Search Results

Search found 10208 results on 409 pages for 'primary keys'.

Page 3/409 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • ElanTech touchpad both keys simultaneously don't work

    - by Wojciech
    I have a huge problem with ElanTech touchpad. Without the ElanTech driver both the keys can be used at the same time(R+L). This is usefull in games like Mafia2 (can't play without it). When I install their driver I get the gestures, scrolling etc. but I can't use both keys at the same time. It is a common problem. Acer Aspire v3-571G Windows 7 x64 This didn't work at all: Synaptics 15.3.41.5 Is there any universal driver which will give me at least scrolling and simultaneous keys usage?

    Read the article

  • How Can I Reference Multiple Primary Keys For A Vector Type Primary Key

    - by AndreiC
    Hi, I have the following scenario: a table of projects and a table of persons, working on one or serveral projects. Also, I have a project id column (of type int), in the first table, which is a primary key there and I have a vector of project ids, as a column of type int, in my second table (persons), that references primary keys from the first table. What is the correct syntax for referencing multiple primary keys, from a vector foreign key. This is the way I am trying to create the table, but I am not sure what to place at the indicated line: CREATE TABLE Persons( Person_Id int, ..., ProjectsList int[], FOREIGN KEY (ProjectsList) REFERENCES Projects(Project_id) -- not sure what how to define the link here ); I hope my explanations are not over-complicated. Thank you in advance for helping!

    Read the article

  • SQL Server add primary key

    - by Paul
    I have a table that needs to be given a new primary key, as my predecesor used a varchar(8) row as the primary key, and we are having problems with it now. I know how to add the primary key, but am not sure of the correct way to add this new primary key to other tables that have the foreign key. Here is what I have: users table: old_user_id varchar(8) ... ... new_user_id int(11) orders table: order_id int(11) ... ... old_user_fk varchar(8) new_user_fk int(11) I need to get the same results whether I join the tables on users.old_user_id=orders.old_user_fk or users.new_user_id=orders.new_user_fk. Any help is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Change an access Primary key with relationships

    - by DiegoMaK
    I have a database in access 2007 accdb extension , there are more or less 30-40 tables with related primary key "local_number". it is a text primary key with 10 lenght. How can I change the length of this primary key to 30 WITHOUT delete previosly all the 30 relationship. 2,A similar question. I need add a compose primary key to my PK "local_number". I need Add a "Date" as composed PK. Then access just allow this if I first delete all relationships. How can Avoid this warning and change my PK ignoring this message.

    Read the article

  • Three level database - foreign keys

    - by poke
    I have a three level database with the following structure (simplified to only show the primary keys): Table A: a_id Table B: a_id, b_id Table C: a_id, b_id, c_id So possible values for table C would be something like this: a_id b_id c_id 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 ... I am now unsure, how foreign keys should be set; or if they should be set for the primary keys at all. My idea was to have a foreign key on table B B.a_id -> A.a_id, and two foreign key on C C.a_id -> A.a_id and ( C.a_id, C.b_id ) -> ( B.a_id, B.b_id ). Is that the way I should set up the foreign keys? Is the foreign key from C->A necessary? Or do I even need foreign keys at all given that all those columns are part of the primary keys? Thanks.

    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

  • SQL multiple primary keys - localization

    - by Max Malmgren
    I am trying to implement some localization in my database. It looks something like this (prefixes only for clarification) tbl-Categories ID Language Name tbl-Articles ID CategoryID Now, in my tbl-Categories, I want to have primary keys spanning ID and language, so that every combination of ID and language is unique. In tbl-Articles I would like a foreign key to reference ID in categories, but not Language, since I do not want to bind an article to a certain language, only category. Of course, I cannot add a foreign key to part of the primary key. I also cannot have the primary key only on the ID of categories, since then there can only be one language. Having no primary keys disables foreign keys altogether, and that is also not a great solution. Do you have any ideas how I can solve this in an elegant fashion? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Meaning of Primary Key to Microsoft SQL Server 2008

    - by usr
    What meaning does the concept of a primary key have to the database engine of SQL Server? I don't mean the clustered/nonclustered index created on the "ID" column, i mean the constraint object "primary key". Does it matter if it exists or not? Alternatives: alter table add primary key clustered alter table create clustered index Does it make a difference?

    Read the article

  • Indexes and multi column primary keys

    - by David Jenings
    Went searching and didn't find the answer to this specific noob question. My apologies if I missed it. In a MySQL database I have a table with the following primary key PRIMARY KEY id (invoice, item) In my application I will also frequently be selecting on "item" by itself and less frequently on only "invoice". I'm assuming I would benefit from indexes on these columns. MySQL does not complain when I define the following: INDEX (invoice), INDEX (item), PRIMARY KEY id (invoice, item) But I don't see any evidence (using DESCRIBE -- the only way I know how to look) that separate indexes have been established for these two columns. So the question is, are the columns that make up a primary key automatically indexed individually? Also, is there a better way than DESCRIBE to explore the structure of my table?

    Read the article

  • How can I make Access think there is a primary key

    - by user3692757
    I have a table and I'm trying to join it with another table, but it doesn't have a distinctive primary key. The two tables do share similarities, “Acct” and “Location”. If I could concatenate “Acct&Location” it would become a primary key, but Access won’t let me make a primary key from a calculation. I provided a small sample below. Each hospital has an “Acct”, but the “Acct” will show up once for each “Location”. How can I make join these in a relationship? I connected the two in a relationships and tried to “Enforce Referential Integrity”, but it indicated “No unique index found for the referenced field of the primary key”. Also, if I run a “Find UnMatched Query” it doesn’t find anything. I think its because I can’t make it realize that in combination “Acct” and “Location” can be perceived as primary keys when used in conjunction of each other. Acct 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3| Location ABI ABI ABI NHO NHO NHO NTX NTX NTX I tried to load an image to illustrate it better, but I haven't made enough post.

    Read the article

  • referencing part of the composite primary key

    - by Zavael
    I have problems with setting the reference on database table. I have following structure: CREATE TABLE club( id INTEGER NOT NULL, name_short VARCHAR(30), name_full VARCHAR(70) NOT NULL ); CREATE UNIQUE INDEX club_uix ON club(id); ALTER TABLE club ADD CONSTRAINT club_pk PRIMARY KEY (id); CREATE TABLE team( id INTEGER NOT NULL, club_id INTEGER NOT NULL, team_name VARCHAR(30) ); CREATE UNIQUE INDEX team_uix ON team(id, club_id); ALTER TABLE team ADD CONSTRAINT team_pk PRIMARY KEY (id, club_id); ALTER TABLE team ADD FOREIGN KEY (club_id) REFERENCES club(id); CREATE TABLE person( id INTEGER NOT NULL, first_name VARCHAR(20), last_name VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL ); CREATE UNIQUE INDEX person_uix ON person(id); ALTER TABLE person ADD PRIMARY KEY (id); CREATE TABLE contract( person_id INTEGER NOT NULL, club_id INTEGER NOT NULL, wage INTEGER ); CREATE UNIQUE INDEX contract_uix on contract(person_id); ALTER TABLE contract ADD CONSTRAINT contract_pk PRIMARY KEY (person_id); ALTER TABLE contract ADD FOREIGN KEY (club_id) REFERENCES club(id); ALTER TABLE contract ADD FOREIGN KEY (person_id) REFERENCES person(id); CREATE TABLE player( person_id INTEGER NOT NULL, team_id INTEGER, height SMALLINT, weight SMALLINT ); CREATE UNIQUE INDEX player_uix on player(person_id); ALTER TABLE player ADD CONSTRAINT player_pk PRIMARY KEY (person_id); ALTER TABLE player ADD FOREIGN KEY (person_id) REFERENCES person(id); -- ALTER TABLE player ADD FOREIGN KEY (team_id) REFERENCES team(id); --this is not working It gives me this error: Error code -5529, SQL state 42529: a UNIQUE constraint does not exist on referenced columns: TEAM in statement [ALTER TABLE player ADD FOREIGN KEY (team_id) REFERENCES team(id)] As you can see, team table has composite primary key (club_id + id), the person references club through contract. Person has some common attributes for player and other staff types. One club can have multiple teams. Employed person has to have a contract with a club. Player (is the specification of person) - if emplyed - can be assigned to one of the club's teams. Is there better way to design my structure? I thought about excluding the club_id from team's primary key, but I would like to know if this is the only way. Thanks. UPDATE 1 I would like to have the id as team identification only within the club, so multiple teams can have equal id as long as they belong to different clubs. Is it possible? UPDATE 2 updated the naming convention as adviced by philip Some business rules to better understand the structure: One club can have 1..n teams (Main squad, Reserve squad, Youth squad or Team A, Team B... only team can play match, not club) One team belongs to one club only A player is type of person (other types (staff) are scouts, coaches etc so they do not need to belong to specific team, just to the club, if employed) Person can have 0..1 contract with 1 club (that means he is employed or unemployed) Player (if employed) belongs to one team of the club Now thinking about it - moving team_id from player to contract would solve my problem, and it could hold the condition "Player (if employed) belongs to one team of the club", but it would be redundant for other staff types. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • How do API Keys and Secret Keys work?

    - by viatropos
    I am just starting to think about how api keys and secret keys work. Just 2 days ago I signed up for Amazon S3 and installed the S3Fox Plugin. They asked me for both my Access Key and Secret Access Key, both of which require me to login to access. So I'm wondering, if they're asking me for my secret key, they must be storing it somewhere right? Isn't that basically the same thing as asking me for my credit card numbers or password and storing that in their own database? How are secret keys and api keys supposed to work? How secret do they need to be? Are these applications that use the secret keys storing it somehow? Thanks for the insight.

    Read the article

  • Disable some extra keys on keyboard in windows

    - by user1649054
    I have a keyboard with some types of extra keys, such as multimedia (play, pause, stop ,..), turn off, and etc. some times it's annoying with a "exit button" just right beside arrows that accidentally presses, and programs gonna close, and some other similar problems. I'm wondering is there any solution to disable, or change the functionality of these types of keyboard keys in Windows (win7)? Cheers

    Read the article

  • Proper SSH keys location for a system user ?

    - by Thibaut Barrère
    I have a system account with which I run a database (namely mongodb). By default it has no home. Now I'd like to trigger scp commands from that account, with ssh keys authentication to a remote server, to export backups. Should I just create a /home/mongodb and /home/mongodb/.ssh folders manually to store the SSH keys, like the default for regular users ? Is it still considered a system account after that ? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to switch 'default' sound device controlled by hardware keys in Xubuntu?

    - by Ruth
    I installed xubuntu-desktop on a 12.04 Ubuntu upgrade after finding Gnome3 lacking. I've mostly been happy, but I've found an odd and frustrating bug. My laptop has two sound 'outputs' - an HDMI-out plug I never use, and the onboard speakers/headphones. For some reason, the hardware keys have been mapped to the HDMI output, even if I set it as 'fallback' in pavucontrol, and notify-osd only displays changes in the HDMI output (though the panel indicator volume control controls onboard sound). I'd ideally like both hardware keys and notify-osd to be looking at the onboard sound, though if I can't get notify-osd it's an acceptable loss. Having to click through a bunch of stuff to change volume is driving me crazy, though. Googling suggested that it /may/ be a Pulseaudio/ALSA conflict, but the hardware keys seem to change at least indicated volume in pavucontrol for HDMI as expected (I don't have an HDMI cable to test actual sound output)

    Read the article

  • not able to install signature keys

    - by Aman
    Hi , I have to sign an blackberry application so that i can load it to the device but, the signature keys i got from the RIM are installed on the system gets formatted and now i am trying to install the signature keys on another system but the server prompts me for this "Unable to register client'2909103544'because there are no more registration attempts.If you have already registered with this server,then you must contact RIM to register additional user" Can we install these keys to only single computer or now i had to purchase new keys

    Read the article

  • Should a primary key be immutable?

    - by Vincent Malgrat
    A recent question on stackoverflow provoked a discussion about the immutability of primary keys. I had thought that it was a kind of rule that primary keys should be immutable. If there is a chance that some day a primary key would be updated, I thought you should use a surrogate key. However it is not in the SQL standard and some RDBMS' "cascade update" feature allows a primary key to change. So my question is: is it still a bad practice to have a primary key that may change ? What are the cons, if any, of having a mutable primary key ?

    Read the article

  • Inverted function keys (F1-F12) on HP Pavilion dv4t

    - by The Electric Muffin
    (I know there have already been a lot of questions about this, but none of them mentioned the dv4t specifically.) I'm thinking about getting an HP Pavilion dv4t-4200 or -5100, but something that's really irritating me is that by default the function keys (F1-F12) are "inverted"—without holding the Fn key, the function keys do things like change the brightness, change or mute the volume, and switch to an external display. Only if you hold Fn will they actually produce F1, F2, etc. This is not how keyboards are supposed to work. Is there any way to disable this "feature" that has been verified to work on the HP Pavilion dv4t-4200 or HP Pavilion dv4t-5100? I don't want to buy this computer unless this is possible.

    Read the article

  • Should I obscure primary key values?

    - by Scott
    I'm building a web application where the front end is a highly-specialized search engine. Searching is handled at the main URL, and the user is passed off to a sub-directory when they click on a search result for a more detailed display. This hand-off is being done as a GET request with the primary key being passed in the query string. I seem to recall reading somewhere that exposing primary keys to the user was not a good idea, so I decided to implement reversible encryption. I'm starting to wonder if I'm just being paranoid. The reversible encryption (base64) is probably easily broken by anybody who cares to try, makes the URLs very ugly, and also longer than they otherwise would be. Should I just drop the encryption and send my primary keys in the clear?

    Read the article

  • Choice of primary index for mysql innoDB

    - by Saif Bechan
    I have an auction website where users can place a bid on a product. Now i have a primary index on the bid table for easy access of the last places bid on the product. This index is just a unique auto incrementing value. During the week this number becomes huge!! I was wondering if this is a good setup for the primary key in an innoDB table. The bids table exist of the following important fields: table: bids fields: user_id,product_id,bid So what i want to do is make the primary of these 3 fields combined. Is this a good idea or is this just too much for innoDB keys.

    Read the article

  • add ANOTHER primary key to a table which is UNIQUE

    - by gdubs
    so im having problems with adding another primary key to my table. i have 3 columns: 1. Account ID (Identity) 2. EmailID 3. Data field when i made the table i had this to make the Account ID and the Email ID unique PRIMARY KEY (AccountID, EmailID) i thought that would make my emailid unique, but then after i tried inserting another row with the same emailid it went through. so i thought i missed something out. now for my question: IF, i had to use alter, How do i alter the table/PK Constraint to modify the EmailID field and make it Unique IF i decided to drop the table and made a new one, how do i make those two primary keys uniqe? Thanks a bunch!!

    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

  • Problem with auto increment primary key (MySQL).

    - by mathon12
    I have 2 tables each using other's primary key as a foreign key. The primary keys for both are set to auto_increment. The problem is, when I try to create and entry into one of the tables, I have no idea what the primary key of the entry is and can't figure out what to put in the other table as a foreign key. What should I do? Do I drop auto_increment altogether and cook up a unique identifier for each entry so I can use it to address the created entries? I'm using PHP, if that's relevant. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Text selection CTRL+SHIFT+Cursor Keys?

    - by mark
    Hi, I'm used to this Windows behavior that using CTRL+SHIFT+Cursor Keys I can select text word-wise. CTRL+Cursor Keys jumps word-wise and I use that a lot in combination with SHIFT to select text. This seems to be a "Windows thing" because it just works in all application. Now turning to Ubuntu 10.04, it doesn't work. CTRL+SHIFT+Cursor Keys just behaves like CTRL+Cursor Keys, i.e. I jump between the words but I can't select them that way. Another gotcha: I use CTRL+Cursor Keys to move fast between words, press down SHIFT, release CTRL and move the Cursor Keys to select text char by char and it doesn't work either. I need to release both keys complete. Is there a way to enable this?

    Read the article

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