Search Results

Search found 24675 results on 987 pages for 'table'.

Page 163/987 | < Previous Page | 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170  | Next Page >

  • Big table or multiple separate tables? (database design question)

    - by Khou
    This is a database design question. I want to build an invoice web application, an invoice can have many items, and each user can have an inventory list of product items that they can store and choose to add to an invoice item. My questions are: 1. Should I store all product inventory for all users using my application under one single table? Or have a separate product inventory table created for each user? 2. Is this even possible? 1 table is easier, but what if this single table grows too big, will I have a problem? (primary key INT).

    Read the article

  • Should I create a unique clustered index, or non-unique clustered index on this SQL 2005 table?

    - by Bremer
    I have a table storing millions of rows. It looks something like this: Table_Docs ID, Bigint (Identity col) OutputFileID, int Sequence, int …(many other fields) We find ourselves in a situation where the developer who designed it made the OutputFileID the clustered index. It is not unique. There can be thousands of records with this ID. It has no benefit to any processes using this table, so we plan to remove it. The question, is what to change it to… I have two candidates, the ID identity column is a natural choice. However, we have a process which does a lot of update commands on this table, and it uses the Sequence to do so. The Sequence is non-unique. Most records only contain one, but about 20% can have two or more records with the same Sequence. The INSERT app is a VB6 piece of crud throwing thousands insert commands at the table. The Inserted values are never in any particular order. So the Sequence of one insert may be 12345, and the next could be 12245. I know that this could cause SQL to move a lot of data to keep the clustered index in order. However, the Sequence of the inserts are generally close to being in order. All inserts would take place at the end of the clustered table. Eg: I have 5 million records with Sequence spanning 1 to 5 million. The INSERT app will be inserting sequence’s at the end of that range at any given time. Reordering of the data should be minimal (tens of thousands of records at most). Now, the UPDATE app is our .NET star. It does all UPDATES on the Sequence column. “Update Table_Docs Set Feild1=This, Field2=That…WHERE Sequence =12345” – hundreds of thousands of these a day. The UPDATES are completely and totally, random, touching all points of the table. All other processes are simply doing SELECT’s on this (Web pages). Regular indexes cover those. So my question is, what’s better….a unique clustered index on the ID column, benefiting the INSERT app, or a non-unique clustered index on the Sequence, benefiting the UPDATE app?

    Read the article

  • DBD::CSV: Append-extension-question

    - by sid_com
    Why does only the second example append the extension to the filename and what is the "/r" in ".csv/r" for. #!/usr/bin/env perl use warnings; use strict; use 5.012; use DBI; my $dbh = DBI->connect( "DBI:CSV:f_dir=/home/mm", { RaiseError => 1, f_ext => ".csv/r"} ); my $table = 'new_1'; $dbh->do( "DROP TABLE IF EXISTS $table" ); $dbh->do( "CREATE TABLE $table ( id INT, name CHAR, city CHAR )" ); my $sth_new = $dbh->prepare( "INSERT INTO $table( id, name, city ) VALUES ( ?, ?, ?, )" ); $sth_new->execute( 1, 'Smith', 'Greenville' ); $dbh->disconnect(); # -------------------------------------------------------- $dbh = DBI->connect( "DBI:CSV:f_dir=/home/mm", { RaiseError => 1 } ); $dbh->{f_ext} = ".csv/r"; $table = 'new_2'; $dbh->do( "DROP TABLE IF EXISTS $table" ); $dbh->do( "CREATE TABLE $table ( id INT, name CHAR, city CHAR )" ); $sth_new = $dbh->prepare( "INSERT INTO $table( id, name, city ) VALUES ( ?, ?, ?, )" ); $sth_new->execute( 1, 'Smith', 'Greenville' ); $dbh->disconnect();

    Read the article

  • Is the time cost constant when bulk inserting data into an indexed table?

