Search Results

Search found 27519 results on 1101 pages for 'sql learner'.

Page 648/1101 | < Previous Page | 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655  | Next Page >

• case in group by in a store procedure

  - by Luca Romagnoli

  is possible do a case in a group by? similar to this: select * from table GROUP BY CASE WHEN @Attivita=0 THEN (RANK() OVER (GROUP BY Nome,AccountID,Matricola DESC)) END thanks

  Read the article

• Linq order by aggregate in the select { }

  - by Joe Pitz

  Here is one I am working on: var fStep = from insp in sq.Inspections where insp.TestTimeStamp > dStartTime && insp.TestTimeStamp < dEndTime && insp.Model == "EP" && insp.TestResults != "P" group insp by new { insp.TestResults, insp.FailStep } into grp select new { FailedCount = (grp.Key.TestResults == "F" ? grp.Count() : 0), CancelCount = (grp.Key.TestResults == "C" ? grp.Count() : 0), grp.Key.TestResults, grp.Key.FailStep, PercentFailed = Convert.ToDecimal(1.0 * grp.Count() /tcount*100) } ; I would like to orderby one or more of the fields in the select projection.

  Read the article

• Why calling a user defined function needs the owner name when calling a stored procedure doesn't ?

  - by Nam Gi VU

  Why calling a user defined function need the owner name when calling a stored procedure doesn't ? Please help!

  Read the article

• SQL time issue - need it 6 hours forward!

  - by Luke

  My server is currently based on us eastern time, and as I am in the UK, i need to move this forward 6 hours. When using now() in mysql, i am getting the wrong time, is there anything i can add to now() to bring it forward 6 hours? Thanks

  Read the article

• Getting highest results in a JOIN

  - by Keithamus

  I've got three tables; Auctions, Auction Bids and Users. The table structure looks something like this: Auctions: id title -- ----- 1 Auction 1 2 Auction 2 Auction Bids: id user_id auction_id bid_amt -- ------- ---------- ------- 1 1 1 200.00 2 2 1 202.00 3 1 2 100.00 Users is just a standard table, with id and user name. My aim is to join these tables so I can get the highest values of these bids, as well as get the usernames related to those bids; so I have a result set like so: auction_id auction_title auctionbid_amt user_username ---------- ------------- -------------- ------------- 1 Auction 1 202.00 Bidder2 2 Auction 2 100.00 Bidder1 So far my query is as follows: SELECT a.id, a.title, ab.bid_points, u.display_name FROM auction a LEFT JOIN auctionbid ab ON a.id = ab.auction_id LEFT JOIN users u ON u.id = ab.user_id GROUP BY a.id This gets the single rows I am after, but it seems to display the lowest bid_amt, not the highest.

  Read the article

• What is the reason not to use select * ?

  - by Chris Lively

  I've seen a number of people claim that you should specifically name each column you want in your select query. Assuming I'm going to use all of the columns anyway, why would I not use SELECT *? Even considering the question from 9/24, I don't think this is an exact duplicate as I'm approaching the issue from a slightly different perspective. One of our principles is to not optimize before it's time. With that in mind, it seems like using SELECT * should be the preferred method until it is proven to be a resource issue or the schema is pretty much set in stone. Which, as we know, won't occur until development is completely done. That said, is there an overriding issue to not use SELECT *?

  Read the article

• How to check if an entityset is populated

  - by TheQ

  How can i check if an entityset of a linq-object is populated or not? Example code below. My model have two methods, one joins data, and the other does not: public static Member GetMemberWithSettings(Guid memberId) { using (DataContext db = new DataContext()) { DataLoadOptions dataLoadOptions = new DataLoadOptions(); dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Member>(x => x.Settings); db.LoadOptions = dataLoadOptions; var query = from x in db.Members where x.MemberId == memberId select x; return query.FirstOrDefault(); } } public static Member GetMember(Guid memberId) { using (DataContext db = new DataContext()) { var query = from x in db.Members where x.MemberId == memberId select x; return query.FirstOrDefault(); } } Then my control have the following code: Member member1 = Member.GetMemberWithSettings(memberId); Member member2 = Member.GetMember(memberId); Debug.WriteLine(member1.Settings.Count); Debug.WriteLine(member2.Settings.Count); The last line will generate a "Cannot access a disposed object" exception. I know that i can get rid of that exception just by not disposing the datacontext, but then the last line will generate a new query to the database, and i don't want that. What i would like is something like: Debug.WriteLine((member1.Settings.IsPopulated()) ? member1.Settings.Count : -1); Debug.WriteLine((member2.Settings.IsPopulated()) ? member2.Settings.Count : -1); Is it possible?

  Read the article

• LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO IN Oracle SQL

  - by Jasim

  updated_date = 08-Jun-2010; I have a query like this select * from asd whre updated_date <= todate('08-Jun-2010', 'dd-MM-yy'); but i am not getting any result. it is wotking only if todate is 09-Jun-2010... ie my equalto operator is not working properly. y is it like that ny help?

  Read the article

• I insert new parent row and child rowstate changes from Added to unchanged

  - by Joel

  rowsUpdated is an int32 to count how many rows are updated rowsToUpdate = dataset.ParentTable.Select("", "", dataviewRowState.Added) if rowsToUpdate isNot Nothing then for each row as datarow in RowsToUpdate changes the rowstate: rowsUpdated = rowsUpdated + ParentTableAdapter.update(row) Next row End if I'm sure it's something I'm over looking but I just can't see it. Thanks in advance, Joel

  Read the article

• Using LIKE in MySQL SELECT fields

  - by Kristopher Ives

  I've been trying to select the status of doing a LIKE comparison: SELECT (`my_column` LIKE '%thepattern'%) AS `did_match` Thanks!

  Read the article

• Oracle 10g multiple DELETE statements

  - by bmw0128

  I'm building a dml file that first deletes records that may be in the table, then inserts records. Example: DELETE from foo where field1='bar'; DELETE from foo where fields1='bazz'; INSERT ALL INTO foo(field1, field2) values ('bar', 'x') INTO foo(field1, field2) values ('bazz', 'y') SELECT * from DUAL; When I run the insert statement by itself, it runs fine. When I run the deletes, only the last delete runs. Also, it seems to be necessary to end the multiple insert with the select, is that so? If so, why is that necessary? In the past, when using MySQL, I could just list multiple delete and insert statements, all individually ending with a semicolon, and it would run fine.

  Read the article

• Multiple user database design

  - by dieguitoweb

  I have to develop a basic social network for an academic purpose; but I need some tips for the users management.. The users are subdivided into 3 groups with different privilege: admins,analysts and standards users. For every user should be stored into the database the following information: name,lastname,e-mail,age,password. I'm not quite sure how I should design the database between theese two solutions: 1)one table called 'users' with the 'role' attribute that explain what a user can do and what can't do, and the permissions are managed via php 2)every application user is a database user created with the query 'CREATE ROLE' (It's a postgres database) and he has permissions on some tables granted with the 'GRANT' statement You should take into account that the project is for a database exam.. thanks

  Read the article

• Select rows where column LIKE dictionary word

  - by Gerve

  I have 2 tables: Dictionary - Contains roughly 36,000 words CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `dictionary` ( `word` varchar(255) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`word`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; Datas - Contains roughly 100,000 rows CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `datas` ( `ID` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `hash` varchar(32) NOT NULL, `data` varchar(255) NOT NULL, `length` int(11) NOT NULL, `time` int(11) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`ID`), UNIQUE KEY `hash` (`hash`), KEY `data` (`data`), KEY `length` (`length`), KEY `time` (`time`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=105316 ; I would like to somehow select all the rows from datas where the column data contains 1 or more words. I understand this is a big ask, it would need to match all of these rows together in every combination possible, so it needs the best optimization. I have tried the below query, but it just hangs for ages: SELECT `datas`.*, `dictionary`.`word` FROM `datas`, `dictionary` WHERE `datas`.`data` LIKE CONCAT('%', `dictionary`.`word`, '%') AND LENGTH(`dictionary`.`word`) > 3 ORDER BY `length` ASC LIMIT 15 I have also tried something similar to the above with a left join, and on clause that specified the like statement.

  Read the article

• When i should use primary key or index?

  - by Sein Kraft

  When i should use primary key or index? Which are the differences between primary key and index and which is the best?

  Read the article

• Insert or update when product is present using mysql

  - by Aryan

  main_product table productid outward shopid 333 2 44//present 343 4 44//present 353 5 44//present 363 1 44//present 373 2 44//not present min_product table productid outward shopid 333 1 44 343 1 44 353 1 44 363 1 44 SELECT DISTINCT (A.productid),A.outward, B.productid,B.outward FROM main_product A INNER JOIN min_product B on B.productid=A.product_id where A.shopid='44' and B.shopid='44' my question how can i INSERT OR UPDATE in one query using mysql by checking if it is present or not if present update else insert something like this? INSERT INTO mytable (key, value) VALUES ($newkey, $newvalue) ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE SET value = $newvalue

  Read the article

• Oracle select query

  - by Jasim

  I have a table like this C1 C2 C3 Code 1 2 3 33 1 2 3 34 2 4 1 14 1 2 3 14 i want to select only those record whose code is appearing only in single row. ie, in this case rows with code 33 and 34.. as they appear only once in this table. How can i write a query for that

  Read the article

• MS access refusing to combine two tables?

  - by Mahmoud

  hey everyone i have an access 2007 database where i have 2 tables one is exp_cash and exp_cheque each are link to exp_cat, where exp_cat contains categories list where exp_cash contains id,cat_id,exp_date,exp_amount,exp_note same thing in exp_cheque where when i came to combine them nothing in result unless i remove the cat_name from my query i used a simple query which is SELECT DISTINCT exp_cat.cat_name, exp_cash.exp_amount, exp_cheque.exp_amount FROM (exp_cat INNER JOIN exp_cash ON exp_cat.ID = exp_cash.exp_cat_id) INNER JOIN exp_cheque ON exp_cat.ID = exp_cheque.exp_cat_id;

  Read the article

• Advantages of SQLServer vs. MySQL for C#/.NET4 Cloud Applications

  - by Ed Eichman

  I am considering building several C#/.NET4 applications all using a central, cloud based database. In addition, several LAMP (MySQL) web shops will be accessing the cloud DB. MySQL is the database that I'm most familiar with, and my default selection for the cloud DB would be MySQL on Amazon or Joyent. However, I was wondering what development "extras" are available for SQLServer in VisualStudio 2010 that are not available for MySQL. Are there any "killer features" that should make me consider SQLServer instead of MySQL?

  Read the article

• Find all those columns which have only null values, in a MySQL table

  - by Robin v. G.

  The situation is as follows: I have a substantial number of tables, with each a substantial number of columns. I need to deal with this old and to-be-deprecated database for a new system, and I'm looking for a way to eliminate all columns that have - apparently - never been in use. I wanna do this by filtering out all columns that have a value on any given row, leaving me with a set of columns where the value is NULL in all rows. Of course I could manually sort every column descending, but that'd take too long as I'm dealing with loads of tables and columns. I estimate it to be 400 tables with up to 50 (!) columns per table. Is there any way I can get this information from the information_schema? EDIT: Here's an example: column_a column_b column_c column_d NULL NULL NULL 1 NULL 1 NULL 1 NULL 1 NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL The output should be 'column_a' and 'column_c', for being the only columns without any filled in values.

  Read the article

• Can I concatenate multiple MySQL rows into one field?

  - by Dean

  Using MySQL, I can do something like select hobbies from peoples_hobbies where person_id = 5; and get: shopping fishing coding but instead I just want 1 row, 1 col: shopping, fishing, coding The reason is that I'm selecting multiple values from multiple tables, and after all the joins I've got a lot more rows than I'd like. I've looked for a function on MySQL Doc and it doesn't look like the CONCAT or CONCAT_WS functions accept result sets, so does anyone here know how to do this?

  Read the article

• customizing rowsource query in combobox ACCESS

  - by every_answer_gets_a_point

  i have 4 comboboxes and each of them need to have the same query in the rowsource, except there is a slight variation on each query if rowsource = somequery i need it to be select * from somequery where something like 'something1'; the next one needs to be select * from somequery where something like 'something2'; is there a way to customize the rowsource property in this way?

  Read the article

• mysql reference result from subquery

  - by iamrohitbanga

  this is what i am doing update t1 set x=a,y=b where a and b are obtained from (select query here) i know the select query the select query returns multiple results which are the same when i use group by or distinct query execution slows down considerably a and b are forward references so mysql reports an error i want to set a equal to the value obtained in the first row and b equal to the value obtained in the first row for the respective columns, to avoid group by. i don't know how to refer to the first result from the select query. how can i achieve all this?

  Read the article

• MySQL whats wrong with my foreign keys?

  - by Skiy

  Hello, what is wrong with the two foreign keys which I have marked with comments? create database db; use db; create table Flug( Flugbez varchar(20), FDatum Date, Ziel varchar(20), Flugzeit int, Entfernung int, Primary Key (Flugbez, FDatum)); create table Flugzeugtyp( Typ varchar(20), Hersteller varchar(20), SitzAnzahl int, Reisegeschw int, primary key (Typ) ); create table flugzeug( Typ varchar(20), SerienNr int, AnschDatum Date, FlugStd int, primary key(Typ,SerienNr), foreign key(Typ) references Flugzeugtyp(Typ)); create table Abflug( Flugbez varchar(20), FDatum Date, Typ varchar(20), Seriennr int, Kaptaen varchar(20), Primary key(Flugbez,FDatum,Typ,SerienNr), Foreign key(Flugbez) references Flug(Flugbez), -- Foreign key(FDatum) references Flug(FDatum), Foreign key(Typ) references Flugzeugtyp(Typ) -- ,Foreign key(SerienNr) references Flugzeug(SerienNr) ); When I uncomment these, I get: ERROR 1005 (HY000): Can't create table 'db.abflug' (errno: 150)

  Read the article

• Multiple ID's in database

  - by eric

  I have a database that contains a few tables such as person, staff, member, and supporter. The person table contains information about every staff, member, and supporter. The information it contains is name,address,email, and telephone. I also created an id that is the primary key. My issue is that I also have an primary key ID for staff, member, and supporter. For instance, in the person table is John with id 1. He is a supporter so in the supporter table is pID(for person id)to reference back to John with all his information and ID(for supporter ID). pID references to the person table and every person has an ID incremented by 1 starting at 1. supporter ID is for every supporter and also starts at 1 and is incremented by 1. Is it possible to have in the supporter table pID = 1 and supporter ID = 1? Another person may have a pID = 26 and supporter ID = 5. Or will supporter ID have to be different than the pID and be something like "sup"? So you would have pID = 1 and supporter ID = sup1 or pID = 26 and supporter ID = sup5

  Read the article

• Rails 3 fields_for agressive loading?

  - by Seth

  Hi all, I'm trying to optimize (limit) queries in a view. I am using the fields_for function. I need to reference various properties of the object, such as username for display purposes. However, this is a rel table, so I need to join with my users table. The result is N sub-queries, 1 for each field in fields_for. It's difficult to explain, but I think you'll understand what I'm asking if I paste my code: <%= form_for @election do |f| %> <%= f.fields_for :voters do |voter| %> <%= voter.hidden_field :id %> <%= voter.object.user.preferred_name %> <% end %> <% end %> I have like 10,000 users, and many times each election will include all 10,000 users. That's 10,000 subqueries every time this view is loaded. I want fields_for to JOIN on users. Is this possible? I'd like to do something like: ... <%= f.fields_for :voters, :joins => :users do |voter| %> ... <% end %> ... But that, of course, doesn't work :(

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655  | Next Page >