Search Results

Search found 15423 results on 617 pages for 'uses clause'.

Page 13/617 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • Updating records in Postgres using FROM clause

    - by Summer
    Hi, I'm changing my db schema, and moving column 'seat' from old_table to new_table. First I added a 'seat' column to new_table. Now I'm trying to populate the column with the values from old_table. UPDATE new_table SET seat = seat FROM old_table WHERE old_table.id = new_table.ot_id; This returns ERROR: column reference "seat" is ambiguous. UPDATE new_table nt SET nt.seat = ot.seat FROM old_table ot WHERE ot.id = nt.ot_id; Returns ERROR: column "nt" of relation "new_table" does not exist Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Linq In Clause & Predicate building

    - by Michael G
    I have two tables. Report and ReportData. ReportData has a constraint ReportID. How can I write my linq query to return all Report objects where the predicate conditions are met for ReportData? Something like this in SQL: SELECT * FROM Report as r Where r.ServiceID = 3 and r.ReportID IN (Select ReportID FROM ReportData WHERE JobID LIKE 'Something%') This is how I'm building my predicate: Expression<Func<ReportData, bool>> predicate = PredicateBuilder.True<ReportData>(); predicate = predicate.And(x => x.JobID.StartsWith(QueryConfig.Instance.DataStreamName)); var q = engine.GetReports(predicate, reportsDataContext); reports = q.ToList(); This is my query construction at the moment: public override IQueryable<Report> GetReports(Expression<Func<ReportData, bool>> predicate, LLReportsDataContext reportDC) { if (reportDC == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("reportDC"); var q = reportDC.ReportDatas.Where(predicate).Where(r => r.ServiceID.Equals(1)).Select(r => r.Report); return q; }

    Read the article

  • Does MySQL short-circuit the ORDER BY clause?

    - by nickf
    Given this SQL: SELECT * FROM mytable ORDER BY mycolumn, RAND() Assuming that mycolumn happens to only contain unique values (and hence, contains enough information to perform the ORDER BY), does MySQL short-circuit the operation and skip evaluating the rest?

    Read the article

  • How does the proc in the caches_action if clause get execute

    - by Sid
    I have a newbie kind of question which I cant get my head around. How does the Proc in the if condition of the caches_action get executed for the caches_action method. for example caches_action :show, :if=Proc.new{|x| something} what i dont get its how does this get called. I know i can execute a proc defined as proc= Proc.new by proc.call so i dont understand how this gets called. Second how do I pass conditions like if logged_in? I'd appreciate any help on this

    Read the article

  • How to combine 2 linq statments with groupby clause into 1

    - by AG.
    Hello Friends, I was wondering if i can consolidate below 2 linq statments into 1 statment. I am sure it should be possible, but various attempts i am unable to manage. var prevProvisionsBySubBook = (from provision in prevProvisions group provision by provision.SubBook into subBookGrouping select new { Key = subBookGrouping.Key, Value = subBookGrouping.Sum(t => t.ProvisionUSD) }); var currentProvisionsBySubBook = (from provision in currentProvisions group provision by provision.SubBook into subBookGrouping select new { Key = subBookGrouping.Key, Value = subBookGrouping.Sum(t => t.ProvisionUSD) }); var adjustmentChangeBySubBook = (from current in currentProvisionsBySubBook select new { Key = current.Key, Value = current.Value - (prevProvisionsBySubBook.Any() ? prevProvisionsBySubBook.Where(t => t.Key == current.Key).Single().Value : 0) }); any help would be apprecaited.

    Read the article

  • Getting the first of a GROUP BY clause in SQL

    - by Michael Bleigh
    I'm trying to implement single-column regionalization for a Rails application and I'm running into some major headaches with a complex SQL need. For this system, a region can be represented by a country code (e.g. us) a continent code that is uppercase (e.g. NA) or it can be NULL indicating the "default" information. I need to group these items by some relevant information such as a foreign key (we'll call it external_id). Given a country and its continent, I need to be able to select only the most specific region available. So if records exist with the country code, I select them. If, not I want a records with the continent code. If not that, I want records with a NULL code so I can receive the default values. So far I've figured that I may be able to use a generated CASE statement to get an arbitrary sort order. Something like this: SELECT *, CASE region WHEN 'us' THEN 1 WHEN 'NA' THEN 2 ELSE 3 END AS region_sort FROM my_table WHERE region IN ('us','NA') OR region IS NULL GROUP BY external_id ORDER BY region_sort The problem is that without an aggregate function the actual data returned by the GROUP BY for a given row seems to be untameable. How can I massage this query to make it return only the first record of the region_sort ordered groups?

