Search Results

Search found 5380 results on 216 pages for 'primary'.

Page 39/216 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

  • Use htaccess to redirect all traffic from subdomain to domain without maintaining directory structur

    - by hal10001
    Most examples show how to redirect all subdomain traffic to a primary domain, maintaining the directory structure. I actually don't want this. I want to redirect all subdomain traffic (the site is going away) to the primary domain. This is not working: Options +FollowSymLinks RewriteEngine on RewriteRule (.*) http://www.newdomain.com/ [R=301,L] What happens, is if you go to this: http://sub.newdomain.com/some/path/ You get this: http://www.newdomain.com/some/path/ I want it all to go to the root.

    Read the article

  • does it makes sense to use int instead of char or nvarchar for a discriminator column if I'm using i

    - by Omu
    I have something like this: create table account ( id int identity(1,1) primary key, usertype char(1) check(usertype in ('a', 'b')) not null, unique(id, usertype) ) create table auser ( id int primary key, usertype char(1) check(usertype = 'a') not null, foreign key (id, usertype) references account(id, usertype) ) create table buser ( ... same just with b ) the question is: if I'm going to use int instead of char(1), does it going to work faster/better ?

    Read the article

  • Foreign key,local key?

    - by user198729
    CREATE TABLE products ( id integer unsigned auto_increment primary key ) ENGINE=INNODB; CREATE TABLE orders ( id integer PRIMARY KEY auto_increment, product_id integer unsigned, quantity integer, INDEX product_id_idx (product_id), FOREIGN KEY (product_id) REFERENCES products (id) ) ENGINE=INNODB; Here the products and orders obviously have some kind of relation--foreign key relation. Also a coin has two sides,so I'm doubting how do we say which table is the foreign key side or local key side?

    Read the article

  • Adding miliseconds to a datetime in tsql INSERT INTO

    - by DavRob60
    I'm doing a INSERT INTO query in order to initialize a new table. The primary key is RFQ_ID and Action_Time How could add 1 milisecond to each Action_Time on new record in order to avoid "Violation of PRIMARY KEY constraint" INSERT INTO QSW_RFQ_Log (RFQ_ID, Action_Time, Quote_ID) SELECT RFQ_ID , GETDATE() AS Action_Time , Quote_ID , 'Added to RFQ on Initialization' AS Note FROM QSW_Quote

    Read the article

  • How to create a "facade" table?

    - by tputkonen
    A legacy database contains a join table which links tables table1 and table2, and contains just two foreign keys: TABLE_ORIG: table1_id table2_id In order to utilize this table using JPA I would need to create a surrogate primary key to the link table. However, the existing table must not be modified at all. I would like to create another table which would contain also a primary key in addition to the foreign keys: TABLE_NEW: id table1_id table2_id All changes to TABLE_ORIG should be reflected in TABLE_NEW, and vice versa. Is this doable in mysql?

    Read the article

  • Mysql - help me optimize this query

    - by sandeepan-nath
    About the system: -The system has a total of 8 tables - Users - Tutor_Details (Tutors are a type of User,Tutor_Details table is linked to Users) - learning_packs, (stores packs created by tutors) - learning_packs_tag_relations, (holds tag relations meant for search) - tutors_tag_relations and tags and orders (containing purchase details of tutor's packs), order_details linked to orders and tutor_details. For a more clear idea about the tables involved please check the The tables section in the end. -A tags based search approach is being followed.Tag relations are created when new tutors register and when tutors create packs (this makes tutors and packs searcheable). For details please check the section How tags work in this system? below. Following is a simpler representation (not the actual) of the more complex query which I am trying to optimize:- I have used statements like explanation of parts in the query select SUM(DISTINCT( t.tag LIKE "%Dictatorship%" )) as key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( t.tag LIKE "%democracy%" )) as key_2_total_matches, td., u., count(distinct(od.id_od)), if (lp.id_lp > 0) then some conditional logic on lp fields else 0 as tutor_popularity from Tutor_Details AS td JOIN Users as u on u.id_user = td.id_user LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Tag_Relations AS lptagrels ON td.id_tutor = lptagrels.id_tutor LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs AS lp ON lptagrels.id_lp = lp.id_lp LEFT JOIN `some other tables on lp.id_lp - let's call learning pack tables set (including Learning_Packs table)` LEFT JOIN Order_Details as od on td.id_tutor = od.id_author LEFT JOIN Orders as o on od.id_order = o.id_order LEFT JOIN Tutors_Tag_Relations as ttagrels ON td.id_tutor = ttagrels.id_tutor JOIN Tags as t on (t.id_tag = ttagrels.id_tag) OR (t.id_tag = lptagrels.id_tag) where some condition on Users table's fields AND CASE WHEN ((t.id_tag = lptagrels.id_tag) AND (lp.id_lp 0)) THEN `some conditions on learning pack tables set` ELSE 1 END AND CASE WHEN ((t.id_tag = wtagrels.id_tag) AND (wc.id_wc 0)) THEN `some conditions on webclasses tables set` ELSE 1 END AND CASE WHEN (od.id_od0) THEN od.id_author = td.id_tutor and some conditions on Orders table's fields ELSE 1 END AND ( t.tag LIKE "%Dictatorship%" OR t.tag LIKE "%democracy%") group by td.id_tutor HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 order by tutor_popularity desc, u.surname asc, u.name asc limit 0,20 ===================================================================== What does the above query do? Does AND logic search on the search keywords (2 in this example - "Democracy" and "Dictatorship"). Returns only those tutors for which both the keywords are present in the union of the two sets - tutors details and details of all the packs created by a tutor. To make things clear - Suppose a Tutor name "Sandeepan Nath" has created a pack "My first pack", then:- Searching "Sandeepan Nath" returns Sandeepan Nath. Searching "Sandeepan first" returns Sandeepan Nath. Searching "Sandeepan second" does not return Sandeepan Nath. ====================================================================================== The problem The results returned by the above query are correct (AND logic working as per expectation), but the time taken by the query on heavily loaded databases is like 25 seconds as against normal query timings of the order of 0.005 - 0.0002 seconds, which makes it totally unusable. It is possible that some of the delay is being caused because all the possible fields have not yet been indexed, but I would appreciate a better query as a solution, optimized as much as possible, displaying the same results ========================================================================================== How tags work in this system? When a tutor registers, tags are entered and tag relations are created with respect to tutor's details like name, surname etc. When a Tutors create packs, again tags are entered and tag relations are created with respect to pack's details like pack name, description etc. tag relations for tutors stored in tutors_tag_relations and those for packs stored in learning_packs_tag_relations. All individual tags are stored in tags table. ==================================================================== The tables Most of the following tables contain many other fields which I have omitted here. CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS users ( id_user int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, name varchar(100) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', surname varchar(155) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', PRIMARY KEY (id_user) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=636 ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tutor_details ( id_tutor int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, id_user int(10) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', PRIMARY KEY (id_tutor), KEY Users_FKIndex1 (id_user) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=51 ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS orders ( id_order int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, PRIMARY KEY (id_order), KEY Orders_FKIndex1 (id_user), ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=275 ; ALTER TABLE orders ADD CONSTRAINT Orders_ibfk_1 FOREIGN KEY (id_user) REFERENCES users (id_user) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS order_details ( id_od int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, id_order int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', id_author int(10) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', PRIMARY KEY (id_od), KEY Order_Details_FKIndex1 (id_order) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=284 ; ALTER TABLE order_details ADD CONSTRAINT Order_Details_ibfk_1 FOREIGN KEY (id_order) REFERENCES orders (id_order) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS learning_packs ( id_lp int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, id_author int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', PRIMARY KEY (id_lp), KEY Learning_Packs_FKIndex2 (id_author), KEY id_lp (id_lp) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=23 ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tags ( id_tag int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, tag varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id_tag), UNIQUE KEY tag (tag), KEY id_tag (id_tag), KEY tag_2 (tag), KEY tag_3 (tag) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=3419 ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tutors_tag_relations ( id_tag int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', id_tutor int(10) DEFAULT NULL, KEY Tutors_Tag_Relations (id_tag), KEY id_tutor (id_tutor), KEY id_tag (id_tag) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; ALTER TABLE tutors_tag_relations ADD CONSTRAINT Tutors_Tag_Relations_ibfk_1 FOREIGN KEY (id_tag) REFERENCES tags (id_tag) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS learning_packs_tag_relations ( id_tag int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', id_tutor int(10) DEFAULT NULL, id_lp int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, KEY Learning_Packs_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1 (id_tag), KEY id_lp (id_lp), KEY id_tag (id_tag) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; ALTER TABLE learning_packs_tag_relations ADD CONSTRAINT Learning_Packs_Tag_Relations_ibfk_1 FOREIGN KEY (id_tag) REFERENCES tags (id_tag) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; =================================================================================== Following is the exact query (this includes classes also - tutors can create classes and search terms are matched with classes created by tutors):- select count(distinct(od.id_od)) as tutor_popularity, CASE WHEN (IF((wc.id_wc 0), ( wc.wc_api_status = 1 AND wc.wc_type = 0 AND wc.class_date '2010-06-01 22:00:56' AND wccp.status = 1 AND (wccp.country_code='IE' or wccp.country_code IN ('INT'))), 0)) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END as 'classes_published', CASE WHEN (IF((lp.id_lp 0), (lp.id_status = 1 AND lp.published = 1 AND lpcp.status = 1 AND (lpcp.country_code='IE' or lpcp.country_code IN ('INT'))),0)) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END as 'packs_published', td . * , u . * from Tutor_Details AS td JOIN Users as u on u.id_user = td.id_user LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Tag_Relations AS lptagrels ON td.id_tutor = lptagrels.id_tutor LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs AS lp ON lptagrels.id_lp = lp.id_lp LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Categories AS lpc ON lpc.id_lp_cat = lp.id_lp_cat LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Categories AS lpcp ON lpcp.id_lp_cat = lpc.id_parent LEFT JOIN Learning_Pack_Content as lpct on (lp.id_lp = lpct.id_lp) LEFT JOIN Webclasses_Tag_Relations AS wtagrels ON td.id_tutor = wtagrels.id_tutor LEFT JOIN WebClasses AS wc ON wtagrels.id_wc = wc.id_wc LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Categories AS wcc ON wcc.id_lp_cat = wc.id_wp_cat LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Categories AS wccp ON wccp.id_lp_cat = wcc.id_parent LEFT JOIN Order_Details as od on td.id_tutor = od.id_author LEFT JOIN Orders as o on od.id_order = o.id_order LEFT JOIN Tutors_Tag_Relations as ttagrels ON td.id_tutor = ttagrels.id_tutor JOIN Tags as t on (t.id_tag = ttagrels.id_tag) OR (t.id_tag = lptagrels.id_tag) OR (t.id_tag = wtagrels.id_tag) where (u.country='IE' or u.country IN ('INT')) AND CASE WHEN ((t.id_tag = lptagrels.id_tag) AND (lp.id_lp 0)) THEN lp.id_status = 1 AND lp.published = 1 AND lpcp.status = 1 AND (lpcp.country_code='IE' or lpcp.country_code IN ('INT')) ELSE 1 END AND CASE WHEN ((t.id_tag = wtagrels.id_tag) AND (wc.id_wc 0)) THEN wc.wc_api_status = 1 AND wc.wc_type = 0 AND wc.class_date '2010-06-01 22:00:56' AND wccp.status = 1 AND (wccp.country_code='IE' or wccp.country_code IN ('INT')) ELSE 1 END AND CASE WHEN (od.id_od0) THEN od.id_author = td.id_tutor and o.order_status = 'paid' and CASE WHEN (od.id_wc 0) THEN od.can_attend_class=1 ELSE 1 END ELSE 1 END AND 1 group by td.id_tutor order by tutor_popularity desc, u.surname asc, u.name asc limit 0,20 Please note - The provided database structure does not show all the fields and tables as in this query

    Read the article

  • Maintaining content type pk integrity in a Django deployment

    - by hekevintran
    When you run syncdb in Django, the primary keys of the content types will be recomputed. If I create new models, the next time I run syncdb, the primary keys of the content types will be different. If I have an application running in production, how can I update the database with the new models and keep the integrity of content type pks?

    Read the article

  • Can this Query be corrected or different table structure needed? (database dumps provided)

    - by sandeepan
    This is a bit lengthy but I have provided sufficient details and kept things very clear. Please see if you can help. (I will surely accept answer if it solves my problem) I am sure a person experienced with this can surely help or suggest me to decide the tables structure. About the system:- There are tutors who create classes A tags based search approach is being followed Tag relations are created/edited when new tutors registers/edits profile data and when tutors create classes (this makes tutors and classes searcheable).For simplicity, let us consider only tutor name and class name are the fields which are matched against search keywords. In this example, I am considering - tutor "Sandeepan Nath" has created a class called "first class" tutor "Bob Cratchit" has created a class called "new class" Desired search results- AND logic to be appied on the search keywords and match against class and tutor data(class name + tutor name), in other words, All those classes be shown such that all the search terms are present in the class name or its tutor name. Example to be clear - Searching "first class" returns class with id_wc = 1. Working Searching "Sandeepan class" should also return class with id_wc = 1. Not working in System 2. Problem with profile editing and searching To tell in one sentence, I am facing a conflict between the ease of profile edition (edition of tag relations when tutor profiles are edited) and the ease of search logic. In the beginning, we had one table structure and search was easy but tag edition logic was very clumsy and unmaintainable(Check System 1 in the section below) . So we created separate tag relations tables to make profile edition simpler but search has become difficult. Please dump the tables so that you can run the search query I have given below and see the results. System 1 (previous system - search easy - profile edition difficult):- Only one table called All_Tag_Relations table had the all the tag relations. The tags table below is common to both systems 1 and 2. CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `all_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 1, 1, NULL), (2, 2, 1, NULL), (3, 1, 1, 1), (4, 2, 1, 1), (5, 3, 1, 1), (6, 4, 1, 1), (7, 6, 2, NULL), (8, 7, 2, NULL), (9, 6, 2, 2), (10, 7, 2, 2), (11, 5, 2, 2), (12, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); Please note that for every class, the tag rels of its tutor have to be duplicated. Example, for class with id_wc=1, the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 3 and 4 are actually extras if you compare with the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 1 and 2. System 2 (present system - profile edition easy, search difficult) Two separate tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations have the corresponding tag relations data (Please dump into a separate database)- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tutors_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `tutors_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`) VALUES (1, 1, 1), (2, 2, 1), (3, 6, 2), (4, 7, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `webclasses_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `webclasses_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `webclasses_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 3, 1, 1), (2, 4, 1, 1), (3, 5, 2, 2), (4, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,NULL from Tutors_Tag_Relations; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,id_wc from Webclasses_Tag_Relations; Here you can see how easily tutor first name can be edited only in one place. But search has become really difficult, so on being advised to use a Temporary table, I am creating one at every search request, then dumping all the necessary data and then searching from it, I am creating this All_Tag_Relations table at search run time. Here I am just dumping all the data from the two tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations. But, I am still not able to get classes if I search with tutor name This is the query which searches "first class". Running them on both the systems shows correct results (returns the class with id_wc = 1). SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =3)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =3 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 But, searching for "Sandeepan class" works only with the 1st system Here is the query which searches "Sandeepan class" SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =1)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =1 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 Can anybody alter this query and somehow do a proper join or something to get correct results. That solves my problem in a nice way. As you can figure out, the reason why it does not work in system 2 is that in system 1, for every class, one additional tag relation linking class and tutor name is present. e.g. for class first class, (records with id_tag_rel 3 and 4) which returns the class on searching with tutor name. So, you see the trade-off between the search and profile edition difficulty with the two systems. How do I overcome both. I have to reach a conclusion soon. So far my reasoning is it is definitely not good from a code maintainability point of view to follow the single tag rel table structure of system one, because in a real system while editing a field like "tutor qualifications", there can be as many records in tag rels table as there are words in qualification of a tutor (one word in a field = one tag relation). Now suppose a tutor has 100 classes. When he edits his qualification, all the tag rel rows corresponding to him are deleted and then as many copies are to be created (as per the new qualification data) as there are classes. This becomes particularly difficult if later more searcheable fields are added. The code cannot be robust. Is the best solution to follow system 2 (edition has to be in one table - no extra work for each and every class) and somehow re-create the all_tag_relations table like system 1 (from the tables tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations), creating the extra tutor tag rels for each and every class by a tutor (which is currently missing in system 2's temporary all_tag_relations table). That would be a time consuming logic script. I doubt that table can be recreated without resorting to PHP sript (mysql alone cannot do that). But the problem is that running all this at search time will make search definitely slow. So, how do such systems work? How are such situations handled? I thought about we can run a cron which initiates that PHP script, say every 1 minute and replaces the existing all_tag_relations table as per new tag rels from tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations (replaces means creates a new table, deletes the original and renames the new one as all_tag_relations, otherwise search won't work during that period- or is there any better way to that?). Anyway, the result would be that any changes by tutors will reflect in search in the next 1 minute and not immediately. An alternateve would be to initate that PHP script every time a tutor edits his profile. But here again, since many users may edit their profiles concurrently, will the creation of so many tables be a burden and can mysql make the server slow? Any help would be appreciated and working solution will be accepted as answer. Thanks, Sandeepan

    Read the article

  • Can this Query can be corrected or different table structure needed? (question is clear, detailed, d

    - by sandeepan
    This is a bit lengthy but I have provided sufficient details and kept things very clear. Please see if you can help. (I will surely accept answer if it solves my problem) I am sure a person experienced with this can surely help or suggest me to decide the tables structure. About the system:- There are tutors who create classes A tags based search approach is being followed Tag relations are created/edited when new tutors registers/edits profile data and when tutors create classes (this makes tutors and classes searcheable).For simplicity, let us consider only tutor name and class name are the fields which are matched against search keywords. In this example, I am considering - tutor "Sandeepan Nath" has created a class called "first class" tutor "Bob Cratchit" has created a class called "new class" Desired search results- AND logic to be appied on the search keywords and match against class and tutor data(class name + tutor name), in other words, All those classes be shown such that all the search terms are present in the class name or its tutor name. Example to be clear - Searching "first class" returns class with id_wc = 1. Working Searching "Sandeepan class" should also return class with id_wc = 1. Not working in System 2. Problem with profile editing and searching To tell in one sentence, I am facing a conflict between the ease of profile edition (edition of tag relations when tutor profiles are edited) and the ease of search logic. In the beginning, we had one table structure and search was easy but tag edition logic was very clumsy and unmaintainable(Check System 1 in the section below) . So we created separate tag relations tables to make profile edition simpler but search has become difficult. Please dump the tables so that you can run the search query I have given below and see the results. System 1 (previous system - search easy - profile edition difficult):- Only one table called All_Tag_Relations table had the all the tag relations. The tags table below is common to both systems 1 and 2. CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `all_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 1, 1, NULL), (2, 2, 1, NULL), (3, 1, 1, 1), (4, 2, 1, 1), (5, 3, 1, 1), (6, 4, 1, 1), (7, 6, 2, NULL), (8, 7, 2, NULL), (9, 6, 2, 2), (10, 7, 2, 2), (11, 5, 2, 2), (12, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); Please note that for every class, the tag rels of its tutor have to be duplicated. Example, for class with id_wc=1, the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 3 and 4 are actually extras if you compare with the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 1 and 2. System 2 (present system - profile edition easy, search difficult) Two separate tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations have the corresponding tag relations data (Please dump into a separate database)- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tutors_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `tutors_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`) VALUES (1, 1, 1), (2, 2, 1), (3, 6, 2), (4, 7, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `webclasses_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `webclasses_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `webclasses_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 3, 1, 1), (2, 4, 1, 1), (3, 5, 2, 2), (4, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,NULL from Tutors_Tag_Relations; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,id_wc from Webclasses_Tag_Relations; Here you can see how easily tutor first name can be edited only in one place. But search has become really difficult, so on being advised to use a Temporary table, I am creating one at every search request, then dumping all the necessary data and then searching from it, I am creating this All_Tag_Relations table at search run time. Here I am just dumping all the data from the two tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations. But, I am still not able to get classes if I search with tutor name This is the query which searches "first class". Running them on both the systems shows correct results (returns the class with id_wc = 1). SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =3)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =3 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 But, searching for "Sandeepan class" works only with the 1st system Here is the query which searches "Sandeepan class" SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =1)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =1 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 Can anybody alter this query and somehow do a proper join or something to get correct results. That solves my problem in a nice way. As you can figure out, the reason why it does not work in system 2 is that in system 1, for every class, one additional tag relation linking class and tutor name is present. e.g. for class first class, (records with id_tag_rel 3 and 4) which returns the class on searching with tutor name. So, you see the trade-off between the search and profile edition difficulty with the two systems. How do I overcome both. I have to reach a conclusion soon. So far my reasoning is it is definitely not good from a code maintainability point of view to follow the single tag rel table structure of system one, because in a real system while editing a field like "tutor qualifications", there can be as many records in tag rels table as there are words in qualification of a tutor (one word in a field = one tag relation). Now suppose a tutor has 100 classes. When he edits his qualification, all the tag rel rows corresponding to him are deleted and then as many copies are to be created (as per the new qualification data) as there are classes. This becomes particularly difficult if later more searcheable fields are added. The code cannot be robust. Is the best solution to follow system 2 (edition has to be in one table - no extra work for each and every class) and somehow re-create the all_tag_relations table like system 1 (from the tables tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations), creating the extra tutor tag rels for each and every class by a tutor (which is currently missing in system 2's temporary all_tag_relations table). That would be a time consuming logic script. I doubt that table can be recreated without resorting to PHP sript (mysql alone cannot do that). But the problem is that running all this at search time will make search definitely slow. So, how do such systems work? How are such situations handled? I thought about we can run a cron which initiates that PHP script, say every 1 minute and replaces the existing all_tag_relations table as per new tag rels from tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations (replaces means creates a new table, deletes the original and renames the new one as all_tag_relations, otherwise search won't work during that period- or is there any better way to that?). Anyway, the result would be that any changes by tutors will reflect in search in the next 1 minute and not immediately. An alternateve would be to initate that PHP script every time a tutor edits his profile. But here again, since many users may edit their profiles concurrently, will the creation of so many tables be a burden and can mysql make the server slow? Any help would be appreciated and working solution will be accepted as answer. Thanks, Sandeepan

    Read the article

  • translate stored procedure - to Linq2SQL (count, max, group, orderby)

    - by Walter
    I've two tables (1:N) CREATE TABLE master (idMaster int identity (1,1) not null, TheName varchar( 100) null, constraint pk_master primary key(idMaster) clustered) and - CREATE TABLE lnk (idSlave int not null, idMaster int not null, constraint pk_lnk_master_slave(idSlave) primary key clustered) link between Master.idMaster and lnk.idMaster I've a SQL query: select max (master.idMaster) as idMaster, master.theName, count (lnk.idSlave) as freq from lnk inner join master ON lnk.idMaster = master.idMaster Group by master.theName order by freq desc, master.theName I need to translate this T-SQL query to a Linq-to-SQL statement, preferably in C#

    Read the article

  • deleting records from multiple tables at a time with a single query in sqlserver2005

    - by sudhavamsikiran
    Hi I wanna delete records from child tables as well as parent table with in a single query. please find the query given below. here response header is the primary table and responseid is the primary key. DELETE FROM responseheader FROM responseheader INNER JOIN responsepromotion ON responseheader.responseid = responsepromotion.ResponseID INNER JOIN responseext ON responsepromotion.ResponseID=responseext.ResponseID WHERE responseheader.responseid In ('67D8B9E8-BAD2-42E6-BAEA-000025D56253') but its throwing error . can any one help me to find out the correct query

    Read the article

  • MySQL foreign key creation with alter table command

    - by user313338
    I created some tables using MySQL Workbench, and then did forward ‘forward engineer’ to create scripts to create these tables. BUT, the scripts lead me to a number of problems. One of which involves the foreign keys. So I tried creating separate foreign key additions using alter table and I am still getting problems. The code is below (the set statements, drop/create statements I left in … though I don’t think they should matter for this): SET @OLD_UNIQUE_CHECKS=@@UNIQUE_CHECKS, UNIQUE_CHECKS=0; SET @OLD_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=@@FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS, FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=0; SET @OLD_SQL_MODE=@@SQL_MODE, SQL_MODE='TRADITIONAL'; DROP SCHEMA IF EXISTS `mydb` ; CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS `mydb` DEFAULT CHARACTER SET latin1 COLLATE latin1_swedish_ci ; -- ----------------------------------------------------- -- Table `mydb`.`User` -- ----------------------------------------------------- DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `mydb`.`User` ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `mydb`.`User` ( `UserName` VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL , `Num_Accts` INT NOT NULL , `Password` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `Email` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `User_ID` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , PRIMARY KEY (`User_ID`) ) ENGINE = InnoDB; -- ----------------------------------------------------- -- Table `mydb`.`User_Space` -- ----------------------------------------------------- DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `mydb`.`User_Space` ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `mydb`.`User_Space` ( `User_UserName` VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL , `User_Space_ID` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , PRIMARY KEY (`User_Space_ID`), FOREIGN KEY (`User_UserName`) REFERENCES `mydb`.`User` (`UserName`) ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE) ENGINE = InnoDB; SET SQL_MODE=@OLD_SQL_MODE; SET FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=@OLD_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS; SET UNIQUE_CHECKS=@OLD_UNIQUE_CHECKS; The error this produces is: Error Code: 1005 Can't create table 'mydb.user_space' (errno: 150) Anybody know what the heck I’m doing wrong?? And anybody else have problems with the script generation done by mysql workbench? It’s a nice tool, but annoying that it pumps out scripts that don’t work for me. [As an fyi here’s the script it auto-generates: SET @OLD_UNIQUE_CHECKS=@@UNIQUE_CHECKS, UNIQUE_CHECKS=0; SET @OLD_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=@@FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS, FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=0; SET @OLD_SQL_MODE=@@SQL_MODE, SQL_MODE='TRADITIONAL'; DROP SCHEMA IF EXISTS `mydb` ; CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS `mydb` DEFAULT CHARACTER SET latin1 COLLATE latin1_swedish_ci ; -- ----------------------------------------------------- -- Table `mydb`.`User` -- ----------------------------------------------------- DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `mydb`.`User` ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `mydb`.`User` ( `UserName` VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL , `Num_Accts` INT NOT NULL , `Password` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `Email` VARCHAR(45) NULL , `User_ID` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , PRIMARY KEY (`User_ID`) ) ENGINE = InnoDB; -- ----------------------------------------------------- -- Table `mydb`.`User_Space` -- ----------------------------------------------------- DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `mydb`.`User_Space` ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `mydb`.`User_Space` ( `User_Space_ID` INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , PRIMARY KEY (`User_Space_ID`) , INDEX `User_ID` () , CONSTRAINT `User_ID` FOREIGN KEY () REFERENCES `mydb`.`User` () ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION) ENGINE = InnoDB; SET SQL_MODE=@OLD_SQL_MODE; SET FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=@OLD_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS; SET UNIQUE_CHECKS=@OLD_UNIQUE_CHECKS; ** Thanks!]

    Read the article

  • UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on a column from foreign table in SQL Server 2008

    - by bodziec
    I have two tables: create table [dbo].[Main] ( [ID] [int] identity(1,1) primary key not null, [Sign] [char](1) not null ) create table [dbo].[Names] ( [ID_Main][int] primary key not null, [Name][nvarchar](128) not null, constraint [FK_Main_Users] foreign key ([ID_Main]) references [dbo].[Main]([ID]), constraint [CK_Name] unique ([Name], [Sign]) ) The problem is with the second constraint CK_Name Is there a way to make a constraint target column from a foreign table?

    Read the article

  • UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on a column from foreign table in MSSQL2008

    - by bodziec
    Hi, I have two tables: create table [dbo].[Main] ( [ID] [int] identity(1,1) primary key not null, [Sign] [char](1) not null ) create table [dbo].[Names] ( [ID_Main][int] primary key not null, [Name][nvarchar](128) not null, constraint [FK_Main_Users] foreign key ([ID_Main]) references [dbo].[Main]([ID]), constraint [CK_Name] unique ([Name], [Sign]) ) The problem is with the second constraint CK_Name Is there a way to make a constraint target column from a foreign table?

    Read the article

  • Many-To-Many Query with Linq-To-NHibernate

    - by rjygraham
    Ok guys (and gals), this one has been driving me nuts all night and I'm turning to your collective wisdom for help. I'm using Fluent Nhibernate and Linq-To-NHibernate as my data access story and I have the following simplified DB structure: CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Classes]( [Id] [bigint] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [Name] [nvarchar](100) NOT NULL, [StartDate] [datetime2](7) NOT NULL, [EndDate] [datetime2](7) NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_Classes] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [Id] ASC ) CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Sections]( [Id] [bigint] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [ClassId] [bigint] NOT NULL, [InternalCode] [varchar](10) NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_Sections] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [Id] ASC ) CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SectionStudents]( [SectionId] [bigint] NOT NULL, [UserId] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_SectionStudents] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [SectionId] ASC, [UserId] ASC ) CREATE TABLE [dbo].[aspnet_Users]( [ApplicationId] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, [UserId] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL, [UserName] [nvarchar](256) NOT NULL, [LoweredUserName] [nvarchar](256) NOT NULL, [MobileAlias] [nvarchar](16) NULL, [IsAnonymous] [bit] NOT NULL, [LastActivityDate] [datetime] NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED ( [UserId] ASC ) I omitted the foreign keys for brevity, but essentially this boils down to: A Class can have many Sections. A Section can belong to only 1 Class but can have many Students. A Student (aspnet_Users) can belong to many Sections. I've setup the corresponding Model classes and Fluent NHibernate Mapping classes, all that is working fine. Here's where I'm getting stuck. I need to write a query which will return the sections a student is enrolled in based on the student's UserId and the dates of the class. Here's what I've tried so far: 1. var sections = (from s in this.Session.Linq<Sections>() where s.Class.StartDate <= DateTime.UtcNow && s.Class.EndDate > DateTime.UtcNow && s.Students.First(f => f.UserId == userId) != null select s); 2. var sections = (from s in this.Session.Linq<Sections>() where s.Class.StartDate <= DateTime.UtcNow && s.Class.EndDate > DateTime.UtcNow && s.Students.Where(w => w.UserId == userId).FirstOrDefault().Id == userId select s); Obviously, 2 above will fail miserably if there are no students matching userId for classes the current date between it's start and end dates...but I just wanted to try. The filters for the Class StartDate and EndDate work fine, but the many-to-many relation with Students is proving to be difficult. Everytime I try running the query I get an ArgumentNullException with the message: Value cannot be null. Parameter name: session I've considered going down the path of making the SectionStudents relation a Model class with a reference to Section and a reference to Student instead of a many-to-many. I'd like to avoid that if I can, and I'm not even sure it would work that way. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. Ryan

    Read the article

  • regex to break a string into "key" / "value" pairs when # of pairs is variable?

    - by user141146
    Hi, I'm using Ruby 1.9 and I'm wondering if there's a simple regex way to do this. I have many strings that look like some variation of this: str = "Allocation: Random, Control: Active Control, Endpoint Classification: Safety Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor), Primary Purpose: Treatment" The idea is that I'd like to break this string into its functional components Allocation: Random Control: Active Control Endpoint Classification: Safety Study Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes, Assessor) Primary Purpose: Treatment The "syntax" of the string is that there is a "key" which consists of one or more "words or other characters" (e.g. Intervention Model) followed by a colon (:). Each key has a corresponding "value" (e.g., Parallel Assignment) that immediately follows the colon (:)…The "value" consists of words, commas (whatever), but the end of the "value" is signaled by a comma. The # of key/value pairs is variable. I'm also assuming that colons (:) aren't allowed to be part of the "value" and that commas (,) aren't allowed to be part of the "key". One would think that there is a "regexy" way to break this into its component pieces, but my attempt at making an appropriate matching regex only picks up the first key/value pair and I'm not sure how to capture the others. Any thoughts on how to capture the other matches? regex = /(([^,]+?): ([^:]+?,))+?/ => /(([^,]+?): ([^:]+?,))+?/ irb(main):139:0> str = "Allocation: Random, Control: Active Control, Endpoint Classification: Safety Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor), Primary Purpose: Treatment" => "Allocation: Random, Control: Active Control, Endpoint Classification: Safety Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor), Primary Purpose: Treatment" irb(main):140:0> str.match regex => #<MatchData "Allocation: Random," 1:"Allocation: Random," 2:"Allocation" 3:" Random,"> irb(main):141:0> $1 => "Allocation: Random," irb(main):142:0> $2 => "Allocation" irb(main):143:0> $3 => " Random," irb(main):144:0> $4 => nil

    Read the article

  • SQL How to join multiplue columns with same name to one column

    - by Choi Shun Chi
    There is a super class account {User, TYPE} and subclasses saving{User, ID, balance,TYPE,interest,curency_TYPE} time{User,ID,balance,TYPE,interest,curency_TYPE,start_date,due_date,period} fore{User,ID,balance,interest,curency_TYPE} User and TYPE is the primary key of account and foreign key of three subclasses ID is primary key of three subclasses how to make a list of showing all IDs in one column?Also the same as balance and TYPE meet the problem I considered a.ID as saving, b.ID as time but it showing them separately

    Read the article

  • database is normalized but the following is a problem please help

    - by user287745
    but the prob is there are relations ships which are so huge that after normalizing they have like a 20 primary keys( composite keys) which are really foreign keys but have to be declared as primary keys to identify the relationship uniquely. so please help? is it correct and i apologize to the expert community for not accepting answers, i was not aware that accepting is possible, the TICK MARK is that visible :-)

    Read the article

  • Java - Make an object collection friendly

    - by DutrowLLC
    If an object holds a unique primary key, what interfaces does it need to implement in order to be collection friendly especially in terms of being efficiently sortable, hashable, etc...? If the primary key is a string, how are these interfaces best implemented? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Question regarding MySQL indices and their functionality

    - by user281434
    Hi Say I have an ordinary table in my db like so ---------------------------- | id | username | password | ---------------------------- | 24 | blah | blah | ---------------------------- A primary key is assigned to the id column. Now when I run a Mysql query like this: SELECT id FROM table WHERE username = 'blah' LIMIT 1 Does that primary key index even help? If I am telling it to match usernames, then shouldn't the username column be indexed instead? Thanks for your time

    Read the article

  • MVC Entity Framework Model not returning correct data

    - by quagland
    Hi, Run into a strange problem while writing an ASP.NET MVC site. I have a view in my SQL Server database that returns a few date ranges. The view works fine when running the query in SSMS. When the view data is returned by the Entity Framework Model, It returns the correct number of rows but some of the rows are duplicated. Here is an example of what I have done: SQL Server code: CREATE TABLE [dbo].[A]( [ID] [int] NOT NULL, [PhID] [int] NULL, [FromDate] [datetime] NULL, [ToDate] [datetime] NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_A] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([ID] ASC)) ON [PRIMARY] go CREATE TABLE [dbo].[B]( [PhID] [int] NOT NULL, [FromDate] [datetime] NULL, [ToDate] [datetime] NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_B] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [PhID] ASC )) ON [PRIMARY] go CREATE VIEW C as SELECT A.ID, CASE WHEN A.PhID IS NULL THEN A.FromDate ELSE B.FromDate END AS FromDate, CASE WHEN A.PhID IS NULL THEN A.ToDate ELSE B.ToDate END AS ToDate FROM A LEFT OUTER JOIN B ON A.PhID = B.PhID go INSERT INTO B (PhID, FromDate, ToDate) VALUES (100, '20100615', '20100715') INSERT INTO A (ID, PhID, FromDate, ToDate) VALUES (1, NULL, '20100101', '20100201') INSERT INTO A (ID, PhID, FromDate, ToDate) VALUES (1, 100, '20100615', '20100715') INSERT INTO B (PhID, FromDate, ToDate) VALUES (101, '20101201', '20101231') INSERT INTO A (ID, PhID, FromDate, ToDate) VALUES (2, NULL, '20100801', '20100901') INSERT INTO A (ID, PhID, FromDate, ToDate) VALUES (2, 101, '20101201', '20101231') So now, if you select all from C, you get 4 separate date ranges In the Entity Framework Model (which I call 'Core'), the view 'C' is added. in MVC Controller: public class HomeController : Controller { public ActionResult Index() { CoreEntities db = new CoreEntities(); var clist = from c in db.C select c; return View(clist.ToList()); } } in MVC View: @model List<RM.Models.C> @{ foreach (RM.Models.C c in Model) { @String.Format("{0:dd-MMM-yyyy}", c.FromDate) <span>-</span> @String.Format("{0:dd-MMM-yyyy}", c.ToDate) <br /> } } When I run all this, it outputs this: 01-Jan-2010 - 01-Feb-2010 01-Jan-2010 - 01-Feb-2010 01-Aug-2010 - 01-Sep-2010 01-Aug-2010 - 01-Sep-2010 When it should do this (this is what the view returns): 01-Jan-2010 - 01-Feb-2010 15-Jun-2010 - 15-Jul-2010 01-Aug-2010 - 01-Sep-2010 01-Dec-2010 - 31-Dec-2010 Also, I've run the SQL profiler over it and according to that, the query being executed is: SELECT [Extent1].[ID] AS [ID], [Extent1].[FromDate] AS [FromDate], [Extent1].[ToDate] AS [ToDate] FROM (SELECT [C].[ID] AS [ID], [C].[FromDate] AS [FromDate], [C].[ToDate] AS [ToDate] FROM [dbo].[C] AS [C]) AS [Extent1] Which returns the correct data So it seems that the entity framework is doing something to the data in the meantime. To me, everything looks fine! Have I missed something? Cheers, Ben

    Read the article

  • Log4j: Issues about the FallbackErrorHandler

    - by rdogpink
    I am working on a client-server-application and wanted to implement a flexible Loggingframework, so I chose log4j, which doesn´t really evolve anymore, but it is still handy framework. Because the Logging happens along the network, i wanted a solution for the case, that the network drive isn´t available, so the Logger has to change its destination file(s). Now I wanted to use the FallbackErrorHandler (configured with a XML-File) from the Log4j-library and the implementation worked: When my network drive isn´t available, it switches to a local Logfile, so no logging should be lost. But I headded two problems since yesterday and couldn´t figure or find out, how to solve it. No return to initial Logging Configuration: When the network drive is on again and the Logger could write to the old destinations, log4j still logs at the local drive and I can´t figure out, how to notify the original (primary) Logger to start again. I also tried to attach a second Appender to the ErrorHandler, which should mirror the failed primary Logger, that it tries to write on the network destination and when the network is on again, it logs in both files, on the local and on the network drive. But unfortunately it didn´t work out, I only got a failure message that the ErrorHandler-content doesn´t fit. log4j:WARN The content of element type "errorHandler" must match "(param*,root-ref?,logger-ref*,appender-ref?)". This is the responsible code. <appender name="TraceAppender" class="org.apache.log4j.DailyRollingFileAppender"> <!-- The second appender-ref "TestAppender" leads to the error. --> <errorHandler class="org.apache.log4j.varia.FallbackErrorHandler"> <logger-ref ref="com.idoh"/> <appender-ref ref="TraceFallbackAppender"/> <appender-ref ref="TestAppender"/> </errorHandler> <param name="datePattern" value=".yyyy-MM-dd" /> <param name="file" value="logs/Trace.txt" /> <layout class="org.apache.log4j.PatternLayout"> <param name="ConversionPattern" value="%-6r %d{HH:mm:ss,SSS} [%t] %-5p - %m%n"/> </layout> </appender> So, how could I trigger log4j to reset to initial configuration or hold a second appender parallel to the "Local-Logger". My Application should work by itself and shouldn´t have to be restarted often. First Error message is swallowed: I recognized, that the first message, which leads to the switching between the primary logger and the FallbackErrorHandler (for example a logging-request to a readonly-File), is swallowed, so neither the primary logger logs it (because it can´t) nor the backup-Logger knows what it missed. So anybody else ran in this problem and could solve it? Or has any suggestions?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >