Search Results

Search found 37457 results on 1499 pages for 'sql 2008 r2'.

Page 879/1499 | < Previous Page | 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886  | Next Page >

  • Query to add a column depending of outcome of there columns

    - by Tam
    I have a user table 'users' that has fields like: id first_name last_name ... and have another table that determines relationships: user_id friend_id user_accepted friend_accepted .... I would like to generate a query that selects all the users but also add another field/column say 'network_status' that depends on the values of user_accepted and fiend_accepted. For example, if user_accepted is true friend_accepted is false I want the 'network_status' field to say 'request sent'. Can I possibly do this in one query? (I would prefer not to user if/else inside the query but if that's the only way so be it)

    Read the article

  • Is count(*) really expensive ?

    - by Anil Namde
    I have a page where I have 4 tabs displaying 4 different reports based off different tables. I obtain the row count of each table using a select count(*) from <table> query and display number of rows available in each table on the tabs. As a result, each page postback causes 5 count(*) queries to be executed (4 to get counts and 1 for pagination) and 1 query for getting the report content. Now my question is: are count(*) queries really expensive -- should I keep the row counts (at least those that are displayed on the tab) in the view state of page instead of querying multiple times? How expensive are COUNT(*) queries ?

    Read the article

  • getting complete sql query in jython

    - by kdev
    result=sqlstring.executeQuery("select distinct table_name,owner from all_tables ") rs.append(str(i)+' , '+result.getString("table_name")+' , '+result.getString("owner")) If i want to display the query select * from all_tables or ' select count(*) from all_tables' how can i get the output to display . Please suggest thanks

    Read the article

  • How to avoid geometric slowdown with large Linq transactions?

    - by Shaul
    I've written some really nice, funky libraries for use in LinqToSql. (Some day when I have time to think about it I might make it open source... :) ) Anyway, I'm not sure if this is related to my libraries or not, but I've discovered that when I have a large number of changed objects in one transaction, and then call DataContext.GetChangeSet(), things start getting reaalllly slooowwwww. When I break into the code, I find that my program is spinning its wheels doing an awful lot of Equals() comparisons between the objects in the change set. I can't guarantee this is true, but I suspect that if there are n objects in the change set, then the call to GetChangeSet() is causing every object to be compared to every other object for equivalence, i.e. at best (n^2-n)/2 calls to Equals()... Yes, of course I could commit each object separately, but that kinda defeats the purpose of transactions. And in the program I'm writing, I could have a batch job containing 100,000 separate items, that all need to be committed together. Around 5 billion comparisons there. So the question is: (1) is my assessment of the situation correct? Do you get this behavior in pure, textbook LinqToSql, or is this something my libraries are doing? And (2) is there a standard/reasonable workaround so that I can create my batch without making the program geometrically slower with every extra object in the change set?

    Read the article

  • Find telephonenumbers - finding number with and without an phone extension

    - by nWorx
    Hello there I've a table with about 130 000 records with telephonenumbers. The numbers are all formated like this +4311234567. The numbers always include international country code, local area code and then the phonenumber and sometimes an extension. There is a webservice which checks for the caller's number in the table. That service works already. But now the client wants that also if someone calls from a company which number is already in the database but not his extension, that the service will return some result. Example for table. **id** | **telephonenumber** | **name** | 1 | +431234567 | company A | 2 | +431234567890 | employee in company A | 3 | +4398765432 | company b now if somebody from company A calls with a different extension for example +43123456777, than it should return id1. But the problem is, that I don't know how many digits the extensions have. It could have 3,4 or more digits. Are there any patterns for string kind of matchings? The data is stored in a sql2005 database. Thanks

    Read the article

  • INSERT 0..n records into table 'A' based on content of table 'B' in MySql 5

    - by Robert Gowland
    Using MySql 5, I have a task where I need to update one table based on the contents of another table. For example, I need to add 'A1' to table 'A' if table 'B' contains 'B1'. I need to add 'A2a' and 'A2b' to table 'A' if table 'B' contains 'B2', etc.. In our case, the value in table 'B' we're interested is an enum. Right now I have a stored procedure containing a series of statements like: INSERT INTO A SELECT 'A1' FROM B WHERE B.Value = 'B1'; --Repeat for 'B2' -> 'A2a'; 'B2' -> 'A2b'; 'B3' -> 'A3', etc... Is there a nicer more DRY way of accomplishing this? Edit: There may be values in table 'B' that have no equivalent value for table 'A'.

    Read the article

  • How to store data with N columns

    - by iconiK
    I need a way to store an int for N columns. Basically what I have is this: Armies: ArmyID - UINT UnitCount1 - UINT UnitCount2 - UINT UnitCount3 - UINT UnitCount4 - UINT ... I can't possible add a column for each and every unit, so I need a fast way to store the number of each units in an army (you might have guesses it's for a game by now). Using XML is not an option as it will be dead slow.

    Read the article

  • MySQL - Where - search string - MATCH.

    - by Jamie
    Hi guys, Quick question. I'm in a bit of a rush but if someone could quickly point me in the right direction I would be very very happy. I have a field in the db, let's call it field_a which returns a string in the format "20,50,60,80" etc. I wish to do a query which will search in this field to see if 20 exists. Could I use MySQL MATCH or is there a better way? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Small Business Licensing Kick Start

    - by regex
    I seem to recall hearing at some point (I believe it was MIX09) that Microsoft has a licensing model of some sort where a business can consume licenses for up to two years, free of charge, until they reach a point where they are stable position and can pay their licensing at the end of two years. However, I can't find information regarding it online. I want to say that possibly stackoverflow used this licensing model to kick start their site. Is anyone familiar with this?

    Read the article

  • how can add an extra select in this query?

    - by BulgedSnowy
    i've three tables related. images: id | filename | filesize | ... nodes: image_id | tag_id tags: id | name And i'm using this query to search images containing x tags SELECT images.* FROM images INNER JOIN nodes ON images.id = nodes.image_id WHERE tag_id IN (SELECT tags.id FROM tags WHERE tags.tag IN ("tag1","tag2")) GROUP BY images.id HAVING COUNT(*)= 2 The problem is that i need to retrieve also all images contained by the retrieved image, and i need this in the same query. This the actual query wich search retrieve all tags contained by the image: SELECT tag FROM nodes JOIN tags ON nodes.tag_id = tags.id WHERE image_id = images.id and nodes.private = images.private ORDER BY tag How can i mix this two to have only one query?

    Read the article

  • While Loop in TSQL with Sum totals

    - by RPS
    I have the following TSQL Statement, I am trying to figure out how I can keep getting the results (100 rows at a time), store them in a variable (as I will have to add the totals after each select) and continue to select in a while loop until no more records are found and then return the variable totals to the calling function. SELECT [OrderUser].OrderUserId, ISNULL(SUM(total.FileSize), 0), ISNULL(SUM(total.CompressedFileSize), 0) FROM ( SELECT DISTINCT TOP(100) ProductSize.OrderUserId, ProductSize.FileInfoId, CAST(ProductSize.FileSize AS BIGINT) AS FileSize, CAST(ProductSize.CompressedFileSize AS BIGINT) AS CompressedFileSize FROM ProductSize WITH (NOLOCK) INNER JOIN [Version] ON ProductSize.VersionId = [Version].VersionId ) AS total RIGHT OUTER JOIN [OrderUser] WITH (NOLOCK) ON total.OrderUserId = [OrderUser].OrderUserId WHERE NOT ([OrderUser].isCustomer = 1 AND [OrderUser].isEndOrderUser = 0 OR [OrderUser].isLocation = 1) AND [OrderUser].OrderUserId = 1 GROUP BY [OrderUser].OrderUserId

    Read the article

  • Having to insert a record, then update the same record warrants 1:1 relationship design?

    - by dianovich
    Let's say an Order has many Line items and we're storing the total cost of an order (based on the sum of prices on order lines) in the orders table. -------------- orders -------------- id ref total_cost -------------- -------------- lines -------------- id order_id price -------------- In a simple application, the order and line are created during the same step of the checkout process. So this means INSERT INTO orders .... -- Get ID of inserted order record INSERT into lines VALUES(null, order_id, ...), ... where we get the order ID after creating the order record. The problem I'm having is trying to figure out the best way to store the total cost of an order. I don't want to have to create an order create lines on an order calculate cost on order based on lines then update record created in 1. in orders table This would mean a nullable total_cost field on orders for starters... My solution thus far is to have an order_totals table with a 1:1 relationship to the orders table. But I think it's redundant. Ideally, since everything required to calculate total costs (lines on an order) is in the database, I would work out the value every time I need it, but this is very expensive. What are your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How to automatically check out a database file in a source controlled web application ?

    - by TheRHCP
    Hello, I am working on an ASP.NET web application, we are a small team (4 students) and we do not have access to a dedicated server to host the database instance. So for this web application we decided just to put the database file in the App_Data folder. The problem is that our project is source controled on TFS, so every time you open the solution and try to launch the web application, we get an expcetion saying that database is read-only. That is logical because the databse file is not automatically checked-out. Is there a workaround to avoid a manual check-out of the database file everytime we open the solution ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Limit rows linked to each joined row

    - by SolidSnakeGTI
    Hello, Specifications: MySQL 4.1+ I've certain situation that requires certain result set from MySQL query, let's see the current query first & then ask my question: SELECT thread.dateline AS tdateline, post.dateline AS pdateline, MIN(post.dateline) FROM thread AS thread LEFT JOIN post AS post ON(thread.threadid = post.threadid) LEFT JOIN forum AS forum ON(thread.forumid = forum.forumid) WHERE post.postid != thread.firstpostid AND thread.open = 1 AND thread.visible = 1 AND thread.replycount >= 1 AND post.visible = 1 AND (forum.options & 1) AND (forum.options & 2) AND (forum.options & 4) AND forum.forumid IN(1,2,3) GROUP BY post.threadid ORDER BY tdateline DESC, pdateline ASC As you can see, mainly I need to select dateline of threads from 'thread' table, in addition to dateline of the second post of each thread, that's all under the conditions you see in the WHERE CLAUSE. Since each thread has many posts, and I need only one result per thread, I've used GROUP BY CLAUSE for that purpose. This query will return only one post's dateline with it's related unique thread. My questions are: How to limit returned threads per each forum!? Suppose I need only 5 threads -as a maximum- to be returned for each forum declared in the WHERE CLAUSE 'forum.forumid IN(1,2,3)', how can this be achieved. Is there any recommendations for optimizing this query (of course after solving the first point)? Notes: I prefer not to use sub-queries, but if it's the only solution available I'll accept it. Double queries not recommended. I'm sure there's a smart solution for this situation. Appreciated advice in advance :)

    Read the article

  • Joining 3 tables - doing joins how to

    - by Kieran
    This is my current query - its not getting the required result. I want it do display all of the "resources" even if they dont have a connection. SELECT * FROM (`user_permissions`) JOIN `user_groups` ON `user_groups`.`id` = `user_permissions`.`role` JOIN `user_resources` ON `user_resources`.`id` = `user_permissions`.`resource` WHERE `role` = '4' When I try left join or right join it still returns the same result. The result I get is: id | role | resource | name 5 | 4 | 2 | Changelog I want id | role | resource | name 5 | 4 | 2 | Changelog null | null | null | Resource2 null | null | null | Resource3 Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • how to do multi insert and obtain ids

    - by liysd
    hi, I want to insert some data into a table (id PK autoincrement, val) with use multi insert INSERT INTO tab (val) VALUES (1), (2), (3) Is it possible to obtain a table of last inserted ids? I'm asking becouse I'm not sure if all will in this form: (n, n+1, n+2). I use mysql inodb.

    Read the article

  • how do I integrate the aspnet_users table (asp.net membership) into my existing database

    - by ooo
    i have a database that already has a users table COLUMNS: userID - int loginName - string First - string Last - string i just installed the asp.net membership table. Right now all of my tables are joined into my users table foreign keyed into the "userId" field How do i integrate asp.net_users table into my schema? here are the ideas i thought of: Add a membership_id field to my users table and on new inserts, include that new field in my users table. This seems like the cleanest way as i dont need to break any existing relationships. break all existing relationship and move all of the fields in my user table into the asp.net_users table. This seems like a pain but ultimately will lead to the most simple, normalized solution any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Oracle global_names DELETE problem

    - by jyzuz
    I'm using a database link to execute a DELETE statement on another DB, but the DB link name doesn't conform to global naming, and this requirement cannot change. Also I have global_names set to false, and cannot be changed either. When I try to use these links however, I receive: ORA-02069: - global_names parameter must be set to TRUE for this operation Cause: A remote mapping of the statement is required but cannot be achieved because GLOBAL_NAMES should be set to TRUE for it to be achieved. - Action: Issue `ALTER SESSION SET GLOBAL_NAMES = TRUE` (if possible) What is the alternative action when setting global_names=true is not possible? Cheers, Jean

    Read the article

  • select top 50 records from sql

    - by air
    i have following database table name tbl_rec recno uid uname points ============================ 1 a abc 10 2 b bac 8 3 c cvb 12 4 d aty 13 5 f cyu 9 ------------------------- ------------------------- i have about 5000 records in this table. i want to select first 50 higher points records. i can't use limit statement as i am already using limit for paging. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Which MySql line is faster:

    - by Camran
    I have a classified_id variable which matches one document in a MySql table. I am currently fetching the information about that one record like this: SELECT * FROM table WHERE table.classified_id = $classified_id I wonder if there is a faster approach, for example like this: SELECT 1 FROM table WHERE table.classified_id = $classified_id Wont the last one only select 1 record, which is exactly what I need, so that it doesn't have to scan the entire table but instead stops searching for records after 1 is found? Or am I dreaming this? Thanks

    Read the article

  • MySQL SELECT WHERE returning empty with long numbers, although they are there

    - by brybam
    Alright, so basically the most simple query ever... I've done this a million times... SELECT * FROM purchased_items WHERE uid = '$uid' if $uid == 123 It works fine and returns all data in rows where uid is 123 if $uid == 351565051447743 It returns empty... I'm positive 351565051447743 is a possible uid in some rows, i literally copied and pasted it into the table. $uid is a string, and is being passed as a string. This is something i've done a million times, and i've never had this simple query not work. Any ideas why this is not working?

    Read the article

  • Find all those columns which have only null values, in a MySQL table

    - by Robin v. G.
    The situation is as follows: I have a substantial number of tables, with each a substantial number of columns. I need to deal with this old and to-be-deprecated database for a new system, and I'm looking for a way to eliminate all columns that have - apparently - never been in use. I wanna do this by filtering out all columns that have a value on any given row, leaving me with a set of columns where the value is NULL in all rows. Of course I could manually sort every column descending, but that'd take too long as I'm dealing with loads of tables and columns. I estimate it to be 400 tables with up to 50 (!) columns per table. Is there any way I can get this information from the information_schema? EDIT: Here's an example: column_a column_b column_c column_d NULL NULL NULL 1 NULL 1 NULL 1 NULL 1 NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL The output should be 'column_a' and 'column_c', for being the only columns without any filled in values.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886  | Next Page >