Search Results

Search found 20956 results on 839 pages for 'foreign key relationship'.

Page 3/839 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Foreign Key Relationships and "belongs to many"

    - by jan
    I have the following model: S belongs to T T has many S A,B,C,D,E (etc) have 1 T each, so the T should belong to each of A,B,C,D,E (etc) At first I set up my foreign keys so that in A, fk_a_t would be the foreign key on A.t to T(id), in B it'd be fk_b_t, etc. Everything looks fine in my UML (using MySQLWorkBench), but generating the yii models results in it thinking that T has many A,B,C,D (etc) which to me is the reverse. It sounds to me like either I need to have A_T, B_T, C_T (etc) tables, but this would be a pain as there are a lot of tables that have this relationship. I've also googled that the better way to do this would be some sort of behavior, such that A,B,C,D (etc) can behave as a T, but I'm not clear on exactly how to do this (I will continue to google more on this) What do you think is the better solution? UML: Here's the DDL (auto generated). Just pretend that there is more than 3 tables referencing T. -- ----------------------------------------------------- -- Table `mydb`.`T` -- ----------------------------------------------------- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `mydb`.`T` ( `id` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE = InnoDB; -- ----------------------------------------------------- -- Table `mydb`.`S` -- ----------------------------------------------------- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `mydb`.`S` ( `id` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , `thing` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `t` INT NOT NULL , PRIMARY KEY (`id`) , INDEX `fk_S_T` (`id` ASC) , CONSTRAINT `fk_S_T` FOREIGN KEY (`id` ) REFERENCES `mydb`.`T` (`id` ) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION) ENGINE = InnoDB; -- ----------------------------------------------------- -- Table `mydb`.`A` -- ----------------------------------------------------- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `mydb`.`A` ( `id` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , `T` INT NOT NULL , `stuff` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `bar` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `foo` VARCHAR(45) NULL , PRIMARY KEY (`id`) , INDEX `fk_A_T` (`T` ASC) , CONSTRAINT `fk_A_T` FOREIGN KEY (`T` ) REFERENCES `mydb`.`T` (`id` ) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION) ENGINE = InnoDB; -- ----------------------------------------------------- -- Table `mydb`.`B` -- ----------------------------------------------------- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `mydb`.`B` ( `id` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , `T` INT NOT NULL , `stuff2` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `foobar` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `other` VARCHAR(45) NULL , PRIMARY KEY (`id`) , INDEX `fk_A_T` (`T` ASC) , CONSTRAINT `fk_A_T` FOREIGN KEY (`T` ) REFERENCES `mydb`.`T` (`id` ) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION) ENGINE = InnoDB; -- ----------------------------------------------------- -- Table `mydb`.`C` -- ----------------------------------------------------- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `mydb`.`C` ( `id` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , `T` INT NOT NULL , `stuff3` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `foobar2` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `other4` VARCHAR(45) NULL , PRIMARY KEY (`id`) , INDEX `fk_A_T` (`T` ASC) , CONSTRAINT `fk_A_T` FOREIGN KEY (`T` ) REFERENCES `mydb`.`T` (`id` ) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION) ENGINE = InnoDB;

    Read the article

  • Foreign keys with Rails' ActiveRecord::Migration?

    - by Earlz
    Hello, I'm new to Ruby on Rails (I know Ruby just decently though) and looking at the Migration tools, it sounds really awesome. Database schemas can finally (easily) go in source control. Now my problem with it. When using Postgres as the database, it does not setup foreign keys. I would like the benefits of foreign keys in my schema such as referential integrity. So how do I apply foreign keys with Migrations?

    Read the article

  • Foreign keys vs partitioning

    - by Industrial
    Hi! Since foreign keys are not supported by partitioned mySQL databases for the moment, I would like to hear some pro's and con's for a read-heavy application that will handle around 1-400 000 rows per table. Unfortunately, I dont have enough experience yet in this area to make the conclusion by myself... Thanks a lot! References: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1537219/how-to-handle-foreign-key-while-partitioning http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2496140/mysql-partitioning-with-foreign-keys

    Read the article

  • Foreign keys in MySQL?

    - by icco
    I have been slowly learning SQL the last few weeks. I've picked up all of the relational algebra and the basics of how relational databases work. What I'm trying to do now is learn how it's implemented. A stumbling block I've come across in this, is foreign keys in MySQL. I can't seem to find much about the other than that they exist in the InnoDB storage schema that MySQL has. What is a simple example of foreign keys implemented in MySQL? Here's part of a schema I wrote that doesn't seem to be working if you would rather point out my flaw than show me a working example. CREATE TABLE `posts` ( `pID` bigint(20) NOT NULL auto_increment, `content` text NOT NULL, `time` timestamp NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, `uID` bigint(20) NOT NULL, `wikiptr` bigint(20) default NULL, `cID` bigint(20) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`pID`), Foreign Key(`cID`) references categories, Foreign Key(`uID`) references users ) ENGINE=InnoDB;

    Read the article

  • Please help me to create a insert query (error of foreign key constrant)

    - by Rajesh Rolen- DotNet Developer
    I want to move data from one database's table to another database's table its giving me foreign key error. please tell me how can i insert all those data which is valid except those rows who have error of foreign key. i am using sql server 2005 My query is : SET IDENTITY_INSERT City ON INSERT INTO City ([cityid],[city],[country],[state],[cityinfo] ,[enabled],[countryid],[citycode],[stateid],[latitude],[longitude]) SELECT [cityid],[city],[country],[state],[cityinfo] ,[enabled],[countryid],[citycode],[stateid],[latitude],[longitude] FROM TD.DBo.City getting this error: The INSERT statement conflicted with the FOREIGN KEY constraint "FK__city__countryid__3E52440B". The conflict occurred in database "schoolHigher", table "dbo.country", column 'countryId'. please tell how can i move those data whose foreign key is valid.

    Read the article

  • Foreign key not working in MySQL: Why can I INSERT a value that's not in the foreign column?

    - by stalepretzel
    I've created a table in MySQL: CREATE TABLE actions ( A_id int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, type ENUM('rate','report','submit','edit','delete') NOT NULL, Q_id int NOT NULL, U_id int NOT NULL, date DATE NOT NULL, time TIME NOT NULL, rate tinyint(1), PRIMARY KEY (A_id), CONSTRAINT fk_Question FOREIGN KEY (Q_id) REFERENCES questions(P_id), CONSTRAINT fk_User FOREIGN KEY (U_id) REFERENCES users(P_id)); This created the table I wanted just fine (although a "DESCRIBE actions;" command showed me that the foreign keys were keys of type MUL, and I'm not sure what this means). However, when I try to enter a Q_id or a U_id that does not exist in the questions or users tables, MySQL still allows these values. What did I do wrong? How can I prevent a table with a foreign key from accepting invalid data? If I add TYPE=InnoDB to the end, I get an error: ERROR 1005 (HY000): Can't create table './quotes/actions.frm' (errno: 150) Why might that happen? I'm told that it's important to enforce data integrity with functional foreign keys, but also that InnoDB should not be used with MySQL. What do you recommend?

    Read the article

  • Creating a foreign key in MySQL produces error:

    - by SnOrfus
    I'm trying to create a foreign key on a table in MySQL and I'm getting a strange error that there seems to be little info about in any of my searches. I'm creating the key with this (emitted from mysql workbench 5.2): ALTER TABLE `db`.`appointment` ADD CONSTRAINT `FK_appointment_CancellationID` FOREIGN KEY (`CancellationID` ) REFERENCES `db`.`appointment_cancellation` (`ID` ) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION , ADD INDEX `FK_appointment_CancellationID` (`CancellationID` ASC) ; at which point I get the error: ERROR 1452: Cannot add or update a child row: a foreign key constraint fails (alarmtekcore., CONSTRAINT FK_lead_appointment_CancellationID FOREIGN KEY (CancellationID) REFERENCES lead_appointment_cancellation (`) I've checked here but there's no data in the table.

    Read the article

  • MySQL Removing Some Foreign keys

    - by Drew
    I have a table whose primary key is used in several other tables and has several foreign keys to other tables. CREATE TABLE location ( locationID INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY ... ) ENGINE = InnoDB; CREATE TABLE assignment ( assignmentID INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY, locationID INT NOT NULL, FOREIGN KEY locationIDX (locationID) REFERENCES location (locationID) ... ) ENGINE = InnoDB; CREATE TABLE assignmentStuff ( ... assignmentID INT NOT NULL, FOREIGN KEY assignmentIDX (assignmentID) REFERENCES assignment (assignmentID) ) ENGINE = InnoDB; The problem is that when I'm trying to drop one of the foreign key columns (ie locationIDX) it gives me an "ERROR 1025 (HY000): Error on rename" error. How can I drop the column in the assignment table above without getting this error?

    Read the article

  • When to use a foreign key in MySQL

    - by Mel
    Is there official guidance or a threshold to indicate when it is best practice to use a foreign key in a MySQL database? Suppose you created a table for movies. One way to do it is to integrate the producer and director data into the same table. (movieID, movieName, directorName, producerName). However, suppose most directors and producers have worked on many movies. Would it be best to create two other tables for producers and directors, and use a foreign key in the movie table? When does it become best practice to do this? When many of the directors and producers are appearing several times in the column? Or is it best practice to employ a foreign key approach at the start? While it seems more efficient to use a foreign key, it also raises the complexity of the database. So when does the trade off between complexity and normalization become worth it? I'm not sure if there is a threshold or a certain number of cell repetitions that makes it more sensible to use a foreign key. I'm thinking about a database that will be used by hundreds of users, many concurrently. Many thanks!

    Read the article

  • Discover intended Foreign Keys from JOINS in scripts

    - by Jason
    I'm inheriting a database that has 400 tables and only 150 foreign key constraints registered. Knowing what I do about the application and looking at the table columns, it's easy to say that there ought to be a lot more. I'm afraid that the current application software will break if I started adding the missing FKs because the developers have probably come to rely on this "freedom", but step one in fixing the problem is to come up with the list of missing FKs so we can evaluate them as a team. To make matters worse, the referencing columns don't share a naming convention. The relationships ARE coded informally into the hundreds of ad-hoc queries and stored procedures, so my hope is to parse these files programmatically looking for JOINS between actual tables (but not table variables, etc). Challenges I foresee in this approach are: newlines, optional aliases and table hints, alias resolution. Any better ideas? (Besides quitting) Are there any pre-built tools that can solve this? I don't think regex can handle this. Do you disagree? SQL Parsers? I tried using Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.SqlParser.Parser but all that is exposed is the lexer - can't get an AST out of it - all that stuff is internal.

    Read the article

  • SubSonic isn't generating MySql foreign key tables

    - by keith
    I two tables within a MySql 5.1.34 database. When using SubSonic to generate the DAL, the foreign-key relationship doesn't get scripted, ie; I have no Parent.ChildCollection object. Looking inside the generated DAL Parent class shows the following; //no foreign key tables defined (0) I have tried SubSonic 2.1 and 2.2, and various MySql 5 versions. I must be doing something wrong procedurally - any help would be greatly appreciated. This has always just worked 'out-the-box' when using MS-SQL. TABLE `parent` ( `ParentId` INT(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `SomeData` VARCHAR(25) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`ParentId`) ) ENGINE=INNODB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; TABLE `child` ( `ChildId` INT(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `ParentId` INT(11) NOT NULL, `SomeData` VARCHAR(25) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`ChildId`), KEY `FK_child` (`ParentId`), CONSTRAINT `FK_child` FOREIGN KEY (`ParentId`) REFERENCES `parent` (`ParentId`) ) ENGINE=INNODB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;

    Read the article

  • Keyboard-shortcut key-press-detection sensitivity settings

    - by Juve
    last week I switched from Ubuntu 10.10 to 12.04 and after setting up my keyboard shortcuts, e.g., CTRL+ALT+E for my favorite editor and CTRL+ALT+X for the terminal, I noticed that the behavior when pressing the appropriate keys changed somehow. I know this is very subjective and I am not 100% percent sure if I am suddenly just too lazy when using my keyboard, but here is what I noticed: To run your shortcuts, you usually press the modifiers first and in addition press the alphanum key. Now, if I hold the modifiers down very consciously and press the alphanum key afterwards everything works fine. However, I noticed that I may often release the modifiers a bit too early. In Ubuntu 10.10 (metacity/compiz) my keyboard shortcuts would still execute and my tools would pop up. This does not work anymore in 12.04. Nevertheless, I still believe the old behavior to be more intuitive and would like to have it back. I a nutshell: Is there a parameter to control the shortcut-key-press detection behavior? I already searched the ubuntu keyboard options and searched for "keyboard" in gconf-editor but could not find any hints so far.

    Read the article

  • Mixed surrogate composite key insert in JPA 2.0, PostgreSQL and Hibernate 3.5

    - by Gerald
    First off, we are using JPA 2.0 and Hibernate 3.5 as persistence provider on a PostgreSQL database. We successfully use the sequence of the database via the JPA 2.0 annotations as an auto-generated value for single-field-surrogate-keys and all works fine. Now we are implementing a bi-temporal database-scheme that requires a mixed key in the following manner: Table 1: id (pk, integer, auto-generated-sequence) validTimeBegin (pk, dateTime) validTimeEnd (dateTime) firstName (varChar) Now we have a problem. You see, if we INSERT a new element, the field id is auto-generated and that's fine. Only, if we want to UPDATE the field within this scheme, then we have to change the validTimeBegin column WITHOUT changing the id-field and insert it as a new row like so: BEFORE THE UPDATE OF THE ROW: |---|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------| | id| validTimeBegin | validTimeEnd | firstName | |---|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------| | 1| 2010-05-01-10:00:00.000 | NULL | Gerald | |---|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------| AFTER THE UPDATE OF THE ROW happening at exactly 2010-05-01-10:35:01.788 server-time: (we update the person with the id:1 to reflect his new first name...) |---|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------| | id| validTimeBegin | validTimeEnd | firstName | |---|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------| | 1| 2010-05-01-10:00:00.000 | 2010-05-01-10:35:01.788 | Gerald | |---|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------| | 1| 2010-05-01-10:35:01.788 | NULL | Jerry | |---|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------| So our problem is, that this doesn't work at all using an auto-generated-sequence for the field id because when inserting a new row then the id ALWAYS is auto-generated although it really is part of a composite key which should sometimes behave differently. So my question is: Is there a way to tell hibernate via JPA to stop auto-generating the id-field in the case I want to generate a new variety of the same person and go on as usual in every other case or do I have to take over the whole id-generation with custom code? Thanks in advance, Gerald

    Read the article

  • NHibernate: Many-to-many relationship with field in the relationship table

    - by Fossmo
    I'm scratching my head; I have a Car table and a Customer table that have a many-to-many relationship. In this relationship table I want to add a column that can tell me what kind of relationship this is; is the customer testdriving the car, do he want to buy the car, ect. What I want to end up with is a class Car object that holds a collection of Customers and the relationship information. I might be looking at this the wrong way so feel free to push me in the right direction.

    Read the article

  • SQLAlchemy - relationship limited on more than just the foreign key

    - by Marian
    I have a wiki db layout with Page and Revisions. Each Revision has a page_id referencing the Page, a page relationship to the referenced page; each Page has a all_revisions relationship to all its revisions. So far so common. But I want to implement different epochs for the pages: If a page was deleted and is recreated, the new revisions have a new epoch. To help find the correct revisions, each page has a current_epoch field. Now I want to provide a revisions relation on the page that only contains its revisions, but only those where the epochs match. This is what I've tried: revisions = relationship('Revision', primaryjoin = and_( 'Page.id == Revision.page_id', 'Page.current_epoch == Revision.epoch', ), foreign_keys=['Page.id', 'Page.current_epoch'] ) Full code (you may run that as it is) However this always raises ArgumentError: Could not determine relationship direction for primaryjoin condition ...`, I've tried all I had come to mind, it didn't work. What am I doing wrong? Is this a bad approach for doing this, how could it be done other than with a relationship?

    Read the article

  • Natural vs surrogate keys on support tables

    - by Bugeo
    I have read many articles about the battle between natural versus surrogate primary keys. I agree in the use of surrogate keys to identify records of tables whose contents are created by the user. But in the case of supporting tables what should I use? For example, in a hypothetical table "orderStates". If you use a natural key would have the following data: TABLE ORDERSTATES {ID: "NEW", NAME: "New"} {ID: "MANAGEMENT" NAME: "Management"} {ID: "SHIPPED" NAME: "Shipped"} If I use a surrogate key would have the following data: TABLE ORDERSTATES {ID: 1 CODE: "NEW", NAME: "New"} {ID: 2 CODE: "MANAGEMENT" NAME: "Management"} {ID: 3 CODE: "SHIPPED" NAME: "Shipped"} Now let's take an example: a user enters a new order. In the case in which use natural keys, in the code I can write this: newOrder.StateOrderId = "NEW"; With the surrogate keys instead every time I have an additional step. stateOrderId_NEW = .... I retrieve the id corresponding to the recod code "NEW" newOrder.StateOrderId = stateOrderId_NEW; The same will happen every time I have to move the order in a new status. So, in this case, what are the reason to chose one key type vs the other one?

    Read the article

  • JPA : many-to-many - only one foreign key in the association table

    - by Julien
    Hi, I mapped two classes in a ManyToMany association with these annotations : @Entity @Inheritance(strategy=InheritanceType.TABLE_PER_CLASS) public abstract class TechnicalItem extends GenericBusinessObject implements Resumable{ @SequenceGenerator(name="TECHNICAL_ITEM_ID_GEN", sequenceName="TECHNICAL_ITEM_ID_SEQ") @Id @Column(name = "\"ID\"", nullable = false) @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.SEQUENCE, generator = "TECHNICAL_ITEM_ID_GEN") private int id; @ManyToMany(mappedBy = "referencePerformanceItems", fetch=FetchType.LAZY) private List testingRates; } @Entity @DiscriminatorValue("T") public class TestingRate extends Rate { @ManyToMany(fetch=FetchType.LAZY) @JoinTable(name="ecc.\"TESTING_RATE_TECHNICAL_ITEM\"", joinColumns = {@JoinColumn(name = "\"TESTING_RATE_ID\"")}, inverseJoinColumns = {@JoinColumn(name = "\"TECHNICAL_ITEM_ID\"")}) //@ManyToMany(mappedBy = "testingRates", fetch=FetchType.LAZY) private List referencePerformanceItems; } The sql generated for the association table creation is : create table ecc."TESTING_RATE_TECHNICAL_ITEM" ( "TESTING_RATE_ID" int4 not null, "TECHNICAL_ITEM_ID" int4 not null ); alter table ecc."TESTING_RATE_TECHNICAL_ITEM" add constraint FKC5D64DF6A2FE2698 foreign key ("TESTING_RATE_ID") references ecc."RATE"; There is no mention of the second foreign key "TECHNICAL_ITEM_ID" (the second part of the composite foreign key which should be in the association table). Is it a normal behaviour ? What should I do in the mapping if I want my 2 columns are 2 foreign keys referencing the primary keys of my 2 concerned tables. I use a PostGreSQL database and Hibernate as JPA provider. Thanks, Julien

    Read the article

  • PostgreSQL, Foreign Keys, Insert speed & Django

    - by Miles
    A few days ago, I ran into an unexpected performance problem with a pretty standard Django setup. For an upcoming feature, we have to regenerate a table hourly, containing about 100k rows of data, 9M on the disk, 10M indexes according to pgAdmin. The problem is that inserting them by whatever method literally takes ages, up to 3 minutes of 100% disk busy time. That's not something you want on a production site. It doesn't matter if the inserts were in a transaction, issued via plain insert, multi-row insert, COPY FROM or even INSERT INTO t1 SELECT * FROM t2. After noticing this isn't Django's fault, I followed a trial and error route, and hey, the problem disappeared after dropping all foreign keys! Instead of 3 minutes, the INSERT INTO SELECT FROM took less than a second to execute, which isn't too surprising for a table <= 20M on the disk. What is weird is that PostgreSQL manages to slow down inserts by 180x just by using 3 foreign keys. Oh, disk activity was pure writing, as everything is cached in RAM; only writes go to the disks. It looks like PostgreSQL is working very hard to touch every row in the referred tables, as 3MB/sec * 180s is way more data than the 20MB this new table takes on disk. No WAL for the 180s case, I was testing in psql directly, in Django, add ~50% overhead for WAL logging. Tried @commit_on_success, same slowness, I had even implemented multi row insert and COPY FROM with psycopg2. That's another weird thing, how can 10M worth of inserts generate 10x 16M log segments? Table layout: id serial primary, a bunch of int32, 3 foreign keys to small table, 198 rows, 16k on disk large table, 1.2M rows, 59 data + 89 index MB on disk large table, 2.2M rows, 198 + 210MB So, am I doomed to either drop the foreign keys manually or use the table in a very un-Django way by defining saving bla_id x3 and skip using models.ForeignKey? I'd love to hear about some magical antidote / pg setting to fix this.

    Read the article

  • Joining Tables Based on Foreign Keys

    - by maestrojed
    I have a table that has a lot of fields that are foreign keys referencing a related table. I am writing a script in PHP that will do the db queries. When I query this table for its data I need to know the values associated with these keys not the key. How do most people go about this? A 101 way to do this would be to query this table for its data including the foreign keys and then query the related tables to get each key's value. This could be a lot of queries (~10). Question 1: I think I could write 1 query with a bunch of joins. Would that be better? This approach also requires the querying script to know which table fields are foreign keys. Since I have many tables like this but all with different fields, this means writing nice generic functions is hard. MySQL InnoDB tables allow for foreign constraints. I know the database has these set up correctly. Question 2: What about the idea of querying the table and identifying what the constraints are and then matching them up using whatever process I decide on from Question 1. I like this idea but never see it being used in code. Makes me think its not a good idea for some reason. I would use something like SHOW CREATE TABLE tbl_name; to find what constraints/relationships exist for that table. Thank you for any suggestions or advice.

    Read the article

  • Hibernate not saving foreign key, but with junit it's ok

    - by Leonardo
    Hi All, I have this strange problem. In a J2ee webapp with spring, smartgwt and hibernate, it happens that I have a class A wich has a set of class B, both of them mapped to table A and table B. I wrote a simple test case for testing the service manager which is supposed to do insert, update, delete and everything work as expected especially during insert. In the end I have one record in A and records in B with foreign key to A. But when I try to call the service from the web app, the entity in B are saved without a foreign key reference. I am sure that the service is the same. One thing I noticed is that enabling hibernate logging, seems that when the service is called from the application, one more update is made: insert A insert B update A update B update B (foreign key only) update A <--- ??? update B <--- ??? Instead, when junit test case is run, the update is as follows: insert A insert B update A update B update B (foreign key only) I suppose the latest update is what is causing the erroe, maybe it is overwriting values. Considering that the app is using spring, with the well known mechanism of DAO + Manager, where can I investigate to solve this issue ? Someone told me that the session is not closed, so hibernate would do one more update before release the objects by itself. I am pretty sure that all the configuration hbm, xml, and the rest are fine...but I maybe wrong. thanks

    Read the article

  • Internet key not always detected by the operating system

    - by Carlo Gisonni
    I've over the time, tried and installed several versions of Ubuntu. Those versions I like more than others are: Lubuntu and Kubuntu. Everything seems to work properly but the Internet key. I do not know if it may depends on the weather, the moonphase or the tides but the Internet key is not always detected by the system and is sometimes very difficult to establish a connection when I do need to connect to internet. Without applyng any change sometimes works sometimes not. I've so far not found the solution and I think is a quite strange behaviour of the operating system as if the settings are wrong, should never work Awaiting a kind answer from those of you willing to help.

    Read the article

  • Super Key doesn't work on Kubuntu 12.04

    - by zigma80
    I have Kubuntu 12.04 installed on HP 430 Notebook PC. My problem is that when I press Super Key, nothing happened. Some of my Fn keys did not work either. I have changed the Keyboard Model in System SettingsHardwareInput DevicesKeyboard to Hewlett Packard Internet keyboard but doesn't seems to help. I have also Compiz-Config-Setting-Manager installed but I don't know how to make the right keyboard setting. I would like to have the Super Key launch Start Menu Launcher as in MS-Windows, is it possible ... Thanks for the help

    Read the article

  • screen blacks out after pressing a key on keyboard, specially enter key

    - by ahmad598
    I have natty, and i have installed kubuntu-desktop package. before installing it, everything was fine but after that, this thing happens: when I'm typing, after stroking a key, screen blacks out, fan speeds up, and i have to turn off machine by pressing power button. it just happens in many different apps (chromium, hotot, kde proxy settings, ...) and in every environment: unity, kde, gnome 2. i don't know what details i must provide with this question, and i don't like to remove my kde desktop, or re-install my ubuntu. any ideas are appreciated ;-)

    Read the article

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