Search Results

Search found 31931 results on 1278 pages for 'sql statement'.

Page 657/1278 | < Previous Page | 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664  | Next Page >

  • Primary key/foreign Key naming convention

    - by Jeremy
    In our dev group we have a raging debate regarding the naming convention for Primary and Foreign Keys. There's basically two schools of thought in our group: 1) Primary Table (Employee) Primary Key is called ID Foreign table (Event) Foreign key is called EmployeeID 2) Primary Table (Employee) Primary Key is called EmployeeID Foreign table (Event) Foreign key is called EmployeeID I prefer not to duplicate the name of the table in any of the columns (So I prefer option 1 above). Conceptually, it is consisted with a lot of the recommended practices in other languages, where you don't use the name of the object in its property names. I think that naming the foreign key EmployeeID (or Employee_ID might be better) tells the reader that it is the ID column of the Employee Table. Some others prefer option 2 where you name the primary key prefixed with the table name so that the column name is the same throughout the database. I see that point, but you now can not visually distinguish a primary key from a foreign key. Also, I think it's redundant to have the table name in the column name, because if you think of the table as an entity and a column as a property or attribute of that entity, you think of it as the ID attribute of the Employee, not the EmployeeID attribute of an employee. I don't go an ask my coworker what his PersonAge or PersonGender is. I ask him what his Age is. So like I said, it's a raging debate and we go on and on and on about it. I'm interested to get some new perspective.

    Read the article

  • Should I catch exceptions thrown when closing java.sql.Connection

    - by jb
    Connection.close() may throw SqlException, but I have always assumed that it is safe to ignore any such exceptions (and I have never seen code that does not ignore them). Normally I would write: try{ connection.close(); }catch(Exception e) {} Or try{ connection.close(); }catch(Exception e) { logger.log(e.getMessage(), e); } The question is: Is it bad practice (and has anyone had problems when ignoring such exeptions). When Connection.close() does throw any exception. If it is bad how should I handle the exception. Comment: I know that discarding exceptions is evil, but I'm reffering only to exceptions thrown when closing a connection (and as I've seen this is fairly common in this case). Does anyone know when Connection.close() may throw anything?

    Read the article

  • How do I convert int? into int

    - by Richard77
    Hello, I've create a SPROC that saves an object and returns the id of the new object saved. Now, I'd like to return an int not an int? public int Save(Contact contact) { int? id; context.Save_And_SendBackID(contact.FirstName, contact.LastName, ref id); //How do I return an int instead of an int? } Thanks for helping

    Read the article

  • Put logic behind generated LinqToSql fields

    - by boris callens
    In a database I use throughout several projects, there is a field that should actually be a boolean but is for reasons nobody can explain to me a field duplicated over two tables where one time it is a char ('Y'/'N') and one time an int (1/0). When I generate a datacontext with LinqToSql the fields off course gets these datatypes. It would be nice if I don't have to drag this stupid choice of datatype throughout the rest of my application. Is there a way to give the generated classes a little bit of logic that just return me return this.equals('Y'); and return this==1; Preferably without having to make an EXTRA field in my partial class. It would be a solution to give the generated field a totally different name that can only be accessed through the partial class and then generate the extra field with the original name with my custom logic in the partial class. I don't know how to alter the accesibility level in my generated class though.. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Multiple LIKE in SQL

    - by ninumedia
    I wanted to search through multiple rows and obtain the row that contains a particular item. The table in mySQL is setup so each id has a unique list (comma-delimited) of values per row. Ex: id | order 1 | 1,3,8,19,34,2,38 2 | 4,7,2,190,38 Now if I wanted to pull the row that contained just the number 19 how would I go about doing this? The possibilities I could figure in the list with a LIKE condition would be: 19, ,19 ,19, I tried the following and I cannot obtain any results, Thank you for your help! SELECT * FROM categories WHERE order LIKE '19,%' OR '%,19%' OR '%,19%' LIMIT 0 , 30

    Read the article

  • Detecting changes between rows with same ID

    - by Noah
    I have a table containing some names and their associated ID, along with a snapshot: snapshot, id, name I need to identify when a name has changed for an id between snapshots. For example, in the following data: 1, 0, 'MOUSE_SPEED' 1, 1, 'MOUSE_POS' 1, 2, 'KEYBOARD_STATE' 2, 0, 'MOUSE_BUTTONS' 2, 1, 'MOUSE_POS' 2, 2, 'KEYBOARD_STATE' ...the meaning of id 0 changed with snapshot 2, but the others remained the same. I'd like to construct a query that (ideally) returns: 1, 0, 'MOUSE_SPEED' 2, 0, 'MOUSE_BUTTONS' I am using PostgreSQL v8.4.2.

    Read the article

  • Assign values from same table

    - by Reddy S R
    I have a database table with parent child relationships between different rows. 1 parent can have any number of children. Children do not have children. I want to copy 'Message' from 'Parent Category' to child categories. CategoryID Name Value Message ParentID DeptId 1 Books 9 Specials 1 2 Music 7 1 3 Paperback 25 1 1 4 PDFs 26 1 2 5 CDs 35 2 1 If that was sample data, Paperback should have Specials as it's Message after the query is run. I have gotten the child rows (the query runs very slow, don't know why), but how do I get the data and assign it to appropriate child rows? --@DeptId = 1 select * from Categories where ParentID in( select CategoryID from Categories where DeptID = @DeptId ) I would like to see a solution that would not use cursors. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Conditionally set a column to its default value in Postgres

    - by Evgeny
    I've got a PostgreSQL 8.4 table with an auto-incrementing, but nullable, integer column. I want to update some column values and, if this column is NULL then set it to its default value (which would be an integer auto-generated from a sequence), but I want to return its value in either case. So I want something like this: UPDATE mytable SET incident_id = COALESCE(incident_id, DEFAULT), other = 'somethingelse' WHERE ... RETURNING incident_id Unfortunately, this doesn't work - it seems that DEFAULT is special and cannot be part of an expression. What's the best way to do this?

    Read the article

  • What's the most efficient query?

    - by Aaron Carlino
    I have a table named Projects that has the following relationships: has many Contributions has many Payments In my result set, I need the following aggregate values: Number of unique contributors (DonorID on the Contribution table) Total contributed (SUM of Amount on Contribution table) Total paid (SUM of PaymentAmount on Payment table) Because there are so many aggregate functions and multiple joins, it gets messy do use standard aggregate functions the the GROUP BY clause. I also need the ability to sort and filter these fields. So I've come up with two options: Using subqueries: SELECT Project.ID AS PROJECT_ID, (SELECT SUM(PaymentAmount) FROM Payment WHERE ProjectID = PROJECT_ID) AS TotalPaidBack, (SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT DonorID) FROM Contribution WHERE RecipientID = PROJECT_ID) AS ContributorCount, (SELECT SUM(Amount) FROM Contribution WHERE RecipientID = PROJECT_ID) AS TotalReceived FROM Project; Using a temporary table: DROP TABLE IF EXISTS Project_Temp; CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE Project_Temp (project_id INT NOT NULL, total_payments INT, total_donors INT, total_received INT, PRIMARY KEY(project_id)) ENGINE=MEMORY; INSERT INTO Project_Temp (project_id,total_payments) SELECT `Project`.ID, IFNULL(SUM(PaymentAmount),0) FROM `Project` LEFT JOIN `Payment` ON ProjectID = `Project`.ID GROUP BY 1; INSERT INTO Project_Temp (project_id,total_donors,total_received) SELECT `Project`.ID, IFNULL(COUNT(DISTINCT DonorID),0), IFNULL(SUM(Amount),0) FROM `Project` LEFT JOIN `Contribution` ON RecipientID = `Project`.ID GROUP BY 1 ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE total_donors = VALUES(total_donors), total_received = VALUES(total_received); SELECT * FROM Project_Temp; Tests for both are pretty comparable, in the 0.7 - 0.8 seconds range with 1,000 rows. But I'm really concerned about scalability, and I don't want to have to re-engineer everything as my tables grow. What's the best approach?

    Read the article

  • Postgresql Altering Table

    - by Jahn
    Is it possible to alter a table to add a new column and make that column a foreign key to another table in a single command in Postgresql? "alter table x add column y id references z(id)" doesn't seem to work as I had hoped.

    Read the article

  • Fact table with multiple facts

    - by Jeff Meatball Yang
    I have a dimension (SiteItem) has two important facts: perUserClicks perBrowserClicks however, within this dimension, I have groups of dimensions based on an attribute column (let's call the groups AboveFoldItems, LeftNavItems, OnTheFlyItems, etc.) each have more facts that are specific to that group: AboveFoldItems: eyeTime, loadTime LeftNavItems: mouseOverTime OnTheFlyItems: doesn't have any extra, but may in the future Is the following fact table schema ok? DateKey SessionKey SiteItemKey perUserClicks perBrowserClicks eyeTime loadTime mouseOverTime It seems a little wasteful since only some columns pertain to some dimension keys (the irrelevant facts are left NULL). But... this seems like it would be a common problem, so there should be a common solution for this, right?

    Read the article

  • Are GUID primary keys bad in theory, or just practice?

    - by Yarin
    Whenever I design a database I automatically start with an auto-generating GUID primary key for each of my tables (excepting look-up tables) I know I'll never lose sleep over duplicate keys, merging tables, etc. To me it just makes sense philosophically that any given record should be unique across all domains, and that that uniqueness should be represented in a consistent way from table to table. I realize it will never be the most performant option, but putting performance aside, I'd like to know if there are philosophical arguments against this practice?

    Read the article

  • What are the reasons *not* to use a GUID for a primary key?

    - by Yarin
    Whenever I design a database I automatically start with an auto-generating GUID primary key for each of my tables (excepting look-up tables) I know I'll never lose sleep over duplicate keys, merging tables, etc. To me it just makes sense philosophically that any given record should be unique across all domains, and that that uniqueness should be represented in a consistent way from table to table. I realize it will never be the most performant option, but putting performance aside, I'd like to know if there are philosophical arguments against this practice?

    Read the article

  • TextBox value not updated

    - by Jignesh
    I am fetching data from database to textbox using Linq.When i try update the same textbox value,it does not work. DAL.TournamentsDataContext tdc = new SchoolSports.DAL.TournamentsDataContext(); var tournamentTable = tdc.GetTable<DAL.Tournament>(); var tournamentRecord = (from rec in tournamentTable where rec.TournamentId == TournamentId select rec).Single(); tournamentRecord.Tournament_type = Tournament_type; tournamentRecord.Tournament_Name = Tournament_Name; ; tournamentRecord.Tournament_Level = Tournament_Level; tournamentRecord.Tournament_For = Tournament_For; tournamentRecord.Country_Code = Country_Code; tournamentRecord.Tournament_Status = Tournament_Status; tournamentRecord.Tournament_begin_date = Tournament_begin_date; tournamentRecord.Tournament_end_date = Tournament_end_date; tournamentRecord.Sponsored_By = Sponsored_By; tournamentRecord.Tournament_Details = Tournament_Details; var organiserTable = tdc.GetTable<DAL.Organiser>(); var organiserRecord = (from rec in organiserTable where rec.Tournament_Id == TournamentId select rec).Single(); organiserRecord.Name_Of_Organiser = OrName; organiserRecord.Telephone = OrTeleNo; organiserRecord.Email = OrEmail; organiserRecord.Mobile = OrMobile; organiserRecord.Fax = OrFax; if (Tournament_For == "School") { var invitedSchoolIdTable = tdc.GetTable<DAL.Invited_School>(); var invitedSchoolIdRecord = (from rec in invitedSchoolIdTable where rec.Tournament_Id == TournamentId select rec).Single(); invitedSchoolIdRecord.School_Ids = SchoolUniIds; } if (Tournament_For == "University") { var invitedUniversityTable = tdc.GetTable<DAL.Invited_University>(); var invitedUniversityIdRecord = (from rec in invitedUniversityTable where rec.Tournament_Id == TournamentId select rec).Single(); invitedUniversityIdRecord.University_Ids = SchoolUniIds; } tdc.SubmitChanges();

    Read the article

  • Help with a MySQL SELECT WHERE Clause

    - by Dr. DOT
    A column in my table contains email addresses. I have a text string that contains the a few usernames of email addresses separated by commas. I can make text sting into an array if necessary to get my SELECT WHERE clause to work correctly. Text string search argument is 'bob,sally,steve' I want to produce a WHERE clause that only returns rows where the username portion of the email address in the table matches one of the usernames in my text string search argument. Thus a row with [email protected] would not be returned but [email protected] would be. Does anyone have a WHERE clause sample that produces this result? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Updating records in Postgres using FROM clause

    - by Summer
    Hi, I'm changing my db schema, and moving column 'seat' from old_table to new_table. First I added a 'seat' column to new_table. Now I'm trying to populate the column with the values from old_table. UPDATE new_table SET seat = seat FROM old_table WHERE old_table.id = new_table.ot_id; This returns ERROR: column reference "seat" is ambiguous. UPDATE new_table nt SET nt.seat = ot.seat FROM old_table ot WHERE ot.id = nt.ot_id; Returns ERROR: column "nt" of relation "new_table" does not exist Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Is SELECT INTO able to affect data from its original table during UPDATE

    - by driveby
    Whilst asking this question asp.net scheduling timed events user murph posted some insightful information: Point about this is that its very, very simple - you have an process for exchange that is performing a clearly defined task and you have a high frequency task that is not doing anything particularly complex, its a straightforward query (select from table where sent = false and send at < value) - probably into temporary table so that you can run a single query update after you've done the sends - that you can optimise the index for. You're not trying to queue up a huge pile of event triggers, just one that fires once a minute and processes things that are due. Is it possible to SELECT data from table X INTO table Y and have the UPDATES that are performed on table Y pushed into table X? I guess the alternative would be that the data gets updated in table Y then an update command can be run on table X based on the data in table Y. What would be the advantage of selecting into another table? Thank you,

    Read the article

  • Extending Zend DB Table to include BETWEEN and LIMIT.

    - by davykiash
    Am looking for how I can extend the Zend_DB_Table below to accomodate a BETWEEN two dates syntax and LIMIT syntax My current construct is class Model_DbTable_Tablelist extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract { protected $_name = 'mytable'; $select = $this->select() ->setIntegrityCheck(false) ->from('mytable', array('MyCol1', 'MyDate')); } I want it extended to be equivalent to the query below SELECT MyCol1,MyDate FROM mytable WHERE MyDate BETWEEN '2008-04-03' AND '2009-01-02' LIMIT 0,20 Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How can I get the rank of rows relative to total number of rows based on a field?

    - by Arms
    I have a scores table that has two fields: user_id score I'm fetching specific rows that match a list of user_id's. How can I determine a rank for each row relative to the total number of rows, based on score? The rows in the result set are not necessarily sequential (the scores will vary widely from one row to the next). I'm not sure if this matters, but user_id is a unique field. Edit @Greelmo I'm already ordering the rows. If I fetch 15 rows, I don't want the rank to be 1-15. I need it to be the position of that row compared against the entire table by the score property. So if I have 200 rows, one row's rank may be 3 and another may be 179 (these are arbitrary #'s for example only). Edit 2 I'm having some luck with this query, but I actually want to avoid ties SELECT s.score , s.created_at , u.name , u.location , u.icon_id , u.photo , (SELECT COUNT(*) + 1 FROM scores WHERE score > s.score) AS rank FROM scores s LEFT JOIN users u ON u.uID = s.user_id ORDER BY s.score DESC , s.created_at DESC LIMIT 15 If two or more rows have the same score, I want the latest one (or earliest - I don't care) to be ranked higher. I tried modifying the subquery with AND id > s.id but that ended up giving me an unexpected result set and different ties.

    Read the article

  • Generating Running Sum of Ratings in SQL

    - by Koobz
    I have a rating table. It boils down to: rating_value created +2 april 3rd -5 april 20th So, every time someone gets rated, I track that rating event in the database. I want to generate a rating history/time graph where the rating is the sum of all ratings up to that point in time on a graph. I.E. A person's rating on April 5th might be select sum(rating_value) from ratings where created <= april 5th The only problem with this approach is I have to run this day by day across the interval I'm interested in. Is there some trick to generating a running total using this sort of data? Otherwise, I'm thinking the best approach is to create a denormalized "rating history" table alongside the individual ratings.

    Read the article

  • MSSQL 2005: Rename DB Server Instance Name?

    - by Code Sherpa
    Hi, Can somebody tell me how to rename the DB server instance name and a DB name in MSSQL 2005? Right Now I Have SERVER/OLDNAME -- oldnameDB I want to change the server instance and also change the db name. I have tried: EXEC sp_renamedb 'oldName', 'newName' and that has changed the dbname as it appers in the tree directory. But, when I do "select @@servername" it is the old name. Also, the MDF and LDF files are still the old name. How do change instance and db names as a clean sweep across the server? Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664  | Next Page >