Search Results

Search found 39668 results on 1587 pages for 'right outer join'.

Page 47/1587 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

• Join with ADO.NET Linq to Entity in C#

  - by aladdin

  Hello I'm try to migrate a system to ADO.NET Entity I have 3 table A => (Id, Name, ...) B => (Id, Domain, ...) c => (IdA, IdB) VS.NET generate 2 entity A and B and both have reference to the other table but this reference is a collection. I need make a join between tables. from a in A join b in B on a.? equal b.? where condition select new { Name = a.Name, Domain = b.Domain }; I cant do that follow the reference in entity bu when the problem grows can be a problem. Any Help?

  Read the article

• velocity: join optional fields with a separator/prefix

  - by SlowStrider

  What would be the most concise/readable way in a velocity template to join multiple fields with a separator while leaving out empty or null Strings without adding excess separators? As an example we have a tooltip or appointments that goes like: Appointment ($number) [with $employee] [-] [$remarks] [-] [$roomToVisit] Where I used brackets to indicate optional data. When filled in it would normally show as Appointment (3) with John - ballroom - serve Java coffee When $remarks is empty but $roomToVisit is not, this becomes: Appointment (3) with John - ballroom When $remarks is "serve Java coffee" but $roomToVisit is empty we get: Appointment (3) with John - serve Java coffee When both are empty: Appointment (3) with John Bonus: also make the field prefix optional. When only $employee is empty we should get: Appointment (2) serve Java coffee - ballroom Ideally I would like the velocity template to look very similar to the first code box. If this is not possible, how would you achieve this with a minimum of distracting code tags? Similar ideas (first is much more verbose): Join with intelligent separators velocity: do something except in last loop iteration

  Read the article

• Need help optimizing MYSQL query with join

  - by makeee

  I'm doing a join between the "favorites" table (3 million rows) the "items" table (600k rows). The query is taking anywhere from .3 seconds to 2 seconds, and I'm hoping I can optimize it some. Favorites.faver_profile_id and Items.id are indexed. Instead of using the faver_profile_id index I created a new index on (faver_profile_id,id), which eliminated the filesort needed when sorting by id. Unfortunately this index doesn't help at all and I'll probably remove it (yay, 3 more hours of downtime to drop the index..) Any ideas on how I can optimize this query? In case it helps: Favorite.removed and Item.removed are "0" 98% of the time. Favorite.collection_id is NULL about 80% of the time. SELECT `Item`.`id`, `Item`.`source_image`, `Item`.`cached_image`, `Item`.`source_title`, `Item`.`source_url`, `Item`.`width`, `Item`.`height`, `Item`.`fave_count`, `Item`.`created` FROM `favorites` AS `Favorite` LEFT JOIN `items` AS `Item` ON (`Item`.`removed` = 0 AND `Favorite`.`notice_id` = `Item`.`id`) WHERE ((`faver_profile_id` = 1) AND (`collection_id` IS NULL) AND (`Favorite`.`removed` = 0) AND (`Item`.`removed` = '0')) ORDER BY `Favorite`.`id` desc LIMIT 50;

  Read the article

• mysql left join

  - by user1019538

  I have two table one is index and another is the price structure as under table : index : column : trandate ,indexcode Table : price : Column: trandate,symbol,price i want to know the missing price. I issue the query select i.trandate,i.indexcode,p.trandate,p.price from index i left join price p on i.trandate = p.trandate where p.symbol='ABC' and indexcode="New" the above query does not show the null date even though various price in missing in price table. Only reason i understand is that the index table does not have the symbol field that's why...but as per theory if you want to show all the rows of one table and only the match value of another table then use the left or right join query...please anybody can help

  Read the article

• 100+ tables to joined

  - by deian

  Hi guys, I was wondering if anyone ever had a change to measure how a would 100 joined tables perform? Each table would have an ID column with primary index and all table are 1:1 related. It is a common problem within many data entry applications where we need to collect 1000+ data points. One solution would be to have one big table with 1000+ columns and the alternative would be to split them into multiple tables and join them when it is necessary. So perhaps more real question would be how 30 tables (30 columns each) would behave with multitable join. 500K-1M rows should be the expected size of the tables. Cheers

  Read the article

• group by, order by, with join

  - by Scarface

  Hey guys, quick question, I have this query, and I am trying to get the latest comment for each topic and then sort those results in descending order (therefore one comment per topic). I have what I think should work, but my join always messes my results up. Somehow, it seems to have sorted the end results properly, but has not taken the latest comment from each topic instead it seems to have just taken a random comment. If anyone has any ideas, would really appreciate any advice SELECT * FROM comments JOIN topic ON topic.topic_id=comments.topic_id WHERE topic.creator='admin' GROUP BY comments.topic_id ORDER BY comments.time DESC table comments is structured like id time user message topic_id table topic is structured like topic_id subject_id topic_title creator timestamp description

  Read the article

• For improving the join of two wave files

  - by kaki

  i want to get the values of the last 30 frames of the first wav file and first thirty frames of the second wave file in integer format and stored in a list or array. i have written the code for joining but during this manupalation i am getting in byte format and tried to convert it to integer but couldn't. as told before i want to get the frame detail of 1st 30 and last 30 in integer format,and by performing other operations join can be more successful looking for your help in this,please... thanking you, import wave m=['C:/begpython/S0001_0002.wav', 'C:/begpython/S0001_0001.wav'] i=1 a=m[i] infiles = [a] outfile = "C:/begpython/S0001_00367.wav" data= [] data1=[] for infile in infiles: w = wave.open(infile, 'rb') data1=[w.getnframes] #print w.readframes(100) data.append( [w.getparams(), w.readframes(w.getnframes())] ) #print w.readframes(1) #data1 = [ord(character) for character in data1] #print data1 #data1 = ''.join(chr(character) for character in data1) w.close() print data output = wave.open(outfile, 'wb') output.setparams(data[0][0]) output.writeframes(data[0][1]) output.writeframes(data[1][1]) output.writeframes(data[2][1]) output.close()

  Read the article

• how can add an extra select in this query?

  - by BulgedSnowy

  i've three tables related. images: id | filename | filesize | ... nodes: image_id | tag_id tags: id | name And i'm using this query to search images containing x tags SELECT images.* FROM images INNER JOIN nodes ON images.id = nodes.image_id WHERE tag_id IN (SELECT tags.id FROM tags WHERE tags.tag IN ("tag1","tag2")) GROUP BY images.id HAVING COUNT(*)= 2 The problem is that i need to retrieve also all images contained by the retrieved image, and i need this in the same query. This the actual query wich search retrieve all tags contained by the image: SELECT tag FROM nodes JOIN tags ON nodes.tag_id = tags.id WHERE image_id = images.id and nodes.private = images.private ORDER BY tag How can i mix this two to have only one query?

  Read the article

• Performing LINQ Self Join

  - by senfo

  I'm not getting the results I want for a query I'm writing in LINQ using the following: var config = (from ic in repository.Fetch() join oc in repository.Fetch() on ic.Slot equals oc.Slot where ic.Description == "Input" && oc.Description == "Output" select new Config { InputOid = ic.Oid, OutputOid = oc.Oid }).Distinct(); The following SQL returns 53 rows (which is correct), but the above LINQ returns 96 rows: SELECT DISTINCT ic.Oid AS InputOid, oc.Oid AS OutputOid FROM dbo.Config AS ic INNER JOIN dbo.Config AS oc ON ic.Slot = oc.Slot WHERE ic.Description = 'Input' AND oc.Description = 'Output' How would I replicate the above SQL in a LINQ query? Update: I don't think it matters, but I'm working with LINQ to Entities 4.0.

  Read the article

• Hibernate - join un related objects

  - by CuriousMind

  I have a requirement, wherein I have to join two unrelated objects using Hibernate HQL. Here is the sample POJO class class Product{ int product_id; String name; String description; } and Class Item{ int item_id; String name; String description; int quantity; int product_id; //Note that there is no composed product object. } Now I want to perform a query like select * from Product p left outer join Item i on p.product_id = i.item_id I want a multidimensional array as an output of this query so that I can have separate instances of Product and Item, instead of one composed in another. Is there any way to do this in Hibernate?

  Read the article

• Translate SQL to LINQ query - group/join/filter

  - by Paddy

  I have the following query: SELECT S.[FlowOrder], S.[DESCRIPTION], COUNT(I.ID) FROM WorkFlowStatus AS S INNER JOIN Item AS I ON S.ID = I.StatusID WHERE I.Installation = '1' GROUP BY S.[Description], S.[FlowOrder] ORDER BY S.[FlowOrder] Which gives me the count of an item, grouped by a foreign key to workflow, outputting the descriptive name from my FK table. I've go this far with the LINQ query (using LINQ-to-SQL) in the background: var items = from s in _entities.WorkflowStatus join i in _entities.Items on s.ID equals i.StatusId into Statuses orderby s.FlowOrder select new {s.Description, ItemCount = Statuses.Count() }; How do I get the where clause in the SQL into this LINQ query?

  Read the article

• Using LEFT JOIN to only selection one joined row

  - by Alex

  I'm trying to LEFT JOIN two tables, to get a list of all rows from TABLE_1 and ONE related row from TABLE_2. I have tried LEFT JOIN and GROUP BY c_id, however I wan't the related row from TABLE_2 to be sorted by isHeadOffice DESC. Here are some sample tables TABLE 1 c_id Name ---------------- 1 USA 2 Canada 3 England 4 France 5 Spain TABLE2 o_id c_id Office isHeadOffice ------------------------------------------------ 1 1 New York 1 2 1 Washington 0 3 1 Boston 0 4 2 Toronto 0 5 3 London 0 6 3 Manchester 1 7 4 Paris 1 8 4 Lyon 0 So what I am trying to get from this would be something like: RESULTS c_id Name Office ---------------------------- 1 USA New York 2 Canada Toronto 3 England Manchester 4 France Paris 5 Spain NULL I'm using PHP & MySQL. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Problem using mysql joins

  - by mariomario

  I'm fairly new to mysql and I have no idea if I'm heading in the right direction but I'm having trouble with a mysql query. I basically have a table of users id name ---- -------- 1 user1 2 user2 3 user3 4 user4 as well as a table of user attributes id userid attribute ---- ----- ------ 1 1 5 2 1 6 3 2 5 4 3 4 I want to be able to select users that have both the attribute 5 and the attribute 6, so in this case I want to return id name ---- -------- 1 user1 I tried using a join like this. SELECT u.id, u.name FROM users u LEFT JOIN attributes a ON (a.userid = u.id) WHERE a.attribute = 5 AND a.attribute = 6 But obviously that won't work, what is the best way of doing this?

  Read the article

• Linq to Entities (EF): How to get the value of a FK without doing the join

  - by Chu

  I'm using the Linq to Entities. I've got my main table, Employee setup with a field named vendorID. Vendor ID is a foreign key into the Vendors table. As it is right now, the Employee object does not directly expose the vendorID. Instead, I can only access it this way: var employee = (from e in context.Employees.Include("tbl_vendors") where e.employeeID = 1 select e).FirstOrDefault(); //this gets the vendor ID int vendorID = employee.tbl_vendors.vendorID; That is just fine and dandy, but it is extra work on the database because it is forcing a join where none is needed. Is there a way to get that key value without being forced to do a join to the tbl_vendors table?

  Read the article

• Compare two object lists with LINQ on specific property

  - by Niklas

  I have these two lists (where the Value in a SelectListItem is a bookingid): List<SelectListItem> selectedbookings; List<Booking> availableBookings; I need to find the ids from selectedBookings that are not in availableBookings. The LINQ join below will only get me the bookingids that are in availableBookings, and I'm not sure how to do it the other way around. != won't work since I'm comparing strings. results = ( from s in selectedbookings join a in availableBookings on s.bookingID.ToString() equals a.Value select s);

  Read the article

• MySQL customized join query using multiple tables

  - by itgeek

  I am searching one student from each class from one group. There are different class groups and every group has different classes and every class has multiple students. See below: Group1 --> Class1, Class2 etc Class1 --> GreenStudent1, GreenStudent2 etc Class2 --> RedStudent1, RedStudent2 etc ------------------------------------------------------ SELECT table1.id, table1.myname, table1.marks table2.studentid, table2.studentname FROM table1 INNER JOIN table3 ON table1.oldid = table3.id INNER JOIN table2 ON table2.studentid = table3.newid WHERE table1.classgroup = 'SCI79' GROUP BY table1.oldid ORDER BY table1.marks DESC There are different joins applied in the query. Above mentioned query giving me correct results but I need little modification in it. Current query returning me one student from each class. What I need? I need one student from each class but only that student who has MAXIMUM table1.marks So I should have one student from each class who has maximum number in their relevant classes. Can anyone suggest some solution or rewrite this query? Thanks :)

  Read the article

• Sql join, 2 tables, same fields

  - by Lobuno

  I have 2 tables. To simplify: Table 1, users: userId int, userName nvarchar(50) Table 2 , messages: msgId int, msgFrom int, msgTo int... msg1 and msg2, both contain userId. Now I want to get all messages, but instead of the msgFrom I want the user name. I know what to do here: select tabMessages.*, tabUsers.userName as Sender from tabMessages inner join tabUsers on msgFrom=userId where msgId = @someParameter; Everything works fine and dandy. The same to get the user name instead of msgTo. Now the problem is, how do I do to get BOTH fields in the same call? I want to get the table as msgId, msgFrom, msgTo, Sender, Recipient. I have tried as: select tabMessages.*, tabUsers.userName as Sender, tabUsers.userName as Recipient from tabMessages inner join tabUsers on msgFrom=userId and msgTo=userId where msgId = @someParameter; but that doesn't work. I'm using Ms sql2000 by the way.

  Read the article

• mysql syntax how to add a third table to $query

  - by IberoMedia

  I have code: $query = "SELECT a.*, c.name as categoryname, c.id as categoryid". " FROM #__table_one as a". " LEFT JOIN #__table_two c ON c.id = a.catid"; $query .= " WHERE a.published = 1" ." AND a.access <= {$aid}" ." AND a.trash = 0" ." AND c.published = 1" ." AND c.access <= {$aid}" ." AND c.trash = 0" ; I would like to add a third table ('__some_table') for the parts of the query where a.publish, a.access and a.trash. In other words, I want these fields to be retrieved from another table, not "#__table_one", but I do not know how to incorporate the #__some_table into the current query I imagine the JOIN command can help me, but I do not know how to code mysql Thank you,

  Read the article

• mysql query to concat information from 3 tables - getting incorrect result count

  - by iPfaffy

  I have 3 tables in my database. ab_contacts id first_name last_name addressbook_id ab_addressbooks name id co_comments id link_id comment I'd like to create a query that will let me select all the contacts and comments related to them in a given addressbook. To select all the people in a given addressbook, I can use: select count(*) from ab_contacts where addressbook_id = '50'; This returns 8152 people. However, when I run my query: select ab_contacts.first_name, ab_contacts.last_name, ab_contacts.email, ab_addressbooks.name, co_comments.comments from ab_contacts JOIN ab_addressbooks ON (ab_contacts.addressbook_id = ab_addressbooks.id) JOIN co_comments ON (ab_contacts.id = co_comments.link_id) WHERE ab_contacts.addressbook_id = '50';` the format works, but I only get 1045 results. I'm sure there is something I am missing, but I cannot figure it out. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Help with MySQL Query?

  - by Devyn

  I have two tables rooms and users. I want to get only rooms.room_id, users.user_name with user_id = 1. I can get the result of all users with following sql... select rooms.room_id, rooms.user_id, users.user_name from rooms LEFT JOIN users ON rooms.user_id = users.user_id When I do like this to filter the result with user_id = 1 ... I got error. select rooms.room_id, rooms.user_id, users.user_name from rooms where rooms.user_id = 1 LEFT JOIN users ON rooms.user_id = users.user_id What should I do?

  Read the article

• Pattern for unidirectional has_many join?

