Search Results

Search found 27472 results on 1099 pages for 'sql humor'.

Page 678/1099 | < Previous Page | 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685  | Next Page >

  • Adding Related Entities without using navigation properties

    - by Barisa Puter
    I have the following classes, set for testing: public class Company { [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)] public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class Employee { [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)] public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public int CompanyId { get; set; } public virtual Company Company { get; set; } } public class EFTestDbContext : DbContext { public DbSet<Employee> Employees { get; set; } public DbSet<Company> Companies { get; set; } } For the sake of testing, I wanted to insert one company and one employee for that company with single SaveChanges call, like this: Company company = new Company { Name = "Sample company" }; context.Companies.Add(company); // ** UNCOMMENTED FOR TEST 2 //Company company2 = new Company //{ // Name = "Some other company" //}; //context.Companies.Add(company2); Employee employee = new Employee { Name = "Hans", CompanyId = company.Id }; context.Employees.Add(employee); context.SaveChanges(); Even though I am not using navigational properties, but instead I've made relation over Id, this somehow mysteriously worked - employee was saved with proper foreign key to company which got updated from 0 to real value, which made me go ?!?! Some hidden C# feature? Then I've decided to add more code, which is commented in the snippet above, making it to be inserting of 2 x Company entity and 1 x Employee entity, and then I got exception: Unable to determine the principal end of the 'CodeLab.EFTest.Employee_Company' relationship. Multiple added entities may have the same primary key. Does this mean that in cases where foreign key is 0, and there is a single matching entity being inserted in same SaveChanges transaction, Entity Framework will assume that foreign key should be for that matching entity? In second test, when there are two entities matching the relation type, Entity Framework throws an exception as it is not able to figure out to which of the Companies Employee should be related to.

    Read the article

  • Improve SQL query performance

    - by Anax
    I have three tables where I store actual person data (person), teams (team) and entries (athlete). The schema of the three tables is: In each team there might be two or more athletes. I'm trying to create a query to produce the most frequent pairs, meaning people who play in teams of two. I came up with the following query: SELECT p1.surname, p1.name, p2.surname, p2.name, COUNT(*) AS freq FROM person p1, athlete a1, person p2, athlete a2 WHERE p1.id = a1.person_id AND p2.id = a2.person_id AND a1.team_id = a2.team_id AND a1.team_id IN ( SELECT id FROM team, athlete WHERE team.id = athlete.team_id GROUP BY team.id HAVING COUNT(*) = 2 ) GROUP BY p1.id ORDER BY freq DESC Obviously this is a resource consuming query. Is there a way to improve it?

    Read the article

  • Merging rows with uniqueness constraints

    - by Flambino
    I've got a little time-tracking web app (implemented in Rails 3.2.8 & MySQL). The app has several users who add their time to specific tasks, on a given date. The system is set up so a user can only have 1 time entry (i.e. row) per task per date. I.e. if you add time twice on the same task and date, it'll add time to the existing row, rather than create a new one. Now I'm looking to merge 2 tasks. In the simplest terms, merging task ID 2 into task ID 1 would take this time | user_id | task_id | date ------+----------+----------+----------- 10 | 1 | 1 | 2012-10-29 15 | 2 | 1 | 2012-10-29 10 | 1 | 2 | 2012-10-29 5 | 3 | 2 | 2012-10-29 and change it into this time | user_id | task_id | date ------+----------+----------+----------- 20 | 1 | 1 | 2012-10-29 <-- time values merged (summed) 15 | 2 | 1 | 2012-10-29 <-- no change 5 | 3 | 1 | 2012-10-29 <-- task_id changed (no merging necessary) I.e. merge by summing the time values, where the given user_id/date/task combo would conflict. I figure I can use a unique constraint to do a ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE ... if I do an insert for every task_id=2 entry. But that seems pretty inelegant. I've also tried to figure a way to first update all the rows in task 1 with the summed-up times, but I can't quite figure that one out. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Is this a bad indexing strategy for a table?

    - by llamaoo7
    The table in question is part of a database that a vendor's software uses on our network. The table contains metadata about files. The schema of the table is as follows Metadata ResultID (PK, int, not null) MappedFieldname (char(50), not null) Fieldname (PK, char(50), not null) Fieldvalue (text, null) There is a clustered index on ResultID and Fieldname. This table typically contains millions of rows (in one case, it contains 500 million). The table is populated by 24 workers running 4 threads each when data is being "processed". This results in many non-sequential inserts. Later after processing, more data is inserted into this table by some of our in-house software. The fragmentation for a given table is at least 50%. In the case of the largest table, it is at 90%. We do not have a DBA. I am aware we desperately need a DB maintenance strategy. As far as my background, I'm a college student working part time at this company. My question is this, is a clustered index the best way to go about this? Should another index be considered? Are there any good references for this type and similar ad-hoc DBA tasks?

    Read the article

  • Getting rows which include a value with MySQL

    - by sundowatch
    I have a MySQL query which gets including some vars like that: messages TABLE receiver cols user1 rows : 1,3,5 user2 rows : 2,3 user3 rows : 1,4 I want to get rows which includes '3' value. So I will get 'user1' and 'user2'. I tried that but naturally it doesn't work. mysql_query("SELECT * FROM messages WHERE receiver='3'"); How can I do this?

    Read the article

  • PHP is truncating MSSQL Blob data (4096b), even after setting INI values. Am I missing one?

    - by Dutchie432
    I am writing a PHP script that goes through a table and extracts the varbinary(max) blob data from each record into an external file. The code is working perfectly, except when a file is over 4096b - the data is truncated at exactly 4096. I've modified the values for mssql.textlimit, mssql.textsize, and odbc.defaultlrl without any success. Am I missing something here? <?php ini_set("mssql.textlimit" , "2147483647"); ini_set("mssql.textsize" , "2147483647"); ini_set("odbc.defaultlrl", "0"); include_once('common.php'); $id=$_REQUEST['i']; $q = odbc_exec($connect, "Select id,filename,documentBin from Projectdocuments where id = $id"); if (odbc_fetch_row($q)){ echo "Trying $filename ... "; $fileName="projectPhotos/docs/".odbc_result($q,"filename"); if (file_exists($fileName)){ unlink($fileName); } if($fh = fopen($fileName, "wb")) { $binData=odbc_result($q,"documentBin"); fwrite($fh, $binData) ; fclose($fh); $size = filesize($fileName); echo ("$fileName<br />Done ($size)<br><br>"); }else { echo ("$fileName Failed<br>"); } } ?> OUTPUT Trying ... projectPhotos/docs/file1.pdf Done (4096) Trying ... projectPhotos/docs/file2.zip Done (4096) Trying ... projectPhotos/docsv3.pdf Done (4096) etc..

    Read the article

  • Client to server data upload

    - by RickBowden
    I'm trying to design a system similar to the traditional server monitoring systems like MOM, Tivoli, Open View, where an agent will record data and then upload it to a central database once a day, but them also be able to send immediate alerts back to the server. I'm not sure what the best methodology might be for this. I've started looking at Microsoft sync services but I'm not sure if it will fit my needs. I'm using VS2008 and C#. Does anyone have any experience or ideas about how I should go about this task?

    Read the article

  • Fetch multiple rows from SQL in PHP foreach item in array

    - by TrySpace
    I try to request an array of IDs, to return each row with that ID, and push each into an Array $finalArray But only the first result from the Query will output, and at the second foreach, it skips the while loop. I have this working in another script, so I don't understand where it's going wrong. The $arrayItems is an array containing: "home, info" $finalArray = array(); foreach ($arrayItems as $UID_get) { $Query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE (uid = '" . cleanQuery($UID_get) . "' ) ORDER BY uid"; if($Result = $mysqli->query($Query)) { print_r($UID_get); echo "<BR><-><BR>"; while ($Row = $Result->fetch_assoc()) { array_push($finalArray , $Row); print_r($finalArray ); echo "<BR><><BR>"; } } else { echo '{ "returned" : "FAIL" }'; //. mysqli_connect_errno() . ' ' . mysqli_connect_error() . "<BR>"; } } (the cleanQuery is to escape and stripslashes) What I'm trying to get is an array of multiple rows (after i json_encoded it, like: {"finalArray" : { "home": {"id":"1","created":"0000-00-00 00:00:00","css":"{ \"background-color\" : \"red\" }"} }, { "info": {"id":"2","created":"0000-00-00 00:00:00","css":"{ \"background-color\" : \"blue\" }"} } } But that's after I get both, or more results from the db. the print_r($UID_get); does print info, but then nothing.. So, why am I not getting the second row from info? I am essentially re-querying foreach $arrayItem right?

    Read the article

  • Help with sql query

    - by user225269
    I have two tables: subject and student. I'm trying to count the number of subjects enrolled by each student. How do I do that?I'm trying the code below but it doesn't give the answer I need. Please help. SELECT COUNT( subject.SUBJECT ) , student.IDNO, student.FIRSTNAME, subject.SUBJECT FROM student, subject GROUP BY subject.SUBJECT LIMIT 0 , 30

    Read the article

  • sDesigning a database with flexible user profile

    - by Mughrabi
    I am working on a design where I can have flexible attributes for users and I am confused how to continue the design of the schema. I made a table where I kept system needed information: Table name: users id username password Now, I wish to create a profile table and have one to one relation where all the other attributes in profile table such as email, first name, last name, etc. My question is: is there a way to add a third table in which profiles will be flexible? In other words, if my clients need to create a new attribute he/she won't need any customization to the code.

    Read the article

  • Finding the count of characters and numbers in a string

    - by Aspirant
    Hi I have a table test as below NAME --------- abc1234 XYZ12789 a12X8b78Y9c5Z I try to find out the count of number of numbers and characters in the string as select name,length(replace(translate(lower(name),'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz',' '),' ','')) as char_count, length(replace(translate(name,'1234567890',' '),' ','')) as num_count from test6; Its executing fine giving the output NAME CHAR_COUNT NUM_COUNT abc1234 4 3 XYZ12789 5 3 a12X8b78Y9c5Z 7 6 But my question is there any option by not giving the abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz and 1234567890 manually

    Read the article

  • How can I use two or more COUNT()s in one SELECT statament?

    - by jjj
    i develop this code: SELECT COUNT(NewEmployee.EmployeeID), NewEmployee.EmployeeId,EmployeeName FROM NewEmployee INNER JOIN NewTimeAttendance ON NewEmployee.EmployeeID = NewTimeAttendance.EmployeeID and NewTimeAttendance.TotalTime is null and (NewTimeAttendance.note = '' or NewTimeAttendance.note is null) and (month = 1 or month = 2 or month = 3) GROUP BY NewEmployee.EmployeeID, EmployeeName order by EmployeeID from my previous two questions selecting null stuff and counting issue...that amazing code is working beautifully fine..but now i need to select more than one count... ...searched (google) .... found alias...tried: SELECT COUNT(NewEmployee.EmployeeID) as attenddays, COUNT(NewEmployee.EmployeeID) as empabsent , NewEmployee.EmployeeId,EmployeeName FROM NewEmployee INNER JOIN NewTimeAttendance ON empabsent =NewEmployee.EmployeeID = NewTimeAttendance.EmployeeID and NewTimeAttendance.TotalTime is null and (NewTimeAttendance.note = '' or NewTimeAttendance.note is null ) and (month=1 or month =2 or month = 3) , attenddays = NewTimeAttendance.EmployeeID and NewTimeAttendance.TotalTime is null and (NewTimeAttendance.note = '' or NewTimeAttendance.note is null ) and (month=1 or month =2 or month = 3) GROUP BY NewEmployee.EmployeeID, EmployeeName order by EmployeeID Incorrect syntax near '='. second try: SELECT COUNT(NewEmployee.EmployeeID) as attenddays, COUNT(NewEmployee.EmployeeID) as absentdays, NewEmployee.EmployeeId,EmployeeName FROM NewEmployee INNER JOIN NewTimeAttendance ON attenddays(NewEmployee.EmployeeID = NewTimeAttendance.EmployeeID and NewTimeAttendance.TotalTime is null and (NewTimeAttendance.note = '' or NewTimeAttendance.note is null ) and (month=1 or month =2 or month = 3)) , absentdays(NewEmployee.EmployeeID = NewTimeAttendance.EmployeeID and NewTimeAttendance.TotalTime is null and (NewTimeAttendance.note = '' or NewTimeAttendance.note is null ) and (month=1 or month =2 or month = 3)) GROUP BY NewEmployee.EmployeeID, EmployeeName order by EmployeeID Incorrect syntax near '='. not very good ideas... so ...help thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Query Cacheing (How do I use memcache?)

    - by Rachel
    I have an query like: SELECT id as OfferId FROM offers WHERE concat(partycode, connectioncode) = ? AND CURDATE() BETWEEN offer_start_date AND offer_end_date AND id IN ("121211, 123341,151512,5145626 "); Now I want to cache the results of this query using memcache and so my question is How can I cache an query using memcache. I am currently using CURDATE() which cannot be used if we want to implement caching and so how can I get current date functionality without using CURDATE() function ?

    Read the article

  • MySQL: group by and IF statement

    - by notset
    By default, parent_id = 0. I want to select all records with parent_id = 0 and only the last ones with parent_id 0. I tried this, but it didn't work: SELECT * FROM `articles` IF `parent_id` > 0 THEN GROUP BY `parent_id` HAVING COUNT(`parent_id`) >= 1 END; ORDER BY `time` DESC What could be the solution?

    Read the article

  • Automatically Persisting a Complex Java Object

    - by VeeArr
    For a project I am working on, I need to persist a number of POJOs to a database. The POJOs class definitions are sometimes highly nested, but they should flatten okay, as the nesting is tree-like and contains no cycles (and the base elements are eventually primitives/Strings). It is preferred that the solution used create one table per data type and that the tables will have one field per primitive member in the POJO. Subclassing and similar problems are not issues for this particular project. Does anybody know of any existing solutions that can: Automatically generate a CREATE TABLE definition from the class definition Automatically generate a query to persist an object to the database, given an instance of the object Automatically generate a query to retrieve an object from the database and return it as a POJO, given a key. Solutions that can do this with minimum modifications/annotions to the class files and minimum external configuration are preferred. Example: Java classes //Class to be persisted class TypeA { String guid; long timestamp; TypeB data1; TypeC data2; } class TypeB { int id; int someData; } class TypeC { int id; int otherData; } Could map to CREATE TABLE TypeA ( guid CHAR(255), timestamp BIGINT, data1_id INT, data1_someData INT, data2_id INt, data2_otherData INT ); Or something similar.

    Read the article

  • MySql paging; "Showing result-set" of "total found" help

    - by Camran
    I need a formula for showing results on my classifieds website. I am now done with the paging of records, but this formula for showing results remains. I want it like this: Showing 1-50 of 123 found. Now what is the formula for this? I have these variables which should be enough I think: $results_per_page = 50; //results per page $page = 1; //current page Also a variable called $num_total contains the total nr of hits, in this case 123. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Same Salt, Different Encrypted Password is not working? Using Linq to update password.

    - by Xaisoft
    Hello, I am running into a wall regarding changing the password and was wondering if anyone had any ideas. Here are the database values prior to changing the password: Clear Text password = abc1980 Encrypted Password = Yn1N5l+4AUqkOM3WYO7ww/sCN+o= Salt = 82qVIhUIoblBRIRvFSZ1fw== After I change my password to abc1973, salt remains the same, but the Encrypted Password changes which is supposed to happen: Encrypted Password = rHtjLq3qxAl/7T1GfkxrsHzPsNk= However, when I try to login with abc1973 as the password, it does not login. If I try abc1980, it logs me in. It is updating the database, is it caching the values somewhere? Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • "Remember" last three MySql queries; Cookie, passed variable or other method?

    - by Camran
    I have a classified website, with pretty sophisticated searching, and I am about to implement a function where the last three queries is displayed for the user, so that the user can go back easier through the queries. This because for each query the user has to provide a lot of input. I have four questions for you: I wonder, how can I save the actual query (SELECT * FROM etc etc)...? Do I need to add some form of encryption to be on the safe side? How will this affect performance? (I don't like the fact that cookies slow websites down) Anything else to think about? If you need more input, let me know... Btw, the website is PHP based. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Not getting return value

    - by scottO
    I am trying to get a return value and it keeps giving me an error. I am trying to grab the "roleid" after the username has been validated by sending it the username-- I can't figure out what I am doing wrong? public string ValidateRole(string sUsername) { string matchstring = "SELECT roleid FROM tblUserRoles WHERE UserName='" + sUsername +"'"; SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(matchstring); cmd.Connection = new SqlConnection("Data Source=(local);Initial Catalog="mydatabase";Integrated Security=True"); cmd.Connection.Open(); cmd.CommandType = CommandType.Text; SqlDataAdapter sda = new SqlDataAdapter(); DataTable dt = new DataTable(); sda.SelectCommand = cmd; sda.Fill(dt); string match; if (dt.Rows.Count > 0) { foreach (DataRow row in dt.Rows) { match = row["roleid"].ToString(); return match; } } else { match = "fail"; return match; } }

    Read the article

  • How to make NOT IN statement via Restrictions

    - by slavig
    I used this trick: List statuses = new ArrayList(); Criteria criteria = session.createCriteria(MessageQueue.class); criteria.add(Restrictions.not(Restrictions.in("message_status", statuses))); and this code creates: ...from MESSAGE_QUEUE mq where not (mq.message_status in (?, ?, ?, ?))... but I need: ...from MESSAGE_QUEUE mq where mq.message_status NOT IN (?, ?, ?, ?) Du you think they are equal statements?

    Read the article

  • Create an index only on certain rows in mysql

    - by dhruvbird
    So, I have this funny requirement of creating an index on a table only on a certain set of rows. This is what my table looks like: USER: userid, friendid, created, blah0, blah1, ..., blahN Now, I'd like to create an index on: (userid, friendid, created) but only on those rows where userid = friendid. The reason being that this index is only going to be used to satisfy queries where the WHERE clause contains "userid = friendid". There will be many rows where this is NOT the case, and I really don't want to waste all that extra space on the index. Another option would be to create a table (query table) which is populated on insert/update of this table and create a trigger to do so, but again I am guessing an index on that table would mean that the data would be stored twice. How does mysql store Primary Keys? I mean is the table ordered on the Primary Key or is it ordered by insert order and the PK is like a normal unique index? I checked up on clustered indexes (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-index-types.html), but it seems only InnoDB supports them. I am using MyISAM (I mention this because then I could have created a clustered index on these 3 fields in the query table). I am basically looking for something like this: ALTER TABLE USERS ADD INDEX (userid, friendid, created) WHERE userid=friendid

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685  | Next Page >