Search Results

Search found 10101 results on 405 pages for 'temporary tables'.

Page 62/405 | < Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • How to map one class against multiple tables with SQLAlchemy?

    - by tote
    Lets say that I have a database structure with three tables that look like this: items - item_id - item_handle attributes - attribute_id - attribute_name item_attributes - item_attribute_id - item_id - attribute_id - attribute_value I would like to be able to do this in SQLAlchemy: item = Item('item1') item.foo = 'bar' session.add(item) session.commit() item1 = session.query(Item).filter_by(handle='item1').one() print item1.foo # => 'bar' I'm new to SQLAlchemy and I found this in the documentation (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/05/mappers.html#mapping-a-class-against-multiple-tables): j = join(items, item_attributes, items.c.item_id == item_attributes.c.item_id). \ join(attributes, item_attributes.c.attribute_id == attributes.c.attribute_id) mapper(Item, j, properties={ 'item_id': [items.c.item_id, item_attributes.c.item_id], 'attribute_id': [item_attributes.c.attribute_id, attributes.c.attribute_id], }) It only adds item_id and attribute_id to Item and its not possible to add attributes to Item object. Is what I'm trying to achieve possible with SQLAlchemy? Is there a better way to structure the database to get the same behaviour of "dynamic columns"?

    Read the article

  • What to do if 2 (or more) relationship tables would have the same name?

    - by primehunter326
    So I know the convention for naming M-M relationship tables in SQL is to have something like so: For tables User and Data the relationship table would be called UserData User_Data or something similar (from here) What happens then if you need to have multiple relationships between User and Data, representing each in its own table? I have a site I'm working on where I have two primary items and multiple independent M-M relationships between them. I know I could just use a single relationship table and have a field which determines the relationship type, but I'm not sure whether this is a good solution. Assuming I don't go that route, what naming convention should I follow to work around my original problem?

    Read the article

  • How to crosscheck two tables and insert relevant data into a new table in MYSQL?

    - by JackDamery
    I'm trying to crosscheck a row that exists in two tables using a MYSQL query in phpmyadmin and then if a userID is found in both tables, insert their userID and user name into another table. Here's my code: INSERT INTO userswithoutmeetings SELECT user.userID IF('user.userID'='meeting.userID'); I keep getting plagued by this error: 1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'IF('user.userID'='meeting.userID')' at line 3 Other statements I've tried have worked but not deposited the values in the table.

    Read the article

  • How to copy tables from one website to another with php?

    - by Lost_in_code
    I have 2 websites, lets say - example.com and example1.com example.com has a database fruits which has a table apple with 7000 records. I exported apple and tried to import it to example1.com but I'm always getting "MYSQL Server has gone away" error. I suspect this is due to some server side restriction. So, how can I copy the tables without having to contact the system admins? Is there a way to do this using PHP? I went through example of copying tables, but that was inside the same database. Both example.com and example1.com are on the same server.

    Read the article

  • mySQL Optimization Suggestions

    - by Brian Schroeter
    I'm trying to optimize our mySQL configuration for our large Magento website. The reason I believe that mySQL needs to be configured further is because New Relic has shown that our SELECT queries are taking a long time (20,000+ ms) in some categories. I ran MySQLTuner 1.3.0 and got the following results... (Disclaimer: I restarted mySQL earlier after tweaking some settings, and so the results here may not be 100% accurate): >> MySQLTuner 1.3.0 - Major Hayden <[email protected]> >> Bug reports, feature requests, and downloads at http://mysqltuner.com/ >> Run with '--help' for additional options and output filtering [OK] Currently running supported MySQL version 5.5.37-35.0 [OK] Operating on 64-bit architecture -------- Storage Engine Statistics ------------------------------------------- [--] Status: +ARCHIVE +BLACKHOLE +CSV -FEDERATED +InnoDB +MRG_MYISAM [--] Data in MyISAM tables: 7G (Tables: 332) [--] Data in InnoDB tables: 213G (Tables: 8714) [--] Data in PERFORMANCE_SCHEMA tables: 0B (Tables: 17) [--] Data in MEMORY tables: 0B (Tables: 353) [!!] Total fragmented tables: 5492 -------- Security Recommendations ------------------------------------------- [!!] User '@host5.server1.autopartsnetwork.com' has no password set. [!!] User '@localhost' has no password set. [!!] User 'root@%' has no password set. -------- Performance Metrics ------------------------------------------------- [--] Up for: 5h 3m 4s (5M q [317.443 qps], 42K conn, TX: 18B, RX: 2B) [--] Reads / Writes: 95% / 5% [--] Total buffers: 35.5G global + 184.5M per thread (1024 max threads) [!!] Maximum possible memory usage: 220.0G (174% of installed RAM) [OK] Slow queries: 0% (6K/5M) [OK] Highest usage of available connections: 5% (61/1024) [OK] Key buffer size / total MyISAM indexes: 512.0M/3.1G [OK] Key buffer hit rate: 100.0% (102M cached / 45K reads) [OK] Query cache efficiency: 66.9% (3M cached / 5M selects) [!!] Query cache prunes per day: 3486361 [OK] Sorts requiring temporary tables: 0% (0 temp sorts / 812K sorts) [!!] Joins performed without indexes: 1328 [OK] Temporary tables created on disk: 11% (126K on disk / 1M total) [OK] Thread cache hit rate: 99% (61 created / 42K connections) [!!] Table cache hit rate: 19% (9K open / 49K opened) [OK] Open file limit used: 2% (712/25K) [OK] Table locks acquired immediately: 100% (5M immediate / 5M locks) [!!] InnoDB buffer pool / data size: 32.0G/213.4G [OK] InnoDB log waits: 0 -------- Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------- General recommendations: Run OPTIMIZE TABLE to defragment tables for better performance MySQL started within last 24 hours - recommendations may be inaccurate Reduce your overall MySQL memory footprint for system stability Enable the slow query log to troubleshoot bad queries Increasing the query_cache size over 128M may reduce performance Adjust your join queries to always utilize indexes Increase table_cache gradually to avoid file descriptor limits Read this before increasing table_cache over 64: http://bit.ly/1mi7c4C Variables to adjust: *** MySQL's maximum memory usage is dangerously high *** *** Add RAM before increasing MySQL buffer variables *** query_cache_size (> 512M) [see warning above] join_buffer_size (> 128.0M, or always use indexes with joins) table_cache (> 12288) innodb_buffer_pool_size (>= 213G) My my.cnf configuration is as follows... [client] port = 3306 [mysqld_safe] nice = 0 [mysqld] tmpdir = /var/lib/mysql/tmp user = mysql port = 3306 skip-external-locking character-set-server = utf8 collation-server = utf8_general_ci event_scheduler = 0 key_buffer = 512M max_allowed_packet = 64M thread_stack = 512K thread_cache_size = 512 sort_buffer_size = 24M read_buffer_size = 8M read_rnd_buffer_size = 24M join_buffer_size = 128M # for some nightly processes client sessions set the join buffer to 8 GB auto-increment-increment = 1 auto-increment-offset = 1 myisam-recover = BACKUP max_connections = 1024 # max connect errors artificially high to support behaviors of NetScaler monitors max_connect_errors = 999999 concurrent_insert = 2 connect_timeout = 5 wait_timeout = 180 net_read_timeout = 120 net_write_timeout = 120 back_log = 128 # this table_open_cache might be too low because of MySQL bugs #16244691 and #65384) table_open_cache = 12288 tmp_table_size = 512M max_heap_table_size = 512M bulk_insert_buffer_size = 512M open-files-limit = 8192 open-files = 1024 query_cache_type = 1 # large query limit supports SOAP and REST API integrations query_cache_limit = 4M # larger than 512 MB query cache size is problematic; this is typically ~60% full query_cache_size = 512M # set to true on read slaves read_only = false slow_query_log_file = /var/log/mysql/slow.log slow_query_log = 0 long_query_time = 0.2 expire_logs_days = 10 max_binlog_size = 1024M binlog_cache_size = 32K sync_binlog = 0 # SSD RAID10 technically has a write capacity of 10000 IOPS innodb_io_capacity = 400 innodb_file_per_table innodb_table_locks = true innodb_lock_wait_timeout = 30 # These servers have 80 CPU threads; match 1:1 innodb_thread_concurrency = 48 innodb_commit_concurrency = 2 innodb_support_xa = true innodb_buffer_pool_size = 32G innodb_file_per_table innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 1 innodb_log_buffer_size = 2G skip-federated [mysqldump] quick quote-names single-transaction max_allowed_packet = 64M I have a monster of a server here to power our site because our catalog is very large (300,000 simple SKUs), and I'm just wondering if I'm missing anything that I can configure further. :-) Thanks!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >