Search Results

Search found 26283 results on 1052 pages for 'temporary table'.

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 33/1052 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

  • Stairway to T-SQL DML Level 11: How to Delete Rows from a Table

    You may have data in a database that was inserted into a table by mistake, or you may have data in your tables that is no longer of value. In either case, when you have unwanted data in a table you need a way to remove it. The DELETE statement can be used to eliminate data in a table that is no longer needed. In this article you will see the different ways to use the DELETE statement to identify and remove unwanted data from your SQL Server tables.

    Read the article

  • Delete trigger does not catch table truncation

    - by Tomaz.tsql
    Sample shows table truncation will not fire delete trigger. USE AdventureWorks; GO -- STAGING IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sys.objects WHERE name = 'est_del_trigger_log' AND type = 'U') DROP TABLE test_del_trigger_log; GO IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sys.objects WHERE name = 'est_del_trigger' AND type = 'U') DROP TABLE test_del_trigger; GO CREATE TABLE test_del_trigger (id INT IDENTITY(1,1) ,tkt VARCHAR(10) CONSTRAINT pk_test_del_trigger PRIMARY KEY (id) ); GO INSERT INTO...(read more)

    Read the article

  • MS SQL 2008, join or no join?

    - by Patrick
    Just a small question regarding joins. I have a table with around 30 fields and i was thinking about making a second table to store 10 of those fields. Then i would just join them in with the main data. The 10 fields that i was planning to store in a second table does not get queried directly, it's just some settings for the data in the first table. Something like: Table 1 Id Data1 Data2 Data3 etc ... Table 2 Id (same id as table one) Settings1 Settings2 Settings3 Is this a bad solution? Should i just use 1 table? How much performance inpact does it have? All entries in table 1 would also then have an entry in table 2. Small update is in order. Most of the Data fields are of the type varchar and 2 of them are of the type text. How is indexing treated? My plan is to index 2 data fields, email (varchar 50) and author (varchar 20). And yes, all records in Table 1 will have a record in Table 2. Most of the settings fields are of the bit type, around 80%. The rest is a mix between int and varchar. The varchars can be null.

    Read the article

  • "Create table if not exists" - how to check the schema, too?

    - by Joonas Pulakka
    Is there a (more or less) standard way to check not only whether a table named mytable exists, but also whether its schema is similar to what it should be? I'm experimenting with H2 database, and CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS mytable (....) statements apparently only check for the table´s name. I would expect to get an exception if there's a table with the given name, but different schema.

    Read the article

  • Mysql table comment increase length. Is this a bug?

    - by Victor Kimura
    Hi, I read the mysql table lengths questions on stackoverflow on here: questions/391323/table-comment-length-in-mysql questions/2473934/how-to-increase-mysql-table-comments-length The first link suggests that it can be done and the second suggests it cannot. I don't know why there is this limitation as the comments are very useful. Imagine if there was a limit of 60 characters for your programs. I wrote about this on my site and have some snapshots to the phpmyadmin and Dbforge MySQL IDEs: http://mysql.tutorialref.com/mysql-table-comment-length-limit.html Is there a way to change this in phpmyadmin or perhaps even on the CLI? There is a bug commit report from MySQL on this particular problem (follow the link from the stackoverflow (first link). It seems to state that the length problem is fixed. I have MySQL 5.1.42. Thank you, Victor

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008, join or no join?

    - by Patrick
    Just a small question regarding joins. I have a table with around 30 fields and i was thinking about making a second table to store 10 of those fields. Then i would just join them in with the main data. The 10 fields that i was planning to store in a second table does not get queried directly, it's just some settings for the data in the first table. Something like: Table 1 Id Data1 Data2 Data3 etc ... Table 2 Id (same id as table one) Settings1 Settings2 Settings3 Is this a bad solution? Should i just use 1 table? How much performance inpact does it have? All entries in table 1 would also then have an entry in table 2. Small update is in order. Most of the Data fields are of the type varchar and 2 of them are of the type text. How is indexing treated? My plan is to index 2 data fields, email (varchar 50) and author (varchar 20). And yes, all records in Table 1 will have a record in Table 2. Most of the settings fields are of the bit type, around 80%. The rest is a mix between int and varchar. The varchars can be null.

    Read the article

  • Sql Server CE - Temporary disable auto increment on a specific collum

    - by Fábio Antunes
    Hi guys. I have this little question, thats been on my head for while now. Here it goes: Is it possible to temporary disable the Auto_Increment on the collum ID. So that i can add a new row to the table and being able specify the ID value when inserting the row. And then in the end enable the Auto_Increment again, and let do its work as usual? And if its possible how can i do it. The Table structure is very simple Collum Name (atributes) ID (Primary Key, Auto Increment, int, not null) Name (nvarchar(100), not null) Notice: The table name is: People. Lets also consider that the table already has data and cannot be changed. The database server is SQL Server CE. The SQL commands will be executed in a C# program, if its of any help. I really hope its possible, it would come very handy. Thanks

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008 Running trigger after Insert, Update locks original table

    - by Polity
    Hi Folks, I have a serious performance problem. I have a database with (related to this problem), 2 tables. 1 Table contains strings with some global information. The second table contains the string stripped down to each individual word. So the string is like indexed in the second table, word by word. The validity of the data in the second table is of less important then the validity of the data in the first table. Since the first table can grow like towards 1*10^6 records and the second table having an average of like 10 words for 1 string can grow like 1*10^7 records, i use a nolock in order to read the second this leaves me free for inserting new records without locking it (Expect many reads on both tables). I have a script which keeps on adding and updating rows to the first table in a MERGE statement. On average, the data beeing merged are like 20 strings a time and the scripts runs like ones every 5 seconds. On the first table, i have a trigger which is beeing invoked on a Insert or Update, which takes the newly inserted or updated data and calls a stored procedure on it which makes sure the data is indexed in the second table. (This takes some significant time). The problem is that when having the trigger disbaled, Reading the first table happens in a few ms. However, when enabling the trigger and your in bad luck of trying to read the first table while this is beeing updated, Our webserver gives you a timeout after 10 seconds (which is way to long anyways). I can quess from this part that when running the trigger, the first table is kept (partially) in a lock untill the trigger is completed. What do you think, if i'm right, is there a easy way around this? Thanks in advance! Cheers, Koen

    Read the article

  • oracle global temporary tables

    - by mrp
    I created the global temp table. when I execute the code as an individual scripts it works fine. but when I execute it as a single script in TOAD then no record was created. there was just an empty global temp table. eg. CREATE GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE TEMP_TRAN ( COL1 NUMBER(9), COL2 VARCHAR2(30), COL3 DATE ) ON COMMIT PRESERVE ROWS / INSERT INTO TEMP_TRAN VALUES(1,'D',sysdate); / INSERT INTO TEMP_TRAN VALUES(2,'I',sysdate); / INSERT INTO TEMP_TRAN VALUES(3,'s',sysdate); / COMMIT; When I run the above code one statement at a time it works fine. But when I execute it as a script it runs fine but there was no records in temp table. can anyone help me on this please?

    Read the article

  • Can Sql Server 2005 Pivot table have nText passed into it?

    - by manemawanna
    Right bit of a simple question can I input nText into a pivot table? (SQL Server 2005) What I have is a table which records the answers to a questionnaire consisting of the following elements for example: UserID QuestionNumber Answer Mic 1 Yes Mic 2 No Mic 3 Yes Ste 1 Yes Ste 2 No Ste 3 Yes Bob 1 Yes Bob 2 No Bob 3 Yes With the answers being held in nText. Anyway what id like a Pivot table to do is: UserID 1 2 3 Mic Yes No Yes Ste Yes No Yes Bob Yes No Yes I have some test code, that creates a pivot table but at the moment it just shows the number of answers in each column (code can be found below). So I just want to know is it possible to add nText to a pivot table? As when I've tried it brings up errors and someone stated on another site that it wasn't possible, so I would like to check if this is the case or not. Just for further reference I don't have the opportunity to change the database as it's linked to other systems that I haven't created or have access too. Heres the SQL code I have at present below: DECLARE @query NVARCHAR(4000) DECLARE @count INT DECLARE @concatcolumns NVARCHAR(4000) SET @count = 1 SET @concatcolumns = '' WHILE (@count <=52) BEGIN IF @COUNT > 1 AND @COUNT <=52 SET @concatcolumns = (@concatcolumns + ' + ') SET @concatcolumns = (@concatcolumns + 'CAST ([' + CAST(@count AS NVARCHAR) + '] AS NVARCHAR)') SET @count = (@count+1) END DECLARE @columns NVARCHAR(4000) SET @count = 1 SET @columns = '' WHILE (@count <=52) BEGIN IF @COUNT > 1 AND @COUNT <=52 SET @columns = (@columns + ',') SET @columns = (@columns + '[' + CAST(@count AS NVARCHAR) + '] ') SET @count = (@count+1) END SET @query = ' SELECT UserID, ' + @concatcolumns + ' FROM( SELECT UserID, QuestionNumber AS qNum from QuestionnaireAnswers where QuestionnaireID = 7 ) AS t PIVOT ( COUNT (qNum) FOR qNum IN (' + @columns + ') ) AS PivotTable' select @query exec(@query)

    Read the article

  • How can I work around SQL Server - Inline Table Value Function execution plan variation based on par

    - by Ovidiu Pacurar
    Here is the situation: I have a table value function with a datetime parameter ,lest's say tdf(p_date) , that filters about two million rows selecting those with column date smaller than p_date and computes some aggregate values on other columns. It works great but if p_date is a custom scalar value function (returning the end of day in my case) the execution plan is altered an the query goes from 1 sec to 1 minute execution time. A proof of concept table - 1K products, 2M rows: CREATE TABLE [dbo].[POC]( [Date] [datetime] NOT NULL, [idProduct] [int] NOT NULL, [Quantity] [int] NOT NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] The inline table value function: CREATE FUNCTION tdf (@p_date datetime) RETURNS TABLE AS RETURN ( SELECT idProduct, SUM(Quantity) AS TotalQuantity, max(Date) as LastDate FROM POC WHERE (Date < @p_date) GROUP BY idProduct ) The scalar value function: CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[EndOfDay] (@date datetime) RETURNS datetime AS BEGIN DECLARE @res datetime SET @res=dateadd(second, -1, dateadd(day, 1, dateadd(ms, -datepart(ms, @date), dateadd(ss, -datepart(ss, @date), dateadd(mi,- datepart(mi,@date), dateadd(hh, -datepart(hh, @date), @date)))))) RETURN @res END Query 1 - Working great SELECT * FROM [dbo].[tdf] (getdate()) The end of execution plan: Stream Aggregate Cost 13% <--- Clustered Index Scan Cost 86% Query 2 - Not so great SELECT * FROM [dbo].[tdf] (dbo.EndOfDay(getdate())) The end of execution plan: Stream Aggregate Cost 4% <--- Filter Cost 12% <--- Clustered Index Scan Cost 86%

    Read the article

  • How can I make a web-based "table" select like a spreadsheet? (rectangular area vs row-wrap selecti

    - by Dax
    I want to make a table that displays on a webpage, but one requirement is to make it easy to copy and paste into a spreadsheet. Normal HTML tables selection behavior is obviously different from how a spreadsheet like Excel selects -- when you select multiple rows it wraps around instead of selecting a rectangular area. Is there any way to make HTML table behave like a spreadsheet in this regard, or is the only way to resort to a Flash table or something similar?

    Read the article

  • SQL help - find the table that has 'somefieldId' as the primary key?

    - by Kettenbach
    Hello All, How can I search my sql database for a table that contains a field 'tiEntityId'. This field is referenced in a stored procedure, but I am unable to identify which table this id is a primary key for? Any suggestions? I currently look through stored procedure definitions for references to text by using something like this Declare @Search varchar(255) SET @Search='[10.10.100.50]' SELECT DISTINCT o.name AS Object_Name,o.type_desc FROM sys.sql_modules m INNER JOIN sys.objects o ON m.object_id=o.object_id WHERE m.definition Like '%'+@Search+'%' ORDER BY 2,1 Any SQL guru's out there know what I need to use to find the table that contains the field, 'preferably the table where that field is the Primary Key. Thanks so much for any tips. Cheers, ~ck in San Diego

    Read the article

  • Using a set of numbers inside a database without creating a temporary table

    - by Zizzencs
    I have a set of numbers and a table in a database with the id (primary key) and text (not null) columns. I would like to create a query that returns all the numbers in the set and the associated text from the table. Unfortunately not all numbers exist in the database's id column, so this won't work: select id, text from table where id in (<set of numbers>) For the non-existing ids the best would be to return null as the text from the query. Is there a way to produce the desired output without first creating a temporary table from the set inside the database? The database engine in use is a Microsoft SQL Server 2008 SP1 but I'd be interested in any solution with any database engine.

    Read the article

  • Dataset holds a table called "Table", not the table I pass in?

    - by dotnetdev
    Hi, I have the code below: string SQL = "select * from " + TableName; using (DS = new DataSet()) using (SqlDataAdapter adapter = new SqlDataAdapter()) using (SqlConnection sqlconn = new SqlConnection(connectionStringBuilder.ToString())) using (SqlCommand objCommand = new SqlCommand(SQL, sqlconn)) { sqlconn.Open(); adapter.SelectCommand = objCommand; adapter.Fill(DS); } System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(DS.Tables[0].TableName); return DS; However, every time I run this code, the dataset (DS) is filled with one table called "Table". It does not represent the table name I pass in as the parameter TableName and this parameter does not get mutated so I don't know where the name Table comes from. I'd expect the table to be the same as the tableName parameter I pass in? Any idea why this is not so? EDIT: Important fact: This code needs to return a dataset because I use the dataRelation object in another method, which is dependent on this, and without using a dataset, that method throws an exception. The code for that method is: DataRelation PartToIntersection = new DataRelation("XYZ", this.LoadDataToTable(tableName).Tables[tableName].Columns[0], // Treating the PartStat table as the parent - .N this.LoadDataToTable("PartProducts").Tables["PartProducts"].Columns[0]); // 1 // PartsProducts (intersection) to ProductMaterial DataRelation ProductMaterialToIntersection = new DataRelation("", ds.Tables["ProductMaterial"].Columns[0], ds.Tables["PartsProducts"].Columns[1]); Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to duplicate all data in a table except for a single column that should be changed.

    - by twiga
    I have a question regarding a unified insert query against tables with different data structures (Oracle). Let me elaborate with an example: tb_customers ( id NUMBER(3), name VARCHAR2(40), archive_id NUMBER(3) ) tb_suppliers ( id NUMBER(3), name VARCHAR2(40), contact VARCHAR2(40), xxx, xxx, archive_id NUMBER(3) ) The only column that is present in all tables is [archive_id]. The plan is to create a new archive of the dataset by copying (duplicating) all records to a different database partition and incrementing the archive_id for those records accordingly. [archive_id] is always part of the primary key. My problem is with select statements to do the actual duplication of the data. Because the columns are variable, I am struggling to come up with a unified select statement that will copy the data and update the archive_id. One solution (that works), is to iterate over all the tables in a stored procedure and do a: CREATE TABLE temp as (SELECT * from ORIGINAL_TABLE); UPDATE temp SET archive_id=something; INSERT INTO temp (select * from temp); DROP TABLE temp; I do not like this solution very much as the DDL commands muck up all restore points. Does anyone else have any solution?

    Read the article

  • Limit user in sql plus to a single record in a table.

    - by BFK
    I have one employee table...this table has 5 coloumns (empname, empgsm, empsal, empaddr, empdep)...it has 10 records. i've created 10 users equivelent to the empnames coloumn in the table. When a user logs in with his empname aka username & password, he will be able to see only his record from the table. eg.Smith is an employee, a user called smith was created. when this user is in session, and types "Select * from Employee_table" he only gets the record that belongs to him, where empname is smith. how do i do this using privileges? thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Shrink a cell (in an absolutely-positioned ASP.NET table) to fit its contents?

    - by Giffyguy
    My webpage currently looks like this: <asp:Table runat="server" style="position: absolute; left: 0%; top: 82%; right: 0%; bottom: 0%; width: 100%; height: 18%" CellPadding="0" CellSpacing="0" GridLines="Both"> <asp:TableRow> <asp:TableCell> Content1 </asp:TableCell> <asp:TableCell Width="2.5%"> </asp:TableCell> <asp:TableCell > Content2 </asp:TableCell> </asp:TableRow> </asp:Table> But I need it to look like this: "Content1" is of unknown size, and the table will have to adjust to fit it in, but without taking any unnecessary space away from "Content2." I can't use "display: table" because it isn't supported in IE7 and such, so I'm pretty much stuck using a regular table element unless there is something better out there that is supported in older browsers. Does anyone know how this can be accomplished?

    Read the article

  • How to make header row of a table (with horizontal and vertical scrollers) fixed ?

    - by understack
    I've this sample table and I want to make header row of table visible all the time. Header row should scroll with horizontal scrollbar and shouldn't scroll with vertical scrollbar. table: <div style="width:800px; height:150px;overflow:scroll;margin:50px auto;"> <table style="width:1600px" border="1"> <thead style=""> <tr> <th style="width:800px">id_1</th> <th style="width:800px">id_2</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody style=""> <tr><td>1200</td><td>1200</td></tr> <tr><td>1200</td><td>1200</td></tr> <tr><td>1200</td><td>1200</td></tr> <tr><td>1200</td><td>1200</td></tr> <tr><td>1200</td><td>1200</td></tr> <tr><td>1200</td><td>1200</td></tr> <tr><td>1200</td><td>1200</td></tr> <tr><td>1200</td><td>1200</td></tr> </tbody> </table> </div> How can I do this with css only? Suggestions in this and this thread didn't seem to work, possibly due to presence of scrollbars.

    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 | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >