Search Results

Search found 28900 results on 1156 pages for 'sql 2005'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 672/1156 | < Previous Page | 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679  | Next Page >

  • Load Empty Database table

    - by john White
    I am using SQLexpress and VS2008. I have a DB with a table named "A", which has an IdentitySpecification column named ID. The ID is auto-incremented. Even if the row is deleted, the ID still increases. After several data manipulation, the current ID has reached 15, for example. When I run the application if there's at least 1 row: if I add a new row, the new ID is 16. Everything is fine. If the table is empty (no row): if I add a new row, the new ID is 0, which is an error (I think). And further data manipulation (eg. delete or update) will result in an unhandled exception. Has anyone encountered this? PS. In my table definition, the ID has been selected as follow: Identity Increment = 1; Identity Seed =1; The DB load code is: dataSet = gcnew DataSet(); dataAdapter->Fill(dataSet,"A"); dataTable=dataSet->Tables["A"]; dbConnection->Open(); The Update button method dataAdapter->Update(dataSet,"tblInFlow"); dataSet->AcceptChanges(); dataTable=dataSet->Tables["tblInFlow"]; dataGrid->DataSource=dataTable; If I press Update: if there's at least a row: the datagrid view updates and shows the table correctly. if there's nothing in the table (no data row), the Add method will add a new row, but from ID 0. If I close the program and restart it again: the ID would be 16, which is correct. This is the add method row=dataTable->NewRow(); row["column1"]="something"; dataTable->Rows->Add(row); dataAdapter->Update(dataSet,"A"); dataSet->AcceptChanges(); dataTable=dataSet->Tables["A"];

    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

  • postgres subquery w/ derived column

    - by Wells
    The following query won't work, but it should be clear what I'm trying to do: split the value of 't' on space and use the last element in that array in the subquery (as it will match tl). Any ideas how to do this? Thanks! SELECT t, y, "type", regexp_split_to_array(t, ' ') as t_array, sum(dr), ( select uz from f.tfa where tl = t_array[-1] ) as uz, sc FROM padres.yd_fld WHERE y = 2010 AND pos <> 0 GROUP BY t, y, "type", sc;

    Read the article

  • Having to insert a record, then update the same record warrants 1:1 relationship design?

    - by dianovich
    Let's say an Order has many Line items and we're storing the total cost of an order (based on the sum of prices on order lines) in the orders table. -------------- orders -------------- id ref total_cost -------------- -------------- lines -------------- id order_id price -------------- In a simple application, the order and line are created during the same step of the checkout process. So this means INSERT INTO orders .... -- Get ID of inserted order record INSERT into lines VALUES(null, order_id, ...), ... where we get the order ID after creating the order record. The problem I'm having is trying to figure out the best way to store the total cost of an order. I don't want to have to create an order create lines on an order calculate cost on order based on lines then update record created in 1. in orders table This would mean a nullable total_cost field on orders for starters... My solution thus far is to have an order_totals table with a 1:1 relationship to the orders table. But I think it's redundant. Ideally, since everything required to calculate total costs (lines on an order) is in the database, I would work out the value every time I need it, but this is very expensive. What are your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • PL/SQL REGEXP_LIKE testing string for allowed characters

    - by Arino
    I need to verify that the provided string has only allowed characters using Oracle regular expressions (REGEXP_LIKE). Allowed chars are: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789_-. Trying to execute SELECT CASE WHEN REGEXP_LIKE('abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789_-.' , '^[a-z0-9_\-\.]+$') THEN 'true' ELSE 'false' END tmp FROM dual; results in 'false'. Any ideas on this?

    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

  • Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute

    - by Rita
    I have the below code. I am trying to remove the record and it is throwing Exception when it is removing the Record. "Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute." Any ideas on how to get rid of the message. Appreciate your time. //validClaimControlNo has valid ClaimControl Numbers. List<string> validClaimControlNo = new List<string>(); int count = 0; foreach (List<Field> f in records) { foreach (Field fe in f) { if (i == 0) if (!(validClaimControlNo.Contains(fe.Value))) { //if this claim is not in the Valid list, Remove that Record records.RemoveAt(count); } i++; } i = 0; count++; }

    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

  • Can't delete record via the datacontext it was retrieved from

    - by Antilogic
    I just upgraded one of my application's methods to use compiled queries (not sure if this is relevant). Now I'm getting contradicting error messages when I run the code. This is my method: MyClass existing = Queries.MyStaticCompiledQuery(MyRequestScopedDataContext, param1, param2).SingleOrDefault(); if (existing != null) { MyRequestScopedDataContext.MyClasses.DeleteOnSubmit(existing); } When I run it I get this message: Cannot remove an entity that has not been attached. Note that the compiled query and the DeleteOnSubmit reference the same DataContext. Still I figured I'd humor the application and add an attach command before the DeleteOnSubmit, like so: MyClass existing = Queries.MyStaticCompiledQuery(MyRequestScopedDataContext, param1, param2).SingleOrDefault(); if (existing != null) { MyRequestScopedDataContext.MyClasses.Attach(existing); MyRequestScopedDataContext.MyClasses.DeleteOnSubmit(existing); } BUT... When I run this code, I get a completely different contradictory error message: An attempt has been made to Attach or Add an entity that is not new, perhaps having been loaded from another DataContext. This is not supported. I'm at a complete loss... Does anyone else have some insight as to why I can't delete a record via the same DataContext I retrieved it from?

    Read the article

  • Mysql query help needed

    - by Me-and-Coding
    Hi, i have two tables category and hotels where category.id should be equal to hotels.catid. Now how do i select 3 rows from each different category from the hotels table. I have this query: select h.* from hotels h inner join category c on h.catid = c.id order by h.catid, h.hid this selects all records, but i want to select three rows per different category so in all it should return 9 rows with 3 rows for each category. If this can not be done in mysql, you could also suggest php code please. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Using a trigger to record audit information vs. stored procedure

    - by Germ
    Suppose you have the following... An ASP.NET web application that calls a stored procedure to delete a record. The table has a trigger on it that will insert an audit entry each time a record is deleted. I want to be able to record in the audit entry the username of who deleted the record. What would be the best way to go about achieving this? I know I could remove the trigger and have the delete stored procedure insert the audit entry prior to deleting but are there any other recommeded alternative? If a username was passed as a parameter to the delete stored procedure, is there anyway to get this value in the trigger that's excuted when the record is deleted? I'm just throwing this out there...

    Read the article

  • How do I use on delete cascade in mysql?

    - by Marius
    I have a database of components. Each component is of a specific type. That means there is a many-to-one relationship between a component and a type. When I delete a type, I would like to delete all the components which has a foreign key of that type. But if I'm not mistaken, cascade delete will delete the type when the component is deleted. Is there any way to do what I described?

    Read the article

  • Suggestion on Database structure for relational data

    - by miccet
    Hi there. I've been wrestling with this problem for quite a while now and the automatic mails with 'Slow Query' warnings are still popping in. Basically, I have Blogs with a corresponding table as well as a table that keeps track of how many times each Blog has been viewed. This last table has a huge amount of records since this page is relatively high traffic and it logs every hit as an individual row. I have tried with indexes on the fields that are included in the WHERE clause, but it doesn't seem to help. I have also tried to clean the table each week by removing old ( 1.weeks) records. SO, I'm asking you guys, how would you solve this? The query that I know is causing the slowness is generated by Rails and looks like this: SELECT count(*) AS count_all FROM blog_views WHERE (created_at >= '2010-01-01 00:00:01' AND blog_id = 1); The tables have the following structures: CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS 'blogs' ( 'id' int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment, 'name' varchar(255) default NULL, 'perma_name' varchar(255) default NULL, 'author_id' int(11) default NULL, 'created_at' datetime default NULL, 'updated_at' datetime default NULL, 'blog_picture_id' int(11) default NULL, 'blog_picture2_id' int(11) default NULL, 'page_id' int(11) default NULL, 'blog_picture3_id' int(11) default NULL, 'active' tinyint(1) default '1', PRIMARY KEY ('id'), KEY 'index_blogs_on_author_id' ('author_id') ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=1 ; And CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS 'blog_views' ( 'id' int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment, 'blog_id' int(11) default NULL, 'ip' varchar(255) default NULL, 'created_at' datetime default NULL, 'updated_at' datetime default NULL, PRIMARY KEY ('id'), KEY 'index_blog_views_on_blog_id' ('blog_id'), KEY 'created_at' ('created_at') ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=1 ;

