Search Results

Search found 62701 results on 2509 pages for 'sql function'.

Page 840/2509 | < Previous Page | 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847  | Next Page >

  • Database design

    - by Hadad
    Hello, I've a system, that have two types of users (Companies and individuals).all types have a shared set of properties but they differ in another. What is the best design merge all in one table that allows null for unmatched properties, or separate them in two tables related to a basic table with a one to one relationship. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Coding style in .NET: whether to refactor into new method or not?

    - by Dione
    Hi As you aware, in .NET code-behind style, we already use a lot of function to accommodate those _Click function, _SelectedIndexChanged function etc etc. In our team there are some developer that make a function in the middle of .NET function, for example: public void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) {     some logic here..     some logic there..     DoSomething();     DoSomethingThere();     another logic here..     DoOtherSomething(); } private void DoSomething() { } private void DoSomethingThere() { } private void DoOtherSomething() { } public void DropDown_SelectedIndexChanged() { } public void OtherButton_Click() { } and the function listed above is only used once in that function and not used anywhere else in the page, or called from other part of the solution. They said it make the code more tidier by grouping them and extract them into additional sub-function. I can understand if the sub-function is use over and over again in the code, but if it is only use once, then I think it is not really a good idea to extract them into sub-function, as the code getting bigger and bigger, when you look into the page and trying to understand the logic or to debug by skimming through line by line, it will make you confused by jumping from main function to the sub-function then to main function and to sub-function again. I know this kind of grouping by method is better when you writing old ASP or Cold fusion style, but I am not sure if this kind of style is better for .NET or not. Question is: which is better when you developing .NET, is grouping similar logic into a sub-method better (although they only use once), or just put them together inside main function and add //explanation here on the start of the logic is better? Hope my question is clear enough. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Query returning an ascending group number

    - by Dougman
    I have a query like below that has groups (COL1) and that group's values (COL2). select col1, col2 from (select 'A' col1, 1 col2 from dual union all select 'A' col1, 2 col2 from dual union all select 'B' col1, 1 col2 from dual union all select 'B' col1, 2 col2 from dual union all select 'C' col1, 1 col2 from dual union all select 'C' col1, 2 col2 from dual ) order by col1, col2; The output of this query looks like: COL1 COL2 ---- ---- A 1 A 2 B 1 B 2 C 1 C 2 What I need is a query that will return an ordered number increasing for each different group (COL1). It seems like there would be a simple way to accomplish this (maybe with analytics) but for some reason it is escaping me. GRPNUM COL1 COL2 ------ ---- ---- 1 A 1 1 A 2 2 B 1 2 B 2 3 C 1 3 C 2 I am running Oracle 10gR2.

    Read the article

  • Centralizing / Abstracting MSSQL Data from Multiple Tables / Databases

    - by davemackey
    If one has a number of databases (due to separate application front-ends) that provide a complete picture - for example a CRM, accounting, and product database - what methods are available to centralize/abstract this data for easy reporting? Essentially, I'm wondering if there is a way to automatically pull data from multiple databases into a central repository that is continuously updated from the three databases and which can be used for reporting? I'm also open to alternative best practice suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Select Query Joined on Two Fields?

    - by btollett
    I've got a few tables in an access database: ID | LocationName 1 | Location1 2 | Location2 ID | LocationID | Date | NumProductsDelivered 1 | 1 | 12/10 | 3 2 | 1 | 01/11 | 2 3 | 1 | 02/11 | 2 4 | 2 | 11/10 | 1 5 | 2 | 12/10 | 1 ID | LocationID | Date | NumEmployees | EmployeeType 1 | 1 | 12/10 | 10 | 1 (=Permanent) 2 | 1 | 12/10 | 3 | 2 (=Temporary) 3 | 1 | 12/10 | 1 | 3 (=Support) 4 | 2 | 10/10 | 1 | 1 5 | 2 | 11/10 | 2 | 1 6 | 2 | 11/10 | 1 | 2 7 | 2 | 11/10 | 1 | 3 8 | 2 | 12/10 | 2 | 1 9 | 2 | 12/10 | 1 | 3 What I want to do is pass in the LocationID as a parameter and get back something like the following table. So, if I pass in 2 as my LocationID, I should get: Date | NumProductsDelivered | NumPermanentEmployees | NumSupportEmployees 10/10 | | 1 | 11/10 | 1 | 2 | 1 12/10 | 1 | 2 | 1 It seems like this should be a pretty simple query. I really don't even need the first table except as a way to fill in the combo box on the form from which the user chooses which location they want a report for. Unfortunately, everything I've done has resulted in me getting a lot more data than I should be getting. My confusion is in how to set up the join (presumably that's what I'm looking for here) given that I want both the date and locationID to be the same for each row in the result set. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

    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

  • Adding Related Entities without using navigation properties

    - by Barisa Puter
    I have the following classes, set for testing: public class Company { [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)] public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class Employee { [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)] public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public int CompanyId { get; set; } public virtual Company Company { get; set; } } public class EFTestDbContext : DbContext { public DbSet<Employee> Employees { get; set; } public DbSet<Company> Companies { get; set; } } For the sake of testing, I wanted to insert one company and one employee for that company with single SaveChanges call, like this: Company company = new Company { Name = "Sample company" }; context.Companies.Add(company); // ** UNCOMMENTED FOR TEST 2 //Company company2 = new Company //{ // Name = "Some other company" //}; //context.Companies.Add(company2); Employee employee = new Employee { Name = "Hans", CompanyId = company.Id }; context.Employees.Add(employee); context.SaveChanges(); Even though I am not using navigational properties, but instead I've made relation over Id, this somehow mysteriously worked - employee was saved with proper foreign key to company which got updated from 0 to real value, which made me go ?!?! Some hidden C# feature? Then I've decided to add more code, which is commented in the snippet above, making it to be inserting of 2 x Company entity and 1 x Employee entity, and then I got exception: Unable to determine the principal end of the 'CodeLab.EFTest.Employee_Company' relationship. Multiple added entities may have the same primary key. Does this mean that in cases where foreign key is 0, and there is a single matching entity being inserted in same SaveChanges transaction, Entity Framework will assume that foreign key should be for that matching entity? In second test, when there are two entities matching the relation type, Entity Framework throws an exception as it is not able to figure out to which of the Companies Employee should be related to.

    Read the article

  • Access database query locks ability to edit table?

    - by Sattvic
    I created a query in Microsoft Access like the one below: SELECT Deliverables.ID, Deliverables.Title, Deliverables.Summary, Deliverables.Header_Code, Deliverables.Header_Code.Value, Deliverables.Sort_order, Deliverables.Pillar, Deliverables.Pillar.Value, Deliverables.Misc_ID FROM Deliverables WHERE (((Deliverables.Pillar.Value)="Link Building")); But my problem is that this query locks my fields and I cannot make changes to the table using the query view. Any suggestions? I am using Microsoft Access 2007

    Read the article

  • Oracle - truncating a global temporary table

    - by superdario
    I am processing large amounts of data in iterations, each and iteration processes around 10-50 000 records. Because of such large number of records, I am inserting them into a global temporary table first, and then process it. Usually, each iteration takes 5-10 seconds. Would it be wise to truncate the global temporary table after each iteration so that each iteration can start off with an empty table? There are around 5000 iterations.

    Read the article

  • sequencing function calls in javascript - are callbacks the only way?

    - by tim
    I read through various threads like this one for example. But it really escapes me how to accomplish the following: I have 4 functions, and want them happen one after another in sequence. Notice they are in incorrect order, to get my point across. I want the result that will output "1, 2, 3, 4' function firstFunction(){ // some very time consuming asynchronous code... console.log('1'); } function thirdFunction(){ // definitely dont wanna do this until secondFunction is finished console.log('3'); } function secondFunction(){ // waits for firstFunction to be completed console.log('2'); } function fourthFunction(){ // last function, not executed until the other 3 are done. console.log('4'); } I tried to figure out callbacks but am getting lost :( Isn't there some simple way to do this? Like looping through an array...

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Insert into select and update in single query

    - by Ossi
    I have 4 tables: tempTBL, linksTBL and categoryTBL, extra on my tempTBL I have: ID, name, url, cat, isinserted columns on my linksTBL I have: ID, name, alias columns on my categoryTBL I have: cl_id, link_id,cat_id on my extraTBL I have: id, link_id, value How do I do a single query to select from tempTBL all items where isinsrted = 0 then insert them to linksTBL and for each record inserted, pickup ID (which is primary) and then insert that ID to categoryTBL with cat_id = 88. after that insert extraTBL ID for link_id and url for value. I know this is so confusing, put I'll post this anyhow... This is what I have so far: INSERT IGNORE INTO linksTBL (link_id,link_name,alias) VALUES(NULL,'tex2','hello'); # generate ID by inserting NULL INSERT INTO categoryTBL (link_id,cat_id) VALUES(LAST_INSERT_ID(),'88'); # use ID in second table I would like to add here somewhere that it only selects items where isinserted = 0 and iserts those records, and onse inserted, will change isinserted to 1, so when next time it runs, it will not add them again.

    Read the article

  • Performance optimization for mssql: decrease stored procedures execution time or unload the server?

    - by tim
    Hello everybody! We have a web service which provides search over hotels. There is a problem with performance: a single request to the service takes around 5000 ms. Almost all of the time is spent in database by executing storing procedures. During the request our server (mssql2008) consumes ~90% of the processor time. When 2 requests are made in parallel the average time grows and is around 7000 ms. When number of request is increasing, the average time of response is increasing as well. We have 20-30 requests per minute. Which kind of optimization is the best in this case having in mind that the goal is to provide stable response time for the service: 1) Try to decrease the stored procedures execution time 2) Try to find the way how to unload the server It is interesting to hear from people who deal with booking sites. Thanks!

    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

  • 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

  • One on One table relation - is it harmful to keep relation in both tables?

    - by EBAGHAKI
    I have 2 tables that their rows have one on one relation.. For you to understand the situation, suppose there is one table with user informations and there is another table that contains a very specific informations and each user can only link to one these specific kind of informations ( suppose second table as characters ) And that character can only assign to the user who grabs it, Is it against the rules of designing clean databases to hold the relation key in both tables? User Table: user_id, name, age, character_id Character Table: character_id, shape, user_id I have to do it for performance, how do you think about it?

    Read the article

  • Help needed for writing a Set Based query for finding the highest marks obtained by the students

    - by priyanka.sarkar_2
    I have the below table declare @t table (id int identity, name varchar(50),sub1 int,sub2 int,sub3 int,sub4 int) insert into @t select 'name1',20,30,40,50 union all select 'name2',10,30,40,50 union all select 'name3',40,60,100,50 union all select 'name4',80,30,40,80 union all select 'name5',80,70,40,50 union all select 'name6',10,30,40,80 The desired output should be Id Name Sub1 Sub2 Sub3 Sub4 3 Name3 100 4 Name4 80 80 5 Name5 80 70 6 Name6 80 What I have done so far is ;with cteSub1 as ( select rn1 = dense_rank() over(order by sub1 desc),t.id,t.name,t.sub1 from @t t ) ,cteSub2 as ( select rn2 = dense_rank() over(order by sub2 desc),t.id,t.name,t.sub2 from @t t ) ,cteSub3 as ( select rn3 = dense_rank() over(order by sub3 desc),t.id,t.name,t.sub3 from @t t ) ,cteSub4 as ( select rn4 = dense_rank() over(order by sub4 desc),t.id,t.name,t.sub4 from @t t ) select x1.id,x2.id,x3.id,x4.id ,x1.sub1,x2.sub2,x3.sub3,x4.sub4 from (select c1.id,c1.sub1 from cteSub1 c1 where rn1 =1) as x1 full join (select c2.id,c2.sub2 from cteSub2 c2 where rn2 =1)x2 on x1.id = x2.id full join (select c3.id,c3.sub3 from cteSub3 c3 where rn3 =1)x3 on x1.id = x3.id full join (select c4.id,c4.sub4 from cteSub4 c4 where rn4 =1)x4 on x1.id = x4.id which is giving me the output as id id id id sub1 sub2 sub3 sub4 5 5 NULL NULL 80 70 NULL NULL 4 NULL NULL 4 80 NULL NULL 80 NULL NULL 3 NULL NULL NULL 100 NULL NULL NULL NULL 6 NULL NULL NULL 80 Help needed. Also how can I reduce the number of CTE's?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847  | Next Page >