Search Results

Search found 27339 results on 1094 pages for 'sql dmv'.

Page 347/1094 | < Previous Page | 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354  | Next Page >

  • Adding more OR searches with CONTAINS Brings Query to Crawl

    - by scolja
    I have a simple query that relies on two full-text indexed tables, but it runs extremely slow when I have the CONTAINS combined with any additional OR search. As seen in the execution plan, the two full text searches crush the performance. If I query with just 1 of the CONTAINS, or neither, the query is sub-second, but the moment you add OR into the mix the query becomes ill-fated. The two tables are nothing special, they're not overly wide (42 cols in one, 21 in the other; maybe 10 cols are FT indexed in each) or even contain very many records (36k recs in the biggest of the two). I was able to solve the performance by splitting the two CONTAINS searches into their own SELECT queries and then UNION the three together. Is this UNION workaround my only hope? Thanks. SELECT a.CollectionID FROM collections a INNER JOIN determinations b ON a.CollectionID = b.CollectionID WHERE a.CollrTeam_Text LIKE '%fa%' OR CONTAINS(a.*, '"*fa*"') OR CONTAINS(b.*, '"*fa*"') Execution Plan (guess I need more reputation before I can post the image):

    Read the article

  • Unexpected behaviour of Order by clause(SQL SERVER 2005)

    - by Newbie
    I have a table which looks like Col1 col2 col3 col4 col5 1 5 1 4 6 1 4 0 3 7 0 1 5 6 3 1 8 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 4 The script is declare @t table(col1 int, col2 int, col3 int,col4 int,col5 int) insert into @t select 1,5,1,4,6 union all select 1,4,0,3,7 union all select 0,1,5,6,3 union all select 1,8,2,1,5 union all select 4,3,2,1,4 If I do a sorting (ascending), the output is Col1 col2 col3 col4 col5 0 1 5 6 3 1 4 0 3 7 1 5 1 4 6 1 8 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 4 The query is Select * from @t order by col1,col2,col3,col4,col5 But as can be seen that the sorting output is wrong (col2 to col5). Why so and how to overcome this? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • How to convert a datetime value into a varchar with MM/dd/yyyy HH:MM:SS AM/PM format?

    - by Jyina
    I need to convert the below date into the output as shown. I can get the date part using the code 101 but for the time I could not find any code that translates the time to HH:MM:SS AM/PM? Any ideas please? Thank you! declare @adddate datetime Set @adddate = 2011-07-06T22:30:07.5205649-04:00 Convert(varchar, @adddate, 101) + ' ' + Convert(varchar, @adddate, 108) The output should be 06/07/2011 10:30:07 PM

    Read the article

  • SQL-Join with NULL-columns

    - by tstenner
    I'm having the following tables: Table a +-------+------------------+------+-----+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | +-------+------------------+------+-----+ | bid | int(10) unsigned | YES | | | cid | int(10) unsigned | YES | | +-------+------------------+------+-----+ Table b +-------+------------------+------+ | Field | Type | Null | +-------+------------------+------+ | bid | int(10) unsigned | NO | | cid | int(10) unsigned | NO | | data | int(10) unsigned | NO | +-------+------------------+------+ When I want to select all rows from b where there's a corresponding bid/cid-pair in a, I simply use a natural join SELECT b.* FROM b NATURAL JOIN a; and everything is fine. When a.bid or a.cid is NULL, I want to get every row where the other column matches, e.g. if a.bid is NULL, I want every row where a.cid=b.cid, if both are NULL I want every column from b. My naive solution was this: SELECT DISTINCT b.* FROM b JOIN a ON ( ISNULL(a.bid) OR a.bid=b.bid ) AND (ISNULL(a.cid) OR a.cid=b.cid ) Is there any better way to to this?

    Read the article

  • SQL Oracle Combining Multiple Results Rows

    - by Stuav
    I have the below query Select case upper(device_model) when 'IPHONE' then 'iOS - iPhone' when 'IPAD' then 'iOS - iPad' when 'IPOD TOUCH' then 'iOS - iPod Touch' Else 'Android' End As Device_Model, count(create_dtime) as Installs_Oct17_Oct30 From Player Where Create_Dtime >= To_Date('2012-Oct-17','yyyy-mon-dd') And Create_Dtime <= To_Date('2012-Oct-30','yyyy-mon-dd') Group By Device_Model Order By Device_Model This spits out multiple rows of results that read "Android"....I would like there to be only 4 results rows, one for each case....so it comes out like this: Device_Model Installs_Oct17_Oct30 Android 987 iOS - iPad 12003 iOS - iPhone 8563 iOS- iPod Touch 3482

    Read the article

  • SQL Profiles showing high activity

    - by Wong Chi
    I am running my application locally -- ie. No external traffic and very low number of queries, fully under my control. I see tons of 'Audit Login' and 'Audit Logout' events. What are these and where are they actually stored (ie. Where is this audit log)? Are these a hint of a problem with connections, because I have only a simple connection string within my app and thought that connections would remain active throughout the operation of my app (ie. a single login at launch, and then a single logout when terminating).

    Read the article

  • SQL - table alias scope.

    - by Support - multilanguage SO
    I've just learned ( yesterday ) to use "exists" instead of "in". BAD select * from table where nameid in ( select nameid from othertable where otherdesc = 'SomeDesc' ) GOOD select * from table t where exists ( select nameid from othertable o where t.nameid = o.nameid and otherdesc = 'SomeDesc' ) And I have some questions about this: 1) The explanation as I understood was: "The reason why this is better is because only the matching values will be returned instead of building a massive list of possible results". Does that mean that while the first subquery might return 900 results the second will return only 1 ( yes or no )? 2) In the past I have had the RDBMS complainin: "only the first 1000 rows might be retrieved", this second approach would solve that problem? 3) What is the scope of the alias in the second subquery?... does the alias only lives in the parenthesis? for example select * from table t where exists ( select nameid from othertable o where t.nameid = o.nameid and otherdesc = 'SomeDesc' ) AND select nameid from othertable o where t.nameid = o.nameid and otherdesc = 'SomeOtherDesc' ) That is, if I use the same alias ( o for table othertable ) In the second "exist" will it present any problem with the first exists? or are they totally independent? Is this something Oracle only related or it is valid for most RDBMS? Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • SQL where clasue to work with Group by clasue after performing a count()

    - by Matt
    Tried my usual references at w3schools and google. No luck I'm trying to produce the following results. QTY is a derived column | Position | QTY -------------------- 1 Clerk 2 2 Mgr 2 Here's what I'm not having luck with: SELECT Position, Count(position) AS 'QTY' FROM tblemployee Where ('QTY' != 1) GROUP BY Position I know that my Position is set up as varchar(255) Count produces a integer data and my where clasue is accurate so that leads me to believe that that Count() is jamming me up. Please throw up an example so I can reference later. Thanks for the help!

    Read the article

  • Assign the results of a stored procedure into a variable in another stored procedure

    - by RHPT
    The title of this question is a bit misleading, but I couldn't summarize this very well. I have two stored procedures. The first stored procedure (s_proc1) calls a second stored procedure (s_proc2). I want to assign the value returned from s_proc2 to a variable in s_proc1. Currently, I'm calling s_proc2 (inside s_proc1) in this manner: EXEC s_proc2 @SiteID, @count = @PagingCount OUTPUT s_proc2 contains a dynamic query statement (for reasons I will not outline here). CREATE dbo.s_proc2 ( @siteID int, @count int OUTPUT ) AS DECLARE @sSQL nvarchar(100) DECLARE @xCount int SELECT @sSQL = 'SELECT COUNT(ID) FROM Authors' EXEC sp_ExecuteSQL @sSQL, N'@xCount int output', @xCount output SET @count = @xCount RETURN @count Will this result in @PagingCount having the value of @count? I ask because the result I am getting from s_proc1 is wonky. In fact, what I do get is two results. The first being @count, then the result of s_proc1 (which is incorrect). So, it makes me wonder if @PagingCount isn't being set properly. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • FreeText Query is slow - includes TOP and Order By

    - by Eric P
    The Product table has 700K records in it. The query: SELECT TOP 1 ID, Name FROM Product WHERE contains(Name, '"White Dress"') ORDER BY DateMadeNew desc takes about 1 minute to run. There is an non-clustered index on DateMadeNew and FreeText index on Name. If I remove TOP 1 or Order By - it takes less then 1 second to run. Here is the link to execution plan. http://screencast.com/t/ZDczMzg5N Looks like FullTextMatch has over 400K executions. Why is this happening? How can it be made faster?

    Read the article

  • Create a complex SQL query?

    - by mazzzzz
    Hey guys, I have a program that allows me to run queries against a large database. I have two tables that are important right now, Deposits and withdraws. Each contains a history of every user. I need to take each table, add up every deposit and withdraws (per user), then subtract the withdraws from the deposits. I then need to return every user whos result is negative (aka they withdrew more then they deposited). Is this possible in one query? Example: Deposit Table: |ID|UserName|Amount| |1 | Use1 |100.00| |2 | Use1 |50.00 | |3 | Use2 |25.00 | |4 | Use1 | 5.00 | WithDraw Table: |ID|UserName|Amount| |2 | Use2 | 5.00 | |1 | Use1 |100.00| |4 | Use1 | 5.00 | |3 | Use2 |25.00 | So then the result would output: |OverWithdrawers| | Use2 | Is this possible (I sure don't know how to do it)? Thanks for any help, Max

    Read the article

  • Stored Procedure - forcing execution order

    - by meepmeep
    I have a stored procedure that itself calls a list of other stored procedures in order: CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[prSuperProc] AS BEGIN EXEC [dbo].[prProc1] EXEC [dbo].[prProc2] EXEC [dbo].[prProc3] --etc END However, I sometimes have some strange results in my tables, generated by prProc2, which is dependent on the results generated by prProc1. If I manually execute prProc1, prProc2, prProc3 in order then everything is fine. It appears that when I run the top-level procedure, that Proc2 is being executed before Proc1 has completed and committed its results to the db. It doesn't always go wrong, but it seems to go wrong when Proc1 has a long execution time (in this case ~10s). How do I alter prSuperProc such that each procedure only executes once the preceding procedure has completed and committed? Transactions?

    Read the article

  • Converting output of sql query

    - by phenevo
    Hi, Let say I have table Payments Id int autoincement Status int and my query is : select id, status from payments but I wanna convert status to enum. 0 is unpaid 1 is paid. so result should look like: 1 paid 2 unpaid 3 paid ... I need this conversion because I use XmlReader reader = cmd.ExecuteXmlReader(); oc.LoadXml("<results></results>"); XmlNode newNode = doc.ReadNode(reader); while (newNode != null) { doc.DocumentElement.AppendChild(newNode); newNode = doc.ReadNode(reader); } and then I save this xml and opening it by excel, and statuses should be friendly for user.

    Read the article

  • SQL/ASP connection error

    - by tm1
    Line 10: Line 11: <asp:SqlDataSource ID="ac210db6" runat="server" Line 12: ConnectionString="<%$ ConnectionStrings:ac210db6ConnectionString %>" Line 13: SelectCommand="SELECT [cid] FROM [customers]"></asp:SqlDataSource><br /> The connection name 'ac210db6ConnectionString' was not found in the applications configuration or the connection string is empty. Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Exception Details: System.InvalidOperationException: The connection name 'ac210db6ConnectionString' was not found in the applications configuration or the connection string is empty. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • SQL Like query last match

    - by teepusink
    Hi, I've a database that has a name field. (i.e Firstname M. Lastname or just Firstname Lastname). Trying to filter by lastname. How can I do a query to find the last space? Something like select * from person where name like "% a%" (but the space is the last space) Thanks, Tee

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to split the results of a select query into two equal halfs?

    - by Matthias
    I'd like to have a query returning two ResultSets each of which holding exactly half of all records matching a certain criteria. I tried using TOP 50 PERCENT in conjunction with an Order By but if the number of records in the table is odd, one record will show up in both resultsets. Example: I've got a simple table with TheID (PK) and TheValue fields (varchar(10)) and 5 records. Skip the where clause for now. SELECT TOP 50 PERCENT * FROM TheTable ORDER BY TheID asc results in the selected id's 1,2,3 SELECT TOP 50 PERCENT * FROM TheTable ORDER BY TheID desc results in the selected id's 3,4,5 3 is a dup. In real life of course the queries are fairly complicated with a ton of where clauses and subqueries.

    Read the article

  • Connecting to an MS SQL Server from Silverlight?

    - by cam
    Normally, I would use a PHP webservice to do this, but since the front-end is hosted on a linux box, I need another way to do this (so I don't have to go through the trouble of installing FreeTDS, etc. I will if I have to). Is there a better way to do this? I'm not a web guy, but I'm trying my best.

    Read the article

  • SQL: Using a CASE Statement to update 1000 rows at once

    - by SoLoGHoST
    Ok, I would like to use a CASE STATEMENT for this, but I am lost with this. Basically, I need to update a ton of rows, but just on the "position" column. I need to update all "position" values from 0 - count(position) for each id_layout_position column per id_layout column. OK, here is a pic of what the table looks like: Now let's say I delete the circled row, this will remove position = 2 and give me: 0, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 4. But I want to add something at the end now and make sure that it has the last possible position, but the positions are already messed up, so I need to reorder them like so before I insert the new row: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. But it must be ordered by lowest first. So 0 stays at 0, 1 stays at 1, 3 gets changed to 2, the 4 at the end gets changed to a 3, 5 gets changed to 4, 6 gets changed to 5, and 7 gets changed to 6. Hopefully you guys get the picture now. I'm completely lost here. Also, note, this table is tiny compared to how fast it can grow in size, so it needs to be able to do this FAST, thus I was thinking on the CASE STATEMENT for an UPDATE QUERY. Here's what I got for a regular update, but I don't wanna throw this into a foreach loop, as it would take forever to do it. I'm using SMF (Simple Machines Forums), so it might look a little different, but the idea is the same, and CASE statements are supported... $smcFunc['db_query']('', ' UPDATE {db_prefix}dp_positions SET position = {int:position} WHERE id_layout_position = {int:id_layout_position} AND id_layout = {int:id_layout}', array( 'position' => $position++, 'id_layout_position' => (int) $id_layout_position, 'id_layout' => (int) $id_layout, ) ); Anyways, I need to apply some sort of CASE on this so that I can auto-increment by 1 all values that it finds and update to the next possible value. I know I'm doing this wrong, even in this QUERY. But I'm totally lost when it comes to CASES. Here's an example of a CASE being used within SMF, so you can see this and hopefully relate: $conditions = ''; foreach ($postgroups as $id => $min_posts) { $conditions .= ' WHEN posts >= ' . $min_posts . (!empty($lastMin) ? ' AND posts <= ' . $lastMin : '') . ' THEN ' . $id; $lastMin = $min_posts; } // A big fat CASE WHEN... END is faster than a zillion UPDATE's ;). $smcFunc['db_query']('', ' UPDATE {db_prefix}members SET id_post_group = CASE ' . $conditions . ' ELSE 0 END' . ($parameter1 != null ? ' WHERE ' . (is_array($parameter1) ? 'id_member IN ({array_int:members})' : 'id_member = {int:members}') : ''), array( 'members' => $parameter1, ) ); Before I do the update, I actually have a SELECT which throws everything I need into arrays like so: $disabled_sections = array(); $positions = array(); while ($row = $smcFunc['db_fetch_assoc']($request)) { if (!isset($disabled_sections[$row['id_group']][$row['id_layout']])) $disabled_sections[$row['id_group']][$row['id_layout']] = array( 'info' => $module_info[$name], 'id_layout_position' => $row['id_layout_position'] ); // Increment the positions... if (!is_null($row['position'])) { if (!isset($positions[$row['id_layout']][$row['id_layout_position']])) $positions[$row['id_layout']][$row['id_layout_position']] = 1; else $positions[$row['id_layout']][$row['id_layout_position']]++; } else $positions[$row['id_layout']][$row['id_layout_position']] = 0; } Thanks, I know if anyone can help me here it's definitely you guys and gals... Anyways, here is my question: How do I use a CASE statement in the first code example, so that I can update all of the rows in the position column from 0 - total # of rows found, that have that id_layout value and that id_layout_position value, and continue this for all different id_layout values in that table? Can I use the arrays above somehow? I'm sure I'll have to use the id_layout and id_layout_position values for this right? But how can I do this? Ok, guy, I get an error, saying "Hacking Attempt" with the following code: // Updating all positions in here. $smcFunc['db_query']('', ' SET @pos = 0; UPDATE {db_prefix}dp_positions SET position=@pos:=@pos+1 ORDER BY id_layout_position, position', array( ) ); Am I doing something wrong? Perhaps SMF has safeguards against this approach?? Perhaps I need to use a CASE STATEMENT instead?

    Read the article

  • Is this SQL select code following good practice?

    - by acidzombie24
    I am using sqlite and will port to mysql (5) later. I wanted to know if I am doing something I shouldnt be doing. I tried purposely to design so I'll compare to 0 instead of 1 (I changed hasApproved to NotApproved to do this, not a big deal and I haven't written any code). I was told I never need to write a subquery but I do here. My Votes table is just id, ip, postid (I don't think I can write that subquery as a join instead?) and that's pretty much all that is on my mind. Naming conventions I don't really care about since the tables are created via reflection and is all over the place. select id, name, body, upvotes, downvotes, (select 1 from UpVotes where IPAddr=? AND post=Post.id) as myup, (select 1 from DownVotes where IPAddr=@0 AND post=Post.id) as mydown from Post where flag = '0' limit ?, ?"

    Read the article

  • Subquery vs Traditional join with WHERE clause?

    - by BradC
    When joining to a subset of a table, any reason to prefer one of these formats over the other? Subquery version: SELECT ... FROM Customers AS c INNER JOIN (SELECT * FROM Classification WHERE CustomerType = 'Standard') AS cf ON c.TypeCode = cf.Code INNER JOIN SalesReps s ON cf.SalesRepID = s.SalesRepID vs the WHERE clause at the end: SELECT ... FROM Customers AS c INNER JOIN Classification AS cf ON c.TypeCode = cf.Code INNER JOIN SalesReps AS s ON cf.SalesRepID = s.SalesRepID WHERE cf.CustomerType = 'Standard' The WHERE clause at the end feels more "traditional", but the first is arguably more clear, especially as the joins get increasingly complex. Only other reason I can think of to prefer the second is that the "SELECT *" on the first might be returning columns that aren't used later (In this case, I'd probably only need to return cf.Code and Cf.SalesRepID)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354  | Next Page >