Search Results

Search found 28930 results on 1158 pages for 'sql ce'.

Page 328/1158 | < Previous Page | 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335  | Next Page >

  • SQL Pivot table error-using variable gives syntax error

    - by Antoni
    Hi my coworker came to me with this error and now I am hooked and trying to figure it out, hope some of the experts can help us! Thanks so much! When I execute Step6 we get this error: Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 4 Incorrect syntax near '@cols'. --Sample of pivot query --Creating Test Table Step1 CREATE TABLE Product(Cust VARCHAR(25), Product VARCHAR(20), QTY INT) GO -- Inserting Data into Table Step2 INSERT INTO Product(Cust, Product, QTY) VALUES('KATE','VEG',2) INSERT INTO Product(Cust, Product, QTY) VALUES('KATE','SODA',6) INSERT INTO Product(Cust, Product, QTY) VALUES('KATE','MILK',1) INSERT INTO Product(Cust, Product, QTY) VALUES('KATE','BEER',12) INSERT INTO Product(Cust, Product, QTY) VALUES('FRED','MILK',3) INSERT INTO Product(Cust, Product, QTY) VALUES('FRED','BEER',24) INSERT INTO Product(Cust, Product, QTY) VALUES('KATE','VEG',3) GO -- Selecting and checking entires in table Step3 SELECT * FROM Product GO -- Pivot Table ordered by PRODUCT Step4 select * FROM ( SELECT * FROM Product) up PIVOT (SUM(QTY) FOR CUST IN ([FRED], [KATE])) AS pvt ORDER BY PRODUCT GO --dynamic pivot???? Step5 DECLARE @cols NVARCHAR(2000) select @cols = STUFF(( SELECT DISTINCT TOP 100 PERCENT '],[' + b.Cust FROM (select top 100 Cust from tblProduct)b ORDER BY '],[' + b.Cust FOR XML PATH('') ), 1, 2, '') + ']' --Show Step6 SELECT * FROM (SELECT * FROM tblProduct) p PIVOT (SUM(QTY) FOR CUST IN (@cols)) as pvt Order by Product

    Read the article

  • SQL indexing on varchar

    - by alex
    I have a table whose columns are varchar(50) and a float - I need to (very quickly) look get the float associated with a given string. Even with indexing, this is rather slow. I know, however, that each string is associated with an integer, which I know at the time of lookup, so that each string maps to a unique integer, but each integer does not map to a unique string. One might think of it as a tree structure. Is there anything to be gained by adding this integer to the table, indexing on it, and using a query like SELECT floatval FROM mytable WHERE phrase=givenstring AND assoc=givenint? This is Postgres, and if you couldn't tell, I have very little experience with databases.

    Read the article

  • SQL Where clause in ORACLE

    - by ArneRie
    Hi, does someone has an idea, how to get END_DATE / START_DATE where TO_DATE('06/1/2010','MM/DD/YYYY') ? SELECT "PROJECT"."ID", "PROJECT"."CLIENT", "PROJECT"."NAME", "PROJECT"."STATE", "PROJECT"."EARLIEST_START", "PROJECT"."LATEST_END", "PROJECT"."EFFORT", "PROJECT"."LINK", "PROJECT"."STATUS", "PROJECT"."DESCRIPTION", (SELECT SUM((END_DATE - START_DATE + 1) * (WORKLOAD / 100)) FROM WORKITEM WHERE PROJECT = PROJECT.ID ) AS "P_A", (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM PUBLIC_HOLIDAY WHERE HOLIDAY_DATE BETWEEN TO_DATE('06/1/2010','MM/DD/YYYY') AND TO_DATE('06/2/2010','MM/DD/YYYY')) AS P_B, "PROJECT_STATE"."STATE", "PERSON"."DISPLAY_NAME" AS "RESPONSIBLE" FROM "PROJECT" INNER JOIN "PROJECT_STATE" ON PROJECT.STATE = PROJECT_STATE.ID INNER JOIN "PERSON" ON RESPONSIBLE = PERSON.ID WHERE (PROJECT.CLIENT = '1') AND (PROJECT.STATE = 1) ORDER BY "PROJECT"."NAME" ASC

    Read the article

  • SQL: join within same table with different 'where' clause

    - by Pmarcoen
    Ok, so the problem I'm facing is this, I have a table with 3 columns : ID, Key and Value. ID | Key | Value ================ 1 | 1 | ab 1 | 2 | cd 1 | 3 | ef 2 | 1 | gh 2 | 2 | ij 2 | 3 | kl Now I want to select the value of Keys 1 & 3 for all IDs, the return should be like this ID | 1 | 2 ================ 1 | ab | ef 2 | gh | kl So per ID 1 row containing the Values for Keys 1 & 3. I tried using 'join' but since I need to use multiple where clauses I can't figure out how to get this to work ..

    Read the article

  • sql query by passing te values in one table

    - by subash
    can any one help me in generating query for the below scenario? i have twop tables TableA and TableB TableA has teh follwing columns EMPLOYEEID, SKILLSETCODE,CERTID, LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME, MIDDLEINITIAL TableB has two columns EMPLOYEEID and key_user i want to SELECT EMPLOYEEID, SKILLSETCODE,CERTID, LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME, MIDDLEINITIAL FROM TableA WHERE EMPLOYEEID = (select employeeid from TableB where key_user='249')

    Read the article

  • Select multiple records from sql database table in a master-detail scenario

    - by Trex
    Hello, I have two tables in a master-detail relationship. The structure is more or less as follows: Master table: MasterID, DetailID, date, ... masterID1, detailID1, 2010/5/1, .... masterID2, detailID1, 2008/6/14, ... masterID3, detailID1, 2009/5/25, ... masterID4, detailID2, 2008/7/24, ... masterID5, detailID2, 2010/4/1, ... masterID6, detailID4, 2008/9/16, ... Details table: DetailID, ... detailID1, ... detailID2, ... detailID3, ... detailID4, ... I need to get all the records from the details table plus the LAST record from the master table (last by the date in the master table). Like this: detailID1, masterID1, 2010/5/1, .... detailID2, masterID5, 2010/4/1, ... detailID3, null, null, ... detailID4, masterID6, 2008/9/16, ... I have no idea how to do this. Can anybody help me? Thanks a lot. Jan

    Read the article

  • Displaying tree path of record in SQL Server 2005

    - by jskiles1
    An example of my tree table is: ([id] is an identity) [id], [parent_id], [path] 1, NULL, 1 2, 1, 1-2 3, 1, 1-3 4, 3, 1-3-4 My goal is to query quickly for multiple rows of this table and view the full path of the node from its root, through its superiors, down to itself. The ultimate question is, should I generate this path on inserts and maintain it in its own column or generate this path on query to save disk space? I guess it depends if this table is write heavy or read heavy. I've been contemplating several approaches to using the "path" characteristic of this parent/child relationship and I just can't seem to settle on one. This "path" is simply for display purposes and serves absolutely no purpose other than that. Here is what I have done to implement this "path." AFTER INSERT TRIGGER - requires passing a NULL path to the insert and updating the path for the record at the inserted rows identity INSTEAD OF INSERT TRIGGER - does not require insert to have NULL path passed, but does require the trigger to insert with a NULL path and updating the path for the record at SCOPE_IDENTITY() STORED PROCEDURE - requiring all inserts into this table to be done through the stored procedure implementing the trigger logic VIEW - requires building the path in the view 1 and 2 seem annoying if massive amounts of data are entered at once. 3 seems annoying because all inserts must go through the procedure in order to have a valid path populated. 1, 2, and 3 require maintaining a path column on the table. 4 removes all the limitations of the above but require the view to perform the path logic and requires use of the view if a path is to be displayed. I have successfully implemented all of the above approaches and I'm mainly looking for some advice. Am I way off the mark here or are any of the above acceptable? Each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

    Read the article

  • Many to many table design question

    - by user169867
    Originally I had 2 tables in my DB, [Property] and [Employee]. Each employee can have 1 "Home Property" so the employee table has a HomePropertyID FK field to Property. Later I needed to model the situation where despite having only 1 "Home Property" the employee did work at or cover for multiple properties. So I created an [Employee2Property] table that has EmployeeID and PropertyID FK fields to model this many 2 many relationship. Now I find that I need to create other many-to-many relationships between employees and properties. For example if there are multiple employees that are managers for a property or multiple employees that perform maintenance work at a property, etc. My questions are: 1) Should I create seperate many-to-many tables for each of these situations or should I just create 1 more table like [PropertyAssociatonType] that lists the types of associations an emploee can have with a property and just add a FK field to [Employee2Property] such a PropertyAssociationTypeID that explains what the association is? I'm curious about the pros/cons or if there's another better way. 2) Am I stupid and going about this all worng? Thanks for any suggestions :)

    Read the article

  • Please help me debug my SQL query.

    - by bob09
    I have a query: Select n_portions, dish_name from food_order, dish where n_portions= (select max (n_portions) FROM food_order); It's meant to return: fish pie 3 steak and chips 1 pasta bake 2 stuffed peppers 1 But i get: Pasta bake 35 Fish pie 35 Steak and chips 35 Stuffed peppers 35 Ham and rice 35 Lamb curry 35 Why is this happing? table data table data Insert into customer_order values ('00001', '03-Apr-09', '07-apr-09','St. Andrew St'); Insert into customer_order values ('00002', '05-Apr-09', '01-May-09', 'St. Andrew St'); Insert into customer_order values ('00003', '12-Apr-09', '27-Apr-09', 'Union St'); Insert into customer_order values ('00004', '12-Apr-09', '17-Apr-09', 'St. Andrew St'); Insert into Dish values ('D0001', 'Pasta bake', 'yes', '6.00'); Insert into Dish values ('D0002', 'Fish pie', 'no', '9.00'); Insert into Dish values ('D0003', 'Steak and chips', 'no', '14.00'); Insert into Dish values ('D0004', 'Stuffed peppers', 'yes', '11.50'); Insert into Dish values ('D0005', 'Ham and rice' , 'no', '7.25'); Insert into Dish values ('D0006', 'Lamb curry' , 'no', '8.50'); Insert into Drink values ('DR0001', 'Water', 'soft', '1.0'); Insert into Drink values ('DR0002', 'Coffee', 'hot', '1.70'); Insert into Drink values ('DR0003', 'Wine' , 'alcoholic', '3.00'); Insert into Drink values ('DR0004', 'Beer' , 'alcoholic', '2.30'); Insert into Drink values ('DR0005', 'Tea' , 'hot' , '1.50'); Insert into food_order values ('F000001', '000001', 'D0003', '6'); Insert into food_order values ('F000002', '000001', 'D0001', '4'); Insert into food_order values ('F000003', '000001', 'D0004', '3'); Insert into food_order values ('F000004', '000002', 'D0001', '10'); Insert into food_order values ('F000005', '000002', 'D0002', '10'); Insert into food_order values ('F000006', '000003', 'D0002', '35'); Insert into food_order values ('F000007', '000004', 'D0002', '23'); Insert into drink_order values ('D000001', '000001', 'DR0001', '13'); Insert into drink_order values ('D000002', '000001', 'DR0002', '13'); Insert into drink_order values ('D000003', '000001', 'DR0004', '13'); Insert into drink_order values ('D000004', '000002', 'DROOO1', '20'); Insert into drink_order values ('D000005', '000002', 'DR0003', '20'); Insert into drink_order values ('D000006', '000002', 'DR0004', '15'); Insert into drink_order values ('D000007', '000003', 'DR0002', '35'); Insert into drink_order values ('D000008', '000004', 'DR0001', '23'); Insert into drink_order values ('D000009', '000004', 'DR0003', '15'); Insert into drink_order values ('D0000010', '000004', 'DR0004', '15');

    Read the article

  • MS SQL: Primary file group is full

    - by aximili
    I have a very large table in my database and I am starting to get this error Could not allocate a new page for database 'mydatabase' because of insufficient disk space in filegroup 'PRIMARY'. Create the necessary space by dropping objects in the filegroup, adding additional files to the filegroup, or setting autogrowth on for existing files in the filegroup. How do you fix this error? I don't understand the suggestions there.

    Read the article

  • SQL statement to split a table based on a join

    - by williamjones
    I have a primary table for Articles that is linked by a join table Info to a table Tags that has only a small number of entries. I want to split the Articles table, by either deleting rows or creating a new table with only the entries I want, based on the absence of a link to a certain tag. There are a few million articles. How can I do this? Not all of the articles have any tag at all, and some have many tags. Example: table Articles primary_key id table Info foreign_key article_id foreign_key tag_id table Tags primary_key id It was easy for me to segregate the articles that do have the match right off the bat, so I thought maybe I could do that and then use a NOT IN statement but that is so slow running it's unclear if it's ever going to finish. I did that with these commands: INSERT INTO matched_articles SELECT * FROM articles a LEFT JOIN info i ON a.id = i.article_id WHERE i.tag_id = 5; INSERT INTO unmatched_articles SELECT * FROM articles a WHERE a.id NOT IN (SELECT m.id FROM matched_articles m); If it makes a difference, I'm on Postgres.

    Read the article

  • Turn Function or Stored Procedure Result into "live" Result for LINQ

    - by Alex
    Is it possible to turn result sets obtained in LINQ through a stored procedure or function call into a "live" set of objects of which I can retrieve Foreign Key related objects? If, for example, my stored procedure returns a set of rows (= LINQ objects) of type "Contact", then I can't seem to obtain Contact.BillingAddress (which is related by Foreign Key). Any idea how to make this work?

    Read the article

  • User preferences using SQL and JavaScript

    - by Shyam
    Hi, I am using Server Side JavaScript - yes, I am actually using Server Side JavaScript. To complexify things even more, I use Oracle as a backend database (10g). With some crazy XSLT and mutant-like HTML generation, I can build really fancy web forms - yes, I am aware of Rails and other likewise frameworks and I choose the path of horror instead. I have no JQuery or other fancy framework at my disposal, just plain ol' JavaScript that should be supported by the underlying engine called Mozilla Rhino. Yes, it is insane and I love it. So, I have a bunch of tables at my disposal and some of them are filled with associative keys that link to values. As I am a people pleaser, I want to add some nifty user-preference driven solutions. My users have all an unique user_id and this user_id is available during the entire session. My initial idea is to have a user preference table, where I have "three" columns: user_id, feature and pref_string. Using a delimiter, such as : or - (haven't thought about a suitable one yet), I could like store a bunch of preferences as a list and store its elements inside an array using the .split-method (similar like the PHP-explode function). The feature column could be like the table name or some identifier for the "feature" i want to link preferences too. I hate hardcoding objects, especially as I want to be able to back these up and reuse this functionality application-wide. Of course I would love better ideas, just keep in mind I cannot just add a library that easily. These preferences could be like "joined" to the table, so I can query it and use its values. I hope it doesn't sounds too complex, because well.. its basically something really simple I need. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Need help with SQL Query

    - by StackOverflowNewbie
    Say I have 2 tables: Person - Id - Name PersonAttribute - Id - PersonId - Name - Value Further, let's say that each person had 2 attributes (say, gender and age). A sample record would be like this: Person->Id = 1 Person->Name = 'John Doe' PersonAttribute->Id = 1 PersonAttribute->PersonId = 1 PersonAttribute->Name = 'Gender' PersonAttribute->Value = 'Male' PersonAttribute->Id = 2 PersonAttribute->PersonId = 1 PersonAttribute->Name = 'Age' PersonAttribute->Value = '30' Question: how do I query this such that I get a result like this: 'John Doe', 'Male', '30'

    Read the article

  • SQL Design: representing a default value with overrides?

    - by Mark Harrison
    I need a sparse table which contains a set of "override" values for another table. I also need to specify the default value for the items overridden. For example, if the default value is 17, then foo,bar,baz will have the values 17,21,17: table "things" table "xvalue" name stuff name xval ---- ----- ---- ---- foo ... bar 21 bar ... baz ... If I don't care about a FK from xvalue.name - things.name, I could simply put a "DEFAULT" name: table "xvalue" name xval ---- ---- DEFAULT 17 bar 21 But I like having a FK. I could have a separate default table, but it seems odd to have 2x the number of tables. table "xvalue_default" xval ---- 17 table "xvalue" name xval ---- ---- bar 21 I could have a "defaults table" tablename attributename defaultvalue xvalue xval 17 but then I run into type issues on defaultvalue. My operations guys prefer as compact a representation as possible, so they can most easily see the "diff" or deviations from the default. What's the best way to represent this, including the default value? This will be for Oracle 10.2 if that makes a difference.

    Read the article

  • UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on a column from foreign table in MSSQL2008

    - by bodziec
    Hi, I have two tables: create table [dbo].[Main] ( [ID] [int] identity(1,1) primary key not null, [Sign] [char](1) not null ) create table [dbo].[Names] ( [ID_Main][int] primary key not null, [Name][nvarchar](128) not null, constraint [FK_Main_Users] foreign key ([ID_Main]) references [dbo].[Main]([ID]), constraint [CK_Name] unique ([Name], [Sign]) ) The problem is with the second constraint CK_Name Is there a way to make a constraint target column from a foreign table?

    Read the article

  • complicated sql query !!

    - by user507779
    LookupTable: userid, mobileid, startedate, enddate , owner 1 , 1 , 12-12-2000, 01-01-2001, asd 2 , 2 , 12-12-2000, 01-01-2001, dgs 3 , 3 , 02-01-2001, 01-01-2002, sdg 4 , 4 , 12-12-2000, 01-01-2001, sdg UserInfoTable: userid, firstname, lastname, address 1 , tom , do , test 2 , sam , smith , asds 3 , john , saw , asdasda 4 , peter , winston , near by Mobile: Mobileid, Name , number, imeinumber 1 , apple , 123 , 1111111 2 , nokia , 456 , 2222222 3 , vodafone , 789 , 3333333 CallLogs: id , Mobileid, callednumbers (string), date , totalduration 1 , 1 , 123,123,321 , 13-12-2000 , 30 2 , 1 , 123,123,321 , 14-12-2000 , 30 3 , 2 , 123,123,321 , 13-12-2000 , 30 4 , 2 , 123,123,321 , 14-12-2000 , 30 5 , 3 , 123,123,321 , 13-12-2000 , 30 6 , 3 , 123,123,321 , 14-12-2000 , 30 1 , 1 , 123,123,321 , 13-01-2002 , 30 2 , 1 , 123,123,321 , 14-01-2002 , 30 I want a query which will return me the following: firstname, lastname, mobile.name as mobilename, callednumbers (as concatinated strings from different rows in CallLogs table) and need it for year 2000 example: firstname, lastname, mobilename, callednumbers tom , do , apple , 123,123,321, 123,123,321 sam , smith , nokia , 123,123,321, 123,123,321 peter , winston , apple , 123,123,321, 123,123,321 any help will be highly appreciated...

    Read the article

  • Clustered index - multi-part vs single-part index and effects of inserts/deletes

    - by Anssssss
    This question is about what happens with the reorganizing of data in a clustered index when an insert is done. I assume that it should be more expensive to do inserts on a table which has a clustered index than one that does not because reorganizing the data in a clustered index involves changing the physical layout of the data on the disk. I'm not sure how to phrase my question except through an example I came across at work. Assume there is a table (Junk) and there are two queries that are done on the table, the first query searches by Name and the second query searches by Name and Something. As I'm working on the database I discovered that the table has been created with two indexes, one to support each query, like so: --drop table Junk1 CREATE TABLE Junk1 ( Name char(5), Something char(5), WhoCares int ) CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IX_Name ON Junk1 ( Name ) CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_Name_Something ON Junk1 ( Name, Something ) Now when I looked at the two indexes, it seems that IX_Name is redundant since IX_Name_Something can be used by any query that desires to search by Name. So I would eliminate IX_Name and make IX_Name_Something the clustered index instead: --drop table Junk2 CREATE TABLE Junk2 ( Name char(5), Something char(5), WhoCares int ) CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IX_Name_Something ON Junk2 ( Name, Something ) Someone suggested that the first indexing scheme should be kept since it would result in more efficient inserts/deletes (assume that there is no need to worry about updates for Name and Something). Would that make sense? I think the second indexing method would be better since it means one less index needs to be maintained. I would appreciate any insight into this specific example or directing me to more info on maintenance of clustered indexes.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335  | Next Page >