Search Results

Search found 1649 results on 66 pages for 'unicode normalization'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 23/66 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • Batch script is not executed if chcp was called

    - by Andy
    Hello! I'm trying to delete some files with unicode characters in them with batch script (it's a requirement). So I run cmd and execute: > chcp 65001 Effectively setting codepage to UTF-8. And it works: D:\temp\1>dir Volume in drive D has no label. Volume Serial Number is 8C33-61BF Directory of D:\temp\1 02.02.2010 09:31 <DIR> . 02.02.2010 09:31 <DIR> .. 02.02.2010 09:32 508 1.txt 02.02.2010 09:28 12 delete.bat 02.02.2010 09:20 95 delete.cmd 02.02.2010 09:13 <DIR> Rún 02.02.2010 09:13 <DIR> ????? ??????? 3 File(s) 615 bytes 4 Dir(s) 11 576 438 784 bytes free D:\temp\1>rmdir Rún D:\temp\1>dir Volume in drive D has no label. Volume Serial Number is 8C33-61BF Directory of D:\temp\1 02.02.2010 09:56 <DIR> . 02.02.2010 09:56 <DIR> .. 02.02.2010 09:32 508 1.txt 02.02.2010 09:28 12 delete.bat 02.02.2010 09:20 95 delete.cmd 02.02.2010 09:13 <DIR> ????? ??????? 3 File(s) 615 bytes 3 Dir(s) 11 576 438 784 bytes free Then I put the same rmdir commands in batch script and save it in UTF-8 encoding. But when I run nothing happens, literally nothing: not even echo works from batch script in this case. Even saving script in OEM encoding does not help. So it seems that when I change codepage to UTF-8 in console, scripts just stop working. Does somebody know how to fix that?

    Read the article

  • C++ read registry string value in char*

    - by Sunny
    I'm reading a registry value like this: char mydata[2048]; DWORD dataLength = sizeof(mydata); DWORD dwType = REG_SZ; ..... open key, etc ReqQueryValueEx(hKey, keyName, 0, &dwType, (BYTE*)mydata, &dataLength); My problem is, that after this, mydata content looks like: [63, 00, 3A, 00, 5C, 00...], i.e. this looks like a unicode?!?!. I need to convert this somehow to be a normal char array, without these [00], as they fail a simple logging function I have. I.e. if I call like this: WriteMessage(mydata), it outputs only "c", which is the first char in the registry. I have calls to this logging function all over the place, so I'd better of not modify it, but somehow "fix" the registry value. Here is the log function: void Logger::WriteMessage(const char *msg) { time_t now = time(0); struct tm* tm = localtime(&now); std::ofstream logFile; logFile.open(filename, std::ios::out | std::ios::app); if ( logFile.is_open() ) { logFile << tm->tm_mon << '/' << tm->tm_mday << '/' << tm->tm_year << ' '; logFile << tm->tm_hour << ':' << tm->tm_min << ':' << tm->tm_sec << "> "; logFile << msg << "\n"; logFile.close(); } }

    Read the article

  • What encoding does c32rtomb convert to?

    - by R. Martinho Fernandes
    The functions c32rtomb and mbrtoc32 from <cuchar>/<uchar.h> are described in the C Unicode TR (draft) as performing conversions between UTF-321 and "multibyte characters". (...) If s is not a null pointer, the c32rtomb function determines the number of bytes needed to represent the multibyte character that corresponds to the wide character given by c32 (including any shift sequences), and stores the multibyte character representation in the array whose first element is pointed to by s. (...) What is this "multibyte character representation"? I'm actually interested in the behaviour of the following program: #include <cassert> #include <cuchar> #include <string> int main() { std::u32string u32 = U"this is a wide string"; std::string narrow = "this is a wide string"; std::string converted(1000, '\0'); char* ptr = &converted[0]; std::mbstate_t state {}; for(auto u : u32) { ptr += std::c32rtomb(ptr, u, &state); } converted.resize(ptr - &converted[0]); assert(converted == narrow); } Is the assertion in it guaranteed to hold1? 1 Working under the assumption that __STDC_UTF_32__ is defined.

    Read the article

  • Advice needed on best and most efficient practices with developing google apps application...

    - by Ali
    Hi guys , I'm getting my feet wet with developing my order management applications for integration with google apps. However there are certain aspects I need to take into consideration prior to proceeding any further. My application is such that it would upload documents to google documents and store contacts in google contacts. It requires such that a single order can have a number of uploaded documents associated with it as well as some contacts associated with it. MY question however is what would be the most efficient way to implement this. I could keep key tables for both contacts and documents which woudl contain just an ID and link to the documents/contacts or their respective identification id on google. Or I could maintain an exact replica of the information on my own database as well as a link to the contact on google. However won't that be too redundant. I don't want my application to be really slow as I'm afraid that everytime I make a call to google docs to retrieve a list of documents or google contacts it would be really slow on my application - or am I getting worried for no reason? Any advice would be most appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Violating 1st normal form, is it okay for my purpose?

    - by Nick
    So I'm making a running log, and I have the workouts stored as entries in a table. For each workout, the user can add intervals (which consist of a time and a distance), so I have an array like this: [workout] => [description] => [comments] => ... [intervals] => [0] => [distance] => 200m [time] => 32 [1] => [distance] => 400m [time] => 65 ... I'm really tempted to throw the "intervals" array into serialize() or json_encode() and put it in an "intervals" field in my table, however this violates the principles of good database design (which, incidentally, I know hardly anything about). Is there any disadvantage to doing this? I never plan on querying my table based on the contents of "intervals". Creating a separate table just for intervals seems like a lot of unnecessary complexity, so if anyone with more experience has had a situation like this, what route did you take and how did it work out?

    Read the article

  • should this database table be normalized?

    - by oo
    i have taken over a database that stores fitness information and we were having a debate about a certain table and whether it should stay as one table or get broken up into three tables. Today, there is one table called: workouts that has the following fields id, exercise_id, reps, weight, date, person_id So if i did 2 sets of 3 different exercises on one day, i would have 6 records in that table for that day. for example: id, exercise_id, reps, weight, date, person_id 1, 1, 10, 100, 1/1/2010, 10 2, 1, 10, 100, 1/1/2010, 10 3, 1, 10, 100, 1/1/2010, 10 4, 2, 10, 100, 1/1/2010, 10 5, 2, 10, 100, 1/1/2010, 10 6, 2, 10, 100, 1/1/2010, 10 So the question is, given that there is some redundant data (date, personid, exercise_id) in multiple records, should this be normalized to three tables WorkoutSummary: - id - date - person_id WorkoutExercise: - id - workout_id (foreign key into WorkoutSummary) - exercise_id WorkoutSets: - id - workout_exercise_id (foreign key into WorkoutExercise) - reps - weight I would guess the downside is that the queries would be slower after this refactoring as now we would need to join 3 tables to do the same query that had no joins before. The benefit of the refactoring allows up in the future to add new fields at the workout summary level or the exercise level with out adding in more duplication. any feedback on this debate?

    Read the article

  • Convert Normalize table to Unormalize table

    - by M R Jafari
    I have tow tables, Table A has 3 columns as StudentID, Name, Course, ClassID and Table B has many columns as StudentID, Name, Other1, Other2, Other3 ... I want convert Table A to Table B. Please help me! Table A StudentID Name Course ClassID 85001 David Data Base 11 85001 David Data Structure 22 85002 Bob Math 33 85002 Bob Data Base 44 85002 Bob Data Structure 55 85002 Bob C# 66 85003 Sara C# 77 85003 Sara Data Base 88 85004 Mary Math 99 85005 Mary Math 100 … Table B SdentdID Name Other 1 Other 2 Other 3 Other 4 … 85001 David DBase,11 DS,22 85002 Bob Math,33 DB,44 DS,55 C#,66 85003 Sara C#,77 DBase,88 85004 Mary Math,99

    Read the article

  • Table Design For SystemSettings, Best Model

    - by Chris L
    Someone suggested moving a table full of settings, where each column is a setting name(or type) and the rows are the customers & their respective settings for each setting. ID | IsAdmin | ImagePath ------------------------------ 12 | 1          | \path\to\images 34 | 0          | \path\to\images The downside to this is every time we want a new setting name(or type) we alter the table(via sql) and add the new (column)setting name/type. Then update the rows(so that each customer now has a value for that setting). The new table design proposal. The proposal is to have a column for setting name and another column for setting. ID | SettingName | SettingValue ---------------------------- 12 | IsAdmin        | 1 12 | ImagePath   | \path\to\images 34 | IsAdmin        | 0 34 | ImagePath   | \path\to\images The point they made was that adding a new setting was as easy as a simple insert statement to the row, no added column. But something doesn't feel right about the second design, it looks bad, but I can't come up with any arguments against it. Am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • Normalize or Denormalize in high traffic websites

    - by Inam Jameel
    what is the best practice for database design for high traffic websites like this one stackoverflow? should one must use normalize database for record keeping or normalized technique or combination of both? is it sensible to design normalize database as main database for record keeping to reduce redundancy and at the same time maintain another denormalized form of database for fast searching? or main database should be denormalize and one can make normalized views in the application level for fast database operations? or beside above mentioned approach? what is the best practice of designing high traffic websites???

    Read the article

  • Polymorphism in SQL database tables?

    - by Patrick Daryll Glandien
    I currently have multiple tables in my database which consist of the same 'basic fields' like: name character varying(100), description text, url character varying(255) But I have multiple specializations of that basic table, which is for example that tv_series has the fields season, episode, airing, while the movies table has release_date, budget etc. Now at first this is not a problem, but I want to create a second table, called linkgroups with a Foreign Key to these specialized tables. That means I would somehow have to normalize it within itself. One way of solving this I have heard of is to normalize it with a key-value-pair-table, but I do not like that idea since it is kind of a 'database-within-a-database' scheme, I do not have a way to require certain keys/fields nor require a special type, and it would be a huge pain to fetch and order the data later. So I am looking for a way now to 'share' a Primary Key between multiple tables or even better: a way to normalize it by having a general table and multiple specialized tables.

    Read the article

  • Normalizing URI to make it work correctly with MakeRelativeUri

    - by dr. evil
    Dim x AS New URI("http://www.example.com/test//test.asp") Dim rel AS New URI("http://www.example.com/xxx/xxx.asp") Console.Writeline(x.MakeRelativeUri(rel).Tostring()) In here output is: ../../xxx/xxx.asp Which looks correct almost all web servers will process the two of the following as same request: http://www.example.com/test//test.asp http://www.example.com/test/test.asp What's the best way to fix this behaviour is there any API to do this, or shall manually create a new URI and remove all // in the path?

    Read the article

  • How to Set Customer Table with Multiple Phone Numbers? - Relational Database Design

    - by user311509
    CREATE TABLE Phone ( phoneID - PK . . . ); CREATE TABLE PhoneDetail ( phoneDetailID - PK phoneID - FK points to Phone phoneTypeID ... phoneNumber ... . . . ); CREATE TABLE Customer ( customerID - PK firstName phoneID - Unique FK points to Phone . . . ); A customer can have multiple phone numbers e.g. Cell, Work, etc. phoneID in Customer table is unique and points to PhoneID in Phone table. If customer record is deleted, phoneID in Phone table should also be deleted. Do you have any concerns on my design? Is this designed properly? My problem is phoneID in Customer table is a child and if child record is deleted then i can not delete the parent (Phone) record automatically.

    Read the article

  • Should I include user_id in multiple tables?

    - by Drarok
    I'm at the planning stages of a multi-user application where each user will only have access their own data. There'll be a few tables that relate to each other, so I could use JOINs to ensure they're accessing only their data, but should I include user_id in each table? Would this be faster? It would certainly make some of the queries easier in the long run. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Efficient way to update SQL 'relationship' table

    - by AmbroseChapel
    Say I have three properly normalised tables. One of people, one of qualifications and one mapping people to qualifications: People: id | Name ---------- 1 | Alice 2 | Bob Degrees: id | Name --------- 1 | PhD 2 | MA People-to-degrees: person_id | degree_id --------------------- 1 | 2 # Alice has an MA 2 | 1 # Bob has a PhD So then I have to update this mapping via my web interface. (I made a mistake. Bob has a BA, not a PhD, and Alice just got her B Eng.) There are four possible states of these one-to-many relationship mappings: was true before, should now be false was false before, should now be true was true before, should remain true was false before, should remain false what I don't want to do is read the values from four checkboxes, then hit the database four times to say "Did Bob have a BA before? Well he does now." "Did Bob have PhD before? Because he doesn't any more" and so on. How do other people address this issue? I'm curious to see if someone else arrives at the same solution I did.

    Read the article

  • Facebook database design?

    - by Marin
    I have always wondered how Facebook designed the friend <- user relation. I figure the user table is something like this: user_email PK user_id PK password I figure the table with user's data (sex, age etc connected via user email I would assume). How does it connect all the friends to this user? Something like this? user_id friend_id_1 friend_id_2 friend_id_3 friend_id_N Probably not. Because the number of users is unknown and will expand.

    Read the article

  • SQL: script to create country, state tables

    - by pcampbell
    Consider writing an application that requires registration for an entity, and the schema has been defined to require the country, state/prov/county data to be normalized. This is fairly typical stuff here. Naming also is important to reflect. Each country has a different name for this entity: USA = states Australia = states + territories Canada = provinces + territories Mexico = states Brazil = states Sweden = provinces UK = counties, principalities, and perhaps more! Most times when approaching this problem, I have to scratch together a list of good countries, and the states/prov/counties of each. The app may be concerned with a few countries and not others. The process is full of pain. It typically involves one of two approaches: opening up some previous DB and creating a CREATE script based on those tables. Run that script in the context of the new system. creating a DTS package from database1 to database2, with all the DDL and data included in the transfer. My goal now is to script the creation and insert of the countries that I'd be concerned with in the app of the day. When I want to roll out Countries X/Y/Z, I'll open CountryX.sql, and load its states into the ProvState table. Question: do you have a set of scripts in your toolset to create schema and data for countries and state/province/county? If so, would you share your scripts here? (U.K. citizens, please feel free to correct me by way of a comment in the use of counties.)

    Read the article

  • Should we denormalize database to improve performance?

    - by Groo
    We have a requirement to store 500 measurements per second, coming from several devices. Each measurement consists of a timestamp, a quantity type, and several vector values. Right now there is 8 vector values per measurement, and we may consider this number to be constant for needs of our prototype project. We are using HNibernate. Tests are done in SQLite (disk file db, not in-memory), but production will probably be MsSQL. Our Measurement entity class is the one that holds a single measurement, and looks like this: public class Measurement { public virtual Guid Id { get; private set; } public virtual Device Device { get; private set; } public virtual Timestamp Timestamp { get; private set; } public virtual IList<VectorValue> Vectors { get; private set; } } Vector values are stored in a separate table, so that each of them references its parent measurement through a foreign key. We have done a couple of things to ensure that generated SQL is (reasonably) efficient: we are using Guid.Comb for generating IDs, we are flushing around 500 items in a single transaction, ADO.Net batch size is set to 100 (I think SQLIte does not support batch updates? But it might be useful later). The problem Right now we can insert 150-200 measurements per second (which is not fast enough, although this is SQLite we are talking about). Looking at the generated SQL, we can see that in a single transaction we insert (as expected): 1 timestamp 1 measurement 8 vector values which means that we are actually doing 10x more single table inserts: 1500-2000 per second. If we placed everything (all 8 vector values and the timestamp) into the measurement table (adding 9 dedicated columns), it seems that we could increase our insert speed up to 10 times. Switching to SQL server will improve performance, but we would like to know if there might be a way to avoid unnecessary performance costs related to the way database is organized right now. [Edit] With in-memory SQLite I get around 350 items/sec (3500 single table inserts), which I believe is about as good as it gets with NHibernate (taking this post for reference: http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2009/08/22/nhibernate-perf-tricks.aspx). But I might as well switch to SQL server and stop assuming things, right? I will update my post as soon as I test it.

    Read the article

  • How do I normalise this database design?

    - by Ian Roke
    I am creating a rowing reporting and statistics system for a client where I have a structure at the moment similar to the following: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ID | Team | Coaches | Rowers | Event | Position | Time | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 18 | TeamName | CoachName1 | RowerName1 | EventName | 1 | 01:32:34 | | | | CoachName2 | RowerName2 | | | | | | | | RowerName3 | | | | | | | | RowerName4 | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an example row of data but I would like to expand this out to a Rowers table and Coaches table and so on but I don't know how best to then link that back to the Entries table which is what this is. Has anybody got any words of wisdom they could share with me? Update A Team can have any number of Coaches and Rowers, a Rower can be in many Teams (Team A, B, C etc) and a Team can have many Coaches.

    Read the article

  • Temporary users table or legitimate users table?

    - by John
    I have a freelance web application that lets users register for events. In my database, I have a t_events_applicants table with the column t_events_applications.user_id with a foreign key constraint linked to the t_users.user_id column. So this means only users who have registered with my web application can register for my web application's events. My client would now like to allow non-registered users, users who do not have an entry in my t_user table, to register for events. These non-registered users only need to provide their name and email address to register for events. Should I create a t_temporary_user table with columns name and email and then remove the t_events_applicants.user_id fk constraint? Or should I add un-registered users to the t_user table and then add a column called t_user.type where type can be 'registered' or 'non-registered'? How do I decide which approach to go with? A lot of times, I hesitate with either approach. I ask myself, "What if at a later time, a temporary user is allowed to become a fully registered user? Then maybe I should have only a t_user table. But then I also don't feel good about storing a lot of temporary users in t_user."

    Read the article

  • Active Record/ORM vs Normal Forms?

    - by Arsenal
    Hello, I've been playing around with Active Record a bit, and I have noticed that A.C./ORM always uses the following database model when creating a one-to-one relationship Person id | country_id | name | ... Country id | tld | name | ... No I wondered, isn't this a violiation of the third Normal Form? This clearly states "Every non-prime attribute is non-transitively dependent on every key of the table". Well this country_id isn't dependent of personid is it? So is this wrong or am I just not getting the point?

    Read the article

  • Advice Needed To Normalise Database

    - by c11ada
    hey all, im trying to create a database for a feedback application in ASP.net i have the following database design. Username (PK) QuestionNo (PK) QuestionText FeedbackNo (PK) Username UserFeedbackNo (PK) FeedbackNo (FK) QuestionNo (FK) Answer Comment a user has a unique username a user can have multiple feedbacks i was wondering if the database design i have here is normalised and suitable for the application

    Read the article

  • Repeating fields in similar database tables

    - by user1738833
    I have been tasked with working on a database that I have never seen before and I'm looking at the DB structure. Some of the central and most heavily queried and joined tables look like virtual duplicates of each other. Here's a massively simplified representation of the situation, with business-sensitive information changed, listing hypothetical table names and fields: TopLevelGroup: PK_TLGroupId, DisplaysXOnBill, DisplaysYOnBill, IsInvoicedForJ, IsInvoicedForK SubGroup: PK_SubGroupId, FK_ParentTopLevelGroupId, DisplaysXOnBill, DisplaysYOnBill, IsInvoicedForJ, IsInvoicedForK SubSubGroup: PK_SubSUbGroupId, FK_ParentSubGroupId, DisplaysXOnBill, DisplaysYOnBill, IsInvoicedForJ, IsInvoicedForK I haven't listed the types of the fields as I don't think it's particularly important to the situation. In addition, it's worth saying that rather than four repeated fields as in the example above, I'm looking at 86 repeated fields. For the most part, those fields genuinely do represent "facts" about the primary table entity, so it's not automatically wrong for that reason. In addition, the "groups" represented here have a property inheritance relationship. If DisplaysXOnBill is NULL in the SubSubGroup, it takes the value of DisplaysXOnBillfrom it's parent, the SubGroup, and so-on up to the TopLevelGroup. Further, the requirements will never require that the model extends beyond three levels, so there is no need for flexibility in that area. Is there a design smell from several tables which describe very similar entities having almost identical fields? If so, what might be a better design of the example above? I'm using the phrase "design smell" to indicate a possible problem. Of course, in any given situation, a particular design might well be the best solution. I'm looking for a more general answer - wondering what might be wrong with this design and what might be the better design were that the case. Possibly related, but not primary questions: Is this database schema in a reasonably normal form (e.g. to 3NF), insofar as can be told from the information I've provided. I can't see a problem with the requirements of 2NF and 3NF, except in their inheriting the requirements of 1NF. Is 1NF satisfied though? Are repeating groups allowed in different tables? Is there a best-practice method for implementing the inheritance relationship in a database as I require? The method above feels clunky to me because any query on the SubSubGroup necessarily needs to join onto the SubGroup and the TopLevelGroup tables to collect inherited facts, which can make even trivial joins requiring facts from the SubSubGroup table rather long-winded. There are, of course, political considerations to making a relatively large change like this. For the purpose of this question, I'm happy to ignore that fact in the interests of keeping the answers ring-fenced to the technical problem.

    Read the article

  • Populating a foreign key table with variable user input

    - by Vincent
    I'm working on a website that will be based on user contributed data, submitted using a regular HTML form. To simplify my question, let's say that there will be two fields in the form: "User Name" and "Country" (this is just an example, not the actual site). There will be two tables in the database : "countries" and "users," with "users.country_id" being a foreign key to the "countries" table (one-to-many). The initial database will be empty. Users from all over the world will submit their names and the countries they live in and eventually the "countries" table will get filled out with all of the country names in the world. Since one country can have several alternative names, input like Chile, Chili, Chilli will generate 3 different records in the countries table, but in fact there is only one country. When I search for records from Chile, Chili and Chilli will not be included. So my question is - what would be the best way to deal with a situation like this, with conditions such that the initial database is empty, no other resources are available and everything is based on user input? How can I organize it in such way that Chile, Chili and Chilli would be treated as one country, with minimum manual interference. What are the best practices when it comes to normalizing user submitted data and is there a scientific term for this? I'm sure this is a common problem. Again, I used country names just to simplify my question, it can be anything that has possible different spellings.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >