Search Results

Search found 8320 results on 333 pages for 'tables'.

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 52/333 | < Previous Page | 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  | Next Page >

  • Disable Foreign key constraint on all tables didn't work ?

    - by Space Cracker
    i try a lot of commands to disable tables constraints in my database to make truncate to all tables but still now it give me the same error Cannot truncate table '' because it is being referenced by a FOREIGN KEY constraint. i try EXEC sp_msforeachtable "ALTER TABLE ? NOCHECK CONSTRAINT all" EXEC sp_MSforeachtable "TRUNCATE TABLE ?" and i tried this for each table ALTER TABLE [Table Name] NOCHECK CONSTRAINT ALL truncate table [Table Name] ALTER TABLE [Table Name] CHECK CONSTRAINT ALL and every time i have the previous error message .. could any please help me to solve sucha a problem ?

    Read the article

  • Optimize date query for large child tables: GiST or GIN?

    - by Dave Jarvis
    Problem 72 child tables, each having a year index and a station index, are defined as follows: CREATE TABLE climate.measurement_12_013 ( -- Inherited from table climate.measurement_12_013: id bigint NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('climate.measurement_id_seq'::regclass), -- Inherited from table climate.measurement_12_013: station_id integer NOT NULL, -- Inherited from table climate.measurement_12_013: taken date NOT NULL, -- Inherited from table climate.measurement_12_013: amount numeric(8,2) NOT NULL, -- Inherited from table climate.measurement_12_013: category_id smallint NOT NULL, -- Inherited from table climate.measurement_12_013: flag character varying(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT ' '::character varying, CONSTRAINT measurement_12_013_category_id_check CHECK (category_id = 7), CONSTRAINT measurement_12_013_taken_check CHECK (date_part('month'::text, taken)::integer = 12) ) INHERITS (climate.measurement) CREATE INDEX measurement_12_013_s_idx ON climate.measurement_12_013 USING btree (station_id); CREATE INDEX measurement_12_013_y_idx ON climate.measurement_12_013 USING btree (date_part('year'::text, taken)); (Foreign key constraints to be added later.) The following query runs abysmally slow due to a full table scan: SELECT count(1) AS measurements, avg(m.amount) AS amount FROM climate.measurement m WHERE m.station_id IN ( SELECT s.id FROM climate.station s, climate.city c WHERE -- For one city ... -- c.id = 5182 AND -- Where stations are within an elevation range ... -- s.elevation BETWEEN 0 AND 3000 AND 6371.009 * SQRT( POW(RADIANS(c.latitude_decimal - s.latitude_decimal), 2) + (COS(RADIANS(c.latitude_decimal + s.latitude_decimal) / 2) * POW(RADIANS(c.longitude_decimal - s.longitude_decimal), 2)) ) <= 50 ) AND -- -- Begin extracting the data from the database. -- -- The data before 1900 is shaky; insufficient after 2009. -- extract( YEAR FROM m.taken ) BETWEEN 1900 AND 2009 AND -- Whittled down by category ... -- m.category_id = 1 AND m.taken BETWEEN -- Start date. (extract( YEAR FROM m.taken )||'-01-01')::date AND -- End date. Calculated by checking to see if the end date wraps -- into the next year. If it does, then add 1 to the current year. -- (cast(extract( YEAR FROM m.taken ) + greatest( -1 * sign( (extract( YEAR FROM m.taken )||'-12-31')::date - (extract( YEAR FROM m.taken )||'-01-01')::date ), 0 ) AS text)||'-12-31')::date GROUP BY extract( YEAR FROM m.taken ) The sluggishness comes from this part of the query: m.taken BETWEEN /* Start date. */ (extract( YEAR FROM m.taken )||'-01-01')::date AND /* End date. Calculated by checking to see if the end date wraps into the next year. If it does, then add 1 to the current year. */ (cast(extract( YEAR FROM m.taken ) + greatest( -1 * sign( (extract( YEAR FROM m.taken )||'-12-31')::date - (extract( YEAR FROM m.taken )||'-01-01')::date ), 0 ) AS text)||'-12-31')::date The HashAggregate from the plan shows a cost of 10006220141.11, which is, I suspect, on the astronomically huge side. There is a full table scan on the measurement table (itself having neither data nor indexes) being performed. The table aggregates 237 million rows from its child tables. Question What is the proper way to index the dates to avoid full table scans? Options I have considered: GIN GiST Rewrite the WHERE clause Separate year_taken, month_taken, and day_taken columns to the tables What are your thoughts? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • [PHP] building html tables from query data... faster?

    - by Andrew Heath
    With my limited experience/knowledge I am using the following structure to generate HTML tables on the fly from MySQL queries: $c = 0; $t = count($results); $table = '<table>'; while ($c < $t) { $table .= "<tr><td>$results[0]</td><td>$results[1]</td> (etc etc) </tr>"; ++$c; } $table .= '</table>'; this works, obviously. But for tables with 300+ rows there is a noticeable delay in pageload while the script builds the table. Currently the maximum results list is only about 1,100 rows, and the wait isn't long, but there's clearly a wait. Are there other methods for outputting an HTML table that are faster than my WHILE loop? (PHP only please...)

    Read the article

  • How can I build my SQL query from these tables?

    - by vee
    Hi All, I'm thinking of building query from these 2 tables (on SQL Server 2008). I have 2 tables as shown below: Table 1 MemberId . MemberName . Percentage . Amount1 00000001 AAA 1.0 100 00000002 BBB 1.2 800 00000003 ZZZ 1.0 700 Table 2 MemberId . MemberName . Percentage . Amount2 00000002 BBB 1.5 500 00000002 BBB 1.6 100 00000002 BBB 1.6 150 The result I want is MemberId . MemberName . Percentage . Amount . NettAmount 00000001 AAA 1.0 100 100 00000002 BBB 1.2 800 50 <-- 800-(500+100+150) 00000002 BBB 1.5 500 500 00000002 BBB 1.6 650 650 00000003 ZZZ 1.0 700 700 50 comes from 800 in Table1 minus sum of Amount2 in table2 for MemberID=00000002 Plz someone help me to build the query to reach this result. Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Building html tables from query data... faster?

    - by Andrew Heath
    With my limited experience/knowledge I am using the following structure to generate HTML tables on the fly from MySQL queries: $c = 0; $t = count($results); $table = '<table>'; while ($c < $t) { $table .= "<tr><td>$results[0]</td><td>$results[1]</td> (etc etc) </tr>"; ++$c; } $table .= '</table>'; this works, obviously. But for tables with 300+ rows there is a noticeable delay in pageload while the script builds the table. Currently the maximum results list is only about 1,100 rows, and the wait isn't long, but there's clearly a wait. Are there other methods for outputting an HTML table that are faster than my WHILE loop? (PHP only please...)

    Read the article

  • Possible to use Tables of same type in Linq to SQL?

    - by Schneider
    Lets say I've got an object model, where I have many collections of the same type. For example something like class StockMarketData { List<SummaryData> WeeklySummary; List<SummaryData> MonthlySummary; } class SummaryData { DateTime DateTime {get; set;} double Value {get; set;} } Those lists will map onto database tables. If you actually use L2S to generate a model from the database you will get something like: class StockMarketData { List<WeeklySummaryData> WeeklySummary; List<MonthlySummaryData> MonthlySummary; } Even though WeeklySummaryData and MonthlySummaryData have the same shape. Is it possible for Linq to SQL to create tables from a database of summary data, but get each table to contain the same type (such as shown in the top example).

    Read the article

  • How do I select differing rows in two MySQL tables with the same structure?

    - by chiborg
    I have two tables, A and B, that have the same structure (about 30+ fields). Is there a short, elegant way to join these tables and only select rows where one or more columns differ? I could certainly write some script that creates the query with all the column names but maybe there is an SQL-only solution. To put it another way: Is there a short substitute to this: SELECT * FROM table_a a JOIN table_b b ON a.pkey=b.pkey WHERE a.col1 != b.col2 OR a.col2 != b.col2 OR a.col3 != b.col3 # .. repeat for 30 columns

    Read the article

  • Postgesql select from 2 tables. Joins?

    - by Daniel
    I have 2 tables that look like this: Table "public.phone_lists" Column | Type | Modifiers ----------+-------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------- id | integer | not null default nextval(('"phone_lists_id_seq"'::text)::regclass) list_id | integer | not null sequence | integer | not null phone | character varying | name | character varying | and Table "public.email_lists" Column | Type | Modifiers ---------+-------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------- id | integer | not null default nextval(('"email_lists_id_seq"'::text)::regclass) list_id | integer | not null email | character varying | I'm trying to get the list_id, phone, and emails out of the tables in one table. I'm looking for an output like: list_id | phone | email ---------+-------------+-------------------------------- 0 | | [email protected] 0 | | [email protected] 0 | | [email protected] 0 | | [email protected] 0 | | [email protected] 1 | 15555555555 | 1 | 15555551806 | 1 | 15555555508 | 1 | 15055555506 | 1 | 15055555558 | 1 | | [email protected] 1 | | [email protected] I've come up with select pl.list_id, pl.phone, el.email from phone_lists as pl left join email_lists as el using (list_id); but thats not quite right. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Can I create many tables according to the same entity?

    - by jacob
    What I want to do is that I want to make the many tables dinamically which are the same entity structures. And then I want to refer to the dinamically created tables according to the table name. What I understood from hibernate reference is that I can only create only one table and it should be matched exactly with entity. So I can't find any solution to my problem. If you know any relevent open source related to my problem or any tip or web site, let me know. Thanks allways

    Read the article

  • How do I delete all tables in a database using SqlCommand?

    - by mafutrct
    Unlike the other posts about the task "delete all tables", this question is specifically about using SqlCommand to access the database. A coworker is facing the problem that no matter how it attempts it, he can't delete all tables from a database via SqlCommand. He states that he can't perform such action as long as there is an active connection - the connection by the SqlCommand itself. I believe this should be possible and easy, but I don't have much of a clue about databases so I came here to ask. It would be awesome if you could provide a short code example in C# (or any .NET language, for that matter). If you require additional information, just leave a comment.

    Read the article

  • Greasemonkey failing to GM_setValue()

    - by HonoredMule
    I have a Greasemonkey script that uses a Javascript object to maintain some stored objects. It covers quite a large volume of information, but substantially less than it successfully stored and retrieved prior to encountering my problem. One value refuses to save, and I can not for the life of me determine why. The following problem code: Works for other larger objects being maintained. Is presently handling a smaller total amount of data than previously worked. Is not colliding with any function or other object definitions. Can (optionally) successfully save the problem storage key as "{}" during code startup. this.save = function(table) { var tables = this.tables; if(table) tables = [table]; for(i in tables) { logger.log(this[tables[i]]); logger.log(JSON.stringify(this[tables[i]])); GM_setValue(tables[i] + "_" + this.user, JSON.stringify(this[tables[i]])); logger.log(tables[i] + "_" + this.user + " updated"); logger.log(GM_getValue(tables[i] + "_" + this.user)); } } The problem is consistently reproducible and the logging statments produce the following output in Firebug: Object { 54,10 = Object } // Expansion shows complete contents as expected, but there is one oddity--Firebug highlights the array keys in purple instead of the usual black for anonymous objects. {"54,10":{"x":54,"y":10,"name":"Lucky Pheasant"}} // The correctly parsed string. bookmarks_HonoredMule saved undefined I have tried altering the format of the object keys, to no effect. Further narrowing down the issue is that this particular value is successfully saved as an empty object ("{}") during code initialization, but skipping that also does not help. Reloading the page confirms that saving of the nonempty object truly failed. Any idea what could cause this behavior? I've thoroughly explored the possibility of hitting size constraints, but it doesn't appear that can be the problem--as previously mentioned, I've already reduced storage usage. Other larger objects save still, and the total number of objects, which was not high already, has further been reduced by an amount greater than the quantity of data I'm attempting to store here.

    Read the article

  • How to verify if two tables have exactly the same data?

    - by SiLent SoNG
    Basically we have one table (original table) and it is backed up into another table (backup table); thus the two tables have exactly the same schema. At the beginning both tables (original table and backup table) contains exactly the same set of data. After sometime for some reason I need to verify whether dataset in the original table has changed or not. In order to do this I have to compare the dataset in the original table against the backup table. Let's say the original table has the following schema: `create table LemmasMapping ( lemma1 int, lemma2 int, index ix_lemma1 using btree (lemma1), index ix_lemma2 using btree (lemma2) )` How could I achieve the dataset comparision? Update: the table does not have a primary key. It simply stores mappings between two ids.

    Read the article

  • Does INNER JOIN performance depends on order of tables?

    - by Kartic
    A question suddenly came to my mind while I was tuning one stored procedure. Let me ask it - I have two tables, table1 and table2. table1 contains huge data and table2 contains less data. Is there performance-wise any difference between these two queries(I am changing order of the tables)? Query1: SELECT t1.col1, t2.col2 FROM table1 t1 INNER JOIN table2 t2 ON t1.col1=t2.col2 Query2: SELECT t1.col1, t2.col2 FROM table2 t2 INNER JOIN table1 t1 ON t1.col1=t2.col2 We are using Microsoft SQL server 2005.

    Read the article

  • History tables pros, cons and gotchas - using triggers, sproc or at application level.

    - by Nathan W
    I am currently playing around with the idea of having history tables for some of my tables in my database. Basically I have the main table and a copy of that table with a modified date and an action column to store what action was preformed eg Update,Delete and Insert. So far I can think of three different places that you can do the history table work. Triggers on the main table for update, insert and delete. (Database) Stored procedures. (Database) Application layer. (Application) My main question is, what are the pros, cons and gotchas of doing the work in each of these layers. One advantage I can think of by using the triggers way is that integrity is always maintained no matter what program is implmentated on top of the database.

    Read the article

  • Should I Split Tables Relevant to X Module Into Different DB? Mysql

    - by Michael Robinson
    I've inherited a rather large and somewhat messy codebase, and have been tasked with making it faster, less noodly and generally better. Currently we use one big database to hold all data for all aspects of the site. As we need to plan for significant growth in the future, I'm considering splitting tables relevant to specific sections of the site into different databases, so if/when one gets too large for one server I can more easily migrate some user data to different mysql servers while retaining overall integrity. I would still need to use joins on some tables across the new databases. Is this a normal thing to do? Would I incur a performance hit because of this?

    Read the article

  • Mapping tables from an existing database to an object -- is Hibernate suited?

    - by Bernhard V
    Hello! I've got some tables in an existing database and I want to map them to a Java object. Actually it's one table that contains the main information an some other tables that reference to such a table entry with a foreign key. I don't want to store objects in the database, I only want to read from it. The program should not be allowed to apply any changes to the underlying database. Currently I read from the database with 5 JDBC sql queries and set the results then on an object. I'm now looking for a less code intensive way. Another goal is the learning aspect. Is Hibernate suitable for this task, or is there another ORM framework that better fits my requirement?

    Read the article

  • T-SQL - Is there a (free) way to compare data in two tables?

    - by RPM1984
    Okay so i have table a and table b. (SQL Server 2008) Both tables have the exact same schema. For the purposes of this question, consider table a = my local dev table, table b = the live table. I need to create a SQL script (containing UPDATE/DELETE/INSERT statements) that will update table b to be the same as table a. This script will then be deployed to the live database. Any free tools out there that can do this, or better yet a way i can do it myself? I'm thinking i probably need to do some type of a join on all the fields in the tables, then generate dynamic sql based on that. Anyone have any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Select from multiple tables in Rails - Has Many "articles" through [table_1, table_2]?

    - by viatropos
    I'm in a situation where I need to get all articles that are tied to a User through 2 tables: article_access: gives users privilege to see an article article_favorites: of public articles, users have favorited these So in ActiveRecord you might have this: class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :article_access_tokens has_many :article_favorites def articles unless @articles ids = article_access_tokens.all(:select => "article_id").map(&:article_id) + article_favorites.all(:select => "article_id").map(&:article_id) @articles = Article.send(:scoped, :conditions => {:id => ids.uniq}) end @articles end end That gives me basically an articles association which reads from two separate tables. Question is though, what's the right way to do this? Can I somehow make 1 SQL SELECT call to do this?

    Read the article

  • One on One table relation - is it harmful to keep relation in both tables?

    - by EBAGHAKI
    I have 2 tables that their rows have one on one relation.. For you to understand the situation, suppose there is one table with user informations and there is another table that contains a very specific informations and each user can only link to one these specific kind of informations ( suppose second table as characters ) And that character can only assign to the user who grabs it, Is it against the rules of designing clean databases to hold the relation key in both tables? User Table: user_id, name, age, character_id Character Table: character_id, shape, user_id I have to do it for performance, how do you think about it?

    Read the article

  • is there a limit of merge tables with Mysql ?

    - by sysko
    I'm working on a database with mysql 5.0 for an open source project it's used to stored sentences in specific languages and their translations in other languages I used to have a big table "sentences" and "sentences_translations" (use to join sentences to sentences) table but has we have now near one million entries, this begin to be a bit slow, moreover, most of request are made using a "where lang =" so I've decided to create a table by language sentences_LANGUAGECODE and sentences_translation_LANGSOURCE_LANGTARGET and to create merge table like this sentences_ENG_OTHERS which merge sentences_ENG_ARA sentences_ENG_DEU etc... when we want to have the translations in all languages of an english sentence sentences_OTHERS_ENG when we want to have only the english translations of some sentences I've created a script to create all these tables (they're around 31 languages so more than 60 merge table), I've tested, that works really great a request which use to take 160ms now take only 30 :) but I discover that all my merge table after the 15th use to have "NULL" as type of storage engine instead of MRG_MYISAM, and if delete one, then I can create an others, using FLUSH table between each creation also allow me to create more merge tables so is this a limitation from mysql ? can we override it ? thanks for your answers

    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 | 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  | Next Page >