Search Results

Search found 33029 results on 1322 pages for 'database queries'.

Page 100/1322 | < Previous Page | 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107  | Next Page >

  • GridView edit problem If primary key is editable (design problem)

    - by Nassign
    I would like to ask about the design of table based on it's editability in a Grid View. Let me explain. For example, I have a table named ProductCustomerRel. Method 1 CustomerCode varchar PK ProductCode varchar PK StoreCode varchar PK Quantity int Note text So the combination of the CustomerCode, StoreCode and ProductCode must be unique. The record is displayed on a gridview. The requirement is that you can edit the customer, product and storecode but when the data is saved, the PK constraint must still persist. The problem here is it would be natural for a grid to be able to edit the 3 primary key, you can only achieve the update operation of the grid view by first deleting the row and then inserting the row with the updated data. An alternative to this is to just update the table and add a SeqNo, and just enforce the unique constraint of the 3 columns when inserting and updating in the grid view. Method 2 SeqNo int PK CustomerCode varchar ProductCode varchar StoreCode varchar Quantity int Note text My question is which of the two method is better? or is there another way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Postgresql Output column from another table

    - by muffin
    i'm using Postgresql, my question is specifically about querying from a table that's in another table and i'm really having trouble with this one. In fact, i'm absolutely mentally blocked. I'll try to define the relations of the tables as much as I can. I have a table entry which is like this: Each of the entries has a group_id; when they are 'advanced' to the next stage, the old entries are marked is_active = false, and a new assignment is done, so C & D are advanced stages of A & B. I have another table (which acts as a record keeper) , in which the storage_log_id refers to, this is the storage_log table : But then I have another table, to really find out where the entries are actually stored - storage table : To define my problem properly. Each entry has a storage_log_id (but some doesn't have yet), and a storage_log has a storage_id to refer to the actual table and find the storage label. The sql query i'm trying to do should output this one: Where The actual storage label is shown instead of the log id. This is so far what i've done: select e.id, e.group_id, e.name, e.stage, s.label from operational.entry e, operational.storage_log sl, operational.storage s where e.storage_log_id = sl.id and sl.storage_id = s.id But this just returns 3 rows, showing only the ones that have the seed_storage_log_id set; I should be able to see even those without logs, and especially the active ones. adding e.is_active = true to the condition makes the results empty. So, yeah i'm stuck. Need help, Thanks guys!

    Read the article

  • Best Embedded SQL DB for write performance?

    - by max.minimus
    Has anybody done any benchmarking/evaluation of the popular open-source embedded SQL DBs for performance, particularly write performance? I've some 1:1 comparisons for sqlite, Firebird Embedded, Derby and HSQLDB (others I am missing?) but no across the board comparisons... Also, I'd be interested in the overall developer experience for any of these (for a Java app).

    Read the article

  • Easiest solution to sync an offline (local desktop application) database with a central server and multiple pc's?

    - by tyfius
    I have a desktop application which uses a local database. (This can be SQLite, SqlCe, PostgreSQL or any other database I will be able to install locally, I haven't decided which one to use yet.) The plan is to achieve the following: A user can subscribe to some kind of cloud service. If he does his local database should be synced with the online database (one for all users, or one per user, whatever the easiest solution is) so he will be able to sync his local database data between multiple PC's, can access his data online. (Much like dropbox does for files.) What is the best, easiest (and preferably cheapest) solution to achieve this? I am looking into DataObjects.net but I can't find much documentation about their Sync feature. Or, are there other alternatives? For example, I start with some kind of cloud service which allows local caching and use the local caching for users who do not subscribe to the service. Any pointers, tips or experiences are welcome.

    Read the article

  • how to store data with many categories and many properties efficiently?

    - by Mickey Shine
    We have a large number of data in many categories with many properties, e.g. category 1: Book properties: BookID, BookName, BookType, BookAuthor, BookPrice category 2: Fruit properties: FruitID, FruitName, FruitShape, FruitColor, FruitPrice We have many categories like book and fruit. Obviously we can create many tables for them (MySQL e.g.), and each category a table. But this will have to create too many tables and we have to write many "adapters" to unify manipulating data. The difficulties are: 1) Every category has different properties and this results in a different data structure. 2) The properties of every categoriy may have to be changed at anytime. 3) Hard to manipulate data if each category a table (too many tables) How do you store such kind of data?

    Read the article

  • Table in DB for generating primary keys?

    - by Sapphire
    Do you ever use a separate table for "generating" artificial primary keys for DB (and why)? What I mean is to have a table with two columns, table name and current ID - with which you could get new "ID" for some table by simply locking the row with that table name, getting the current value of the key, increment it by one, and unlock the row. Why would you prefer this over standard integer identity column? P.S. The "idea" is from Fowlers Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture, btw...

    Read the article

  • Foreign keys and NULL in mySQL

    - by Industrial
    Hi everyone, Can I have a column in my values table (value) referenced as a foreign key to knownValues table, and let it be NULL whenever needed, like in the example: Table: values product type value freevalue 0 1 NULL 100 1 2 NULL 25 3 3 1 NULL Table: types id name prefix 0 length cm 1 weight kg 2 fruit NULL Table: knownValues id Type name 0 2 banana Note: The types in the table values & knownValues are of course referenced into the types table. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why mysql 5.5 slower than 5.1 (linux,using mysqlslap)

    - by Zenofo
    my.cnf (5.5 and 5.1 is the same) : back_log=200 max_connections=512 max_connect_errors=999999 key_buffer=512M max_allowed_packet=8M table_cache=512 sort_buffer=8M read_buffer_size=8M thread_cache=8 thread_concurrency=4 myisam_sort_buffer_size=128M interactive_timeout=28800 wait_timeout=7200 mysql 5.5: ..mysql5.5/bin/mysqlslap -a --concurrency=10 --number-of-queries 5000 --iterations=5 -S /tmp/mysql_5.5.sock --engine=innodb Benchmark Running for engine innodb Average number of seconds to run all queries: 15.156 seconds Minimum number of seconds to run all queries: 15.031 seconds Maximum number of seconds to run all queries: 15.296 seconds Number of clients running queries: 10 Average number of queries per client: 500 mysql5.1: ..mysql5.5/bin/mysqlslap -a --concurrency=10 --number-of-queries 5000 --iterations=5 -S /tmp/mysql_5.1.sock --engine=innodb Benchmark Running for engine innodb Average number of seconds to run all queries: 13.252 seconds Minimum number of seconds to run all queries: 13.019 seconds Maximum number of seconds to run all queries: 13.480 seconds Number of clients running queries: 10 Average number of queries per client: 500 Why mysql 5.5 slower than 5.1 ? BTW:I'm tried mysql5.5/bin/mysqlslap and mysql5.1/bin/mysqlslap,result is the same

    Read the article

  • Running a sharded DB from a single machine

    - by ming yeow
    This sounds kinda dumb, but I have a sharded DB that I no longer think I need to run on 2 machines, and would like to run on one single machine instead. Any ideas on how that can potentially be done? There are lots of resources on how i can achieve the converse, but very little on how this can be done

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • is Payment table needed when you have an invoice table like this?

    - by EBAGHAKI
    this is my invoice table: Invoice Table: invoice_id creation_date due_date payment_date status enum('not paid','paid','expired') user_id total_price I wonder if it's Useful to have a payment table in order to record user payments for invoices. payment table can be like this: payment_id payment_date invoice_id price_paid status enum('successful', 'not successful')

    Read the article

  • How do I sync a subset of tables between two databases on the same mysql database server

    - by Mike
    would like to be able to sync a subset of tables between two mysql databases that are running on the same server. One of the databases acts as the master where inserts, updates and deletes can be made. The second database uses those same tables for read-only operations. I do not want to use federated tables to achieve this. The long term goal will be to separate the 2 databases to multiple servers, The second database that has the subset of tables as read-only may also be replicated a few times over to distribute geographically for load and performance purposes each with unqiue data.... Once that is achieved, I plan to use binlog to replicate those specific tables on the secondary databases. In the meantime, I'd like to keep these tables in sync. Is there a more elegant way to do this than other than using a cronjob and mysqldump?

    Read the article

  • IntegrityError with Booleand Fields and Postgresql

    - by xRobot
    I have this simple Blog model: class Blog(models.Model): title = models.CharField(_('title'), max_length=60, blank=True, null=True) body = models.TextField(_('body')) user = models.ForeignKey(User) is_public = models.BooleanField(_('is public'), default = True) When I insert a blog in admin interface, I get this error: IntegrityError at /admin/blogs/blog/add/ null value in column "is_public" violates not-null constraint Why ???

    Read the article

  • delete rows using sql 'like' command using data from another table

    - by Captastic
    Hi All, I am trying to delete rows from a table ("lovalarm") where a field ("pointid") is like any one of a number of strings. Currently I am entering them all manually however I need to be able to have a list of over 100,000 options. My thoughts are to have a table ("lovdata") containing all possible strings and running a query to delete rows where the field is 'like' any of the strings in the other table. Can anyone point me in the right direction as to if/how I can use like in this way? Many thanks, Cap

    Read the article

  • What does ON [PRIMARY] mean?

    - by Icono123
    I'm creating an SQL setup script and I'm using someone else's script as an example. Here's an example of the script: SET ANSI_NULLS ON GO SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON GO CREATE TABLE [dbo].[be_Categories]( [CategoryID] [uniqueidentifier] ROWGUIDCOL NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_be_Categories_CategoryID] DEFAULT (newid()), [CategoryName] [nvarchar](50) NULL, [Description] [nvarchar](200) NULL, [ParentID] [uniqueidentifier] NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_be_Categories] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [CategoryID] ASC )WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY] ) ON [PRIMARY] GO Does anyone know what the ON [PRIMARY] command does? Regards.

    Read the article

  • What is the proper design of storing temporary users? [closed]

    - by Mendy
    In SO site both real users and temporary users can add a new questions. I assume each user type has a different table. My question is how can I attach the question to the right user? I assuming the temp users have their own table from the following reasons: Temp users don't have all the data that real users have. like: email, password, and all users details. On the other hand, temp users are a lot more then real users. So it make more sense to have they in their own table.

    Read the article

  • which sql query is more efficient: select count(*) or select ... where key>value?

    - by davka
    I need to periodically update a local cache with new additions to some DB table. The table rows contain an auto-increment sequential number (SN) field. The cache keeps this number too, so basically I just need to fetch all rows with SN larger than the highest I already have. SELECT * FROM table where SN > <max_cached_SN> However, the majority of the attempts will bring no data (I just need to make sure that I have an absolutely up-to-date local copy). So I wander if this will be more efficient: count = SELECT count(*) from table; if (count > <cache_size>) // fetch new rows as above I suppose that selecting by an indexed numeric field is quite efficient, so I wander whether using count has benefit. On the other hand, this test/update will be done quite frequently and by many clients, so there is a motivation to optimize it.

    Read the article

  • Getting deadlocks in MySQL

    - by at
    We're very frustratingly getting deadlocks in MySQL. It isn't because of exceeding a lock timeout as the deadlocks happen instantly when they do happen. Here's the SQL code that is executing on 2 separate threads (with 2 separate connections from the connection pool) that produces a deadlock: UPDATE Sequences SET Counter = LAST_INSERT_ID(Counter + 1) WHERE Sequence IS NULL Sequences table has 2 columns: Sequence and Counter The LAST_INSERT_ID allows us to retrieve this updated counter value as per MySQL's recommendation. That works perfect for us, but we get these deadlocks! Why are we getting them and how can we avoid them?? Thanks so much for any help with this.

    Read the article

  • replicating master tables mapping in transaction tables

    - by NoDisplay
    I have three master tables for location information Country {ID, Name} State {ID, Name, CountryID} City {ID, Name, StateID} Now I have one transcation table called Person which hold the person name and his location information. My Question is shall I have only CityID in the Person table like this: Person {ID, Name, CityID}' And have view of join query which give me detail like "Person{ID,Name,City,State,Country}" or Shall I replicate the mapping Person {ID, Name, CityID, StateID, CountryID} Please suggest which do you feel is to be selected and why? if there is any other option available, please suggest. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107  | Next Page >