Search Results

Search found 11543 results on 462 pages for 'partition wise join'.

Page 15/462 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • MySQL LEFT JOIN, INNER JOIN etc, complicated query, PHP + MySQL for a forum

    - by Sven Eriksson
    So I've got a little forum I'm trying to get data for, there are 4 tables, forum, forum_posts, forum_threads and users. What i'm trying to do is to get the latest post for each forum and giving the user a sneak peek of that post, i want to get the number of posts and number of threads in each forum aswell. Also, i want to do this in one query. So here's what i came up with: SELECT lfx_forum_posts.*, lfx_forum.*, COUNT(lfx_forum_posts.pid) as posts_count, lfx_users.username, lfx_users.uid, lfx_forum_threads.tid, lfx_forum_threads.parent_forum as t_parent, lfx_forum_threads.text as t_text, COUNT(lfx_forum_threads.tid) as thread_count FROM lfx_forum LEFT JOIN (lfx_forum_threads INNER JOIN (lfx_forum_posts INNER JOIN lfx_users ON lfx_users.uid = lfx_forum_posts.author) ON lfx_forum_threads.tid = lfx_forum_posts.parent_thread AND lfx_forum_posts.pid = (SELECT MAX(lfx_forum_posts.pid) FROM lfx_forum_posts WHERE lfx_forum_posts.parent_forum = lfx_forum.fid GROUP BY lfx_forum_posts.parent_forum) ) ON lfx_forum.fid = lfx_forum_posts.parent_forum GROUP BY lfx_forum.fid ORDER BY lfx_forum.fid ASC This get the latest post in each forum and gives me a sneakpeek of it, the problem is that lfx_forum_posts.pid = (SELECT MAX(lfx_forum_posts.pid) FROM lfx_forum_posts WHERE lfx_forum_posts.parent_forum = lfx_forum.fid GROUP BY lfx_forum_posts.parent_forum) Makes my COUNT(lfx_forum_posts.pid) go to one (aswell as the COUNT(lfx_forum_threads.tid) which isn't how i would like it to work. My question is: is there some somewhat easy way to make it show the correct number and at the same time fetch the correct post info (the latest one that is)? If something is unclear please tell and i'll try to explain my issue further, it's my first time posting something here.

    Read the article

  • Display a ranking grid for game : optimization of left outer join and find a player

    - by Jerome C.
    Hello, I want to do a ranking grid. I have a table with different values indexed by a key: Table SimpleValue : key varchar, value int, playerId int I have a player which have several SimpleValue. Table Player: id int, nickname varchar Now imagine these records: SimpleValue: Key value playerId for 1 1 int 2 1 agi 2 1 lvl 5 1 for 6 2 int 3 2 agi 1 2 lvl 4 2 Player: id nickname 1 Bob 2 John I want to display a rank of these players on various SimpleValue. Something like: nickname for lvl Bob 1 5 John 6 4 For the moment I generate an sql query based on which SimpleValue key you want to display and on which SimpleValue key you want to order players. eg: I want to display 'lvl' and 'for' of each player and order them on the 'lvl' The generated query is: SELECT p.nickname as nickname, v1.value as lvl, v2.value as for FROM Player p LEFT OUTER JOIN SimpleValue v1 ON p.id=v1.playerId and v1.key = 'lvl' LEFT OUTER JOIN SimpleValue v2 ON p.id=v2.playerId and v2.key = 'for' ORDER BY v1.value This query runs perfectly. BUT if I want to display 10 different values, it generates 10 'left outer join'. Is there a way to simplify this query ? I've got a second question: Is there a way to display a portion of this ranking. Imagine I've 1000 players and I want to display TOP 10, I use the LIMIT keyword. Now I want to display the rank of the player Bob which is 326/1000 and I want to display 5 rank player above and below (so from 321 to 331 position). How can I achieve it ? thanks.

    Read the article

  • MYSQL JOIN WHERE ISSUES - need some kind of if condition

    - by Breezer
    Hi Well this will be hard to explain but ill do my best The thing is i have 4 tables all with a specific column to relate to eachother. 1 table with users(agent_users) , 1 with working hours(agent_pers), 1 with sold items(agent_stat),1 with project(agent_pro) the user and the project table is irrelevant in the issue at hand but to give you a better understanding why certain tables is included in my query i decided to still mention them =) The thing is that I use 2 pages to insert data to the working hour and the sold items during that time tables, then i have a third page to summarize everything for current month, the query for that is as following: SELECT *, SUM(sv_p_kom),SUM(sv_p_gick),SUM(sv_p_lunch) FROM (( agent_users LEFT JOIN agent_pers ON agent_users.sv_aid = agent_pers.sv_p_uid) LEFT JOIN agent_stat ON agent_pers.sv_p_uid = agent_stat.sv_s_uid) LEFT JOIN agent_pro ON agent_pers.sv_p_pid=agent_pro.p_id WHERE MONTH(agent_pers.sv_p_datum) =7 GROUP BY sv_aname so the problem is now that i dont want sold items from previous months to get included in the data received, i know i could solve that by simple adding in the WHERE part MONTH(agent_stat.sv_s_datum) =7 but then if no items been sold that month no data at all will show up not the time or anything. Any aid on how i could solve this is greatly appreciated. if there's something that's not so clear dont hesitate to ask and ill try my best to answer. after all my english isn't the best out there :P regards breezer

    Read the article

  • How to resize / enlarge / grow a non-LVM ext4 partition

    - by Mischa
    I have already searched the forums, but couldnt find a good suitable answer: I have an Ubuntu Server 10.04 as KVM Host and a guest system, that also runs 10.04. The host system uses LVM and there are three logical volumes, which are provided to the guest as virtual block devices - one for /, one for /home and one for swap. The guest had been partitioned without LVM. I have already enlarged the logical volume in the host system - the guest successfully sees the bigger virtual disk. However, this virtual disk contains one "good old" partition, which still has the old small size. The output of fdisk -l is me@produktion:/$ LC_ALL=en_US sudo fdisk -l Disk /dev/vda: 32.2 GB, 32212254720 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3916 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000c8ce7 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/vda1 * 1 3917 31455232 83 Linux Disk /dev/vdb: 2147 MB, 2147483648 bytes 244 heads, 47 sectors/track, 365 cylinders Units = cylinders of 11468 * 512 = 5871616 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x000f2bf7 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/vdb1 1 366 2095104 82 Linux swap / Solaris Partition 1 has different physical/logical beginnings (non-Linux?): phys=(0, 32, 33) logical=(0, 43, 28) Partition 1 has different physical/logical endings: phys=(260, 243, 47) logical=(365, 136, 44) Disk /dev/vdc: 225.5 GB, 225485783040 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 27413 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00027f25 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/vdc1 1 9138 73398272 83 Linux The output of parted print all is Model: Virtio Block Device (virtblk) Disk /dev/vda: 32.2GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 1049kB 32.2GB 32.2GB primary ext4 boot Model: Virtio Block Device (virtblk) Disk /dev/vdb: 2147MB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 1049kB 2146MB 2145MB primary linux-swap(v1) Model: Virtio Block Device (virtblk) Disk /dev/vdc: 225GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 1049kB 75.2GB 75.2GB primary ext4 What I want to achieve is to simply grow or resize the partition /dev/vdc1 so that it uses the whole space provided by the virtual block device /dev/vdc. The problem is, that when I try to do that with parted, it complains: (parted) select /dev/vdc Using /dev/vdc (parted) print Model: Virtio Block Device (virtblk) Disk /dev/vdc: 225GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: msdos Number Start End Size Type File system Flags 1 1049kB 75.2GB 75.2GB primary ext4 (parted) resize 1 WARNING: you are attempting to use parted to operate on (resize) a file system. parted's file system manipulation code is not as robust as what you'll find in dedicated, file-system-specific packages like e2fsprogs. We recommend you use parted only to manipulate partition tables, whenever possible. Support for performing most operations on most types of file systems will be removed in an upcoming release. Start? [1049kB]? End? [75.2GB]? 224GB Error: File system has an incompatible feature enabled. Compatible features are has_journal, dir_index, filetype, sparse_super and large_file. Use tune2fs or debugfs to remove features. So what can I do? This is a headless production system. What is a safe way to grow this partition? I CAN unmount it, though - so this is not the problem.

    Read the article

  • Partition problem tyring to install window 7 starter

    - by ant2009
    Hello HP Mini 210 I am trying to install windows starter 7. Currently I have installed fedora 14 xfce. And I have allocated 24 GB NTFS for hard disk for the windows partition. My current partitions are as follows: /dev/sda2 97G 4.9G 91G 6% / tmpfs 494M 92K 494M 1% /dev/shm /dev/sda1 485M 68M 392M 15% /boot /dev/sda5 169G 26G 135G 16% /home I have created a boot USD to install windows starter 7. When the computer boots into the windows setup and I selected the partition I want to install windows on. I get the following message: "Setup was unable to create a new system partition or locate an existing system partition." This is setup displaying all my partitions: Disk 0 Partition 1 500MB 0 Primary Disk 0 Partition 2 97.7GB 0 Primary Disk 0 Partition 3 4GB 0 Primary Disk 0 Partition 4 171.3GB 0 Logical Disk 0 Partition 5 24.6GB 24.5 Logical <-- Trying install on this partition NTFS I have also tried to delete the partition in setup and create a new one. And also tried to format the partition. However, I still get the same error message. Many thanks for any advice,

    Read the article

  • Keeping multiple root directories in a single partition

    - by intuited
    I'm working out a partition scheme for a new install. I'd like to keep the root filesystem fairly small and static, so that I can use LVM snapshots to do backups without having to allocate a ton of space for the snapshot. However, I'd also like to keep the number of total partitions small. Even with LVM, there's inevitably some wasted space and it's still annoying and vaguely dangerous to allocate more. So there seem to be a couple of different options: Have the partition that will contain bulky, variable files, like /srv, /var, and /home, be the root partition, and arrange for the core system state — /etc, /usr, /lib, etc. — to live in a second partition. These files can (I think) be backed up using a different backup scheme, and I don't think LVM snapshots will be necessary for them. The opposite: putting the big variable directories on the second partition, and having the essential system directories live on the root FS. Either of these options require that certain directories be pointers of some variety to subdirectories of a second partition. I'm aware of two different ways to do this: symlinks and bind-mounts. Is one better than the other for this purpose? Is there another option? Do any of the various Ubuntu installation media/strategies support this style of partition layout?

    Read the article

  • Why can't I mount this partition?

    - by Mahmoud20070
    I have two hard disks (80 Giga ide and 500 Giga sata) and i installed Ubuntu 11.10 in hard disk 80 giga and give for him 20 gigabyte after that he saw all partition in two hard drivers until one I see it's health in gparted magic and he can see it but can't check it and this photo the problem is on partition sdb5 and I use this command to mount it from terminal and took me this although that this partition working very well in windows and Ubuntu could mount it before please give me any solution unless format or anything well delete my data because it's very important Before when I checked /dev/sdb5, it had errors - now all program didn't appear any errors unless fdisk -l All of my hard disks can be mounted except Partition D or /dev/sdb5. What can I do? I have tried to mount the partition with many different programs like Gparted, KDE Partition Manager, ntfs-3g from the terminal, and the mount command. All of them said something to the effect of: fuse: mount failed: Device or resource busy ...or... one or more block devices are holding /dev/sdb5 I installed Ubuntu 11.10 again today to see if anything had changed. The partition works fine under Windows.

    Read the article

  • shrink ext4 partition

    - by user276851
    My question is similar to Move ext4 partition, but the challenge I couldn't figure out is how to shrink a partition from the start. So suppose originally the partition (with raid) is like this. (************** /dev/md127 ***************) After resizing, I want to achieve like this. (*** unallocated ***)(**** /dev/md127 ****) Note, I cannot use gparted, and parted does not support ext4. The commands I have tried so far, % resize2fs -p /dev/md127 1676G # <== This is good. % lvreduce -L 1676G /dev/md127 Path required for Logical Volume "md127" Please provide a volume group name Run `lvreduce --help' for more information. Failed here, I guess it may be because the underlying partition is primary and the lvreduce only works on logical? Anyway, no idea. Then after that, I am thinking to create another partition right after this one, copy the data to that partition, and remove this one, like. 1. (************** /dev/md127 ***************) 2. (**** /dev/md127 ****)(*** new partition **) 3. (*** unallocated ****)(**** /dev/md127 ****) Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • What is so bad about using SQL INNER JOIN

    - by Stephen B. Burris Jr.
    Everytime a database diagram gets looked out, one area people are critical of is inner joins. They look at them hard and has questions to see if an inner join really needs to be there. Simple Library Example: A many-to-many relationship is normally defined in SQL with three tables: Book, Category, BookCategory. In this situation, Category is a table that contains two columns: ID, CategoryName. In this situation, I have gotten questions about the Category table, is it need? Can it be used as a lookup table, and in the BookCategory table store the CategoryName instead of the CategoryID to stop from having to do an additional INNER JOIN. (For this question, we are going to ignore the changing, deleting of any CategoryNames) The question is, what is so bad about inner joins? At what point is doing them a negative thing (general guidelines like # of transactions, # of records, # of joins in a statement, etc)?

    Read the article

  • Join query in doctrine symfony

    - by THOmas
    I have two tables userdetails and blog question The schema is UserDetails: connection: doctrine tableName: user_details columns: id: type: integer(8) fixed: false name: type: string(255) fixed: false BlogQuestion: connection: doctrine tableName: blog_question columns: question_id: type: integer(8) fixed: false unsigned: false primary: true autoincrement: true blog_id: type: integer(8) fixed: false user_id: type: integer(8) fixed: false question_title: type: string(255) I am using one join query for retrieving all the questions and user details from this two tables My join query is $q = Doctrine_Query::create() ->select('*') ->from('BlogQuestion u') ->leftJoin('u.UserDetails p'); $q->execute(); But it is showing this error Unknown relation alias UserDetails Pls anybody help me Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • LINQ to SQL join when there aren't results

    - by Boarder2
    Given the following database structure I'm trying to write a LINQ query that will return images grouped by tags it's associated with. So far I've got this: var images = from img in db.Images join imgTags in db.ImageTags on img.idImage equals imgTags.idImage join t in db.Tags on imgTags.idTag equals t.idTag where img.OCRData.Contains(searchText.Text) group img by new { t.TagName } into aGroup select new { GroupName = aGroup.Key.TagName, Items = from x in aGroup select new ImageFragment() { ImageID = x.idImage, ScanDate = x.ScanTime } }; Which works great. However, I also want to return Images that do not have any tags associated with them in a group of "(Untagged)" or something. I can't wrap my head around how I would do this without inserting a default tag for every image and that seems like generally not a very good solution.

    Read the article

  • [Newbie] How to join mysql tables

    - by Ivan
    I've an old table like this: user> id | name | address | comments And now I've to create an "alias" table to allow some users to have an alias name for some reasons. I've created a new table 'user_alias' like this: user_alias> name | user But now I have a problem due my poor SQL level... How to join both tables to generate something like this: 1 | my_name | my_address | my_comments 1 | my_alias | my_address | my_comments 2 | other_name | other_address | other_comments I mean, I want to make a "SELECT..." query that returns in the same format as the "user" table ALL users and ALL alias.. Something like this: SELECT user.* FROM user LEFT JOIN user_alias ON `user`=`id` but it doesn't work for me..

    Read the article

  • Full outer join in django

    - by Ber
    How can I create a query for a full outer join across a M2M relationchip using the django QuerySet API? It that is not supported, some hint about creating my own manager to do this would be welcome. Edited to add: @S.Lott: Thanks for the enlightenment. The need for the OUTER JOIN comes from the application. It has to generate a report showing the data entered, even if it still incomplete. I was not aware of the fact that the result would be a new class/model. Your hints will help me quite a bit.

    Read the article

  • How to join mysql tables

    - by Ivan
    I've an old table like this: user> id | name | address | comments And now I've to create an "alias" table to allow some users to have an alias name for some reasons. I've created a new table 'user_alias' like this: user_alias> name | user But now I have a problem due my poor SQL level... How to join both tables to generate something like this: 1 | my_name | my_address | my_comments 1 | my_alias | my_address | my_comments 2 | other_name | other_address | other_comments I mean, I want to make a "SELECT..." query that returns in the same format as the "user" table ALL users and ALL alias.. Something like this: SELECT user.* FROM user LEFT JOIN user_alias ON `user`=`id` but it doesn't work for me..

    Read the article

  • SQL Join a View with a Table

    - by gamerzfuse
    CREATE VIEW qtyorderedview AS SELECT titleditors.title_id, titleditors.ed_id, salesdetails.title_id, salesdetails.qty_shipped FROM titleditors, salesdetails WHERE titleditors.title_id = salesdetails.title_id I am using the above SQL statement to create a view. I need to show Editors First Name, Last Name, City where they shipped more than 50 books. The three tables I have are: create table editors ( ed_id char(11), ed_lname varchar(20), ed_fname varchar(20), ed_pos varchar(12), phone varchar(10), address varchar(30), city varchar(20), state char(2), zip char(5), ed_boss char(11)); create table titleditors ( ed_id char(11), title_id char(6), ed_ord integer); create table salesdetails ( sonum integer, qty_ordered integer, qty_shipped integer, title_id char(6), date_shipped date); Can anyone tell me what the second Join code would be to create this result? My first view works fine, but I don't know how to join it to the second table to achieve this result? I didn't make the tables, I just have to work with what I was given. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • SQL joins "going up" two tables

    - by blcArmadillo
    I'm trying to create a moderately complex query with joins: SELECT `history`.`id`, `parts`.`type_id`, `serialized_parts`.`serial`, `history_actions`.`action`, `history`.`date_added` FROM `history_actions`, `history` LEFT OUTER JOIN `parts` ON `parts`.`id` = `history`.`part_id` LEFT OUTER JOIN `serialized_parts` ON `serialized_parts`.`parts_id` = `history`.`part_id` WHERE `history_actions`.`id` = `history`.`action_id` AND `history`.`unit_id` = '1' ORDER BY `history`.`id` DESC I'd like to replace `parts`.`type_id` in the SELECT statement with `part_list`.`name` where the relationship I need to enforce between the two tables is `part_list`.`id` = `parts`.`type_id`. Also I have to use joins because in some cases `history`.`part_id` may be NULL which obviously isn't a valid part id. How would I modify the query to do this?

    Read the article

  • SQL: many-to-many relationship, IN condition

    - by Maarten
    I have a table called transactions with a many-to-many relationship to items through the items_transactions table. I want to do something like this: SELECT "transactions".* FROM "transactions" INNER JOIN "items_transactions" ON "items_transactions".transaction_id = "transactions".id INNER JOIN "items" ON "items".id = "items_transactions".item_id WHERE (items.id IN (<list of items>)) But this gives me all transactions that have one or more of the items in the list associated with it and I only want it to give me the transactions that are associated with all of those items. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • django left join with null

    - by SledgehammerPL
    The model: class Product(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length = 128) def __unicode__(self): return self.name class Receipt(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=128) components = models.ManyToManyField(Product, through='ReceiptComponent') class Admin: pass def __unicode__(self): return self.name class ReceiptComponent(models.Model): product = models.ForeignKey(Product) receipt = models.ForeignKey(Receipt) quantity = models.FloatField(max_length=9) unit = models.ForeignKey(Unit) def __unicode__(self): return unicode(self.quantity!=0 and self.quantity or '') + ' ' + unicode(self.unit) + ' ' + self.product.genitive The idea: there are a components on stock. I'd like to find out which recipes I can made with components which I have. It's not easy - but possible - I made a SQL view, which gets the solution. But I'm learning python and Django so I'd like to make it Django-style ;D The concept of solution: get the set of recipes which has at last one component: list_of_available_components = ReceiptComponent.objects.filter(product__in=list_of_available_products).distinct() list_of_related_receipts = Receipt.objects.filter(receiptcomponent__in = list_of_available_components).distinct() get recipes (from list_of_related_receipts) which has not at last one component list_of_incomplete_recipes = (SELECT * FROM drinkbook_receiptcomponent LEFT JOIN drinkstore_stock_products USING(product_id) WHERE drinkstore_stock_products.stock_id IS NULL AND receipt_id IN (SELECT receipt_id FROM drinkbook_receiptcomponent JOIN drinkstore_stock_products USING(product_id))) get recipes (from list_of_related_receipts) which are not in "list_of_incomplete_recipes"

    Read the article

  • mySQL Query JOIN in same table

    - by jeerose
    Table structure goes something like this: Table: Purchasers Columns: id | organization | city | state Table: Events Columns: id | purchaser_id My query: SELECT purchasers.*, events.id AS event_id FROM purchasers INNER JOIN events ON events.purchaser_id = purchasers.id WHERE purchasers.id = '$id' What I would like to do, is obviously to select entries by their id from the purchasers table and join from events. That's the easy part. I can also easily to another query to get other purchasers with the same organization, city and state (there are multiples) but I'd like to do it all in the same query. Is there a way I can do this? In short, grab purchasers by their ID but then also select other purchasers that have the same organization, city and state. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Join a single row in one table to n random rows in another

    - by Einar Egilsson
    Is it possible to make a join in SQL server that joins each row from table A to n random rows in another? For example, say I have a Customer table, a Product table and an Order table. I want to join each customer to 5 random products and insert these rows into the order table. (And each customer should be joined to 5 random rows of his own, I don't want all customers joining to the same 5 rows). Is this possible? I'm using SQL Server 2005 and it's fine if the solution is specific to that. This is a weird requirement but I'm basically making a small data generator to generate some random data.

    Read the article

  • How can I join on a CSV varchar?

    - by mgroves
    I have a varchar field that contains a string like "10,11,12,13". How can I use that CSV string to join to another table with those IDs? Here's the approach I'm taking now: select * from SomeTable a WHERE (',' + @csvString + ',') LIKE '%,' + CONVERT(varchar(25), a.ID) + ',%' Where @csvString is "10,11,12,...". I intend to use this method as a join condition as well. That method works, but it's rather slow (using CAST doesn't improve the speed). I understand that having CSVs in the database like that is usually a very silly idea in most cases, but there's nothing I can do about that.

    Read the article

  • SELECT subset from two tables and LEFT JOIN results

    - by Doctor Trout
    Hi all, I'm trying to write a bit of SQL for SQLITE that will take a subset from two tables (TableA and TableB) and then perform a LEFT JOIN. This is what I've tried, but this produces the wrong result: Select * from TableA Left Join TableB using(key) where TableA.key2 = "xxxx" AND TableB.key3 = "yyyy" This ignore cases where key2="xxxx" but key3 != "yyyy". I want all the rows from TableA that match my criteria whether or not their corresponding value in TableB matches, but only those rows from TableB that match both conditions. I did manage to solve this by using a VIEW, but I'm sure there must be a better way of doing this. It's just beginning to drive me insane tryng to solve it now. (Thanks for any help, hope I've explained this well enough).

    Read the article

  • Need some help with a join on ContentProviders

    - by Pentium10
    The documentation says Columns from the associated aggregated contact are also available through an implicit join. What's that implicit join? `Join with Contacts` String LOOKUP_KEY read-only See ContactsContract.Contacts String DISPLAY_NAME read-only See ContactsContract.Contacts long PHOTO_ID read-only See ContactsContract.Contacts. int IN_VISIBLE_GROUP read-only See ContactsContract.Contacts. int HAS_PHONE_NUMBER read-only See ContactsContract.Contacts. I am querying ContactsContract.Data, and I need to access as where clauses on the query IN_VISIBLE_GROUP and HAS_PHONE_NUMBER, that are defined in ContactsContract.Contacts. How can I make this possible?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >