Search Results

Search found 19103 results on 765 pages for 'foreign key'.

Page 242/765 | < Previous Page | 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249  | Next Page >

• Saving a record in Authlogic table

  - by denniss

  I am using authlogic to do my authentication. The current model that serves as the authentication model is the user model. I want to add a "belongs to" relationship to user which means that I need a foreign key in the user table. Say the foreign key is called car_id in the user's model. However, for some reason, when I do u = User.find(1) u.car_id = 1 u.save! I get ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid: Validation failed: Password can't be blank My guess is that this has something to do with authlogic. I do not have validation on password on the user's model. This is the migration for the user's table. def self.up create_table :users do |t| t.string :email t.string :first_name t.string :last_name t.string :crypted_password t.string :password_salt t.string :persistence_token t.string :single_access_token t.string :perishable_token t.integer :login_count, :null => false, :default => 0 # optional, see Authlogic::Session::MagicColumns t.integer :failed_login_count, :null => false, :default => 0 # optional, see Authlogic::Session::MagicColumns t.datetime :last_request_at # optional, see Authlogic::Session::MagicColumns t.datetime :current_login_at # optional, see Authlogic::Session::MagicColumns t.datetime :last_login_at # optional, see Authlogic::Session::MagicColumns t.string :current_login_ip # optional, see Authlogic::Session::MagicColumns t.string :last_login_ip # optional, see Authlogic::Session::MagicColumns t.timestamps end end And later I added the car_id column to it. def self.up add_column :users, :user_id, :integer end Is there anyway for me to turn off this validation?

  Read the article

• Linq-to-SQL: How to shape the data with group by?

  - by Cheeso

  I have an example database, it contains tables for Movies, People and Credits. The Movie table contains a Title and an Id. The People table contains a Name and an Id. The Credits table relates Movies to the People that worked on those Movies, in a particular role. The table looks like this: CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Credits] ( [Id] [int] IDENTITY (1, 1) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, [PersonId] [int] NOT NULL FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES People(Id), [MovieId] [int] NOT NULL FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES Movies(Id), [Role] [char] (1) NULL In this simple example, the [Role] column is a single character, by my convention either 'A' to indicate the person was an actor on that particular movie, or 'D' for director. I'd like to perform a query on a particular person that returns the person's name, plus a list of all the movies the person has worked on, and the roles in those movies. If I were to serialize it to json, it might look like this: { "name" : "Clint Eastwood", "movies" : [ { "title": "Unforgiven", "roles": ["actor", "director"] }, { "title": "Sands of Iwo Jima", "roles": ["director"] }, { "title": "Dirty Harry", "roles": ["actor"] }, ... ] } How can I write a LINQ-to-SQL query that shapes the output like that? I'm having trouble doing it efficiently. if I use this query: int personId = 10007; var persons = from p in db.People where p.Id == personId select new { name = p.Name, movies = (from m in db.Movies join c in db.Credits on m.Id equals c.MovieId where (c.PersonId == personId) select new { title = m.Title, role = (c.Role=="D"?"director":"actor") }) }; I get something like this: { "name" : "Clint Eastwood", "movies" : [ { "title": "Unforgiven", "role": "actor" }, { "title": "Unforgiven", "role": "director" }, { "title": "Sands of Iwo Jima", "role": "director" }, { "title": "Dirty Harry", "role": "actor" }, ... ] } ...but as you can see there's a duplicate of each movie for which Eastwood played multiple roles. How can I shape the output the way I want?

  Read the article

• [EF 4 POCO] Problem with INSERT...

  - by Darmak

  Hi all, I'm so frustrated because of this problem, you have no idea... I have 2 classes: Post and Comment. I use EF 4 POCO support, I don't have foreign key columns in my .edmx model (Comment class doesn't have PostID property, but has Post property) class Comment { public Post post { get; set; } // ... } class Post { public virtual ICollection<Comment> Comments { get; set; } // ... } Can someone tell me why the code below doesn't work? I want to create a new comment for a post: Comment comm = context.CreateObject<Comment>(); Post post = context.Posts.Where(p => p.Slug == "something").SingleOrDefault(); // post != null, so don't worry, be happy // here I set all other comm properties and... comm.Post = post; context.AddObject("Comments", comm); // Exception here context.SaveChanges(); The Exception is: Cannot insert the value NULL into column 'PostID', table 'Blog.Comments'; column does not allow nulls. INSERT fails. ... this 'PostID' column is of course a foreign key to the Posts table. Any help will be appreciated!

  Read the article

• how to join tables sql server

  - by Rick

  Im having some trouble with joining two tables. This is what my two tables look like: Table 1 Customer_ID CustomerName Add. 1000 John Smith 1001 Mike Coles 1002 Sam Carter Table 2 Sensor_ID Location Temp CustIDFK 1000 NY 70 1002 NY 70 1000 ... ... 1001 1001 1002 Desired: Sensor_ID Location Temp CustIDFK 1000 NY 70 John Smith 1002 NY 70 Sam Carter 1000 ... ... John Smith 1001 Mike Coles 1001 1002 I have made Customer_ID from table 1 my primary key, created custIDFK in table 2 and set that as my foreign key. I am really new to sql server so I am still having trouble with the whole relationship piece of it. My goal is to match one customer_ID with one Sensor_ID. The problem is that the table 2 does not have "unique IDs" since they repeat so I cant set that to my foreign key. I know I will have to do either an inner join or outer join, I just dont know how to link the sensor id with customer one. I was thinking of giving my sensor_ID a unique ID but the data that is being inserted into table 2 is coming from another program. Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• EF Forced Concurrency Checks

  - by Imran

  Hi, I have an issue with EF 4.0 that I hope someone can help with. I currently have an entity that I want to update in a last in wins fashion (i.e. ignore concurrency checks and just overwrite whats in the db with what is submitted). It seems Entity Framework not only includes the primary key of the entity in the where clause of the generated sql, but also any foreign key fields. This is annoying as it means that I don't get true last in wins semantics and need to know what value the fk field had before the update or I get a concurrency exception. I am aware that this can be short circuited by including a foreign key field as well as the navigation property on the entity. I would like to avoid this if possible as it's not a very clean solution. I was just wondering if there was any other way to override this behaviour? It seems like more of a bug than a feature. I have no problem with ef doing concurrency checks if I instruct it to do so but not being able to bypass concurrency completely is a bit of a hindrance as there are many valid scenarios where this is not needed

  Read the article

• Find items with belongs_to associations in Rails?

  - by dannymcc

  Hi Everyone, I have a model called Kase each "Case" is assigned to a contact person via the following code: class Kase < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :jobno has_many :notes, :order => "created_at DESC" belongs_to :company # foreign key: company_id belongs_to :person # foreign key in join table belongs_to :surveyor, :class_name => "Company", :foreign_key => "appointedsurveyor_id" belongs_to :surveyorperson, :class_name => "Person", :foreign_key => "surveyorperson_id" I was wondering if it is possible to list on the contacts page all of the kases that that person is associated with. I assume I need to use the find command within the Person model? Maybe something like the following? def index @kases = Person.Kase.find(:person_id) or am I completely misunderstanding everything again? Thanks, Danny EDIT: If I use: @kases= @person.kases I can successfully do the following: <% if @person.kases.empty? %> No Cases Found <% end %> <% if @person.kases %> This person has a case assigned to them <% end %> but how do I output the "jobref" field from the kase table for each record found?

  Read the article

• Should I use concrete Inheritance or not?

  - by Mez

  I have a project using Propel where I have three objects (potentially more in the future) Occasion Event extends Occasion Gig extends Occasion Occasion is an item that has the shared things, that will always be needed (Venue, start, end etc) With this - I want to be able to add in extra functionality, say for example, adding "Band" objects to the Gig object, or "Flyers" to an "Event" object. For this, I plan to create objects for these. However, without concrete inheritance, I have to have the foreign key point to the Occasion object - giving the (propel generated) functions for all of these extra bits to anything inherited from Occasion. I could, in theory do this without a foreign constraint, and add in functions to use the Peer or Query classes to get things related to the "Gig" or similar. Whereas with concrete inheritance, I would only have these functions in the things where they are. I think the decision here is whether I should Duck Type the objects (after all they are occasions) or whether I should just use the "Occasion" object as a "template" (only being used to search for things, like, all occasions at a venue) Thoughts? Comments?

  Read the article

• MySQL - optimising selection across two linked tables

  - by user293594

  I have two MySQL tables, states and trans: states (200,000 entries) looks like: id (INT) - also the primary key energy (DOUBLE) [other stuff] trans (14,000,000 entries) looks like: i (INT) - a foreign key referencing states.id j (INT) - a foreign key referencing states.id A (DOUBLE) I'd like to search for all entries in trans with trans.A 30. (say), and then return the energy entries from the (unique) states referenced by each matching entry. So I do it with two intermediate tables: CREATE TABLE ij SELECT i,j FROM trans WHERE A30.; CREATE TABLE temp SELECT DISTINCT i FROM ij UNION SELECT DISTINCT j FROM ij; SELECT energy from states,temp WHERE id=temp.i; This seems to work, but is there any way to do it without the intermediate tables? When I tried to create the temp table with a single command straight from trans: CREATE TABLE temp SELECT DISTINCT i FROM trans WHERE A30. UNION SELECT DISTINCT j FROM trans WHERE A30.; it took a longer (presumably because it had to search the large trans table twice. I'm new to MySQL and I can't seem to find an equivalent problem and answer out there on the interwebs. Many thanks, Christian

  Read the article

• Creating self-referential tables with polymorphism in SQLALchemy

  - by Jace

  I'm trying to create a db structure in which I have many types of content entities, of which one, a Comment, can be attached to any other. Consider the following: from datetime import datetime from sqlalchemy import create_engine from sqlalchemy import Column, ForeignKey from sqlalchemy import Unicode, Integer, DateTime from sqlalchemy.orm import relation, backref from sqlalchemy.ext.declarative import declarative_base Base = declarative_base() class Entity(Base): __tablename__ = 'entities' id = Column(Integer, primary_key=True) created_at = Column(DateTime, default=datetime.utcnow, nullable=False) edited_at = Column(DateTime, default=datetime.utcnow, onupdate=datetime.utcnow, nullable=False) type = Column(Unicode(20), nullable=False) __mapper_args__ = {'polymorphic_on': type} # <...insert some models based on Entity...> class Comment(Entity): __tablename__ = 'comments' __mapper_args__ = {'polymorphic_identity': u'comment'} id = Column(None, ForeignKey('entities.id'), primary_key=True) _idref = relation(Entity, foreign_keys=id, primaryjoin=id == Entity.id) attached_to_id = Column(Integer, ForeignKey('entities.id'), nullable=False) #attached_to = relation(Entity, remote_side=[Entity.id]) attached_to = relation(Entity, foreign_keys=attached_to_id, primaryjoin=attached_to_id == Entity.id, backref=backref('comments', cascade="all, delete-orphan")) text = Column(Unicode(255), nullable=False) engine = create_engine('sqlite://', echo=True) Base.metadata.bind = engine Base.metadata.create_all(engine) This seems about right, except SQLAlchemy doesn't like having two foreign keys pointing to the same parent. It says ArgumentError: Can't determine join between 'entities' and 'comments'; tables have more than one foreign key constraint relationship between them. Please specify the 'onclause' of this join explicitly. How do I specify onclause?

  Read the article

• Delete throws "deleted object would be re-saved by cascade"

  - by Greg

  I have following model: <class name="Person" table="Person" optimistic-lock="version"> <id name="Id" type="Int32" unsaved-value="0"> <generator class="native" /> </id> <!-- plus some properties here --> </class> <class name="Event" table="Event" optimistic-lock="version"> <id name="Id" type="Int32" unsaved-value="0"> <generator class="native" /> </id> <!-- plus some properties here --> </class> <class name="PersonEventRegistration" table="PersonEventRegistration" optimistic-lock="version"> <id name="Id" type="Int32" unsaved-value="0"> <generator class="native" /> </id> <property name="IsComplete" type="Boolean" not-null="true" /> <property name="RegistrationDate" type="DateTime" not-null="true" /> <many-to-one name="Person" class="Person" column="PersonId" foreign-key="FK_PersonEvent_PersonId" cascade="all-delete-orphan" /> <many-to-one name="Event" class="Event" column="EventId" foreign-key="FK_PersonEvent_EventId" cascade="all-delete-orphan" /> </class> There are no properties pointing to PersonEventRegistration either in Person nor in Event. When I try to delete an entry from PersonEventRegistration, I get the following error: "deleted object would be re-saved by cascade" The problem is, I don't store this object in any other collection - the delete code looks like this: public bool UnregisterFromEvent(Person person, Event entry) { var registrationEntry = this.session .CreateCriteria<PersonEventRegistration>() .Add(Restrictions.Eq("Person", person)) .Add(Restrictions.Eq("Event", entry)) .Add(Restrictions.Eq("IsComplete", false)) .UniqueResult<PersonEventRegistration>(); bool result = false; if (null != registrationEntry) { using (ITransaction tx = this.session.BeginTransaction()) { this.session.Delete(registrationEntry); tx.Commit(); result = true; } } return result; } What am I doing wrong here?

  Read the article

• Entity Framework. Updating EntityCollection using disconnected objects via navigation property.

  - by yougotiger

  I have a question, much liket this unanswered one. I'm trying to work with the entity framework, and having a tough time getting my foreign tables to update. I have something basically like this in the DB: Incident (table): -ID -other fields Responses (table): -FK:Incident.ID -other fields And and entities that match: Incident (entity) -ID -Other fields -Responses (EntityCollection of Responses via navigation property) Each Incident can have 0 or more responses. In my Webpage, I have a form to allow the user to enter all the details of an Incident, including a list of responses. I can add everything to the database when a new Incident is created, however I'm having difficulty with editing the Incident. When the page loads for edit, I populate the form and then store the responses in the viewstate. When the user changes the list of responses (adds one, deletes one or edits one). I store this back into the viewstate. Then when the user clicks the save button, I'd like to save the changes to the Incident and the Responses back to the DB. I cannot figure out how to get the responses from the detached viewstate into the Incident object so that they can be updated together. Currently when the user clicks save, I'm getting the Incident to edit from the db, making changes to the Incident's fields and then saving it back to the DB. However I can't figure out how to have the detached list of responses from the viewstate attach to the Incident. I have tried the following without success: Clearning the Incident.Responses collection and adding the ones from the viewstate back in: Incident.Responses.Clear() for each objResponse in Viewstate("Responses") Incident.Responses.add(objResponse) next Creating an EntityCollection from my list and then assiging that to the Incident.Responses Incident.Responses = EntityCollectionFromViewstateList Iterating through the responses in Incident.Response and assigning the corresponding object from viewstate: for each ObjResponse in Incident.Responses objResponse = objCorrespondingModifedResonseFromViewState Next These all fail, I'd like to be able to merge the changes into the Inicdent object so that when the BLL calls SaveChanges on the changes to both the Incident and Responses will happen at the same time. Any suggestions? I keep finding lots of stuff about assigning foreign keys (singular), but I haven't found a great solution for doing a set of entities assigned to another entity in this manner.

  Read the article

• symfony doctrine build-sql error

  - by user313571

  I have some big problems with symfony and doctrine at the beginning of a new project. I have created database diagram with mysql workbench, inserted the sql into phpmyadmin and then I've tried symfony doctrine:build-schema to generate the YAML schema. It generates a wrong schema (relations don't have on delete/on update) and after this I've tried symfony doctrine:build --sql and symfony doctrine:insert-sql The insert-sql statement generates error (can't create table ... failing query alter table add constraint ....), so I've decided to take a look over the generated sql and I've found out some differences between the sql generated from mysql workbench (which works perfect, including relations) and the sql generated by doctrine. I'll be short from now: I have to tables, EVENT and FORM and a 1 to n relation (each event may have multiple forms) so the correct constraint (generated with workbench) is ALTER TABLE `form` ADD CONSTRAINT `fk_form_event1` FOREIGN KEY (`event_id`) REFERENCES `event` (`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE CASCADE; doctrine generated statement is: ALTER TABLE event ADD CONSTRAINT event_id_form_event_id FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES form(event_id); It's totally reversed and I am sure here is the error. What should I do? It's also correct like this?

  Read the article

• django: How to make one form from multiple models containing foreignkeys

  - by Tim

  I am trying to make a form on one page that uses multiple models. The models reference each other. I am having trouble getting the form to validate because I cant figure out how to get the id of two of the models used in the form into the form to validate it. I used a hidden key in the template but I cant figure out how to make it work in the views My code is below: views: def the_view(request, a_id,): if request.method == 'POST': b_form= BForm(request.POST) c_form =CForm(request.POST) print "post" if b_form.is_valid() and c_form.is_valid(): print "valid" b_form.save() c_form.save() return HttpResponseRedirect(reverse('myproj.pro.views.this_page')) else: b_form= BForm() c_form = CForm() b_ide = B.objects.get(pk=request.b_id) id_of_a = A.objects.get(pk=a_id) return render_to_response('myproj/a/c.html', {'b_form':b_form, 'c_form':c_form, 'id_of_a':id_of_a, 'b_id':b_ide }) models class A(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=256, null=True, blank=True) classe = models.CharField(max_length=256, null=True, blank=True) def __str__(self): return self.name class B(models.Model): aid = models.ForeignKey(A, null=True, blank=True) number = models.IntegerField(max_length=1000) other_number = models.IntegerField(max_length=1000) class C(models.Model): bid = models.ForeignKey(B, null=False, blank=False) field_name = models.CharField(max_length=15) field_value = models.CharField(max_length=256, null=True, blank=True) forms from mappamundi.mappa.models import A, B, C class BForm(forms.ModelForm): class Meta: model = B exclude = ('aid',) class CForm(forms.ModelForm): class Meta: model = C exclude = ('bid',) B has a foreign key reference to A, C has a foreign key reference to B. Since the models are related, I want to have the forms for them on one page, 1 submit button. Since I need to fill out fields for the forms for B and C & I dont want to select the id of B from a drop down list, I need to somehow get the id of the B form into the form so it will validate. I have a hidden field in the template, I just need to figure how to do it in the views

  Read the article

• Moving from a non-clustered PK to a clustered PK in SQL 2005

  - by adaptr

  HI all, I recently asked this question in another thread, and thought I would reproduce it here with my solution: What if I have an auto-increment INT as my non-clustered primary key, and there are about 15 foreign keys defined to it ? (snide comment about original designer being braindead in the original :) ) This is a 15M row table, on a live database, SQL Standard, so dropping indexes is out of the question. Even temporarily dropping the foreign key constraints will be difficult. I'm curious if anybody has a solution that causes minimal downtime. I tested this in our testing environment and finally found that the downtime wasn't as severe as I had originally feared. I ended up writing a script that drops all FK constraints, then drops the non-clustered key, re-creates the PK as a clustered index, and finally re-created all FKs WITH NOCHECK to avoid trawling through all FKs to check constraint compliance. Then I just enable the CHECK constraints to enable constraint checking from that point onwards, and all is dandy :) The most important thing to realize is that during the time the FKs are absent, there MUST NOT be any INSERTs or DELETEs on the parent table, as this may break the constraints and cause issues in the future. The total time taken for clustering a 15M row, 800MB index was ~4 minutes :)

  Read the article

• database structure

  - by jindalsyogesh

  I have a table named ActivityRecording. This table currently has 500,000 records. I need to add a lot of new inputs that relates to activityrecording table. The relation of activityrecording with these new input fields is 1 to 0,1. So, what's going to happen on screen is when user fills the ActivityRecording data, he will then be taken to a new page and this page will show a form based on the user's input (from a dropdown named service) in activityrecording. There will 6 different kinds of form (each form will have 7-8 inputs which includes textareas of size 5kb, textboxes and checkboxes). So, for one activityrecording user will fill one out of 6 forms. There are two ways I know (there could be more), I can design the data structure: Add all the inputs from all these 6 forms into the activityrecording table. So, columns belonging to 5 of these forms will be null in this table, only columns belonging to one of the forms will have values The other way would be add 6 new tables (one for each form) and add 6 foreign key columns to activityrecording table. So, out of 6 foreign keys, 5 will be null and one will actually point to a table Which approach is a better data structure design? Please take into consideration that number of rows in this table are 500,000 and are expected to grow at a faster rate now.

  Read the article

• How do I establish table association in JPA / Hibernate with existing database?

  - by Paperino

  Currently I have two tables in my database Encounters and Referrals: There is a one to many relationship between these two tables. Currently they are linked together with foreign keys. Right now I have public class Encounter extends JPASupport implements java.io.Serializable { @Column(name="referralid", unique=false, nullable=true, insertable=true, updatable=true) public Integer referralid; } But what I really want is public class Encounter extends JPASupport implements java.io.Serializable { .......... @OneToMany(cascade=CascadeType.PERSIST) public Set<Referrals> referral; ............ } So that I can eventually do a query like this: List<Encounter> cases = Encounter.find( "select distinct p from Encounter p join p.referrals as t where t.caseid =103" ).fetch(); How do I tell JPA that even though I have non-standard column names for my foreign keys and primary keys that its the object models that I want linked, not simply the integer value for the keys? Does this make sense? I hope so. Thanks in advanced!

