Search Results

Search found 32117 results on 1285 pages for 'sql wait stats'.

Page 686/1285 | < Previous Page | 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693  | Next Page >

  • Cursor loops; How to perform something at start/end of loop 1 time only?

    - by James.Elsey
    I've got the following in one of my Oracle procedures, I'm using it to generate XML -- v_client_addons is set to '' to avoid null error OPEN C_CLIENT_ADDONS; LOOP FETCH C_CLIENT_ADDONS INTO CLIENT_ADDONS; EXIT WHEN C_CLIENT_ADDONS%NOTFOUND; BEGIN v_client_addons := v_client_addons || CLIENT_ADDONS.XML_DATA; END; END LOOP; CLOSE C_CLIENT_ADDONS; -- Do something later with v_client_addons The loop should go through my cursor and pick out all of the XML values to display, such as : <add-on name="some addon"/> <add-on name="another addon"/> What I would like to achieve is to have an XML start/end tag inside this loop, so I would have the following output <addons> <add-on name="some addon"/> <add-on name="another addon"/> </addons> How can I do this without having the <addons> tag after every line? If there are no addons in the cursor (cursor is empty), then I would like to skip this part enitrely

    Read the article

  • Using LEFT JOIN to only selection one joined row

    - by Alex
    I'm trying to LEFT JOIN two tables, to get a list of all rows from TABLE_1 and ONE related row from TABLE_2. I have tried LEFT JOIN and GROUP BY c_id, however I wan't the related row from TABLE_2 to be sorted by isHeadOffice DESC. Here are some sample tables TABLE 1 c_id Name ---------------- 1 USA 2 Canada 3 England 4 France 5 Spain TABLE2 o_id c_id Office isHeadOffice ------------------------------------------------ 1 1 New York 1 2 1 Washington 0 3 1 Boston 0 4 2 Toronto 0 5 3 London 0 6 3 Manchester 1 7 4 Paris 1 8 4 Lyon 0 So what I am trying to get from this would be something like: RESULTS c_id Name Office ---------------------------- 1 USA New York 2 Canada Toronto 3 England Manchester 4 France Paris 5 Spain NULL I'm using PHP & MySQL. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to structure data... Sequential or Hierarchical?

    - by Ryan
    I'm going through the exercise of building a CMS that will organize a lot of the common documents that my employer generates each time we get a new sales order. Each new sales order gets a 5 digit number (12222,12223,122224, etc...) but internally we have applied a hierarchy to these numbers: + 121XX |--01 |--02 + 122XX |--22 |--23 |--24 In my table for sales orders, is it better to use the 5 digital number as an ID and populate up or would it be better to use the hierarchical structure that we use when referring to jobs in regular conversation? The only benefit to not populating sequentially seems to be formatting the data later on in my view, but that doesn't sound like a good enough reason to go through the extra work. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Have 2 separate tables or an additional field in 1 table?

    - by hkansal
    Hello, I am making a small personal application regarding my trade of shares of various companies. The actions can be selling shares of a company or buying. Therefore, the details to be saved in both cases would be: Number of Shares Average Price Would it be better to use a separate tables for "buy" and "sell" or just use one table for "trade" and keep a field that demarcates "buy" from "sell"?

    Read the article

  • Mutiple FK columns all pointing to the same parent table - a good idea?

    - by Randy Minder
    For those of you who live and breath database design, have you ever found compelling reasons to have multiple FK's in a table that all point to the same parent table? We recently had to deal with a situation where we had a table that contained six columns which were all FK columns to the same parent table. We're debating whether this indicates a poor design on our part or whether this is more common than we think. Thanks very much.

    Read the article

  • What is the maximum length of a string parameter to Stored procedure?

    - by padmavathi
    I have a string of length 1,44,000 which has to be passed as a parameter to a stored procedure which is a select query on a table. When a give this is in a query (in c# ) its working fine. But when i pass it as a parameter to stored procedure its not working. Here is my stored procedure where in i have declared this parameter as NVARCHAR(MAX) ------------------------------------------------------ set ANSI_NULLS ON set QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON go CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[ReadItemData](@ItemNames NVARCHAR(MAX),@TimeStamp as DATETIME) AS select * from ItemData where ItemName in (@ItemNames) AND TimeStamp=@TimeStamp --------------------------------------------------------------------- Here the parameter @ItemNames is a string concatinated with different names such as 'Item1','Item2','Item3'....etc. Can anyone tell what went wrong here? Thanks & Regards Padma

    Read the article

  • comparing rows on a mysql table

    - by user311324
    Ok here's the deal I got one table with a bunch of client information. Each client makes up to one purchase a year which is represented by an individual row. there's a column for the year and there's a column the contains a unique identifier for each client. What I need to do is to construct a query that takes last year and this year and shows me which clients were here made a purchase last year but not make a purchase this year. I also need to build a query that shows me which clients did not make a purchase last year and the year before last but did make a purchase this year.

    Read the article

  • Consolidating separate Loan, Purchase & Sales tables into one transaction table.

    - by Frank Computer
    INFORMIX-SE with ISQL 7.3: I have separate tables for Loan, Purchase & Sales transactions. Each tables rows are joined to their respective customer rows by: customer.id [serial] = loan.foreign_id [integer]; = purchase.foreign_id [integer]; = sale.foreign_id [integer]; I would like to consolidate the three tables into one table called "transaction", where a column "transaction.trx_type" [char(1)] {L=Loan, P=Purchase, S=Sale} identifies the transaction type. Is this a good idea or is it better to keep them in separate tables? Storage space is not a concern, I think it would be easier programming & user=wise to have all types of transactions under one table.

    Read the article

  • Mysql query problem

    - by Lost_in_code
    Below is a sample table: fruits +-------+---------+ | id | type | +-------+---------+ | 1 | apple | | 2 | orange | | 3 | banana | | 4 | apple | | 5 | apple | | 6 | apple | | 7 | orange | | 8 | apple | | 9 | apple | | 10 | banana | +-------+---------+ Following are the two queries of interest: SELECT * FROM fruits WHERE type='apple' LIMIT 2; SELECT COUNT(*) AS total FROM fruits WHERE type='apple'; // output 6 I want to combine these two queries so that the results looks like this: +-------+---------+---------+ | id | type | total | +-------+---------+---------+ | 1 | apple | 6 | | 4 | apple | 6 | +-------+---------+---------+ The output has to be limited to 2 records but it should also contain the total number of records of the type apple. How can this be done with 1 query?

    Read the article

  • php and SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS

    - by Lizard
    I am trying to add the SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS into a query (Please note this isn't for pagination) please note I am trying to add this to a cakePHP query the code I currently have is below: return $this->find('all', array( 'conditions' => $conditions, 'fields'=>array('SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS','Category.*','COUNT(`Entity`.`id`) as `entity_count`'), 'joins' => array('LEFT JOIN `entities` AS Entity ON `Entity`.`category_id` = `Category`.`id`'), 'group' => '`Category`.`id`', 'order' => $sort, 'limit'=>$params['limit'], 'offset'=>$params['start'], 'contain' => array('Domain' => array('fields' => array('title'))) )); Note the 'fields'=>array('SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS',' this obviously doesn't work as It tries to apply the SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS to the table e.g. SELECTCategory.SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS, Is there anyway of doing this? Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

    Read the article

  • MySQL: How to copy rows, but change a few fields?

    - by Andrew
    I have a large number of rows that I would like to copy, but I need to change one field. I can select the rows that I want to copy: select * from Table where Event_ID = "120" Now I want to copy all those rows and create new rows while setting the Event_ID to 155. How can I accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • Sorting nested set by name while keep depth integrity

    - by wb
    I'm using the nested set model that'll later be used to build a sitemap for my web site. This is my table structure. create table departments ( id int identity(0, 1) primary key , lft int , rgt int , name nvarchar(60) ); insert into departments (lft, rgt, name) values (1, 10, 'departments'); insert into departments (lft, rgt, name) values (2, 3, 'd'); insert into departments (lft, rgt, name) values (4, 9, 'a'); insert into departments (lft, rgt, name) values (5, 6, 'b'); insert into departments (lft, rgt, name) values (7, 8, 'c'); How can I sort by depth as well as name? I can do select replicate('----', count(parent.name) - 1) + ' ' + node.name , count(parent.name) - 1 as depth , node.lft from departments node , departments parent where node.lft between parent.lft and parent.rgt group by node.name, node.lft order by depth asc, node.name asc; However, that does not match children with their parent for some reason. department lft rgt --------------------------- departments 0 1 ---- a 1 4 ---- d 1 2 -------- b 2 5 -------- c 2 7 As you can see, department 'd' has department 'a's children! Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Forcing the use of an index can improve performance?

    - by aF.
    Imagine that we have a query like this: select a.col1, b.col2 from t1 a inner join t2 b on a.col1 = b.col2 where a.col1 = 'abc' Both col1 and col2 don't have any index. If I add another restriction on the where clause, one that is always correct but with a column with an index: select a.col1, b.col2 from t1 a inner join t2 b on a.col1 = b.col2 where a.col1 = 'abc' and a.id >= 0 -- column always true and with index May the query perform faster since it may use the index on id column?

    Read the article

  • Get consolidated results with following tables

    - by Ted
    I have a scenario. Here's my table structure is: ID LoginDate RemovalDate ---------------------------------------- 1 2009/08/01 NULL 2 2009/09/12 2010/01/02 3 2009/08/31 2009/10/29 4 2010/02/17 NULL 5 2009/10/18 2009/11/22 I want a consolidated results of how many ID's were not removed in a particular month. So the result set should be Date NotRemoved_ID -------------------------- 2009/08 2 2009/09 3 2009/10 3 [One ID got removed in 2009/10] 2010/02 2 [Two got removed in 2009/11 and 2010/01] Please help.

    Read the article

  • Problem with DB2 Over clause

    - by silent1mezzo
    I'm trying to do pagination with a very old version of DB2 and the only way I could figure out selecting a range of rows was to use the OVER command. This query provide's the correct results (the results that I want to paginate over). select MIN(REFID) as REFID, REFGROUPID from ARMS_REFERRAL where REFERRAL_ID<>'Draft' and REFERRAL_ID not like 'Demo%' group by REFGROUPID order by REFID desc Results: REFID REFGROUPID 302 242 301 241 281 221 261 201 225 142 221 161 ... ... SELECT * FROM ( SELECT row_number() OVER () AS rid, MIN(REFID) AS REFID, REFGROUPID FROM arms_referral where REFERRAL_ID<>'Draft' and REFERRAL_ID not like 'Demo%' group by REFGROUPID order by REFID desc ) AS t WHERE t.rid BETWEEN 1 and 5 Results: REFID REFGROUPID 26 12 22 11 14 8 11 7 6 4 As you can see, it does select the first five rows, but it's obviously not selecting the latest. If I add a Order By clause to the OVER() it gets closer, but still not totally correct. SELECT * FROM ( SELECT row_number() OVER (ORDER BY REFGROUPID desc) AS rid, MIN(REFID) AS REFID, REFGROUPID FROM arms_referral where REFERRAL_ID<>'Draft' and REFERRAL_ID not like 'Demo%' group by REFGROUPID order by REFID desc ) AS t WHERE t.rid BETWEEN 1 and 5 REFID REFGROUPID 302 242 301 241 281 221 261 201 221 161 It's really close but the 5th result isn't correct (actually the 6th result). How do I make this query correct so it can group by a REFGROUPID and then order by the REFID?

    Read the article

  • what is the 'extra' mean in this django code..

    - by zjm1126
    TOPIC_COUNT_SQL = """ SELECT COUNT(*) FROM topics_topic WHERE topics_topic.object_id = maps_map.id AND topics_topic.content_type_id = %s """ MEMBER_COUNT_SQL = """ SELECT COUNT(*) FROM maps_map_members WHERE maps_map_members.map_id = maps_map.id """ maps = maps.extra(select=SortedDict([ ('member_count', MEMBER_COUNT_SQL), ('topic_count', TOPIC_COUNT_SQL), ]), select_params=(content_type.id,)) i don't know this mean, thanks

    Read the article

  • MySQL -- How to do this better?

    - by Andrew
    $activeQuery = mysql_query("SELECT count(`status`) AS `active` FROM `assignments` WHERE `user` = $user_id AND `status` = 0"); $active = mysql_fetch_assoc($activeQuery); $failedQuery = mysql_query("SELECT count(`status`) AS `failed` FROM `assignments` WHERE `user` = $user_id AND `status` = 1"); $failed = mysql_fetch_assoc($failedQuery); $completedQuery = mysql_query("SELECT count(`status`) AS `completed` FROM `assignments` WHERE `user` = $user_id AND `status` = 2"); $completed = mysql_fetch_assoc($completedQuery); There has to be a better way to do that, right? I don't know how much I need to elaborate as you can see what I'm trying to do, but is there any way to do all of that in one query? I need to be able to output the active, failed, and completed assignments, preferably in one query.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693  | Next Page >