Search Results

Search found 28540 results on 1142 pages for 'sql triggers'.

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 325/1142 | < Previous Page | 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332  | Next Page >

  • Help me finding dependency list.

    - by Pearl
    I have two table employee table and employee dependency table. Employee tooks like below. insert into E values(1,'Adam') insert into E values(2,'Bob') insert into E values(3,'Candy') insert into E values(4,'Doug') insert into E values(5,'Earl') insert into E values(6,'Fran') Employee dependency table looks like below insert into Ed values(3,'2') insert into Ed values(3,'5') insert into Ed values(2,'1') insert into Ed values(2,'4') insert into Ed values(5,'6') I need to find the dependency list like below Eid Ename Dname 3 Candy Bob,Fran Please help me finding the above.

    Read the article

  • SQL Selects on subsets

    - by Adam
    I need to check if a row exists in a database; however, I am trying to find the way to do this that offers the best performance. This is best summarised with an example. Let's assume I have the following table: dbo.Person( FirstName varchar(50), LastName varchar(50), Company varchar(50) ) Assume this table has millions of rows, however ONLY the column Company has an index. I want to find out if a particular combination of FirstName, LastName and Company exists. I know I can do this: IF EXISTS(select 1 from dbo.Person where FirstName = @FirstName and LastName = @LastName and Company = @Company) Begin .... End However, unless I'm mistaken, that will do a full table scan. What I'd really like it to do is a query where it utilises the index. With the table above, I know that the following query will have great performance, since it uses the index: Select * from dbo.Person where Company = @Company Is there anyway to make the search only on that subset of data? e.g. something like this: select * from ( Select * from dbo.Person where Company = @Company ) where FirstName = @FirstName and LastName = @LastName That way, it would only be doing a table scan on a much narrower collection of data. I know the query above won't work, but is there a query that would? Oh, and I am unable to create temporary tables, as the user will only have read access.

    Read the article

  • document.onkeyup triggers when it shouldn't

    - by vonkow
    So I have the following code, which should append 'true' to the div "test" every 25ms as long as key 68 (the d key) is being pressed, right? <html> <body> <div id="test"></div> <script type="text/javascript"> var key=false; var keyDown=function(e) { if (e.keyCode==68) { key=true; } } var keyUp=function(e) { if (e.keyCode==68) { key=false; } } document.onkeydown=keyDown; document.onkeyup=keyUp; var run=function() { document.getElementById('test').appendChild(document.createTextNode(key+'\n')); t = setTimeout('run()', 25); } var t = setTimeout('run()', 25); </script> </body> </html> Save the code, load it in a browser and hold down on the d key. If I'm not crazy, you'll see that it occasionally appends 'false' even though the d key was never released. (I've tried this in FF and Chrome in Linux and Vista). Anybody happen to know why, or have a workaround?

    Read the article

  • Checking inherited attributes in an 'ancestry' based SQL table

    - by Brendon Muir
    I'm using the ancestry gem to help organise my app's tree structure in the database. It basically writes a childs ancestor information to a special column called 'ancestry'. The ancestry column for a particular child might look like '1/34/87' where the parent of this child is 87, and then 87's parent is 34 and 34's is 1. It seems possible that we could select rows from this table each with a subquery that checks all the ancestors to see if a certain attribute it set. E.g. in my app you can hide an item and its children just by setting the parent element's visibility column to 0. I want to be able to find all the items where none of their ancestors are hidden. I tried converting the slashes to comma's with the REPLACE command but IN required a set of comma separated integers rather than one string with comma separated string numbers. It's funny, because I can do this query in two steps, e.g. retrieve the row, then take its ancestry column, split out the id's and make another query that checks that the id is IN that set of id's and that visibility isn't ever 0 and whala! But joining these into one query seems to be quite a task. Much searching has shown a few answers but none really do what I want. SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE id = 99; 99's ancestry column reads '1/34/87' SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE visibility = 0 AND id IN (1,34,87); kind of backwards, but if this returns no rows then the item is visible. Has anyone come across this before and come up with a solution. I don't really want to go the stored procedure route. It's for a rails app.

    Read the article

  • add ANOTHER primary key to a table which is UNIQUE

    - by gdubs
    so im having problems with adding another primary key to my table. i have 3 columns: 1. Account ID (Identity) 2. EmailID 3. Data field when i made the table i had this to make the Account ID and the Email ID unique PRIMARY KEY (AccountID, EmailID) i thought that would make my emailid unique, but then after i tried inserting another row with the same emailid it went through. so i thought i missed something out. now for my question: IF, i had to use alter, How do i alter the table/PK Constraint to modify the EmailID field and make it Unique IF i decided to drop the table and made a new one, how do i make those two primary keys uniqe? Thanks a bunch!!

