Search Results

Search found 2729 results on 110 pages for 'fk relationship'.

Page 68/110 | < Previous Page | 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75  | Next Page >

• MVC 2 - Name Attributes on HTML Input Field when using Parent/Child Entities

  - by Click Ahead

  Hi All, I'm pretty new to MVC 2 using the Entity Framework. I have two tables Company {ID int identity PK,Name nvarchar} and User {ID int identity PK,UserName nvarchar,CompanyID int FK}. A Foreign Key exists between User and Company. I generated my ADO.NET Entity Data Model, a Controller and a view to insert a record. My HTML form has the fields Company and UserName and the idea is when I click save a Company and User is inserted into the database. Sounds straight forward right! My question is as follows: I created a strongly-typed view derived from my 'User' entity. I'm using the the html helper Html.TextBoxFor(model = model.Organisation.Name) but the html name attribute for this input field is 'Organisation.Name'. My problem with this is that the dot throws up all sorts of issues in JQuery, which sees this as a property. If I want to change the name I read that I can use DataAnnotations but because I used the Entity Designer this involves using Buddy Classes. Seems like a bit of overkill just to change the html name attribute on this input field. Am I approaching this the right way or am I missing something here? Thanks for the help !

  Read the article

• SQL Query Math Gymnastics

  - by keruilin

  I have two tables of concern here: users and race_weeks. User has many race_weeks, and race_week belongs to User. Therefore, user_id is a fk in the race_weeks table. I need to perform some challenging math on fields in the race_weeks table in order to return users with the most all-time points. Here are the fields that we need to manipulate in the race_weeks table. races_won (int) races_lost (int) races_tied (int) points_won (int, pos or neg) recordable_type(varchar, Robots can race, but we're only concerned about type 'User') Just so that you fully understand the business logic at work here, over the course of a week a user can participate in many races. The race_week record represents the summary results of the user's races for that week. A user is considered active for the week if races_won, races_lost, or races_tied is greater than 0. Otherwise the user is inactive. So here's what we need to do in our query in order to return users with the most points won (actually net_points_won): Calculate each user's net_points_won (not a field in the DB). To calculate net_points, you take (1000 * count_of_active_weeks) - sum(points__won). (Why 1000? Just imagine that every week the user is spotted a 1000 points to compete and enter races. We want to factor-out what we spot the user because the user could enter only one race for the week for 100 points, and be sitting on 900, which we would skew who actually EARNED the most points.) This one is a little convoluted, so let me know if I can clarify further.

  Read the article

• Moving from a non-clustered PK to a clustered PK in SQL 2005

  - by adaptr

  HI all, I recently asked this question in another thread, and thought I would reproduce it here with my solution: What if I have an auto-increment INT as my non-clustered primary key, and there are about 15 foreign keys defined to it ? (snide comment about original designer being braindead in the original :) ) This is a 15M row table, on a live database, SQL Standard, so dropping indexes is out of the question. Even temporarily dropping the foreign key constraints will be difficult. I'm curious if anybody has a solution that causes minimal downtime. I tested this in our testing environment and finally found that the downtime wasn't as severe as I had originally feared. I ended up writing a script that drops all FK constraints, then drops the non-clustered key, re-creates the PK as a clustered index, and finally re-created all FKs WITH NOCHECK to avoid trawling through all FKs to check constraint compliance. Then I just enable the CHECK constraints to enable constraint checking from that point onwards, and all is dandy :) The most important thing to realize is that during the time the FKs are absent, there MUST NOT be any INSERTs or DELETEs on the parent table, as this may break the constraints and cause issues in the future. The total time taken for clustering a 15M row, 800MB index was ~4 minutes :)

  Read the article

• Linq to Entities custom ordering via position mapping table

  - by Bigfellahull

  Hi, I have a news table and I would like to implement custom ordering. I have done this before via a positional mapping table which has newsIds and a position. I then LEFT OUTER JOIN the position table ON news.newsId = position.itemId with a select case statement CASE WHEN [position] IS NULL THEN 9999 ELSE [position] END and order by position asc, articleDate desc. Now I am trying to do the same with Linq to Entities. I have set up my tables with a PK, FK relationship so that my News object has an Entity Collection of positions. Now comes the bit I can't work out. How to implement the LEFT OUTER JOIN. I have so far: var query = SelectMany (n => n.Positions, (n, s) => new { n, s }) .OrderBy(x => x.s.position) .ThenByDescending(x => x.n.articleDate) .Select(x => x.n); This kinda works. However this uses a INNER JOIN so not what I am after. I had another idea: ret = ret.OrderBy(n => n.ShufflePositions.Select(s => s.position)); However I get the error DbSortClause expressions must have a type that is order comparable. I also tried ret = ret.GroupJoin(tse.ShufflePositions, n => n.id, s => s.itemId, (n, s) => new { n, s }) .OrderBy(x => x.s.Select(z => z.position)) .ThenByDescending(x => x.n.articleDate) .Select(x => x.n); but I get the same error! If anyone can help me out, it would be much appreciated!

  Read the article

• Regarding some Update Stored procedure

  - by Serenity

  I have two Tables as follows:- Table1:- ------------------------------------- PageID|Content|TitleID(FK)|LanguageID ------------------------------------- 1 |abc |101 |1 2 |xyz |102 |1 -------------------------------------- Table2:- ------------------------- TitleID|Title |LanguageID ------------------------- 101 |Title1|1 102 |Title2|1 ------------------------ I don't want to add duplicates in my Table1(Content Table). Like..there can be no two Pages with the same Title. What check do I need to add in my Insert/Update Stored Procedure ? How do I make sure duplicates are never added. I have tried as follows:- CREATE PROC InsertUpdatePageContent ( @PageID int, @Content nvarchar(2000), @TitleID int ) AS BEGIN IF(@PageID=-1) BEGIN IF(NOT EXISTS(SELECT TitleID FROM Table1 WHERE LANGUAGEID=@LANGUAGEID)) BEGIN INSERT INTO Table1(Content,TitleID) VALUES(@Content,@TitleID) END END ELSE BEGIN IF(NOT EXISTS(SELECT TitleID FROM Table1 WHERE LANGUAGEID=@LANGUAGEID)) BEGIN UPDATE Table1 SET Content=@Content,TitleID=@TitleID WHERE PAGEID=@PAGEID END END END Now what is happening is that it is inserting new records alright and won't allow duplicates to be added but when I update its giving me problem. On my aspx Page I have a drop down list control that is bound to DataSource that returns Table 2(Title Table) and I have a text box in which user types Page's content to be stored. When I update, like lets say I have a row in my Table 1 as shown above with PageID=1. Now when I am updating this row, like I didn't change the Title from the drop down and only changed Content in the text box, its not updating the record ..and when Stored procedure's Update Query does not execute it displays a Label that says "Page with this title exists already." So whenever I am updating an existing record that label is displayed on screen.How do I change that IF condition in my Update Stored procedure?? EDIT:- @gbn :: Will that IF condition work in case of update? I mean lets say I am updating the Page with TitleID=1, I changed its content, then when I update, it's gonna execute that IF condition and it still won't update coz TitleID=1 already exits!It will only update if TitleID=1 is not there in Table1. Isn't it? Guess I am getting confused. Please answer.Thanks.

  Read the article

• Asp.Net MVC - Binding of parameter to model value!

  - by Pino

  This seems like the model binding is causing me issues. Essentially I have a model called ProductOption and for the purpose of this question it has 2 fields ID (Int) PK ProductID (Int) FK I have a standard route set-up context.MapRoute( "Product_default", "Product/{controller}/{action}/{id}", new { controller = "Product", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional } ); and if the user wants to add an option the URL is, /Product/Options/Add/1 in the above URL 1 is the ProductID, I have the following code to return a blank model the the view, [HttpGet] public ActionResult Add(int id) { return View("Manage", new ProductOptionModel() { ProductID = id }); } Now in my view I keep a hidden field <%= Html.HiddenFor(x=>x.ID) %> This is used to determine (on submit) if we are editing or adding a new option. However the Model binder in .net seems to replace .ID (Which was 0 when leaving the above get actionresult) with 1 (or the value of the id parameter in the URL) How can I stop or work around this? ViewModel public class ProductExtraModel { //Database public int ID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public int ProductID { get; set; } public ProductModel Product { get; set; } }

  Read the article

• NHibernate One to One Foreign Key ON DELETE CASCADE

  - by xll

  I need to implement One-to-one association between Project and ProjecSettings using fluent NHibernate: public class ProjectMap : ClassMap<Project> { public ProjectMap() { Id(x => x.Id) .UniqueKey(MapUtils.Col<Project>(x => x.Id)) .GeneratedBy.HiLo("NHHiLoIdentity", "NextHiValue", "1000", string.Format("[EntityName] = '[{0}]'", MapUtils.Table<Project>())) .Not.Nullable(); HasOne(x => x.ProjectSettings) .PropertyRef(x => x.Project); } } public class ProjectSettingsMap : ClassMap<ProjectSettings> { public ProjectSettingsMap() { Id(x => x.Id) .UniqueKey(MapUtils.Col<ProjectSettings>(x => x.Id)) .GeneratedBy.HiLo("NHHiLoIdentity", "NextHiValue", "1000", string.Format("[EntityName] = '[{0}]'", MapUtils.Table<ProjectSettings>())); References(x => x.Project) .Column(MapUtils.Ref<ProjectSettings, Project>(p => p.Project, p => p.Id)) .Unique() .Not.Nullable(); } } This results in the following sql for Project Settings: CREATE TABLE ProjectSettings ( Id bigint PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL, Project_Project_Id bigint NOT NULL UNIQUE, /* Foreign keys */ FOREIGN KEY (Project_Project_Id) REFERENCES Project() ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION ); What I am trying to achieve is to have ON DELETE CASCADE for the FOREIGN KEY (Project_Project_Id), so that when the project is deleted through sql query, it's settings are deleted too. How can I achieve this ? EDIT: I know about Cascade.Delete() option, but it's not what I need. Is there any way to intercept the FK statement generation?

  Read the article

• Can I force the auto-generated Linq-to-SQL classes to use an OUTER JOIN?

  - by Gary McGill

  Let's say I have an Order table which has a FirstSalesPersonId field and a SecondSalesPersonId field. Both of these are foreign keys that reference the SalesPerson table. For any given order, either one or two salespersons may be credited with the order. In other words, FirstSalesPersonId can never be NULL, but SecondSalesPersonId can be NULL. When I drop my Order and SalesPerson tables onto the "Linq to SQL Classes" design surface, the class builder spots the two FK relationships from the Order table to the SalesPerson table, and so the generated Order class has a SalesPerson field and a SalesPerson1 field (which I can rename to SalesPerson1 and SalesPerson2 to avoid confusion). Because I always want to have the salesperson data available whenever I process an order, I am using DataLoadOptions.LoadWith to specify that the two salesperson fields are populated when the order instance is populated, as follows: dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Order>(o => o.SalesPerson1); dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Order>(o => o.SalesPerson2); The problem I'm having is that Linq to SQL is using something like the following SQL to load an order: SELECT ... FROM Order O INNER JOIN SalesPerson SP1 ON SP1.salesPersonId = O.firstSalesPersonId INNER JOIN SalesPerson SP2 ON SP2.salesPersonId = O.secondSalesPersonId This would make sense if there were always two salesperson records, but because there is sometimes no second salesperson (secondSalesPersonId is NULL), the INNER JOIN causes the query to return no records in that case. What I effectively want here is to change the second INNER JOIN into a LEFT OUTER JOIN. Is there a way to do that through the UI for the class generator? If not, how else can I achieve this? (Note that because I'm using the generated classes almost exclusively, I'd rather not have something tacked on the side for this one case if I can avoid it).

  Read the article

• A typical mysql query( how to use subquery column into main query)

  - by I Like PHP

  I HAVE TWO TABLES shown below table_joining id join_id(PK) transfer_id(FK) unit_id transfer_date joining_date 1 j_1 t_1 u_1 2010-06-05 2010-03-05 2 j_2 t_2 u_3 2010-05-10 2010-03-10 3 j_3 t_3 u_6 2010-04-10 2010-01-01 4 j_5 NULL u_3 NULL 2010-06-05 5 j_6 NULL u_4 NULL 2010-05-05 table_transfer id transfer_id(PK) pastUnitId futureUnitId effective_transfer_date 1 t_1 u_3 u_1 2010-06-05 2 t_2 u_6 u_1 2010-05-10 3 t_3 u_5 u_3 2010-04-10 now i want to know total employee detalis( using join_id) which are currently working on unit u_3 . means i want only join_id j_1 (has transfered but effective_transfer_date is future date, right now in u_3) j_2 ( tansfered and right now in `u_3` bcoz effective_transfer_date has been passed) j_6 ( right now in `u_3` and never transfered) what i need to take care of below steps( as far as i know ) <1> first need to check from table_joining whether transfer_id is NULL or not <2> if transfer_id= is NULL then see unit_id=u_3 where joining_date <=CURDATE() ( means that person already joined u_3) <3> if transfer_id is NOT NULL then go to table_transfer using transfer_id (foreign key reference) <4> now see the effective_transfer_date regrading that transfer_id whether effective_transfer_date<=CURDATE() <5> if transfer date has been passed(means transfer has been done) then return futureUnitID otherwise return pastUnitID i used two separate query but don't know how to join those query?? for step <1 ans <2 SELECT unit_id FROM table_joining WHERE joining_date<=CURDATE() AND transfer_id IS NULL AND unit_id='u_3' for step<5 SELECT IF(effective_transfer_date <= CURDATE(),futureUnitId,pastUnitId) AS currentUnitID FROM table_transfer // here how do we select only those rows which have currentUnitID='u_3' ?? please guide me the process?? i m just confused with JOINS. i think using LEFT JOIN can return the data i need, or if we use subquery value to main query? but i m not getting how to implement ...please help me. Thanks for helping me alwayz

  Read the article

• Tree deletion with NHibernate

  - by Tigraine

  Hi, I'm struggling with a little problem and starting to arrive at the conclusion it's simply not possible. I have a Table called Group. As with most of these systems Group has a ParentGroup and a Children collection. So the Table Group looks like this: Group -ID (PK) -Name -ParentId (FK) I did my mappings using FNH AutoMappings, but I had to override the defaults for this: p.References(x => x.Parent) .Column("ParentId") .Cascade.All(); p.HasMany(x => x.Children) .KeyColumn("ParentId") .ForeignKeyCascadeOnDelete() .Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan() .Inverse(); Now, the general idea was to be able to delete a node and all of it's children to be deleted too by NH. So deleting the only root node should basically clear the whole table. I tried first with Cascade.AllDeleteOrphan but that works only for deletion of items from the Children collection, not deletion of the parent. Next I tried ForeignKeyCascadeOnDelete so the operation gets delegated to the Database through on delete cascade. But once I do that MSSql2008 does not allow me to create this constraint, failing with : Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FKBA21C18E87B9D9F7' on table 'Group' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints. Well, and that's it for me. I guess I'll just loop through the children and delete them one by one, thus doing a N+1. If anyone has a suggestion on how do that more elegantly I'd be eager to hear it.

  Read the article

• How to add a WHERE clause on the second table of a 1-to-1 join in Fluent NHibernate?

  - by daddywoodland

  I'm using a legacy database that was 'future proofed' to keep track of historical changes. It turns out this feature is never used so I want to map the tables into a single entity. My tables are: CodesHistory (CodesHistoryID (pk), CodeID (fk), Text) Codes (CodeID (pk), CodeName) To add an additional level of complexity, these tables hold the content for the drop down lists throughout the application. So, I'm trying to map a Title entity (Mr, Mrs etc.) as follows: Title ClassMap - Public Sub New() Table("CodesHistory") Id(Function(x) x.TitleID, "CodesHistoryID") Map(Function(x) x.Text) 'Call into the other half of the 1-2-1 join in order to merge them in 'this single domain object Join("Codes", AddressOf AddTitleDetailData) Where("CodeName like 'C.Title.%'") End Sub ' Method to merge two tables with a 1-2-1 join into a single entity in VB.Net Public Sub AddTitleDetailData(ByVal m As JoinPart(Of Title)) m.KeyColumn("CodeID") m.Map(Function(x) x.CodeName) End Sub From the above, you can see that my 'CodeName' field represents the select list in question (C.Title, C.Age etc). The problem is that the WHERE clause only applies to the 'CodesHistory' table but the 'CodeName' field is in the 'Codes' table. As I'm sure you can guess there's no scope to change the database. Is it possible to apply the WHERE clause to the Codes table?

  Read the article

• How Optimize sql query make it faster

  - by user502083

  Hello every one : I have a very simple small database, 2 of tables are: Node (Node_ID, Node_name, Node_Date) : Node_ID is primary key Citation (Origin_Id, Target_Id) : PRIMARY KEY (Origin_Id, Target_Id) each is FK in Node Now I write a query that first find all citations that their Origin_Id has a specific date and then I want to know what are the target dates of these records. I'm using sqlite in python the Node table has 3000 record and Citation has 9000 records, and my query is like this in a function: def cited_years_list(self, date): c=self.cur try: c.execute("""select n.Node_Date,count(*) from Node n INNER JOIN (select c.Origin_Id AS Origin_Id, c.Target_Id AS Target_Id, n.Node_Date AS Date from CITATION c INNER JOIN NODE n ON c.Origin_Id=n.Node_Id where CAST(n.Node_Date as INT)={0}) VW ON VW.Target_Id=n.Node_Id GROUP BY n.Node_Date;""".format(date)) cited_years=c.fetchall() self.conn.commit() print('Cited Years are : \n ',str(cited_years)) except Exception as e: print('Cited Years retrival failed ',e) return cited_years Then I call this function for some specific years, But it's crazy slowwwwwwwww :( (around 1 min for a specific year) Although my query works fine, it is slow. would you please give me a suggestion to make it faster? I'd appreciate any idea about optimizing this query :) I also should mention that I have indices on Origin_Id and Target_Id, so the inner join should be pretty fast, but it's not!!!

  Read the article

• Fluent / NHibernate Collections of the same class

  - by Charlie Brown

  I am new to NHibernate and I am having trouble mapping the following relationships within this class. public class Category : IAuditable { public virtual int Id { get; set; } public virtual string Name{ get; set; } public virtual Category ParentCategory { get; set; } public virtual IList<Category> SubCategories { get; set; } public Category() { this.Name = string.Empty; this.SubCategories = new List<Category>(); } } Class Maps (although, these are practically guesses) public class CategoryMap : ClassMap<Category> { public CategoryMap() { Id(x => x.Id); Map(x => x.Name); References(x => x.ParentCategory) .Nullable() .Not.LazyLoad(); HasMany(x => x.SubCategories) .Cascade.All(); } } Each Category may have a parent category, some Categories have many subCategories, etc, etc I can get the Category to Save correctly (correct subcategories and parent category fk exist in the database) but when loading, it returns itself as the parent category. I am using Fluent for the class mapping, but if someone could point me in the right direction for just plain NHibernate that would work as well.

  Read the article

• ActiveRecord Validations for Models with has_many, belongs_to associations and STI

  - by keruilin

  I have four models: User Award Badge GameWeek The associations are as follows: User has many awards. Award belongs to user. Badge has many awards. Award belongs to badge. User has many game_weeks. GameWeek belongs to user. GameWeek has many awards. Award belongs to game_week. Thus, user_id, badge_id and game_week_id are foreign keys in awards table. Badge implements an STI model. Let's just say it has the following subclasses: BadgeA and BadgeB. Some rules to note: The game_week_id fk can be nil for BadgeA, but can't be nil for BadgeB. Here are my questions: For BadgeA, how do I write a validation that it can only be awarded one time? That is, the user can't have more than one -- ever. For BadgeB, how do I write a validation that it can only be awarded one time per game week?

  Read the article

• CakePHP: Need help using saveField to update a fields in a belongsTo model

  - by afrisch

  I am trying to update a password into two different models/tables in CakePHP. I can update it fine in the parent model, but not the second model. Models: Users (hasOne GameProfile) PK=id Gameprofiles (belongsTo User) FK=user_id Here is a stripped down version of my function in the Users_controller.php: function updatepass() { if (!empty($this->data)) { $this->User->id = $this->Auth->user('id'); $this->User->saveField('sha1password', $this->Auth->password($this->data['User']['newpass'])); $this->User->Gameprofile->saveField('plainpassword', $this->data['User']['newpass']); } } When I execute the function, the users table is updated fine. But the gameprofile table is not updated, rather Cake does an insert. SQL Query Log: 1195 Query UPDATE `users` SET `sha1password` = 'e9443e9f5e1a07832aad1b2f84de1a666daf89b5' WHERE `users`.`id` = 30 1195 Query INSERT INTO `gameprofiles` (`plainpassword`) VALUES ('abc') Is there a way to get CakePHP to do an update using saveField on a model with a belongsTo attribute? I've tried various ways to refer to user_id before executing the second saveField, but just can't seem to find the winning combination. Any help is greatly appreciated!

  Read the article

• How can I use a compound condition in a join in Linq?

  - by Gary McGill

  Let's say I have a Customer table which has a PrimaryContactId field and a SecondaryContactId field. Both of these are foreign keys that reference the Contact table. For any given customer, either one or two contacts may be stored. In other words, PrimaryContactId can never be NULL, but SecondaryContactId can be NULL. If I drop my Customer and Contact tables onto the "Linq to SQL Classes" design surface, the class builder will spot the two FK relationships from the Customer table to the Contact table, and so the generated Customer class will have a Contact field and a Contact1 field (which I can rename to PrimaryContact and SecondaryContact to avoid confusion). Now suppose that I want to get details of all the contacts for a given set of customers. If there was always exactly one contact then I could write something like: from customer in customers join contact in contacts on customer.PrimaryContactId equals contact.id select ... ...which would be translated into something like: SELECT ... FROM Customer INNER JOIN Contact ON Customer.FirstSalesPersonId = Contact.id But, because I want to join on both the contact fields, I want the SQL to look something like: SELECT ... FROM Customer INNER JOIN Contact ON Customer.FirstSalesPersonId = Contact.id OR Customer.SecondSalesPersonId = Contact.id How can I write a Linq expression to do that?

  Read the article

• Storing a jpa entity where only the timestamp changes results in updates rather than inserts (desire

  - by David Schlenk

  I have a JPA entity that stores a fk id, a boolean and a timestamp: @Entity public class ChannelInUse implements Serializable { @Id @GeneratedValue private Long id; @ManyToOne @JoinColumn(nullable = false) private Channel channel; private boolean inUse = false; @Temporal(TemporalType.TIMESTAMP) private Date inUseAt = new Date(); ... } I want every new instance of this entity to result in a new row in the table. For whatever reason no matter what I do it always results in the row getting updated with a new timestamp value rather than creating a new row. Even tried to just use a native query to run an insert but channel's ID wasn't populated yet so I gave up on that. I've tried using an embedded id class consisting of channel.getId and inUseAt. My equals and hashcode for are: public boolean equals(Object obj){ if(this == obj) return true; if(!(obj instanceof ChannelInUse)) return false; ChannelInUse ciu = (ChannelInUse) obj; return ( (this.inUseAt == null ? ciu.inUseAt == null : this.inUseAt.equals(ciu.inUseAt)) && (this.inUse == ciu.inUse) && (this.channel == null ? ciu.channel == null : this.channel.equals(ciu.channel)) ); } /** * hashcode generated from at, channel and inUse properties. */ public int hashCode(){ int hash = 1; hash = hash * 31 + (this.inUseAt == null ? 0 : this.inUseAt.hashCode()); hash = hash * 31 + (this.channel == null ? 0 : this.channel.hashCode()); if(inUse) hash = hash * 31 + 1; else hash = hash * 31 + 0; return hash; } } I've tried using hibernate's Entity annotation with mutable=false. I'm probably just not understanding what makes an entity unique or something. Hit the google pretty hard but can't figure this one out.

  Read the article

• Does Microsoft Access use the PK fields for anything?

  - by chrismay

  Ok this is going to sound strange, but I have inherited an app that is an Access front end with a SQL Server backend. I am in the process of writing a new front end for it, but... we need to continue using the access front end for a while even after we deploy my new front end for reasons I won't go into. So both the existing Access app and my new app will need to be able to access and work with the data. The problem is the database design is a nightmare. For example some simple parent-child table relationships have like 4 and 5 part composite primary keys. I would REALLY like to remove these PKs and replace them with unique constraints or whatever, and add a new column to each of these tables called ID that is just an identity. If I change the PK and FKs on these tables to more managable fields, will the Access app have problems? What I mean is, does access use the meta data from the tables (PK and FK info) in such a way that it would break the app to change these?

  Read the article

• MVC design for archived data view

  - by Hemant Tank

  Implementation of a standard archive process in ASP.Net MVC. Backend SQL Server 2005 We've an existing web app built in MVC. We've an Entity "Claim" and it has some child entities like ClaimDetails, Files, etc... A pretty standard setup in DB. Each entity has its own table and are linked via FK. Now, we need to have an "Archive" feature in web app which will allow admin to archive a Claim and its child entities. An archived Claim shud become readonly when visited again. Here're some points on which I need your valued opinion - To keep it simple and scalable (for a few million records) for now we plan to simply add a bit field "Archived" to the Claim table in db. And change the behavior accordingly in the web app. We've a 'Manage claim' page which renders a bunch of diff views for Claim and its child entities. Now, for a readonly view we can either use the same views or have a separate set of views. What do you suggest? At controller level, we can identify archived claim and select which view to render. At model level, though it'd be great to be able to use the same model used for Manage Claim - but it might not get us the "text" of some lookup fields. For example, Claim.BrandId is rendered as a dropdown in Manage claim (requires only BrandId) but for readonly view we need 'BrandText'. Any existing ref or architecture level example would be great. Here's my prev SO post but its more about db level changes: Design a process to archive data (SQL Server 2005) Thank you.

  Read the article

• Get the first and last posts in a thread

  - by Grampa

  I am trying to code a forum website and I want to display a list of threads. Each thread should be accompanied by info about the first post (the "head" of the thread) as well as the last. My current database structure is the following: threads table: id - int, PK, not NULL, auto-increment name - varchar(255) posts table: id - int, PK, not NULL, auto-increment thread_id - FK for threads The tables have other fields as well, but they are not relevant for the query. I am interested in querying threads and somehow JOINing with posts so that I obtain both the first and last post for each thread in a single query (with no subqueries). So far I am able to do it using multiple queries, and I have defined the first post as being: SELECT * FROM threads t LEFT JOIN posts p ON t.id = p.thread_id ORDER BY p.id LIMIT 0, 1 The last post is pretty much the same except for ORDER BY id DESC. Now, I could select multiple threads with their first or last posts, by doing: SELECT * FROM threads t LEFT JOIN posts p ON t.id = p.thread_id ORDER BY p.id GROUP BY t.id But of course I can't get both at once, since I would need to sort both ASC and DESC at the same time. What is the solution here? Is it even possible to use a single query? Is there any way I could change the structure of my tables to facilitate this? If this is not doable, then what tips could you give me to improve the query performance in this particular situation?

  Read the article

• Unable to delete inherited entity class in EF4

  - by Coding Gorilla

  I have two entities in an EF4 model (using Model First), let's call them EntityA and EntityB. EntityA is marked as abstract, and EntityB inherits from EntityA. They are similar to the following: public class EntityA { public Guid Id; public string Name; public string Uri; } public class EntityB : EntityA { public string AnotherProperty; } The generated database tables look as I would expect them, with EntityA as on table, and then another table like: EntityA_EntityB Id (PK, FK, uniqueidentifier) AnotherProperty (varchar) There is a foreign key constraint on EntityA_EntityB that references EntityA's Id property, no cascades are configured (although I did try changing these myself). The problem is that when I attempt to do something like: Context.DeleteObject(EntityA_EntityB); EF attempts to delete the EntityA_EntityB table record before deleting the EntityA table record, which of course violates the foreign key constraint on EntityA_EntityB table. Using EFProfiler I see the following commands being sent to the database: delete [dbo].[EntityA_EntityB] where (([Id] = '5c02899f-09ea-2ed9-d44b-01aef80f6b64' /* @0 */) followed by delete [dbo].[EntityA] where ([Id] = '5c02899f-09ea-2ed9-d44b-01aef80f6b64' /* @0 */) I'm completely stumped as to how to get around this problem. I would think the EF should know that it needs to delete the base class first, before deleting the inherited class. I know I could do some triggers or other database type solutions, but I'd rather avoid doing that if I can. All my classes are POCO built using some customized T4 templates. I don't want to paste in a lot of extraneous code, but if you need more information I'll provide what I can.

  Read the article

• How do I iterate through hierarchical data in a Sql Server 2005 stored proc?

  - by AlexChilcott

  Hi, I have a SqlServer2005 table "Group" similar to the following: Id (PK, int) Name (varchar(50)) ParentId (int) where ParentId refers to another Id in the Group table. This is used to model hierarchical groups such as: Group 1 (id = 1, parentid = null) +--Group 2 (id = 2, parentid = 1) +--Group 3 (id = 3, parentid = 1) +--Group 4 (id = 4, parentid = 3) Group 5 (id = 5, parentid = null) +--Group 6 (id = 6, parentid = 5) You get the picture I have another table, let's call it "Data" for the sake of simplification, which looks something like: Id (PK, int) Key (varchar) Value (varchar) GroupId (FK, int) Now, I am trying to write a stored proc which can get me the "Data" for a given group. For example, if I query for group 1, it returns me the Key-Value-Pairs from Data where groupId = 1. If I query for group 2, it returns the KVPs for groupId = 1, then unioned with those which have groupId = 2 (and duplicated keys are replaced). Ideally, the sproc would also fail gracefully if there is a cycle (ie if group 1's parent is group 2 and group 2's parent is group 1) Has anyone had experience in writing such a sproc, or know how this might be accomplished? Thanks guys, much appreciated, Alex

  Read the article

• How to speed up a slow UPDATE query

  - by Mike Christensen

  I have the following UPDATE query: UPDATE Indexer.Pages SET LastError=NULL where LastError is not null; Right now, this query takes about 93 minutes to complete. I'd like to find ways to make this a bit faster. The Indexer.Pages table has around 506,000 rows, and about 490,000 of them contain a value for LastError, so I doubt I can take advantage of any indexes here. The table (when uncompressed) has about 46 gigs of data in it, however the majority of that data is in a text field called html. I believe simply loading and unloading that many pages is causing the slowdown. One idea would be to make a new table with just the Id and the html field, and keep Indexer.Pages as small as possible. However, testing this theory would be a decent amount of work since I actually don't have the hard disk space to create a copy of the table. I'd have to copy it over to another machine, drop the table, then copy the data back which would probably take all evening. Ideas? I'm using Postgres 9.0.0. UPDATE: Here's the schema: CREATE TABLE indexer.pages ( id uuid NOT NULL, url character varying(1024) NOT NULL, firstcrawled timestamp with time zone NOT NULL, lastcrawled timestamp with time zone NOT NULL, recipeid uuid, html text NOT NULL, lasterror character varying(1024), missingings smallint, CONSTRAINT pages_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id ), CONSTRAINT indexer_pages_uniqueurl UNIQUE (url ) ); I also have two indexes: CREATE INDEX idx_indexer_pages_missingings ON indexer.pages USING btree (missingings ) WHERE missingings > 0; and CREATE INDEX idx_indexer_pages_null ON indexer.pages USING btree (recipeid ) WHERE NULL::boolean; There are no triggers on this table, and there is one other table that has a FK constraint on Pages.PageId.

  Read the article

• List all foreign key constraints that refer to a particular column in a specific table

  - by Sid

  I would like to see a list of all the tables and columns that refer (either directly or indirectly) a specific column in the 'main' table via a foreign key constraint that has the ON DELETE=CASCADE setting missing. The tricky part is that there would be an indirect relationships buried across up to 5 levels deep. (example: ... great-grandchild- FK3 = grandchild = FK2 = child = FK1 = main table). We need to dig up the leaf tables-columns, not just the very 1st level. The 'good' part about this is that execution speed isn't of concern, it'll be run on a backup copy of the production db to fix any relational issues for the future. I did SELECT * FROM sys.foreign_keys but that gives me the name of the constraint - not the names of the child-parent tables and the columns in the relationship (the juicy bits). Plus the previous designer used short, non-descriptive/random names for the FK constraints, unlike our practice below The way we're adding constraints into SQL Server: ALTER TABLE [dbo].[UserEmailPrefs] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_UserEmailPrefs_UserMasterTable_UserId] FOREIGN KEY([UserId]) REFERENCES [dbo].[UserMasterTable] ([UserId]) ON DELETE CASCADE GO ALTER TABLE [dbo].[UserEmailPrefs] CHECK CONSTRAINT [FK_UserEmailPrefs_UserMasterTable_UserId] GO The comments in this SO question inpire this question.

  Read the article

• please suggest mysql query for this

  - by I Like PHP

  I HAVE TWO TABLES shown below table_joining id join_id(PK) transfer_id(FK) unit_id transfer_date joining_date 1 j_1 t_1 u_1 2010-06-05 2010-03-05 2 j_2 t_2 u_3 2010-05-10 2010-03-10 3 j_3 t_3 u_6 2010-04-10 2010-01-01 4 j_5 NULL u_3 NULL 2010-06-05 5 j_6 NULL u_4 NULL 2010-05-05 table_transfer id transfer_id(PK) pastUnitId futureUnitId effective_transfer_date 1 t_1 u_3 u_1 2010-06-05 2 t_2 u_6 u_1 2010-05-10 3 t_3 u_5 u_3 2010-04-10 now i want to know total employee detalis( using join_id) which are currently working on unit u_3 . means i want only join_id j_1 (has transfered but effective_transfer_date is future date, right now in u_3) j_2 ( tansfered and right now in `u_3` bcoz effective_transfer_date has been passed) j_6 ( right now in `u_3` and never transfered) what i need to take care of below steps( as far as i know ) <1> first need to check from table_joining whether transfer_id is NULL or not <2> if transfer_id= is NULL then see unit_id=u_3 where joining_date <=CURDATE() ( means that person already joined u_3) <3> if transfer_id is NOT NULL then go to table_transfer using transfer_id (foreign key reference) <4> now see the effective_transfer_date regrading that transfer_id whether effective_transfer_date<=CURDATE() <5> if transfer date has been passed(means transfer has been done) then return futureUnitID otherwise return pastUnitID i used two separate query but don't know how to join those query?? for step <1 ans <2 SELECT unit_id FROM table_joining WHERE joining_date<=CURDATE() AND transfer_id IS NULL AND unit_id='u_3' for step<5 SELECT IF(effective_transfer_date <= CURDATE(),futureUnitId,pastUnitId) AS currentUnitID FROM table_transfer // here how do we select only those rows which have currentUnitID='u_3' ?? please guide me the process?? i m just confused with JOINS. i think using LEFT JOIN can return the data i need, or if we use subquery value to main query? but i m not getting how to implement ...please help me. Thanks for helping me alwayz

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75  | Next Page >