Search Results

Search found 29720 results on 1189 pages for 'sql generation'.

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 330/1189 | < Previous Page | 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337  | Next Page >

  • CONTAINSTABLE with wildcard works different in SQLServer 2005 and SQLServer 2008?

    - by musuk
    I have two same databases one on SQLServer 2005 and one on SqlServer 2008, it have same SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS Collation, and full text search catalogs have the same settings. These two databases contains table with same data, NTEXT string: "...kræve en forklaring fra miljøminister Connie Hedegaard.." My problem is: CONTAINSTABLE on SQLServer 2008 finds nothing if query is: select * from ContainsTable(SearchIndex_7, Content, '"miljø*"') ct but SQLServer 2005 works perfectly and finds necessary record. SQLServer 2008 finds necessary record if query is: select * from ContainsTable(SearchIndex_7, Content, '"milj*"') ct or select * from ContainsTable(SearchIndex_7, Content, '"miljøminister"') What can be reason for so strange behavior?

    Read the article

  • Table/column names enclosed in square brackets, even though their names consist of legal characters

    - by AspOnMyNet
    Square brackets allow you to use names for columns or aliases that contain characters not permitted for column names or aliases. a) I’ve noticed that lots of times table and column names are enclosed inside square brackets, even though their names consist of perfectly legal characters. Why is that? b) As far as I know, square brackets enclosing object’s name aren’t actually a part of that name. Thus, if we create a table named [A]: CREATE TABLE [A] ( … ) we can later reference it without using brackets: SELECT * FROM A But why isn’t the same true when I try to reference a column KEY from a table returned by CONTAINSTABLE function? Namely, if I omit the brackets enclosing column name, I get an error: SELECT ct.KEY FROM CONTAINSTABLE(fullText,*,'some_string') as ct thanx

    Read the article

  • SQL Server search filter and order by performance issues

    - by John Leidegren
    We have a table value function that returns a list of people you may access, and we have a relation between a search and a person called search result. What we want to do is that wan't to select all people from the search and present them. The query looks like this SELECT qm.PersonID, p.FullName FROM QueryMembership qm INNER JOIN dbo.GetPersonAccess(1) ON GetPersonAccess.PersonID = qm.PersonID INNER JOIN Person p ON p.PersonID = qm.PersonID WHERE qm.QueryID = 1234 There are only 25 rows with QueryID=1234 but there are almost 5 million rows total in the QueryMembership table. The person table has about 40K people in it. QueryID is not a PK, but it is an index. The query plan tells me 97% of the total cost is spent doing "Key Lookup" witht the seek predicate. QueryMembershipID = Scalar Operator (QueryMembership.QueryMembershipID as QM.QueryMembershipID) Why is the PK in there when it's not used in the query at all? and why is it taking so long time? The number of people total 25, with the index, this should be a table scan for all the QueryMembership rows that have QueryID=1234 and then a JOIN on the 25 people that exists in the table value function. Which btw only have to be evaluated once and completes in less than 1 second.

    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

  • generating sequence number

    - by stackoverflowuser
    Hi Based on following TableA Data -------- Dummy1 Dummy2 Dummy3 . . DummyN is there a way to generate sequence number while selecting rows from the table. something like select sequence() as ID,* from Data that will give ID Data --------- 1 Dummy1 2 Dummy2 3 Dummy3 .... N DummyN Thanks.

    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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Count problem in SQL when I want results from diffrent tabels

    - by Nicklas
    ALTER PROCEDURE GetProducts @CategoryID INT AS SELECT COUNT(tblReview.GroupID) AS ReviewCount, COUNT(tblComment.GroupID) AS CommentCount, Product.GroupID, MAX(Product.ProductID) AS ProductID, AVG(Product.Price) AS Price, MAX (Product.Year) AS Year, MAX (Product.Name) AS Name, AVG(tblReview.Grade) AS Grade FROM tblReview, tblComment, Product WHERE (Product.CategoryID = @CategoryID) GROUP BY Product.GroupID HAVING COUNT(distinct Product.GroupID) = 1 This is what the tabels look like: **Product** |**tblReview** | **tblComment** ProductID | ReviewID | CommentID Name | Description | Description Year | GroupID | GroupID Price | Grade | GroupID GroupID is name_year of a Product, ex Nike_2010. One product can have diffrent sizes for exampel: ProductID | Name | Year | Price | Size | GroupID 1 | Nike | 2010 | 50 | 8 | Nike_2010 2 | Nike | 2010 | 50 | 9 | Nike_2010 3 | Nike | 2010 | 50 | 10 | Nike_2010 4 | Adidas| 2009 | 45 | 8 | Adidas_2009 5 | Adidas| 2009 | 45 | 9 | Adidas_2009 6 | Adidas| 2009 | 45 | 10 | Adidas_2009 I dont get the right count in my tblReview and tblComment. If I add a review to Nike size 8 and I add one review to Nike size 10 I want 2 count results when I list the products with diffrent GroupID. Now I get the same count on Reviews and Comment and both are wrong. I use a datalist to show all the products with diffrent/unique GroupID, I want it to be like this: ______________ | | | Name: Nike | | Year: 2010 | | (All Sizes) | | x Reviews | | x Comments | | x AVG Grade | |______________| All Reviewcounts, Commentcounts and the Average of all products with the same GroupID, the Average works great.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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 | 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337  | Next Page >