using Linq2Sql. Inside of my model I have two methods for updating and saving from my controller, which in turn receives an updated model from my view. My model methods like like: public void Update(Activity activity) { _db.Activities.InsertOnSubmit(activity); } public void Save() { _db.SubmitChanges(); } and the code in my Controller likes like: [HttpPost] public ActionResult Edit(Activity activity) { if (ModelState.IsValid) { UpdateModel<Activity>(activity); _activitiesModel.Update(activity); _activitiesModel.Save(); } return View(activity); } The problem I'm having is that this code inserts a new entry into the database, even though the model item i'm inserting-on-submit contains a primary key field. I've also tried re-attaching the model object back to the data source but this throws an error because the item already exists. Any pointers in the right direction will be greatly appreciated. UPDATE: I'm using dependancy injection to instantiate my datacontext object as follows: IMyDataContext _db; public ActivitiesModel(IMyDataContext db) { _db = db; }

    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

  • Which of these queries is preferable?

    - by bread
    I've written the same query as a subquery and a self-join. Is there any obvious argument for one over the other here? SUBQUERY: SELECT prod_id, prod_name FROM products WHERE vend_id = (SELECT vend_id FROM products WHERE prod_id = ‘DTNTR’); SELF-JOIN: SELECT p1.prod_id, p1.prod_name FROM products p1, products p2 WHERE p1.vend_id = p2.vend_id AND p2.prod_id = ‘DTNTR’;

    Read the article

  • Sybase ASA 8.0 trigger how to determine whether to insert ,update,delete operate.

    - by guaike
    Follow is my trigger of Sybase ASA 8.0 script: Create trigger dba.test after insert,delete,update order 1 on DBA.tb_press referencing old as _old new as _new for each row begin --How to detect deleteOperate,updateOperate? if deleteOperate then insert into syncLog(tableName,keyId,version,operate) select tb_press,_old.id,1,'delete' end if; end how to determine whether to insert ,update,delete operate.

    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

  • Indexing affects only the WHERE clause?

    - by andre matos
    If I have something like: CREATE INDEX idx_myTable_field_x ON myTable USING btree (field_x); SELECT COUNT(field_x), field_x FROM myTable GROUP BY field_x ORDER BY field_x; Imagine myTable with around 500,000 rows and most of field_x values being unique. Since I don't use any WHERE clause, will the created index have any effect at all in my query? Edit: I'm asking this question because I don't get any relevant difference between query-times before and after creating the index; They always take about 8 seconds (which, of course is too much time!). Is this behaviour expected?

    Read the article

  • update query with join on two tables

    - by dba_query
    I have customer and address tables. query: select * from addresses a, customers b where a.id = b.id returns 474 records For these records, I'd like to add the id of customer table into cid of address table. Example: If for the first record the id of customer is 9 and id of address is also 9 then i'd like to insert 9 into cid column of address table. I tried: update addresses a, customers b set a.cid = b.id where a.id = b.id but this does not seem to work.

    Read the article

  • mysql: get all rows into 1 column

    - by andufo
    hi, i have 3 tables: post (id_post, title) tag (id_tag, name) post_tag (id_post_tag, id_post, id_tag) Lets suppose that id_post 3 has 4 linked tags 1,2,3,4 (soccer, basket, tennis and golf). Is there a way to return something like this in ONE row? col 1 id_post = 3 col 2 tags = soccer basket tennis golf Thanks

    Read the article

  • mySQL: Order by field size/length

    - by Sadi
    Here is a table structure (e.g. test): __________________________________________ | Field Name | Data Type | |________________|_________________________| | id | BIGINT (20) | |________________|_________________________| | title | varchar(25) | |________________|_________________________| | description | text | |________________|_________________________| A query like: SELECT * FROM TEST ORDER BY description; But I would like to order by the field size/length of the field description. The field type will be TEXT or BLOB.

    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

  • Can a primary key be equal to a different column?

    - by eric
    I know that a primary key must be unique, but is it okay for a primary key to be equal to a different column in the same table by coincidence? For instance, I have 2 tables. One table is called person that holds information about a person (ID, email, telephone, address, name). The other table is staff (ID, pID(person ID), salary, position). In staff the ID column is the primary key and is used to uniquely identify a staff member. The number is from 1 - 100. However, the pID (person ID) may be equal to the ID. For instance the staff ID may be 1 and the pID that it references to may be equal to 1. Is that okay?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688  | Next Page >