Search Results

Search found 871 results on 35 pages for 'joins'.

Page 24/35 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

• Excel isn't reading sql exported csv properly

  - by mhopkins321

  I have a batch file that calls sqlcmd to run a command and then export the data as a csv. When viewed in a cell the trasancted date for example shows 35:30.0 but if you click on it the formula bar shows 1/1/1900 2:45:00 PM. I need the full timestamp to show in the cell. Any ideas? The batch file is the following sqlcmd -S server -U username -P password -d database -i "D:\path\sqlScript.sql" -s "," > D:\path\report.csv -I -W -k 1 The script is the following. Now I currently have them cast as varchars, but that's simply because i've tried to change it a bit. Varchar doesn't work either. SET NOCOUNT ON; select top(10)BO.Status, cast(tradeDate AS varchar) AS Trade_Date, CAST(closingTime AS varchar) AS Closing_Time, CAST(openingTime AS varchar) AS openingTime FROM GIANT COMPLICATED JOINS OF ALL SORTS OF TABLES

  Read the article

• SQL Server, fetching data from multiple joined tables. Why is slow?

  - by user562192

  I have problem with performance when retrieving data from SQL Server. My sql query looks something like this: SELECT table_1.id, table_1.value, table_2.id, table_2.value,..., table_20.id, table_20.value From table_1 INNER JOIN table_2 ON table_1.id = table_2.table_1_id INNER JOIN table_3 ON table_2.id = table_3.table_2_id... WHERE table_1.row_number BETWEEN 1 AND 20 So, I am fetching 20 results. This query takes about 5 seconds to execute. When I select only table_1.id, it returns results instantly. Because of that, I guess that problem is not in JOINs, it is in retrieving data from multiple tables. Any suggestions how I would speed up this query?

  Read the article

• Use SQL to clone data in two tables that have a 1-1 relationship with each other

  - by AmoebaMan17

  Using MS SQL 2005, Table 1 ID | T1Value | T2ID | GroupID ---------------------------------- 1 | a | 10 | 1 2 | b | 11 | 1 3 | c | 12 | 1 4 | a | 22 | 2 Table 2 ID | T2Value ---------------- 10 | H 11 | J 12 | K 22 | H I want to clone the data for GroupID == 1 into a new GroupID so that I result with the following: Table 1 ID | T1Value | T2ID | GroupID ---------------------------------- 1 | a | 10 | 1 2 | b | 11 | 1 3 | c | 12 | 1 4 | a | 22 | 2 5 | a | 23 | 3 6 | b | 24 | 3 7 | c | 25 | 3 Table 2 ID | T2Value ---------------- 10 | H 11 | J 12 | K 22 | H 23 | H 24 | J 25 | K I've found some SQL clone patterns that allow me to clone data in the same table well... but as I start to deal with cloning data in two tables at the same time and then linking up the new rows correctly... that's just not something I feel like I have a good grasp of. I thought I could do some self-joins to deal with this, but I am worried in the cases where the non-key fields have the same data in multiple rows.

  Read the article

• select distinct over specific columns

  - by Midhat

  A query in a system I maintain returns QID AID DATA 1 2 x 1 2 y 5 6 t As per a new requirement, I do not want the (QID, AID)=(1,2) pair to be repeated. We also dont care what value is selected from "data" column. either x or y will do. What I have done is to enclose the original query like this SELECT * FROM (<original query text>) Results group by QID,AID Is there a better way to go about this? The original query uses multiple joins and unions and what not, So I would prefer not to touch it unless its absolutely necesary

  Read the article

• [Python] Help me : how i can deal with web page !

  - by Str1k3r

  hello every one... am looking for modules or functions let's me joins in id web !!!! i mean like i told python go to hotmail.com then go to signup ! how i can do that i mean how i can tell python go to hotmail.com then find some thing called signup in source page then i tell him join to him ....etc i hope you understand my idea ! ** am thinking on urllib2 .. maybe it's can do that? am just new in python

  Read the article

• ActiveRecord find all parents that have associated children

  - by brad

  I don't know why I can't figure this out, I think it should be fairly simple. I have two models (see below). I'm trying to come up with a named scope for SupplierCategory that would find all SupplierCategory(s) (including :suppliers) who's associated Supplier(s) are not empty. I tried a straight up join, named_scope :with_suppliers, :joins => :suppliers which gives me only categories with suppliers, but it gives me each category listed separately, so if a category has 2 suppliers, i get the category twice in the returned array: Currently I'm using: named_scope :with_suppliers, :include => :suppliers and then in my view I'm using: <%= render :partial => 'category', :collection => @categories.find_all{|c| !c.suppliers.empty? } %> Not exactly eloquent but illustrates what I'm trying to achieve. Class Definitions class SupplierCategory < AR has_many :suppliers, :order => "name" end class Supplier < AR belongs_to :supplier end

  Read the article

• Run a proc on several different values of one parameter

  - by WEFX

  I have the following query that gets run within a proc. The function MyFunction returns a table, and this query joins on that table. This proc works great when a @MyArg value is supplied. However, I’m wondering if there’s a way to run this on all @MyArg values in the database. I’m sure there’s a way to do it within a loop, but I know that loops are generally to be avoided at the db layer. I really just need to perform this for the sake of checking (and possibly cleansing) some bad data. SELECT ColumnA, ColumnB, ColumnC FROM ( SELECT a.ColumnA, a.ColumnB, a.ColumnC, ROW_NUMBER() over(partition by a.ColumnD order by f.ColumnX) as RowNum FROM dbo.MyTableA AS a INNER JOIN dbo.MyFunction(@MyArg) f ON f.myID = a.myID WHERE (a.myBit = 1 OR a.myID = @MyArg) ) AS x WHERE x.rownum = 1;

  Read the article

• MVC more specified models should be populated by more precise query too?

  - by KevinUK

  If you have a Car model with 20 or so properties (and several table joins) for a carDetail page then your LINQ to SQL query will be quite large. If you have a carListing page which uses under 5 properties (all from 1 table) then you use a CarSummary model. Should the CarSummary model be populated using the same query as the Car model? Or should you use a separate LINQ to SQL query which would be more precise? I am just thinking of performance but LINQ uses lazy loading anyway so I am wondering if this is an issue or not.

  Read the article

• php and SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS

  - by Lizard

  I am trying to add the SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS into a query (Please note this isn't for pagination) please note I am trying to add this to a cakePHP query the code I currently have is below: return $this->find('all', array( 'conditions' => $conditions, 'fields'=>array('SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS','Category.*','COUNT(`Entity`.`id`) as `entity_count`'), 'joins' => array('LEFT JOIN `entities` AS Entity ON `Entity`.`category_id` = `Category`.`id`'), 'group' => '`Category`.`id`', 'order' => $sort, 'limit'=>$params['limit'], 'offset'=>$params['start'], 'contain' => array('Domain' => array('fields' => array('title'))) )); Note the 'fields'=>array('SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS',' this obviously doesn't work as It tries to apply the SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS to the table e.g. SELECTCategory.SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS, Is there anyway of doing this? Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

  Read the article

• rails: Get a list of items tagged x AND y AND z

  - by egarcia

  I've got two models: item and tags. Both have a name attribute. I want to find items tagged with several tags. class Item < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :tags validates_presence_of :name end class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :item validates_presence_of :name end Given a list of tag ids, I can easily enough get the list of items tagged with one tag or the other: # Find the items tagged with one or more of the tags on tag_ids Item.all(:conditions => ['tags.id in (?)', tag_ids], :joins => :tags) If tag_ids is {1,4}, then I get all pictures tagged with 1, or 4, or both. I want to know now how to get the pictures that are tagged with both - 1 AND 4. I can't even imagine the SQL that is needed here.

  Read the article

• MULTIPLE CRITERIA TABLE JOIN

  - by user1447203

  I have a table listing clothing items (shirt, trousers, etc) named . Each item is identified with a unique CLOTHING.CLOTHING_ID. So a blue shirt is 01, a flowery shirt is 12 and jeans are 07 say. I have a second table identifying outfits with a column for shirts, for trousers, shoes etc. For example Outfit 1: shirt 01, trousers 07 (i.e. blue shirt with jeans) Outfit 2: shirt 12, trousers 07 (so flowery shirt with jeans). This table is named and each outfit is unique with OUTFIT_LIST.OUTFIT_ID. I want to produce a select statement that will list each outfit's contents, i.e. find the clothing specified in Outfit 1. Any help would be very much appreciated, and apologies in advance if I am missing a very simple solution. I have been playing with JOINS of all descriptions and CONCATS and so on with now luck - I am very new to this. Thanks.

  Read the article

• reterview data from two tables using inner join in cakephp

  - by user3593884

  I two tables from database one as user(id,first_name,last_name) and the second table location(id,country). I need to perform inner join with this two tables and the list should display first_name,last_name,country with condition user.id=location.id I have written sql queries in cakephp $this->set('users',$this->User->find('list', array( 'fields' => array('User.id', 'User.first_name','location.country'), array('joins' => array(array('table' => 'location', 'alias' => 'location', 'type' => 'INNER', 'conditions' => array('User.id = location.id'))))))); i get error -Unknown column 'location.country' in 'field list' Please help!

  Read the article

• MySQL is there a Single Select to Query Various Unrelated Values from a database?

  - by zzapper

  I saw somewhere what seemed to be nested selects, one "master" select on the "outside" and a series of selects inside- is this possible? I'm not talking about joins as there is particular relation between the selects. I seem not to be explaining myself very well. I want to do a single query which will pull out a series of stats from various tables latest order, latest customer, largest order. Obviously I can do that with a series of selects. The example I saw was something like select ( select ... from tbl_1 where .., select ... from tbl_2 where .., select ... from tbl_3 where .., ... )

  Read the article

• One database or many?

  - by dsims

  I am developing a website that will manage data for multiple entities. No data is shared between entities, but they may be owned by the same customer. A customer may want to manage all their entities from a single "dashboard". So should I have one database for everything, or keep the data seperated into individual databases? Is there a best-practice? What are the positives/negatives for having a: database for the entire site (entity has a "customerID", data has "entityID") database for each customer (data has "entityID") database for each entity (relation of database to customer is outside of database) Multiple databases seems like it would have better performance (fewer rows and joins) but may eventually become a maintenance nightmare.

  Read the article

• Sorting results by a char(1) column

  - by Brandon

  I have a stored procedure which basically does something like select top 1 expiryDate, flag, (bunch of other columns) from someTable (bunch of joins) order by expiryDate desc So this will grab the record that expires last. This works for most cases, except some records have a flag that are just a char(1). Most of the time it's just Y or N. So it'll return something like 2010-12-31 N 2010-10-05 Y 2010-08-05 N 2010-03-01 F 2010-01-31 N This works, most of the time, but is there any way to order it by the Flag column as well? So I'd want to group the results by Y, then N, and F and any other flags can go last in any order. I thought this would just be an order by, but since the flags are not weighted by the alphabetic value, I'm a little stumped. (Note: These are not my tables, I don't know if using the characters like this was a good idea or not, but it's not something I can change).

  Read the article

• Querying Postgresql with a very large result set

  - by sanity

  In an application I need to query a Postgres DB where I expect tens or even hundreds of millions of rows in the result set. I might do this query once a day, or even more frequently. The query itself is relatively simple, although may involve a few JOINs. My question is: How smart is Postgres with respect to avoiding having to seek around the disk for each row of the result set? Given the time required for a hard disk seek, this could be extremely expensive. If this isn't an issue, how does Postgres avoid it? How does it know how to lay out data on the disk such that it can be streamed out in an efficient manner in response to this query?

  Read the article

• SUM a pair of COUNTs from two tables based on a time variable

  - by Kevin O.

  Been searching for an answer to this for the better part of an hour without much luck. I have two regional tables laid out with the same column names and I can put out a result list for either table based on the following query (swap Table2 for Table1): SELECT Table1.YEAR, FORMAT(COUNT(Table1.id),0) AS Total FROM Table1 WHERE Table1.variable='Y' GROUP BY Table1.YEAR Ideally I'd like to get a result that gives me a total sum of the counts by year, so instead of: | REGION 1 | | REGION 2 | | YEAR | Total | | YEAR | Total | | 2010 | 5 | | 2010 | 1 | | 2009 | 2 | | 2009 | 3 | | | | | 2008 | 4 | I'd have: | MERGED | | YEAR | Total | | 2010 | 6 | | 2009 | 5 | | 2008 | 4 | I've tried a variety of JOINs and other ideas but I think I'm caught up on the SUM and COUNT issue. Any help would be appreciated, thanks!

  Read the article

• Use SQL to clone data in two tables that have a 1-1 relationship in each table

  - by AmoebaMan17

  Using MS SQL 2005, Table 1 ID | T1Value | T2ID | GroupID ---------------------------------- 1 | a | 10 | 1 2 | b | 11 | 1 3 | c | 12 | 1 4 | a | 22 | 2 Table 2 ID | T2Value ---------------- 10 | H 11 | J 12 | K 22 | H I want to clone the data for GroupID == 1 into a new GroupID so that I result with the following: Table 1 ID | T1Value | T2ID | GroupID ---------------------------------- 1 | a | 10 | 1 2 | b | 11 | 1 3 | c | 12 | 1 4 | a | 22 | 2 5 | a | 23 | 3 6 | b | 24 | 3 7 | c | 25 | 3 Table 2 ID | T2Value ---------------- 10 | H 11 | J 12 | K 22 | H 23 | H 24 | J 25 | K I've found some SQL clone patterns that allow me to clone data in the same table well... but as I start to deal with cloning data in two tables at the same time and then linking up the new rows correctly... that's just not something I feel like I have a good grasp of. I thought I could do some self-joins to deal with this, but I am worried in the cases where the non-key fields have the same data in multiple rows.

  Read the article

• Is an index required for columns in ON clause?

  - by newbie

  Do I have to create an index on columns referenced in Joins? E.g. SELECT * FROM left_table INNER JOIN right_table ON left_table.foo = right_table.bar WHERE ... Should I create indexes on left_table(foo), right_table(bar), or both? I noticed different results when I used EXPLAIN (Postgresql) with and without indexes and switching around the order of the comparison (right_table.bar = left_table.foo) I know for sure that indexes are used for the left of the WHERE clause but I am wondering whether I need indexes for columns listed in ON clauses.

  Read the article

• ruby on rails named scopes (searching)

  - by houlahan

  I have a named scope (name) combination of first and last name and I'm wanting to use this in a search box. I have the code below: named_scope :full_name, lambda { |fn| {:joins => :actor, :conditions => ['first_name LIKE ? OR second_name LIKE ?', "%#{fn}%", "%#{fn}%"]} } def self.search(search) if search self.find(:all, :conditions => [ 'full_name LIKE ?', "%#{search}%"]) else find(:all) end end but this doesn't work as it gives the following error: SQLite3::SQLException: no such column: full_name: SELECT * FROM "actors" WHERE (full_name LIKE '%eli dooley%') Thanks in advance Houlahan

  Read the article

• Fill data gaps without UNION

  - by Dave Jarvis

  Problem There are data gaps that need to be filled, possibly using PARTITION BY. Query Statement The select statement reads as follows: SELECT count( r.incident_id ) AS incident_tally, r.severity_cd, r.incident_typ_cd FROM report_vw r GROUP BY r.severity_cd, r.incident_typ_cd ORDER BY r.severity_cd, r.incident_typ_cd Code Tables The severity codes and incident type codes are from: severity_vw incident_type_vw Actual Result Data 36 0 ENVIRONMENT 1 1 DISASTER 27 1 ENVIRONMENT 4 2 SAFETY 1 3 SAFETY Required Result Data 36 0 ENVIRONMENT 0 0 DISASTER 0 0 SAFETY 27 1 ENVIRONMENT 0 1 DISASTER 0 1 SAFETY 0 2 ENVIRONMENT 0 2 DISASTER 4 2 SAFETY 0 3 ENVIRONMENT 0 3 DISASTER 1 3 SAFETY Any ideas how to use PARTITION BY (or JOINs) to fill in the zero counts?

  Read the article

• django: how to use many-to-many relationships in values()?

  - by john

  i need to group results by a field that requires a few joins from the original model: // response_filter_args is created dynamically responses = Response.objects.filter(**response_filter_args) \ .values('customer__tags__tag') \ # django doesn't like this .annotate(average_score=Avg('rating__score')) Response - customer - tags (many-to-many field pointing to Tag) - tag (the tag as a string) Models are: class Response(models.Model): customer = models.ForeignKey(Customer) ... class Customer(models.Model): tags = models.ManyToManyField(Tag) ... class Tag(models.Model): tag = models.CharField(max_length=255) ... i'm trying to calculate average ratings. to make it work i need to tell django to group by 'tag', but it refuses to. it gives an error: Invalid field name: 'customer__tags__tag' anyone know how i can get it to group by tag? i've tried all the combinations of underscores in customer_tags_tag that i can think of, but nothing works.

  Read the article

• How do database servers decide which order to return rows without any "order by" statements?

  - by Chris

  Kind of a whimsical question, always something I've wondered about and I figure knowing why it does what it does might deepen my understanding a bit. Let's say I do "SELECT TOP 10 * FROM TableName". In short timeframes, the same 10 rows come back, so it doesn't seem random. They weren't the first or last created. In my massive sample size of...one table, it isn't returning the min or max auto-incrementing primary key value. I also figure the problem gets more complex when taking joins into account. My database of choice is MSSQL, but I figure this might be an interesting question regardless of the platform.

  Read the article

• Iphone Game Dev Over The Internet

  - by kernix

  Hello, I was wondering is there an easy way to communicate between iphones over the Internet(Not LAN/Bluetooth) or must there be a dedicated server in which all the iphones running an application needs to connect to? For instance, suppose I'm writing a game which works on the Internet. Once four clients joins a room, game starts. must I implement a server in which every Iphone client connects to (for instance if server was developed on Windows it could be a Service) or is there another way to address this when developing Internet-based application? Thank you

  Read the article

• Why isn't INT more efficient than UNIQUEIDENTIFIER (according to the execution plan)?

  - by ck

  I have a parent table and child table where the columns that join them together are the UNIQUEIDENTIFIER type. The child table has a clustered index on the column that joins it to the parent table (its PK, which is also clustered). I have created a copy of both of these tables but changed the relationship columns to be INTs instead, have rebuilt the indexes so that they are essentially the same structure and can be queried in the same way. When I query for a known 20 records from the parent table, pulling in all the related records from the child tables, I get identical query costs across both, i.e. 50/50 cost for the batches. If this is true, then my giant project to change all of the tables like this appears to be pointless, other than speeding up inserts. Can anyone provide any light on the situation? EDIT: The question is not about which is more efficient, but why is the query execution plan showing both queries as having the same cost?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >