Search Results

Search found 8603 results on 345 pages for 'altering tables'.

Page 312/345 | < Previous Page | 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319  | Next Page >

• Is this the correct way to set up has many with multiple associations?

  - by user323763

  I'm trying to set up a new project for a music site. I'm learning ROR and am a bit confused about how to make join models/tables. Does this look right? I have users, playlists, songs, and comments. Users can have multiple playlists. Users can have multiple comments on their profile. Playlists can have multiple songs. Playlists can have comments. Songs can have comments. class CreateTables < ActiveRecord::Migration def self.up create_table :users do |t| t.string :login t.string :email t.string :firstname t.string :lastname t.timestamps end create_table :playlists do |t| t.string :title t.text :description t.timestamps end create_table :songs do |t| t.string :title t.string :artist t.string :album t.integer :duration t.string :image t.string :source t.timestamps end create_table :comments do |t| t.string :title t.text :body t.timestamps end create_table :users_playlists do |t| t.integer :user_id t.integer :playlist_id t.timestamps end create_table :playlists_songs do |t| t.integer :playlist_id t.integer :song_id t.integer :position t.timestamps end create_table :users_comments do |t| t.integer :user_id t.integer :comment_id t.timestamps end create_table :playlists_comments do |t| t.integer :playlist_id t.integer :comment_id t.timestamps end create_table :songs_comments do |t| t.integer :song_id t.integer :comment_id t.timestamps end end def self.down drop_table :playlists drop_table :comments drop_table :songs_comments drop_table :users_comments drop_table :users_playlists drop_table :users drop_table :playlists drop_table :songs drop_table :playlists end end

  Read the article

• SQL Server 2008 - Update a temporary table

  - by user336786

  Hello, I have stored procedure in which I am trying to retrieve the last ticket completed by each user listed in a comma-delimited string of usernames. The user may not have a ticket associated with them, in this case I know that i just need to return null. The two tables that I am working with are defined as follows: User ---- UserName, FirstName, LastName Ticket ------ ID, CompletionDateTime, AssignedTo, AssignmentDate, StatusID TicketStatus ------------ ID, Comments I have created a stored procedure in which I am trying to return the last completed ticket for a comma-delimited list of usernames. Each record needs to include the comments associated with it. Currently, I'm trying the following: CREATE TABLE #Tickets ( [UserName] nvarchar(256), [FirstName] nvarchar(256), [LastName] nvarchar(256), [TicketID] int, [DateCompleted] datetime, [Comments] text ) -- This variable is actually passed into the procedure DECLARE @userList NVARCHAR(max) SET @userList='user1,user2,user2' -- Obtain the user information for each user INSERT INTO #Tickets ( [UserName], [FirstName], [LastName] ) SELECT u.[UserName], u.[FirstName], u.[LastName] FROM User u INNER JOIN dbo.ConvertCsvToTable(@userList) l ON u.UserName=l.item At this point, I have the username, first and last name for each user passed in. However, I do not know how to actually get the last ticket completed for each of these users. How do I do this? I believe I should be updating the temp table I have created. At the same time, id do not know how to get just the last record in an update statement. Thank you!

  Read the article

• Ordering by number of rows?

  - by Rob

  Alright, so I have a table outputting data from a MySQL table in a while loop. Well one of the columns it outputs isn't stored statically in the table, instead it's the sum of how many times it appears in a different MySQL table. Sorry I'm not sure this is easy to understand. Here's my code: $query="SELECT * FROM list WHERE added='$addedby' ORDER BY time DESC"; $result=mysql_query($query); while($row=mysql_fetch_array($result, MYSQL_ASSOC)){ $loghwid = $row['hwid']; $sql="SELECT * FROM logs WHERE hwid='$loghwid' AND time < now() + interval 1 hour"; $query = mysql_query($sql) OR DIE(mysql_error()); $boots = mysql_num_rows($query); //Display the table } The above is the code displaying the table. As you can see it's grabbing data from two different MySQL tables. However I want to be able to ORDER BY $boots DESC. But as its a counting of a completely different table, I have no idea of how to go about doing that. I would appreciate any help, thank you.

