Search Results

Search found 25547 results on 1022 pages for 'table locking'.

Page 31/1022 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

  • Creating new table entry when updating another entry of another table - Ruby on Rails

    - by Michaël
    Hi, I have written this code in my "show" view of estimates and I want that, when submitting (update), it creates a new repairs (Repair.new(???)) with some parameters. I don't know where to write the "new repairs" code, in this view or the controller (in update part). I need that the Repair is created one time, not each time the @estimate is updated. <% form_for @estimate, :url => {:controller => "estimates", :action => "update"} do |f| %> <%= f.error_messages %> <select id="estimate_accept" name="estimate[accept]"> <option value="1" selected="selected">accept</option> <option value="2">refuse</option> </select> <%= f.submit "Update" %> <% end %> Thank you for your help, I hope my explanations are clear!

    Read the article

  • Select 2 Rows from Table when COUNT of another table

    - by Marcus
    Here is the code that I currently have: SELECT `A`.* FROM `A` LEFT JOIN `B` ON `A`.`A_id` = `B`.`value_1` WHERE `B`.`value_2` IS NULL AND `B`.`userid` IS NULL ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 2 What it currently is supposed to do is select 2 rows from A when the 2 rows A_id being selected are not in value_1 or value_2 in B. And the rows in B are specific to individual users with userid. What I need to do is make it also so that also checks if there are already N rows in B matching a A_id (either in value_1, or value_2) and userid, and if there are more than N rows, it doesn't select the A row.

    Read the article

  • Inserting new argument to table through search form of another table

    - by owca
    In my database I have a form for searching products (fields : id, name, manufacturer_id[set to display manufacturer's name], category_id, price). I would like to have the ability of adding manufacturers through this form. So I've created vba script but it does not work. Still when I enter new name it gives me prompt to "Select element from the list". What am I doing wrong ? Private Sub manufacturer_id_NotInTheList(NewData As String, Response As Integer) Dim strSQL As String, strInfo As String strInfo = "Manufacturer " & NewData & " is not on the list." & vbCrLf & "Add?" If MsgBox(strInfo, vbYesNo + vbQuestion, "Element not on the list") = vbYes Then strSQL = "INSERT INTO manufacturer (name, country, id_distributor) VALUES ('" & NewData & "','Undefined', '0');" DoCmd.SetWarnings (False) DoCmd.RunSQL strSQL Response = acDataErrAdded Else Response = acDataErrContinue NewData = "" Me.manufacturer_id.Text = "" End If End Sub

    Read the article

  • solution for updating table based on data from another table

    - by I__
    i have 2 tables in access this is what i need: 1. if the PK from table1 exists in table2, then delete the entire record with that PK from table2 and add the entire record from table1 into table2 2. if the PK does not exist then add the record i need help with both the sql statement and the VBA i guess the VBA should be a loop, going through every record in table1. inside the loop i should have the select statement

    Read the article

  • How to display how many times each records in a table used by other table

    - by Fredy
    I have a problem with my query, below are two tables that tbl_tag and tbl_tag_usedby. I want to show how much of each record in tbl_tag used by record in tbl_tag_usedby. Here is a query that I use: SELECT t.*, COUNT(u.tagid) AS totale FROM tbl_tag t LEFT JOIN tbl_tag_usedby u ON u.tagid = t.id AND t.status =1 GROUP BY u.tagid and the results are as below: In this case the record id from 2 to 6 do not appear in the query results, I want record id from 2 to 6 are also shown and on the field "totale" its value is 0. Can anyone help me?

    Read the article

  • Html, table, img & css - how to get text to wrap correctly?

    - by Michael Pasqualone
    I've got the following code; however it's not given me the desired result - what I am after is as per the image below, what am I doing wrong? <style> table.control_grid tr { text-align: center; width: 200px; } table.control_grid td { width: 120px; height: 48px; } table.control_grid a { text-decoration: none; } table.control_grid img { vertical-align: text-top; } </style> <table class="control_grid"> <tr> <td><img width="48" height="48" src="icon1.gif">My text & stuff, overflow??</td> <td><img width="48" height="48" src="icon1.gif">Icon1</td> <td><img width="48" height="48" src="icon1.gif">Icon2</td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> </table> Desired result:

    Read the article

  • Multisite Enabling a Table

    - by Joe Fitzgibbons
    I am creating a table (table A) that will have a number of columns(of course) and there will be another table (table B) that holds metadata associated to rows in table A. I am working with a multi site implementation that has one database for the whole shabang. Rows in table A could belong to any number of sites but must belong to at least one. The problem I have is I am not sure what the best practice is for defining what site each row in table A belongs to. I want performance and scalability. There is no finite number of sites going forward. Rows in table A could belong to any number of sites in the future. Right now there are only 3. My initial thoughts are to have a primary site ID in Table A and then metadata in table B will have rows defining additional sites as needed. Another thought is to have a column in Table A for each site and it is a boolean as to wether it belongs to that site. Lastly I have thought about having another table to map rows in Table A to each site. What is the best way to associate rows in a table with any number of sites with performance and scalability in mind?

    Read the article

  • Follow-up Answers for my Australia Classes

    - by Kalen Delaney
    I was out of the country for the last two weeks of March, delivering classes in Brisbane and Sydney, which were organized by WardyIT . It was a great visit and there were 24 terrific students! As is sometimes (perhaps often?) the case, there were questions posed that I couldn’t answer during class, so here are a couple of follow-up answers. 1. I brought up the fact that SQLS 2012 generates a warning message when there are ‘too many’ Virtual Log Files (VLFs) in a database. (It turns out the message...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Mysql PHP generated table: doesn't work with Tablesorter

    - by echedey lorenzo
    Hi, I found this great Tablesorter plugin for jQuery but I can't make it work with my PHP generated table. Here's the code: <script type="text/javascript"> function table() { $("#container").load("table.php?randval="+Math.random()); } $(document).ready(function() { table(); $("table").tablesorter(); }); </script> Where #container is the div where the table will be and table is the name of the table. I get the table loaded but sorting function is not working. It works if I put the table directly in html in the page.. but I don't see the point in having a static table for sorting. Any help would be very appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Python In-memory table

    - by nsharish
    What is the right way to forming in-memory table in python with direct lookups for rows and columns.I thought of using dict of dicts this way, class Table(dict): def __getitem__(self, key): if key not in self: self[key]={} return dict.__getitem__(self, key) table = Table() table['row1']['column1'] = 'value11' table['row1']['column2'] = 'value12' table['row2']['column1'] = 'value21' table['row2']['column2'] = 'value22' >>>table {'row1':{'column1':'value11','column2':'value12'},'row2':{'column1':'value21','column2':'value22'}} I had difficulty in looking up for values in columns. >>>'row1' in table True >>>'value11' in table['row1'].values() True Now how do I do lookup if 'column1' has 'value11' Is this method of forming tables wrong?Is there a better way to implement such tables with easier lookups?.Thanks

    Read the article

  • sql locking on silverlight app

    - by immuner
    Hi, i am not sure if this is the correct term, but this is what id like to do: I have an application that uses a mssql database. This application can operate in 3 modes. mode 1) user does not alter, but only read the database mode 2) user can add rows (one at a time) onto a table in the database mode 3) user can alter several tables in the database (one person at a time) question 1) how can i ensure that when a user in in mode 3 that the database will "lock" and all logged in users who operate in mode 2 or mode 3 will not be able to change the database until he finishes? question 2) how can i ensure that while there are several users in mode 2, that there will be no conflict while they all update the table? my guess here, is that before adding a new row, you make a server query for the table's current unique keys and add the new entry. will this be safe enough though? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Clone DB table row through MVC in SQL Server

    - by sslepian
    Is there a simple solution for duplicating table rows in SQL Server as well as all table rows with foreign keys pointing to the cloned table row? I've got a "master" table and a bunch of "child" tables which have a foreign key into the ID of the master table. I need to not only create a perfect copy of the master table, but clone each and every child table referencing the master table. Is there a simpler way to do this than creating a new row in the master table, copying in the information from the row to be cloned, then going through each child table and doing the same with each row pointing to the cloned row in the master table? I'm using a SQL Server 2005 Database accessed through C# ASP.net MVC 1.0.

    Read the article

  • Clone DB table row through MVC in MSSQL

    - by sslepian
    Is there a simple solution for duplicating table rows in MSSQL as well as all table rows with foreign keys pointing to the cloned table row? I've got a "master" table and a bunch of "child" tables which have a foreign key into the ID of the master table. I need to not only create a perfect copy of the master table, but clone each and every child table referencing the master table. Is there a simpler way to do this than creating a new row in the master table, copying in the information from the row to be cloned, then going through each child table and doing the same with each row pointing to the cloned row in the master table? I'm using a MSSQL 2005 Database accessed through C# ASP.net MVC 1.0.

    Read the article

  • MySQL Locking Up

    - by Ian
    I've got a innodb table that gets a lot of reads and almost no writes (like, 1 write for every 400,000 reads approx). I'm running into a pretty big problem though when I do INSERT into the table. MySQL completely locks up. It uses 100% cpu, and every single other table (in other databases even) have their statuses set to "Locked" until the INSERT is done. This is a big problem because MySQL stays locked up for up to 4 minutes. I'm using version 5.1.47 (rpm from mysql.com). Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • MySQL Locking table from Stored FUNCTION

    - by Brandon
    I have a function in a MySQL Database that determines some sync parameters for a mobile device. The function determines the last date/time the user synchronized with the database. During my sync operation I call this server side function twice. As soon as I call it the second time - the entire Sync_Records table is locked. I cannot write to it from any other connection anywhere (note, after first call, the table is not locked). I changed the function to a Procedure - and all is fine - no locking after the second call. The entire sync operation (including both calls to the function/procedure) is within a transaction. This is an InnoDb table. The function/procedure simply does two select statements. They are storing results in local variables and then returning the date time variable. I don't understand why the tables are locked. Does anyone have any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to efficiently use LOCK_ESCALATION mssql 2008

    - by Avias
    I'm currently having troubles with frequent deadlocks with a specific user table in MS SQL 2008. Here are some facts about this particular table: Has a large amount of rows (1 to 2 million) All the indexes used on this table only has "use row lock" ticked on its option rows are frequently updated by multiple transactions but are unique (e.g. probably a thousand or more update statements are executed to different unique rows every hour) the table does not use partitions. Upon checking the table on sys.tables, I found that the lock_escalation is set to TABLE I'm very tempted to turn the lock_escalation for this table to DISABLE but I'm not really sure what side effect this would incur. From What I understand, using DISABLE will minimize escalating locks to TABLE level which if combined with the row lock settings of the indexes should theoretically minimize the deadlocks I am encountering.. From what I have read in Determining threshold for lock escalation it seems that locking automatically escalates when a single transaction fetches 5000 rows.. What does a single transaction mean in this sense? A single session/connection getting 5000 rows thru individual update/select statements? Or is it a single sql update/select statement that fetches 5000 or more rows? Any insight is appreciated, btw, n00b DBA here Thanks

    Read the article

  • Can't Repair Mysql Table

    - by Pedro
    Hi, I have one table that I simply can't repair, I already try to remove the partitioning but still get this error: alter table promo_tool_view_44 REMOVE PARTITIONING; ERROR 1034 (HY000): Incorrect key file for table 'promo_tool_view_44'; try to repair it I already try to repair the table but I get this reply: repair table promo_tool_view_1; +-----------------------------+--------+----------+-----------------------------+ | Table | Op | Msg_type | Msg_text | +-----------------------------+--------+----------+-----------------------------+ | vad_stats.promo_tool_view_1 | repair | error | Partition p1 returned error | | vad_stats.promo_tool_view_1 | repair | error | Corrupt | +-----------------------------+--------+----------+-----------------------------+ 2 rows in set (0.21 sec) How can I solve this? Thanks, Pedro

    Read the article

  • Apache reaching MaxClients and locking the server

    - by Rodrigo Sieiro
    Hi. I currently have an Apache2 server running with mpm-prefork and mod_php on a OpenVZ VPS with 512M real / 1024M burstable RAM (no swap). After running some tests, I found that the maximum process size Apache gets is 23M, so I've set MaxClients to 25 (23M x 25 = 575 MB, ok for me). I decided to run some load tests on my server, and the results left me puzzled. I'm using ab on my desktop machine requesting the main page from a wordpress blog. When I run ab with 24 concurrent connections, everything seems fine. Sure, CPU goes up, free RAM goes down, and the result is about 2-3s response time per request. But if I run ab with 25 concurrent connections (my server limit), Apache just hangs after a couple of seconds. It starts processing the requests, then it stops responding, CPU goes back to 100% idle and ab times out. Apache log says it reached MaxClients. When this happens, Apache keeps itself locked up with 25 running processes (they're all in "W" if I check server status) and only after the TimeOut setting the processes start to die and the server starts responding again (in my case it's set to 45). My question: is that expected behaviour? Why Apache just dies when it reaches MaxClients? If it works with 24 connections, shouldn't it work with 25, just taking maybe more time to respond each request and queueing up the rest? It sounds kinda strange to me that any kid running ab can alone kill a webserver just by setting the concurrent connections to the servers MaxClients.

    Read the article

  • Apache MaxClients reaching max and locking the server

    - by Rodrigo Sieiro
    Hi. I currently have an Apache2 server running with mpm-prefork and mod_php on a OpenVZ VPS with 512M real / 1024M burstable RAM (no swap). After running some tests, I found that the maximum process size Apache gets is 23M, so I've set MaxClients to 25 (23M x 25 = 575 MB, ok for me). I decided to run some load tests on my server, and the results left me puzzled. I'm using ab on my desktop machine requesting the main page from a wordpress blog. When I run ab with 24 concurrent connections, everything seems fine. Sure, CPU goes up, free RAM goes down, and the result is about 2-3s response time per request. But if I run ab with 25 concurrent connections (my server limit), Apache just hangs after a couple of seconds. It starts processing the requests, then it stops responding, CPU goes back to 100% idle and ab times out. Apache log says it reached MaxClients. When this happens, Apache keeps itself locked up with 25 running processes (they're all in "W" if I check server status) and only after the TimeOut setting the processes start to die and the server starts responding again (in my case it's set to 45). My question: is that expected behaviour? Why Apache just dies when it reaches MaxClients? If it works with 24 connections, shouldn't it work with 25, just taking maybe more time to respond each request and queueing up the rest? It sounds kinda strange to me that any kid running ab can alone kill a webserver just by setting the concurrent connections to the servers MaxClients.

    Read the article

  • IPFW not locking people out

    - by Cole
    I've had some brute-forcing of my ssh connection recently, so I got fail2ban to hopefully prevent that. I set it up, and started testing it out by giving wrong passwords on my computer. (I have physical access to the server if I need to unblock myself) However, it never stops me from entering passwords. I see in /var/log/fail2ban.log that fail2ban kicked in and banned me, and there's a ipfw entry for my IP, but I'm not locked out. I've changed the configuration around, and then tried just using the ipfw command myself, but nothing seems to lock me out. I've tried the following blocks: 65300 deny tcp from 10.0.1.30 to any in 65400 deny ip from 10.0.1.30 to any 65500 deny tcp from 10.0.1.30 to any My firewall setup has a "allow ip from any to any" rule after these though, maybe that's the problem? I'm using Mac OS 10.6 (stock ipfw, it doesn't seem to have a --version flag) Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • ESXi 4.0 Guests Locking up

    - by Brendan Sherwin
    I installed ESXi 4.0 on an HP Proliant g5 with a 64bit Xeon processor and took advantage of the free license as I work for a public school. I created two instances of server 2003 from scratch, one to be the DC, DHCP, the other to be a file server and DNS/DHCP backup. I had both guests up and running fine, setup my user accounts, transferred the data, etc etc. Once I joined a client machine to the domain, I would find that both of my Windows guests would lock up. Sometimes it would be for five or so minutes, once it was overnight. The "locked up" state means that as far I could tell, all services were stopped; dhcp no longer handed out IP's, DNS stopped working, I couldn't RDP into the server. The ESXi host, my HP server, was still running fine. VSphere was working, and I could look at the performance of the individual guests.I would try Powering off the hosts from inside VSPhere, and the hosts would start powering off, but get stuck at 95%, and stay that way, sometimes only for 10 minutes, others for hours. Several times I had to restart ESXi from it's console in order to restart my machines. Now, can anyone tell me what is happening, and how I can fix it, or take steps to prevent it? I hired a consultant to come take a look at it, someone who's experience and knowledge I trust, and he told me he had never seen anything like this ever before. He spoke to a friend of his who is VM certified, and he also said he had never heard of this issue. Thanks for your replies, and I'll do my best to respond ASAP. Currently, the server is powered off, and I've reinstituted my nine year old Server 2000 boxes, and I'm considering installing ESXi 3.5. Does anyone know a host created in 4.0 will work in 3.5? I'd really like to avoid having to rebuild those accounts! I know 4.0 works on this server, as I have another server in another school with the same exact hardware running 4.0 fine. Brendan

    Read the article

  • Locking sharepoint list item

    - by user39157
    I have a sharepoint custom list which has 5 columns ..the user should fill in first three columns and the other two should be locked..when the user enters the items and start the workflow if the workflow gets approved the 3 columns should be locked for editing and then the other two should be available for editing . Can someone please tell me how can i achieve this. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >