Search Results

Search found 32538 results on 1302 pages for 'restore database'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 329/1302 | < Previous Page | 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336  | Next Page >

  • T-SQL MERGE - finding out which action it took

    - by IanC
    I need to know if a MERGE statement performed an INSERT. In my scenario, the insert is either 0 or 1 rows. Test code: DECLARE @t table (C1 int, C2 int) DECLARE @C1 INT, @C2 INT set @c1 = 1 set @c2 = 1 MERGE @t as tgt USING (SELECT @C1, @C2) AS src (C1, C2) ON (tgt.C1 = src.C1) WHEN MATCHED AND tgt.C2 != src.C2 THEN UPDATE SET tgt.C2 = src.C2 WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET THEN INSERT VALUES (src.C1, src. C2) OUTPUT deleted.*, $action, inserted.*; SELECT inserted.* The last line doesn't compile (no scope, unlike a trigger). I can't get access to @action, or the output. Actually, I don't want any output meta data. How can I do this?

    Read the article

  • Optimizing an embedded SELECT query in mySQL

    - by Crazy Serb
    Ok, here's a query that I am running right now on a table that has 45,000 records and is 65MB in size... and is just about to get bigger and bigger (so I gotta think of the future performance as well here): SELECT count(payment_id) as signup_count, sum(amount) as signup_amount FROM payments p WHERE tm_completed BETWEEN '2009-05-01' AND '2009-05-30' AND completed > 0 AND tm_completed IS NOT NULL AND member_id NOT IN (SELECT p2.member_id FROM payments p2 WHERE p2.completed=1 AND p2.tm_completed < '2009-05-01' AND p2.tm_completed IS NOT NULL GROUP BY p2.member_id) And as you might or might not imagine - it chokes the mysql server to a standstill... What it does is - it simply pulls the number of new users who signed up, have at least one "completed" payment, tm_completed is not empty (as it is only populated for completed payments), and (the embedded Select) that member has never had a "completed" payment before - meaning he's a new member (just because the system does rebills and whatnot, and this is the only way to sort of differentiate between an existing member who just got rebilled and a new member who got billed for the first time). Now, is there any possible way to optimize this query to use less resources or something, and to stop taking my mysql resources down on their knees...? Am I missing any info to clarify this any further? Let me know... EDIT: Here are the indexes already on that table: PRIMARY PRIMARY 46757 payment_id member_id INDEX 23378 member_id payer_id INDEX 11689 payer_id coupon_id INDEX 1 coupon_id tm_added INDEX 46757 tm_added, product_id tm_completed INDEX 46757 tm_completed, product_id

    Read the article

  • What is the corrrect way to increment a field making up part of a composit key

    - by Tr1stan
    I have a bunch of tables whose primary key is made up of the foreign keys of other tables (Composite key). Therefore for example the attributes (as a very cut down version) might look like this: A[aPK, SomeFields] 1:M B[bPK, aFK, SomeFields] 1:M C[cPK, bFK, aFK, SomeFields] as data this could look like: A[aPK, SomeFields]: 1, Foo 2, Bar B[bPK, aFK, SomeFields]: 1, 1, FooData1 2, 1, FooData2 1, 2, BarData1 2, 2, BarData2 C[cPK, bFK, aFK, SomeFields]: 1, 1, 1, FooData1More 2, 1, 1, FooData1More 1, 2, 1, FooData2More 2, 2, 1, FooData2More 1, 1, 2, BarData1More 2, 1, 2, BarData1More 1, 2, 2, BarData2More 2, 2, 2, BarData2More I've got this running in a MSSQL DBMS and I'm looking for the best way to increment the left most column, in each table when a new tuple is added to it. I can't use the Auto Increment Identity Specification option as that has no idea that it is part of a composite key. I also don't want to use any aggregate function such as: MAX(field)+1 as this will have adverse affects with multiple users inputting data, rolling back etc. There might however be a nice trigger based option here, but I'm not sure. This must be a common issue so I'm hoping that someone has a lovely solution. As a side which may or may not affect the answer, I'm using Entity Framework 1.0 as my ORM, within a c# MVC application.

    Read the article

  • Advantage Data Architect doesn't accept 'output to', are there any other options for outputting a ta

    - by likesalmon
    I'm trying to output the results of a SELECT query to a tab delimited text file in Advantage Data Architect. I know I can use the 'Export to' feature to do this, but there are a lot of tables and that is going to take forever. I would rather use the SQL editor, but I found out it does not accept the OUTPUT TO argument, even though that command is part of Sybase SQL. I would like to do this: SELECT * FROM tablename; OUTPUT TO 'C:/ExportDirectory' DELIMITED BY '\t' FORMAT TEXT; Is there another way?

    Read the article

  • Update query with conditional?

    - by dmontain
    I'm not sure if this possible. If not, let me know. I have a PDO mysql that updates 3 fields. $update = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field1=:field1, field2=:field2, field3=:field3 WHERE key=:key"); But I want field3 to be updated only when $update3 = true; (meaning that the update of field3 is controlled by a conditional statement) Is this possible to accomplish with a single query? I could do it with 2 queries where I update field1 and field2 then check the boolean and update field3 if needed in a separate query. //run this query to update only fields 1 and 2 $update_part1 = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field1=:field1, field2=:field2 WHERE key=:key"); //if field3 should be update, run a separate query to update it separately if ($update3){ $update_part2 = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field3=:field3 WHERE key=:key"); } But hopefully there is a way to accomplish this in 1 query?

    Read the article

  • Using NULLs in matchup table

    - by TomWilsonFL
    I am working on the accounting portion of a reservation system (think limo company). In the system there are multiple objects that can either be paid or submit a payment. I am tracking all of these "transactions" in three tables called: tx, tx_cc, and tx_ch. tx generates a new tx_id (for transaction ID) and keeps the information about amount, validity, etc. Tx_cc and tx_ch keep the information about the credit card or check used, respectively, which link to other tables (credit_card and bank_account among others). This seems fairly normalized to me, no? Now here is my problem: The payment transaction can take place for a myriad of reasons. Either a reservation is being paid for, a travel agent that booked a reservation is being paid, a driver is being paid, etc. This results in multiple tables, one for each of the entities: agent_tx, driver_tx, reservation_tx, etc. They look like this: CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `driver_tx` ( `tx_id` int(10) unsigned zerofill NOT NULL, `driver_id` int(11) NOT NULL, `reservation_id` int(11) default NULL, `reservation_item_id` int(11) default NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`tx_id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8; Now this transaction is for a driver, but could be applied to an individual item on the reservation or the entire reservation overall. Therefore I demand either reservation_id OR reservation_item_id to be null. In the future there may be other things which a driver is paid for, which I would also add to this table, defaulting to null. What is the rule on this? Opinion? Obviously I could break this out into MANY three column tables, but the amount of OUTER JOINing needed seems outrageous. Your input is appreciated. Peace, Tom

    Read the article

  • SQL query duration is longer for smaller dataset?

    - by entens
    I received reports that a my report generating application was not working. After my initial investigation, I found that the SQL transaction was timing out. I'm mystified as to why the query for a smaller selection of items would take so much longer to return results. Quick query (averages 4 seconds to return): SELECT * FROM Payroll WHERE LINEDATE >= '04-17-2010'AND LINEDATE <= '04-24-2010' ORDER BY 'EMPLYEE_NUM' ASC, 'OP_CODE' ASC, 'LINEDATE' ASC Long query (averages 1 minute 20 seconds to return): SELECT * FROM Payroll WHERE LINEDATE >= '04-18-2010'AND LINEDATE <= '04-24-2010' ORDER BY 'EMPLYEE_NUM' ASC, 'OP_CODE' ASC, 'LINEDATE' ASC I could simply increase the timeout on the SqlCommand, but it doesn't change the fact the query is taking longer than it should. Why would requesting a subset of the items take longer than the query that returns more data? How can I optimize this query?

    Read the article

  • Desimal data Type Display scale part as zero

    - by Wael Dalloul
    I have Decimal field in SQLserver 2005 table, Price decimal(18, 4) if I write 12 it will be converted to 12.0000, if I write 12.33 it will be converted into 12.3300. Always it's putting zero to the right of the decimal point in the count of Scale Part(4). I was using these in SQL Server 2000, it was not behaving like this, in SQL Server 2000 if I put 12.5 it will be stored as 12.5 not as 12.5000 what SQLServer2005 do. My Question is how to stop SQL Server 2005 from putting zeros to the right of the decimal point?

    Read the article

  • Date range intersection in SQL

    - by Will
    I have a table where each row has a start and stop date-time. These can be arbitrarily short or long spans. I want to query the sum duration of the intersection of all rows with two start and stop date-times. How can you do this in MySQL? Or do you have to select the rows that intersect the query start and stop times, then calculate the actual overlap of each row and sum it client-side?

    Read the article

  • Question about joins and table with Millions of rows

    - by xRobot
    I have to create 2 tables: Magazine ( 10 millions of rows with these columns: id, title, genres, printing, price ) Author ( 180 millions of rows with these columns: id, name, magazine_id ) . Every author can write on ONLY ONE magazine and every magazine has more authors. So if I want to know all authors of Motors Magazine, I have to use this query: SELECT * FROM Author, Magazine WHERE ( Author.id = Magazine.id ) AND ( genres = 'Motors' ) The same applies to Printing and Price column. To avoid these joins with tables of millions of rows, I thought to use this tables: Magazine ( 10 millions of rows with this column: id, title, genres, printing, price ) Author ( 180 millions of rows with this column: id, name, magazine_id, genres, printing, price ) . and this query: SELECT * FROM Author WHERE genres = 'Motors' Is it a good approach ? I can use Postgresql or Mysql.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Concatinate string column value to 5 char long

    - by mrp
    Scenario: I have a table1(col1 char(5)); A value in table1 may '001' or '01' or '1'. Requirement: Whatever value in col1, I need to retrive it in 5 char length concatenate with leading '0' to make it 5 char long. Technique I applied: select right(('00000' + col1),5) from table1; I didn't see any reason, why it doesn't work? but it didn't. Can anyone help me, how I can achieve the desired result?

    Read the article

  • In SQL server, to convert a varchar which have this format (nnn:nn:nn)

    - by user1688917
    I have this varchar format as time accumulation and i want to convert it to an integer to do a SUM and get the total time for a group. The fist part which may be 1, 2, 3, 4 or even five digits represent the accumulation of Hours and then seperated by a colon. then come the second part which is accumulation of minutes and last accumulation of seconds (2 digits each). How to convert this to integer in one query if possile.

    Read the article

  • Hierarchical Hibernate, how many queries are executed?

    - by ghost1
    So I've been dealing with a home brew DB framework that has some seriously flaws, the justification for use being that not using an ORM will save on the number of queries executed. If I'm selecting all possibile records from the top level of a joinable object hierarchy, how many separate calls to the DB will be made when using an ORM (such as Hibernate)? I feel like calling bullshit on this, as joinable entities should be brought down in one query , right? Am I missing something here? note: lazy initialization doesn't matter in this scenario as all records will be used.

    Read the article

  • Two radically different queries against 4 mil records execute in the same time - one uses brute force.

    - by IanC
    I'm using SQL Server 2008. I have a table with over 3 million records, which is related to another table with a million records. I have spent a few days experimenting with different ways of querying these tables. I have it down to two radically different queries, both of which take 6s to execute on my laptop. The first query uses a brute force method of evaluating possibly likely matches, and removes incorrect matches via aggregate summation calculations. The second gets all possibly likely matches, then removes incorrect matches via an EXCEPT query that uses two dedicated indexes to find the low and high mismatches. Logically, one would expect the brute force to be slow and the indexes one to be fast. Not so. And I have experimented heavily with indexes until I got the best speed. Further, the brute force query doesn't require as many indexes, which means that technically it would yield better overall system performance. Below are the two execution plans. If you can't see them, please let me know and I'll re-post then in landscape orientation / mail them to you. Brute-force query: Index-based exception query: My question is, based on the execution plans, which one look more efficient? I realize that thing may change as my data grows.

    Read the article

  • What is the best design for these data base tables?

    - by Mohammed Jamal
    I need to find the best solution to make the DB Normalized with large amount of data expected. My site has a Table Tags (contain key word,id) and also 4 types of data related to this tags table like(articles,resources,jobs,...). The big question is:- for the relation with tags what best solution for optimazaion & query speed? make a table for each relation like: table articlesToTags(ArticleID,TagID) table jobsToTags(jobid,tagid) etc. or put it all in one table like table tagsrelation(tagid,itemid,itemtype) I need your help. Please provide me with articles to help me in this design consider that in future the site can conation new section relate to tag Thanks

    Read the article

  • When using a HiLo ID generation strategy, what types should be used to hold Ids?

    - by UpTheCreek
    I'm asking this from a c#/NHibnernate perspective, but it's generally applicable. The concern is that the HiLo strategy goes though id's pretty quickly, and for example a low record-count table (Such as Users) is sharing from the same set of id's as a high record-count table (Such as comments). So you can potentially get to high numbers quicker that with other strategies. So what do people recommend? Code side: int/uint/long/ulong? DBSide: int/bigint? My feeling is to go with longs and bigingts, but would like a sanity check :)

    Read the article

  • How do I perform 'WHERE' on groups of rows?

    - by Drew
    I have a table, which looks like: +-----------+----------+ + person_id + group_id + +-----------+----------+ + 1 + 10 + + 1 + 20 + + 1 + 30 + + 2 + 10 + + 2 + 20 + + 3 + 10 + +-----------+----------+ I need a query such that only person_ids with groups 10 AND 20 AND 30 are returned (only person_id: 1). I am not sure how to do this, as from what I can see it would require me to group the rows by person_id and then select the rows which contain all group_ids. I'm looking for something which will preserve the use of keys without resorting to string operations on group_concat() or such.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336  | Next Page >