Search Results

Search found 27530 results on 1102 pages for 'sql truncate'.

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 432/1102 | < Previous Page | 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439  | Next Page >

  • T-SQL - Left Outer Joins - Filters in the where clause versus the on clause.

    - by Greg Potter
    I am trying to compare two tables to find rows in each table that is not in the other. Table 1 has a groupby column to create 2 sets of data within table one. groupby number ----------- ----------- 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 Table 2 has only one column. number ----------- 1 3 4 So Table 1 has the values 1,2,4 in group 2 and Table 2 has the values 1,3,4. I expect the following result when joining for Group 2: `Table 1 LEFT OUTER Join Table 2` T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- 2 2 NULL `Table 2 LEFT OUTER Join Table 1` T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- NULL NULL 3 The only way I can get this to work is if I put a where clause for the first join: PRINT 'Table 1 LEFT OUTER Join Table 2, with WHERE clause' select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table1 LEFT OUTER join table2 --****************************** on table1.number = table2.number --****************************** WHERE table1.groupby = 2 AND table2.number IS NULL and a filter in the ON for the second: PRINT 'Table 2 LEFT OUTER Join Table 1, with ON clause' select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table2 LEFT OUTER join table1 --****************************** on table2.number = table1.number AND table1.groupby = 2 --****************************** WHERE table1.number IS NULL Can anyone come up with a way of not using the filter in the on clause but in the where clause? The context of this is I have a staging area in a database and I want to identify new records and records that have been deleted. The groupby field is the equivalent of a batchid for an extract and I am comparing the latest extract in a temp table to a the batch from yesterday stored in a partioneds table, which also has all the previously extracted batches as well. Code to create table 1 and 2: create table table1 (number int, groupby int) create table table2 (number int) insert into table1 (number, groupby) values (1, 1) insert into table1 (number, groupby) values (2, 1) insert into table1 (number, groupby) values (1, 2) insert into table2 (number) values (1) insert into table1 (number, groupby) values (2, 2) insert into table2 (number) values (3) insert into table1 (number, groupby) values (4, 2) insert into table2 (number) values (4) EDIT: A bit more context - depending on where I put the filter I different results. As stated above the where clause gives me the correct result in one state and the ON in the other. I am looking for a consistent way of doing this. Where - select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table1 LEFT OUTER join table2 --****************************** on table1.number = table2.number --****************************** WHERE table1.groupby = 2 AND table2.number IS NULL Result: T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- 2 2 NULL On - select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table1 LEFT OUTER join table2 --****************************** on table1.number = table2.number AND table1.groupby = 2 --****************************** WHERE table2.number IS NULL Result: T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- 1 1 NULL 2 2 NULL 1 2 NULL Where (table 2 this time) - select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table2 LEFT OUTER join table1 --****************************** on table2.number = table1.number AND table1.groupby = 2 --****************************** WHERE table1.number IS NULL Result: T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- NULL NULL 3 On - select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table2 LEFT OUTER join table1 --****************************** on table2.number = table1.number --****************************** WHERE table1.number IS NULL AND table1.groupby = 2 Result: T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- (0) rows returned

    Read the article

  • SQL: How do I return zeroes where there is nothing to aggregate across?

    - by Karl
    Hi What I would like ask is best illustrated by an example, so bear with me. Suppose I have the following table: TypeID Gender Count 1 M 10 1 F 3 1 F 6 3 M 11 3 M 8 I would like to aggregate this for every possible combination of TypeID and Gender. Where TypeID can be 1,2 or 3 and Gender can be M or F. So what I want is the following: TypeID Gender SUM(Count) 1 M 10 1 F 9 2 M 0 2 F 0 3 M 19 3 F 0 I can think of a few ways to potentially do this, but none of them seem particularly elegant to me. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Karl

    Read the article

  • Is this a bug in Profiler or Entity Framework?

    - by AjarnMark
    Using Entity Framework 4 with stored procedures and SQL Server 2008 SP1... When running SQL Server Profiler (TSQL_SPs template), the lines that show my stored procedure call and its statements say that they executed in DatabaseID = 1 (Master) but it is actually happening in my application database (ID = 8). The procedures execute properly and return the data, and they only exist in my application database, so why does Profiler mark those lines as being in Master? Is this a bug in Profiler? Is it a bug in EF4? Note that running the same code against a SQL 2000 instance, Profiler correctly shows the application's database ID.

    Read the article

  • sql query - how to count values in a row separately?

    - by n00b0101
    I have a table that looks something like this: id | firstperson | secondperson 1 | jane doe | 2 | bob smith | margie smith 3 | master shifu | madame shifu 4 | max maxwell | I'm trying to count all of the firstpersons + all of the secondpersons, if the secondpersons field isn't blank... Is there a way to do that?

    Read the article

  • Can I check wheter Linq 2 SQL's DataContext is tracking entities?

    - by Thomas Jespersen
    We want to throw an exception, if a user calls DataContext.SubmitChanges() and the DataContext is not tracking anything. That is... it is OK to call SubmitChanges if there are no inserts, updates or deletes. But we want to ensure that the developer didn't forget to attach the entity to the DataContext. Even better... is it possible to get a collection of all entities that the DataContext is tracking (including those that are not changed)? PS: The last question I asked were answered with: "do it this way instead"... please don't :-)

    Read the article

  • SqlBackup from my client app

    - by Robbert Dam
    I have an client app that runs on several machines, and connects to a single SQL database. On the client app, the user has the possiblity to use a local SQL (CE) database or connect to a remote SQL database. There is also a box where a backup location can be set. For the backup of the remote SQL database I use the following code: var bdi = new BackupDeviceItem(backupFile, DeviceType.File); var backup = new Backup { Database = "AppDb", Initialize = true }; backup.Devices.Add(bdi); var server = new Server(connection); backup.SqlBackup(server); When developing my application, I wasn't aware that the given backupFile is written on the machine where the SQL server runs! And not on the client machine. What I want is "dump" all the data from my database to a local file. (Why? Because users may enter a network location in the "backup location" box, and backing up SQL immediately to a network location fails. So need to write local first and then copy to the network in that case.) I there an alternative to the method above?

    Read the article

  • Apply a recursive CTE on grouped table rows (SQL server 2005).

    - by Evan V.
    Hi all, I have a table (ROOMUSAGE) containing the times people check in and out of rooms grouped by PERSONKEY and ROOMKEY. It looks like this: PERSONKEY | ROOMKEY | CHECKIN | CHECKOUT | ROW ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | 8 | 13-4-2010 10:00 | 13-4-2010 11:00 | 1 1 | 8 | 13-4-2010 08:00 | 13-4-2010 09:00 | 2 1 | 1 | 13-4-2010 15:00 | 13-4-2010 16:00 | 1 1 | 1 | 13-4-2010 14:00 | 13-4-2010 15:00 | 2 1 | 1 | 13-4-2010 13:00 | 13-4-2010 14:00 | 3 13 | 2 | 13-4-2010 15:00 | 13-4-2010 16:00 | 1 13 | 2 | 13-4-2010 15:00 | 13-4-2010 16:00 | 2 I want to select just the consecutive rows for each PERSONKEY, ROOMKEY grouping. So the desired resulting table is: PERSONKEY | ROOMKEY | CHECKIN | CHECKOUT | ROW ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | 8 | 13-4-2010 10:00 | 13-4-2010 11:00 | 1 1 | 1 | 13-4-2010 15:00 | 13-4-2010 16:00 | 1 1 | 1 | 13-4-2010 14:00 | 13-4-2010 15:00 | 2 1 | 1 | 13-4-2010 13:00 | 13-4-2010 14:00 | 3 13 | 2 | 13-4-2010 15:00 | 13-4-2010 16:00 | 1 I want to avoid using cursors so I thought I would use a recursive CTE. Here is what I came up with: ;with CTE (PERSONKEY, ROOMKEY, CHECKIN, CHECKOUT, ROW) as (select RU.PERSONKEY, RU.ROOMKEY, RU.CHECKIN, RU.CHECKOUT, RU.ROW from ROOMUSAGE RU where RU.ROW = 1 union all select RU.PERSONKEY, RU.ROOMKEY, RU.CHECKIN, RU.CHECKOUT, RU.ROW from ROOMUSAGE RU inner join CTE on RU.ROWNUM = CTE.ROWNUM + 1 where CTE.CHECKIN = RU.CHECKOUT and CTE.PERSONKEY = RU.PERSONKEY and CTE.ROOMKEY = RU.ROOMKEY) This worked OK for very small datasets (under 100 records) but it's unusable on large datasets. I'm thinking that I should somehow apply the cte recursevely on each PERSONKEY, ROOMKEY grouping on my ROOMUSAGE table but I am not sure how to do that. Any help would be much appreciated, Cheers!

    Read the article

  • How can I dump my MS SQL Server Database Schema to a human readable & printable format?

    - by Kyle West
    I want to generate something like the following: LineItems Id ItemId OrderId Price Orders Id CustomerId DateCreated Customers Id FirstName LastName Email I don't need all the relationships, the diagram that will never print correctly, the metadata, anything. Just a list of the tables and their columns in a simple text format. Has anyone done this before? Is there a simple solution? Thanks, Kyle

    Read the article

  • How do I use Linq-to-sql to iterate db records?

    - by Seth Spearman
    I asked on SO a few days ago what was the simplest quickest way to build a wrapper around a recently completed database. I took the advice and used sqlmetal to build linq classes around my database design. Now I am having two problems. One, I don't know LINQ. And, two, I have been shocked to realize how hard it is to learn. I have a book on LINQ (Linq In Action by Manning) and it has helped some but at the end of the day it is going to take me a couple of weeks to get traction and I need to make some progress on my project today. So, I am looking for some help getting started. Click HERE To see my simple database schema. Click HERE to see the vb class that was generated for the schema. My needs are simple. I have a console app. The main table is the SupplyModel table. Most of the other tables are child tables of the SupplyModel table. I want to iterate through each of Supply Model records. I want to grab the data for a supply model and then DoStuff with the data. And I also need to iterate through the child records, for each supply model, for example the NumberedInventories and DoStuff with that as well. I need help doing this in VB rather than C# if possible. I am not looking for the whole solution...if you can supply a couple of code-snippets to get me on my way that would be great. Thanks for your help. Seth

    Read the article

  • How can I dump my SQL Server Database Schema to a human readable & printable format?

    - by Kyle West
    I want to generate something like the following: LineItems Id ItemId OrderId Price Orders Id CustomerId DateCreated Customers Id FirstName LastName Email I don't need all the relationships, the diagram that will never print correctly, the metadata, anything. Just a list of the tables and their columns in a simple text format. Has anyone done this before? Is there a simple solution? Thanks, Kyle

    Read the article

  • sql-server: how can I list distinct value of table in a single row, separated by comma

    - by RedsDevils
    I have the following Table: CREATE TABLE TEMP (ID INT,SEGMENT CHAR(1),SEGOFF INT,CHECKED SMALLDATETIME) INSERT INTO TEMP VALUES (1,'A',0,'2009-05-01') INSERT INTO TEMP VALUES (2,'B',1,'2009-05-01') INSERT INTO TEMP VALUES (3,'C',0,'2009-05-01') INSERT INTO TEMP VALUES (4,'A',0,'2009-05-02') INSERT INTO TEMP VALUES (5,'B',2,'2009-05-02') INSERT INTO TEMP VALUES (6,'C',1,'2009-05-02') INSERT INTO TEMP VALUES (7,'A',1,'2009-05-03') INSERT INTO TEMP VALUES (8,'B',0,'2009-05-03') INSERT INTO TEMP VALUES (9,'C',2,'2009-05-03') I would like to show Distinct SEGEMENT in Single row separated by comma (e.g: A,B,C) I try as Follow: DECLARE @SEGMENTList varchar(100) SELECT @SEGMENTList = COALESCE(@SEGMENTList + ', ', '') + SEGMENT FROM TEST SELECT @SEGMENTList It shows A, B, C, A, B, C, A, B, C What do I need to change my query? Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • sql-server: how to select from dupilcate rows from table?

    - by RedsDevils
    Hi All, I have the following table. CREATE TABLE TEST(ID TINYINT NULL, COL1 CHAR(1)) INSERT INTO TEST(ID,COL1) VALUES (1,'A') INSERT INTO TEST(ID,COL1) VALUES (2,'B') INSERT INTO TEST(ID,COL1) VALUES (1,'A') INSERT INTO TEST(ID,COL1) VALUES (1,'B') INSERT INTO TEST(ID,COL1) VALUES (1,'B') INSERT INTO TEST(ID,COL1) VALUES (2,'B') I would like to select duplicate rows from that table. How Can I select? I try like the following: SELECT TEST.ID,TEST.COL1 FROM TEST WHERE TEST.ID IN (SELECT ID FROM TEST WHERE TEST.COL1 IN (SELECT COL1 FROM TEST WHERE TEST.ID IN (SELECT ID FROM TEST GROUP BY ID HAVING COUNT(*) > 1) GROUP BY COL1 HAVING COUNT(*) > 1) GROUP BY ID HAVING COUNT(*) > 1) Where's the Error? Can you modify that? Help me! Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Extending EF4 SQL Generation

    - by Basiclife
    Hi, We're using EF4 in a fairly large system and occasionally run into problems due to EF4 being unable to convert certain expressions into SQL. At present, we either need to do some fancy footwork (DB/Code) or just accept the performance hit and allow the query to be executed in-memory. Needless to say neither of these is ideal and the hacks we've sometimes had to use reduce readability / maintainability. What we would ideally like is a way to extend the SQL generation capabilities of the EF4 SQL provider. Obviously there are some things like .Net method calls which will always have to be client-side but some functionality like date comparisons (eg Group by weeks in Linq to Entities ) should be do-able. I've Googled but perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology as all I get is information about the new features of EF4 SQL Generation. For such a flexible and extensible framework, I'd be surprised if this isn't possible. In my head, I'm imagining inheriting from the [SQL 2008] provider and extending it to handle additional expressions / similar in the expression tree it's given to convert to SQL. Any help/pointers appreciated. We're using VS2010 Ultimate, .Net 4 (non-client profile) and EF4. The app is in ASP.Net and is running in a 64-Bit environment in case it makes a difference.

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to store sort order in SQL?

    - by Duracell
    The guys at the top want sort order to be customizable in our app. So I have a table that effectively defines the data type. What is the best way to store our sort order. If I just created a new column called 'Order' or something, every time I updated the order of one row I imagine I would have to update the order of every row to ensure posterity. Is there a better way to do it?

    Read the article

  • MySql Query lag time / deadlock?

    - by Click Upvote
    When there are multiple PHP scripts running in parallel, each making an UPDATE query to the same record in the same table repeatedly, is it possible for there to be a 'lag time' before the table is updated with each query? I have basically 5-6 instances of a PHP script running in parallel, having been launched via cron. Each script gets all the records in the items table, and then loops through them and processes them. However, to avoid processing the same item more than once, I store the id of the last item being processed in a seperate table. So this is how my code works: function getCurrentItem() { $sql = "SELECT currentItemId from settings"; $result = $this->db->query($sql); return $result->get('currentItemId'); } function setCurrentItem($id) { $sql = "UPDATE settings SET currentItemId='$id'"; $this->db->query($sql); } $currentItem = $this->getCurrentItem(); $sql = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE status='pending' AND id > $currentItem'"; $result = $this->db->query($sql); $items = $result->getAll(); foreach ($items as $i) { //Check if $i has been processed by a different instance of the script, and if so, //leave it untouched. if ($this->getCurrentItem() > $i->id) continue; $this->setCurrentItem($i->id); // Process the item here } But despite of all the precautions, most items are being processed more than once. Which makes me think that there is some lag time between the update queries being run by the PHP script, and when the database actually updates the record. Is it true? And if so, what other mechanism should I use to ensure that the PHP scripts always get only the latest currentItemId even when there are multiple scripts running in parrallel? Would using a text file instead of the db help?

    Read the article

  • can I see all SQL statements sent over an ODBC connection?

    - by Dave Cameron
    I'm working with a third-party application that uses ODBC to connect to, and alter, a database. During certain failure modes, the end-results are not what I expect. To understand it better, I'd like some way of inspecting all the statements sent to the database. Is there a way to do this with ODBC? I know with JDBC I could use http://www.p6spy.com/ to see all statements sent, for example when debugging hibernate. p6spy is a "proxy" driver that records commands sent and forwards them on to the real JDBC driver. Another possibility might be a protocol sniffer that would capture statements over the wire. Although, I'm unsure if ODBC includes a standard wire protocol, or only specifieds the API. Does anyone know of existing tools that would allow me to do either of these things? Alternatively, is there another approach I could take?

    Read the article

  • How do you transfer data from SQL Server to db4o?

    - by dde
    I came across this question after searching for a ODBC or JDBC. To my surprise, since I am new to db4o I found there are tools to browse db4o, including a Netbeans and Eclipse plug in. However, when it comes to the question at hand, I only found one company, and the product is not being sold nor demoed (makes me think is not ready yet). So, how do you transfer data? Is there a tool or script I have not found yet?

    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 | 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439  | Next Page >