    Read the article

  • Enhancing an 'ORDER BY' clause to judge condition by more than 1 integer

    - by Yvonne
    Hi folks, I have some PHP code which allows me to sort a column into ascending and descending order (upon click of a table row title), which is good. It works perfectly for my D.O.B colum (with date/time field type), but not for a quantity column. For example, I have quantites of 10, 50, 100, 30 and another 100. The order seems to be only appreciating the 1st integer, so my sorting of the column ends up in this order: 10, 100, 100, 30, 50... and 50, 30, 100, 100, 10. This is obviously incorrect as 100 is bigger than 50, therefore both 100 values should appear at the end surely? It seems to me that 100 is only being taken into account as having the '1' value, then it appears before 10 because the system recognises it has another 0. Is this normal to happen? Is there any way I can solve this problem? Thanks for any help. P.S. I can show code if necessary, but would like to know if this is a common issue by default.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing code which uses Umbraco v4 API

    - by Jason Evans
    I'm trying to write a suite of integration tests, where I have custom code which uses the Umbraco API. The Umbraco database lives in a SQL Server CE 4.0 database (*.sdf file) and I've managed to get that association working fine. My problem looks to be dependancies in the Umbraco code. For example, I would like to create a new user for my tests, so I try: var user = User.MakeNew("developer", "developer", "mypassword", "[email protected]", adminUserType); Now as you can see, I have pass a user type which is an object. I've tried two separate ways to create the user type, both of which fail due to a null object exception: var adminUserType = UserType.GetUserType(1); var adminUserType2 = new UserType(1); The problem is that in each case the UserType code calls it's Cache method which uses the HttpRuntime class, which naturally is null. My question is this: Can someone suggest a way of writing integration tests against Umbraco code? Will I have to end up using a mocking framework such as TypeMock or JustMock?

    Read the article

  • Where clause on joined table used for user defined key/value pairs

    - by Steve Wright
    Our application allows administrators to add “User Properties” in order for them to be able to tailor the system to match their own HR systems. For example, if your company has departments, you can define “Departments” in the Properties table and then add values that correspond to “Departments” such as “Jewelry”, “Electronics” etc… You are then able to assign a department to users. Here is the schema: In this schema, a User can have only one UserPropertyValue per Property, but doesn’t have to have a value for the property. I am trying to build a query that will be used in SSRS 2005 and also have it use the PropertyValues as the filter for users. My query looks like this: SELECT UserLogin, FirstName, LastName FROM Users U LEFT OUTER JOIN UserPropertyValues UPV ON U.ID = UPV.UserID WHERE UPV.PropertyValueID IN (1, 5) When I run this, if the user has ANY of the property values, they are returned. What I would like to have is where this query will return users that have values BY PROPERTY. So if PropertyValueID = 1 is of Department (Jewelry), and PropertyValueID = 5 is of EmploymentType (Full Time), I want to return all users that are in Department Jewelry that are EmployeeType of Full Time, can this be done? Here's a full data example: User A has Department(Jewelry value = 1) and EmploymentType(FullTime value = 5)User B has Department(Electronics value = 2) and EmploymentType(FullTime value = 5)User C has Department(Jewelry value = 1) and EmployementType(PartTime value = 6) My query should only return User A using the above query UPDATE: I should state that this query is used as a dataset in SSRS, so the parameter passed to the query will be @PropertyIDs and it is defined as a multi-value parameter in SSRS. WHERE UPV.PropertyValueID IN (@PropertyIDs)

    Read the article

  • Unexpected behaviour of Order by clause

    - by Newbie
    I have a table which looks like Col1 col2 col3 col4 col5 1 5 1 4 6 1 4 0 3 7 0 1 5 6 3 1 8 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 4 The script is declare @t table(col1 int, col2 int, col3 int,col4 int,col5 int) insert into @t select 1,5,1,4,6 union all select 1,4,0,3,7 union all select 0,1,5,6,3 union all select 1,8,2,1,5 union all select 4,3,2,1,4 If I do a sorting (ascending), the output is Col1 col2 col3 col4 col5 0 1 5 6 3 1 4 0 3 7 1 5 1 4 6 1 8 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 4 The query is Select * from @t order by col1,col2,col3,col4,col5 But as can be seen that the sorting output is wrong (col2 to col5). I want the output to be every column being sorted in ascending order i.e. Col1 col2 col3 col4 col5 0 1 0 1 3 1 3 1 1 4 1 4 2 3 5 1 5 2 4 6 4 8 5 6 7 Why so and how to overcome this? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • stored procedure issue, has to do with my where clause and if statement

    - by MyHeadHurts
    right now my stored procedure is returning 2 different result sets one for @booked and the other for @booked1 if you look closely my query is doing the same thing for each @booked and @booked but one is for a user selected year and the other for the current year. I don't want two different result sets, i want to join the selected year and the current year side by side by SDESCR(which is a column that they have in common) another hurdle i am facing is i am use @mode to decide whether the user wants netsales, sales... so on. I know i need sometype of join but, it isnt working because i have a where statement that says where dyyyy= @yeartoget which won't allow the current year data to work ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[test1] @mode varchar(20), @YearToGet int AS SET NOCOUNT ON Declare @Booked Int Set @Booked = CONVERT(int,DateAdd(year, @YearToGet - Year(getdate() + 1), DateAdd(day, DateDiff(day, 1, getdate()), 1) ) ) Declare @Booked1 Int Set @Booked1 = CONVERT(int,DateAdd(year, (year( getdate() )) - Year(getdate() + 1), DateAdd(day, DateDiff(day, 1, getdate()), 1) ) ) If @mode = 'Sales' Select Division, SDESCR, DYYYY, Sum(Case When Booked <= @Booked Then NetAmount End) ASofNetSales, SUM(NetAmount) AS YENetSales, Sum(Case When Booked <= @Booked Then PARTY End) AS ASofPAX, SUM(PARTY) AS YEPAX From dbo.B101BookingsDetails Where DYYYY = @YearToGet Group By SDESCR, DYYYY, Division Order By Division, SDESCR, DYYYY else if @mode = 'netsales' Select Division, SDESCR, DYYYY, Sum(Case When Booked <= @Booked Then NetAmount End) ASofNetSales, SUM(NetAmount) AS YENetSales, Sum(Case When Booked <= @Booked Then PARTY End) AS ASofPAX, SUM(PARTY) AS YEPAX From dbo.B101BookingsDetails Where DYYYY = @YearToGet Group By SDESCR, DYYYY, Division Order By Division, SDESCR, DYYYY If @mode = 'Sales' Select Division, SDESCR, DYYYY, Sum(Case When Booked <= @Booked1 Then NetAmount End) currentNetSales, Sum(Case When Booked <= @Booked1 Then PARTY End) AS currentPAX From dbo.B101BookingsDetails Where DYYYY = (year( getdate() )) Group By SDESCR, DYYYY, Division Order By Division, SDESCR, DYYYY else if @mode = 'netsales' Select Division, SDESCR, DYYYY, Sum(Case When Booked <= @Booked1 Then NetAmount End) currentNetSales, Sum(Case When Booked <= @Booked1 Then PARTY End) AS currentPAX From dbo.B101BookingsDetails Where DYYYY = (year( getdate() )) Group By SDESCR, DYYYY, Division Order By Division, SDESCR, DYYYY Else if @mode = 'Inssales' Select Division, SDESCR, DYYYY, Sum(Case When Booked <= @Booked1 Then InsAmount End) currentInsSales, Sum(Case When Booked <= @Booked1 Then PARTY End) AS currentPAX From dbo.B101BookingsDetails Where DYYYY = (year( getdate() )) Group By SDESCR, DYYYY, Division Order By Division, SDESCR, DYYYY

    Read the article

  • how to optimize an oracle query that has to_char in where clause for date

    - by panorama12
    I have a table that contains about 49403459 records. I want to query the table on a date range. say 04/10/2010 to 04/10/2010. However, the dates are stored in the table as format 10-APR-10 10.15.06.000000 AM (time stamp). As a result. When I do: SELECT bunch,of,stuff,create_date FROM myTable WHERE TO_CHAR (create_date,'MM/DD/YYYY)' >= '04/10/2010' AND TO_CHAR (create_date, 'MM/DD/YYYY' <= '04/10/2010' I get 529 rows but in 255.59 seconds! which is because I guess I am doing to_char on EACH record. However, When I do SELECT bunch,of,stuff,create_date FROM myTable WHERE create_date >= to_date('04/10/2010','MM/DD/YYYY') AND create_date <= to_date('04/10/2010','MM/DD/YYYY') then I get 0 results in 0.14 seconds. How can I make this query fast and still get valid (529) results?? At this point I can not change indexes. Right now I think index is created on create_date column

    Read the article

  • Enums With Default Throw Clause?

    - by Tom Tresansky
    I noticed the following in the Java Language spec in the section on enumerations here: link switch(this) { case PLUS: return x + y; case MINUS: return x - y; case TIMES: return x * y; case DIVIDE: return x / y; } throw new AssertionError("Unknown op: " + this); However, looking at the switch statement definition section, I didn't notice this particular syntax (the associated throw statement) anywhere. Can I use this sort of "default case is throw an exception" syntactic sugar outside of enum definitions? Does it have any special name? Is this considered a good/bad practice for short-cutting this behavior of "anything not in the list throws an exception"?

    Read the article

  • NHibernateUtil.Initialize and Table where clause (Soft Delete)

    - by Pascal
    We are using NHibernate but sometimes manually load proxies using the NHibernateUtil.Initialize call. We also employ soft delete and have a "where" condition on all our mapping to tables. SQL generated by NHibernate successfully adds the where condition (i.e. DELETED IS NULL) however we notice that NHibernateUtil.Initialize does not observe the constraints of the mapping files. i.e. None of the SQL generated by NHibernateUtil.Initialize observes our DELETED IS NULL condition. Is there something we're missing as we would really like to employ manual loading of some entity collections when the situation demands it. We are using FluentNhibernate for our mapping.

    Read the article

  • Inefficient 'ANY' LINQ clause

    - by Focus
    I have a query that pulls back a user's "feed" which is essentially all of their activity. If the user is logged in the query will be filtered so that the feed not only includes all of the specified user's data, but also any of their friends. The database structure includes an Actions table that holds the user that created the action and a UserFriends table which holds any pairing of friends using a FrienderId and FriendeeId column which map to UserIds. I have set up my LINQ query and it works fine to pull back the data I want, however, I noticed that the query gets turned into X number of CASE clauses in profiler where X is the number of total Actions in the database. This will obviously be horrible when the database has a user base larger than just me and 3 test users. Here's the SQL query I'm trying to achieve: select * from [Action] a where a.UserId = 'GUID' OR a.UserId in (SELECT FriendeeId from UserFriends uf where uf.FrienderId = 'GUID') OR a.UserId in (SELECT FrienderId from UserFriends uf where uf.FriendeeId = 'GUID') This is what I currently have as my LINQ query. feed = feed.Where(o => o.User.UserKey == user.UserKey || db.Users.Any(u => u.UserFriends.Any(ufr => ufr.Friender.UserKey == user.UserKey && ufr.isApproved) || db.Users.Any(u2 => u2.UserFriends.Any(ufr => ufr.Friendee.UserKey == user.UserKey && ufr.isApproved) ))); This query creates this: http://pastebin.com/UQhT90wh That shows up X times in the profile trace, once for each Action in the table. What am I doing wrong? Is there any way to clean this up?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript: If clause partially executed !!!

    - by arwa
    Hi everyone My problem is that when the condition is true it will close the window but not execute the php part ! here goes my code.. function onClose() { var r=confirm("Is the meeting Over!"); if (r==true) { window.close(); } else { } } </blink> this is the php part.. $sql="UPDATE previousmeetings SET Live='0' WHERE MeetingID='34'"; //$meeting_id $sql2="UPDATE previousmeetings SET Live='1' WHERE MeetingID='34'";

    Read the article

  • sql insert statement with a lot of same where clause and one different where cluase

    - by william
    I m sry if the title is not clear. Here's my proble. I created a new table which will show total, average and maximum values. I have to insert the results into that table. That table will have only 4 rows. No Appointment, Appointment Early, Appointment Late and Appointment Punctual. So.. I have sth like.. insert into newTable select 'No Appointment' as 'Col1', avg statement, total statement, max statement from orgTable where (general conditions) and (unique condition to check NO APPOINTMENT); I have to do that same thing for another 3 rows.. where only the unique condition is different to check early, punctual or late.. So..the statement is super long. I wanna reduce the size.. How can I achieve that?

    Read the article

  • MySQL : delete from table that is used in the where clause

    - by Eric
    I am writing a small script to synchronize 2 MySQL tables ( t1 to be 'mirrored' to t2 ) In a step I would like to delete rows inside t2 that has been delete in t1 with the same id. I tried this query : delete from t2 where t2.id in ( select t2.id left join t1 on (t1.id=t2.id) where t1.id is null ) But Mysql forbid me to use t2 in the same time in the delete and in the select (sound logical by the way) Of course, I can split the query into 2 queries : first select IDs, then delete rows with these IDs. My question : do you have a cleaner way to delete row from t2 that does not exist anymore in t1 ? with one query only ?

    Read the article

  • Get result from mysql orderd by IN clause

    - by SchlaWiener
    I have the following query SELECT * FROM invoice WHERE invoice_id IN (13, 15, 9, 27) My result is: invoice_id | invoice_number | ... ------------------------------------ 9 | 201006003 | 13 | 201006020 | 15 | 201006022 | 27 | 201006035 | which is the result set I want except that is ordered by the invoice_id (which is an autoincrement value). Now I want the result in the order I specified in my query (13, 15, ...). Is there a way to achive that? The background is that I have a DataTable bound to a DataGridView. The user can filter and sort the result but if he want's to print the result I don't use the DataTable for printing because it only contains the most important columns and instead I pull the whole records from the database and pass it to my printing control. I also tried to extend the existing DataTable with the missing results but that seems to slower than using the IN (...) query.

    Read the article

  • IS NULL vs = NULL in where clause + SQL Server

    - by Nev_Rahd
    Hello How to check a value IS NULL [or] = @param (where @param is null) Ex: Select column1 from Table1 where column2 IS NULL => works fine If I want to replace comparing value (IS NULL) with @param. How can this be done Select column1 from Table1 where column2 = @param => this works fine until @param got some value in it and if is null never finds a record. How can this achieve?

    Read the article

  • problem adding a where clause to a T-sql LEFT OUTER JOIN query

    - by Nickson
    SELECT TOP (100) PERCENT dbo.EmployeeInfo.id, MIN(dbo.EmployeeInfo.EmpNo) AS EmpNo, SUM(dbo.LeaveApplications.DaysAuthorised) AS DaysTaken FROM dbo.EmployeeInfo LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.LeaveApplications ON dbo.EmployeeInfo.id = dbo.LeaveApplications.EmployeeID WHERE (YEAR(dbo.LeaveApplications.ApplicationDate) = YEAR(GETDATE())) GROUP BY dbo.EmployeeInfo.id, dbo.EmployeeMaster.EmpNo ORDER BY DaysTaken DESC The basic functionality i want is to retrieve all records in table dbo.EmployeeInfo irrespective of whether a corresponding record exists in table dbo.LeaveApplications. If a row in EmployeeInfo has no related row in LeaveApplications, i want to return its SUM(dbo.LeaveApplications.DaysAuthorised) AS DaysTaken column as NULL or may be even put a 0. With the above query, if i remove the where condition, am able to achieve what i want, but problem is i also want to return related rows from LeaveApplication only if ApplicationDate is in the current year. Now with the where condition added, am only able to get rows from EmployeeInfo only if they have corresponding rows in LeaveApplications yet i just wanted rows all in EmployeeInfo

    Read the article

  • Complicated Order By Clause?

    - by Todd
    Hi. I need to do what to me is an advanced sort. I have this two tables: Table: Fruit fruitid | received | basketid 1 20100310 2 2 20091205 3 3 20100220 1 4 20091129 2 Table: Basket id | name 1 Big Discounts 2 Premium Fruit 3 Standard Produce I'm not even sure I can plainly state how I want to sort (which is probably a big part of the reason I can't seem to write code to do it, lol). I do a join query and need to sort so everything is organized by basketid. The basketid that has the oldest fruit.received date comes first, then the other rows with the same basketid by date asc, then the basketid with the next earliest fruit.received date followed by the other rows with the same basketid, and so on. So the output would look like this: Fruitid | Received | Basket 4 20091129 Premuim Fruit 1 20100310 Premuim Fruit 2 20091205 Standard Produce 3 20100220 Big Discounts Any ideas how to accomplish this in a single execution?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >