Search Results

Search found 14354 results on 575 pages for 'existing records'.

Page 67/575 | < Previous Page | 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74  | Next Page >

  • Sharepoint OLE DB - cannot insert records? "Field not updateable" error

    - by Pandincus
    I need to write a simple C# .NET application to retrieve, update, and insert some data in a Sharepoint list. I am NOT a Sharepoint developer, and I don't have control over our Sharepoint server. I would prefer not to have to develop this in a proper sharepoint development environment simply because I don't want to have to deploy my application on the Sharepoint server -- I'd rather just access data externally. Anyway, I found out that you can access Sharepoint data using OLE DB, and I tried it successfully using some ADO.NET: var db = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase(); DataSet ds = new DataSet(); using (var command = db.GetSqlStringCommand("SELECT * FROM List")) { db.LoadDataSet(command, ds, "List"); } The above works. However, when I try to insert: using (var command = db.GetSqlStringCommand("INSERT INTO List ([HeaderName], [Description], [Number]) VALUES ('Blah', 'Blah', 100)")) { db.ExecuteNonQuery(command); } I get this error: Cannot update 'HeaderName'; field not updateable. I did some Googling and apparently you cannot insert data through OLE DB! Does anyone know if there are some possible workarounds? I could try using Sharepoint Web Services, but I tried that initially and was having a heck of a time authenticating. Is that my only option?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to "merge" the values of multiple records into a single field without using a stored

    - by j0rd4n
    A co-worker posed this question to me, and I told them, "No, you'll need to write a sproc for that". But I thought I'd give them a chance and put this out to the community. Essentially, they have a table with keys mapping to multiple values. For a report, they want to aggregate on the key and "mash" all of the values into a single field. Here's a visual: --- ------- Key Value --- ------- 1 A 1 B 1 C 2 X 2 Y The result would be as follows: --- ------- Key Value --- ------- 1 A,B,C 2 X,Y They need this in SQLServer 2005. Again, I think they need to write a stored procedure, but if anyone knows a magic out-of-the-box function that does this, I'd be impressed.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008: Comparing similar records - Need to still display an ID for a record when the JOIN has no matches

    - by aleppke
    I'm writing a SQL Server 2008 report that will compare genetic test results for animals. A genetic test consists of an animalId, a gene and a result. Not all animals will have the same genes tested but I need to be able to display the results side-by-side for a given set of animals and only include the genes that are present for at least one of the selected animals. My TestResult table has the following data in it: animalId gene result 1 a CC 1 b CT 1 d TT 2 a CT 2 b CT 2 c TT 3 a CT 3 b TT 3 c CC 3 d CC 3 e TT I need to generate a result set that looks like the following. Note that Animal 3 is not being displayed (user doesn't want to see its results) and neither are results for Gene "e" since neither Animal 1 nor Animal 2 have a result for that gene: SireID SireResult CalfID CalfResult Gene 1 CC 2 CT a 1 CT 2 CT b 1 NULL 2 TT c 1 TT 2 NULL d But I can only manage to get this: SireID SireResult CalfID CalfResult Gene 1 CC 2 CT a 1 CT 2 CT b NULL NULL 2 TT c 1 TT NULL NULL d This is the query I'm using. SELECT sire.animalId AS 'SireID' ,sire.result AS 'SireResult' ,calf.animalId AS 'CalfID' ,calf.result AS 'CalfResult' ,sire.gene AS 'Gene' FROM (SELECT s.animalId ,s.result ,m1.gene FROM (SELECT [animalId ] ,result ,gene FROM TestResult WHERE animalId IN (1)) s FULL JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT gene FROM TestResult WHERE animalId IN (1, 2)) m1 ON s.marker = m1.marker) sire FULL JOIN (SELECT c.animalId ,c.result ,m2.gene FROM (SELECT animalId ,result ,gene FROM TestResult WHERE animalId IN (2)) c FULL JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT gene FROM TestResult WHERE animalId IN (1, 2)) m2 ON c.gene = m2.gene) calf ON sire.gene = calf.gene How do I get the SireIDs and CalfIDs to display their values when they don't have a record associated with a particular Gene? I was thinking of using COALESCE but I can't figure out how to specify the correct animalId to pass in. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Find all records in database that are within a certain distance of a set of lat and long points

    - by Mike L
    I've seen all the examples and here's what I got so far. my table is simple: schools (table name) - School_ID - lat - long - county - extrainfo here's my code: <?php $con = mysql_connect("xxx","xxx","xxx"); if (!$con) { die('Could not connect: ' . mysql_error()); } else {} mysql_select_db("xxx", $con); $latitude = "36.265541"; $longitude = "-119.207153"; $distance = "1"; //miles $qry = "SELECT *, (3958.75 * ACOS(SIN(" . $latitude . " / 57.2958)*SIN(lat / 57.2958)+COS(" . $latitude . " / 57.2958)*COS(lat / 57.2958)*COS(long / 57.2958 - " . $longitude . " / 57.2958))) as distance FROM schools WHERE (3958.75 * ACOS(SIN(" . $latitude . " / 57.2958)*SIN(lat / 57.2958)+COS(" . $latitude . " / 57.2958)*COS(lat / 57.2958)*COS(long / 57.2958 - " . $longitude . " / 57.2958))) <= " . $distance; $results = mysql_query($qry); if (mysql_num_rows($results) > 0) { while($row = mysql_fetch_assoc($results)) { print_r($row); } } else {} mysql_close($con); ?> but I get this error when I try to run it: Warning: mysql_num_rows(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource

    Read the article

  • Criteria API - How to get records based on collection count?

    - by Cosmo
    Hello Guys! I have a Question class in ActiveRecord with following fields: [ActiveRecord("`Question`")] public class Question : ObcykaniDb<Question> { private long id; private IList<Question> relatedQuestions; [PrimaryKey("`Id`")] private long Id { get { return this.id; } set { this.id = value; } } [HasAndBelongsToMany(typeof(Question), ColumnRef = "ChildId", ColumnKey = "ParentId", Table = "RelatedQuestion")] private IList<Question> RelatedQuestions { get { return this.relatedQuestions; } set { this.relatedQuestions = value; } } } How do I write a DetachedCriteria query to get all Questions that have at least 5 related questions (count) in the RelatedQuestions collection? For now this gives me strange results: DetachedCriteria dCriteria = DetachedCriteria.For<Question>() .CreateCriteria("RelatedQuestions") .SetProjection(Projections.Count("Id")) .Add(Restrictions.EqProperty(Projections.Id(), "alias.Id")); DetachedCriteria dc = DetachedCriteria.For<Question>("alias").Add(Subqueries.Le(5, dCriteria)); IList<Question> results = Question.FindAll(dc); Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • how to count all distinct records in many-to-many relations in django ORM?

    - by marduk-pl
    hi, i have two models: class Project(models.Model): categories = models.ManyToManyField(Category) class Category(models.Model): name = models.CharField() now, i make some queryset: query = Project.objects.filter(id__in=[1,2,3,4]) and i like to get list of all distinct categories in this queryset with count of projects with refering to these categories - exactly i would like to get that results: category1 - 10 projects category2 - 5 projects that is opposite to this query: query2 = query.annotate(Count('categories')) what return me: project1 - 2categories project2 - 7categories how can i make it in django ORM?

    Read the article

  • What's the proper format for an SPF record?

    - by deltanovember
    Querying my domain I get: The TXT records found for your domain are: v=spf1 ip4:50.22.72.198 a mx:wordswithfriends.net ~all So superficially it appears OK. However I also get the following message SPF records should also be published in DNS as type SPF records. No type SPF records found. I want to make sure things are absolutely airtight. So in addition to TXT records I also want a pure SPF record. However I cannot figure out the format. Placing the same text in an SPF record does not seem to work. Edit: At the moment I have a TXT record but not SPF record. When I cut and paste from TXT straight to SPF I get some type of crazy recursive DNS error so quickly deleted the SPF. I just want to know the correct format. Copying v=spf1 ip4:50.22.72.198 a mx:wordswithfriends.net ~all Straight into an SPF record doesn't work.

    Read the article

  • How can I make an SQL statement that finds unassociated records?

    - by William Calleja
    I have two tables as follows: tblCountry (countryID, countryCode) tblProjectCountry(ProjectID, countryID) The tblCountry table is a list of all countries with their codes and the tblProjectCountry table associates certain countries with certain projects. I need an SQL statement that gives me a list of the countries with their country code that do NOT have an associated record in the tblProjectCountry table. so far I got to here: SELECT tblCountry.countryID, tblCountry.countryCode FROM tblProjectCountry INNER JOIN tblCountry ON tblProjectCountry.countryID = tblCountry.countryID WHERE (SELECT COUNT(ProjectID) FROM tblProjectCountry WHERE (ProjectID = 1) AND (countryID = tblCountry.countryID)) = 0 The above statement parses as correct but doesn't give the exact result I'm looking for. Can anyone help?

    Read the article

  • How to convert records including 'include' associations to JSON.

    - by 99miles
    If I do something like: result = Appointment.find( :all, :include => :staff ) logger.debug { result.inspect } then it only prints out the Appointment data, and not the associated staff data. If I do result[0].staff.inpsect then I get the staff data of course. The problem is I want to return this to AJAX as JSON, including the staff rows. How do I force it to include the staff rows, or do I have to loop through and create something manually?

    Read the article

  • checking if records exists in DB, in single step or 2 steps?

    - by Sinan
    Suppose you want to get a record from database which returns a large data and requires multiple joins. So my question would be is it better to use a single query to check if data exists and get the result if it exists. Or do a more simple query to check if data exists then id record exists, query once again to get the result knowing that it exists. Example: 3 tables a, b and ab(junction table) select * from from a, b, ab where condition and condition and condition and condition etc... or select id from a, b ab where condition then if exists do the query above. So I don't know if there is any reason to do the second. Any ideas how this affects DB performance or does it matter at all?

    Read the article

  • How to return all records and whether a related record exists?

    - by David Glenn
    Using Entity Framework 4 CTP5 I have a basic model and a basic DbContext that works public class Customer { public int CustomerId { get; set; } public int Name { get; set; } //... public ICollection<Address> Addresses { get; set; } public bool HasAddress { get { return Addresses.Count > 0; } } } public class Address { public int AddressId { get; set; } public string StreetLine1 { get; set; } //.... public Customer Customer { get; set; } } How can I query my DbContext to return all customers and whether they have an address? A customer can have multiple addresses and I don't want to return all the addresses for each customer when I am only interested in whether they have an address or not. I use context.Customers.Include(c => c.Addresses) but that returns all addresses for each customer

    Read the article

  • (outofmemoryerror: java heap space) when iterating through oracle records...

    - by rockit
    hello fellow java developers. I'm having a bit of an issue here. I have code that gets a resultset from an oracle database, prints each row to a file, then gets the next row - and continues till the end of the resultset. Only this isn't what happens. What happens is that it gets the resultset, starts iterating through the rows, printing to file as it goes, until it runs out of memory - claiming it needs more space on the java heap. The app is currently running with 2g of memory on the heap and the code breaks at about the 150000th row. I'm using jodbc6.jar and java 6 Here is an idea of what my code is doing: Connection conn = DriverManager.getConnection(url,"name","pwd"); conn.setAutoCommit(false); Statement stmt = conn.createStatement(); ResultSet rset = stmt.executeQuery(strSql); String strVar_1 = null; long lCount = 0; while(rset.next()){ lCount++; if (lCount % 100000 == 0){ System.out.println(lCount + " rows completed"); } strVar_1 = rset.getString("StringID"); /// breaks here!!!!!!!!! if (strVar_1 == null){ strVar_1 = ""; } if (!strQuery_1.equals("")){ out.write(strVar_1 + "\n"); } } out.close();

    Read the article

  • Delphi -> Delphi prism, how to use array of records?

    - by Pierre
    Hi there. I'm learning Delphi Prism, and i don't find how to write the following code with it : type TRapportItem = record Label : String; Value : Int16; AnomalieComment : String; end; type TRapportCategorie = record Label : String; CategoriesItems : Array of TRapportItem; end; type TRapportContent = record Categories : array of TRapportCategorie; end; Then, somewhere, i try to put items in the array : rapport.Categories[i].Label:=l.Item(i).InnerText; But it doesn't work.. Can someone enlight me? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • CakePHP: How can I change this find call to include all records that do not exist in the associated

    - by Stephen
    I have a few tables with the following relationships: Company hasMany Jobs, Employees, and Trucks, Users I've got all my foreign keys set up properly, along with the tables' Models, Controllers, and Views. Originally, the Jobs table had a boolean field called "assigned". The following find operation (from the JobsController) successfully returns all employees, all trucks, and any jobs that are not assigned and fall on a certain day for a single company (without returning users by utilizing the containable behavior): $this->set('resources', $this->Job->Company->find('first', array( 'conditions' => array( 'Company.id' => $company_id ), 'contain' => array( 'Employee', 'Truck', 'Job' => array( 'conditions' => array( 'Job.assigned' => false, 'Job.pickup_date' => date('Y-m-d', strtotime('Today')); ) ) ) ))); Now, since writing this code, I decided to do a lot more with the job assignments. So I've created a new model "Assignment" that belongsTo Truck and belongsTo Job. I've added the hasMany Assignments to both the Truck model and the Jobs Model. I have both foreign keys in the assignments table, along with some other assignment fields. Now, I'm trying to get the same information above, only instead of checking the assigned field from the job table, I want to check the assignments table to ensure that the job does not exist there. I can no longer use the containable behavior if I'm going to use the "joins" feature of the find method due to mysql errors (according to the cookbook). But, the following query returns all jobs, even if they fall on different days. $this->set('resources', $this->Job->Company->find('first', array( 'joins' => array( array( 'table' => 'employees', 'alias' => 'Employee', 'type' => 'LEFT', 'conditions' => array( 'Company.id = Employee.company_id' ) ), array( 'table' => 'trucks', 'alias' => 'Truck', 'type' => 'LEFT', 'conditions' => array( 'Company.id = Truck.company_id' ) ), array( 'table' => 'jobs', 'alias' => 'Job', 'type' => 'LEFT', 'conditions' => array( 'Company.id = Job.company_id' ) ), array( 'table' => 'assignments', 'alias' => 'Assignment', 'type' => 'LEFT', 'conditions' => array( 'Job.id = Assignment.job_id' ) ) ), 'conditions' => array( 'Job.pickup_date' => $day, 'Company.id' => $company_id, 'Assignment.job_id IS NULL' ) )));

    Read the article

  • How to always return a set number of records when using find_related_tags with acts-as-taggable-on

    - by hadees
    I'm using the acts-as-taggable-on gem and I need to use find_related_tags on my survey model to get back 3 surveys every time. In the event there aren't always 3 related I need to pick how ever many are related plus some random ones to get to 3. Additionally I have a method I wrote called completed_survey_ids which return an array of survey_ids that shouldn't be used because the user has already completed them. Also there is a rare case that there won't be enough surveys because the user has completed them all so in that event it is okay to return less surveys then requested. I did write a named_scope to handle getting rid of the completed_survey_ids that I think works named_scope :not, lambda { |survey_ids| {:conditions => "id NOT IN (#{survey_ids.join(',')})" } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74  | Next Page >