  Read the article

• While in a transaction, how can reads to an affected row be prevented until the transaction is done?

  - by Mahn

  I'm fairly sure this has a simple solution, but I haven't been able to find it so far. Provided an InnoDB MySQL database with the isolation level set to SERIALIZABLE, and given the following operation: BEGIN WORK; SELECT * FROM users WHERE userID=1; UPDATE users SET credits=100 WHERE userID=1; COMMIT; I would like to make sure that as soon as the select inside the transaction is issued, the row corresponding to userID=1 is locked for reads until the transaction is done. As it stands now, UPDATEs to this row will wait for the transaction to be finished if it is in process, but SELECTs simply will read the previous value. I understand this is the expected behaviour in this case, but I wonder if there is a way to lock the row in such a way that SELECTs will also wait until the transaction is finished to return the values? The reason I'm looking for that is that at some point, and with enough concurrent users, it could happen that while the previous transaction is in process someone else reads the "credits" to calculate something else. Ideally the code run by that someone else should wait for the transaction to finish to use the new value, because otherwise it could lead to irreversible desync issues. Note that I don't want to lock the entire table for reads, just the specific row. Also, I could add a boolean "locked" field to the tables and set it to 1 every time I'm starting a transaction but I don't really feel this is the most elegant solution here, unless there is absolutely no other way to handle this through mysql directly.

  Read the article

• Select Query Joined on Two Fields?

  - by btollett

  I've got a few tables in an access database: ID | LocationName 1 | Location1 2 | Location2 ID | LocationID | Date | NumProductsDelivered 1 | 1 | 12/10 | 3 2 | 1 | 01/11 | 2 3 | 1 | 02/11 | 2 4 | 2 | 11/10 | 1 5 | 2 | 12/10 | 1 ID | LocationID | Date | NumEmployees | EmployeeType 1 | 1 | 12/10 | 10 | 1 (=Permanent) 2 | 1 | 12/10 | 3 | 2 (=Temporary) 3 | 1 | 12/10 | 1 | 3 (=Support) 4 | 2 | 10/10 | 1 | 1 5 | 2 | 11/10 | 2 | 1 6 | 2 | 11/10 | 1 | 2 7 | 2 | 11/10 | 1 | 3 8 | 2 | 12/10 | 2 | 1 9 | 2 | 12/10 | 1 | 3 What I want to do is pass in the LocationID as a parameter and get back something like the following table. So, if I pass in 2 as my LocationID, I should get: Date | NumProductsDelivered | NumPermanentEmployees | NumSupportEmployees 10/10 | | 1 | 11/10 | 1 | 2 | 1 12/10 | 1 | 2 | 1 It seems like this should be a pretty simple query. I really don't even need the first table except as a way to fill in the combo box on the form from which the user chooses which location they want a report for. Unfortunately, everything I've done has resulted in me getting a lot more data than I should be getting. My confusion is in how to set up the join (presumably that's what I'm looking for here) given that I want both the date and locationID to be the same for each row in the result set. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• [Ruby on Rails] how to add a new entry with a multiple has_many association?

  - by siulamvictor

  I am not sure am I doing these correct. I have 3 models, Account, User, and Event. Account contains a group of Users. Each User have its own username and password for login, but they can access the same Account data under the same Account. Events is create by a User, which other Users in the same Account can also read or edit it. I created the following migrations and models. User migration class CreateUsers < ActiveRecord::Migration def self.up create_table :users do |t| t.integer :account_id t.string :username t.string :password t.timestamps end end def self.down drop_table :users end end Account migration class CreateAccounts < ActiveRecord::Migration def self.up create_table :accounts do |t| t.string :name t.timestamps end end def self.down drop_table :accounts end end Event migration class CreateEvents < ActiveRecord::Migration def self.up create_table :events do |t| t.integer :account_id t.integer :user_id t.string :name t.string :location t.timestamps end end def self.down drop_table :events end end Account model class Account < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :users has_many :events end User model class User < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :account end Event model class Event < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :account belongs_to :user end so.... Is this setting correct? Every time when a user create a new account, the system will ask for the user information, e.g. username and password. How can I add them into correct tables? How can I add a new event? I am sorry for such a long question. I am not very understand the rails way in handling such data structure. Thank you guys for answering me. :)

  Read the article

• Hibernate OneToMany and ManyToOne confusion! Null List!

  - by squizz

  I have two tables... For example - Company and Employee (let's keep this real simple) Company( id, name ); Employee( id, company_id ); Employee.company_id is a foreign key. My entity model looks like this... Employee @ManyToOne(cascade = CascadeType.PERSIST) @JoinColumn(name = "company_id") Company company; Company @OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.EAGER) @JoinColumn(name = "company_id") List<Employee> employeeList = new ArrayList<Employee>(); So, yeah I want a list of employees for a company. When I do the following... Employee e = new Employee(); e.setCompany(c); //c is an Company that is already in the database. DAO.insertEmployee(e); //this works fine! If I then get my Company object it's list is empty! Ive tried endless different ways from the Hibernate documentation! Obviously not tried the correct one yet! I just want the list to be populated for me or find out a sensible alternative. Help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

  Read the article

• MySQL Multiple Table Join

  - by hitman001

  I have a 3 tables that I'm trying to join and get distinct results. CREATE TABLE `car` ( `id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB mysql> select * from car; +----+-------+ | id | name | +----+-------+ | 1 | acura | +----+-------+ CREATE TABLE `tires` ( `id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tire_desc` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `car_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), KEY `new_fk_constraint` (`car_id`), CONSTRAINT `new_fk_constraint` FOREIGN KEY (`car_id`) REFERENCES `car` (`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE CASCADE ) ENGINE=InnoDB mysql> select * from tires; +----+-------------+--------+ | id | tire_desc | car_id | +----+-------------+--------+ | 1 | front_right | 1 | | 2 | front_left | 1 | +----+-------------+--------+ CREATE TABLE `lights` ( `id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `lights_desc` varchar(255) NOT NULL, `car_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), KEY `new1_fk_constraint` (`car_id`), CONSTRAINT `new1_fk_constraint` FOREIGN KEY (`car_id`) REFERENCES `car` (`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE CASCADE ) ENGINE=InnoDB mysql> select * from lights; +----+-------------+--------+ | id | lights_desc | car_id | +----+-------------+--------+ | 1 | right_light | 1 | | 2 | left_light | 1 | +----+-------------+--------+ Here is my query. mysql> SELECT name, group_concat(tire_desc), group_concat(lights_desc) FROM car left join tires on car.id = tires.car_id left join lights on car.id = car_id group by car.id; +-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+ | name | group_concat(tire_desc) | group_concat(lights_desc) | +-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+ | acura | front_right,front_right,front_left,front_left | right_light,left_light,right_light,left_light | +-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+ I get duplicate entires and this is what I would like to get. +-------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | name | group_concat(tire_desc) | group_concat(lights_desc) | +-------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | acura | front_right,front_left | right_light,left_light | +-------+-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ I cannot use distinct in group_concat because I might have legitimate duplicates which I would like to keep. Is there any way to do this query using joins and not using inner selects like the statement below? SELECT name, (select group_concat(tire_desc) from tires where car.id = tires.car_id), (select group_concat(lights_desc) from lights where car.id = lights.car_id) FROM car Also, if I will use inner selects, will there be any performance issues over joins?

  Read the article

• c# - sqllite dosnt save data i inserted

  - by samy

  I'm messing around with SQL lite and learning it. I got a table called People, I got some method that connect to the database and do some stuff, like show all the info. Now I'm trying to insert some data and here it get wierd for me. I have this method: private void ExecuteQuery(string txtQuery) { SetConnection(); sql_con.Open(); sql_cmd = sql_con.CreateCommand(); sql_cmd.CommandText = txtQuery; sql_cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); sql_con.Close(); } and to see all the data I've got this method: private void LoadData() { SetConnection(); sql_con.Open(); sql_cmd = sql_con.CreateCommand(); string CommandText = "SELECT * FROM People"; DB = new SQLiteDataAdapter(CommandText, sql_con); DS.Reset(); DB.Fill(DS); DT = DS.Tables[0]; dataGridView1.DataSource = DT; sql_con.Close(); } When I inset some data and right afther it I call the LoadData(), I can see all the changes I made. After I close the program, and then open it agian and call LoadData(), I don't see the new info that I inserted before. I got some data that I used SQL lite GUI app to insert, and I can see that data every time I call the LoadData() method, but not mine. Do I need to do somthing else to make sure SQL lite saves all the data?

  Read the article

• Data base design with Blob

  - by mmuthu

  Hi, I have a situation where i need to store the binary data into database as blob column. There are three different table exists in my database where in i need to store a blob data for each record. Not every record will have the blob data all the time. It is time and user based. The table one will have to store the *.doc files almost for all the record The table two will have to store the *.xml optionally. The table three will have to store images (not sure what is frequency, etc) Now my questions is whether it is a good idea to maintain a separate table to store the blob data pointing it to the respective table PK's (Yes, there will be no FK's and assuming program will maintain it). It will be some thing like below, BLOB|PK_ID|TABLE_NAME Alternatively, is it a good idea to keep the blob column in respective tables. As for as my application runtime is concerned, The table 2 will be read very frequently. Though the blob column will not be required. The table 2 record will gets deleted frequently. Similarly other blob data in respective table will not be accessed frequently. All of the blob content will be read on-demand basis. I'm thinking first approach will work better for me. What do you guys think? Btw, I'm using Oracle.

  Read the article

• Best way to get distinct values from large table

  - by derivation

  I have a db table with about 10 or so columns, two of which are month and year. The table has about 250k rows now, and we expect it to grow by about 100-150k records a month. A lot of queries involve the month and year column (ex, all records from march 2010), and so we frequently need to get the available month and year combinations (ie do we have records for april 2010?). A coworker thinks that we should have a separate table from our main one that only contains the months and years we have data for. We only add records to our main table once a month, so it would just be a small update on the end of our scripts to add the new entry to this second table. This second table would be queried whenever we need to find the available month/year entries on the first table. This solution feels kludgy to me and a violation of DRY. What do you think is the correct way of solving this problem? Is there a better way than having two tables?

  Read the article

• How to map this class in NHibernate (not FluentNHibernate)?

  - by JMSA

  Suppose I have a database like this: This is set up to give role-wise menu permissions. Please note that, User-table has no direct relationship with Permission-table. Then how should I map this class against the database-tables? class User { public int ID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public string Username { get; set; } public string Password { get; set; } public bool? IsActive { get; set; } public IList<Role> RoleItems { get; set; } public IList<Permission> PermissionItems { get; set; } public IList<string> MenuItemKeys { get; set; } } This means, (1) Every user has some Roles. (2) Every user has some Permissions (depending on to Roles). (3) Every user has some permitted MenuItemKeys (according to Permissions). How should my User.hbm.xml look like?

  Read the article

• Rails active record association problem

  - by Harm de Wit

  Hello, I'm new at active record association in rails so i don't know how to solve the following problem: I have a tables called 'meetings' and 'users'. I have correctly associated these two together by making a table 'participants' and set the following association statements: class Meeting < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :participants, :dependent => :destroy has_many :users, :through => :participants and class Participant < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :meeting belongs_to :user and the last model class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :participants, :dependent => :destroy At this point all is going well and i can access the user values of attending participants of a specific meeting by calling @meeting.users in the normal meetingshow.html.erb view. Now i want to make connections between these participants. Therefore i made a model called 'connections' and created the columns of 'meeting_id', 'user_id' and 'connected_user_id'. So these connections are kinda like friendships within a certain meeting. My question is: How can i set the model associations so i can easily control these connections? I would like to see a solution where i could use @meeting.users.each do |user| user.connections.each do |c| <do something> end end I tried this by changing the model of meetings to this: class Meeting < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :participants, :dependent => :destroy has_many :users, :through => :participants has_many :connections, :dependent => :destroy has_many :participating_user_connections, :through => :connections, :source => :user Please, does anyone have a solution/tip how to solve this the rails way?

  Read the article

• How to emulate a BEFORE DELETE trigger in SQL Server 2005

  - by Mark

  Let's say I have three tables, [ONE], [ONE_TWO], and [TWO]. [ONE_TWO] is a many-to-many join table with only [ONE_ID and [TWO_ID] columns. There are foreign keys set up to link [ONE] to [ONE_TWO] and [TWO] to [ONE_TWO]. The FKs use the ON DELETE CASCADE option so that if either a [ONE] or [TWO] record is deleted, the associated [ONE_TWO] records will be automatically deleted as well. I want to have a trigger on the [TWO] table such that when a [TWO] record is deleted, it executes a stored procedure that takes a [ONE_ID] as a parameter, passing the [ONE_ID] values that were linked to the [TWO_ID] before the delete occurred: DECLARE @Statement NVARCHAR(max) SET @Statement = '' SELECT @Statement = @Statement + N'EXEC [MyProc] ''' + CAST([one_two].[one_id] AS VARCHAR(36)) + '''; ' FROM deleted JOIN [one_two] ON deleted.[two_id] = [one_two].[two_id] EXEC (@Statement) Clearly, I need a BEFORE DELETE trigger, but there is no such thing in SQL Server 2005. I can't use an INSTEAD OF trigger because of the cascading FK. I get the impression that if I use a FOR DELETE trigger, when I join [deleted] to [ONE_TWO] to find the list of [ONE_ID] values, the FK cascade will have already deleted the associated [ONE_TWO] records so I will never find any [ONE_ID] values. Is this true? If so, how can I achieve my objective? I'm thinking that I'd need to change the FK joining [TWO] to [ONE_TWO] to not use cascades and to do the delete from [ONE_TWO] manually in the trigger just before I manually delete the [TWO] records. But I'd rather not go through all that if there is a simpler way.

  Read the article

• EF Query with conditional include that uses Joins

  - by makerofthings7

  This is a follow up to another user's question. I have 5 tables CompanyDetail CompanyContacts FK to CompanyDetail CompanyContactsSecurity FK to CompanyContact UserDetail UserGroupMembership FK to UserDetail How do I return all companies and include the contacts in the same query? I would like to include companies that contain zero contacts. Companies have a 1 to many association to Contacts, however not every user is permitted to see every Contact. My goal is to get a list of every Company regardless of the count of Contacts, but include contact data. Right now I have this working query: var userGroupsQueryable = _entities.UserGroupMembership .Where(ug => ug.UserID == UserID) .Select(a => a.GroupMembership); var contactsGroupsQueryable = _entities.CompanyContactsSecurity;//.Where(c => c.CompanyID == companyID); /// OLD Query that shows permitted contacts /// ... I want to "use this query inside "listOfCompany" /// //var permittedContacts= from c in userGroupsQueryable //join p in contactsGroupsQueryable on c equals p.GroupID //select p; However this is inefficient when I need to get all contacts for all companies, since I use a For..Each loop and query each company individually and update my viewmodel. Question: How do I shoehorn the permittedContacts variable above and insert that into this query: var listOfCompany = from company in _entities.CompanyDetail.Include("CompanyContacts").Include("CompanyContactsSecurity") where company.CompanyContacts.Any( // Insert Query here.... // b => b.CompanyContactsSecurity.Join(/*inner*/,/*OuterKey*/,/*innerKey*/,/*ResultSelector*/) ) select company; My attempt at doing this resulted in: var listOfCompany = from company in _entities.CompanyDetail.Include("CompanyContacts").Include("CompanyContactsSecurity") where company.CompanyContacts.Any( // This is concept only... doesn't work... from grps in userGroupsQueryable join p in company.CompanyContactsSecurity on grps equals p.GroupID select p ) select company;

  Read the article

• Automatically Persisting a Complex Java Object

  - by VeeArr

  For a project I am working on, I need to persist a number of POJOs to a database. The POJOs class definitions are sometimes highly nested, but they should flatten okay, as the nesting is tree-like and contains no cycles (and the base elements are eventually primitives/Strings). It is preferred that the solution used create one table per data type and that the tables will have one field per primitive member in the POJO. Subclassing and similar problems are not issues for this particular project. Does anybody know of any existing solutions that can: Automatically generate a CREATE TABLE definition from the class definition Automatically generate a query to persist an object to the database, given an instance of the object Automatically generate a query to retrieve an object from the database and return it as a POJO, given a key. Solutions that can do this with minimum modifications/annotions to the class files and minimum external configuration are preferred. Example: Java classes //Class to be persisted class TypeA { String guid; long timestamp; TypeB data1; TypeC data2; } class TypeB { int id; int someData; } class TypeC { int id; int otherData; } Could map to CREATE TABLE TypeA ( guid CHAR(255), timestamp BIGINT, data1_id INT, data1_someData INT, data2_id INt, data2_otherData INT ); Or something similar.

  Read the article

• Should Service Depend on Many Repositories, or Break Them Up?

  - by Josh Pollard

  I'm using a repository pattern for my data access. So I basically have a repository per table/class. My UI currently uses service classes to actually get things done, and these service classes wrap, and therefore depend on repositories. In many cases my services are only dependent upon one or two repositories, so things aren't too crazy. Unfortunately, one of my forms in the UI expects the user to enter data that will span five different tables. For this form I made a single service class that depends upon five repositories. Then the methods within the service for saving and loading the data call the appropriate methods on all of the corresponding repositories. As you can imagine, the save and load methods in this service are really big. Also, unit testing this service is getting really difficult because I have to setup so many fake repositories. Would it have been a better choice to break this single service apart into a few smaller services? It would put more code at the UI layer, but would make the services smaller and more testable.

  Read the article

• Hive performance increase

  - by Sagar Nikam

  I am dealing with a database (2.5 GB) having some tables only 40 row to some having 9 million rows data. when I am doing any query for large table it takes more time. I want results in less time small query on table which have 90 rows only-- hive> select count(*) from cidade; Time taken: 50.172 seconds hdfs-site.xml <configuration> <property> <name>dfs.replication</name> <value>3</value> <description>Default block replication. The actual number of replications can be specified when the file is created. The default is used if replication is not specified in create time. </description> </property> <property> <name>dfs.block.size</name> <value>131072</value> <description>Default block replication. The actual number of replications can be specified when the file is created. The default is used if replication is not specified in create time. </description> </property> </configuration> does these setting affects performance of hive? dfs.replication=3 dfs.block.size=131072 can i set it from hive prompt as hive>set dfs.replication=5 Is this value remains for a perticular session only ? or Is it better to change it in .xml file ?

  Read the article

• Transfering data from Excel to dataGridView

  - by Panecillo

  I have a problem when I want to transfer data from Excel to dataGridView in C#. My Excel's column has numeric and alphanumeric values. But for example, if the column has 3 numbers and 2 alphanumeric values then only the numbers are shown in the dataGridView, and vice versa. Why aren't all the values shown? The next is what happen: Excel's Column: DataGridView's Column: 45654 45654 P745K 31233 31233 23111 23111 45X2Y Here is my code to load the dataGridView: string connectionString = @"Provider=Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0;Data Source=D:\test.xls;Extended Properties=""Excel 8.0;HDR=YES;"""; DbProviderFactory factory = DbProviderFactories.GetFactory("System.Data.OleDb"); DbDataAdapter adapter = factory.CreateDataAdapter(); DbCommand selectCommand = factory.CreateCommand(); selectCommand.CommandText = "SELECT * FROM [sheet1$]"; DbConnection connection = factory.CreateConnection(); connection.ConnectionString = connectionString; selectCommand.Connection = connection; adapter.SelectCommand = selectCommand; data = new DataSet(); adapter.Fill(data); dataGridView1.DataSource = data.Tables[0].DefaultView; I hope I explained it well. Sorry my bad english. Thanks.

  Read the article

• How do I compare 2 fields and return the lowest value of each record?

  - by BigRob

  I'm slowly learning access to make a database of products and suppliers for my parents' business. What i've got is a table of products indexed by our product reference and 2 more tables for 2 different suppliers that contains the suppliers product reference and price that links with our reference. I've made a query that performs a left outer join such that it returns a table of our products with each supplier's reference and price, i.e: Ref | Product Name | Supplier 1 Ref | Supplier 1 Price | Supplier 2 Ref | Supplier 2 Price Here's the query I used: SELECT Catalog.Ref, Catalog.[Product Name], Catalog.Price, [D Products].[Supplier Ref], [D Products].Cost, [GS Products].[Supplier Ref], [GS Products].Cost FROM ([Catalog] LEFT JOIN [D Products] ON Catalog.Ref = [D Products].Ref) LEFT JOIN [GS Products] ON Catalog.Ref = [GS Products].Ref; Not all products are available from both suppliers, hence the outer join. What I want to do (with a query?) is to take the table produced by the query above and simply show the product reference, cheapest supplier reference and cheapest supplier price, i.e: Ref | Cheapest Suppplier Ref | Cheapest Supplier Price Unfortunately my SQL knowledge isn't quite good enough to figure this out, but if anyone can help i'd really appreciate it. Thanks, Rob

  Read the article

• Strangest LINQ to SQL case I have ever seen

  - by kubaw

  OK, so this is the strangest issue in .net programming I have ever seen. It seems that object fields are serialized in .net web services in order of field initialization. It all started with Flex not accepting SOAP response from .net web service. I have found out that it was due to the order of serialized fields was statisfying the order of fields in declared serializable class. It had something to do with generic lists and LINQ to SQL but I can't find out what. This one is really hard to reproduce. Example to get the idea: [Serializable] public class SomeSample { public int A; public int B; public int C; } I was querying some data tables within asmx web service using linq and returning list of SomeSample objects: var r = (from ...... select new SomeSample { A = 1, C = 3 }).ToList(); Now the list was once more iterated and B field was applied some value (ex. 2). However the returned soap envelope contained following excerpt: <A>1</A><C>3</C><B>2</B> Please notice the order of serialization. If I initially initialized all fields: var r = (from ...... select new SomeSample { A = 1, B = 2, C = 3 }).ToList(); object was serialized in correct order. I must add, that in both cases the debugger shows exactly the same content of "r" variable. Am I losing my mind or is this normal behavior? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• CakePHP pagination with HABTM models

  - by nickf

  I'm having some problems with creating pagination with a HABTM relationship. First, the tables and relationships: requests (id, to_location_id, from_location_id) locations (id, name) items_locations (id, item_id, location_id) items (id, name) So, a Request has a Location the request is coming from and a Location the Request is going to. For this question, I'm only concerned about the "to" location. Request --belongsTo--> Location* --hasAndBelongsToMany--> Item (* as "ToLocation") In my RequestController, I want to paginate all the Items in a Request's ToLocation. // RequestsController var $paginate = array( 'Item' => array( 'limit' => 5, 'contain' => array( "Location" ) ) ); // RequestController::add() $locationId = 21; $items = $this->paginate('Item', array( "Location.id" => $locationId )); And this is failing, because it is generating this SQL: SELECT COUNT(*) AS count FROM items Item WHERE Location.id = 21 I can't figure out how to make it actually use the "contain" argument of $paginate... Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Stored Procedure, 'incorrect syntax error'

  - by jacksonSD

  Attempting to figure out sp's, and I'm getting this error: "Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Line 5 Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'Procedure'." the error seems to be on the if, but I can drop other existing tables with stored procedures the exact same way so I'm not clear on why this isn't working. can anyone shed some light? Begin Set nocount on Begin Try Create Procedure uspRecycle as if OBJECT_ID('Recycle') is not null Drop Table Recycle create table Recycle (RecycleID integer constraint PK_integer primary key, RecycleType nchar(10) not null, RecycleDescription nvarchar(100) null) insert into Recycle (RecycleID,RecycleType,RecycleDescription) values ('1','Compost','Product is compostable, instructions included in packaging') insert into Recycle (RecycleID,RecycleType,RecycleDescription) values ('2','Return','Product is returnable to company for 100% reuse') insert into Recycle (RecycleID,RecycleType,RecycleDescription) values ('3','Scrap','Product is returnable and will be reclaimed and reprocessed') insert into Recycle (RecycleID,RecycleType,RecycleDescription) values ('4','None','Product is not recycleable') End Try Begin Catch DECLARE @ErrMsg nvarchar(4000); SELECT @ErrMsg = ERROR_MESSAGE(); Throw 50001, @ErrMsg, 1; End Catch -- checking to see if table exists and is loaded: If (Select count(*) from Recycle) >1 begin Print 'Recycle table created and loaded '; Print getdate() End set nocount off End

  Read the article

• Data mixing SQL Server

  - by Pythonizo

  I have three tables and a range of two dates: Services ServicesClients ServicesClientsDone @StartDate @EndDate Services: ID | Name 1 | Supervisor 2 | Monitor 3 | Manufacturer ServicesClients: IDServiceClient | IDClient | IDService 1 | 1 | 1 2 | 1 | 2 3 | 2 | 2 4 | 2 | 3 ServicesClientsDone: IDServiceClient | Period 1 | 201208 3 | 201210 Period = YYYYMM I need to insert into ServicesClientsDone the months range from @StartDate up @EndDate. I have also a temporary table (#Periods) with the following list: Period 201208 201209 201210 The query I need is to give me back the following list: IDServiceClient | Period 1 | 201209 1 | 201210 2 | 201208 2 | 201209 2 | 201210 3 | 201208 3 | 201209 4 | 201208 4 | 201209 4 | 201210 Which are client services but the ranks of the temporary table, not those who are already inserted This is what i have: Table periods: DECLARE @i int DECLARE @mm int DECLARE @yyyy int, DECLARE @StartDate datetime DECLARE @EndDate datetime set @EndDate = (SELECT GETDATE()) set @StartDate = (SELECT DATEADD(MONTH, -3,GETDATE())) CREATE TABLE #Periods (Period int) set @i = 0 WHILE @i <= DATEDIFF(MONTH, @StartDate , @EndDate ) BEGIN SET @mm= DATEPART(MONTH, DATEADD(MONTH, @i, @FechaInicio)) SET @yyyy= DATEPART(YEAR, DATEADD(MONTH, @i, @FechaInicio)) INSERT INTO #Periods (Period) VALUES (CAST(@yyyy as varchar(4)) + RIGHT('00'+CONVERT(varchar(6), @mm), 2)) SET @i = @i + 1; END Relation between ServicesClients and Services: SELECT s.Name, sc.IDClient FROM Services JOIN ServicesClients AS sc ON sc.IDService = s.ID Services already done and when: SELECT s.Name, scd.Period FROM Services JOIN ServicesClients AS sc ON sc.IDService = s.ID JOIN ServicesClientsDone AS scd ON scd.IDServiceClient = sc.IDServiceClient

  Read the article

• How should I solve this MySql problem (PHP) ? (Beginner)

  - by Camran

  I have several tables in a MySql database. I have a classifieds website, and at the bottom I display the users last visited classifieds. I do this by storing the ID:s of the ads to an array in the cookie. Now, my db is made up like this kindof: Main Table: // Stores global information, ie these fields have to be filled out in every record, never be blank ID Price category Seller Item Table: // Stores descriptive info about whats for sale ID AD_ID (FK) //This is the same as ID in the MAIN TABLE Color Size Mileage etc My problem is that I need to know what category the ad is in, in order to query mysql for the right information I think. So I need two variables, but the cookie only has one (ID) stored. Offcourse I could make two queries, first one just matching the ID to the main_table and fetch the category from the Main_table. Then make the second query and fetch all other info from the right table. Here is an example if the category was Vehicles: SELECT * FROM main_table, vehicles_table, WHERE main_table.id=$id_from_cookie AND main_table.ad_id=vehicles_table.ad_id As you can see above, I need the category to write in what table to check, right? But I think there must be a smarter way, like fetching them in one single query using only one variable (id from cookie)? How should I do this? Understand? Let me know if you need more input... Thanks

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319  | Next Page >