    Read the article

  • SQL - How to select a row having a column with max value

    - by Abhi
    date value 18/5/2010, 1 pm 40 18/5/2010, 2 pm 20 18/5/2010, 3 pm 60 18/5/2010, 4 pm 30 18/5/2010, 5 pm 60 18/5/2010, 6 pm 25 i need to query for the row having max(value)(i.e. 60). So, here we get two rows. From that, I need the row with the lowest time stamp for that day(i.e 18/5/2010, 3 pm - 60)

    Read the article

  • Get latest sql rows based on latest date and per user

    - by Umair
    I have the following table: RowId, UserId, Date 1, 1, 1/1/01 2, 1, 2/1/01 3, 2, 5/1/01 4, 1, 3/1/01 5, 2, 9/1/01 I want to get the latest records based on date and per UserId but as a part of the following query (due to a reason I cannot change this query as this is auto generated by a tool but I can write pass any thing starting with AND...): SELECT RowId, UserId, Date FROM MyTable WHERE 1 = 1 AND ( // everything which needs to be done goes here . . . ) I have tried similar query, but get an error: Only one expression can be specified in the select list when the subquery is not introduced with EXISTS.

    Read the article

  • Multiple IN statements for WHERE. Would this return good data?

    - by TheDudeAbides
    SELECT ['VISA CK - 021810$'].[ACCT NBR #1], ['VISA CK - 021810$'].[ALT CUST NM #1], ['VISA CK - 021810$'].[LAST USED] FROM ['VISA CK - 021810$'] WHERE ['VISA CK - 021810$'].[ALT CUST NM #1] IN ( SELECT ['VISA CK - 021810$'].[ALT CUST NM #1] FROM ['VISA CK - 021810$'] GROUP BY ['VISA CK - 021810$'].[ALT CUST NM #1] HAVING COUNT(['VISA CK - 021810$'].[ALT CUST NM #1]) > 1 ) AND ['VISA CK - 021810$'].[ACCT NBR #1] IN ( SELECT ['VISA CK - 021810$'].[ACCT NBR #1] FROM ['VISA CK - 021810$'] GROUP BY ['VISA CK - 021810$'].[ACCT NBR #1] HAVING COUNT(['VISA CK - 021810$'].[ACCT NBR #1]) > 1 )

    Read the article

  • Will SQL Server Partitioning increase performance without changing filegroups

    - by Tom
    Scenario I have a 10 million row table. I partition it into 10 partitions, which results in 1 million rows per partition but I do not do anything else (like move the partitions to different file groups or spindles) Will I see a performance increase? Is this in effect like creating 10 smaller tables? If I have queries that perform key lookups or scans, will the performance increase as if they were operating against a much smaller table? I'm trying to understand how partitioning is different from just having a well indexed table, and where it can be used to improve performance. Would a better scenario be to move the old data (using partition switching) out of the primary table to a read only archive table? Is having a table with a 1 million row partition and a 9 million row partition analagous (performance wise) to moving the 9 million rows to another table and leaving only 1 million rows in the original table?

    Read the article

  • Merge two rows in SQL

    - by Jason
    Assuming I have a table containing the following information: FK | Field1 | Field2 ===================== 3 | ABC | *NULL* 3 | *NULL* | DEF is there a way I can perform a select on the table to get the following FK | Field1 | Field2 ===================== 3 | ABC | DEF Thanks Edit: Fix field2 name for clarity

    Read the article

  • Summing the results of Case queries in SQL

    - by David Stelfox
    I think this is a relatively straightforward question but I have spent the afternoon looking for an answer and cannot yet find it. So... I have a view with a country column and a number column. I want to make any number less than 10 'other' and then sum the 'other's into one value. For example, AR 10 AT 7 AU 11 BB 2 BE 23 BY 1 CL 2 I used CASE as follows: select country = case when number < 10 then 'Other' else country end, number from ... This replaces the countries values with less than 10 in the number column to other but I can't work out how to sum them. I want to end up with a table/view which looks like this: AR 10 AU 11 BE 23 Other 12 Any help is greatly appreciated. Cheers, David

    Read the article

  • SQL - Finding continuous entries of a given size.

    - by ByteMR
    I am working on a system for reserving seats. A user inputs how many seats they wish to reserve and the database will return a set of suggested seats that are not previously reserved that matches the number of seats being reserved. For instance if I had the table: SeatID | Reserved ----------------- 1 | false 2 | true 3 | false 4 | false 5 | false 6 | true 7 | true 8 | false 9 | false 10 | true And the user inputs that they wish to reserve 2 seats, I would expect the query to return that seats (3, 4), (4, 5), and (8, 9) are not reserved and match the given number of input seats. Seats are organized into sections and rows. Continuous seats must be in the same row. How would I go about structuring this query to work in such a way that it finds all available continuous seats that match the given input?

    Read the article

  • What to do with syncobj in SQL Server

    - by hgulyan
    Hi. I run this script to search particular text in sys.columns and I get a lot of "dbo.syncobj_0x3934443438443332" this kind of result. SELECT c.name, s.name + '.' + o.name FROM sys.columns c INNER JOIN sys.objects o ON c.object_id=o.object_id INNER JOIN sys.schemas s ON o.schema_id=s.schema_id WHERE c.name LIKE '%text%' If I get it right, they are replication objects. Is it so? Can i just throw them away from my query just like o.name NOT LIKE '%syncobj%' or there's another way? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • SQL - How to join on similar (not exact) columns

    - by BlueRaja
    I have two tables which get updated at almost the exact same time - I need to join on the datetime column. I've tried this: SELECT * FROM A, B WHERE ABS(DATEDIFF(second, A.Date_Time, B.Date_Time) = ( SELECT MIN(ABS(DATEDIFF(second, A.Date_Time, B2.Date_Time))) FROM B AS B2 ) But it tells me: Multiple columns are specified in an aggregated expression containing an outer reference. If an expression being aggregated contains an outer reference, then that outer reference must be the only column referenced in the expression. How can I join these tables?

    Read the article

  • SQL: many-to-many relationship, IN condition

    - by Maarten
    I have a table called transactions with a many-to-many relationship to items through the items_transactions table. I want to do something like this: SELECT "transactions".* FROM "transactions" INNER JOIN "items_transactions" ON "items_transactions".transaction_id = "transactions".id INNER JOIN "items" ON "items".id = "items_transactions".item_id WHERE (items.id IN (<list of items>)) But this gives me all transactions that have one or more of the items in the list associated with it and I only want it to give me the transactions that are associated with all of those items. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How can i solve "An explicit value for the identity column in table"?

    - by Phsika
    if i try to add some data into my table error occurs: Error:Msg 8101, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 An explicit value for the identity column in table 'ENG_PREP' can only be specified when a column list is used and IDENTITY_INSERT is ON. insert into ENG_PREP VALUES('572012-01-1,572012-01-2,572012-01-3,572013-01-1,572013-01-2', '', '500', '', 'A320 P.001-A', 'Removal of the LH Wing Safety Rope', '', '', '', '0', '', 'AF', '12-00-00-081-001', '', '', '', '', '', '', '' )

    Read the article

  • How to Use .NET Assembly from Legacy SQL Server 2000 DTS

    - by shyneman
    Hi All, I have a .NET assembly that needs to be called from a DTS package. There are two options I am considering to get this to work: 1) write a COM-callable wrapper for the .NET assembly and have the VBScript create the COM object to use 2) write a .NET command-line exe that uses that .NET assembly and have the VBScript execute that exe Can anybody comment on the pros/cons of either approach and which is the better way of doing this? If there are other solutions, I'd love to hear them too. Thanks a lot for any input.

    Read the article

  • sql query problem

    - by benjamin button
    why this query give me an error:ORA-01790 SELECT TO_CHAR(logical_date,'MM') MONTH FROM logical_date WHERE logical_date_type='B' UNION SELECT TO_CHAR(logical_date,'MM')+1 MONTH FROM logical_date WHERE logical_date_type='B' but when i run them separately,they give the proper output.

    Read the article

  • PL/SQL Sum by hour

    - by Steve
    Hi, I have some data with start and stop date that I need to sum. I am not sure how to code for it. Here are is the data I have to use: STARTTIME,STOPTIME,EVENTCAPACITY 8/12/2009 1:15:00 PM,8/12/2009 1:59:59 PM,100 8/12/2009 2:00:00 PM,8/12/2009 2:29:59 PM,100 8/12/2009 2:30:00 PM,8/12/2009 2:59:59 PM,80 8/12/2009 3:00:00 PM,8/12/2009 3:59:59 PM,85 In this example I would need the sum from 1pm to 2pm, 2pm to 3pm and 3pm to 4pm Any suggestions are appreciated. Steve

    Read the article

  • Identity column SQL Server 2005 inserting same value twice

    - by DannykPowell
    I have a stored procedure that inserts into a table (where there is an identity column that is not the primary key- the PK is inserted initially using the date/time to generate a unique value). We then use SCOPEIDENTITY() to get the value inserted, then there is some logic to generate the primary key field value based on this value, which is then updated back to the table. In some situations the stored procedure is called simultaneously by more than one process, resulting in "Violation of PRIMARY KEY constraint..." errors. This would seem to indicate that the identity column is allowing the same number to be inserted for more than one record. First question- how is this possible? Second question- how to stop it...there's no error handling currently so I'm going to add some try/ catch logic- but would like to understand the problem fully to deal with properly

    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 | 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332  | Next Page >