  Read the article

• Database localization

  - by Don

  Hi, I have a number of database tables that contain name and description columns which need to be localized. My initial attempt at designing a DB schema that would support this was something like: product ------- id name description local_product ------- id product_id local_name local_description locale_id locale ------ id locale However, this solution requires a new local_ table for every table that contains name and description columns that require localization. In an attempt to avoid this overhead I redesigned the schema so that only a single localization table is needed product ------- id localization_id localization ------- id local_name local_description locale_id locale ------ id locale Here's an example of the data which would be stored in this schema when there are 2 tables (product and country) requiring localization: country id, localization_id ----------------------- 1, 5 product id, localization_id ----------------------- 1, 2 localization id, local_name, local_description, locale_id ------------------------------------------------------ 2, apple, a delicious fruit, 2 2, pomme, un fruit délicieux, 3 2, apfel, ein köstliches Obst, 4 5, ireland, a small country, 2 5, irlande, un petite pay, 3 locale id, locale -------------- 2, en 3, fr 4, de Notice that the compound primary key of the localization table is (id, locale_id), but the foreign key in the product table only refers to the first element of this compound PK. This seems like 'a bad thing' from the POV of normalization. Is there any way I can fix this problem, or alternatively, is there a completely different schema that supports localization without creating a separate table for each localizable table? Update: A number of respondents have proposed a solution that requires creating a separate table for each localizable table. However, this is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. The schema I've proposed above almost solves the problem to my satisfaction, but I'm unhappy about the fact that the localization_id foreign keys only refer to part of the corresponding primary key in the localization table. Thanks, Don

  Read the article

• Tree deletion with NHibernate

  - by Tigraine

  Hi, I'm struggling with a little problem and starting to arrive at the conclusion it's simply not possible. I have a Table called Group. As with most of these systems Group has a ParentGroup and a Children collection. So the Table Group looks like this: Group -ID (PK) -Name -ParentId (FK) I did my mappings using FNH AutoMappings, but I had to override the defaults for this: p.References(x => x.Parent) .Column("ParentId") .Cascade.All(); p.HasMany(x => x.Children) .KeyColumn("ParentId") .ForeignKeyCascadeOnDelete() .Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan() .Inverse(); Now, the general idea was to be able to delete a node and all of it's children to be deleted too by NH. So deleting the only root node should basically clear the whole table. I tried first with Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan but that works only for deletion of items from the Children collection, not deletion of the parent. Next I tried ForeignKeyCascadeOnDelete so the operation gets delegated to the Database through on delete cascade. But once I do that MSSql2008 does not allow me to create this constraint, failing with : Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FKBA21C18E87B9D9F7' on table 'Group' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints. Well, and that's it for me. I guess I'll just loop through the children and delete them one by one, thus doing a N+1. If anyone has a suggestion on how do that more elegantly I'd be eager to hear it.

  Read the article

• How do I rescue a small portion of data from a SQL Server database backup?

  - by Greg

  I have a live database that had some data deleted from it and I need that data back. I have a very recent copy of that database that has already been restored on another machine. Unrelated changes have been made to the live database since the backup, so I do not want to wipe out the live database with a full restore. The data I need is small - just a dozen rows - but those dozen rows each have a couple rows from other tables with foreign keys to it, and those couple rows have god knows how many rows with foreign keys pointing to them, so it would be complicated to restore by hand. Ideally I'd be able to tell the backup copy of the database to select the dozen rows I need, and the transitive closure of everything that they depend on, and everything that depends on them, and export just that data, which I can then import into the live database without touching anything else. What's the best approach to take here? Thanks. Everyone has mentioned sp_generate_inserts. When using this, how do you prevent Identity columns from messing everything up? Do you just turn IDENTITY INSERT on?

  Read the article

• using spring, hibernate and scala, is there a better way to load test data than dbunit?

  - by egervari

  Here are some things I really dislike about dbunit: 1) You cannot specify the exact ordering the inserts because dbunit likes to group your inserts by table name, and not by the order you define them in the XML file. This is a problem when you have records depending on other records in other tables, so you have to disable foreign key constraints during your tests... which actually sucks because these foreign key constraints will get fired in production while your tests won't be aware of them! 2) They seem hellbent on forcing you to use an xml namespace to define your xml... and I honestly can't be bothered to do this. I like the data.xml without any namespace. It works. But they are so hellbent on deprecating it. 3) Creating different xml files is hard on a per test basis, so it actually encourages creating data for your entire app. Unfortunately, this process is a little bloated too once the data grows in size and things get inter tangled. There has got to be a better way to split up your test data into chunks without having to copy/paste a lot of the test data across all of your tests. 4) Keeping track of id references in a big xml file is just impossible. If you have 130 domain classes, it just gets bewildering. This model simply does not scale. Is there something less bloated and better in the Spring/Hibernate space? db unit has worn out its welcome and I'm really looking for something better.

  Read the article

• "Too many indexes on table" error when creating relationships in Microsoft Access 2010.

  - by avianattackarmada

  I have tblUsers which has a primary key of UserID. UserID is used as a foreign key in many tables. Within a table, it is used as a foreign key for multiple fields (e.g. ObserverID, RecorderID, CheckerID). I have successfully added relationships (with in the the MS Access 'Relationship' view), where I have table aliases to do the multiple relationships per table: *tblUser.UserID - 1 to many - tblResight.ObserverID *tblUser_1.UserID - 1 to many - tblResight.CheckerID After creating about 25 relationships with enforcement of referential integrity, when I try to add an additional one, I get the following error: "The operation failed. There are too many indexes on table 'tblUsers.' Delete some of the indexes on the table and try the operation again." I ran the code I found here and it returned that I have 6 indexes on tblUsers. I know there is a limit of 32 indexes per table. Am I using the relationship GUI wrong? Does access create an index for the enforcement of referential integrity any time I create a relationship (especially indexes that wouldn't turn up when I ran the script)? I'm kind of baffled, any help would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• If a table has two xml columns, will inserting records be a lot slower?

  - by Lieven Cardoen

  Is it a bad thing to have two xml columns in one table? + How much slower are these xml columns in terms of updating/inserting/reading data? In profiler this kind of insert normally takes 0 ms, but sometimes it goes up to 160ms: declare @p8 xml set @p8=convert(xml,N'<interactions><interaction correct="false" score="0" id="0" gapid="0" x="61" y="225"><feedback/><element id="0" position="0" elementtype="1"><asset/></element></interaction><interaction correct="false" score="0" id="1" gapid="1" x="64" y="250"><feedback/><element id="0" position="0" elementtype="1"><asset/></element></interaction><interaction correct="false" score="0" id="2" gapid="2" x="131" y="250"><feedback/><element id="0" position="0" elementtype="1"><asset/></element></interaction></interactions>') declare @p14 xml set @p14=convert(xml,N'<contentinteractions/>') exec sp_executesql N'INSERT INTO [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes]([dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[PackageSessionId], [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[TreeNodeId],[dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[Duration], [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[Score],[dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[ScoreMax], [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[Interactions],[dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[BrainTeaser], [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[DateCreated], [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[CompletionStatus], [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[ReducedScore], [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[ReducedScoreMax], [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes].[ContentInteractions]) VALUES (@ins_dboPackageSessionNodesPackageSessionId, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesTreeNodeId, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesDuration, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesScore, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesScoreMax, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesInteractions, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesBrainTeaser, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesDateCreated, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesCompletionStatus, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesReducedScore, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesReducedScoreMax, @ins_dboPackageSessionNodesContentInteractions) ; SELECT SCOPE_IDENTITY() as new_id This is the table: CREATE TABLE [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes]( [PackageSessionNodeId] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [PackageSessionId] [int] NOT NULL, [TreeNodeId] [int] NOT NULL, [Duration] [int] NULL, [Score] [float] NOT NULL, [ScoreMax] [float] NOT NULL, [Interactions] [xml] NOT NULL, [BrainTeaser] [bit] NOT NULL, [DateCreated] [datetime] NULL, [CompletionStatus] [int] NOT NULL, [ReducedScore] [float] NOT NULL, [ReducedScoreMax] [float] NOT NULL, [ContentInteractions] [xml] NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_PackageSessionNodes] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [PackageSessionNodeId] ASC )WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY] ) ON [PRIMARY] GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_PackageSessionNodes_PackageSessions] FOREIGN KEY([PackageSessionId]) REFERENCES [dbo].[PackageSessions] ([PackageSessionId]) ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes] CHECK CONSTRAINT [FK_PackageSessionNodes_PackageSessions] GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_PackageSessionNodes_TreeNodes] FOREIGN KEY([TreeNodeId]) REFERENCES [dbo].[TreeNodes] ([TreeNodeId]) GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes] CHECK CONSTRAINT [FK_PackageSessionNodes_TreeNodes] GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes] ADD CONSTRAINT [DF_PackageSessionNodes_Score] DEFAULT ((-1)) FOR [Score] GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes] ADD CONSTRAINT [DF_PackageSessionNodes_ScoreMax] DEFAULT ((-1)) FOR [ScoreMax] GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes] ADD CONSTRAINT [DF_PackageSessionNodes_DateCreated] DEFAULT (getdate()) FOR [DateCreated] GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes] ADD CONSTRAINT [DF_PackageSessionNodes_ReducedScore] DEFAULT ((-1)) FOR [ReducedScore] GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PackageSessionNodes] ADD CONSTRAINT [DF_PackageSessionNodes_ReducedScoreMax] DEFAULT ((-1)) FOR [ReducedScoreMax] GO

  Read the article

• Unable to delete inherited entity class in EF4

  - by Coding Gorilla

  I have two entities in an EF4 model (using Model First), let's call them EntityA and EntityB. EntityA is marked as abstract, and EntityB inherits from EntityA. They are similar to the following: public class EntityA { public Guid Id; public string Name; public string Uri; } public class EntityB : EntityA { public string AnotherProperty; } The generated database tables look as I would expect them, with EntityA as on table, and then another table like: EntityA_EntityB Id (PK, FK, uniqueidentifier) AnotherProperty (varchar) There is a foreign key constraint on EntityA_EntityB that references EntityA's Id property, no cascades are configured (although I did try changing these myself). The problem is that when I attempt to do something like: Context.DeleteObject(EntityA_EntityB); EF attempts to delete the EntityA_EntityB table record before deleting the EntityA table record, which of course violates the foreign key constraint on EntityA_EntityB table. Using EFProfiler I see the following commands being sent to the database: delete [dbo].[EntityA_EntityB] where (([Id] = '5c02899f-09ea-2ed9-d44b-01aef80f6b64' /* @0 */) followed by delete [dbo].[EntityA] where ([Id] = '5c02899f-09ea-2ed9-d44b-01aef80f6b64' /* @0 */) I'm completely stumped as to how to get around this problem. I would think the EF should know that it needs to delete the base class first, before deleting the inherited class. I know I could do some triggers or other database type solutions, but I'd rather avoid doing that if I can. All my classes are POCO built using some customized T4 templates. I don't want to paste in a lot of extraneous code, but if you need more information I'll provide what I can.

  Read the article

• Is it possible to have a mysql table accept a null value for a primary_key column referencing a diff

  - by Dr.Dredel

  I have a table that has a column which holds the id of a row in another table. However, when table A is being populated, table B may or may not have a row ready for table A. My question is, is it possible to have mysql prevent an invalid value from being entered but be ok with a NULL? or does a foreign key necessitate a valid related value? So... what I'm looking for (in pseudo code) is this: Table "person" id | name Table "people" id | group_name | person_id (foreign key id from table person) insert into person (1, 'joe'); insert into people (1, 'foo', 1)//kosher insert into people (1, 'foo', NULL)//also kosher insert into people(1, 'foo', 7)// should fail since there is no id 7 in the person table. The reason I need this is that I'm having a chicken and egg issue where it makes perfect sense for the rows in the people table to be created before hand (in this example, I'm creating the groups and would like them to pre-exist the people who join them). And I realize that THIS example is silly and I would just put the group id in the person table rather than vice-versa, but in my real-world problem that is not workable. Just curious if I need to allow any and all values in order to make this work, or if there's some way to allow for null.

  Read the article

• Should core application configuration be stored in the database, and if so what should be done to se

  - by Rl

  I'm writing an application around a lot of hierarchical data. Currently the hierarchy is fixed, but it's likely that new items will be added to the hierarchy in the future. (please let them be leaves) My current application and database design is fairly generic and nothing dealing with specific nodes in the hierarchy is hardcoded, with the exception of validation and lookup functions written to retrieve external data from each node's particular database. This pleases me from a design point of view, but I'm nervous at the realization that the entire application rests on a handful of records in the database. I'm also frustrated that I have to enforce certain aspects of data integrity with database triggers rather than by foreign key constraints (an example is where several different nodes in the hierarchy have their own proprietary IDs and I store them in a single column which, when coupled with the node ID can be used to locate the foreign data). I'm starting to wonder whether it may have been appropriate to simply hardcoded these known nodes into the system so that it would be more "type safe" and less generic. How does one know when something should be hardcoded, and when it should be a configuration item? Is it just a cost-benefit analysis of clarity/safety now vs less work later, or am I missing some metric I should be using to determine whether or not this is appropriate. The steps I'm taking to protect these valuable configurations are to add triggers that prevent updates/deletes. The database user that this application uses will only have the ability to manipulate data through stored procedures. What else can I do?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249  | Next Page >