Search Results

Search found 31328 results on 1254 pages for 'sql join'.

Page 473/1254 | < Previous Page | 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480  | Next Page >

  • Best way to do one-to-many "JOIN" in CouchDB

    - by mit
    There are CouchDB documents that are list elements: { "type" : "el", "id" : "1", "content" : "first" } { "type" : "el", "id" : "2", "content" : "second" } { "type" : "el", "id" : "3", "content" : "third" } There is one document that defines the list: { "type" : "list", "elements" : ["2","1"] , "id" : "abc123" } As you can see the third element was deleted, it is no longer part of the list. So it must not be part of the result. Now I want a view that returns the content elements including the right order. The result could be: { "content" : ["second", "first"] } In this case the order of the elements is already as it should be. Another possible result: { "content" : [{"content" : "first", "order" : 2},{"content" : "second", "order" : 1}] } I started writing the map function: map = function (doc) { if (doc.type === 'el') { emit(doc.id, {"content" : doc.content}); //emit the id and the content exit; } if (doc.type === 'list') { for ( var i=0, l=doc.elements.length; i<l; ++i ){ emit(doc.elements[i], { "order" : i }); //emit the id and the order } } } This is as far as I can get. Can you correct my mistakes and write a reduce function? Remember that the third document must not be part of the result. Of course you can write a different map function also. But the structure of the documents (one definig element document and an entry document for each entry) cannot be changed.

    Read the article

  • Limit user in sql plus to a single record in a table.

    - by BFK
    I have one employee table...this table has 5 coloumns (empname, empgsm, empsal, empaddr, empdep)...it has 10 records. i've created 10 users equivelent to the empnames coloumn in the table. When a user logs in with his empname aka username & password, he will be able to see only his record from the table. eg.Smith is an employee, a user called smith was created. when this user is in session, and types "Select * from Employee_table" he only gets the record that belongs to him, where empname is smith. how do i do this using privileges? thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • How optimize queries with fully qualified names in t-sql?

    - by tomaszs
    Whe I call: select * from Database.dbo.Table where NAME = 'cat' It takes: 200 ms And when I change database to Database in Management Studio and call it without fully qualified name it's much faster: select * from Table where NAME = 'cat' It takes: 17 ms Is there any way to make fully qualified queries faster without changing database?

    Read the article

  • Why is selecting specified columns, and all, wrong in Oracle SQL?

    - by TomatoSandwich
    Say I have a select statement that goes.. select * from animals That gives a a query result of all the columns in the table. Now, if the 42nd column of the table animals is is_parent, and I want to return that in my results, just after gender, so I can see it more easily. But I also want all the other columns. select is_parent, * from animals This returns ORA-00936: missing expression. The same statement will work fine in Sybase, and I know that you need to add a table alias to the animals table to get it to work ( select is_parent, a.* from animals ani), but why must Oracle need a table alias to be able to work out the select?

    Read the article

  • Dynamic SQL Rows & Columns...cells require subsequent query. Best approach?

    - by Pyrrhonist
    I have the following tables below City --------- CityID StateID Name Description Reports --------- ReportID HeaderID FooterID Description I’m trying to generate a grid for use in a .Net control (Gridview, Listview…separate issue about which will be the ‘best’ one to use for my purposes) which will assign the reports as the columns and the cities as the rows. Which cities get displayed is based on the state selected, and is easy enough SELECT * FROM CITIES WHERE STATEID=@StateID However, the user is able to select which reports are being generated for each City (Demographics, Sales, Land Area, etc.). Further, the resultant cells (City * Report) is a sub-query on different tables based on the city selected and the report. Ie. Column Sales selected yields SELECT * FROM SALES WHERE CITYID=@CityID I’ve programmed a VERY inelegant solution using multiple queries and brute-forcing the grid to be created (line by line, row by row creation of data elements), but I’m positive there’s got to be a better way of accomplishing this…? Any / all suggestions appreciated here as the brute force approach I’ve gotten is slow and cumbersome…and this will have to be used often by the client, so I’m not sure it’ll be acceptable in it’s current implementation.

    Read the article

  • How can I get a list of modified records from a SQL Server database?

    - by Pixelfish
    I am currently in the process of revamping my company's management system to run a little more lean in terms of network traffic. Right now I'm trying to figure out an effective way to query only the records that have been modified (by any user) since the last time I asked. When the application starts it loads the job information and caches it locally like the following: SELECT * FROM jobs. I am writing out the date/time a record was modified ala UPDATE jobs SET Widgets=@Widgets, LastModified=GetDate() WHERE JobID=@JobID. When any user requests the list of jobs I query all records that have been modified since the last time I requested the list like the following: SELECT * FROM jobs WHERE LastModified>=@LastRequested and store the date/time of the request to pass in as @LastRequest when the user asks again. In theory this will return only the records that have been modified since the last request. The issue I'm running into is when the user's date/time is not quite in sync with the server's date/time and also of server load when querying an un-indexed date/time column. Is there a more effective system then querying date/time information?

    Read the article

  • How to insert a value based on lookup from another table [SQL]?

    - by Shaitan00
    I need to find a way to do an INSERT INTO table A but one of the values is something that comes from a lookup on table B, allow me to illustrate. I have the 2 following tables: Table A: A1: String A2: Integer value coming from table B A3: More Data Table B: B1: String B2: Integer Value Example row of A: {"Value", 101, MoreData} Example row of B: {"English", 101} Now, I know I need to INSERT the following into A {"Value2", "English", MoreData} but obviously that won't work because it is expecting an Integer in the second column not the word "English", so I need to do a lookup in Table B first. Something like this: INSERT INTO tableA (A1, A2, A3) VALUES ("Value2", SELECT B2 FROM tableB where B1="English", MoreData); Obviously this doesn't work as-is ... Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • How should I do this (business logic) in Sql Server? A constraint?

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, I wish to add some type of business logic constraint to a table, but not sure how / where. I have a table with the following fields. ID INTEGER IDENTITY HubId INTEGER CategoryId INTEGER IsFeatured BIT Foo NVARCHAR(200) etc. So what i wish is that you can only have one featured thingy, per articleId + hubId. eg. 1, 1, 1, 1, 'blah' -- Ok. 2, 1, 2, 1, 'more blah' -- Also Ok 3, 1, 1, 1, 'aaa' -- constraint error 4, 1, 1, 0, 'asdasdad' -- Ok. 5, 1, 1, 0, 'bbbb' -- Ok. etc. so the third row to be inserterd would fail because that hub AND category already have a featured thingy. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Oracle join issue

    - by acadia
    Hello, I have 3 tables and I am joining these 2 tables as follows: SELECT EMP.FNAME,EMP.LNAME,EMP.AGE,EMPD.TQ,EMPD.TA,CTY.CITY_NAME FROM EMPLOYEE EMP,EMPLOYEE_DETAIL EMPD, CITY CTY WHERE EMP.EMP_ID=EMPD.EMP_ID AND EMPD_CITY_ID=CTY.CITY_ID I want to display records even if City record is not in CITY table. For eg. if City_ID record for say 10 is not in City table but there is an employee detail record with City_id 10 it should display City_name as null instead of not displaying the record at all. Appreciate your help

    Read the article

  • Merging two arrays in PHP

    - by Industrial
    Hi everyone, I am trying to create a new array from two current arrays. Tried array_merge, but it will not give me what I want. $array1 is a list of keys that I pass to a function. $array2 holds the results from that function, but doesn't contain any non-available resuls for keys. So, I want to make sure that all requested keys comes out with 'null':ed values, as according to the shown $result array. It goes a little something like this: $array1 = array('item1', 'item2', 'item3', 'item4'); $array2 = array( 'item1' => 'value1', 'item2' => 'value2', 'item3' => 'value3' ); Here's the result I want: $result = array( 'item1' => 'value1', 'item2' => 'value2', 'item3' => 'value3', 'item4' => '' ); It can be done this way, but I don't think that it's a good solution - I really don't like to take the easy way out and suppress PHP errors by adding @:s in the code. This sample would obviously throw errors since 'item4' is not in $array2, based on the example. foreach ($keys as $k => $v){ @$array[$v] = $items[$v]; } So, what's the fastest (performance-wise) way to accomplish the same result?

    Read the article

  • Is there a standard SQL Table design for overriding 'big picture' default values with lower level de

    - by RichardHowells
    Here's an example. Suppose we are trying to calculate a service charge. Say sales in the USA attract a 10 dollar charge, sales in the UK attract a 20 dollar charge So far it's easy - we are starting to imagine a table that lists charges by country. Now lets assume that Alaska and Hawaii are treated as special cases they are both 15 dollars That suggests a table with states, Alaska and Hawaii are charged at 15, but presumably we need 48 (redundant) rows all saying 10. This gives us a maintainance problem, our user only wants to type 10 once NOT 48 times. It does not sit well with the UK either. The UK does not have states. Suppose we throw in another couple of cross cutting rules. If you order by phone there is a 10% supplement on the charge. If you order via the web there is a 10% discount. But for some reason best known to the owners of the business the web/phone supplement/discount are not applied in Hawaii. It seems to me that this is quite a common kind of problem and there is probably a well known arrangement of tables to store the data. Most cases get handled by broad brush answers, but there are some very detailed low level variations that give rise to a huge number of theoretical combinations, most of which are not used.

    Read the article

  • In SQL find the combination of rows whose sum add up to a specific amount (or amt in other table)

    - by SamH
    Table_1 D_ID Integer Deposit_amt integer Table_2 Total_ID Total_amt integer Is it possible to write a select statement to find all the rows in Table_1 whose Deposit_amt sum to the Total_amt in Table_2. There are multiple rows in both tables. Say the first row in Table_2 has a Total_amt=100. I would want to know that in Table_1 the rows with D_ID 2, 6, 12 summed = 100, the rows D_ID 2, 3, 42 summed = 100, etc. Help appreciated. Let me know if I need to clarify. I am asking this question as someone as part of their job has a list of transactions and a list of totals, she needs to find the possible list of transactions that could have created the total. I agree this sounds dangerous as finding a combination of transactions that sums to a total does not guarantee that they created the total. I wasn't aware it is an np-complete problem.

    Read the article

  • Grails many to many using a third 'join' class

    - by andy mccullough
    I read that a m:m relationship often means there is a third class that isn't yet required. So I have m:m on User and Project, and I created a third domain class, ProjectMembership The three domains are as follows (minimized for illustration purposes): User class User { String name static hasMany = [projectMemberships : ProjectMembership] } Project Membership class ProjectMembership { static constraints = { } static belongsTo = [user:User, project:Project] } Project: class Project { String name static hasMany = [projectMemberships : ProjectMembership] static constraints = { } } If I have the ID of the user, how can I get a list of Project objects that they are assigned to?

    Read the article

  • Why did the following linq to sql query generate a subquery?

    - by Xaisoft
    I did the following query: var list = from book in books where book.price > 50 select book; list = list.Take(50); I would expect the above to generate something like: SELECT top 50 id, title, price, author FROM Books WHERE price > 50 but it generates: SELECT [Limit1].[C1] as [C1] [Limit1].[id] as [Id], [Limit1].[title] as [title], [Limit1].[price] as [price], [Limit1].[author] FROM (SELECT TOP (50) [Extent1].[id] as as [Id], [Extent1].[title] as [title], [Extent1].[price] as [price], [Extent1].[author] as [author] FROM Books as [Extent1] WHERE [Extent1].[price] > 50 ) AS [Limit1] Why does the above linq query generate a subquery and where does the C1 come from?

    Read the article

  • Read and write .NET Objects in SQL Database without serialization.

    - by Mohit
    Hello, I have a small query. I need to create a Caching Service of my own that will write and read .NET Objects to and from the Database. Now, I have achieved that with the help of Binary Serialization. But the Problem is I need to deliberately marked my objects as [Serializable], which makes me think that what if someone will try to add an object which is not marked as [Serializable]. Thus, I need to find a way to read and write Objects to Database without Serialization. I have one thought too.. As we all know Session can store any object in it. Now, we can make sessions to be stored in the DB, outproc. What mechanism it uses to store these objects without serializing or deserializing. Any help will be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.B

    Read the article

  • How to coerce type of ActiveRecord attribute returned by :select phrase on joined table?

    - by tribalvibes
    Having trouble with AR 2.3.5, e.g.: users = User.all( :select => "u.id, c.user_id", :from => "users u, connections c", :conditions => ... ) Returns, e.g.: => [#<User id: 1000>] >> users.first.attributes => {"id"=>1000, "user_id"=>"1000"} Note that AR returns the id of the model searched as numeric but the selected user_id of the joined model as a String, although both are int(11) in the database schema. How could I better form this type of query to select columns of tables backing multiple models and retrieving their natural type rather than String ? Seems like AR is punting on this somewhere. How could I coerce the returned types at AR load time and not have to tack .to_i (etc.) onto every post-hoc access?

    Read the article

  • Can you use the same Enum in multiple entities in Linq-to-SQL?

    - by Mark
    In my persistence layer, I've declared a load of Enums to represent tables containing reference data (i.e. data never changes). In Linq2SQL, I am able to set the type of an entity property to an enum type and all is well, but as soon as I set a second entity's property to use the same enum type, the Code Generator (MSLinqToSQLGenerator) start generating an empty code file. I assume that MSLinqToSQLGenerator is quietly crashing. The question is why, and are there any work-arounds? Anyone else experienced this problem?

    Read the article

  • CakePHP 3-level-deep model associatons

    - by user357452
    Hi, I am relatively new to CakePHP, I am doing fine with the documentation, but I've been trying to find a way out to this problem for weeks and I don't seem to find the solution, I am sure it is easy and maybe even automagicaly doable, but I just don't know how to find it (maybe I don't know the jargon for these kind of things) My model structure is like this: <?php class Trip extends AppModel { var $belongsTo = array( 'User' => array( 'className' => 'User', 'foreignKey' => 'user_id' ), 'Start' => array( 'className' => 'Place', 'foreignKey' => 'start_id' ), 'End' => array( 'className' => 'Place', 'foreignKey' => 'end_id' ), 'Transport' => array( 'className' => 'Transport', 'foreignKey' => 'transport_id' ) ); } ?> <?php class Place extends AppModel { var $belongsTo = array( 'User' => array( 'className' => 'User', 'foreignKey' => 'user_id' ), 'Country' => array( 'className' => 'Country', 'foreignKey' => 'country_id' ), 'State' => array( 'className' => 'State', 'foreignKey' => 'state_id' ), 'City' => array( 'className' => 'City', 'foreignKey' => 'city_id' ) ); var $hasMany = array( 'PlaceStart' => array( 'className' => 'trip', 'foreignKey' => 'start_id', 'dependent' => false ), 'PlaceEnd' => array( 'className' => 'trip', 'foreignKey' => 'end_id', 'dependent' => false ) ); } ?> <?php class State extends AppModel { var $belongsTo = array( 'Country' => array( 'className' => 'Country', 'foreignKey' => 'country_id', 'conditions' => '', 'fields' => '', 'order' => '' ) ); var $hasMany = array( 'City' => array( 'className' => 'City', 'foreignKey' => 'city_id', 'dependent' => false ) ); } ?> ... and so forth with User, City, Country, and Transport Models. What I am trying to achieve is to get all the information of the whole tree when I search for a Trip. <?php class TripController extends AppController { function index() { debug($this->Trip->find('first')); } } Outputs Array ( [Trip] => Array ( [id] => 6 [created] => 2010-05-04 00:23:59 [user_id] => 4 [start_id] => 2 [end_id] => 1 [title] => My trip [transport_id] => 1 ) [User] => Array ( [id] => 4 [name] => John Doe [email] => [email protected] ) [Start] => Array ( [id] => 2 [user_id] => 4 [country_id] => 1 [state_id] => 1 [city_id] => 1 [direccion] => Lincoln Street ) [End] => Array ( [id] => 1 [user_id] => 4 [country_id] => 1 [state_id] => 1 [city_id] => 4 [address] => Fifth Avenue ) [Transport] => Array ( [id] => 1 [name] => car ) ) Here is the question: How do I get in one query all the information down the tree? I would like to have something like Array ( [Trip] => Array ( [id] => 6 [created] => 2010-05-04 00:23:59 [User] => Array ( [id] => 4 [name] => John Doe [email] => [email protected] ) [Start] => Array ( [id] => 2 [user_id] => 4 [Country] => Array ( [id] => 1 [name] = Spain ) [State] => Array ( [id] => 1 [name] = Barcelona ) [City] => Array ( [id] => 1 [name] = La Floresta ) [address] => Lincoln Street ) [End] => (same as Start) [title] => My trip [Transport] => Array ( [id] => 1 [name] => car ) ) ) Can CakePHP create this kind of data? Not only for $this->Model->find() but also for $this->paginate() as for example: // filter by start if(isset($this->passedArgs['start'])) { //debug('isset '.$this->passedArgs['start']); $start = $this->passedArgs['start']; $this->paginate['conditions'][] = array( 'OR' => array( 'Start.address LIKE' => "%$start%", 'Start.State.name LIKE' => "%$start%", 'Start.City.name LIKE' => "%$start%", 'Start.Country.name LIKE' => "%$start%" ) ); $this->data['Search']['start'] = $start; } It seems like a rough question but I am sure this is extensively done and documented, I'd really appreciate any help. Thanks Cheers Naoise

    Read the article

  • Oracle SQL: Multiple Subqueries Unioned Without Running Original Query Multiple Times.

    - by Bob
    So I've got a very large database, and need to work on a subset ~1% of the data to dump into an excel spreadsheet to make a graph. Ideally, I could select out the subset of data and then run multiple select queries on that, which are then UNION'ed together. Is this even possible? I can't seem to find anyone else trying to do this and would improve the performance of my current query quite a bit. Right now I have something like this: SELECT ( SELECT ( SELECT( long list of requirements ) UNION SELECT( slightly different long list of requirements ) ) ) and it would be nice if i could group the commonalities of the two long requirements and have simple differences between the two select statements being unioned.

    Read the article

  • Is it a problem if i query again and again to SQL Server 2005 and 2000?

    - by learner
    Window app i am constructing is for very low end machines (Celeron with max 128 RAM). From the following two approaches which one is the best (I don't want that application becomes memory hog for low end machines):- Approach One:- Query the database Select GUID from Table1 where DateTime <= @givendate which is returning me more than 300 thousands records (but only one field i.e. GUID - 300 thousands GUIDs). Now running a loop to achieve next process of this software based on GUID. Second Approach:- Query the database Select Top 1 GUID from Table1 where DateTime <= @givendate with top 1 again and again until all 300 thousands records done. It will return me only one GUID at a time, and I can do my next step of operation. What do you suggest which approach will use the less Memory Resources?? (Speed / performance is not the issue here).

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480  | Next Page >