Search Results

Search found 1908 results on 77 pages for 'relational operators'.

Page 25/77 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

  • Help needed with Linq To Sql Query

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    I have the concept of valid/ordered transitions. So for example, it's not possible to move to status In progress from status Complete. Current and Next in table StatusTransition are FK (StatusType.Id). The Linq generator has created the following relations: Child Property Name: StatusTransitions1 Parent Property Name: StatusType1 Participating Properties: StatusType.Id -> StatusTransition.Next Child Property Name: StatusTransitions Parent Property Name: StatusType Participating Properties: StatusType.Id -> StatusTransition.Current I'm normally ok with Linq but I'm having difficulty getting the list of valid Next StatusTypes from the Current status. public List<StatusType> GetValidStatusTransitions(int statusId) { // trying to write something like the following // (obviously not correct) return _statusRepository .Where(s => s.Id == statusId) .Next.StatusTypes; }

    Read the article

  • Java JPA @OneToMany neededs to reciprocate @ManyToOne?

    - by bguiz
    Create Table A ( ID varchar(8), Primary Key(ID) ); Create Table B ( ID varchar(8), A_ID varchar(8), Primary Key(ID), Foreign Key(A_ID) References A(ID) ); Given that I have created two tables using the SQL statements above, and I want to create Entity classes for them, for the class B, I have these member attributes: @Id @Column(name = "ID", nullable = false, length = 8) private String id; @JoinColumn(name = "A_ID", referencedColumnName = "ID", nullable = false) @ManyToOne(optional = false) private A AId; In class A, do I need to reciprocate the many-to-one relationship? @Id @Column(name = "ID", nullable = false, length = 8) private String id; @OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, mappedBy = "AId") private List<B> BList; //<-- Is this attribute necessary? Is it a necessary or a good idea to have a reciprocal @OneToMany for the @ManyToOne? If I make the design decision to leave out the @OneToMany annotated attribute now, will come back to bite me further down.

    Read the article

  • To Interface or Not?: Creating a polymorphic model relationship in Ruby on Rails dynamically..

    - by Globalkeith
    Please bear with me for a moment as I try to explain exactly what I would like to achieve. In my Ruby on Rails application I have a model called Page. It represents a web page. I would like to enable the user to arbitrarily attach components to the page. Some examples of "components" would be Picture, PictureCollection, Video, VideoCollection, Background, Audio, Form, Comments. Currently I have a direct relationship between Page and Picture like this: class Page < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :pictures, :as => :imageable, :dependent => :destroy end class Picture < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :imageable, :polymorphic => true end This relationship enables the user to associate an arbitrary number of Pictures to the page. Now if I want to provide multiple collections i would need an additional model: class PictureCollection < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :collectionable, :polymorphic => true has_many :pictures, :as => :imageable, :dependent => :destroy end And alter Page to reference the new model: class Page < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :picture_collections, :as => :collectionable, :dependent => :destroy end Now it would be possible for the user to add any number of image collections to the page. However this is still very static in term of the :picture_collections reference in the Page model. If I add another "component", for example :video_collections, I would need to declare another reference in page for that component type. So my question is this: Do I need to add a new reference for each component type, or is there some other way? In Actionscript/Java I would declare an interface Component and make all components implement that interface, then I could just have a single attribute :components which contains all of the dynamically associated model objects. This is Rails, and I'm sure there is a great way to achieve this, but its a tricky one to Google. Perhaps you good people have some wise suggestions. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read and answer this.

    Read the article

  • Parent-Child relation while using object data source

    - by Saba
    Hello guys I am experiencing with a class generator I've written, which generates a class for each table in database with each table field as a property and such. Before that, I used to add a typed dataset to the project and add some tables to it. It automatically detected the relationship between tables and when I added a parent table as data source of a datagrid, I could add another datagrid and use the foreing key data member of it's bindingsource to fill it, and when someone moved the focus on parent datagrid, the data in child datagrid would change accordingly. Now that I have my classes, I add an object as data source for my 2 datagrids, but obviously it doesn't detect a parent child relation. But It'd really help if I could have that foreign key relation in my object datasources. Is there any way to have that relation in object datasource?

    Read the article

  • Selecting by ID in Castle ActiveRecord

    - by ripper234
    How can I write a criteria to return all Orders that belong to a specific User? public class User { [PrimaryKey] public virtual int Id { get; set; } } public class Order { [PrimaryKey] public virtual int Id { get; set; } [BelongsTo("UserId")] public virtual User User { get; set; } } return ActiveRecordMediator<Order>.FindAll( // What criteria should I write here ? );

    Read the article

  • Circular database relationships. Good, Bad, Exceptions?

    - by jim
    I have been putting off developing this part of my app for sometime purely because I want to do this in a circular way but get the feeling its a bad idea from what I remember my lecturers telling me back in school. I have a design for an order system, ignoring the everything that doesn't pertain to this example I'm left with: CreditCard Customer Order I want it so that, Customers can have credit cards (0-n) Customers have orders (1-n) Orders have one customer(1-1) Orders have one credit card(1-1) Credit cards can have one customer(1-1) (unique ids so we can ignore uniqueness of cc number, husband/wife may share cc instances ect) Basically the last part is where the issue shows up, sometimes credit cards are declined and they wish to use a different one, this needs to update which their 'current' card is but this can only change the current card used for that order, not the other orders the customer may have on disk. Effectively this creates a circular design between the three tables. Possible solutions: Either Create the circular design, give references: cc ref to order, customer ref to cc customer ref to order or customer ref to cc customer ref to order create new table that references all three table ids and put unique on the order so that only one cc may be current to that order at any time Essentially both model the same design but translate differently, I am liking the latter option best at this point in time because it seems less circular and more central. (If that even makes sense) My questions are, What if any are the pros and cons of each? What is the pitfalls of circular relationships/dependancies? Is this a valid exception to the rule? Is there any reason I should pick the former over the latter? Thanks and let me know if there is anything you need clarified/explained. --Update/Edit-- I have noticed an error in the requirements I stated. Basically dropped the ball when trying to simplify things for SO. There is another table there for Payments which adds another layer. The catch, Orders can have multiple payments, with the possibility of using different credit cards. (if you really want to know even other forms of payment). Stating this here because I think the underlying issue is still the same and this only really adds another layer of complexity.

    Read the article

  • Creating relationship between two model instances

    - by Lowgain
    This is probably pretty simple, but here: Say I've got two models, Thing and Tag class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :tags end class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :things end And I have an instance of each. I want to link them. Can I do something like: @thing = Thing.find(1) @tag = Tag.find(1) @thing.tags.add(@tag) If not, what is the best way to do this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to add an additional field to a queryset?

    - by Mark
    I've got a list of affiliates (users who have referred someone to the site): affiliates = User.objects.annotate(referral_count=Count('referrals')).filter(referral_count__gt=0) And a count of the number of users each affiliate has referred within a time frame: new_users = User.objects.filter(date_joined__gt=sd, date_joined__lte=ed) new_referrals = User.objects.filter(referrals__user__in=new_users).annotate(referral_count=Count('referrals')) How can I do something like new_referrals['affiliate.username'].referral_count from within my template? Note that this is not just a syntax issue, I also need to index new_referrals somehow so that I'm able to do this. Either this, or if I can somehow add a new_referral_count to the first query, that'd work too.

    Read the article

  • Hibernate - EhCache - Which region to Cache associations/sets/collections ??

    - by lifeisnotfair
    Hi all, I am a newcomer to hibernate. It would be great if someone could comment over the following query that i have: Say i have a parent class and each parent has multiple children. So the mapping file of parent class would be something like: parent.hbm.xml <hibernate-mapping > <class name="org.demo.parent" table="parent" lazy="true"> <cache usage="read-write" region="org.demo.parent"/> <id name="id" column="id" type="integer" length="10"> <generator class="native"> </generator> </id> <property name="name" column="name" type="string" length="50"/> <set name="children" lazy="true"> <cache usage="read-write" region="org.demo.parent.children" /> <key column="parent_id"/> <one-to-many class="org.demo.children"/> </set> </class> </hibernate-mapping> children.hbm.xml <hibernate-mapping > <class name="org.demo.children" table="children" lazy="true"> <cache usage="read-write" region="org.demo.children"/> <id name="id" column="id" type="integer" length="10"> <generator class="native"> </generator> </id> <property name="name" column="name" type="string" length="50"/> <many-to-one name="parent_id" column="parent_id" type="integer" length="10" not-null="true"/> </class> </hibernate-mapping> So for the set children, should we specify the region org.demo.parent.children where it should cache the association or should we use the cache region of org.demo.children where the children would be getting cached. I am using EHCache as the 2nd level cache provider. I tried to search for the answer to this question but couldnt find any answer in this direction. It makes more sense to use org.demo.children but I dont know in which scenarios one should use a separate cache region for associations/sets/collections as in the above case. Kindly provide your inputs also let me know if I am not clear in my question. Thanks all.

    Read the article

  • Mapping enum to a table with hibernate annotation

    - by Thierry-Dimitri Roy
    I have a table DEAL and a table DEAL_TYPE. I would like to map this code: public class Deal { DealType type; } public enum DealType { BASE("Base"), EXTRA("Extra"); } The problem is that the data already exist in the database. And I'm having a hard time mapping the classes to the database. The database looks something like that: TABLE DEAL { Long id; Long typeId; } TABLE DEAL_TYPE { Long id; String text; } I know I could use a simple @OneToMany relationship from deal to deal type, but I would prefer to use an enum. Is this possible? I almost got it working by using a EnumType.ORDINAL type. But unfortunately, my IDs in my deal type table are not sequential, and do not start at 1. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • m:n relationship must have properties?

    - by nax
    I'm doing a E/R model for a project. I finished the ER model and, for me, all is okay. Maybe not perfect, but it's okay. When I gave the ER model to my teacher, he told me this: "the m:n relations MUST HAVE some properties" He said if the m:n relationship doesn't have the properties it will be wrong. In my opinion m:n doesn't need forcer attributes to the relationship, but if you have someone that can fit in it, just put there. What do you think? Who is wrong in this, me, or my teacher? NOTE: Reading again, it seems what he said was not due to my ER diagram, but was a general statement. The diagram I gave him doesn't have relations yet, so there where just entities and atributes.

    Read the article

  • What SQL ORM may i use to replace this old code

    - by acidzombie24
    Sorry since this question is specific to my problem. While learning reflections i did a mini SQL ORM in a week then minor tweaks while using it for another week. Since it has very little work put into it, its really only compatibility with sqlite. I havent had problems with the code so far but i would like to port it to something that supports TSQL or MySql. The example code is here which is outdated but has the most used functions in my class. What library can i port that code over too with the smallest about of pain. Note that it must support foreign keys.

    Read the article

  • How can I avoid setting some columns if others haven't changed, when working with Linq To SQL?

    - by Patrick Szalapski
    In LINQ to SQL, I want to avoid setting some columns if others haven't changed? Say I have dim row = (From c in dataContext.Customers Where c.Id = 1234 Select c).Single() row.Name = "Example" ' line 3 dataContext.SubmitChanges() ' line 4 Great, so LINQ to SQL fetches a row, sets the name to "Example" in memory, and generates an update SQL query only when necessary--that is, no SQL will be generated if the customer's name was already "Example". So suppose on line 3, I want to detect if row has changed, and if so, set row.UpdateDate = DateTime.Now. If row has not changed, I don't want to set row.UpdateDate so that no SQL is generated. Is there any good way to do this?

    Read the article

  • rais belong_to which class to choose

    - by Small Wolf
    There is a model relation like this. class A belongs_to :ref_config,:class_name => 'User' end My question is : the A has a attribute named flag, now i want to create a function like this: if flag == 1, I want the class A like this belongs_to :ref_config,:class_name => 'Department and if flag == 2, i want the class A like this belongs_to :ref_config,:class_name => 'User' How can I implement the function Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Mapping tables from an existing database to an object -- is Hibernate suited?

    - by Bernhard V
    Hello! I've got some tables in an existing database and I want to map them to a Java object. Actually it's one table that contains the main information an some other tables that reference to such a table entry with a foreign key. I don't want to store objects in the database, I only want to read from it. The program should not be allowed to apply any changes to the underlying database. Currently I read from the database with 5 JDBC sql queries and set the results then on an object. I'm now looking for a less code intensive way. Another goal is the learning aspect. Is Hibernate suitable for this task, or is there another ORM framework that better fits my requirement?

    Read the article

  • Relation to multiple tables of different types for rating?

    - by Tronic
    i have a table structure like this Products Team Images and want to implement a rating/commenting-feature, where users can rate each entry of all tables. what's the best way to make a single rating table? e.g. a user votes a a product and a team entry, and it should be possible to get alle these entries from a single table. what kind of table-structure is best for this purpose? i hope, my questions is clear enough :/ thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Postgresql Output column from another table

    - by muffin
    i'm using Postgresql, my question is specifically about querying from a table that's in another table and i'm really having trouble with this one. In fact, i'm absolutely mentally blocked. I'll try to define the relations of the tables as much as I can. I have a table entry which is like this: Each of the entries has a group_id; when they are 'advanced' to the next stage, the old entries are marked is_active = false, and a new assignment is done, so C & D are advanced stages of A & B. I have another table (which acts as a record keeper) , in which the storage_log_id refers to, this is the storage_log table : But then I have another table, to really find out where the entries are actually stored - storage table : To define my problem properly. Each entry has a storage_log_id (but some doesn't have yet), and a storage_log has a storage_id to refer to the actual table and find the storage label. The sql query i'm trying to do should output this one: Where The actual storage label is shown instead of the log id. This is so far what i've done: select e.id, e.group_id, e.name, e.stage, s.label from operational.entry e, operational.storage_log sl, operational.storage s where e.storage_log_id = sl.id and sl.storage_id = s.id But this just returns 3 rows, showing only the ones that have the seed_storage_log_id set; I should be able to see even those without logs, and especially the active ones. adding e.is_active = true to the condition makes the results empty. So, yeah i'm stuck. Need help, Thanks guys!

    Read the article

  • Example of user-defined integrity rule in database systems?

    - by Pavel
    Hey everyone. I'm currently preparing for my exams and would like to know some examples of user-defined integrity rule in database systems. As far as I understand, it means that I can set up certain conditions for the columns and when data is inserted it needs to fulfill these conditions. For example: if I set up a rule that an ID needs to consist of 5 integers ONLY then when I insert a row with ID which is made up of integers and some chars then it won't accept it and return an error. Could someone confirm and give me some opinion on that? Thank you very much in advance!

    Read the article

  • Storing dates i Train schedule MYSQL

    - by App_beginner
    Hi I have created a train schedule database in MYSQL. There are several thousand routes for each day. But with a few exceptions most of the routes are similar for every working day, but differ on weekends. At this time I basically update my SQL tables at midnight each day, to get the departures for the next 24 hours. This is however very inconvenient. So I need a way to store dates in my tables so I don't have to do this every day. I tried to create a separate table where I stored dates for each routenumber (routenumbers are resetted each day), but this made my query so slow that it was impossible to use. Does this mean I would have to store my departure and arrival times as datetimes? In that case the main table containing routes would have several million entries. Or is there another way? My routetable looks like this: StnCode (referenced in seperate Station table) DepTime ArrTime Routenumber legNumber

    Read the article

  • MySQL query problem

    - by Luke
    Ok, I have the following problem. I have two InnoDB tables: 'places' and 'events'. One place can have many events, but event can be created without entering place. In this case event's foreign key is NULL. Simplified structure of the tables looks as follows: CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `events` ( `id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `name` varchar(255) COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL, `places_id` int(9) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), KEY `fk_events_places` (`places_id`), ) ENGINE=InnoDB; ALTER TABLE `events` ADD CONSTRAINT `events_ibfk_1` FOREIGN KEY (`places_id`) REFERENCES `places` (`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE NO ACTION; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `places` ( `id` int(9) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `name` varchar(255) COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), ) ENGINE=InnoDB; Question is, how to construct query which contains name of the event and name of the corresponding place (or no value, in case there is no place assigned?). I am able to do it with two queries, but then I am visibly separating events which have place assigned from the ones that are without place. Help really appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Accessing two sides of a user-user relationship in rails

    - by Lowgain
    Basically, I have a users model in my rails app, and a fanship model, to facilitate the ability for users to become 'fans' of each other. In my user model, I have: has_many :fanships has_many :fanofs, :through => :fanships In my fanship model, I have: belongs_to :user belongs_to :fanof, :class_name => "User", :foreign_key => "fanof_id" My fanship table basically consists of :id, :user_id and :fanof_id. This all works fine, and I can see what users a specific user is a fan of like: <% @user.fanofs.each do |fan| %> #things <% end %> My question is, how can I get a list of the users that are a fan of this specific user? I'd like it if I could just have something like @user.fans, but if that isn't possible what is the most efficient way of going about this? Thanks!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >