Search Results

Search found 5380 results on 216 pages for 'primary'.

Page 10/216 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Using MyGeneration, doodads, and Oracle XE, is it possible to implement an "auto number primary key"

    - by Michael Rosario
    Hello world. Using MyGeneration, doodads, and Oracle XE, is it possible to implement an "auto number primary key" scheme? Problem facts: I am using Oracle XE. I have implemented the following table and trigger: CREATE TABLE "USERS" ( "ID" NUMBER(38,0), "USER_NAME" VARCHAR2(50), "PASSWORD" VARCHAR2(50), "EMAIL" VARCHAR2(100), CONSTRAINT "USERS_PK" PRIMARY KEY ("ID") ENABLE ) / CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER "BI_USERS" before insert on "USERS" for each row begin select "USERS_SEQ".nextval into :NEW.ID from dual; end; / ALTER TRIGGER "BI_USERS" ENABLE / MyGeneration / Doodads created the following stored proc... CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE "XXX"."PI_USERS" ( p_ID IN USERS.ID%type, p_USER_NAME IN USERS.USER_NAME%type, p_PASSWORD IN USERS.PASSWORD%type, p_EMAIL IN USERS.EMAIL%type ) IS BEGIN INSERT INTO USERS ( ID, USER_NAME, PASSWORD, EMAIL ) VALUES ( p_ID, p_USER_NAME, p_PASSWORD, p_EMAIL ); END PI_USERS; The sequence and trigger combination is working fine. The BusinessEntity class in C# does not receive the new ID. Any recommended ways to allow the calling code receive the new record ID?

    Read the article

  • How to reserve a set of primary key identifiers for preloading bootstrap data

    - by Joshua
    We would like to reserve a set of primary key identifiers for all tables (e.g. 1-1000) so that we can bootstrap the system with pre-loaded system data. All our JPA entity classes have the following definition for the primary key. @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy = IDENTITY) @Column(name = "id", unique = true, nullable = false, insertable = false, updatable = false) private Integer id; is there a way to tell the database that increments should start happening from 1000 (i.e. customer specific data will start from 1000 onwards). We support (h2, mysql, postgres) in our environment and I would prefer a solution which can be driven via JPA and reverse engineering DDL tools from Hibernate. Let me know if this is the correct approach

    Read the article

  • ManyToMany Relation does not create the primary key

    - by Javi
    Hello, I have a ManyToMany relationship between two classes: ClassA and ClassB, but when the table for this relationship (table called objectA_objectB) there is no primary key on it. In my ClassA I have the following: @ManyToMany(fetch=FetchType.LAZY) @OrderBy(value="name") @JoinTable(name="objectA_objectB", joinColumns= @JoinColumn(name="idObjectA", referencedColumnName="id"), inverseJoinColumns= @JoinColumn(name="idObjectB", referencedColumnName="id") ) private List<ClassB> objectsB; and in my ClassB I have the reversed relation @ManyToMany List<ClassA> objectsA; I just want to make a primary key of both id's but I need to change the name of the columns as I do. Why is the PK missing? How can I define it? I use JPA 2.0 Hibernate implementation, if this helps. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Very long strings as primary keys in a database for caching

    - by Bill Zimmerman
    Hi, I am working on a web app that allows users to create dynamic PDF files based on what they enter into a form (it is not very structured data). The idea is that User 1 enters several words (arbitrary # of words, practically capped of course), for example: A B C D E There is no such string in the database, so I was thinking: Store this string as a primary key in a MySQL database (it could be maybe around 50-100k of text, but usually probably less than 200 words) Generate the PDF file, and create a link to it in the database When the next user requests A B C D E, then I can just serve the file instead of recreating it each time. (simple cache) The PDF is cpu intensive to generate, so I am trying to cache as much as I can... My questions are: Does anyone have any alternative ideas to my approach What will the database performance be like? Is there a better way to design the schema than using the input string as the primary key?

    Read the article

  • Getting the primary key back from a SQL insert with SQLLite

    - by Paul Nathan
    Hi, I have a SQL table set that looks like this create table foo ( id int primary key asc, data datatype ); create table bar ( id int primary key asc, fk_foo int, foreign key(foo_int) references foo(id)); Now, I want to insert a record set. insert into table foo (data) values (stuff); But wait - to get Bar all patched up hunkydory I need the PK from Foo. I know this is a solved problem. What's the solution?

    Read the article

  • When should I consider representing the primary-key ...?

    - by JMSA
    When should I consider representing the primary-key as classes? Should we only represent primary keys as classes when a table uses composite-key? For example: public class PrimaryKey { ... ... ...} Then private PrimaryKey _parentID; public PrimaryKey ParentID { get { return _parentID; } set { _parentID = value; } } And public void Delete(PrimaryKey id) {...} When should I consider storing data as comma-separated values in a column in a DB table rather than storing them in different columns?

    Read the article

  • NHibernate - get List<long> representing primary keys?

    - by Nathan
    I have a situation where I definitely don't want to get the whole domain object. Basically, the entity has a primary key of long (.NET)/bigint(sql server 2005). I simply need to pass the primary key to an external system which will access the database directly - and since the list of ids could be large, I don't want to rehydrate the entire domain object just to get the Id. In linq2sql, I could accomplish this with a projection, but I am restricted to NHibernate 1.2.1.4000, which doesn't support Linq. Is there a way to accomplish this using NHibernate 1.2.1.4000? (I am open to using a named-query if that will work)

    Read the article

  • Drupal limit number of menu items in primary links

    - by ninusik
    Is there a way to set a limit on how many menu items users can add to Primary Links menu? I'm working on a Drupal site and I have a horizontal primary links nav bar. There is only room for no more than 7-8 links in the nav bar. I don't want the future maintainer of the site to add more than 8 items to the menu. Is there a way I can set a limit on that? Some module or override function? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Rails 3: habtm migration, primary key issue

    - by Brian Wigginton
    I'm trying to setup a migration file for a habtm relationship, however when I run the migration I'm getting the following error: Primary key is not allowed in a has_and_belongs_to_many join table (parts_vehicles). Here is my migration file (20110111035950_create_parts_vehicles.rb): class CreatePartsVehiclesJoinTable < ActiveRecord::Migration def self.up create_table :parts_vehicles, :id => false do |t| t.integer :part_id t.integer :vehicle_id end end def self.down drop_table :parts_vehicles end end The documentation example states to use :id => false to disable a primary key from being generated, but I'm still getting the error.

    Read the article

  • Hibernate without primary keys generated by db?

    - by Michael Jones
    I'm building a data warehouse and want to use InfiniDB as the storage engine. However, it doesn't allow primary keys or foreign key constraints (or any constraints for that matter). Hibernate complains "The database returned no natively generated identity value" when I perform an insert. Each table is relational, and contains a unique integer column that was previously used as the primary key - I want to keep that, but just not have the constraint in the db that the column is the primary key. I'm assuming the problem is that Hibernate expects the db to return a generated key. Is it possible to override this behaviour so I can set the primary key field's value myself and keep Hibernate happy? -- edit -- Two of the mappings are as follows: <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE hibernate-mapping PUBLIC "-//Hibernate/Hibernate Mapping DTD 3.0//EN" "http://hibernate.sourceforge.net/hibernate-mapping-3.0.dtd"> <!-- Generated Jun 1, 2010 2:49:51 PM by Hibernate Tools 3.2.1.GA --> <hibernate-mapping> <class name="com.example.project.Visitor" table="visitor" catalog="orwell"> <id name="id" type="java.lang.Long"> <column name="id" /> <generator class="identity" /> </id> <property name="firstSeen" type="timestamp"> <column name="first_seen" length="19" /> </property> <property name="lastSeen" type="timestamp"> <column name="last_seen" length="19" /> </property> <property name="sessionId" type="string"> <column name="session_id" length="26" unique="true" /> </property> <property name="userId" type="java.lang.Long"> <column name="user_id" /> </property> <set name="visits" inverse="true"> <key> <column name="visitor_id" /> </key> <one-to-many class="com.example.project.Visit" /> </set> </class> </hibernate-mapping> and: <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE hibernate-mapping PUBLIC "-//Hibernate/Hibernate Mapping DTD 3.0//EN" "http://hibernate.sourceforge.net/hibernate-mapping-3.0.dtd"> <!-- Generated Jun 1, 2010 2:49:51 PM by Hibernate Tools 3.2.1.GA --> <hibernate-mapping> <class name="com.example.project.Visit" table="visit" catalog="orwell"> <id name="id" type="java.lang.Long"> <column name="id" /> <generator class="identity" /> </id> <many-to-one name="visitor" class="com.example.project.Visitor" fetch="join" cascade="all"> <column name="visitor_id" /> </many-to-one> <property name="visitId" type="string"> <column name="visit_id" length="20" unique="true" /> </property> <property name="startTime" type="timestamp"> <column name="start_time" length="19" /> </property> <property name="endTime" type="timestamp"> <column name="end_time" length="19" /> </property> <property name="userAgent" type="string"> <column name="user_agent" length="65535" /> </property> <set name="pageViews" inverse="true"> <key> <column name="visit_id" /> </key> <one-to-many class="com.example.project.PageView" /> </set> </class> </hibernate-mapping>

    Read the article

  • Creating a db driven primary navigation in django?

    - by Fedor
    I find that it's pretty common most people hardcode the navigation into their templates, but I'm dealing with a pretty dynamic news site which might be better off if the primary nav was db driven. So I was thinking of having a Navigation model where each row would be a link. link_id INT primary key link_name varchar(255) url varchar(255) order INT active boolean If anyone's done something similar in the past, would you say this sort of schema is good enough? I also wanted for there to be an optional dropdown in the admin near the url field so that a user could choose a Category model's slug since category links would be common, but I'm not quite sure how that would be possible.

    Read the article

  • Set primary key on hibernate generated sequence table

    - by bungrudi
    setup: hibernate 3.3, MySQL 5 I have an hibernate entity that have its PK generated using a sequence table. The annotation looks like this: @GenericGenerator(name = "SCENARIO_TABLE_GEN", strategy = "org.hibernate.id.enhanced.TableGenerator", parameters = { @Parameter(name = "initial_value", value = "5"), @Parameter(name = "force_table_use", value = "true"), @Parameter(name = "table_name", value = "SEQ_TABLE"), @Parameter(name = "value_column_name", value = "VALUE_COL"), @Parameter(name = "segment_column_name", value = "KEY_COL"), @Parameter(name = "segment_value", value = "SCENARIO") }) The problem is, that hibernate generated sequence table (SEQ_TABLE in my case, generated using hbm2ddl) does not have a primary keys. How do I tell hibernate that I want to have the primary key for the sequence table set on KEY_COL ?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Express: Failed to add primary key after creating a database table

    - by Syd
    Scenario: I have created a database table. And when I tried to add a primary key (using the SQL Server Management Studiio) to the table, it failed with an error message "Saving changes is not permitted. The changes you have made requrie the following tables to be dropped and re-created. You have either made changes to a table that can't be recreated or enabled the option Prevent savign changes that require the table to be re-created." The environment is Windows 7. I have earlier installed it on a Windows XP SP2 and it worked. And yes, my table is empty (freshly created). My current workaround is to run the "Drop and Create" script. The other alternative is to create the primary key before I save the table. Is this a bug or a limitation with the Express version?

    Read the article

  • Copying Primary key to another field in Access.

    - by BashLover
    Hey, I'm struggling to copy the Primary Key to another field in Access. This is irrelevant , but clarifying on what I'm comparing. ... WHERE Tunniste=" & [Tarkiste] & "" Tunniste = Primary Key , Autonumber , ID (Generated by Access.) Tarkiste = This is the field I want to copy it to compare it. I'm open to suggestions, I've already try'ed with Form_Load, using the following code. Private Sub Form_Load() DoCmd.RunSQL "UPDATE Korut SET [Tarkiste]=('" & Tunniste & "');" End Sub But this copied the same key to all the entries in "Tarkiste" field. In simplicity I want 1:1 copy of field "Tunniste" to "Tarkiste" , whichever method it takes. Started from this question. File Picker Replaces All Rows With The Same Choice.

    Read the article

  • is it a good idea to change a recovery partition from primary to logical? [HP laptop]

    - by DiegoDD
    I have a new HP laptop, model dv6-6c85la, with 1TB hard drive, and it has 4 primary partitions, like this: |<- system [199 MB] -|<- c: [899.8 GB] -|<- d:(recovery) [27.5 GB] -|<- e:(hp_tools) [4 GB] -| I wanted to make another partition, splitting "C" which is the main partition, into TWO partitions, and leave the rest as it is. but it doesn't let me because they are already 4 primary partitions (the ones in the diagram). I read somewhere, that i could in fact split C into 2 partitions, but only if the adjacent partition (in this case d:(recovery) is converted into a "logical" partition. That way, the new unallocated part taken from C, and the recovery partition, would each be logical, "inside" an extended partition (right???) As i understand, the resulting partitions would be: primary (system, no letter), primary (c:), extended [ logical (x:) | logical(d:recovery) ], primary (e: hp_tools) "x" being the new one. am i correct? My question is, if i do convert the recovery partition to logical (and thus, it is inside an extended partition adjacent to the new "x:" one), would i have any problems when in case of a disaster i would like to restore the system using the now logical instead of primary RECOVERY partition? Or it is completely safe to change it to logical? My main concern is because i think i may need to be primary so the recovery can proceed in boot time? Or i am completely wrong? how does the recovery process happens? I also understand that i can simply create recovery media, in DVDs, and then even i would be able to delete that recovery partition completely, but as of now, i don't want to do that. I may create the disks, but i don't want to delete the partition, simply because it would be a lot faster and easier to recover from a hard drive than disks. Wrapping up: if i change a recovery partition from primary to logical, will the system still be capable of using it to recover? or it NEEDS to be primary to work? The whole point is that i want to split C:, but as things are, i cant directly, i'd need to change the recovery partition to logical. Or is there another way? thanks.

    Read the article

  • mysql add auto increment and a additional key

    - by Lee
    Hey all I am trying to alter a table with adding a new column setting it as auto increment and with a key. The table already has one key and this one will be an addition. The error I get is the following. error : Multiple primary key defined My code is: alter table user add column id int (11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY FIRST; I have also tries wrapping the key name ie alter table user add column id int (11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY (id) KEY FIRST; But still no luck. How can it be done ?

    Read the article

  • Ensuring uniqueness on a varchar greater than 255 in MYSQL/InnoDB

    - by Vijay Boyapati
    I have a table which contains HTML entries for news pages. When I initially designed it I used URL as the primary key. I've learned the error of my ways because left-joining is super slow. So I want to redesign the table with an integer (id) primary key, but still keep the rows unique based on the URL. The problem is that I've found URLs longer than 255 characters, and MySQL isn't letting my create a key on the URL. I'm using an InnoDB/UTF8 table. From what I understand it's using multiple bytes per character with a limit of 766 bytes for the key (in InnoDB). I would really love suggestions on an elegant way of keeping the rows unique based on URL, while using an integer primary key. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework and multi-tenancy database design

    - by Junto
    I am looking at multi-tenancy database schema design for an SaaS concept. It will be ASP.NET MVC - EF, but that isn't so important. Below you can see an example database schema (the Tenant being the Company). The CompanyId is replicated throughout the schema and the primary key has been placed on both the natural key, plus the tenant Id. Plugging this schema into the Entity Framework gives the following errors when I add the tables into the Entity Model file (Model1.edmx): The relationship 'FK_Order_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' of the table 'Order'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Order' uses the set of foreign keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_Order_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' of the table 'Order'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Order' uses the set of foreign keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Product' uses the set of foreign keys '{ProductId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The question is in two parts: Is my database design incorrect? Should I refrain from these compound primary keys? I'm questioning my sanity regarding the fundamental schema design (frazzled brain syndrome). Please feel free to suggest the 'idealized' schema. Alternatively, if the database design is correct, then is EF unable to match the keys because it perceives these foreign keys as a potential mis-configured 1:1 relationships (incorrectly)? In which case, is this an EF bug and how can I work around it?

    Read the article

  • wait for the second VB script untill ended from primary VB script

    - by yael
    Hi I have VB script that run second VB script The second VB script ask some questions from the input box My problem is that “MyShell.Run” not wait until SecondVBscript.vbs will ended And the Other VB syntax run immodestly also Need to wait for MyShell.Run process ended and then perform the Other VB syntax How can I do that? Set MyShell = Wscript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell") MyShell.Run " C:\Program Files\SecondVBscript.vbs" Set MyShell = Nothing Other VB syntax

    Read the article

  • Create a AD-LDS partition under a child of the primary partition

    - by ixe013
    I have a AD-LDS instance running on a Server 2008 R2. I have this application partition, created at installation : dc=enterprise,dc=example,dc=com I have succesfully followed this procedure to create application partitions. They are named : cn=stuff,dc=enterprise,dc=example,dc=com cn=things,dc=enterprise,dc=example,dc=com If I configure my client(s) to follow referals, I can search from dc=enterprise,dc=example,dc=com and find objects under cn=stuff and cn=things. How can I create (or move after the fact) the stuff and things partitions so they are logically located under a OU under the initial partition, ending up with something like : cn=stuff,ou=applications,dc=enterprise,dc=example,dc=com cn=things,ou=applications,dc=enterprise,dc=example,dc=com

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >