Search Results

Search found 27905 results on 1117 pages for 'sql authority'.

Page 351/1117 | < Previous Page | 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358  | Next Page >

  • 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 Design Question regarding schema and if Name value pair is the best solution

    - by Aur
    I am having a small problem trying to decide on database schema for a current project. I am by no means a DBA. The application parses through a file based on user input and enters that data in the database. The number of fields that can be parsed is between 1 and 42 at the current moment. The current design of the database is entirely flat with there being 42 columns; some have repeated columns such as address1, address2, address3, etc... This says that I should normalize the data. However, data integrity is not needed at this moment and the way the data is shaped I'm looking at several joins. Not a bad thing but the data is still in a 1 to 1 relationship and I still see a lot of empty fields per row. So my concerns are that this does not allow the database or the application to be very extendable. If they want to add more fields to be parsed (which they do) than I'd need to create another table and add another foreign key to the linking table. The third option is I have a table where the fields are defined and a table for each record. So what I was thinking is to make a table that stores the value and then links to those two tables. The problem is I can picture the size of that table growing large depending on the input size. If someone gives me a file with 300,000 records than 300,000 x 40 = 12 million so I have some reservations. However I think if I get to that point than I should be happy it is being used. This option also allows for more custom displaying of information albeit a bit more work but little rework even if you add more fields. So the problem boils down to: 1. Current design is a flat file which makes extending it hard and it is not normalized. 2. Normalize the tables although no real benefits for the moment but requirements change. 3. Normalize it down into the name value pair and hope size doesn't hurt. There are a large number of inserts, updates, and selects against that table. So performance is a worry but I believe the saying is design now, performance testing later? I'm probably just missing something practical so any comments would be appreciated even if it’s a quick sanity check. Thank you for your time.

    Read the article

  • Which mysql construct is faster?

    - by Olaseni
    SELECT ..WHERE COL IN(A,B) or SELECT ... WHERE (COL = A or COL = B) I'm trying to find out what are the differences between the two constructs? Would there be significant performance gains either way if utilized on resultsets that are nearing the 1 million mark?

    Read the article

  • execute stored procedure as another user premission

    - by StuffHappens
    Hello. I faced the following problem: there's a user who has to execute a stored porcedure (spTest). In spTest's body sp_trace_generateevent is called. sp_trace_generateevent requires alter trace permissions and I don't want user to have it. So I would like user to be able to execute spTest. How can I do that? Thank you for your help.

    Read the article

  • TSQL Writing into a Temporary Table from Dynamic SQL

    - by Jeff
    Consider the following code: SET @SQL1 = 'SELECT * INTO #temp WHERE ...' exec(@SQL1) SELECT * from #temp (this line throws an error that #temp doesn't exist) Apparently this is because the exec command spins off a separate session and #temp is local to that session. I can use a global temporary table ##temp, but then I have to come up with a naming scheme to avoid collisions. What do you all recommend?

    Read the article

  • Forcing LINQ to SQL to make one single call for all child rows

    - by zaph0d
    Let say I have a method (example taken from another post): public IQueryable<CityBlock> GetCityBlocks(){ var results = from o in db.city_blocks let buildings = GetBuildingsOnBlock(o.block_id) //returns Iqueryable select new CityBlock { BuildingsOnBlock = buildings, BlockOwner = o.block_owner }; return results; } In the calling method I add Skip() and Take() methods plus some filtering and then do a ToList(). The trouble is that I am getting dozens of database calls - one for all the city blocks and then a separate one for each building. Is there a way that I can refactor this code to just make two calls: one for the city blocks and one for all the buildings

    Read the article

  • Fetch last item in a category that fits specific criteria

    - by Franz
    Let's assume I have a database with two tables: categories and articles. Every article belongs to a category. Now, let's assume I want to fetch the latest article of each category that fits a specific criteria (read: the article does). If it weren't for that extra criteria, I could just add a column called last_article_id or something similar to the categories table - even though that wouldn't be properly normalized. How can I do this though? I assume there's something using GROUP BY and HAVING?

    Read the article

  • Incorrect value for UNIQUE_CONSTRAINT_NAME in REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS

    - by van
    I am listing all FK constraints for a given table using INFORMATION_SCHEMA set of views with the following query: SELECT X.UNIQUE_CONSTRAINT_NAME, "C".*, "X".* FROM "INFORMATION_SCHEMA"."KEY_COLUMN_USAGE" AS "C" INNER JOIN "INFORMATION_SCHEMA"."REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS" AS "X" ON "C"."CONSTRAINT_NAME" = "X"."CONSTRAINT_NAME" AND "C"."TABLE_NAME" = 'MY_TABLE' AND "C"."TABLE_SCHEMA" = 'MY_SCHEMA' Everything works perfectly well, but for one particular constraint the value of UNIQUE_CONSTRAINT_NAME column is wrong, and I need it in order to find additional information from the referenced Column. Basically, for most of the rows the UNIQUE_CONSTRAINT_NAME contains the name of the unique constraint (or PK) in the referenced table, but for one particular FK it is the name of some other unique constraint. I dropped and re-created the FK - did not help. My assumption is that the meta-data is somehow screwed. Is there a way to rebuild the meta data so that the INFORMATION_SCHEMA views would actually show the correct data?

    Read the article

  • Selecting data effectively sql

    - by learner135
    Hi, I have a very large table with over 1000 records and 200 columns. When I try to retreive records matching some criteria in the WHERE clause using SELECT statement it takes a lot of time. But most of the time I just want to select a single record that matches the criteria in the WHERE clause rather than all the records. I guess there should be a way to select just a single record and exit which would minimize the retrieval time. I tried ROWNUM=1 in the WHERE clause but it didn't really work cause I guess the engine still checks all the records even after finding the first record matching the WHERE criteria. Is there a way to optimize in case if I want to select just a few records? Thanks in advance. Edit: I am using oracle 10g.

    Read the article

  • SQL query help - merge a value to all rows in a column

    - by Tommy
    I'm trying to migrate a site from a joomla system to a drupal. The problem is that drupal needs filename and sourcepath in the same row, but joomla only has filename. I'm looking for a way to add sourcepath before the filename in all the rows in that column. I'm figuring it's the UPDATE statement that I should use, but I can't figure out how to construct the query. There's a person with a similar problem here, but I don't find the answers in that thread helpful to my problem: http://www.daniweb.com/forums/showth...t+value&page=2 Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Codeigniter - Active record - sql - complex join

    - by Jack
    I have a function that retrieves all tags from a table: function global_popular_tags() { $this->db->select('tags.*, COUNT(tags.id) AS count'); $this->db->from('tags'); $this->db->join('tags_to_work', 'tags.id = tags_to_work.tag_id'); $this->db->group_by('tags.id'); $this->db->order_by('count', 'desc'); $query = $this->db->get()->result_array(); return $query; } I have another table called 'work'. The 'work' table has a 'draft' column with values of either 1 or 0. I want the COUNT(tags.id) to take into account whether the work with the specific tag is in draft mode (1) or not. Say there are 10 pieces of work tagged with, for example, 'design'. The COUNT will be 10. But 2 of these pieces of work are in draft mode, so the COUNT should really be 8. How do I manage this?

    Read the article

  • SQL change "like" to "contains"

    - by Paul
    products table (mySQL) record_id categories (comma-delimited list) --------- -------------------------------- 1 960|1,957|1,958|1 I have the following dynamic query (simplified for the purposes of this question). The query is passed specified categories, each in the format xxxx|yyyy, and I need to return products having the passed category in its comma-delimited list of categories. The current query looks like: select p.* from products p where (p.categories like '%27|0%' or p.categories like '%972|1%' or p.categories like '%969|1%') But, the LIKE clause sometimes permits anomalies. I would like to write the query more like: select p.* from products p where (p.categories contains '27|0' or p.categories contains'972|1' or p.categories contains '969|1') How would I do this?

    Read the article

  • getting values by time difference in SQL

    - by Maestro1024
    I want to get the difference of two values within a time frame. so I have a table like this Data Table TimeStamp DataValue 2010-06-01 21 2010-06-03 33 2010-06-05 44 So I want to first get all data over the last month which I can do with something like. ([TimeStamp] < GETDATE()-0 and ([TimeStamp] > GETDATE()-31) But I want to see how much value added on over the course of the month. So it started at 21 and went to 44. So I would expect this example to to return 23 (as in 44-21). How would I build a query like this?

    Read the article

  • Android sql creating database once

    - by semajhan
    One thing i'm not understanding is how to create the database and data just once in an android application. I extend SQLiteOpenHelper and use a DataHelper class that to manipulate data. Now, I have addEvent() and updateEvent() within the DataHelper class. I create an instance of DataHelper in my Activity and addEvent() a couple of times to insert data. Well, now I don't know how to just do that once. If I restart the app, its just going to "addEvent()" again and so the data is being reset every time. Sorry for the probably really REALLY noob question. The only solution I found was not using the DataHelper class and just adding data "manually" within the onCreate() method in SQLiteOpenHelper.

    Read the article

  • Linq-to-sql join/where?

    - by Curtis White
    I've the following table structures Users id Types id isBool UsersTypes userid types I want to select all the UserTypes based on id and isBool. I tried this query var q = from usertype in usertypes from type in types where type.isBool == false where userstypes.user == id select usertype; But this did not work as expected. My questions are: Why? Is there any difference in using the join on syntax vs where, where vs where cond1 && cond2? My understanding is query optimizer will optimize. Is there any difference in using where cond1 == var1 && cond2 == var2 with and without the parenthesis? This seems peculiar that it is possible to build this without parenthesis What type of query do I need in this case? I can see that I could do a subquery or use a group but not 100% sure if it is required. An example might be helpful. I'm thinking a subquery may be required in this case.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server with XML and selecting child nodes

    - by Zenox
    I have the following XML: <tests> <test>1</test> <test>2</test> <test>3</test> </tests> And I am trying the following query: CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[test] @Tests xml=null AS BEGIN SELECT doc.col.value('(test)[1]', 'nvarchar(50)') FROM @Tests.nodes('//tests') AS doc(col) END But it only returns me a value from the first What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • Multipart Identifier And Functions

    - by The King
    Here is my Query... Here I'm using a function Fn_getStagesForProject()... For which I need to pass the SWProjectID from Projects Table... The function takes the ID as parameter and return all stages that corressponds to the project, on which I need to filer only the row that contains StageLevel as 0. Select A.SWProjectID, A.ShortTitle, C.StageName as StageName, B.ExpectedCompletionDate as BudgetedReleaseDate From Projects as A left outer join ProjectBudgets as B on A.SWProjectID = B.SWProjectID Left outer join Fn_getStagesForProject(Projects.SWProjectID) as C on B.StageID = C.StageID Where C.StageLevel = 0 The error is The multi-part identifier "Projects.SWProjectID" could not be bound. I tried changing it to A.SWProjectID, but I still get the error... Thanks in advance for your help. Let me know, incase you need the Table Structure Raja

    Read the article

  • sql unite fields to one result

    - by none
    i know this is a "not build in" or "the way dba thinks" but a programmer aproach , How could one request from 3 fields to get the one that is not null, into a result filed. lets say we have a table with f1,f2,f3,f4,f5. lets say f2,f3,f4 are the same type. lets say the content of the table be tupples of (key1,null,null,value1,value2) (key2,null,value3,value4,value5) (key3,null,null,null,value6) now if we return the first tupple then we get (key1) we get (key1,value1,value2) if we ask for key2 we get (key1,value3,value5) if we ask for key3 we get (key1,null,value6) how is it possible to get the fields in the priority of if you have value in f2, then its set into the returned field, only then if we have value in f3 then its set into the middle returned field, only then if we have value in f4 then its set into the middle returned field the main goal is to get the result into a sigel feild and prevent the overhead work needed at the result end.

    Read the article

  • linq to sql update data

    - by pranay
    can i update my employee record as given in below function or i have to make query of employee collection first and than i update data public int updateEmployee(App3_EMPLOYEE employee) { DBContextDataContext db = new DBContextDataContext(); db.App3_EMPLOYEEs.Attach(employee); db.SubmitChanges(); return employee.PKEY; } or i have to do this public int updateEmployee(App3_EMPLOYEE employee) { DBContextDataContext db = new DBContextDataContext(); App3_EMPLOYEE emp = db.App3_EMPLOYEEs.Single(e => e.PKEY == employee.PKEY); db.App3_EMPLOYEEs.Attach(employee,emp); db.SubmitChanges(); return employee.PKEY; } But i dont want to use second option is there any efficient way to update data

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358  | Next Page >