Search Results

Search found 27337 results on 1094 pages for 't sql'.

Page 677/1094 | < Previous Page | 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684  | Next Page >

  • SqlCE Flush Interval - Will the default setting lead to corruption?

    - by NormD
    SqlCE has a parameter set on the Connect String called Flush Interval. It is defined as: The interval time (in seconds) before all committed transactions are flushed to disk. If not specified, the default value is 10. I thought that a committed transaction, by definition, is a transaction that has been flushed to disk, specifically the database file. If a transaction is only stored in RAM then cannot the transaction be easily lost? I thought that transactions were first written to a log file and then applied to the database file itself, so perhaps this parameter could mean the time to wait until the transaction log is applied to the database file? I would have thought that this parameter should be 0.

    Read the article

  • SSRS Performance Mystery

    - by user101654
    I have a stored procedure that returns about 50000 records in 10sec using at most 2 cores in SSMS. The SSRS report using the stored procedure was taking 20min and would max out the processor on an 8 core server for the entire time. The report was relatively simple (i.e. no graphs, calculations). The report did not appear to be the issue as I wrote the 50K rows to a temp table and the report could display the data in a few seconds. I tried many different ideas for testing altering the stored procedure each time, but keeping the original code in a separate window to revert back to. After one Alter of the stored procedure, going back to the original code, the report and server utilization started running fast, comparable to the performance of the stored procedure alone. Everything is fine for now, but I am would like to get to the bottom of what caused this in case it happens again. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to distribute ranking using MySQL Query and PHP

    - by nkp
    I have to distribute ranking to the 5000 students in an exam. Ranking is based on the score and the time taken (in seconds) to obtain that score. For example is 5 students have same score, then taken will be the criteria to calculate their ranks otherwise score should be the criteria to calculate their ranks. Following is my table tbRank ID StudID Score Time Date Rank 1 11 8 60 09-11-2013 2 22 6 45 09-11-2013 3 33 4 76 09-11-2013 4 44 6 67 09-11-2013 5 55 8 35 09-11-2013 6 66 8 35 08-11-2013 7 77 8 39 08-11-2013 Now rank column in above table should be updated as: ID StudID Score Time Date Rank 1 11 8 60 09-11-2013 2 2 22 6 45 09-11-2013 3 3 33 4 76 09-11-2013 5 4 44 6 67 09-11-2013 4 5 55 8 35 09-11-2013 1 6 66 8 35 08-11-2013 1 7 77 8 39 08-11-2013 2 I want to make a MySQL Query to do this business. Similarly there can be more than 10000 records in the table. So I need an optimized query for this functionality. Note: I am using PHP and MYSQL. Update: Everyday almost 5000 new entries will be created in the table and after all insertions are made, rank column will be updated once in a day. Now please suggest me the best way to do this. If I update rank column in the table, then only once I will have to do it, otherwise everytime while fetching the rank of the student, I will have to make calculations.

    Read the article

  • Is a JOIN more/less efficient than EXISTS IN when no data is needed from the second table?

    - by twpc
    I need to look up all households with orders. I don't care about the data of the order at all, just that it exists. Is it more efficient to say something like this: SELECT HouseholdID, LastName, FirstName, Phone FROM Households INNER JOIN Orders ON Orders.HouseholdID = Households.HouseholdID or this: SELECT HouseholdID, LastName, FirstName, Phone FROM Households WHERE EXISTS (SELECT HouseholdID FROM Orders WHERE Orders.HouseholdID = Households.HouseholdID)

    Read the article

  • Business object and linq2SQL

    - by Overdose
    What is the optimal way to write the code which interacts with DB using linq2SQL? I need to add some business logic to the entities. So I guess there are two ways: Write some wrapper class. The main minus is that many fields are the same, so i don't feel it as DRY style. Add business logic methods to linq2sql entities(these classes are partial) directly ???

    Read the article

  • Forcing the use of an index can improve performance?

    - by aF.
    Imagine that we have a query like this: select a.col1, b.col2 from t1 a inner join t2 b on a.col1 = b.col2 where a.col1 = 'abc' Both col1 and col2 don't have any index. If I add another restriction on the where clause, one that is always correct but with a column with an index: select a.col1, b.col2 from t1 a inner join t2 b on a.col1 = b.col2 where a.col1 = 'abc' and a.id >= 0 -- column always true and with index May the query perform faster since it may use the index on id column?

    Read the article

  • ruby on rails w/ SQLServer

    - by jaydel
    I've heard from some people that RoR doesn't marry cleanly with SQLServer. We have a series of historical, standardization to use SQLServer but if we can push back with valid reasons we can move to another db. One person on the team wants MySql and another wants Postgres, etc. I'm trying to stay out of the religious wars and really understand what the pain point is with SQLServer. We're running the app server on a linux box, and the database will be on a windows box and the SQLServer that we're supposed to standardize on is 2008, if those details help any... thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Database is very slow when creating an index

    - by kaliyaperumal M
    My database has around 25 core numbers, in that weekly basis I need to create an index and drop index. While creating the index it takes long time to complete, my log file also keeps on increasing, and when I delete some numbers from that table also taking too much time (because weekly basis I have to delete 30 to 50 lack numbers and add 30 to 40 lack new number also). Can u please give me the proper solution..

    Read the article

  • simple query Delete records in a table based on count logic

    - by user1905941
    a table with a pk and status column which is having values as 'Y','N','NULL' Query: get the count of records with status column as 'Y', if this count exceeds 1% of total count of records then dont delete , else delete the records in the table. i tried like this Declare v_count Number; v_count1 Number; BEGIN v_count := select count(*) from temp; v_count1 := select count(*) from temp where status = 'Y' ; v_count := v_count + ((0.1) * (v_count)) if (v_count1 > v_count) { insert into temp1 values(pk,status) } else { Delete from temp ; } END;

    Read the article

  • Query to bring count from comma seperated Value

    - by Mugil
    I have Two Tables One for Storing Products and Other for Storing Orders List. CREATE TABLE ProductsList(ProductId INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, ProductName VARCHAR(50)) INSERT INTO ProductsList(ProductId, ProductName) VALUES(1,'Product A'), (2,'Product B'), (3,'Product C'), (4,'Product D'), (5,'Product E'), (6,'Product F'), (7,'Product G'), (8,'Product H'), (9,'Product I'), (10,'Product J'); CREATE TABLE OrderList(OrderId INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT, EmailId VARCHAR(50), CSVProductIds VARCHAR(50)) SELECT * FROM OrderList INSERT INTO OrderList(EmailId, CSVProductIds) VALUES('[email protected]', '2,4,1,5,7'), ('[email protected]', '5,7,4'), ('[email protected]', '2'), ('[email protected]', '8,9'), ('[email protected]', '4,5,9'), ('[email protected]', '1,2,3'), ('[email protected]', '9,10'), ('[email protected]', '1,5'); Output ItemName NoOfOrders Product A 4 Product B 3 Product C 1 Product D 3 Product E 4 Product F 0 Product G 2 Product H 1 Product I 2 Product J 1 The Order List Stores the ItemsId as Comma separated value for every customer who places order.Like this i am having more than 40k Records in my dB table Now I am assigned with a task of creating report in which I should display Items and No of People ordered Items as Shown Below I Used Query as below in my PHP to bring the Orders One By One and storing in array. SELECT COUNT(PL.EmailId) FROM OrderList PL WHERE CSVProductIds LIKE '2' OR CSVProductIds LIKE '%,2,%' OR CSVProductIds LIKE '%,2' OR CSVProductIds LIKE '2,%'; 1.Is it possible to get the same out put by using Single Query 2.Does using a like in mysql query slows down the dB when the table has more no of records i.e 40k rows

    Read the article

  • Difference between "and" and "where" in joins

    - by Midhat
    Whats the difference between SELECT DISTINCT field1 FROM table1 cd JOIN table2 ON cd.Company = table2.Name and table2.Id IN (2728) and SELECT DISTINCT field1 FROM table1 cd JOIN table2 ON cd.Company = table2.Name where table2.Id IN (2728) both return the same result and both have the same explain output

    Read the article

  • Strange SQL problem selecting multiple values for same column

    - by Nubber
    Hello there, Been at this for a few hours now and I can't make any sense of it. I've used this way of selecting multiple values for same column a few times, but there is something weird with this one. SELECT * FROM employee as s INNER JOIN works AS w1 ON w1.name = s.name INNER JOIN employee AS w2 ON w2.name = s.name INNER JOIN employee AS w3 ON w3.name = s.name WHERE w2.city = 'Washington' Basically what I want to do is find all companies which have people in all the cities. The company name is under 'works'. The problem is however that if I have the WHERE w2.city='Washington' it will make ALL the cities match Washington when it should only touch w2 and leave w3 alone so I could match it with another value. Anyone know why its doing this? Or know a better way to do it. Thank you very much in advance.

    Read the article

  • MySQL, select from different table... IF

    - by gubbfett
    I'm having a small trouble since it was a long time ago i studies databases and querys. For example i'll have two tables for cd:s, one with data and one with alternative translations. In the CD-table i have the original language, and it looks something like this Table for CDs (cds): id | name | language ----------------------- 1 | aaa | en 2 | bbb | en 3 | ccc | fi Table for languages (languages): cd_id | language | name ----------------------- 1 | fi | AAA 1 | de | AAACHTUNG 3 | en | CCC Now, i want to get all these cd:s in for example german, if there's no translation made i want it to be in the original language... How can i do this?

    Read the article

  • Postgres: Find table foreign keys (Faster alternative)

    - by Najera
    Is there faster alternative to this: Take almost 1 minute in our server. SELECT tc.constraint_name, tc.table_name, kcu.column_name, ccu.table_name AS foreign_table_name, ccu.column_name AS foreign_column_name FROM information_schema.table_constraints AS tc JOIN information_schema.key_column_usage AS kcu ON tc.constraint_name = kcu.constraint_name JOIN information_schema.constraint_column_usage AS ccu ON ccu.constraint_name = tc.constraint_name WHERE constraint_type = 'FOREIGN KEY' AND tc.table_name='mytable'; Maybe using pg_class metadata?, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Left Join only returning one row

    - by Adam
    I am trying to join two tables. I would like all the columns from the product_category table (there are a total of 6 now) and count the number of products, CatCount, that are in each category from the products_has_product_category table. My query result is 1 row with the first category and a total count of 68, when I am looking for 6 rows with each individual category's count. <?php $result = mysql_query(" SELECT a.*, COUNT(b.category_id) AS CatCount FROM `product_category` a LEFT JOIN `products_has_product_category` b ON a.product_category_id = b.category_id "); while($row = mysql_fetch_array($result)) { echo ' <li class="ui-shadow" data-count-theme="d"> <a href="' . $row['product_category_ref_page'] . '.php" data-icon="arrow-r" data-iconpos="right">' . $row['product_category_name'] . '</a><span class="ui-li-count">' . $row['CatCount'] . '</span></li>'; } ?> I have been working on this for a couple of hours and would really appreciate any help on what I am doing wrong.

    Read the article

  • Count of Sums possibly using group_by

    - by Daniel Johnson
    Say you have a user table and an order table which references user (user has_many orders) and contains an item count field. How could you efficiently ask "how many uses ordered how many items?" That is, to generate something along the lines of: Number of users | sum of items ------------------------------- 5 users | 1 item 4 users | 5 items 1 user | 7 items Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Is an index required for columns in ON clause?

    - by newbie
    Do I have to create an index on columns referenced in Joins? E.g. SELECT * FROM left_table INNER JOIN right_table ON left_table.foo = right_table.bar WHERE ... Should I create indexes on left_table(foo), right_table(bar), or both? I noticed different results when I used EXPLAIN (Postgresql) with and without indexes and switching around the order of the comparison (right_table.bar = left_table.foo) I know for sure that indexes are used for the left of the WHERE clause but I am wondering whether I need indexes for columns listed in ON clauses.

    Read the article

  • Selecting count(*) while checking for a value in the results

    - by Rob
    SELECT COUNT(*) as Count, IF(sch.HomeTeamID = 34,true,false) AS Hawaii FROM schedule sch JOIN schools s ON s.ID = 83 WHERE (sch.HomeTeamID = 83 OR sch.AwayTeamID = 83) AND sch.SeasonID = 4 I'm trying to use count() to simplify my result but also include a field that represents wether any of the results' specific column contained a certain value. Is this possible? I'd basically like a row response with all the info I need.

    Read the article

  • Multisite Enabling a Table

    - by Joe Fitzgibbons
    I am creating a table (table A) that will have a number of columns(of course) and there will be another table (table B) that holds metadata associated to rows in table A. I am working with a multi site implementation that has one database for the whole shabang. Rows in table A could belong to any number of sites but must belong to at least one. The problem I have is I am not sure what the best practice is for defining what site each row in table A belongs to. I want performance and scalability. There is no finite number of sites going forward. Rows in table A could belong to any number of sites in the future. Right now there are only 3. My initial thoughts are to have a primary site ID in Table A and then metadata in table B will have rows defining additional sites as needed. Another thought is to have a column in Table A for each site and it is a boolean as to wether it belongs to that site. Lastly I have thought about having another table to map rows in Table A to each site. What is the best way to associate rows in a table with any number of sites with performance and scalability in mind?

    Read the article

  • Merging some columns of two mysql tables where id = fileid

    - by garg
    There are two tables TableA filedata_id | user_id | filename 1 | 1 | file.txt 2 | 1 | file2.txt TableB a_id | date | filedataid | counter | state | cat_id | subcat_id | med_id 99 | 1242144 | 1 | 2 | v | 55 | 56 | 90 100 | 1231232 | 2 | 3 | i | 44 | 55 | 110 I want to move columns cat_id, subcat_id, med_id to TableA where tableA.filedata_id = TableB.filedataid The result should be: TableA filedata_id | user_id | filename | cat_id | subcat_id | med_id 1 | 1 | file.txt | 55 | 56 | 90 2 | 1 | file2.txt | 44 | 55 | 110 and so on. Is there a way to do this easily?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684  | Next Page >