Search Results

Search found 5520 results on 221 pages for 'compound primary'.

Page 3/221 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Mysql Removal of primary key

    - by marionmaiden
    Hello, I've removed the primary key of one table of my MySQL database, but now, when I use the MySQL Administrator and try to edit the data of this table, it doesn't allow me to do this. The button edit that appears in the bottom of the table keeps visible, but unable to click.

    Read the article

  • Multi-Column Primary Key in MySQL 5

    - by Kaji
    I'm trying to learn how to use keys and to break the habit of necessarily having SERIAL type IDs for all rows in all my tables. At the same time, I'm also doing many-to-many relationships, and so requiring unique values on either column of the tables that coordinate the relationships would hamper that. How can I define a primary key on a table such that any given value can be repeated in any column, so long as the combination of values across all columns is never repeated exactly?

    Read the article

  • Removal of table primary key in MySQL

    - by marionmaiden
    Hello, I've removed the primary key of one table of my MySQL database, but now, when I use the MySQL Administrator and try to edit some data of this table, it doesn't allow me to do this. The button edit that appears in the bottom of the table keeps visible, but disabled to click.

    Read the article

  • primary key datatype in sql server database

    - by ooo
    i see after installing the asp.net membership tables, they use the data type "uniqueidentifier" for all of the primary key fields. I have been using "int" data type and doing increment by one on inserts. Is there any particular benefits to using the uniqueIdentifier data type compared to my current model of using int and auto increments on new inserts ?

    Read the article

  • Compound assignment operators in Python's Numpy library

    - by Leonard
    The "vectorizing" of fancy indexing by Python's numpy library sometimes gives unexpected results. For example: import numpy a = numpy.zeros((1000,4), dtype='uint32') b = numpy.zeros((1000,4), dtype='uint32') i = numpy.random.random_integers(0,999,1000) j = numpy.random.random_integers(0,3,1000) a[i,j] += 1 for k in xrange(1000): b[i[k],j[k]] += 1 Gives different results in the arrays 'a' and 'b' (i.e. the appearance of tuple (i,j) appears as 1 in 'a' regardless of repeats, whereas repeats are counted in 'b'). This is easily verified as follows: numpy.sum(a) 883 numpy.sum(b) 1000 It is also notable that the fancy indexing version is almost two orders of magnitude faster than the for loop. My question is: "Is there an efficient way for numpy to compute the repeat counts as implemented using the for loop in the provided example?"

    Read the article

  • ROO: how to create composit primary key in Entity

    - by Paul
    Hi, What can I do if I need to create entity for a table in production DB (Oracle 10g) with composite primary key. For example: [CODE] CREATE TABLE TACCOUNT ( BRANCHID NUMBER(3) NOT NULL, ACC VARCHAR2(18 BYTE) NOT NULL, DATE_OPEN DATE NOT NULL, DATE_CLOSE DATE, NOTE VARCHAR2(38 BYTE) ); CREATE UNIQUE INDEX PK_TACCOUNT ON TACCOUNT (BRANCHID, ACC); I don't want to change the structure of this table. Is it possible to create an "id" field using roo commands? I use Spring Roo 1.0.2.RELEASE [rev 638] Paul

    Read the article

  • Django BigInteger auto-increment field as primary key?

    - by Alex Letoosh
    Hi all, I'm currently building a project which involves a lot of collective intelligence. Every user visiting the web site gets created a unique profile and their data is later used to calculate best matches for themselves and other users. By default, Django creates an INT(11) id field to handle models primary keys. I'm concerned with this being overflown very quickly (i.e. ~2.4b devices visiting the page without prior cookie set up). How can I change it to be represented as BIGINT in MySQL and long() inside Django itself? I've found I could do the following (http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/#bigintegerfield): class MyProfile(models.Model): id = BigIntegerField(primary_key=True) But is there a way to make it autoincrement, like usual id fields? Additionally, can I make it unsigned so that I get more space to fill in? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Using Spring's KeyHolder with programmatically-generated primary keys

    - by smayers81
    Hello, I am using Spring's NamedParameterJdbcTemplate to perform an insert into a table. The table uses a NEXTVAL on a sequence to obtain the primary key. I then want this generated ID to be passed back to me. I am using Spring's KeyHolder implementation like this: KeyHolder key = new GeneratedKeyHolder(); jdbcTemplate.update(Constants.INSERT_ORDER_STATEMENT, params, key); However, when I run this statement, I am getting: org.springframework.dao.DataRetrievalFailureException: The generated key is not of a supported numeric type. Unable to cast [oracle.sql.ROWID] to [java.lang.Number] at org.springframework.jdbc.support.GeneratedKeyHolder.getKey(GeneratedKeyHolder.java:73) Any ideas what I am missing?

    Read the article

  • Generate non-identity primary key

    - by MikeWyatt
    My workplace doesn't use identity columns or GUIDs for primary keys. Instead, we retrieve "next IDs" from a table as needed, and increment the value for each insert. Unfortunatly for me, LINQ-TO-SQL appears to be optimized around using identity columns. So I need to query and update the "NextId" table whenever I perform an insert. For simplicity, I do this immediately creating the new object. Since all operations between creation of the data context and the call to SubmitChanges are part of one transaction, do I need to create a separate data context for retrieving next IDs? Each time I need an ID, I need to query and update a table inside a transaction to prevent multiple apps from grabbing the same value. Is a separate data context the only way, or is there something better I could try?

    Read the article

  • Future proof Primary Key design in postgresql

    - by John P
    I've always used either auto_generated or Sequences in the past for my primary keys. With the current system I'm working on there is the possibility of having to eventually partition the data which has never been a requirement in the past. Knowing that I may need to partition the data in the future, is there any advantage of using UUIDs for PKs instead of the database's built-in sequences? If so, is there a design pattern that can safely generate relatively short keys (say 6 characters instead of the usual long one e6709870-5cbc-11df-a08a-0800200c9a66)? 36^6 keys per-table is more than sufficient for any table I could imagine. I will be using the keys in URLs so conciseness is important.

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Changing order of auto-incremented primary keys?

    - by Tom
    Hi, I have a table with a auto-incremented primary key: user_id. For a currently theoretical reason, I might need to change a user_id to be something else than it was when originally created through auto-incrementation. This means there's a possibility that the keys will not be in incremental order anymore: PK: 1 2 3 952 // changed key 4 5 6 7 I'm wondering whether this will cause problems, and whether MySQL reads something special to the incremental order of the keys, given that they should have come to existence in incremental order (which persists even when some rows are deleted). Assuming there are no associated foreignkey issues, or that these are under control, is there a problem with "messing with" the order of MySQL's autoincremented keys? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • PHP/MYSQL Trouble Selecting by Primary Key

    - by djs22
    Hi all, So I have a primary key column called key. I'm trying to select the row with key = 1 via this code: $query ="SELECT * FROM Bowlers WHERE key = '1'"; $result = mysql_query($query) or die(mysql_error()); For some reason, I'm getting this result: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'key = '1'' at line 1 The mysql statement works for using other keys, ie WHERE name = 'djs22'. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Multiple foreign keys from one table linking to single primary key in second table

    - by croker10
    Hi all, I have a database with three tables, a household table, an adults table and a users table. The Household table contains two foreign keys, iAdult1ID and iAdult2ID. The Users table has a iUserID primary key and the Adult table has a corresponding iUserID foreign key. One of the columns in the Users table is strUsername, an e-mail address. I am trying to write a query that will allow me to search for an e-mail address for either adult that has a relation to the household. So I have two questions, assuming that all the values are not null, how can I do this? And two, in reality, iAdult2ID can be null, is it still possible to write a query to do this? Thanks for your help. Let me know if you need any more information.

    Read the article

  • Multiple Foriegn Keys from One Table linking to single Primary Key in second Table

    - by croker10
    Hi all, I have a database with three tables, a household table, an adults table and a users table. The Household table contains two foreign keys, iAdult1ID and iAdult2ID. The Users table has a iUserID primary key and the Adult table has a corresponding iUserID foreign key. One of the columns in the Users table is strUsername, an e-mail address. I am trying to write a query that will allow me to search for an e-mail address for either adult that has a relation to the household. So I have two questions, assuming that all the values are not null, how can I do this? And two, in reality, iAdult2ID can be null, is it still possible to write a query to do this? Thanks for your help. Let me know if you need any more information.

    Read the article

  • Violation of primary key constraint, multiple users

    - by MC.
    Lets say UserA and UserB both have an application open and are working with the same type of data. UserA inserts a record into the table with value 10 (PrimaryKey='A'), UserB does not currently see the value UserA entered and attempts to insert a new value of 20 (PrimaryKey='A'). What I wanted in this situation was a DBConcurrencyException, but instead what I have is a primary key violation. I understand why, but I have no idea how to resolve this. What is a good practice to deal with such a circumstance? I do not want to merge before updating the database because I want an error to inform the user that multiple users updated this data.

    Read the article

  • JPA 2.0 Eclipse Link ... Composite primary keys

    - by Parhs
    I have two entities(actually more but it doenst matter) Exam and Exam_Normals Its a oneToMany relationship... The problem is that i need a primary key for Exams_Normals PK (Exam_ID Item) Item should be 1 2 3 4 5 etc.... But cant achieve it getting errors An alternative would be to: I cound use an IDENTITY and a ManyToOne relationship at Exam_Normals but that should be like PK(Exam_Normals_ID) and a reference to Exam and an extra collumn Item to keep an order.. SO 3 collumns But to avoid the alternative tried I tried with @IdClass and got errors Tried @EmbeddedID everything nothing works Any idea??

    Read the article

  • Delete duplicate records from a SQL table without a primary key

    - by Shyju
    I have the below table with the below records in it create table employee ( EmpId number, EmpName varchar2(10), EmpSSN varchar2(11) ); insert into employee values(1, 'Jack', '555-55-5555'); insert into employee values (2, 'Joe', '555-56-5555'); insert into employee values (3, 'Fred', '555-57-5555'); insert into employee values (4, 'Mike', '555-58-5555'); insert into employee values (5, 'Cathy', '555-59-5555'); insert into employee values (6, 'Lisa', '555-70-5555'); insert into employee values (1, 'Jack', '555-55-5555'); insert into employee values (4, 'Mike', '555-58-5555'); insert into employee values (5, 'Cathy', '555-59-5555'); insert into employee values (6 ,'Lisa', '555-70-5555'); insert into employee values (5, 'Cathy', '555-59-5555'); insert into employee values (6, 'Lisa', '555-70-5555'); I dont have any primary key in this table .But i have the above records in my table already. I want to remove the duplicate records which has the same value in EmpId and EmpSSN fields. Ex : Emp id 5 Can any one help me to frame a query to delete those duplicate records Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Primary Key Identity Value Increments On Unique Key Constraint Violation

    - by Jed
    I have a SqlServer 2008 table which has a Primary Key (IsIdentity=Yes) and three other fields that make up a Unique Key constraint. In addition I have a store procedure that inserts a record into the table and I call the sproc via C# using a SqlConnection object. The C# sproc call works fine, however I have noticed interesting results when the C# sproc call violates the Unique Key constraint.... When the sproc call violates the Unique Key constraint, a SqlException is thrown - which is no surprise and cool. However, I notice that the next record that is successfully added to the table has a PK value that is not exactly one more than the previous record - For example: Say the table has five records where the PK values are 1,2,3,4, and 5. The sproc attempts to insert a sixth record, but the Unique Key constraint is violated and, so, the sixth record is not inserted. Then the sproc attempts to insert another record and this time it is successful. - This new record is given a PK value of 7 instead of 6. Is this normal behavior? If so, can you give me a reason why this is so? (If a record fails to insert, why is the PK index incremented?) If this is not normal behavior, can you give me any hints as to why I am seeing these symptoms?

    Read the article

  • what's the performance difference between int and varchar for primary keys

    - by user568576
    I need to create a primary key scheme for a system that will need peer to peer replication. So I'm planning to combine a unique system ID and a sequential number in some way to come up with unique ID's. I want to make sure I'll never run out of ID's, so I'm thinking about using a varchar field, since I could always add another character if I start running out. But I've read that integers are better optimized for this. So I have some questions... 1) Are integers really better optimized? And if they are, how much of a performance difference is there between varchars and integers? I'm going to use firebird for now. But I may switch later. Or possibly support multiple db's. So I'm looking for generalizations, if that's possible. 2) If integers are significantly better optimized, why is that? And is it likely that varchars will catch up in the future, so eventually it won't matter anyway? My varchar keys won't have any meaning, except for the unique system ID part. But I may want to obscure that somehow. Also, I plan to efficiently use all the bits of each character. I don't, for example, plan to code the integer 123 as the character string "123". So I don't think varchars will require more space than integers.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Create Primary Key with Specific Name when Creating Table

    - by pinaldave
    It is interesting how sometimes the documentation of simple concepts is not available online. I had received email from one of the reader where he has asked how to create Primary key with a specific name when creating the table itself. He said, he knows the method where he can create the table and then apply the primary key with specific name. The attached code was as follows: CREATE TABLE [dbo].[TestTable]( [ID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [FirstName] [varchar](100) NULL) GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[TestTable] ADD  CONSTRAINT [PK_TestTable] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([ID] ASC) GO He wanted to know if we can create Primary Key as part of the table name as well, and also give it a name at the same time. Though it would look very normal to all experienced developers, it can be still confusing to many. Here is the quick code that functions as the above code in one single statement. CREATE TABLE [dbo].[TestTable]( [ID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [FirstName] [varchar](100) NULL CONSTRAINT [PK_TestTable] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([ID] ASC) ) GO Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, Readers Question, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Constraint and Keys, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • trying to setup multiple primary partitions on ubuntu linux

    - by JohnMerlino
    I currently have ubuntu desktop installed on a harddrive. I want to partition the harddrive so that I can reserve 30 gigs for ubuntu server and 30 gigs for ubuntu desktop. The drive has 300 gigs available. Right now I am booting from dvd drive and installing ubuntu server. I selected "Guided partitioning" and created a 30 gig primary partition of Ext4 journaling filesystem, set "yes, format it" for format partition and set bootable flag to on. I intend to use this 30 gig partition to hold ubuntu server and allow me to boot from it. Now I have two other partitions. They are both set to "logical", one is currently using 285.8 gigs and is using ext4 (when I try to set bootable flag to true, it gives a warning "You are trying to set the bootable flag on a logical partition. The bootable flag is only useful on the primary partitions"). More alarming it says "No existing file system was detected in this partition". Actually, Im thinking that this is the parittion that is supposed to be holding my current Ubuntu Desktop. And of course I want this to be bootable and be a primary partition, so I could dual boot from this and the server partition. Now the third partition is also set to logical and it is being used as swap area. My question is regarding that second partition. Its supposed to be a primary partition thats holding my existing ubuntu desktop edition. How do I switch it to primary and to make sure that its pointing to my existing desktop installation?

    Read the article

  • NFS4 permission denied when userid does not match (even though idmap is working)

    - by SystemParadox
    I have NFS4 setup with idmapd working correctly. ls -l from the client shows the correct user names, even though the user ids differ between the machines. However, when the user ids do not match, I get 'permission denied' errors trying access files, even though ls -l shows the correct username. When the user ids do happen to match by coincidence, everything works fine. sudo sysctl -w sunrpc.nfsd_debug=1023 gives the following output in the server syslog for the failed file access: nfsd_dispatch: vers 4 proc 1 nfsv4 compound op #1/3: 22 (OP_PUTFH) nfsd: fh_verify(28: 00070001 015c0001 00000000 9853d400 2a4892a5 4918a0ba) nfsv4 compound op ffff88003d0f5078 opcnt 3 #1: 22: status 0 nfsv4 compound op #2/3: 3 (OP_ACCESS) nfsd: fh_verify(28: 00070001 015c0001 00000000 9853d400 2a4892a5 4918a0ba) nfsd: fh_verify - just checking nfsv4 compound op ffff88003d0f5078 opcnt 3 #2: 3: status 0 nfsv4 compound op #3/3: 9 (OP_GETATTR) nfsd: fh_verify(28: 00070001 015c0001 00000000 9853d400 2a4892a5 4918a0ba) nfsd: fh_verify - just checking nfsv4 compound op ffff88003d0f5078 opcnt 3 #3: 9: status 0 nfsv4 compound returned 0 nfsd_dispatch: vers 4 proc 1 nfsv4 compound op #1/7: 22 (OP_PUTFH) nfsd: fh_verify(28: 00070001 015c0001 00000000 9853d400 2a4892a5 4918a0ba) nfsv4 compound op ffff88003d0f5078 opcnt 7 #1: 22: status 0 nfsv4 compound op #2/7: 32 (OP_SAVEFH) nfsv4 compound op ffff88003d0f5078 opcnt 7 #2: 32: status 0 nfsv4 compound op #3/7: 18 (OP_OPEN) NFSD: nfsd4_open filename dom_file op_stateowner (null) renewing client (clientid 4f96587d/0000000e) nfsd: nfsd_lookup(fh 28: 00070001 015c0001 00000000 9853d400 2a4892a5 4918a0ba, dom_file) nfsd: fh_verify(28: 00070001 015c0001 00000000 9853d400 2a4892a5 4918a0ba) nfsd: fh_verify - just checking nfsd: fh_lock(28: 00070001 015c0001 00000000 9853d400 2a4892a5 4918a0ba) locked = 0 nfsd: fh_compose(exp 08:01/22806529 srv/dom_file, ino=22809724) nfsd: fh_verify(36: 01070001 015c0001 00000000 9853d400 2a4892a5 4918a0ba) nfsd: fh_verify - just checking fh_verify: srv/dom_file permission failure, acc=804, error=13 nfsv4 compound op ffff88003d0f5078 opcnt 7 #3: 18: status 13 nfsv4 compound returned 13 Is that useful to anyone? Any hints on to debug this would be greatly appreciated. Server kernel: 2.6.32-40-server (Ubuntu 10.04) Client kernel: 3.2.0-27-generic (Ubuntu 12.04) Same problem with my new server running 3.2.0-27-generic (Ubuntu 12.04). Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >