Search Results

Search found 25564 results on 1023 pages for 'design studio'.

Page 438/1023 | < Previous Page | 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445  | Next Page >

  • How to store data in mysql, to get the fastest performance?

    - by Oden
    Hey, I'm thinking about it, witch of the following two query types would give me the fastest performance for a user messaging module inside my site: The first one i thought about is a multi table setup, witch has a connection table, and a main table. The connection table holds the connection between accounts, and the messaging table. In this case a query would look like following, to get some data of the author, and the messages he has sent: SELECT m.*, a.username FROM messages AS m LEFT JOIN connection_table ON (message_id = m.id) LEFT JOIN accounts AS a ON (account_id = a.id) WHERE m.id = '32341' Inserting into it is a little bit more "complicated". My other idea, and in my thought the better solution of this problem is that i store the data i would use in a connection table in the same table where is store the data of the mail. Sounds like i would get lots of duplicated entries, but no, because i have a field witch has text type and holds user ids like this: *24*32*249* If I want to query them, i use the mysql LIKE method. Deleting is an other problem, but for this i have one more field where i store who has deleted the post. Sad about that i don't know how to join this. So what would you recommend? Are there other ways?

    Read the article

  • Database indexes - what should they be

    - by WebweaverD
    Most of my database tables have a clear unique index through which lookups are done 90% of the time but I am a bit unsure on this one - I have a table which keeps track of user rating totals for items in my database, I now want to add another table, to track individual ratings with an ip address column to make sure no one can rate something twice. Since I can see this becoming a big, high use table it is important to optimize it correctly. (MYSQL table) This table will have the following fields: rating_id(always - unique), item_id (always - not unique), user_id (optional - not unique), ip_address (always - not unique), rating_value(always - not unique), has_review(bool) Now I envisions 90% the queries going something like this: When a user rates something - select where item_id = x and ip_address = y, (if rows = 0) insert rating When in user account pages - select where ip_address = x or username = y Now none of the fields searched on are unique, can I still use them as indexes (for example item _id and ip_address), can I have two indexes and will this still improve performance over a non indexed table?

    Read the article

  • Advice on simple efficient way to store web form data when no db/auth required

    - by ted776
    Hi, I have a situation where I need to provide an efficient way to process and store comments submitted via a web form. I would normally use PHP and either MySQL or XML to store the data, but this is slightly different in that this web form will only be temporarily available in a closed LAN environment, and all i need to do is process the form data and store it a format which can be accessed by another application on the LAN (Adobe Director). Each request made by the Director app should pop the stack of data. I'm wondering how best to store the data for this type of situation as it's not something I would normally do. I'm thinking possibly storing the data in an XML file, but any advice would be great!

    Read the article

  • Database Modelling - Conceptually different entities but with near identical fields

    - by Andrew Shepherd
    Suppose you have two sets of conceptual entities: MarketPriceDataSet which has multiple ForwardPriceEntries PoolPriceForecastDataSet which has multiple PoolPriceForecastEntry Both different child objects have near identical fields: ForwardPriceEntry has MarketPriceDataSetId (foreign key to parent table) StartDate EndDate SimulationItemId ForwardPrice PoolPriceForecastEntry has PoolPriceForecastDataSetId (foreign key to parent table) StartDate EndDate SimulationItemId ForecastPoolPrice If I modelled them as separate tables, the only difference would be the foreign key, and the name of the price field. There has been a debate as to whether the two near identical tables should be merged into one. Options I've thought of to model this is: Just keep them as two independent, separate tables Have both sets in the one table with an additional "type" field, and a parent_id equalling a foreign key to either parent table. This would sacrifice referential integrity checks. Have both sets in the one table with an additional "type" field, and create a complicated sequence of joining tables to maintain referential integrity. What do you think I should do, and why?

    Read the article

  • Explain this C# code: byte* p = (byte*) (void*) Scan0;

    - by qulzam
    I found the code from the net in which i cant understand this line:- byte* p = (byte*)(void*)Scan0; There Scan0 is System.IntPtr. It is code of C#.Net. Plz Explain the above line. The complete code is given below. this is code to convert a image in grayscale. public static Image GrayScale(Bitmap b) { BitmapData bmData = b.LockBits(new Rectangle(0, 0, b.Width, b.Height), ImageLockMode.ReadWrite, PixelFormat.Format24bppRgb); int stride = bmData.Stride; System.IntPtr Scan0 = bmData.Scan0; unsafe { byte* p = (byte*)(void*)Scan0; int nOffset = stride - b.Width * 3; byte red, green, blue; for (int y = 0; y < b.Height; ++y) { for (int x = 0; x < b.Width; ++x) { blue = p[0]; green = p[1]; red = p[2]; p[0] = p[1] = p[2] = (byte)(.299 * red + .587 * green + .114 * blue); p += 3; } p += nOffset; } } b.UnlockBits(bmData); return (Image)b; } I understand all the code but only have the problem on this line. byte* p = (byte*)(void*)Scan0;

    Read the article

  • JavaScript inheritance

    - by Tower
    Hi, Douglas Crockford seems to like the following inheritance approach: if (typeof Object.create !== 'function') { Object.create = function (o) { function F() {} F.prototype = o; return new F(); }; } newObject = Object.create(oldObject); It looks OK to me, but how does it differ from John Resig's simple inheritance approach? Basically it goes down to newObject = Object.create(oldObject); versus newObject = Object.extend(); And I am interested in theories. Implementation wise there does not seem to be much difference.

    Read the article

  • Small methods - Small sprocs

    - by Berlioz
    Uncle Bob recommends having small methods. Do stored procedures have an ideal size? Or can they run on for 100's and 100's of lines long? Also does anyone have anything to say about where to place business logic. If located in stored procedures, the database is being used as data processing tier. If you read Adam Machanic, his bias is toward the database, does that imply long stored procedures that only the author of the sproc understands, leaving maintainers to deal with the mess? I guess there is two inter-related questions, somehow. Thanks in advance for responding to a fuzzy question(s).

    Read the article

  • how to filter data from xml file for displaying only selected as nodes in treeview

    - by michale
    I have an xml file named "books.xml" provided in the link "http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms762271(v=vs.85).aspx". What my requirement was to disaplay only the <title> from xml information as nodes in tree view. But when i did the following coding its displaying all the values as nodes like "catalog" as rootnode, book as parent node for all then author,title,genre etc as nodes but i want only root node catalogue and title as nodes not even book. Can any body guide me what modification i need to do in the exisitng logic for displaying title as nodes OpenFileDialog dlg = new OpenFileDialog(); dlg.Title = "Open XML document"; dlg.Filter = "XML Files (*.xml)|*.xml"; dlg.FileName = Application.StartupPath + "\\..\\..\\Sample.xml"; if (dlg.ShowDialog() == DialogResult.OK) { try { //Just a good practice -- change the cursor to a //wait cursor while the nodes populate this.Cursor = Cursors.WaitCursor; //First, we'll load the Xml document XmlDocument xDoc = new XmlDocument(); xDoc.Load(dlg.FileName); //Now, clear out the treeview, //and add the first (root) node treeView1.Nodes.Clear(); treeView1.Nodes.Add(new TreeNode(xDoc.DocumentElement.Name)); TreeNode tNode = new TreeNode(); tNode = (TreeNode)treeView1.Nodes[0]; //We make a call to addTreeNode, //where we'll add all of our nodes addTreeNode(xDoc.DocumentElement, tNode); //Expand the treeview to show all nodes treeView1.ExpandAll(); } catch (XmlException xExc) //Exception is thrown is there is an error in the Xml { MessageBox.Show(xExc.Message); } catch (Exception ex) //General exception { MessageBox.Show(ex.Message); } finally { this.Cursor = Cursors.Default; //Change the cursor back } }} //This function is called recursively until all nodes are loaded private void addTreeNode(XmlNode xmlNode, TreeNode treeNode) { XmlNode xNode; TreeNode tNode; XmlNodeList xNodeList; if (xmlNode.HasChildNodes) //The current node has children { xNodeList = xmlNode.ChildNodes; for (int x = 0; x <= xNodeList.Count - 1; x++) //Loop through the child nodes { xNode = xmlNode.ChildNodes[x]; treeNode.Nodes.Add(new TreeNode(xNode.Name)); tNode = treeNode.Nodes[x]; addTreeNode(xNode, tNode); } } else //No children, so add the outer xml (trimming off whitespace) treeNode.Text = xmlNode.OuterXml.Trim(); }

    Read the article

  • Service Layer Patter - Could we avoid the service layer on a specific case?

    - by lidermin
    Hi, we are trying to implement an application using the Service Layer Pattern cause our application needs to connect to other multiple applications too, and googling on the web, we found this link of a demostrative graphic for the "right" way of apply the pattern: martinfowler.com - Service Layer Pattern But now we have a question: what if our system needs to implement some business logic, only for our application (like some maintenance data for the system itself) that we don't need to share with other systems. Based on this graphic: As it seems, it will be unnecesary to implement a service layer just for that; it will be more practical to avoid the service layer, and just go from User Interface to the Business Layer (for example). What should be the right way in this case to implement the Service Layer Pattern? What do you suggest us for a scenario like the one I told you? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Service Layer Patter - Could we avoid the service layer on a specific case?

    - by lidermin
    Hi, we are trying to implement an application using the Service Layer Pattern cause our application needs to connect to other multiple applications too, and googling on the web, we found this link of a demostrative graphic for the "right" way of apply the pattern: martinfowler.com - Service Layer Pattern But now we have a question: what if our system needs to implement some business logic, only for our application (like some maintenance data for the system itself) that we don't need to share with other systems. Based on this graphic: As it seems, it will be unnecesary to implement a service layer just for that; it will be more practical to avoid the service layer, and just go from User Interface to the Business Layer (for example). What should be the right way in this case to implement the Service Layer Pattern? What do you suggest us for a scenario like the one I told you? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Low cost way to host a large table yet keep the performance scalable?

    - by Leo Liang
    I have a growing table storing time series data, 500M entries now, and 200K new records every day. The total size is around 15GB for now. My clients are querying the table via a PHP script mostly, and the size of the result set is around 10K records (not very large). select * from T where timestamp > X and timestamp < Y and additionFilters And I want this operation cheap. Currently my table is hosting in Postgres 7, on a single 16G memory Box, and I would love to see some good suggestion for me to host this in low cost and also allow me to scale up for performance if needed. The table serves: 1. Query: 90% 2. Insert: 9.9% 2. Update: 0.1% <-- very rare.

    Read the article

  • Break a class in twain, or impose an interface for restricted access?

    - by bedwyr
    What's the best way of partitioning a class when its functionality needs to be externally accessed in different ways by different classes? Hopefully the following example will make the question clear :) I have a Java class which accesses a single location in a directory allowing external classes to perform read/write operations to it. Read operations return usage stats on the directory (e.g. available disk space, number of writes, etc.); write operations, obviously, allow external classes to write data to the disk. These methods always work on the same location, and receive their configuration (e.g. which directory to use, min disk space, etc.) from an external source (passed to the constructor). This class looks something like this: public class DiskHandler { public DiskHandler(String dir, int minSpace) { ... } public void writeToDisk(String contents, String filename) { int space = getAvailableSpace(); ... } public void getAvailableSpace() { ... } } There's quite a bit more going on, but this will do to suffice. This class needs to be accessed differently by two external classes. One class needs access to the read operations; the other needs access to both read and write operations. public class DiskWriter { DiskHandler diskHandler; public DiskWriter() { diskHandler = new DiskHandler(...); } public void doSomething() { diskHandler.writeToDisk(...); } } public class DiskReader { DiskHandler diskHandler; public DiskReader() { diskHandler = new DiskHandler(...); } public void doSomething() { int space = diskHandler.getAvailableSpace(...); } } At this point, both classes share the same class, but the class which should only read has access to the write methods. Solution 1 I could break this class into two. One class would handle read operations, and the other would handle writes: // NEW "UTILITY" CLASSES public class WriterUtil { private ReaderUtil diskReader; public WriterUtil(String dir, int minSpace) { ... diskReader = new ReaderUtil(dir, minSpace); } public void writeToDisk(String contents, String filename) { int = diskReader.getAvailableSpace(); ... } } public class ReaderUtil { public ReaderUtil(String dir, int minSpace) { ... } public void getAvailableSpace() { ... } } // MODIFIED EXTERNALLY-ACCESSING CLASSES public class DiskWriter { WriterUtil diskWriter; public DiskWriter() { diskWriter = new WriterUtil(...); } public void doSomething() { diskWriter.writeToDisk(...); } } public class DiskReader { ReaderUtil diskReader; public DiskReader() { diskReader = new ReaderUtil(...); } public void doSomething() { int space = diskReader.getAvailableSpace(...); } } This solution prevents classes from having access to methods they should not, but it also breaks encapsulation. The original DiskHandler class was completely self-contained and only needed config parameters via a single constructor. By breaking apart the functionality into read/write classes, they both are concerned with the directory and both need to be instantiated with their respective values. In essence, I don't really care to duplicate the concerns. Solution 2 I could implement an interface which only provisions read operations, and use this when a class only needs access to those methods. The interface might look something like this: public interface Readable { int getAvailableSpace(); } The Reader class would instantiate the object like this: Readable diskReader; public DiskReader() { diskReader = new DiskHandler(...); } This solution seems brittle, and prone to confusion in the future. It doesn't guarantee developers will use the correct interface in the future. Any changes to the implementation of the DiskHandler could also need to update the interface as well as the accessing classes. I like it better than the previous solution, but not by much. Frankly, neither of these solutions seems perfect, but I'm not sure if one should be preferred over the other. I really don't want to break the original class up, but I also don't know if the interface buys me much in the long run. Are there other solutions I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Why do Pascal control structures appear to be inconsistent?

    - by 70Mike
    Most Pascal control structures make sense to me, like: for ... do {statement}; if (condition) then {statement}; while (condition) do {statement}; where the {statement} is either a single statement, or a begin ... end block. I have a problem with: repeat {statement-list} until (expression); try {statement-list} except {statement-list} end; Wouldn't it be better that repeat and try have the same general structure, accepting only a single statement or a begin ... end block, instead of having a statement-list that's not formally blocked with a begin and an end?

    Read the article

  • Vertex Buffers in opengl

    - by JB
    I'm making a small 3d graphics game/demo for personal learning. I know d3d9 and quite a bit about d3d11 but little about opengl at the moment so I'm intending to abstract out the actual rendering of the graphics so that my scene graph and everything "above" it needs to know little about how to actually draw the graphics. I intend to make it work with d3d9 then add d3d11 support and finally opengl support. Just as a learning exercise to learn about 3d graphics and abstraction. I don't know much about opengl at this point though, and don't want my abstract interface to expose anything that isn't simple to implement in opengl. Specifically I'm looking at vertex buffers. In d3d they are essentially an array of structures, but looking at the opengl interface the equivalent seems to be vertex arrays. However these seem to be organised rather differently where you need a separate array for vertices, one for normals, one for texture coordinates etc and set the with glVertexPointer, glTexCoordPointer etc. I was hoping to be able to implement a VertexBuffer interface much like the the directx one but it looks like in d3d you have an array of structures and in opengl you need a separate array for each element which makes finding a common abstraction quite hard to make efficient. Is there any way to use opengl in a similar way to directx? Or any suggestions on how to come up with a higher level abstraction that will work efficiently with both systems?

    Read the article

  • How to raise a validation event from a key press

    - by flavour404
    Hi, I want to raise the: private void txtbox_startdate_Validating(object sender, System.ComponentModel.CancelEventArgs e) {} Function from a key leave event. The leave event looks like: private void txtbox_startdate_Leave(object sender, EventArgs e) {} The trouble is of course if I try and call it in this manner: txtbox_startdate_Validating(sender, e) An error is raised because in this case 'e' is an EventArgs whereas the validation function wants a System.ComponentModel.CancelEventArgs and so, how do I convert EventArgs to a System.ComponentModel.CancelEventArgs or create one so that I can call my validation function? Thanks, R.

    Read the article

  • How many parameters in C# method are acceptable?

    - by Valentin Heinitz
    I am new to C# and have to maintain a C# Application. Now I'v found a method vaving 32 Parameters (not auto-generated code). From C/C++ I remember the rule of thumb "4 Parameters". It may be an old-fashioned rule rooting back to old 0x86 compilers, where 4 Parameters could be accomodated in registers (fast) or on stack otherwise. I am not concerning about performance, but I do have a feeling, that 32 parameters per functions are not easy to maintain even in C#. Or am I completly not up to date? What is the rule of thumb for C#? Thank you for any hint!

    Read the article

  • Oracle - Is there any effects of not having a primary key on a table ?

    - by Sathya
    We use sequence numbers for primary keys on the tables. There are some tables where we dont really use the primary key for any querying purpose. But, we have Indexes on other columns. These are non-unique indexes. The queries use these non-primary key columns in the WHERE conditions. So, I dont really see any benefit of having a primary key on such tables. My experience with SQL 2000 was that, it used to replicate tables which had some primary key. Otherwise it would not. I am using Oracle 10gR2. I would like to know if there are any such side-effects of having tables that dont have primary key.

    Read the article

  • Database: Storing Dates as Numeric Values

    - by Chin
    I'm considering storing some date values as ints. i.e 201003150900 Excepting the fact that I lose any timezone information, is there anything else I should be concerned about with his solution? Any queries using this column would be simple 'where after or before' type lookups. i.e Where datefield is less than 201103000000 (before March next year). currently the app is using MSSQL2005. Any pointers to pitfalls appreciated.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445  | Next Page >