Search Results

Search found 28052 results on 1123 pages for 't sql tuesday'.

Page 599/1123 | < Previous Page | 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606  | Next Page >

  • How to sort a gridview once a radio button is selected

    - by metashockwave
    I'm trying to sort records in the gridview right after a radio button is selected. My approach is with the dataview, but because the dataset variable doesn't survive a round trip to the server, I don't know how to make this happen. please help! Public Sub GetCustomers() db.RunProcedure("usp_customers_get_all") db.doSort(radList.SelectedValue) gvCustomers.DataSource = db.MyView End Sub Protected Sub radList_SelectedIndexChanged(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles radList.SelectedIndexChanged If radList.SelectedValue = 0 Then db.doSort(0) gvCustomers.DataSource = db.MyView End If If radList.SelectedValue = 1 Then db.doSort(1) gvCustomers.DataSource = db.MyView End If End Sub Public Sub doSort(ByVal strIn As Integer) If strIn = 0 Then MyView.Sort = "lastname, firstname" Else MyView.Sort = "username" End If End Sub Public Sub RunProcedure(ByVal strName As String) Dim objConnection As New SqlConnection(mstrConnection) Dim mdbDataAdapter As New SqlDataAdapter(strName, objConnection) Try mdbDataAdapter.SelectCommand.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure Me.mDataset.Clear() mdbDataAdapter.Fill(mDataset, "tblCustomers") MyView.Table = mDataset.Tables("tblCustomers") Catch ex As Exception Throw New Exception("stored procedure is " & strName.ToString & " error is " & ex.Message) End Try End Sub

    Read the article

  • Unique identifiers for users

    - by Christopher McCann
    If I have a table of a hundred users normally I would just set up an auto-increment userID column as the primary key. But if suddenly we have a million users or 5 million users then that becomes really difficult because I would want to start becoming more distributed in which case an auto-increment primary key would be useless as each node would be creating the same primary keys. Is the solution to this to use natural primary keys? I am having a real hard time thinking of a natural primary key for this bunch of users. The problem is they are all young people so they do not have national insurance numbers or any other unique identifier I can think of. I could create a multi-column primary key but there is still a chance, however miniscule of duplicates occurring. Does anyone know of a solution? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Union on two tables with a where clause in the one

    - by Lostdrifter
    Currently I have 2 tables, both of the tables have the same structure and are going to be used in a web application. the two tables are production and temp. The temp table contains one additional column called [signed up]. Currently I generate a single list using two columns that are found in each table (recno and name). Using these two fields I'm able to support my web application search function. Now what I need to do is support limiting the amount of items that can be used in the search on the second table. the reason for this is become once a person is "signed up" a similar record is created in the production table and will have its own recno. doing: Select recno, name from production UNION ALL Select recno, name from temp ...will show me everyone. I have tried: Select recno, name from production UNION ALL Select recno, name from temp WHERE signup <> 'Y' But this returns nothing? Can anyone help?

    Read the article

  • Concatenating rows from different tables into one field

    - by Markus
    Hi! In a project using a MSSQL 2005 Database we are required to log all data manipulating actions in a logging table. One field in that table is supposed to contain the row before it was changed. We have a lot of tables so I was trying to write a stored procedure that would gather up all the fields in one row of a table that was given to it, concatenate them somehow and then write a new log entry with that information. I already tried using FOR XML PATH and it worked, but the client doesn't like the XML notation, they want a csv field. Here's what I had with FOR XML PATH: DECLARE @foo varchar(max); SET @foo = (SELECT * FROM table WHERE id = 5775 FOR XML PATH('')); The values for "table", "id" and the actual id (here: 5775) would later be passed in via the call to the stored procedure. Is there any way to do this without getting XML notation and without knowing in advance which fields are going to be returned by the SELECT statement?

    Read the article

  • What are the types and inner workings of a query optimizer?

    - by Frank Developer
    As I understand it, most query optimizers are cost-based. Some can be influenced by hints like FIRST_ROWS(). Others are tailored for OLAP. Is it possible to know more detailed logic about how Informix IDS and SE's optimizers decide what's the best route for processing a query, other than SET EXPLAIN? Is there any documentation which illustrates the ranking of SELECT statements? I would imagine that "SELECT col FROM table WHERE ROWID = n" ranks 1st. What are the rest of them?.. If I'm not mistaking, Informix's ROWID is a SERIAL(INT) which allows for a max. of 2GB nrows, or maybe it uses INT9 for TB's nrows?.. However, I think Oracle uses HEX values for ROWID. Too bad ROWID can't be oftenly used, since a rows ROWID can change. So maybe ROWID is used by the optimizer as a counter? Perhaps, it could be used for implementing the query progress idea I mentioned in my "Begin viewing query results before query completes" question? For some reason, I feel it wouldn't be that difficult to report a query's progress while being processed, perhaps at the expense of some slight overhead, but it would be nice to know ahead of time: A "Google-like" estimate of how many rows meet a query's criteria, display it's progress every 100, 200, 500 or 1,000 rows, give users the ability to cancel it at anytime and start displaying the qualifying rows as they are being put into the current list, while it continues searching?.. This is just one example, perhaps we could think other neat/useful features, the ingridients are more or less there. Perhaps we could fine-tune each query with more granularity than currently available? OLTP queries tend to be mostly static and pre-defined. The "what-if's" are more OLAP, so let's try to add more control and intelligence to it? So, therefore, being able to more precisely control, not "hint-influence" a query is what's needed and therefore it would be necessary to know how the optimizers logic is programmed. We can then have Dynamic SELECT and other statements for specific situations! Maybe even tell IDS to read blocks of indexes nodes at-a-time instead of one-by-one, etc. etc.

    Read the article

  • Tables with no Primary Key

    - by Matt Hamilton
    I have several tables whose only unique data is a uniqueidentifier (a Guid) column. Because guids are non-sequential (and they're client-side generated so I can't use newsequentialid()), I have made a non-primary, non-clustered index on this ID field rather than giving the tables a clustered primary key. I'm wondering what the performance implications are for this approach. I've seen some people suggest that tables should have an auto-incrementing ("identity") int as a clustered primary key even if it doesn't have any meaning, as it means that the database engine itself can use that value to quickly look up a row instead of having to use a bookmark. My database is merge-replicated across a bunch of servers, so I've shied away from identity int columns as they're a bit hairy to get right in replication. What are your thoughts? Should tables have primary keys? Or is it ok to not have any clustered indexes if there are no sensible columns to index that way?

    Read the article

  • Converting delimited string to multiple values in mysql

    - by epo
    I have a mysql legacy table which contains an client identifier and a list of items, the latter as a comma-delimited string. E.g. "xyz001", "foo,bar,baz". This is legacy stuff and the user insists on being able to edit a comma delimited string. They now have a requirement for a report table with the above broken into separate rows, e.g. "xyz001", "foo" "xyz001", "bar" "xyz001", "baz" Breaking the string into substrings is easily doable and I have written a procedure to do this by creating a separate table, but that requires triggers to deal with deletes, updates and inserts. This query is required rarely (say once a month) but has to be absolutely up to date when it is run, so e.g. the overhead of triggers is not warranted and scheduled tasks to create the table might not be timely enough. Is there any way to write a function to return a table or a set so that I can join the identifier with the individual items on demand?

    Read the article

  • DELETE from two tables with one OUTPUT clause?

    - by lance
    This deletes the document from the Document table and outputs information about the deleted document into the FinishedDocument table. DELETE FROM Document OUTPUT Deleted.DocumentId , Deleted.DocumentDescription INTO FinishedDocument WHERE DocumentId = @DocumentId I need to delete the document not just from the Document table, but also from the DocumentBackup table. Meanwhile, I need to maintain insertion into FinishedDocument. Is all of this possible with only one statement? If not, is a second DELETE (against DocumentBackup), with all of it wrapped in a transaction, the way to go?

    Read the article

  • select rows with column that is not null?

    - by fayer
    by default i have one column in mysql table to be NULL. i want to select some rows but only if the field value in that column is not NULL. what is the correct way of typing it? $query = "SELECT * FROM names WHERE id = '$id' AND name != NULL"; is this correct?

    Read the article

  • How to make an entity out of a join table without primary key

    - by tputkonen
    I'm trying to generate JPA entities out of an existing database having an "interesting" design. Database has a table called UserSet, which can have links to several other UserSets. There is a one to many relation between UserSets and LinkedUserSets. LinkedUserSets also has one to one relation to UserSets. I tried to generate a JPA Entity out of the database structure using Dali JPA Tools. The resulting entity Linkeduserset misses @Id or @EmbeddedId annotation and thus failes to compile. As the resulting entity contains only two @JoinColumns (which cannot be marked as @Id), I have not so far found a way around this issue. Database structure can not be modified in any way. Is there a way to overcome this somehow? Relevant pars of create table statements: CREATE TABLE `LinkedUserSets` ( `UsrSetID` INT(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0' , `ChildID` INT(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0' , CONSTRAINT `fk_LinkedUserSets_UserSet1` FOREIGN KEY (`UsrSetID` ) REFERENCES `UserSet` (`UsrSetID` )); CREATE TABLE `UserSet` ( `UsrSetID` INT(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , PRIMARY KEY (`UsrSetID`), CONSTRAINT `fk_UserSet_LinkedUserSets1` FOREIGN KEY (`UsrSetID` ) REFERENCES `LinkedUserSets` (`ChildID` )); Generated entities: @Entity @Table(name="linkedusersets") public class Linkeduserset { //bi-directional many-to-one association to Userset @ManyToOne @JoinColumn(name="UsrSetID") private Userset userset1; //bi-directional one-to-one association to Userset @OneToOne @JoinColumn(name="ChildID") private Userset userset2; } @Entity @Table(name="userset") public class Userset { private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L; @Id @Column(name="UsrSetID") private int jngSetID; //bi-directional many-to-one association to Linkeduserset @OneToMany(mappedBy="userset1") private Set<Linkeduserset> linkedusersets; //bi-directional one-to-one association to Linkeduserset @OneToOne(mappedBy="userset2") private Linkeduserset linkeduserset; } Error message: Entity "Linkeduserset" has no Id or EmbeddedId

    Read the article

  • TooManyRowsAffectedException with encrypted triggers

    - by Jon Masters
    I'm using nHibernate to update 2 columns in a table that has 3 encrypted triggers on it. The triggers are not owned by me and I can not make changes to them, so unfortunately I can't SET NOCOUNT ON inside of them. Is there another way to get around the TooManyRowsAffectedException that is thrown on commit? Update 1 So far only way I've gotten around the issue is to step around the .Save routine with var query = session.CreateSQLQuery("update Orders set Notes = :Notes, Status = :Status where OrderId = :Order"); query.SetString("Notes", orderHeader.Notes); query.SetString("Status", orderHeader.OrderStatus); query.SetInt32("Order", orderHeader.OrderHeaderId); query.ExecuteUpdate(); It feels dirty and is not easily to extend, but it doesn't crater.

    Read the article

  • Best way to store sales tax information

    - by Seph
    When designing a stock management database system (sales / purchases) what would be the best way to store the various taxes and other such amounts? A few of the fields that could be saved are: Unit price excluding tax Unit price including tax Tax per item Total excluding tax (rounded to 2 decimals) Total including tax (rounded to 2 decimals) Total tax (rounded to 2 decimals) Currently the most reasonable solution so far is storing down (roughly) item, quantity, total excluding tax (rounded) and the total tax (rounded). Can anyone suggest some better way of storing this details for a generic system? Also, given the system needs to be robust, what should be done if there were multiple tax values (eg: state and city) which might need to be separated, in this case a separate table would be in order, but would it be considered excessive to just have a rowID and some taxID mapping to a totalTax column?

    Read the article

  • When is referential integrity not appropriate?

    - by Curtis Inderwiesche
    I understand the need to have referential integrity for limiting specific values on entry or possibly preventing them from removal upon a request of deletion. However, I am unclear as to a valid use case which would exclude this mechanism from always being used. I guess this would fall into several sub-questions: When is referential integrity not appropriate? Is it appropriate to have fields containing multiple and/or possibly incomplete subsets of a foreign key's list? Typically, should this be a schema structure design decision or an interface design decision? (Or possibly neither or both) Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • PIVOT / UNPIVOT IN SQL 2008

    - by Nev_Rahd
    Hello I got child / parent tables as below. MasterTable: MasterID, Description ChildTable ChildID, MasterID, Description. Using PIVOT / UNPIVOT how can i get result as below in single row. if (MasterID : 1 got x child records) MasterID, ChildID1, Description1, ChildID2, Description2....... ChildIDx, Descriptionx Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to make this sub-sub-query work?

    - by Josh Weissbock
    I am trying to do this in one query. I asked a similar question a few days ago but my personal requirements have changed. I have a game type website where users can attend "classes". There are three tables in my DB. I am using MySQL. I have four tables: hl_classes (int id, int professor, varchar class, text description) hl_classes_lessons (int id, int class_id, varchar lessonTitle, varchar lexiconLink, text lessonData) hl_classes_answers (int id, int lesson_id, int student, text submit_answer, int percent) hl_classes stores all of the classes on the website. The lessons are the individual lessons for each class. A class can have infinite lessons. Each lesson is available in a specific term. hl_classes_terms stores a list of all the terms and the current term has the field active = '1'. When a user submits their answers to a lesson it is stored in hl_classes_answers. A user can only answer each lesson once. Lessons have to be answered sequentially. All users attend all "classes". What I am trying to do is grab the next lesson for each user to do in each class. When the users start they are in term 1. When they complete all 10 lessons in each class they move on to term 2. When they finish lesson 20 for each class they move on to term 3. Let's say we know the term the user is in by the PHP variable $term. So this is my query I am currently trying to massage out but it doesn't work. Specifically because of the hC.id is unknown in the WHERE clause SELECT hC.id, hC.class, (SELECT MIN(output.id) as nextLessonID FROM ( SELECT id, class_id FROM hl_classes_lessons hL WHERE hL.class_id = hC.id ORDER BY hL.id LIMIT $term,10 ) as output WHERE output.id NOT IN (SELECT lesson_id FROM hl_classes_answers WHERE student = $USER_ID)) as nextLessonID FROM hl_classes hC My logic behind this query is first to For each class; select all of the lessons in the term the current user is in. From this sort out the lessons the user has already done and grab the MINIMUM id of the lessons yet to be done. This will be the lesson the user has to do. I hope I have made my question clear enough.

    Read the article

  • Group keywords by site

    - by Skudd
    I am finding a lot of useful help here today, and I really appreciate it. This should be the last one for the day: I have a list of the top 10 keywords per site, sorted by visits, by date. The records need to be sorted as follows (excuse the formatting): 2010-05 2010-04 site1.com keyword1 apples wine keyword1 visits 100 12 keyword2 oranges water keyword2 visits 99 10 site2.com keyword1 blueberry cornbread keyword1 visits 90 100 keyword2 squares biscuits keyword2 visits 80 99 Basically what I need to accomplish involves grouping, but I can't seem to figure it out. Am I heading down the right path, or is there another way to achieve this, or is it just impossible?

    Read the article

  • Should I include user_id in multiple tables?

    - by Drarok
    I'm at the planning stages of a multi-user application where each user will only have access their own data. There'll be a few tables that relate to each other, so I could use JOINs to ensure they're accessing only their data, but should I include user_id in each table? Would this be faster? It would certainly make some of the queries easier in the long run. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • LINQtoSQL Custom Constructor off Partial Class?

    - by sah302
    Hi all, I read this question here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/82409/is-there-a-way-to-override-the-empty-constructor-in-a-class-generated-by-linqtosq Typically my constructor would look like: public User(String username, String password, String email, DateTime birthday, Char gender) { this.Id = Guid.NewGuid(); this.DateCreated = this.DateModified = DateTime.Now; this.Username = username; this.Password = password; this.Email = email; this.Birthday = birthday; this.Gender = gender; } However, as read in that question, you want to use partial method OnCreated() instead to assign values and not overwrite the default constructor. Okay so I got this : partial void OnCreated() { this.Id = Guid.NewGuid(); this.DateCreated = this.DateModified = DateTime.Now; this.Username = username; this.Password = password; this.Email = email; this.Birthday = birthday; this.Gender = gender; } However, this gives me two errors: Partial Methods must be declared private. Partial Methods must have empty method bodies. Alright I change it to Private Sub OnCreated() to remove both of those errors. However I am still stuck with...how can I pass it values as I would with a normal custom constructor? Also I am doing this in VB (converted it since I know most know/prefer C#), so would that have an affect on this?

    Read the article

  • automatic id generation which is a primary key

    - by abhi
    in vb.net while entering a new entry i want to assign a record a unique id like in case of numeric i do this way Dim ItemID As Integer KAYAReqConn.Open() SQLCmd = New SqlCommand("SELECT ISNULL(MAX(ItemID),0) AS ItemID from MstItem", ReqConn) Dim dr As SqlDataReader dr = SQLCmd.ExecuteReader If dr.HasRows Then dr.Read() ItemID = dr("ItemID") + 1 End If dr.Close() in this case m using itemid as a unique id and the format is 1,2,3... and m finding out the max and assigning to a new record but how to assign if the previous id is of the a00001,a00002,a00003,a00004...so on. how i do i produce a unique id in this case

    Read the article

  • I'm trying to handle the updates on 2 related tables in one DetailsView using Jquery and Linq, and h

    - by Ben Reisner
    Given two related tables (reports, report_fields) where there can be many report_fields entries for each reports entry, I need to allow the user to enter new report_fields, delete existing report_fields, and re-arrange the order. Currently I am using a DetailsView to handle the editing of the reports. I added some logic to handle report_fields, and currently it allows you to succesfully re-arrange the order, but i'm a little stumped as to the best way to add new items, or delete existing items. The basic logic I have is that each report_fields is represented by a . It has a description as the text, and a field for each field in the report_fields table. I use JQuery Sortable to allow the user to re-arrange the LIs. Abbreviated Create Table Statements:(foreign key constraint ignored for brevity) create table report( id integer primary key identity, reportname varchar(250) ) create table report_fields( id integer primary key identity, reportID integer, keyname integer, keyvalue integer, field_order integer ) My abbreviated markup: <asp:DetailsView ...> ... <asp:TemplateField HeaderText="Fields"> <EditItemTemplate> <ul class="MySortable"> <asp:Repeater ID="Repeater1" runat="server" DataSource='<%# Eval("report_fields") %>'> <ItemTemplate> <li> <%# Eval("keyname") %>: <%# Eval("keyvalue") %> <input type="hidden" name="keyname[]" value='<%# Eval("keyname") %>' /> <input type="hidden" name="keyvalue[]" value='<%# Eval("keyvalue") %>' /> </li> </ItemTemplate> </asp:Repeater> </ul> </EditItemTemplate> </asp:TemplateField> </asp:DetailsView> <asp:LinqDataSource ID="LinqDataSource2" onupdating="LinqDataSource2_Updating" table=reports ... /> $(function() { $(".MySortable").sortable({ placeholder: 'MySortable-highlight' }).disableSelection(); }); Code Behind Class: public partial class Administration_AddEditReport protected void LinqDataSource2_Updating(object sender, LinqDataSourceUpdateEventArgs e) { report r = (report)e.NewObject; MyDataContext dc = new MyDataContext(); var fields = from f in dc.report_fields where f.reportID == r.id select f; dc.report_fields.DeleteAllOnSubmit(fields); NameValueCollection nvc = Request.Params; string[] keyname = nvc["keyname[]"].Split(','); string[] keyvalue = nvc["keyvalue[]"].Split(','); for (int i = 0; i < keyname.Length; i++) { report_field rf = new report_field(); rf.reportID = r.id; rf.keyname = keyname[i]; rf.keyvalue = keyvalue[i]; rf.field_order = i; dc.report_fields.InsertOnSubmit(rf); } dc.SubmitChanges(); } }

    Read the article

  • Using Linq2Sql to insert data into multiple tables using an auto incremented primary key

    - by Thomas
    I have a Customer table with a Primary key (int auto increment) and an Address table with a foreign key to the Customer table. I am trying to insert both rows into the database in one nice transaction. using (DatabaseDataContext db = new DatabaseDataContext()) { Customer newCustomer = new Customer() { Email = customer.Email }; Address b = new Address() { CustomerID = newCustomer.CustomerID, Address1 = billingAddress.Address1 }; db.Customers.InsertOnSubmit(newCustomer); db.Addresses.InsertOnSubmit(b); db.SubmitChanges(); } When I run this I was hoping that the Customer and Address table automatically had the correct keys in the database since the context knows this is an auto incremented key and will do two inserts with the right key in both tables. The only way I can get this to work would be to do SubmitChanges() on the Customer object first then create the address and do SubmitChanges() on that as well. This would create two roundtrips to the database and I would like to see if I can do this in one transaction. Is it possible? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Chain LINQ IQueryable, and end with Stored Procedure

    - by Alex
    I'm chaining search criteria in my application through IQueryable extension methods, e.g.: public static IQueryable<Fish> AtAge (this IQueryable<Fish> fish, Int32 age) { return fish.Where(f => f.Age == age); } However, I also have a full text search stored procedure: CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[Fishes_FullTextSearch] @searchtext nvarchar(4000), @limitcount int AS SELECT Fishes.* FROM Fishes INNER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(Fishes, *, @searchtext, @limitcount) AS KEY_TBL ON Fishes.Id = KEY_TBL.[KEY] ORDER BY KEY_TBL.[Rank] The stored procedure obviously doesn't return IQueryable, however, is it possible to somehow limit the result set for the stored procedure using IQueryable's? I'm envisioning something like .AtAge(5).AboveWeight(100).Fishes_FulltextSearch("abc"). In this case, the fulltext search should execute on a smaller subset of my Fishes table (narrowed by Age and Weight). Is something like this possible? Sample code?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606  | Next Page >