    - by SiLent SoNG
    I have created an archive table which will store data for selecting only. Daily there will be a program to transfer a batch of records into the archive table. There are several columns which are indexed; while others are not. I am concerned with time cost per batch insertion: - 1st batch insertion: N1 - 2nd batch insertion: N2 - 3rd batch insertion: N3 The question is: will N1, N2, and N3 roughly be the same, or N3 N2 N1? That is, will the time cost be a constant or incremental, with existence of several indexes? All indexes are non-clustered. The archive table structure is this: create table document ( doc_id int unsigned primary key, owner_id int, -- indexed title smalltext, country char(2), year year(4), time datetime, key ix_owner(owner_id) }

    Read the article

  • How to create following table using MDX Scripting in Sql Server 2005?

    - by Itsgkiran
    Hi! I have the following table , Database Table: BatchID BatchName Chemical Value ---------------------------------------------- BI-1 BN-1 CH-1 1 BI-2 BN-2 CH-2 2 ---------------------------------------------- I need to display the following table. BI-1 BI-2 BN-1 BN-2 ----------------------------------------- CH-1 1 null ------------------------------------------ CH-2 null 2 ------------------------------------------ Here BI-1,BN-1 are two rows in a single columns i need to display chemical value as row of that.Could Please help me to solve this problem. I tried it in Pivot table but i unable to get this. So is there any chance in Reporting Server MDX. Could you please Answer this question. This is high priority to me . Thank You in advance.

    Read the article

  • Fixing "Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction" for a 'stuck" Mysql table?

    - by Tom
    From a script I sent a query like this thousands of times to my local database: update some_table set some_column = some_value I forgot to add the where part, so the same column was set to the same a value for all the rows in the table and this was done thousands of times and the column was indexed, so the corresponding index was probably updated too lots of times. I noticed something was wrong, because it took too long, so I killed the script. I even rebooted my computer since them, but something stuck in the table, because simple queries take a very long time to run and when I try dropping the relevant index it fails with this message: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction It's an innodb table, so stuck the transaction is probably implicit. How can I fix this table and remove the stuck transaction from it?

    Read the article

  • How create table only using <div> tag and Css.

    - by Kumara
    I want to create table only using tag and CSS. This is my sample table. <div class="divTable"> <div class="headRow"> <div class="divCell" align="center">Customer ID</div> <div class="divCell">Customer Name</div> <div class="divCell">Customer Address</div> </div> <div class="divRow"> <div class="divCell">001</div> <div class="divCell">002</div> <div class="divCell">003</div> </div> <div class="divRow"> <div class="divCell">xxx</div> <div class="divCell">yyy</div> <div class="divCell">www</div> </div> <div class="divRow"> <div class="divCell">ttt</div> <div class="divCell">uuu</div> <div class="divCell">Mkkk</div> </div> </div> </form> And Style : .divTable { display: table; width:auto; background-color:#eee; border:1px solid #666666; border-spacing:5px;/*cellspacing:poor IE support for this*/ /* border-collapse:separate;*/ } .divRow { display:table-row; width:auto; } .divCell { float:left;/*fix for buggy browsers*/ display:table-column; width:200px; background-color:#ccc; } </style> But this table not work with IE7 and below version.Please give your solution and ideas for me. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Currently using View, Should I use a hard table instead?

    - by 1001010101
    I am currently debating whether my table, mapping_uGroups_uProducts, which is a view formed by the following table: CREATE ALGORITHM=UNDEFINED DEFINER=`root`@`localhost` SQL SECURITY DEFINER VIEW `db`.`mapping_uGroups_uProducts` AS select distinct `X`.`upID` AS `upID`,`Z`.`ugID` AS `ugID` from ((`db`.`mapping_uProducts_Products` `X` join `db`.`productsInfo` `Y` on((`X`.`pID` = `Y`.`pID`))) join `db`.`mapping_uGroups_Groups` `Z` on((`Y`.`gID` = `Z`.`gID`))); My current query is: SELECT upID FROM uProductsInfo \ JOIN fs_uProducts USING (upID) column \ JOIN mapping_uGroups_uProducts USING (upID) -- could be faster if we use hard table and index \ JOIN mapping_fs_key USING (fsKeyID) \ WHERE fsName="OVERALL" \ AND ugID=1 \ ORDER BY score DESC \ LIMIT 0,30; which is pretty slow. (for 30 results, it requires about 10 secondes). I think the reason for my query being so slow is definitely due to the fact that that particular query relies on a VIEW which has no index to speed things up. +----+-------------+----------------+--------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------------------------------+-------+---------------------------------+ | id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key | key_len | ref | rows | Extra | +----+-------------+----------------+--------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------------------------------+-------+---------------------------------+ | 1 | PRIMARY | mapping_fs_key | const | PRIMARY,fsName | fsName | 386 | const | 1 | Using temporary; Using filesort | | 1 | PRIMARY | <derived2> | ALL | NULL | NULL | NULL | NULL | 19706 | Using where | | 1 | PRIMARY | uProductsInfo | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | mapping_uGroups_uProducts.upID | 1 | Using index | | 1 | PRIMARY | fs_uProducts | ref | upID | upID | 4 | db.uProductsInfo.upID | 221 | Using where | | 2 | DERIVED | X | ALL | PRIMARY | NULL | NULL | NULL | 40772 | Using temporary | | 2 | DERIVED | Y | eq_ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | db.X.pID | 1 | Distinct | | 2 | DERIVED | Z | ref | PRIMARY | PRIMARY | 4 | db.Y.gID | 2 | Using index; Distinct | +----+-------------+----------------+--------+----------------+---------+---------+---------------------------------------+-------+---------------------------------+ 7 rows in set (0.48 sec) The explain here looks pretty cryptic, and I don't know whether I should drop view and write a script to just insert everything in the view to a hard table. ( obviously, it will lose the flexibility of the view since the mapping changes quite frequently). Does anyone have any idea to how I can optimize my schema better?

    Read the article

  • Are table headers only for the top row in html?

    - by Bill Zimmerman
    Hi, I always see the th tag only used in the first row of the table. Is there some specific reason why it can't be used to create 'left' headers along the leftmost column. Is this bad form, or is this ok. Basically, a table with headings on the top row and the leftmost column, with the very top left square being empty. e.g. <table> <tr> <th/> <!--empty--> <th>Top 1</th> <th>Top 2</th></tr> <tr> <th>LeftHeader?</th> <td>data1</td> <td>data2</td></tr> </table>

    Read the article

  • How can I determine when an InnoDB table was last changed?

    - by David M
    I've had success in the past storing the (heavily) processed results of a database query in memcached, using the last update time of the underlying tables(s) as part of the cache key. For MyISAM tables, that last changed time is available in SHOW TABLE STATUS. Unfortunately, that's usually NULL for InnoDB tables. In MySQL 4.1, the ctime for an InnoDB in its SHOW TABLE STATUS line was usually its actual last update time, but that doesn't seem to be true for MySQL 5.1. There is a DATETIME field in the table, but it only shows when a row has been modified - it cannot show the deletion time of a row that's not there anymore! So, I really cannot use MAX(update_time). Here's the really tricky part. I have a number of replicas that I do reads from. Can I figure out the state of the table that doesn't rely on when the changes have actually been applied? My conclusion after working on this for a while is that it's not going to be possible to get this information as cheaply as I'd like. I'm probably going to cache data until the time that I expect the table to change (it's updated once a day), and let the query cache help out where it can.

    Read the article

  • How can I change my JLabel to look like a table cell with Substance?

    - by DR
    I have a custom TableCellRenderer which returns a JLabel as the renderer component. Naturally the table cell now looks like a label and no longer like a table cell, which makes a difference especially when using Substance. Is it possible to modify the label so that the LaF renders it like an ordinary table cell? The best I could do was setting the background color of the label, but the borders and transition effets are missing.

    Read the article

  • IE: position two text lines on top and bottom corners in table cell?

    - by diggonce
    I have a table with dynamic data. And there is a specific line of text which should be displayed only when a user hovers over the table row. This line of text should be 'fixed' to the table cell's bottom edge. It works so far with Firefox, but fails in IE. Live code can be seen here: http://2010resolutions.org/test/index.html The text in red should be fixed to the table cell's bottom border. (They will have a fixed height and width) Any clues how to get this working in IE? Any help is appreciated. Here's the code: <style> table { width: 500px; background: gray; } td { vertical-align: top; } .wrapper { position: relative; background: green; } tr, td, .wrapper { height: 100%; padding-bottom: 0.75em; } .bottom { position: absolute; left: 0; bottom: 0; background: red; } .bottom { visibility: hidden; } tr:hover .bottom { visibility: visible; } </style> <table> <tr class="data"> <td> <div class="wrapper"> This is line 1<br /> This is line 2<br /> This is line 3<br /> <span class="bottom">Bottom line 1</span> </div> </td> <td> <div class="wrapper"> This is line 4<br /> This is line 5<br /> This is line 6<br /> <span class="bottom">Bottom line 2</span></span> </div> </td> <td> <div class="wrapper"> This is line 7<br /> This is line 8<br /> This is line 9<br /> This is line 10<br /> This is line 11<br /> This is line 12<br /> <span class="bottom">Bottom line 3</span> </div> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table>

    Read the article

  • JS. How to replace html element with another element/text, represented in string?

    - by EL 2002
    I have a problem with replacing html elements. For example, there is a table <table><tr><td id="idTABLE">0</td><td>END</td></tr></table> (it can be div, span, anything) And string in JS script var str='<td>1</td><td>2</td>'; (it can be anything, '123 text', '<span123 element</span 456' or ' <tr<td123</td ' or anything) How can I replace element 'idTABLE' with str? I mean really replace, so <table><tr><td id="__TABLE__">0</td><td>END</td></tr></table> becomes <table><tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>END</td></tr></table> //str='<td>1</td><td>2</td>'; <table><tr>123 text<td>END</td></tr></table> //'123 text' <table><tr> tr><td>123</td> <td>END</td></tr></table> //' <tr><td>123</td> ' I tried with createElement, replaceChild, cloneNode, but with no result at all =(

    Read the article

  • how to define div or table cell height depending on the height of other divs or cells

    - by John
    I want to have a web page that contains 3 parts: A header at the top of the page , a footer (both of which having specific height in px)and the main part of the page which should be a div or table cell with the appropriate height attribute in order to take all the available space between them. I want the page to take 100% of the browser window height, trying to avoid scrollbars. The problems I have are the following: USING DIVs a) If I set the maindiv height to 100%, the page overflows and I get a vertical scrolbar. (the maindiv's height is set to the 100% of the browser window) <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <title>Untitled Document</title> </head> <style type="text/css"> <!-- body, html{ height: 100%; max-height:100%; width: 100%; margin:0; padding:0; } div{padding:0;margin:0;} #containerdiv{height:100%;width:100%;background-color:#FF9;border:0;} #headerdiv{height:150px;width:100%;background-color:#0F0;border:0;} #footerdiv{height:50px;width:100%;background-color:#00F;border:0; } #maindiv{ background-color:#F00; height:100%; } div{border:#000 medium solid;border:0;} </style> <body> <div id="containerdiv"> <div id="headerdiv">headerdiv</div> <div id="maindiv">maindiv</div> <div id="footerdiv">footerdiv</div> </div> </body> </html> b) If I set the maindiv height to auto, the maindiv height is depending on it's content, which is not what I want. USING tables a) If I set the main cell height to 100% it works fine with Firefox but in Internet Explorer 8 I get a vertical scrollbar (you can use the next code block using th style="height:100%" instead of "auto" to see this.) b) If I set the main cell to auto it seems to be working both in IE and FF but then I have the problem that anything I put inside the maincell (table or div) cannot get maincell's full height in IE. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <title>Untitled Document</title> </head> <style type="text/css"> <!-- body, html, table{ height: 100%; width: 100%; margin:0; padding:0; } table{border:#000 0px solid} </style> <body> <table style="background:#063" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0"> <tr><th style="height:150px;background-color:#FF0"></th></tr> <tr> <th style="height:auto"><table style="background:#0FF;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0"><tr><th style="height:auto">nested cell</th></tr></table> </th> </tr> <tr><th style="height:50px;background-color:#FF0"></th></tr> </table> </body> </html> </html> Any ideas? Maybe there is an easier way to define the size of the main part of the page in px using javascript? (my javascript skills are pretty poor so any help with this is welcome!)

    Read the article

  • How do I bind HTML table data to a java object in a spring controller?

    - by predhme
    I have a spring MVC application using JSP as my view technologies with Jquery for AJAX. I have a table such as the following: <table> <tr> <td>name1</td> <td>value1</td> <td>setting1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>name2</td> <td>value2</td> <td>setting2</td> </tr> </table> I need to serialize this table so that it can later be bound to an object in my controller. However the jquery serialize() method only works on form fields. What would be the best approach to get the table data into the HTTP request so that I can later bind it to a java object?

    Read the article

  • How to use multiple identity numbers in one table?

    - by vincer
    I have an web application that creates printable forms, these forms have a unique number on them, the problem is I have 2 forms that separate numbers need to be created for them. ie) Form1- Numbered 2000000-2999999 Form2- Numbered 3000000-3999999 dbo.test2 - is my form information table Tsel - is my autoinc table for the 3000000 series numbers Tadv - is my autoinc table for the 2000000 series numbers What I have done is create 2 tables with just autoinc row (one for 2000000 series numbers and one for 3000000 series numbers), I then created a trigger to add a record to the coresponding table, read back the autoinc number and add it to my table that stores the form information including the just created autoinc number for the right series of forms. Although it does work, I'm concerned that the numbers will get messed up under load. I'm not sure the @@IDENTITY will always return the right value when many people are using the system. (I cannot have duplicates and I need to use the numbering form show above. See code below. ** TRIGGER ** CREATE TRIGGER MAKEANID2 ON dbo.test2 AFTER INSERT AS SET NOCOUNT ON declare @someid int declare @someid2 int declare @startfrom int declare @test1 varchar(10) select @someid=@@IDENTITY select @test1 = (Select name1 from test2 where sysid = @someid ) if @test1 = 'select' begin insert into Tsel Default values select @someid2 = @@IDENTITY end if @test1 = 'adv' begin insert into Tadv Default values select @someid2 = @@IDENTITY end update test2 set name2=(@someid2) where sysid = @someid SET NOCOUNT OFF

    Read the article

  • conceptually different entities with a few similar properties should be stored in one table or more?

    - by Haghpanah
    Assume A and B are conceptually different entities that have a few similar properties and of course their own specific properties. In database design, should I put those two entities in one big aggregated table or two respectively designed tables. For instance, I have two types of payment; Online-payment and Manual-payment with following definition, TABLE [OnlinePayments] ( [ID] [uniqueidentifier], [UserID] [uniqueidentifier], [TrackingCode] [nvarchar](32), [ReferingCode] [nvarchar](32), [BankingAccID] [uniqueidentifier], [Status] [int], [Amount] [money], [Comments] [nvarchar](768), [CreatedAt] [datetime], [ShopingCartID] [uniqueidentifier], ) And TABLE [ManualPayments] ( [ID] [uniqueidentifier], [UserID] [uniqueidentifier], [BankingAccID] [uniqueidentifier], [BankingOrgID] [uniqueidentifier], [BranchName] [nvarchar](64), [BranchCode] [nvarchar](16), [Amount] [money], [SlipNumber] [nvarchar](64), [SlipImage] [image], [PaidAt] [datetime], [Comments] [nvarchar](768), [CreatedAt] [datetime], [IsApproved] [bit], [ApprovedByID] [uniqueidentifier], ) One of my friends told me that creating two distinct tables for such similar entities is not a well design method and they should be put in one single table for the sake of performance and ease of data manipulations. I’m now wondering what to do? What is the best practice in such a case?

    Read the article

  • Is there a better way to get values out of a table row?

    - by chobo2
    Hi Say I have this <table border="1" id="tbl"> <tr> <td><input type="checkbox" name="vehicle" value="Bike" /></td> <td>row 1, cell 1</td> <td>row 1, cell 2</td> </tr> <tr> <td><input type="checkbox" name="vehicle" value="Bike" /></td> <td>row 2, cell 1</td> <td>row 2, cell 2</td> </tr> </table> Now I want to get the row that is checked, then the cell values of that checked row. So I would do this var cells = $('#tbl :checked').parents('tr').children('td'); So lets assume only one checkbox can be checked(so no jqueyr foreach loop). So now say I wanted to get the 2nd table cells value I would just go var secondCell = $(cells[1]).html(); The thing with this though it makes the code so brittle. Like what if I put another table cell after after the checkbox one? <table border="1" id="tbl"> <tr> <td><input type="checkbox" name="vehicle" value="Bike" /></td> <td> I am new </td> <td>row 1, cell 1</td> <td>row 1, cell 2</td> </tr> <tr> <td><input type="checkbox" name="vehicle" value="Bike" /></td> <td> I am new </td> <td>row 2, cell 1</td> <td>row 2, cell 2</td> </tr> </table> So now I have to go through my code and change this var secondCell = $(cells[1]).html(); to this var thirdCell = $(cells[2]).html(); since now I am actually after the 3rd cell and not the 2nd cell anymore. So is there a better way? Thanks

    Read the article

  • INSERT..ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE - but NOT using the duplicate key to compare.

    - by calumbrodie
    I am trying to solve a problem I have inherited with poor treatment of different data sources. I have a user table that contains BOTH good and evil users. create table `users`( `user_id` int(13) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , `email` varchar(255) , `name` varchar(255) , PRIMARY KEY (`user_id`) ); In this table the primary key is currently set to be user_id. I have another table ('users_evil') which contains ONLY the evil users (all the users from this table are included in the first table) - the user_id's on this table do NOT correspond to those in the first table. I want to have all my users in one table, and simply flag which are good and which are evil. What I want to do is alter the user table and add a column ('evil') which defaults to 0. I then want to dump the data from my 'users_evil') table and then run an INSERT..ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE with this data into the first table (setting 'evil'=1 where the emails match) The problem is that the 'PK' is set to the user_id and not the 'email'. Any suggestions, or even another strategy to successfully achive this. Can I run this statement but treat another column as PK only for the duration of the statement.

    Read the article

  • SQL left join with multiple rows into one row

    - by beardedd
    Basically, I have two tables, Table A contains the actual items that I care to get out, and Table B is used for language translations. So, for example, Table A contains the actual content. Anytime text is used within the table, instead of storing actual varchar values, ids are stored that relate back to text stored in Table B. This allows me to by adding a languageID column to Table B, have multiple translations for the same row in the database. Example: Table A Title (int) Description (int) Other Data.... Table B TextID (int) - This is the column whose value is stored in other tables LanguageID (int) Text (varchar) My question is more a call for suggestions on how to best handle this. Ideally I want a query that I can use to select from the table, and get the text as opposed to the ids of the text out of the table. Currently when I have two text items in the table this is what I do: SELECT C.ID, C.Title, D.Text AS Description FROM (SELECT A.ID, A.Description, B.Text AS Title FROM TableA A, TranslationsTable B WHERE A.Title = B.TextID AND B.LanguaugeID = 1) C LEFT JOIN TranslationsTable D ON C.Description = D.TextID AND D.LanguaugeID = 1 This query gives me the row from Table A I am looking for (using where statements in the inner select statement) with the actual text based on the language ID used instead of the text ids. This works fine when I am only using one or two text items that need to be translated, but adding a third item or more, it starts to get really messy - essentially another left join on top of the example. Any suggestions on a better query, or at least a good way to handle 3 or more text items in a single row?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170  | Next Page >