  - by Kris

  It occurred to me that if I have a has_many join, where the foreign model does not have a belongs_to, and so the join is one way, then I don't actually need a foreign key. We could have a column, category_ids, which stores a marshaled Array of IDs which we can pass to find. So here is an untested example: class page < AR def categories Category.find(self.category_ids) end def categories<<(category) # get id and append to category_ids save! end def category_ids @cat_ids ||= Marshal.load(read_attribute(:category_ids)) rescue [] end def category_ids=(ids) @cat_ids = ids write_attribute(:category_ids, ids) end end page.category_ids = [1,4,12,3] page.categories = Array of Category Is there accepted pattern for this already? Is it common or just not worth the effort?

  Read the article

• MYSQL - Adding result set A to result set B? Please see my example

  - by BlackberryFan

  I have two mysql tables. They are laid out in this manner: user_info id | emailContact _______________________ 1 | [email protected] 3 | [email protected] user_biz_info id | emailContact _________________________ 8 | [email protected] 9 | [email protected] What kind of join would I use to create a result set of information like this: id | emailContact ________________________________ 1 - [email protected] 3 - [email protected] 8 - [email protected] 9 - [email protected] I have tried the following: SELECT p.id, p.emailContact, b.id, b.emailContact FROM user_info p, user_business_info b But it seems that this is an incorrect approach. Would someone be able to suggest the correct approach in this or possibly point me in the direction of some tutorials that cover this type of mysql join, as this is what I assume is needed in this case. Thanks for your time in reading through my question!!

  Read the article

• How can I sum a group of sums? SQL-Sever 2008

  - by billynomates

  I have a query with a sum in it like this: SELECT Table1.ID, SUM(Table2.[Number1] + Table2.[Number2]) AS SumColumn FROM Table1 INNER JOIN Table3 ON Table1.ID = Table3.ID INNER JOIN Table2 ON Table3.ID = Table2.ID WHERE (Table2.[Something] = 'Whatever') GROUP BY Table1.ID, Table2.[Number1] , Table2.[Number2] and it gives me a table like this: ID SumColumn 67 1 67 4 70 2 70 6 70 3 70 6 80 5 97 1 97 3 How can I make it give me a table like this, where the SumColumn is summed, grouped by the ID column? ID SumColumn 67 5 70 17 80 5 97 4 I cannot GROUP BY SumColumn because I get an error (Invalid column name 'SumColumn'.) COALESCE doesn't work either. Thanks in advance. EDIT: Just grouping by the ID gives me an error: [Number1, Number2 and the other column names that I'm selecting] is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause.

  Read the article

• MySQL UPDATE WHERE IN for each listed value separately?

  - by Tom

  Hi, I've got the following type of SQL: UPDATE photo AS f LEFT JOIN car AS c ON f.car_id=c.car_id SET f.photo_status=1 , c.photo_count=c.photo_count+1 WHERE f.photo_id IN ($ids) Basically, two tables (car & photo) are related. The list in $ids contains unique photo ids, such as (34, 87, 98, 12). With the query, I'm setting the status of each photo in that list to "1" in the photo table and simultaneously incrementing the photo count in the car table for the car at hand. It works but there's one snag: Because the list can contain multiple photo ids that relate to the same car, the photo count only ever gets incremented once. If the list had 10 photos associated with the same car, photo_count would become 1 .... whereas I'd like to increment it to 10. Is there a way to make the incrementation occur for each photo individually through the join, as opposed to MySQL overthinking it for me? I hope the above makes sense. Thanks.

  Read the article

• How to join the results of two tables in django python

  - by user1787524

  I have two models class Weather(model.model): region = models.ForeignKey(Region) district = models.ForeignKey(District) temp_max = models.IntegerField(blank=True, null=True, verbose_name='Max temperature (C)') temp_min = models.IntegerField(blank=True, null=True, verbose_name='Min temperature (C)') and class Plan(model.model): name = tinymce_models.HTMLField(blank=True, null=True) region = models.ForeignKey(Region) district = models.ForeignKey(District) Provided for every region and district have unique row. I want to combine the result so that i can get all the columns of both tables These two Models are not related to each other. ' I need to make the join like join weather w on w.region = A.region and w.distric = A.district so that result contains all the columns in everyobject like obj.temp_max etc

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >