Search Results

Search found 36186 results on 1448 pages for 'sql 11'.

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 488/1448 | < Previous Page | 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495  | Next Page >

  • Sql Server 2000 Stored Procedure Prevents Parallelism or something?

    - by user187305
    I have a huge disgusting stored procedure that wasn't slow a couple months ago, but now is. I barely know what this thing does and I am in no way interested in rewriting it. I do know that if I take the body of the stored procedure and then declare/set the values of the parameters and run it in query analyzer that it runs more than 20x faster. From the internet, I've read that this is probably due to a bad cached query plan. So, I've tried running the sp with "WITH RECOMPILE" after the EXEC and I've also tried putting the "WITH RECOMPLE" inside the sp, but neither of those helped even a little bit. When I look at the execution plan of the sp vs the query, the biggest difference is that the sp has "Parallelism" operations all over the place and the query doesn't have any. Can this be the cause of the difference in speeds? Thank you, any ideas would be great... I'm stuck.

    Read the article

  • How to query by recent date and value in SQL?

    - by wsb3383
    I have a table with three columns: patient_id, obs_date, and weight_val. patient_id stores patient identification #, weight_val stores a weight value, and obs_date stores the date when the weight reading was taken. So, a patient can have many different weight readings at different dates. How do you write a query for: select all patients whose last weight reading is 120?

    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

  • SQL grouping query question; evaluating a group of rows based on the value of one field.

    - by user324575
    I've got table vendorparts that lists all my parts and their vendor(s). Parts with multiple vendors have multiple records in this table. I'm trying to write a query that only returns the partid, and vendor of parts that do not have a default vendor assigned. Partid Vendor Defaultflag 1 A 1 2 B 0 2 C 0 3 D 0 3 E 0 3 F 1 4 G 0 I would like to return the following: Partid Vendor 2 A 2 B 4 G I'm obviously having issues with partid 3 and getting the query to see it as having a default vendor assigned.

    Read the article

  • Why would SQL be very slow when doing updates?

    - by ooo
    Suddenly doing updates into a few tables have gotten 10 times slower than they used to be. What are some good recommendations to determine root cause and optimization? Could it be that indexing certain columns are causing updates to be slow? Any other recommendations? I guess more important than guesses would be help on the process of identifying the root cause or metrics around performance. Is there anything in Fluent NHibernate that you can use to help identify the root cause of performance issues?

    Read the article

  • SQL -- How is DISTINCT so fast without an index?

    - by Jonathan
    Hi, I have a database with a table called 'links' with 600 million rows in it in SQLite. There are 2 columns in the database - a "src" column and a "dest" column. At present there are no indices. There are a fair number of common values between src and dest, but also a fair number of duplicated rows. The first thing I'm trying to do is remove all the duplicate rows, and then perform some additional processing on the results, however I've been encountering some weird issues. Firstly, SELECT * FROM links WHERE src=434923 AND dest=5010182. Now this returns one result fairly quickly and then takes quite a long time to run as I assume it's performing a tablescan on the rest of the 600m rows. However, if I do SELECT DISTINCT * FROM links, then it immediately starts returning rows really quickly. The question is: how is this possible?? Surely for each row, the row must be compared against all of the other rows in the table, but this would require a tablescan of the remaining rows in the table which SHOULD takes ages! Any ideas why SELECT DISTINCT is so much quicker than a standard SELECT?

    Read the article

  • What constitutes explicit creation of entities in LINQ to SQL? What elegant "solutions" are there to

    - by Marcelo Zabani
    Hi SO, I've been having problems with the rather famous "Explicit construction of entity type '##' in query is not allowed." error. Now, for what I understand, this exists because if explicit construction of these objects were allowed, tracking changes to the database would be very complicated. So I ask: What constitutes the explicit creation of these objects? In other terms: Why can I do this: Product foo = new Product(); foo.productName = "Something"; But can't do this: var bar = (from item in myDataContext.Products select new Product { productName = item.productName }).ToList(); I think that when running the LINQ query, some kind of association is made between the objects selected and the table rows retrieved (and this is why newing a Product in the first snippet of code is no problem at all, because no associations were made). I, however, would like to understand this a little more in depth (and this is my first question to you, that is: what is the difference from one snippet of code to another). Now, I've heard of a few ways to attack this problem: 1) The creation of a class that inherits the linq class (or one that has the same properties) 2) Selecting anonymous objects And this leads me to my second question: If you chose one of the the two approaches above, which one did you choose and why? What other problems did your approach introduce? Are there any other approaches?

    Read the article

  • How to group rows into two groups in sql?

    - by user1055638
    Lets say I have such a table: id|time|operation 1 2 read 2 5 write 3 3 read 4 7 read 5 2 save 6 1 open and now I would like to do two things: Divide all these records into two groups: 1) all rows where operation equals to "read" 2) all other rows. Sum the time in each group. So that my query would result only into two rows. What I got so far is: select sum(time) as total_time, operation group by operation ; Although that gives me many groups, depending on the number of distinct operations. How I could group them only into two categories? Cheers!

    Read the article

  • Querying a smalldatetime's date and time seperately in SQL server?

    - by Kylee
    Imagine a table that has two fields, a smalltimedate and an int and about 1000 rows of data. What I'm attempting to do in query is to find the average of the INT field for rows between 3/3/2010 - 3/13/2010 and only if the entry is between 6:00am - 11:00pm. I tried between '2010-03-03 06:00 AND 2010-03-13 23:00' However that only restricts that very beginning and end times. I could do this with a loop but I'm going to need to have the same query run over much larger date ranges and this will quickly eat server resources. Is there a way to query date and time seperately?

    Read the article

  • How to check if the sum of some records equals the difference between two other records in t-sql?

    - by Dan Appleyard
    I have a view that contains bank account activity. ACCOUNT BALANCE_ROW AMOUNT SORT_ORDER 111 1 0.00 1 111 0 10.00 2 111 0 -2.50 3 111 1 7.50 4 222 1 100.00 5 222 0 25.00 6 222 1 125.00 7 ACCOUNT = account number BALANCE_ROW = either starting or ending balance would be 1, otherwise 0 AMOUNT = the amount SORT_ORDER = simple order to return the records in the order of start balance, activity, and end balance I need to figure out a way to see if the sum of the non balance_row rows equal the difference between the ending balance and the starting balance. The result for each account (1 for yes, 0 for no) would be simply added to the resulting result set. Example: Account 111 had a starting balance of 0.00. There were two account activity records of 10.00 and -2.5. That resulted in the ending balance of 7.50. I've been playing around with temp tables, but I was not sure if there is a more efficient way of accomplishing this. Thanks for any input you may have!

    Read the article

  • SQL Server - how to determine if indexes aren't being used?

    - by rwmnau
    I have a high-demand transactional database that I think is over-indexed. Originally, it didn't have any indexes at all, so adding some for common processes made a huge difference. However, over time, we've created indexes to speed up individual queries, and some of the most popular tables have 10-15 different indexes on them, and in some cases, the indexes are only slightly different from each other, or are the same columns in a different order. Is there a straightforward way to watch database activity and tell if any indexes are not hit anymore, or what their usage percentage is? I'm concerned that indexes were created to speed up either a single daily/weekly query, or even a query that's not being run anymore, but the index still has to be kept up to date every time the data changes. In the case of the high-traffic tables, that's a dozen times/second, and I want to eliminate indexes that are weighing down data updates while providing only marginal improvement.

    Read the article

  • Can you define values in a SQL statement that you can join/union, but are not stored in a table outs

    - by Mervyn
    I'm trying to create a query and need to join against something that I can define values in without creating a table. I'll attempt to describe what I'm trying to do: table1 is joined on field a with table2 (titles for FK in table 1) - Table1 has values outside of what exists in table2 - I want to add an additional 'table' to be unioned with table2 and then joined with table 1 Thanks

    Read the article

  • SQL Reporting Services 2005 - Date field based on a user entered date?

    - by Pierce
    Hi, I have a report in report services 2005 that has two date fields. The problem is that if users run this for a large section of time it uses too much resources on our server. It is possible to only allow the end user to enter the start date and then the end date be auto populated/derived from this field (for example they enter the 1st of a month and this automatically change the end date to the last of a month.)

    Read the article

  • How do I remove database name from SQL Server generated script?

    - by bucha
    Anytime I use 'script table as' - 'Insert To' (or other command), the script generated automatically places the database name in the script. Such as: INSERT INTO [DatabaseName].[dbo].[tblToBeInserted] ... While not a huge problem to just delete it, it has slipped by a few times and the script breaks if run on a different server with a different database name but has the same schema. (Such as running on [DatabaseName.Test]) Is there an option I can change, or can I modify the output in any way to remove this?

    Read the article

  • which sql query is more efficient: select count(*) or select ... where key>value?

    - by davka
    I need to periodically update a local cache with new additions to some DB table. The table rows contain an auto-increment sequential number (SN) field. The cache keeps this number too, so basically I just need to fetch all rows with SN larger than the highest I already have. SELECT * FROM table where SN > <max_cached_SN> However, the majority of the attempts will bring no data (I just need to make sure that I have an absolutely up-to-date local copy). So I wander if this will be more efficient: count = SELECT count(*) from table; if (count > <cache_size>) // fetch new rows as above I suppose that selecting by an indexed numeric field is quite efficient, so I wander whether using count has benefit. On the other hand, this test/update will be done quite frequently and by many clients, so there is a motivation to optimize it.

    Read the article

  • Autohotkey to map F5 to Shift+Home and then F5 - eventually executing a single line query in sql server?

    - by puretechy
    Reading the syntax from autohotkey, I am trying to achieve this. But the first step of selecting the entire line is not working:- F5:: send {Shift Home} return I have tried few others too, but its not working. This is not sending Shift+Home combination on pressing F5 key. Please tell me what's wrong with this? Also if possible, what to do next?, as if I will write send {F5} I believe, it will recursively fire this script again and again..

    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 | 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495  | Next Page >