Search Results

Search found 28280 results on 1132 pages for 'having clause'.

Page 103/1132 | < Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >

• Delay and Inconsistent results using Twitter search API when using "since_id" parameter.

  - by benr

  Hi. We've noticed what seems to be a delay and/or inconsistent results using the Twitter Search API when specifying a sinceid in the param clause. For example: http://search.twitter.com/search?ors=%23b4esummit+@b4esummit+b4esummit&q=&result_type=recent&rpp=100&show_user=true&since_id= Will give the most recent Tweets, but: http://search.twitter.com/search?ors=%23b4esummit+@b4esummit+b4esummit&q=&result_type=recent&rpp=100&show_user=true&since_id= 12642940173 will often not give tweets that are after that ID for several hours (even though they're visible in the first query)... anyone have similar problems?

  Read the article

• Why is my left join not returning nulls?

  - by Griz

  In sql server 2008, I have the following query: select c.title as categorytitle, s.title as subcategorytitle, i.title as itemtitle from categories c join subcategories s on c.categoryid = s.categoryid left join itemcategories ic on s.subcategoryid = ic.subcategoryid left join items i on ic.itemid = i.itemid where (ic.isactive = 1 or ic.isactive is null) and i.siteid = 132 order by c.title, s.title I am trying to get items in their subcategories, but I still want to return a record if there are no items in the category or subcategory. Subcategories that have no items are never returned. What am I doing wrong? Thank you EDIT Modified query with a second left join and where clause, but it's still not returning nulls. :/

  Read the article

• MySQL COUNT help

  - by space

  I'm trying to count all the ids form table3 that are related to the first two tables but I think my SQL code is wrong can some one help me fix it? Here is the code: $dbc = mysqli_query($mysqli,"SELECT table1.*, table2.*, COUNT(id) as num, table3.id FROM table1 INNER JOIN table2 ON table1.id = table2.id INNER JOIN table3 ON table2.id = table3.id WHERE table2.id = '$id'"); Here is the error message. Mixing of GROUP columns (MIN(),MAX(),COUNT(),...) with no GROUP columns is illegal if there is no GROUP BY clause You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 4

  Read the article

• SQL Server GROUP BY troubles!

  - by Lucas311

  I'm getting a frustrating error in one of my SQL Server 2008 queries. It parses fine, but crashes when I try to execute. The error I get is the following: Msg 8120, Level 16, State 1, Line 4 Column 'customertraffic_return.company' is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause. SELECT * FROM (SELECT ctr.sp_id AS spid, Substring(ctr.company, 1, 20) AS company, cci.email_address AS tech_email, CASE WHEN rating IS NULL THEN 'unknown' ELSE rating END AS rating FROM customer_contactinfo cci INNER JOIN customertraffic_return ctr ON ctr.sp_id = cci.sp_id WHERE cci.email_address <> '' AND cci.email_address NOT LIKE '%hotmail%' AND cci.email_address IS NOT NULL AND ( region LIKE 'Europe%' OR region LIKE 'Asia%' ) AND SERVICE IN ( '1', '2' ) AND ( rating IN ( 'Premiere', 'Standard', 'unknown' ) OR rating IS NULL ) AND msgcount >= 5000 GROUP BY ctr.sp_id, cci.email_address) AS a WHERE spid NOT IN (SELECT spid FROM customer_exclude) GROUP BY spid, tech_email

  Read the article

• Problems with ActiveRecord assoc

  - by ciss

  Hello again, so i write my e-commerce shop cms and have some strange error: ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: Mysql::Error: Unknown column 'id' in 'where clause': DELETE FROM `properties` WHERE `id` = NULL so, i have three models Items: class Item < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :properties, :dependent => :destroy has_many :types, :through => :property end Type: class Type < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :properties, :dependent => :destroy end Properties: class Property < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :item belongs_to :type end So, all is okay, but when i try to item.destroy() i have error =( This is my test code: test "should destroy associated properties" do item = Item.create(:name => "Jeans") type = Type.create(:key => "color") property = Property.new property.item = item property.type = type property.save item.destroy() end

  Read the article

• [C++] Boost test: catch user defined exceptions

  - by user231536

  If I have user defined exceptions in my code, I can't get Boost test to consider them as failures. For example, BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_EXPECTED_FAILURES(MyTest,1) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(MyTest) { // code which throws user defined exception, not derived from std::exception. } I get a generic message: Caught exception: .... unknown location(0):.... It does not recognize this error as a failure since it is not a std::exception. So it does not honor the expected_failures clause. How do I enforce that the piece of code should always throw an exception? THis seems to be a useful thing to want. In case future code changes cause the code to pass and the exception is not thrown, I want to know that.

  Read the article

• table changes depending on ddl values with servlet

  - by kawtousse

  I will be more clear. What I want to realize is the following: In a JSP x I have a 3 dropdownlists and a button called edit when user click this button a table dynamically should be displayed. Now this table is modified correponding the values in those 3 ddl. So it can be 3 cols or 4 cols or even 6 cols it depends on the selected values. So what I tried is to use the servlet to getParameter doing the if clause construct the html and then forward the response.Have you any the suggestion of the structure that I can use. Think you.

  Read the article

• Query to return substring from string in SQL Server

  - by Jowie

  I have a user defined function called Sync_CheckData under Scalar-valued functions in Microsoft SQL Server. What it actually does is to check the quantity of issued product and balance quantity are the same. If something is wrong, returns an ErrorStr nvarchar(255). Output Example: Balance Stock Error for Product ID : 4 From the above string, I want to get 4 so that later on I can SELECT the rows which is giving errors by using WHERE clause (WHERE Product_ID = 4). Which SQL function can I use to get the substring?

  Read the article

• pass parameter from controller to models condition

  - by Alex

  I'm trying to bind a param to a join via a named scope., but I'm getting an error. What is the correct way to do that? has_one :has_voted, :class_name => 'Vote', :conditions => ['ip = :userIp'] # named scopes scope :with_vote, lambda {|ip| { :include => [:has_voted], # like this ?? :conditions => [:has_voted => {:conditions => {:userIp => ip}} ] }} Idea.with_vote(request.ip).all I believe I need the condition definition in the model for it to appear in the ON clause of a JOIN, rather then in the WHERE one. Edit I'm trying to get the following query select Ideas.*, Votes.* from Ideas left outer join Votes on Votes.Idea_id = Idea.id AND Votes.ip = {request.ip}

  Read the article

• SQL query not working

  - by Ziv

  hi, I'm trying to create a query in an access database for a C# dataset using the query editor but the created method says there is a problem and isn't created correctly. SELECT Discs.* FROM Discs WHERE (Title=@Title OR @Title IS NULL) AND (Type=@Type OR @Type IS NULL) AND (ContainerID=@ContainerID OR @ContainerID IS NULL) AND NOT (@Title IS NULL AND @Type IS NULL AND @ContainerID IS NULL) the error is: Generated SELECT statement. Error in WHERE clause near '@'. Unable to parse query text. the generated select method doesn't have any parameters and is unusable. I've tried the exact same SQL statement in the access query and it worked flawlessly, what am I supposed to be doing differently when transferring it to C#?

  Read the article

• SQL finding overlapping of times pass midnight (across 2 days)

  - by janechii

  Hi everyone, I know there are lots of these types of questions, but i didn't see one that was similar enough to my criteria. So i'd like to ask for your help please. The fields i have are just start and end which are of time types. I cannot involve any specific dates in this. If the time ranges don't go pass midnight across day, i'd just compare two tuples as such: end1 > start2 AND start1 < end2 (end points touching are not considered overlapped here.) But when I involve time range that pass (or at) midnight, this obviously doesn't work. For example, given: start | end --------+-------- 06:00PM | 01:00AM 03:00PM | 09:00PM Without involving dates, how can i achieve this, please. My assumption is, if end is less than start, then we're involving 2 days. I'm trying to do this in plain standard SQL, so just a simple and concise logic in the WHERE clause. Thank you everyone!

  Read the article

• Select rows where column LIKE dictionary word

  - by Gerve

  I have 2 tables: Dictionary - Contains roughly 36,000 words CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `dictionary` ( `word` varchar(255) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`word`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; Datas - Contains roughly 100,000 rows CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `datas` ( `ID` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `hash` varchar(32) NOT NULL, `data` varchar(255) NOT NULL, `length` int(11) NOT NULL, `time` int(11) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`ID`), UNIQUE KEY `hash` (`hash`), KEY `data` (`data`), KEY `length` (`length`), KEY `time` (`time`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=105316 ; I would like to somehow select all the rows from datas where the column data contains 1 or more words. I understand this is a big ask, it would need to match all of these rows together in every combination possible, so it needs the best optimization. I have tried the below query, but it just hangs for ages: SELECT `datas`.*, `dictionary`.`word` FROM `datas`, `dictionary` WHERE `datas`.`data` LIKE CONCAT('%', `dictionary`.`word`, '%') AND LENGTH(`dictionary`.`word`) > 3 ORDER BY `length` ASC LIMIT 15 I have also tried something similar to the above with a left join, and on clause that specified the like statement.

  Read the article

• SQL change "like" to "contains"

  - by Paul

  products table (mySQL) record_id categories (comma-delimited list) --------- -------------------------------- 1 960|1,957|1,958|1 I have the following dynamic query (simplified for the purposes of this question). The query is passed specified categories, each in the format xxxx|yyyy, and I need to return products having the passed category in its comma-delimited list of categories. The current query looks like: select p.* from products p where (p.categories like '%27|0%' or p.categories like '%972|1%' or p.categories like '%969|1%') But, the LIKE clause sometimes permits anomalies. I would like to write the query more like: select p.* from products p where (p.categories contains '27|0' or p.categories contains'972|1' or p.categories contains '969|1') How would I do this?

  Read the article

• Optimal search queries

  - by Macros

  Following on from my last question http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2788082/sql-server-query-performance, and discovering that my method of allowing optional parameters in a search query is sub optimal, does anyone have guidelines on how to approach this? For example, say I have an application table, a customer table and a contact details table, and I want to create an SP which allows searching on some, none or all of surname, homephone, mobile and app ID, I may use something like the following: select * from application a inner join customer c on a.customerid = a.id left join contact hp on (c.id = hp.customerid and hp.contacttype = 'homephone') left join contact mob on (c.id = mob.customerid and mob.contacttype = 'mobile') where (a.ID = @ID or @ID is null) and (c.Surname = @Surname or @Surname is null) and (HP.phonenumber = @Homphone or @Homephone is null) and (MOB.phonenumber = @Mobile or @Mobile is null) The schema used above isn't real, and I wouldn't be using select * in a real world scenario, it is the construction of the where clause I am interested in. Is there a better approach, either dynamic sql or an alternative which can achieve the same result, without the need for many nested conditionals. Some SPs may have 10 - 15 criteria used in this way

  Read the article

• jQuery - How to determine if a parent element exists?

  - by Dan

  Hi, I'm trying to dynamically and a link to an image, however I cannot correctly determine is the parent link already exists. This is what I have, if (element.parent('a'.length) > 0) { element.parent('a').attr('href', link); } else { element.wrap('<a></a>'); element.parent('a').attr('href', link); } Where element refers to my img element and link refers to the url to use. Every time the code runs, the else clause is performed, regardless of whether or not the img tag is wrapped in an a tag. Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong? Any advice appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Occasional conversion error using SUM function

  - by user153777

  My app uses sql2000 and a select statement it uses will sometimes fail. Once a week or so the select returns the error 'Error Converting data type varchar to numeric' SQL: sum(case when ISNULL(form_prsn_id, -1) = irpd_prsn_id then convert(dec(11,2), case when valu_value = '' then '0' else isnull (valu_value,'0') end)* case when fmdt_deduction_flag = 'Y' then -1 else 1 end else 0 end) as client_sum The valu_value field is a varchar and stores some numeric and some varchar. But including my join and where clause filter it will always select numeric or empty string. When it is failing I can remove the SUM, see the data and know that its numeric. So why would the SUM function sometimes (say 5% of time) fail on data that is numeric. I wonder if SQL somehow "looks ahead" to ensure it could convert to decimal on more than just the rows returned without the sum. Note I have discovered a fix where I include ( where isNumeric(valu_value) = 1 ) Thanks

  Read the article

• sql select from a large number of IDs

  - by Claudiu

  I have a table, Foo. I run a query on Foo to get the ids from a subset of Foo. I then want to run a more complicated set of queries, but only on those IDs. Is there an efficient way to do this? The best I can think of is creating a query such as: SELECT ... --complicated stuff WHERE ... --more stuff AND id IN (1, 2, 3, 9, 413, 4324, ..., 939393) That is, I construct a huge "IN" clause. Is this efficient? Is there a more efficient way of doing this, or is the only way to JOIN with the inital query that gets the IDs? If it helps, I'm using SQLObject to connect to a PostgreSQL database, and I have access to the cursor that executed the query to get all the IDs.

  Read the article

• MySQL GROUP BY with three tables

  - by Psaniko

  I have the following tables: posts (post_id, content, etc) comments (comment_id, post_id, content, etc) posts_categories (post_category_id, post_id, category_id) and this query: SELECT `p`.*, COUNT(comments.comment_id) AS cmts, posts_categories.*,comments.* FROM `posts` AS `p` LEFT JOIN `posts_categories` ON `p`.post_id = `posts_categories`.post_id LEFT JOIN `comments` ON `p`.post_id = `comments`.post_id GROUP BY `p`.`post_id` There are three comments on post_id=1 and four in total. In posts_categories there are two rows, both assigned to post_id=1. I have four rows in posts. But if I query the statement above I get a result of 6 for COUNT(comments.comment_id) at post_id=1. How is this possible? I guess the mistake is somewhere in the GROUP BY clause but I can't figure out where. Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• Oracle ORA-01795 error in Rails

  - by Cyborgo

  Hi, I am using Oracle as database for my Rails applications and have got some pretty intense tables. I'm trying to find the particular entries using a query like this Author.all( :conditions => { :name => names } ) I have been working SQlite all along and just migrated to Oracle which complains that IN clause has more than 1000 entries. Obvious workaround would be to break it into subclauses for which I need to write some raw sql queries. Is there anything in Rails that facilitate this?

  Read the article

• Dynamic "WHERE IN" on IQueryable (linq to SQL)

  - by user320235

  I have a LINQ to SQL query returning rows from a table into an IQueryable object. IQueryable<MyClass> items = from table in DBContext.MyTable select new MyClass { ID = table.ID, Col1 = table.Col1, Col2 = table.Col2 } I then want to perform a SQL "WHERE ... IN ...." query on the results. This works fine using the following. (return results with id's ID1 ID2 or ID3) sQuery = "ID1,ID2,ID3"; string[] aSearch = sQuery.Split(','); items = items.Where(i => aSearch.Contains(i.ID)); What I would like to be able to do, is perform the same operation, but not have to specify the i.ID part. So if I have the string of the field name I want to apply the "WHERE IN" clause to, how can I use this in the .Contains() method?

  Read the article

• what's the name of this language that description another language syntax?

  - by Boolean

  for example: <SELECT statement> ::= [WITH <common_table_expression> [,...n]] <query_expression> [ ORDER BY { order_by_expression | column_position [ ASC | DESC ] } [ ,...n ] ] [ COMPUTE { { AVG | COUNT | MAX | MIN | SUM } ( expression ) } [ ,...n ] [ BY expression [ ,...n ] ] ] [ <FOR Clause>] [ OPTION ( <query_hint> [ ,...n ] ) ] <query_expression> ::= { <query_specification> | ( <query_expression> ) } [ { UNION [ ALL ] | EXCEPT | INTERSECT } <query_specification> | ( <query_expression> ) [...n ] ] <query_specification> ::= SELECT [ ALL | DISTINCT ] [TOP expression [PERCENT] [ WITH TIES ] ] < select_list > [ INTO new_table ] [ FROM { <table_source> } [ ,...n ] ] [ WHERE <search_condition> ] [ <GROUP BY> ] [ HAVING < search_condition > ] whats the language called?

  Read the article

• How can I sum a group of sums? SQL-Sever 2008

  - by billynomates

  I have a query with a sum in it like this: SELECT Table1.ID, SUM(Table2.[Number1] + Table2.[Number2]) AS SumColumn FROM Table1 INNER JOIN Table3 ON Table1.ID = Table3.ID INNER JOIN Table2 ON Table3.ID = Table2.ID WHERE (Table2.[Something] = 'Whatever') GROUP BY Table1.ID, Table2.[Number1] , Table2.[Number2] and it gives me a table like this: ID SumColumn 67 1 67 4 70 2 70 6 70 3 70 6 80 5 97 1 97 3 How can I make it give me a table like this, where the SumColumn is summed, grouped by the ID column? ID SumColumn 67 5 70 17 80 5 97 4 I cannot GROUP BY SumColumn because I get an error (Invalid column name 'SumColumn'.) COALESCE doesn't work either. Thanks in advance. EDIT: Just grouping by the ID gives me an error: [Number1, Number2 and the other column names that I'm selecting] is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause.

  Read the article

• :from parameter in active record find not well designed?

  - by potlee

  i got this error: SQLite3::SQLException: no such column: apis.name: SELECT * FROM examples WHERE ("apis"."name" = 'deep') my code Api.find :all, :from => params[:table_name], :conditions => {:name => 'deep' } I need to make a back end rails application which will be used by a silverlight application. one of the requirements is to fetch simple data from the database. i need to be able to query different tables with the same code.(my app has 2000 tables!) i think it does not make sense for rails to put in "apis" in the WHERE clause. is there any speciic reason for this?

  Read the article

• Does the order of the columns in a SELECT statement make a difference?

  - by Frank Computer

  This question was inspired by a previous question posted on SO, "Does the order of the WHERE clause make a differnece?". Would it improve a SELECT statement's performance if the the columns used in the WHERE section are placed at the begining of the SELECT statement? example: SELECT customer.id, transaction.id, transaction.efective_date, transaction.a, [...] FROM customer, transaction WHERE customer.id = transaction.id; I do know that limiting the list of columns to only the needed ones in a SELECT statement improves performance as opposed to using SELECT * because the current list is smaller.

  Read the article

• Any way for linq query to check against existing select?

  - by danrhul

  I have an an offer, that can be in any number of categories. I don't however want that offer to then appear twice or however more. I was wondering if its possible to have a where clause that ascertains whether that offer already exists in that select statement and if so obviously to ignore it. Here is the linq query: Offers = from o in offerCategories orderby o.RewardCategory.Ordering, o.Order where o.RewardOffer.IsDeleted == false select new OfferOverviewViewModel { Partner = o.RewardOffer.Partner, Description = String.Format("{0} {1}", o.RewardOffer.MainTitle, o.RewardOffer.SecondaryTitle), OfferId = o.OfferId, FeaturedOffer = o.RewardOffer.FeaturedOfferOrder.HasValue, Categories = from c in offerCategories.Where(oc => oc.OfferId == o.OfferId) orderby c.RewardCategory.Ordering select new CategoryDetailViewModel { Description = c.RewardCategory.DisplayName } },

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >