Search Results

Search found 62705 results on 2509 pages for 'sql calc found rows'.

Page 184/2509 | < Previous Page | 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191  | Next Page >

  • Query not returning rows in a table that don't have corresponding values in another [associative] ta

    - by Obay
    I have Table: ARTICLES ID | CONTENT --------------- 1 | the quick 2 | brown fox 3 | jumps over 4 | the lazy Table: WRITERS ID | NAME ---------- 1 | paul 2 | mike 3 | andy Table: ARTICLES_TO_WRITERS ARTICLE_ID | WRITER_ID ----------------------- 1 | 1 2 | 2 3 | 3 To summarize, article 4 has no writer. So when I do a "search" for articles with the word "the": SELECT a.id, a.content, w.name FROM articles a, writers w, articles_to_writers atw WHERE a.id=atw.article_id AND w.id=atw.writer_id AND content LIKE '%the%' article 4 does not show up in the result: ID | CONTENT | NAME ----------------------- 1 | the quick | paul How do I make article 4 still appear in the results even though it has no writers?

    Read the article

  • Are these tables too big for SQL Server or Oracle

    - by Jeffrey Cameron
    Hey all, I'm not much of a database guru so I would like some advice. Background We have 4 tables that are currently stored in Sybase IQ. We don't currently have any choice over this, we're basically stuck with what someone else decided for us. Sybase IQ is a column-oriented database that is perfect for a data warehouse. Unfortunately, my project needs to do a lot of transactional updating (we're more of an operational database) so I'm looking for more mainstream alternatives. Question Given these tables' dimensions, would anyone consider SQL Server or Oracle to be a viable alternative? Table 1 : 172 columns * 32 million rows Table 2 : 453 columns * 7 million rows Table 3 : 112 columns * 13 million rows Table 4 : 147 columns * 2.5 million rows Given the size of data what are the things I should be concerned about in terms of database choice, server configuration, memory, platform, etc.?

    Read the article

  • "SELECT TOP", "LEFT OUTER JOIN", "ORDER BY" gives extra rows

    - by Codesleuth
    I have the following Access query I'm running through OLE DB in .NET: SELECT TOP 25 tblClient.ClientCode, tblRegion.Region FROM (tblClient LEFT OUTER JOIN tblRegion ON tblClient.RegionCode = tblRegion.RegionCode) ORDER BY tblRegion.Region There are 431 records within tblClient that have RegionCode set to NULL. For some reason, the query above returns all these 431 records instead of the first 25. If I change the query to ORDER BY tblClient.Client (the name of the client) like so: SELECT TOP 25 tblClient.ClientCode, tblRegion.Region FROM (tblClient LEFT OUTER JOIN tblRegion ON tblClient.RegionCode = tblRegion.RegionCode) ORDER BY tblClient.Client I get the expected result set of 25 records, showing a mixture of region names and NULL values. Why is it that ordering by a field retrieved through a LEFT OUTER JOIN will the TOP clause not work?

    Read the article

  • do while is breaking. How to skip rows PHP

    - by Victor
    Hello all. I have a question probably lame but it made me stuck I have the a db query $query_Recordset10 = "SELECT * FROM products WHERE razdel='mix' AND ID='$ID+1' AND litraj='$litri' ORDER BY ID ASC"; $Recordset10 = mysql_query($query_Recordset10, $victor) or die(mysql_error()); $row_Recordset10 = mysql_fetch_array($Recordset10); $totalRows_Recordset10 = mysql_num_rows($Recordset10); I have do while loop in my page and the idea i to show products matching this criteria. But if the next product is 2 or more ID's ahead my cycle breaks. So is there a way for skipping this row and get the next ID matching the criteria. Thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • SQL Azure Roadmap gets a little clearer &ndash; announcements from Tech Ed

    - by Eric Nelson
    On Monday at Tech?Ed 2010 we announced new stuff (I like new stuff) that “showcases our continued commitment to deliver value, flexibility and control of data through data cloud services to our customers”. Ok, that does sound like marketing speak (and it is) but the good news is there is some meat behind it. We have some decent new features coming and we also have some clarity on when we will be able to get our hands on those features. SQL Azure Business Edition Extends to 50 GB – June 28th SQL Azure Business Edition database is now extending from 10GB to 50GB The new 50GB database size will be available worldwide starting June 28th SQL Azure Business Edition Subscription Offer – August 1st Starting August 1st, we will have a new discounted SQL Azure promotional offer (SQL Azure Development Accelerator Core) More information is available at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsazure/offers/. Public Preview of the Data Sync Service  - CTP now Data Sync Service for SQL Azure allows for more flexible control over data by deciding which data components should be distributed across multiple datacenters in different geographic locations, based on your internal policies and business needs.  Available as a community technology preview after registering at http://www.sqlazurelabs.com SQL Server Web Manager for SQL Azure - CTP this Summer SQL Server Web Manager (SSWM) is a lightweight and easy to use database management tool for SQL Azure databases, to be offered this summer. Access 10 Support for SQL Azure – available now Yey – at last! Microsoft Office 2010 will natively support data connectivity to SQL Azure – we can now start developing those “departmental apps” with the confidence of a highly available SQL store provisioned in seconds. NB: I don’t believe we will support any previous versions of Access talking to SQL Azure. The Pre-announced Spatial Data Support to Become Live – Live now* At MIX in March we announced spatial was coming and apparently it is now here - although I need to check. Related Links UK based? Sign up at http://ukazure.ning.com SQL Azure Team Blog http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlazure/

    Read the article

  • How to write to a varchar(max) column using ODBC

    - by andyjohnson
    Summary: I'm trying to write a text string to a column of type varchar(max) using ODBC and SQL Server 2005. It fails if the length of the string is greater than 8000. Help! I have some C++ code that uses ODBC (SQL Native Client) to write a text string to a table. If I change the column from, say, varchar(100) to varchar(max) and try to write a string with length greater than 8000, the write fails with the following error [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]String data, right truncation So, can anyone advise me on if this can be done, and how? Some example (not production) code that shows what I'm trying to do: SQLHENV hEnv = NULL; SQLRETURN iError = SQLAllocEnv(&hEnv); HDBC hDbc = NULL; SQLAllocConnect(hEnv, &hDbc); const char* pszConnStr = "Driver={SQL Server};Server=127.0.0.1;Database=MyTestDB"; UCHAR szConnectOut[SQL_MAX_MESSAGE_LENGTH]; SWORD iConnectOutLen = 0; iError = SQLDriverConnect(hDbc, NULL, (unsigned char*)pszConnStr, SQL_NTS, szConnectOut, (SQL_MAX_MESSAGE_LENGTH-1), &iConnectOutLen, SQL_DRIVER_COMPLETE); HSTMT hStmt = NULL; iError = SQLAllocStmt(hDbc, &hStmt); const char* pszSQL = "INSERT INTO MyTestTable (LongStr) VALUES (?)"; iError = SQLPrepare(hStmt, (SQLCHAR*)pszSQL, SQL_NTS); char* pszBigString = AllocBigString(8001); iError = SQLSetParam(hStmt, 1, SQL_C_CHAR, SQL_VARCHAR, 0, 0, (SQLPOINTER)pszBigString, NULL); iError = SQLExecute(hStmt); // Returns SQL_ERROR if pszBigString len > 8000 The table MyTestTable contains a single colum defined as varchar(max). The function AllocBigString (not shown) creates a string of arbitrary length. I understand that previous versions of SQL Server had an 8000 character limit to varchars, but not why is this happening in SQL 2005? Thanks, Andy

    Read the article

  • SQL 2005 Express Edition - Install new instance

    - by Douglas Anderson
    Looking for a way to programatically, or otherwise, add a new instance of SQL 2005 Express Edition to a system that already has an instance installed. Traditionally, you run Micrsoft's installer like I am in the command line below and it does the trick. Executing the command in my installer is not the issue, it's more a matter of dragging around the 40 MBs of MS-SQL installer that I don't need if they have SQL Express already installed. This is what my installer currently executes: SQLEXPR32.EXE /qb ADDLOCAL=ALL INSTANCENAME=<instancename> SECURITYMODE=SQL SAPWD=<password> SQLAUTOSTART=1 DISABLENETWORKPROTOCOLS=0 I don't need assistance with launching this command, rather the appropriate way to add a new instance of SQL 2005 Express without actually running the full installer again. I'd go into great detail about why I want to do this but I'd simply bore everyone. Suffice to say, having this ability to create a new instance without the time it takes to reinstall SQL Express etc. would greatly assist me for the deployment of my application and it's installer. If makes any difference to anyone, I'm using a combination of NSIS and Advanced Installer for this installation project.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008 - Login failed for user 'user1' The user is not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection

    - by difek
    I have installed SQL Server 2008 R2 on Windows XP. In installation process I selected 'SQL Server and Windows Authentication Mode' When I click right button of the mouse in SQL Server Management Studio on Server - Security tab 'SQL server and Windows Authentication Mode' is selected. But when I click on my Database - Properties - View connection properties Authentication Method is set on Windows Authentication. To my database was added one user1 with password user1. But I can't log in to my database from C# (Visual Studio 2008) because error occurs: Login failed for user 'user1' The user is not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection What isn't right ? When I get: string connectionStr = @"Data Source=rmzcmp\SQLExpress;Initial Catalog=ResourcesTmp;Integrated Security=True"; I have following error: {"Cannot open database \"ResourcesTmp\" requested by the login. The login failed.\r\nLogin failed for user 'RMZCMP\rm'."} rm is my original user name on which I log in to my computer. When I get rm I have error: {"Login failed for user 'rm'. The user is not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection."} again. Regards

    Read the article

  • SQL Outer Join on a bunch of Inner Joined results

    - by Matthew Frederick
    I received some great help on joining a table to itself and am trying to take it to the next level. The SQL below is from the help but with my addition of the select line beginning with COUNT, the inner join to the Recipient table, and the Group By. SELECT Event.EventID AS EventID, Event.EventDate AS EventDateUTC, Participant2.ParticipantID AS AwayID, Participant1.ParticipantID AS HostID, COUNT(Recipient.ChallengeID) AS AllChallenges FROM Event INNER JOIN Matchup Matchup1 ON (Event.EventID = Matchup1.EventID) INNER JOIN Matchup Matchup2 ON (Event.EventID = Matchup2.EventID) INNER JOIN Participant Participant1 ON (Matchup1.Host = 1 AND Matchup1.ParticipantID = Participant1.ParticipantID) INNER JOIN Participant Participant2 ON (Matchup2.Host != 1 AND Matchup2.ParticipantID = Participant2.ParticipantID) INNER JOIN Recipient ON (Event.EventID = Recipient.EventID) WHERE Event.CategoryID = 1 AND Event.Resolved = 0 AND Event.Type = 1 GROUP BY Recipient.ChallengeID ORDER BY EventDateUTC ASC My goal is to get a count of how many rows in the Recipient table match the EventID in Event. This code works fine except that I also want to get results where there are 0 matching rows in Recipient. I want 15 rows (= the number of events) but I get 2 rows, one with a count of 1 and one with a count of 2 (which is appropriate for an inner join as there are 3 rows in the sample Recipient table, one for one EventID and two for another EventID). I thought that either a LEFT join or an OUTER join was what I was looking for, but I know that I'm not quite getting how the tables are actually joined. A LEFT join there gives me one more row with 0, which happens to be EventID 1 (first thing in the table), but that's all. Errors advise me that I can't just change that INNER join to an OUTER. I tried some parenthesizing and some subselects and such but can't seem to make it work.

    Read the article

  • MSSQL 2008 FTS CONTAINSTABLE Not Returning More Than Five Rows

    - by Elijah Glover
    I have a single table called "Indexes", it contains one nvarchar and three ntext columns (all Full Text Indexes). Index is up to date. CONTAINSTABLE(Indexes, *), 'test', 5) //5 results No matter what I change the above keyword too, it only returns the first 3-5 results. It should roughly return 90-120 results, for the above query. SELECT count(*) FROM Indexes WHERE [Description] like '%test%' //122 results How would I start to troubleshoot this problem?

    Read the article

  • Concatenating rows from different tables into one field

    - by Markus
    Hi! In a project using a MSSQL 2005 Database we are required to log all data manipulating actions in a logging table. One field in that table is supposed to contain the row before it was changed. We have a lot of tables so I was trying to write a stored procedure that would gather up all the fields in one row of a table that was given to it, concatenate them somehow and then write a new log entry with that information. I already tried using FOR XML PATH and it worked, but the client doesn't like the XML notation, they want a csv field. Here's what I had with FOR XML PATH: DECLARE @foo varchar(max); SET @foo = (SELECT * FROM table WHERE id = 5775 FOR XML PATH('')); The values for "table", "id" and the actual id (here: 5775) would later be passed in via the call to the stored procedure. Is there any way to do this without getting XML notation and without knowing in advance which fields are going to be returned by the SELECT statement?

    Read the article

  • Important question about linq to SQL performance on high loaded web applications

    - by Alex
    I started working with linq to SQL several weeks ago. I got really tired of working with SQL server directly through the SQL queries (sqldatareader, sqlcommand and all this good stuff).  After hearing about linq to SQL and mvc I quickly moved all my projects to these technologies. I expected linq to SQL work slower but it suprisongly turned out to be pretty fast, primarily because I always forgot to close my connections when using datareaders. Now I don't have to worry about it. But there's one problem that really bothers me. There's one page that's requested thousands of times a day. The system gets data in the beginning, works with it and updates it. Primarily the updates are ++ @ -- (increase and decrease values). I used to do it like this UPDATE table SET value=value+1 WHERE ID=@I'd It worked with no problems obviously. But with linq to SQL the data is taken in the beginning, moved to the class, changed and then saved. Stats.registeredusers++; Db.submitchanges(); Let's say there were 100 000 users. Linq will say "let it be 100 001" instead of "let it be increased by 1". But if there value of users has already been increased (that happens in my site all the time) then linq will be like oops, this value is already 100 001. Whatever I'll throw an exception" You can change this behavior so that it won't throw an exception but it still will not set the value to 100 002. Like I said, it happened with me all the time. The stas value was increased twice a second on average. I simply had to rewrite this chunk of code with classic ado net. So my question is how can you solve the problem with linq

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Table Partitioning, what is happening behind the scenes?

    - by user404463
    I'm working with table partitioning on extremely large fact table in a warehouse. I have executed the script a few different ways. With and without non clustered indexes. With indexes it appears to dramatically expand the log file while without the non clustered indexes it appears to not expand the log file as much but takes more time to run due to the rebuilding of the indexes. What I am looking for is any links or information as to what is happening behind the scene specifically to the log file when you split a table partition.

    Read the article

  • New SQLOS features in SQL Server 2012

    - by SQLOS Team
    Here's a quick summary of SQLOS feature enhancements going into SQL Server 2012. Most of these are already in the CTP3 pre-release, except for the Resource Governor enhancements which will be in the release candidate. We've blogged about a couple of these items before. I plan to add detail. Let me know which ones you'd like to see more on: - Memory Manager Redesign: Predictable sizing and governing SQL memory consumption: sp_configure ‘max server memory’ now limits all memory committed by SQL ServerResource Governor governs all SQL memory consumption (other than special cases like buffer pool) Improved scalability of complex queries and operations that make >8K allocations Improved CPU and NUMA locality for memory accesses Single memory manager that handles page allocations of all sizes Consistent Out-of-memory handling & management across different internal components - Optimized Memory Broker for Column Store indexes (Project Apollo) - Resource Governor Support larger scale multi-tenancy by increasing Max. number of resource pools20 -> 64 [for 64-bit] Enable predictable chargeback and isolation by adding a hard cap on CPU usage Enable vertical isolation of machine resources Resource pools can be affinitized to individual or groups of schedulers or to NUMA nodes New DMV for resource pool affinity  - CLR 4 support, adds .NET Framework 4 advantages - sp_server_dianostics Captures diagnostic data and health information about SQL Server to detect potential failures Analyze internal system state Reliable when nothing else is working   - New SQLOS DMVs (in 2008 R2SP1) SQL Server related configuration - New DMVsys.dm_server_services OS related resource configurationNew DMVssys.dm_os_volume_statssys.dm_os_windows_infosys.dm_server_registry XEvents for SQL and OS related Perfmon counters Extend sys.dm_os_sys_info See previous blog posts here and here. - Scale / Mission critical Increased scalability: Support Windows 8 max memory and logical processorsDynamic Memory support in Standard Edition - Hot-Add Memory enabled when virtualized - Various Tier1 Performance Improvements, including reduced instructions for superlatches. Originally posted at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlosteam/

    Read the article

  • In MS SQL Server, is there a way to "atomically" increment a column being used as a counter?

    - by Dan P
    Assuming a Read Committed Snapshot transaction isolation setting, is the following statement "atomic" in the sense that you won't ever "lose" a concurrent increment? update mytable set counter = counter + 1 I would assume that in the general case, where this update statement is part of a larger transaction, that it wouldn't be. For example, I think this scenario is possible: update the counter within transaction #1 do some other stuff in transaction #1 update the counter with transaction #2 commit transaction #2 commit transaction #1 In this situation, wouldn't the counter end up only being incremented by 1? Does it make a difference if that is the only statement in a transaction? How does a site like stackoverflow handle this for its question view counter? Or is the possibility of "losing" some increments just considered acceptable?

    Read the article

  • MySQL - display rows of names and addresses grouped by name, where name occures more than once

    - by Stoob
    I have two tables, "name" and "address". I would like to list the last_name and joined address.street_address of all last_name in table "name" that occur more than once in table "name". The two tables are joined on the column "name_id". The desired output would appear like so: 213 | smith | 123 bluebird | 14 | smith | 456 first ave | 718 | smith | 12 san antonia st. | 244 | jones | 78 third ave # 45 | 98 | jones | 18177 toronto place | Note that if the last_name "abernathy" appears only once in table "name", then "abernathy" should not be included in the result. This is what I came up with so far: SELECT name.name_id, name.last_name, address.street_address, count(*) FROM `name` JOIN `address` ON name.name_id = address.name_id GROUP BY `last_name` HAVING count(*) > 1 However, this produces only one row per last name. I'd like all the last names listed. I know I am missing something simple. Any help is appreciated, thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to perform Linq select new with datetime in SQL 2008

    - by kd7iwp
    In our C# code I recently changed a line from inside a linq-to-sql select new query as follows: OrderDate = (p.OrderDate.HasValue ? p.OrderDate.Value.Year.ToString() + "-" + p.OrderDate.Value.Month.ToString() + "-" + p.OrderDate.Value.Day.ToString() : "") To: OrderDate = (p.OrderDate.HasValue ? p.OrderDate.Value.ToString("yyyy-mm-dd") : "") The change makes the line smaller and cleaner. It also works fine with our SQL 2008 database in our development environment. However, when the code deployed to our production environment which uses SQL 2005 I received an exception stating: Nullable Type must have a value. For further analysis I copied (p.OrderDate.HasValue ? p.OrderDate.Value.ToString("yyyy-mm-dd") : "") into a string (outside of a Linq statement) and had no problems at all, so it only causes an in issue inside my Linq. Is this problem just something to do with SQL 2005 using different date formats than from SQL 2008? Here's more of the Linq: dt = FilteredOrders.Where(x => x != null).Select(p => new { Order = p.OrderId, link = "/order/" + p.OrderId.ToString(), StudentId = (p.PersonId.HasValue ? p.PersonId.Value : 0), FirstName = p.IdentifierAccount.Person.FirstName, LastName = p.IdentifierAccount.Person.LastName, DeliverBy = p.DeliverBy, OrderDate = p.OrderDate.HasValue ? p.OrderDate.Value.Date.ToString("yyyy-mm-dd") : ""}).ToDataTable(); This is selecting from a List of Order objects. The FilteredOrders list is from another linq-to-sql query and I call .AsEnumerable on it before giving it to this particular select new query. Doing this in regular code works fine: if (o.OrderDate.HasValue) tempString += " " + o.OrderDate.Value.Date.ToString("yyyy-mm-dd");

    Read the article

  • Merge two rows in SQL

    - by Jason
    Assuming I have a table containing the following information: FK | Field1 | Field2 ===================== 3 | ABC | *NULL* 3 | *NULL* | DEF is there a way I can perform a select on the table to get the following FK | Field1 | Field2 ===================== 3 | ABC | DEF Thanks Edit: Fix field2 name for clarity

    Read the article

  • Using memtables in sql. When is it reasonable and is it safe?

    - by Spiros
    I was just reading an update from a friend's project, mentioning the use of memtables to store data temporatily and then flush to a table on disk. Up to now, I have never faced a situation where I would use a memtable, or a situation where I would think the use of a mem table would be beneficial; so I wonder, when would someone use mem tables? what makes a memtable (appart from access speed) a reasonable choice? and how safe is it, even for temp data? there is always the limitation of available physical memory.

    Read the article

  • Adding rows with linq trouble with reference table

    - by Laurence Burke
    I am adding a new address and I know the structure as AddressID = PK and all other entities are non nullable. Now on insert of a new row the addrID Pk is autogened and I am wondering if I would have to get that to create a new row in the referencing table EmployeeAddress or does that automatically get generated also. also I want to be able to repopulate the dropdownlist that lists the current employee's addresses with the newly created address. static uint _curEmpID; protected void btnAdd_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (txtZip.Text != "" && txtAdd1.Text != "" && txtCity.Text != "") { TestDataClassDataContext dc = new TestDataClassDataContext(); Address addr = new Address() { AddressLine1 = txtAdd1.Text, AddressLine2 = txtAdd2.Text, City = txtCity.Text, PostalCode = txtZip.Text, StateProvinceID = Convert.ToInt32(ddlState.SelectedValue) }; dc.Addresses.InsertOnSubmit(addr); lblSuccess.Visible = true; lblErrMsg.Visible = false; dc.SubmitChanges(); // // TODO: insert new row in EmployeeAddress to reference CurEmp to newly created address // SetAddrList(); } else { lblErrMsg.Text = "Invalid Input"; lblErrMsg.Visible = true; } } protected void ddlAddList_SelectedIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { lblErrMsg.Visible = false; lblSuccess.Visible = false; TestDataClassDataContext dc = new TestDataClassDataContext(); dc.ObjectTrackingEnabled = false; if (ddlAddList.SelectedValue != "-1") { var addr = (from a in dc.Addresses where a.AddressID == Convert.ToInt32(ddlAddList.SelectedValue) select a).FirstOrDefault(); txtAdd1.Text = addr.AddressLine1; txtAdd2.Text = addr.AddressLine2; txtCity.Text = addr.City; txtZip.Text = addr.PostalCode; ddlState.SelectedValue = addr.StateProvinceID.ToString(); btnSubmit.Visible = true; btnAdd.Visible = false; } else { txtAdd1.Text = ""; txtAdd2.Text = ""; txtCity.Text = ""; txtZip.Text = ""; btnAdd.Visible = true; btnSubmit.Visible = false; } } protected void SetAddrList() { TestDataClassDataContext dc = new TestDataClassDataContext(); dc.ObjectTrackingEnabled = false; var addList = from addr in dc.Addresses from eaddr in dc.EmployeeAddresses where eaddr.EmployeeID == _curEmpID && addr.AddressID == eaddr.AddressID select new { AddValue = addr.AddressID, AddText = addr.AddressID, }; ddlAddList.DataSource = addList; ddlAddList.DataValueField = "AddValue"; ddlAddList.DataTextField = "AddText"; ddlAddList.DataBind(); ddlAddList.Items.Add(new ListItem("<Add Address>", "-1")); } OK I am hoping that I did not include too much code. I would really appreciate any other comments about I could otherwise improve this code in any other ways also.

    Read the article

  • PATH command not found

    - by joslinm
    Hi, I'm not experienced with PATH (Any good reference would be appreciated), but I made a mistake and did PATH=/google_appengine, which I'm assuming completely overrid PATH. Still, I restarted bash and echo'd PATH and found that the folders were back. mark@mark-laptop:~$ echo $PATH /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/games However, when I then tried to append to it, I got an error that PATH wasn't found. I've looked around Google and couldn't find a good answer. Any help would be appreciated mark@mark-laptop:~$ PATH = $PATH:/google_appengine PATH: command not found

    Read the article

  • Return a value if no rows are found SQL

    - by Matt
    Here's my simple query. If I query a record that doesn't exist then I will get nothing returned. I'd prefer that false (0) is returned in that scenario. Looking for the simplist method to account for no records. SELECT CASE WHEN S.Id IS NOT NULL AND S.Status = 1 AND (S.WebUserId = @WebUserId OR S.AllowUploads = 1) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END AS [Value] FROM Sites S WHERE S.Id = @SiteId

    Read the article

  • Creating an SQL variable character column > 255 characters supporting multiple databases

    - by Piers
    I have an application that stores data through an ODBC data source of the user's choosing. So far it has worked well on a range of database systems (e.g. JET, Oracle, SQL Server), as the SQL syntax is fairly simple. Now I am running into a problem where I need to store more than 255 characters in my strings. Previously I created the table using column type VARCHAR (255). Now if I try to create a table using, e.g. VARCHAR (512) then it falls over on Access databases. I know that I can use the MEMO type for Access, but this is non-standard SQL and will thus likely fail on other database systems (e.g. Oracle). Is there any widely supported SQL standard for creating text columns wider than 255 characters, or do I need to find another solution? The alternatives seem to me to be: 1) Profile the database system and customise the SQL CREATE TABLE command based on the database system. I don't like this as it defeats the purpose of using ODBC. 2) Add extra columns of 255 chars as required (e.g. LONGSTRING1, LONGSTRING2, ...) and concatenate after reading. I don't like this because it means the number of columns can vary between tables and it complicates read/write. Are there any other viable alternatives to these two options? Or is it possible to have an SQL compliant CREATE TABLE command supported by the majority of database vendors, that supports strings longer than 255 chars?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191  | Next Page >