    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

  • 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

  • best database design for city zip & state tables

    - by ryan a
    My application will need to reference addresses. Street info will be stored with my main objects but the rest needs to be stored seperately to reduce redundancy. How should I store/retrieve ZIPs, cities and states? Here are some of my ideas. single table solution (cant do relationships) [locations] locationID locationParent (FK for locationID - 0 for state entries) locationName (city, state) locationZIP two tables (with relationships, FK constraints, ref integrity) [state] stateID stateName [city] cityID stateID (FK for state.stateID) cityName zipCode three tables [state] stateID stateName [city] cityID stateID (FK for state.stateID) cityName [zip] zipID cityID (FK for city.cityID) zipName Then I read into ZIP codes amd how they are assigned. They aren't specifically related to cities. Some cities have more than one ZIP (ok will still work) but some ZIPs are in more than one city (oh snap) and some other ZIPs (very few) are in more than one state! Also some ZIPs are not even in the same state as the address they belong to at all. Seems ZIPs are made for carrier route identification and some remote places are best served by post offices in neighboring cities or states. Does anybody know of a good (not perfect) solution that takes this into consideration to minimize discrepencies as the database grows?

    Read the article

  • Best way to update/insert into a table based on a remote table.

    - by martilyo
    I have two very large enterprise tables in an Oracle 10g database. One table keeps the historical information of the other table. The problem is, I'm getting to the point where the records are just too many that my insert update is taking too long and my session is getting killed by the governor. Here's a pseudocode of my update process: sqlsel := 'SELECT col1, col2, col3, sysdate FROM table2@remote_location dpi WHERE (col1, col2, col3) IN ( SELECT col1, col2, col3 FROM table2@remote_location MINUS SELECT DISTINCT col1, col2, col3 FROM table1 mpc WHERE facility = '''||load_facility||''' )'; EXECUTE IMMEDIATE sqlsel BULK COLLECT INTO table1; I've tried the MERGE statement: MERGE INTO table1 t1 USING ( SELECT col1, col2, col3 FROM table2@remote_location ) t2 ON ( t1.col1 = t2.col1 AND t1.col2 = t2.col2 AND t1.col3 = t2.col3 ) WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT (t1.col1, t1.col2, t1.col3, t1.update_dttm ) VALUES (t2.col1, t2.col2, t2.col3, sysdate ) But there seems to be a confirmed bug on versions prior to Oracle 10.2.0.4 on the merge statement when doing a merge using a remote database. The chance of getting an enterprise upgrade is slim so is there a way to further optimize my first query or write it in another way to have it run best performance wise? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Group by query design help

    - by Midhat
    Consider this data PK field1 field2 1 a b 2 a (null) 3 x y 4 x z 5 q w I need to get this data select all columns from all rows where field1 has count 1 i tried and finally settled for select * from mytable where field1 in (select field1 from mytable group by field1 having count(field1)>1 ) order by field1 but there has to be a better way than this

    Read the article

  • asp:QueryStringParameter and empty query string parameter

    - by abatishchev
    I haveasp:GridView displaying client requests using asp:SqlDataSource. I want to limit displayed information by client: View.aspx has to display everything, View.aspx?client=1 has to display only requests from client ID #1. So I'm using <asp:QueryStringParameter Name="client" QueryStringField="client" /> for query "EXEC getRequests @client". Everything works properly when some client is specified. But don't - if not. I tested my SP using SSMS - it works properly in both cases - when parameter is specified and when it isn't (NULL passed explicitly). What have I do?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679  | Next Page >