Search Results

Search found 49224 results on 1969 pages for 'database mirroring sql se'.

Page 417/1969 | < Previous Page | 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424  | Next Page >

  • SQL 2008: Using separate tables for each datatype to return single row

    - by Thomas C
    Hi all I thought I'd be flexible this time around and let the users decide what contact information the wish to store in their database. In theory it would look as a single row containing, for instance; name, adress, zipcode, Category X, Listitems A. Example FieldType table defining the datatypes available to a user: FieldTypeID, FieldTypeName, TableName 1,"Integer","tblContactInt" 2,"String50","tblContactStr50" ... A user the define his fields in the FieldDefinition table: FieldDefinitionID, FieldTypeID, FieldDefinitionName 11,2,"Name" 12,2,"Adress" 13,1,"Age" Finally we store the actual contact data in separate tables depending on its datatype. Master table, only contains the ContactID tblContact: ContactID 21 22 tblContactStr50: ContactStr50ID,ContactID,FieldDefinitionID,ContactStr50Value 31,21,11,"Person A" 32,21,12,"Adress of person A" 33,22,11,"Person B" tblContactInt: ContactIntID,ContactID,FieldDefinitionID,ContactIntValue 41,22,13,27 Question: Is it possible to return the content of these tables in two rows like this: ContactID,Name,Adress,Age 21,"Person A","Adress of person A",NULL 22,"Person B",NULL,27 I have looked into using the COALESCE and Temp tables, wondering if this is at all possible. Even if it is: maybe I'm only adding complexity whilst sacrificing performance for benefit in datastorage and user definition option. What do you think? Best Regards /Thomas C

    Read the article

  • Building a News-feed that comprises posts "created by user's connections" && "on the topics user is following"

    - by aklin81
    I am working on a project of Questions & Answers website that allows a user to follow questions on certain topics from his network. A user's news-feed wall comprises of only those questions that have been posted by his connections and tagged on the topics that he is following(his expertise topics). I am confused what database's datamodel would be most fitting for such an application. The project needs to consider the future provisions for scalability and high performance issues. I have been looking at Cassandra and MySQL solutions as of now. After my study of Cassandra I realized that Simple news-feed design that shows all the posts from network would be easy to design using Cassandra by executing fast writes to all followers of a user about the post from user. But for my kind of application where there is an additional filter of 'followed topics', (ie, the user receives posts "created by his network" && "on topics user is following"), I could not convince myself with a good schema design in Cassandra. I hope if I missed something because of my short understanding of cassandra, perhaps, can you please help me out with your suggestions of how this news-feed could be implemented in Cassandra ? Looking for a great project with Cassandra ! Edit: There are going to be maximum 5 tags allowed for tagging the question (ie, max 5 topics can be tagged on a question).

    Read the article

  • Linq-to-sql Add item and a one-to-many record at once

    - by Oskar Kjellin
    I have a function where I can add articles and users can comment on them. This is done with a one to many relationship like= "commentId=>ArticleId". However when I try to add the comment to the database at the same time as I add the one to many record, the commentId is not known. Like this code: Comment comment = new Comment(); comment.Date = DateTime.UtcNow; comment.Text = text; comment.UserId = userId; db.Comments.InsertOnSubmit(comment); comment.Articles.Add(new CommentsForArticle() { ArticleId = articleId, CommentId = comment.CommentId }); The commentId will be 0 before i press submit. Is there any way arround not having to submit in between or do I simply have to cut out the part where I have a one-to-many relationship and just use a CommentTable with a column like "ArticleId". What is best in a performance perspective? I understand the underlying issue, I just want to know which solution works best.

    Read the article

  • Asp.net mvc - trying to display images pulled from db \

    - by Trey Carroll
    //Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<FilmFestWeb.Models.ListVideosViewModel>" <asp:Content ID="Content2" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent" runat="server"> <h2>ListVideos</h2> <% foreach(BusinessObjects.Video vid in Model.VideoList){%> <div class="videoBox"> <%= Html.Encode(vid.Name) %> <img src="<%= vid.ThumbnailImage %>" /> </div> <%} %> </asp:Content> //ListVideosViewModel public class ListVideosViewModel { public IList<Video> VideoList { get; set; } } //Video public class Video { public long VideoId { get; set; } public long TeamId { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public string Tags { get; set; } public string TeamMembers { get; set; } public string TranscriptFileName { get; set; } public string VideoFileName { get; set; } public int TotalNumRatings { get; set; } public int CumulativeTotalScore { get; set; } public string VideoUri { get; set; } public Image ThumbnailImage { get; set; } } I am getting the "red x" that I usually associate with image file not found. I have verified that my database table shows after the stored proc that uploads the image executes. Any insight or advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server: Output an XML field as tabular data using a stored procedure

    - by Pawan
    I am using a table with an XML data field to store the audit trails of all other tables in the database. That means the same XML field has various XML information. For example my table has two records with XML data like this: 1st record: <client> <name>xyz</name> <ssn>432-54-4231</ssn> </client> 2nd record: <emp> <name>abc</name> <sal>5000</sal> </emp> These are the two sample formats and just two records. The table actually has many more XML formats in the same field and many records in each format. Now my problem is that upon query I need these XML formats to be converted into tabular result sets. What are the options for me? It would be a regular task to query this table and generate reports from it. I want to create a stored procedure to which I can pass that I need to query "<emp>" or "<client>", then my stored procedure should return tabular data.

    Read the article

  • Child sProc cannot reference a Local temp table created in parent sProc

    - by John Galt
    On our production SQL2000 instance, we have a database with hundreds of stored procedures, many of which use a technique of creating a #TEMP table "early" on in the code and then various inner stored procedures get EXECUTEd by this parent sProc. In SQL2000, the inner or "child" sProc have no problem INSERTing into #TEMP or SELECTing data from #TEMP. In short, I assume they can all refer to this #TEMP because they use the same connection. In testing with SQL2008, I find 2 manifestations of different behavior. First, at design time, the new "intellisense" feature is complaining in Management Studio EDIT of the child sProc that #TEMP is an "invalid object name". But worse is that at execution time, the invoked parent sProc fails inside the nested child sProc. Someone suggested that the solution is to change to ##TEMP which is apparently a global temporary table which can be referenced from different connections. That seems too drastic a proposal both from the amount of work to chase down all the problem spots as well as possible/probable nasty effects when these sProcs are invoked from web applications (i.e. multiuser issues). Is this indeed a change in behavior in SQL2005 or SQL2008 regarding #TEMP (local temp tables)? We skipped 2005 but I'd like to learn more precisely why this is occuring before I go off and try to hack out the needed fixes. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Modifying my website to allow anonymous comments

    - by David
    I write the code for my own website as an educational/fun exercise. Right now part of the website is a blog (like every other site out there :-/) which supports the usual basic blog features, including commenting on posts. But I only have comments enabled for logged-in users; I want to alter the code to allow anonymous comments - that is, I want to allow people to post comments without first creating a user account on my site, although there will still be some sort of authentication involved to prevent spam. Question: what information should I save for anonymous comments? I'm thinking at least display name and email address (for displaying a Gravatar), and probably website URL because I eventually want to accept OpenID as well, but would anything else make sense? Other question: how should I modify the database to store this information? The schema I have for the comment table is currently comment_id smallint(5) // The unique comment ID post_id smallint(5) // The ID of the post the comment was made on user_id smallint(5) // The ID of the user account who made the comment comment_subject varchar(128) comment_date timestamp comment_text text Should I add additional fields for name, email address, etc. to the comment table? (seems like a bad idea) Create a new "anonymous users" table? (and if so, how to keep anonymous user ids from conflicting with regular user ids) Or create fake user accounts for anonymous users in my existing users table? Part of what's making this tricky is that if someone tries to post an anonymous comment using an email address (or OpenID) that's already associated with an account on my site, I'd like to catch that and prompt them to log in.

    Read the article

  • More FP-correct way to create an update sql query

    - by James Black
    I am working on access a database using F# and my initial attempt at creating a function to create the update query is flawed. let BuildUserUpdateQuery (oldUser:UserType) (newUser:UserType) = let buf = new System.Text.StringBuilder("UPDATE users SET "); if (oldUser.FirstName.Equals(newUser.FirstName) = false) then buf.Append("SET first_name='").Append(newUser.FirstName).Append("'" ) |> ignore if (oldUser.LastName.Equals(newUser.LastName) = false) then buf.Append("SET last_name='").Append(newUser.LastName).Append("'" ) |> ignore if (oldUser.UserName.Equals(newUser.UserName) = false) then buf.Append("SET username='").Append(newUser.UserName).Append("'" ) |> ignore buf.Append(" WHERE id=").Append(newUser.Id).ToString() This doesn't properly put a , between any update parts after the first, for example: UPDATE users SET first_name='Firstname', last_name='lastname' WHERE id=... I could put in a mutable variable to keep track when the first part of the set clause is appended, but that seems wrong. I could just create an list of tuples, where each tuple is oldtext, newtext, columnname, so that I could then loop through the list and build up the query, but it seems that I should be passing in a StringBuilder to a recursive function, returning back a boolean which is then passed as a parameter to the recursive function. Does this seem to be the best approach, or is there a better one?

    Read the article

  • Efficient way to update SQL 'relationship' table

    - by AmbroseChapel
    Say I have three properly normalised tables. One of people, one of qualifications and one mapping people to qualifications: People: id | Name ---------- 1 | Alice 2 | Bob Degrees: id | Name --------- 1 | PhD 2 | MA People-to-degrees: person_id | degree_id --------------------- 1 | 2 # Alice has an MA 2 | 1 # Bob has a PhD So then I have to update this mapping via my web interface. (I made a mistake. Bob has a BA, not a PhD, and Alice just got her B Eng.) There are four possible states of these one-to-many relationship mappings: was true before, should now be false was false before, should now be true was true before, should remain true was false before, should remain false what I don't want to do is read the values from four checkboxes, then hit the database four times to say "Did Bob have a BA before? Well he does now." "Did Bob have PhD before? Because he doesn't any more" and so on. How do other people address this issue? I'm curious to see if someone else arrives at the same solution I did.

    Read the article

  • Comparing textbox.text value to value in SQL Server

    - by Anicho
    Okay so I am trying to compare a login textbox password and username with a custom validator using linq to get information from the database it always returns false though on the validator could someone please tell me where my code below is going wrong. This will be very much appreciated... thank you in advanced... protected void LoginValidate(object source, ServerValidateEventArgs args) { TiamoDataContext context = new TiamoDataContext(); var UsernameCheck = from User in context.Users where User.Username == TextBoxLoginUsername.Text && User.Password == TextBoxLogInPassword.Text select User.Username; var PasswordCheck = from User in context.Users where User.Username == TextBoxLoginUsername.Text && User.Password == TextBoxLogInPassword.Text select User.Password; String test1 = PasswordCheck.ToString(); String test2 = UsernameCheck.ToString(); if (test1 == TextBoxLogInPassword.Text && test2 == TextBoxLoginUsername.Text) { args.IsValid = true; Session["Username"] = TextBoxLoginUsername; Response.Redirect("UserProfile.aspx"); } else { args.IsValid = false; } } I dont know where I am going wrong I know its most probably some sort of silly mistake and me being inexperienced at this...

    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

  • 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

  • User preferences using SQL and JavaScript

    - by Shyam
    Hi, I am using Server Side JavaScript - yes, I am actually using Server Side JavaScript. To complexify things even more, I use Oracle as a backend database (10g). With some crazy XSLT and mutant-like HTML generation, I can build really fancy web forms - yes, I am aware of Rails and other likewise frameworks and I choose the path of horror instead. I have no JQuery or other fancy framework at my disposal, just plain ol' JavaScript that should be supported by the underlying engine called Mozilla Rhino. Yes, it is insane and I love it. So, I have a bunch of tables at my disposal and some of them are filled with associative keys that link to values. As I am a people pleaser, I want to add some nifty user-preference driven solutions. My users have all an unique user_id and this user_id is available during the entire session. My initial idea is to have a user preference table, where I have "three" columns: user_id, feature and pref_string. Using a delimiter, such as : or - (haven't thought about a suitable one yet), I could like store a bunch of preferences as a list and store its elements inside an array using the .split-method (similar like the PHP-explode function). The feature column could be like the table name or some identifier for the "feature" i want to link preferences too. I hate hardcoding objects, especially as I want to be able to back these up and reuse this functionality application-wide. Of course I would love better ideas, just keep in mind I cannot just add a library that easily. These preferences could be like "joined" to the table, so I can query it and use its values. I hope it doesn't sounds too complex, because well.. its basically something really simple I need. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Finding the right terminology for a dictionary table

    - by Karl Forner
    My concern is about what I currently call "dictionary tables", that are database tables containing a list of controlled vocabulary. Let's use an example: Suppose you have a table User containing fields: user_id : primary key first_name last_name user_type_id : foreign key to the UserType table and another table UserType with just two fields: user_type_id : primary key name : the name/value of a particular type of user. For instance, the UserType table may contain (1, Administrator), (2, PowerUser), (3, Normal)... My question is: what is the canonical term for a table like UserType, that only contains a list of (dictinct) words. I want to publish some code that help managing this kind of tables, but first I have to name them ! Thanks for your help. Current state of thought: For now I feel Lookup Tables is a good term. It is also used with the same meaning in these posts: http://dbix-class.35028.n2.nabble.com/RFC-Component-for-Lookup-tables-td3504085.html http://tonyandrews.blogspot.de/2004/10/otlt-and-eav-two-big-design-mistakes.html Lookup Tables Best Practices: DB Tables... or Enumerations The only problem is that lookup table is also sometimes used to name a junction table.

    Read the article

  • SQL Query Returning Duplicate Results

    - by Jesse Bunch
    Hi, I've been working out this query now for a while and I thought I had it where I wanted it, but apparently not. There are two records in the database (orders). The query should return two different rows, but instead returns two rows that have exactly the same values. I think it may be something to do with the GROUP BY or derived tables I'm using but my eyes are tired and not seeing the problem. Can any of you help? Thanks in advance. SELECT orders.billerID, orders.invoiceDate, orders.txnID, orders.bName, orders.bStreet1, orders.bStreet2, orders.bCity, orders.bState, orders.bZip, orders.bCountry, orders.sName, orders.sStreet1, orders.sStreet2, orders.sCity, orders.sState, orders.sZip, orders.sCountry, orders.paymentType, orders.invoiceNotes, orders.pFee, orders.shipping, orders.tax, orders.reasonCode, orders.txnType, orders.customerID, customers.firstName AS firstName, customers.lastName AS lastName, customers.businessName AS businessName, orderStatus.statusName AS orderStatus, IFNULL(orderItems.itemTotal, 0.00) + orders.shipping + orders.tax AS orderTotal, IFNULL(orderItems.itemTotal, 0.00) + orders.shipping + orders.tax - IFNULL(payments.totalPayments, 0.00) AS orderBalance FROM orders LEFT JOIN customers ON orders.customerID = customers.id LEFT JOIN orderStatus ON orders.orderStatus = orderStatus.id LEFT JOIN ( SELECT orderItems.orderID, SUM(orderItems.itemPrice * orderItems.itemQuantity) as itemTotal FROM orderItems GROUP BY orderItems.orderID ) orderItems ON orderItems.orderID = orders.id LEFT JOIN ( SELECT payments.orderID, SUM(payments.amount) as totalPayments FROM payments GROUP BY payments.orderID ) payments ON payments.orderID = orders.id

    Read the article

  • Schema design: many to many plus additional one to many

    - by chrisj
    Hi, I have this scenario and I'm not sure exactly how it should be modeled in the database. The objects I'm trying to model are: teams, players, the team-player membership, and a list of fees due for each player on a given team. So, the fees depend on both the team and the player. So, my current approach is the following: **teams** id name **players** id name **team_players** id player_id team_id **team_player_fees** id team_players_id amount send_reminder_on Schema layout ERD In this schema, team_players is the junction table for teams and players. And the table team_player_fees has records that belong to records to the junction table. For example, playerA is on teamA and has the fees of $10 and $20 due in Aug and Feb. PlayerA is also on teamB and has the fees of $25 and $25 due in May and June. Each player/team combination can have a different set of fees. Questions: Are there better ways to handle such a scenario? Is there a term for this type of relationship? (so I can google it) Or know of any references with similar structures?

    Read the article

  • Clustered index - multi-part vs single-part index and effects of inserts/deletes

    - by Anssssss
    This question is about what happens with the reorganizing of data in a clustered index when an insert is done. I assume that it should be more expensive to do inserts on a table which has a clustered index than one that does not because reorganizing the data in a clustered index involves changing the physical layout of the data on the disk. I'm not sure how to phrase my question except through an example I came across at work. Assume there is a table (Junk) and there are two queries that are done on the table, the first query searches by Name and the second query searches by Name and Something. As I'm working on the database I discovered that the table has been created with two indexes, one to support each query, like so: --drop table Junk1 CREATE TABLE Junk1 ( Name char(5), Something char(5), WhoCares int ) CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IX_Name ON Junk1 ( Name ) CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_Name_Something ON Junk1 ( Name, Something ) Now when I looked at the two indexes, it seems that IX_Name is redundant since IX_Name_Something can be used by any query that desires to search by Name. So I would eliminate IX_Name and make IX_Name_Something the clustered index instead: --drop table Junk2 CREATE TABLE Junk2 ( Name char(5), Something char(5), WhoCares int ) CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IX_Name_Something ON Junk2 ( Name, Something ) Someone suggested that the first indexing scheme should be kept since it would result in more efficient inserts/deletes (assume that there is no need to worry about updates for Name and Something). Would that make sense? I think the second indexing method would be better since it means one less index needs to be maintained. I would appreciate any insight into this specific example or directing me to more info on maintenance of clustered indexes.

    Read the article

  • Parameter cannot be null error after success save

    - by tigermain
    I am getting the following nhibernate error when saving an entity (via: NHibernateSession.Save(entity);) despite it being persisted to the database fine "Value cannot be null.\r\nParameter name: id" This is my hbm file <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <hibernate-mapping xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2" namespace="JeanieMaster.Domain.Entities" assembly="JeanieMaster.Domain"> <class name="ActionLog" table="ActionLog" schema="[DBSVR1].[mydatabase].[dbo]" select-before-update="false" optimistic-lock="none"> <id name="Id" column="ActionLogId" type="Int32"> <generator class="identity"/> </id> <property name="ActionId" type="Int32"/> <many-to-one name="User" class="JeanieUser" column="UserId" /> <many-to-one name="ApplicationProvider" class="ApplicationProvider" column="ApplicationProviderId" /> <many-to-one name="ContentProvider" class="ContentProvider" column="ContentProviderId" /> <many-to-one name="SearchLog" class="SearchLog" column="SearchLogId" /> <property name="Data" type="string"/> <property name="DateCreated" type="DateTime"/> <property name="ActionDuration" type="Double"/> </class> </hibernate-mapping>

    Read the article

  • "The data types text and nvarchar are incompatible in the equal to operator" in SQL Query

    - by kenom
    Why i get this error: The data types text and nvarchar are incompatible in the equal to operator. The field of "username" in database is text type... This is my soruce: <%@ Control Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="true" CodeFile="my_answers.ascx.cs" Inherits="kontrole_login_my_answers" %> <div style=" margin-top:-1280px; float:left;"> <p></p> <div id="question"> Add question </div> </div> <asp:GridView ID="GridView1" runat="server" DataSourceID="SqlDataSource1" > </asp:GridView> <asp:SqlDataSource ID="SqlDataSource1" runat="server" ConnectionString="<%$ ConnectionStrings:estudent_piooConnectionString %>" SelectCommand="SELECT * FROM [question] WHERE ([username] = @fafa)"> <SelectParameters> <asp:QueryStringParameter Name="fafa" QueryStringField="user" Type="String"/> </SelectParameters> </asp:SqlDataSource>

    Read the article

  • Primary key/foreign Key naming convention

    - by Jeremy
    In our dev group we have a raging debate regarding the naming convention for Primary and Foreign Keys. There's basically two schools of thought in our group: 1) Primary Table (Employee) Primary Key is called ID Foreign table (Event) Foreign key is called EmployeeID 2) Primary Table (Employee) Primary Key is called EmployeeID Foreign table (Event) Foreign key is called EmployeeID I prefer not to duplicate the name of the table in any of the columns (So I prefer option 1 above). Conceptually, it is consisted with a lot of the recommended practices in other languages, where you don't use the name of the object in its property names. I think that naming the foreign key EmployeeID (or Employee_ID might be better) tells the reader that it is the ID column of the Employee Table. Some others prefer option 2 where you name the primary key prefixed with the table name so that the column name is the same throughout the database. I see that point, but you now can not visually distinguish a primary key from a foreign key. Also, I think it's redundant to have the table name in the column name, because if you think of the table as an entity and a column as a property or attribute of that entity, you think of it as the ID attribute of the Employee, not the EmployeeID attribute of an employee. I don't go an ask my coworker what his PersonAge or PersonGender is. I ask him what his Age is. So like I said, it's a raging debate and we go on and on and on about it. I'm interested to get some new perspective.

    Read the article

  • smallest mysql type that accomodates single decimal

    - by donpal
    Database newbie here. I'm setting up a mysql table. One of the fields will accept a value in increment of a 0.5. e.g. 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, .... 200.5, etc. I've tried int but it doesn't capture the decimals. `value` int(10), What would be the smallest type that can accommodate this value, considering it's only a single decimal. I also was considering that because the decimal will always be 0.5 if at all, I could store it in a separate boolean field? So I would have 2 fields instead. Is this a stupid or somewhat over complicated idea? I don't know if it really saves me any memory, and it might get slower now that I'm accessing 2 fields instead of 1 `value` int(10), `half` bool, //or something similar to boolean What are your suggestions guys? Is the first option better, and what's the smallest data type in that case that would get me the 0.5?

    Read the article

  • insert data to table based on another table C#

    - by user1017315
    I wrote a code which takes some values from one table and inserts the other table in these values.(not just these values, but also these values(this values=values from the based on table)) and I get this error: System.Data.OleDb.OleDbException (0x80040E10): value wan't given for one or more of the required parameters.` here's the code. I don't know what i've missed. string selectedItem = comboBox1.SelectedItem.ToString(); Codons cdn = new Codons(selectedItem); string codon1; int index; if (this.i != this.counter) { //take from the DataBase the matching codonsCodon1 to codonsFullName codon1 = cdn.GetCodon1(); //take the serialnumber of the last protein string connectionString = "Provider=Microsoft.ACE.OLEDB.12.0;" + "Data Source=C:\\Projects_2012\\Project_Noam\\Access\\myProject.accdb"; OleDbConnection conn = new OleDbConnection(connectionString); conn.Open(); string last= "SELECT proInfoSerialNum FROM tblProInfo WHERE proInfoScienceName = "+this.name ; OleDbCommand getSerial = new OleDbCommand(last, conn); OleDbDataReader dr = getSerial.ExecuteReader(); dr.Read(); index = dr.GetInt32(0); //add the amino acid to tblOrderAA using (OleDbConnection connection = new OleDbConnection(connectionString)) { string insertCommand = "INSERT INTO tblOrderAA(orderAASerialPro, orderAACodon1) " + " values (?, ?)"; using (OleDbCommand command = new OleDbCommand(insertCommand, connection)) { connection.Open(); command.Parameters.AddWithValue("orderAASerialPro", index); command.Parameters.AddWithValue("orderAACodon1", codon1); command.ExecuteNonQuery(); } } } EDIT:I put a messagebox after that line: index = dr.GetInt32(0); to see where is the problem, and i get the error before that.i don't see the messagebox

    Read the article

  • Joining Tables Based on Foreign Keys

    - by maestrojed
    I have a table that has a lot of fields that are foreign keys referencing a related table. I am writing a script in PHP that will do the db queries. When I query this table for its data I need to know the values associated with these keys not the key. How do most people go about this? A 101 way to do this would be to query this table for its data including the foreign keys and then query the related tables to get each key's value. This could be a lot of queries (~10). Question 1: I think I could write 1 query with a bunch of joins. Would that be better? This approach also requires the querying script to know which table fields are foreign keys. Since I have many tables like this but all with different fields, this means writing nice generic functions is hard. MySQL InnoDB tables allow for foreign constraints. I know the database has these set up correctly. Question 2: What about the idea of querying the table and identifying what the constraints are and then matching them up using whatever process I decide on from Question 1. I like this idea but never see it being used in code. Makes me think its not a good idea for some reason. I would use something like SHOW CREATE TABLE tbl_name; to find what constraints/relationships exist for that table. Thank you for any suggestions or advice.

    Read the article

  • Asp.net mvc retriev images from db and display on Page

    - by Trey Carroll
    //Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<FilmFestWeb.Models.ListVideosViewModel>" <h2>ListVideos</h2> <% foreach(BusinessObjects.Video vid in Model.VideoList){%> <div class="videoBox"> <%= Html.Encode(vid.Name) %> <img src="<% vid.ThumbnailImage; %>" /> </div> <%} %> //ListVideosViewModel public class ListVideosViewModel { public IList<Video> VideoList { get; set; } } //Video public class Video { public long VideoId { get; set; } public long TeamId { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public string Tags { get; set; } public string TeamMembers { get; set; } public string TranscriptFileName { get; set; } public string VideoFileName { get; set; } public int TotalNumRatings { get; set; } public int CumulativeTotalScore { get; set; } public string VideoUri { get; set; } public Image ThumbnailImage { get; set; } } I am getting the "red x" that I usually associate with image file not found. I have verified that my database table shows <binary data> after the stored proc that uploads the image executes. Any insight or advice would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server stored procedure + set error message from the records of a table

    - by lucky
    Hello, My question is I have a table with the set of records. I am calling a stored procedure for some other purpose. But when ever it finds some duplicate records. It need to return as error message back to php. C1 C2 c3 abc 32 21.03.2010 def 35 04.04.2010 pqr 45 30.03.2010 abc 12 04.05.2010 xyz 56 01.03.2010 ghi 21 06.05.2010 def 47 17.02.2010 klm 93 04.03.2010 xyz 11 01.03.2010 For the above set it need to check for the records that has the same c1. The stored procedure should return as abc,def,xyz are duplicate. I tried something like this. This will not work it has more than 1 set of duplicate records. Please help me to enhance this to solve the purpose. SET @duplicate = (SELECT c1 FROM temp GROUP BY c1 HAVING count(c1) > 1) --Check for duplicate concession Nr. IF(len(@duplicate) > '1') BEGIN SET @error = @error + ' Duplicate C1 Number:- ' + @duplicate SET @errorcount = @errorcount + 1 END As this one type error I am checking for errorcount. IF @errorcount <> '0' BEGIN GOTO E_General_Error END -- If an error occurs, rollback and exit E_General_Error: PRINT 'Error' SET @error = @error IF @@error <> 0 SET @error = 'Database update failed' ROLLBACK TRANSACTION update_database RETURN END Now it is able to return Duplicate c1 number abc. If there are more than 1 problem comes. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424  | Next Page >