Search Results

Search found 2957 results on 119 pages for 'gridview sorting'.

Page 53/119 | < Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >

  • Disable a control inside a gridview

    - by saeed talaee
    Hi i want to disable link-bottoms control in a grid view with the condition of a special value . for example if the count for a row become 0 ,the link bottom for that row should be invisible . what should i do? where should i write the code? here is cod that i write in row command grid view but it works only of i push the link bottom!! but i want to apply this cod to my page before loading. please guide me int idx = Convert.ToInt32(e.CommandArgument); idx = idx - (GridView1.PageSize * GridView1.PageIndex); int ID = (int)GridView1.DataKeys[idx].Value; string connStr = ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["dbconn"].ConnectionString; SqlConnection sqlconn = new SqlConnection(connStr); SqlCommand sqlcmd = new SqlCommand(); sqlcmd = new SqlCommand("SELECT count(ID) FROM ReviwerArticle where ArticleID=@ArticleID", sqlconn); sqlcmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@ArticleID", ID); sqlconn.Open(); int count = ((int)sqlcmd.ExecuteScalar()); sqlconn.Close(); if (count == 0) { ((LinkButton)GridView1.Rows[idx].Cells[0].FindControl("LinkButton4") as LinkButton).Visible = false; }

    Read the article

  • Sorting a Singly Linked List With Pointers

    - by Mark Simson
    I am trying to sort a singly linked list using bubble sort by manipulating ONLY the pointers, no keys. The following gets stuck in the for loop and loops infinitely. I don't understand why this is. Can anybody explain to me why the end of the list is not being found? Node* sort_list(Node* head) { Node * temp; Node * curr; for(bool didSwap = true; didSwap; ) { didSwap = false; for(curr = head; curr->next != NULL; curr = curr->next) { if(curr->key > curr->next->key) { temp = curr; curr = curr->next; curr->next = temp; didSwap = true; } cout << curr->next->key << endl; } } return head; } If I change the code so that the keys (data) are swapped, then the function works properly but for some reason I am not able make it work by manipulating only pointers.

    Read the article

  • Sorting by value with ORDER BY?

    - by Kevin
    For clarification, are you able to use MySQL this way to sort? ORDER BY CompanyID = XXX DESC What I am trying to do is use one sql query to sort everything where X = Y, in this case, where CompanyID = XXX. All values where CompanyID is not XXX should come after all the results where CompanyID = XXX. I don't want to limit my query but I do want to sort a particular company above other listings.

    Read the article

  • RadGrid nestedview sort makes nestedview disappear?

    - by lance
    When I click on the header of my detail table, it disappears entirely, leaving empty white space in the browser where it used to be. The Ajax postback caused by my clicking on the header does fire FooGridNeedDataSource and FooGridItemCommand, but I've used the debugger to skip the code inside those handlers (after clicking the header of the column I'm trying to sort, in the detail table), and I still get the same behavior. I'm hoping someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong? The MasterTableView sorts just fine (my real markup enables that with AllowSorting="true" on MasterTableView). <telerik:RadGrid ID="FooGrid" runat="server" AutoGenerateColumns="false" OnNeedDataSource="FooGridNeedDataSource" OnItemCommand="FooGridItemCommand" > <MasterTableView ClientDataKeyNames="FooData" DataKeyNames="FooData"> <Columns> <telerik:GridBoundColumn DataField="FooData" HeaderText="Foo"></telerik:GridBoundColumn> </Columns> <DetailTables> <telerik:GridTableView AllowSorting="true"> <Columns> <telerik:GridBoundColumn DataField="FooDetailData" HeaderText="Foo Detail" ></telerik:GridBoundColumn> </Columns> </telerik:GridTableView> </DetailTables> </MasterTableView> </telerik:RadGrid>

    Read the article

  • Disk Search / Sort Algorithm

    - by AlgoMan
    Given a Range of numbers say 1 to 10,000, Input is in random order. Constraint: At any point only 1000 numbers can be loaded to memory. Assumption: Assuming unique numbers. I propose the following efficient , "When-Required-sort Algorithm". We write the numbers into files which are designated to hold particular range of numbers. For example, File1 will have 0 - 999 , File2 will have 1000 - 1999 and so on in random order. If a particular number which is say "2535" is being searched for then we know that the number is in the file3 (Binary search over range to find the file). Then file3 is loaded to memory and sorted using say Quick sort (which is optimized to add insertion sort when the array size is small ) and then we search the number in this sorted array using Binary search. And when search is done we write back the sorted file. So in long run all the numbers will be sorted. Please comment on this proposal.

    Read the article

  • How is counting sort a stable sort?

    - by eSKay
    Suppose my input is (a,b and c to distinguish between equal keys) 1 6a 8 3 6b 0 6c 4 My counting sort will save as (discarding the a,b and c info!!) 0(1) 1(1) 3(1) 4(1) 6(3) 8(1) which will give me the result 0 1 3 4 6 6 6 8 So, how is this stable sort? I am not sure how it is "maintaining the relative order of records with equal keys." Please explain.

    Read the article

  • How to sort an NSMutableArray List of objects in alphabetical order.

    - by Madan Mohan
    Hi guys, I have an object with different values that is name,nameid, lifebeging,lifeEndiging .... etc, for loop { Search *Obj=[artistslist objectAtIndex:i];// here i will get name, ids, other value for each objcet } 0 obj.name= //string values1 get from parser 1 obj.name= //string values1 2 obj.name= //string values1 3 obj.name= //string values1 4 obj.name= //string values1 I am getting values in the artistList then i need to sort only by name not other feilds when i use this below statement [artistsList sortUsingSelector:@selector(NSOrderedAscending:)]; i am getting exception here ,it is not working.

    Read the article

  • Indexing vs. no indexing when inserting records

    - by jbu
    I have a few questions about whether or not it would be best to not use indexing. BACKGROUND: My records have a timestamp attribute, and the records will be inserted in order of their timestamps (i.e., inserted chronologically). QUESTIONS: If I DON'T use indexing is it typical for the database to insert the records in the order that they were inserted? If answer to #1 is yes, when I do a "SELECT .. WHERE timestamp X" type query will the database be efficient at it, or will it have to go through every single record since it isn't indexed? I would assume if there were no index, the database would not "know" that the records were inserted in sorted order and could not, therefore, make use of sorted property of the database. I assume a clustered index would be best for these types of records & their inserts. Please let me know what you guys think. Thanks, jbu

    Read the article

  • Working out global tab order algorithmically?

    - by Mrgreen
    We have a proprietry system where we can configure fields on indiviual forms. However these fields have a global tab order (we cannot specify for a specific form). We have a bunch of forms (35 in total) which share a lot of different fields. Each form has a specific tab/edit order that needs to be configured. Example: Form 1 has fields A,B,C,D in that order. Form 2 has fields E,F,G,A in that order. Form 3 has fields E,B,H,I in that order. The global tab orders would be E,F,G,A,B,C,D,H,I Notice how A needs to come before B yet after G. Is there any easy way to work this out using the tab order lists for each form? I need to merge this tab order information into a single global tab order list. I have over 200 fields in total and it is near impossible to do by hand.

    Read the article

  • JAVA: Sort ArrayList<ArrayList<Integer>> on multiple columns

    - by Bob
    First, I did do my homework searching before posting here. My requirement seems to be slightly different compared to questions posted out there. I have a matrix like ArrayList<ArrayList<Integer>> in the following form | id1 | id2 | score | |-----|-----|-------| | 1 | 3 | 95% | | 1 | 2 | 100% | | 1 | 4 | 85% | | 1 | 5 | 95% | | 2 | 10 | 80% | | 2 | 15 | 99% | I want to sort the matrix column-wise (first using score, then the id1). I already have the id1 in a sorted manner. That means I also need to sort all records with the same id1 first by using score, second by the id2. The reason for doing this is to create a ranking of the id2 in each id1. The result for the above example would be: | q_id | d_id | rank | score | |------|------|------|-------| | 1 | 2 | 1 | 100% | | 1 | 3 | 2 | 95% | | 1 | 5 | 3 | 95% | | 1 | 4 | 4 | 85% | | 2 | 15 | 1 | 99% | | 2 | 10 | 2 | 80% | How can I achieve this in Java using some built-in methods of collections?

    Read the article

  • C# .NET: Ascending comparison of a SortedDictionary?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm want a IDictionary<float, foo> that returns the larges values of the key first. private IDictionary<float, foo> layers = new SortedDictionary<float, foo>(new AscendingComparer<float>()); class AscendingComparer<T> : IComparer<T> where T : IComparable<T> { public int Compare(T x, T y) { return -y.CompareTo(x); } } However, this returns values in order of the smallest first. I feel like I'm making a stupid mistake here. Just to see what would happen, I removed the - sign from the comparator: public int Compare(T x, T y) { return y.CompareTo(x); } But I got the same result. This reinforces my intuition that I'm making a stupid error.

    Read the article

  • Sort List C# in arbitrary order

    - by Jasper
    I have a C# List I.E. List<Food> x = new List<Food> () ; This list is populated with this class Public class Food { public string id { get; set; } public string idUser { get; set; } public string idType { get; set; } //idType could be Fruit , Meat , Vegetable , Candy public string location { get; set; } } Now i have this unsorted List<Food> list ; which has I.E. 15 elements. There are 8 Vegetable Types , 3 Fruit Types , 1 Meat Types , 1 Candy Types I would sort this so that to have a list ordered in this way : 1° : Food.idType Fruit 2° : Food.idType Vegetables 3° : Food.idType Meat 4° : Food.idType Candy 5° : Food.idType Fruit 6° : Food.idType Vegetables 7° : Food.idType Fruit //Becouse there isnt more Meat so i insert the //next one which is Candy but also this type is empty //so i start from begin : Fruit 8° : Food.idType Vegetables 9° : Food.idType Vegetables // For the same reason of 7° 10 ° Food.idType Vegetables ...... .... .... 15 : Food.idType Vegetables I cant find a rule to do this. Is there a linq or List.Sort instruction which help me to order the list in this way? Update i changed the return value of idType and now return int type instead string so 1=Vegetable , 2=Fruit , 3=Candy 4=Meat

    Read the article

  • PHP splitting arrays into groups based on one field's value

    - by Dan
    I have an array containing arrays of names and other details, in alphabetical order. Each array includes the first letter associated with the name. Array ( [0] => Array ( [0] => a [1] => Alanis Morissette ) [1] => Array ( [0] => a [1] => Alesha Dixon ) [2] => Array ( [0] => a [1] => Alexandra Burke ) [3] => Array ( [0] => b [1] => Britney Spears ) [4] => Array ( [0] => b [1] => Bryan Adams ) ) I'd like to display them grouped by that first initial, eg: A - Alanis Morissette Alesha Dixon Alexandra Burke B - Britney Spears Bryan Adams etc... Is this at all possible?

    Read the article

  • access following entry in a form_for, and switch a value between two entry of my DB

    - by Sylario
    I am displaying a list of articles. I sort my articles by the param order, and i want, when displaying the list of article to be able to "move" them up or down. In php i do everything with a for browsing my array of results and inside the for i go to the next index to find where i am in the list, and with wich other article i must swap my order. I can do that in the script displaying the edit page and then in the script executing the update. In rails i have only my form_for in my erb. How can i : Know if my entry is the last one or the first one(display only V for the first, ^ for the last and V^ for the rest) Update my DB entry by switching the order value between the article that i want to lower, raise, and the one he is taking the place.

    Read the article

  • JQuery tablesorter problem

    - by Don
    Hi, I'm having a couple of problems with the JQuery tablesorter plugin. If you click on a column header, it should sort the data by this column, but there are a couple of problems: The rows are not properly sorted (1, 1, 2183, 236) The total row is included in the sort Regarding (2), I can't easily move the total row to a table footer, because the HTML is generated by the displaytag tag library over which I have limited control. Regarding (1), I don't understand why the sort doesn't work as I've used exactly the same JavaScript shown in the simplest example in the tablesorter tutorials. In fact, there's only a single line of JS code, which is: <body onload="jQuery('#communityStats').tablesorter();"> Thanks in advance, Don

    Read the article

  • Array Unique in two dimentional array in PHP

    - by Kaiser
    Hi I have an array that looks like this : Array ( [0] => Array ( [x] => 01 [y] => 244 ) [1] => Array ( [x] => 02 [y] => 244 ) [2] => Array ( [x] => 03 [y] => 244 ) [3] => Array ( [x] => 04 [y] => 243 ) [4] => Array ( [x] => 05 [y] => 243 ) [5] => Array ( [x] => 05 [y] => 244 ) [6] => Array ( [x] => 06 [y] => 242 ) [7] => Array ( [x] => 06 [y] => 243 ) [8] => Array ( [x] => 07 [y] => 243 ) [9] => Array ( [x] => 08 [y] => 243 ) [10] => Array ( [x] => 09 [y] => 242 ) [11] => Array ( [x] => 10 [y] => 244 ) [12] => Array ( [x] => 12 [y] => 243 ) [13] => Array ( [x] => 13 [y] => 243 ) [14] => Array ( [x] => 13 [y] => 243 ) [15] => Array ( [x] => 15 [y] => 243 ) ) x represent days and y values of a certain variable. I would like to display an array of unique days x ( last element ) and values y pragmatically. for example day 6 I have two y values but I want to display only the last one ( 243 ). Thanks for help

    Read the article

  • Join 2 children tables with a parent tables without duplicated

    - by user1847866
    Problem I have 3 tables: People, Phones and Emails. Each person has an UNIQUE ID, and each person can have multiple numbers or multiple emails. Simplified it looks like this: +---------+----------+ | ID | Name | +---------+----------+ | 5000003 | Amy | | 5000004 | George | | 5000005 | John | | 5000008 | Steven | | 8000009 | Ashley | +---------+----------+ +---------+-----------------+ | ID | Number | +---------+-----------------+ | 5000005 | 5551234 | | 5000005 | 5154324 | | 5000008 | 2487312 | | 8000009 | 7134584 | | 5000008 | 8451384 | +---------+-----------------+ +---------+------------------------------+ | ID | Email | +---------+------------------------------+ | 5000005 | [email protected] | | 5000005 | [email protected] | | 5000008 | [email protected] | | 5000008 | [email protected] | | 5000008 | [email protected] | | 8000009 | [email protected] | | 5000004 | [email protected] | +---------+------------------------------+ I am trying to joining them together without duplicates. It works great, when I try to join only Emails with People or only Phones with People. SELECT People.Name, People.ID, Phones.Number FROM People LEFT OUTER JOIN Phones ON People.ID=Phones.ID ORDER BY Name, ID, Number; +----------+---------+-----------------+ | Name | ID | Number | +----------+---------+-----------------+ | Steven | 5000008 | 8451384 | | Steven | 5000008 | 24887312 | | John | 5000005 | 5551234 | | John | 5000005 | 5154324 | | George | 5000004 | NULL | | Ashley | 8000009 | 7134584 | | Amy | 5000003 | NULL | +----------+---------+-----------------+ SELECT People.Name, People.ID, Emails.Email FROM People LEFT OUTER JOIN Emails ON People.ID=Emails.ID ORDER BY Name, ID, Email; +----------+---------+------------------------------+ | Name | ID | Email | +----------+---------+------------------------------+ | Steven | 5000008 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | [email protected] | | George | 5000004 | [email protected] | | Ashley | 8000009 | [email protected] | | Amy | 5000003 | NULL | +----------+---------+------------------------------+ However, when I try to join Emails and Phones on People - I get this: SELECT People.Name, People.ID, Phones.Number, Emails.Email FROM People LEFT OUTER JOIN Phones ON People.ID = Phones.ID LEFT OUTER JOIN Emails ON People.ID = Emails.ID ORDER BY Name, ID, Number, Email; +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ | Name | ID | Number | Email | +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ | Steven | 5000008 | 8451384 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | 8451384 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | 8451384 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | 24887312 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | 24887312 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | 24887312 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | 5551234 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | 5551234 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | 5154324 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | 5154324 | [email protected] | | George | 5000004 | NULL | [email protected] | | Ashley | 8000009 | 7134584 | [email protected] | | Amy | 5000003 | NULL | NULL | +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ What happens is - if a Person has 2 numbers, all his emails are shown twice (They can not be sorted! which means they can not be removed by @last) What I want: Bottom line, playing with the @last, I want to end up with somethig like this, but @last won't work if I don't arrange ORDER columns in the righ way - and this seems like a big problem..Orderin the email column. Because seen from the example above: Steven has 2 phone number and 3 emails. The JOIN Emails with Numbers happens with each email - thus duplicated values that can not be sorted (SORT BY does not work on them). **THIS IS WHAT I WANT** +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ | Name | ID | Number | Email | +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ | Steven | 5000008 | 8451384 | [email protected] | | | | 24887312 | [email protected] | | | | | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | 5551234 | [email protected] | | | | 5154324 | [email protected] | | George | 5000004 | NULL | [email protected] | | Ashley | 8000009 | 7134584 | [email protected] | | Amy | 5000003 | NULL | NULL | +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ Now I'm told that it's best to keep emails and number in separated tables because one can have many emails. So if it's such a common thing to do, what isn't there a simple solution? I'd be happy with a PHP Solution aswell. What I know how to do by now that satisfies it, but is not as pretty. If I do it with GROUP_CONTACT I geat a satisfactory result, but it doesn't look as pretty: I can't put a "Email type = work" next to it. SELECT People.Ime, GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT Phones.Number), GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT Emails.Email) FROM People LEFT OUTER JOIN Phones ON People.ID=Phones.ID LEFT OUTER JOIN Emails ON People.ID=Emails.ID GROUP BY Name; +----------+----------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Name | GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT Phones.Number) | GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT Emails.Email) | +----------+----------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Steven | 8451384,24887312 | [email protected],[email protected],[email protected] | | John | 5551234,5154324 | [email protected],[email protected] | | George | NULL | [email protected] | | Ashley | 7134584 | [email protected] | | Amy | NULL | NULL | +----------+----------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

    Read the article

  • Array Unique in two dimensional array in PHP

    - by Kaiser
    Hi I have an array that looks like this : Array ( [0] => Array ( [x] => 01 [y] => 244 ) [1] => Array ( [x] => 02 [y] => 244 ) [2] => Array ( [x] => 03 [y] => 244 ) [3] => Array ( [x] => 04 [y] => 243 ) [4] => Array ( [x] => 05 [y] => 243 ) [5] => Array ( [x] => 05 [y] => 244 ) [6] => Array ( [x] => 06 [y] => 242 ) [7] => Array ( [x] => 06 [y] => 243 ) [8] => Array ( [x] => 07 [y] => 243 ) [9] => Array ( [x] => 08 [y] => 243 ) [10] => Array ( [x] => 09 [y] => 242 ) [11] => Array ( [x] => 10 [y] => 244 ) [12] => Array ( [x] => 12 [y] => 243 ) [13] => Array ( [x] => 13 [y] => 243 ) [14] => Array ( [x] => 13 [y] => 243 ) [15] => Array ( [x] => 15 [y] => 243 ) ) x represent days and y values of a certain variable. I would like to display an array of unique days x ( last element ) and values y pragmatically. for example day 6 I have two y values but I want to display only the last one ( 243 ). Thanks for help

    Read the article

  • How to get MAX value of a version-number (varchar) column in T-SQL

    - by Ogre Psalm33
    I have a table defined like this: Column: Version Message Type: varchar(20) varchar(100) ---------------------------------- Row 1: 2.2.6 Message 1 Row 2: 2.2.7 Message 2 Row 3: 2.2.12 Message 3 Row 4: 2.3.9 Message 4 Row 5: 2.3.15 Message 5 I want to write a T-Sql query that will get message for the MAX version number, where the "Version" column represents a software version number. I.e., 2.2.12 is greater than 2.2.7, and 2.3.15 is greater than 2.3.9, etc. Unfortunately, I can't think of an easy way to do that without using CHARINDEX or some complicated other split-like logic. Running this query: SELECT MAX(Version) FROM my_table will yield the erroneous result: 2.3.9 When it should really be 2.3.15. Any bright ideas that don't get too complex?

    Read the article

  • Bucket sort for integers

    - by rafael
    Could anybody help me with bucket sort algorithm for integers ? It's often mistake when people say they have this algorithm, but this is counting sort ! Maybe it works similar, but it is something different. I hope you will help mi find the right way, 'cause now I have no idea (Cormen's book and Wikipedia are not so helpful). Thanks in advance for all your respones.

    Read the article

  • Time complexity for Search and Insert operation in sorted and unsorted arrays that includes duplicat

    - by iecut
    1-)For sorted array I have used Binary Search. We know that the worst case complexity for SEARCH operation in sorted array is O(lg N), if we use Binary Search, where N are the number of items in an array. What is the worst case complexity for the search operation in the array that includes duplicate values, using binary search?? Will it be the be the same O(lg N)?? Please correct me if I am wrong!! Also what is the worst case for INSERT operation in sorted array using binary search?? My guess is O(N).... is that right?? 2-) For unsorted array I have used Linear search. Now we have an unsorted array that also accepts duplicate element/values. What are the best worst case complexity for both SEARCH and INSERT operation. I think that we can use linear search that will give us O(N) worst case time for both search and delete operations. Can we do better than this for unsorted array and does the complexity changes if we accepts duplicates in the array.

    Read the article

  • sort associative array in awk - help?

    - by Richard
    Hi all, I have an associative array in awk that gets populated like this... chr_count[$3]++ When I try to print my chr_counts I use this: for (i in chr_count) { print i,":",chr_count[i]; } But not surprisingly, the order of i is not sorted in any way. Is there an easy way to iterate over the sorted "keys" of chr_count?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >