Search Results

Search found 2412 results on 97 pages for 'relationship'.

Page 68/97 | < Previous Page | 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75  | Next Page >

• Manually Building a Tree in CakePHP

  - by mabwi

  I'm currently working on building an application in CakePHP. There's a quite extensive existing data set that's conceptually a tree, but wasn't previously stored as one. What I mean by that, is there's no real relationship defined in the data. The problem I'm having is getting it to work correctly with the CakePHP tree behaviour. Because I have to set all the values on existing data - as opposed to Cake setting up the structure as elements are inserted - I need to understand how the lft/rght values work. So, I guess the question is: How does the structure data work, specifically the lft/rght values? How do I set it up so that the data comes out rationally, without inserting them one at a time? It's a 2 level tree, with Sections and sub-sections. Thanks for the help

  Read the article

• SQL SELECT using in() but excluding others.

  - by Pickledegg

  I have a table called 'countries' linked to another table 'networks' with a many to many relationship: countries countries_networks networks +-------------+----------+ +-------------+----------+ +-------------+---------------+ | Field | Type | | Field | Type | | Field | Type | +-------------+----------+ +-------------+----------+ +-------------+---------------+ | id | int(11) | | id | int(11) | | id | int(11) | | countryName | char(35) | | country_id | int(11) | | name | varchar(100) | +-------------+----------+ | network_id | int(11) | | description | varchar(255) | To retrieve all countries that have a network_id of 6 & 7, I just do the following: ( I could go further to use the networks.name but I know the countries_networks.network_id so i just use those to reduce SQL.) SELECT DISTINCT countryName FROM countries AS Country INNER JOIN countries_networks AS n ON Country.id = n.country_id WHERE n.network_id IN (6,7) This is fine, but I then want to retrieve the countries with a network_id of JUST 8, and no others. I'ver tried the following but its still returning networks with 6 & 7 in. Is it something to do with my JOIN? SELECT DISTINCT countryName FROM countries AS Country INNER JOIN countries_networks AS n ON Country.id = n.country_id WHERE n.network_id IN (8) AND n.network_id not IN(6,7) Thanks.

  Read the article

• save object associate to another object automatically

  - by Luca Romagnoli

  Hi i have these classes: class Core < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :resource, :polymorphic => true belongs_to :image, :class_name => 'Multimedia', :foreign_key => 'image_id' end class Place < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :core, :as => :resource end If i try do launch this: a = Place.find(5) a.name ="a" a.core.image_id = 24 a.save name is saved. image_id no i want save automatically all changes in records in relationship with place class at a.save command. is possible? thanks

  Read the article

• Is there an ORM that allows a "plugin" to extend the database?

  - by IP

  So, I've been searching for the answer to this, but I can't find anything I have an Entity Framework Model (MyModel1) - for now, we'll say this contains a "Users" table It's part of a big app, that has a references to an "Addresses" project The addresses project contains an Entity Framework Model (MyModel2), this contains a Users table, and an Addresses table (pointing to the same database. The main app has a control that edits the user, and in that control it has an "addresses" control which actually exists in the "Addresses" project. To make this work, the User control passes the User object down to the addresses control, however, as the User that's been passed belongs to MyModel1 and not MyModel2, another User object has to be loaded up, then it can be used. This isn't ideal as I've had to load up the User twice. Is there a way of say, MyModel2 extending MyModel1, which effectively just adds a relationship to "User". Or is there an ORM that would handle this better? Or even a design pattern that would handle this better?

  Read the article

• Storing Data as XML BLOB

  - by NBrowne

  Hi, At the moment the team i am working with is looking into the possibility of storing data which is entered by users from a series of input wizard screens as an XML blob in the database. the main reason for this being that i would like to write the input wizard as a component which can be brought into a number of systems without having to bring with it a large table structure. To try to clarify if the wizard has 100 input fields (for example) then if i go with the normal relational db structure then their will be a 1 to 1 relationship so will have 100 columns in database. So to get this working in another system will have to bring the tables,strore procedures etc into the new system. I have a number of reservations about this but i would like peoples opinions?? thanks

  Read the article

• Entity Framework 4 Hiding Underlying Resolver Tables when model is generated from database

  - by grrrrrrrrrrrrr

  When creating an entity framework model from scratch it is possible to specify a Many to Many relationship in the model. e.g Entity1 * ----- * Entity2 When a database is then generated from this, a resolver table is then created automatically between the two entities, this is hidden in the code model, allowing direct access to each of the entities via properties. e.g. Entity1 ----* ResolverEntity *----- Entity2 My question is, when a model is generated from an existing database, which contains resolver tables, is it possible to create the same effect so the resolver tables do not appear in the generated object model? When I have attempted this, the entity framework appears to create entities in the model for the resolver tables with no obvious way of hiding them in the object model. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Need help with Excel 2007 Formula - Many to many update

  - by Monica

  I'm experienced with database development, but not so much with Excel. I'm looking for help writing an Excel formula that would help my client's spreadsheet behave like a database. This is what I'm looking to do, but I can't figure out how to write it in Excel 2007: "If Q4 (on sheet 2) contains A2 (on sheet 1), append A1 (on sheet 1) with Q5 (on sheet 2)" Some factors: 1) This formula may find multiple instances of A2, so it should not stop after finding the first match 2) The values, as they are created in A1, should be separated with comma and space 3) This is a many to many relationship between Q4 and A2 Thanks for any help with this. I've tried vlookups, match, if statements, but they all fall short in one way or another.

  Read the article

• Checking for duplicates with nested forms

  - by Cyrus

  I'm making a rails 3.2.9 app that allows users to create pages and they can embed youtube videos through a nested form. I'm trying to figure out how to make it so that I can prevent duplicate video records from being stored in my db. So I have a Video model that takes the youtube url and just parses out the video id and stores that instead of the full user submitted youtube url, which may have extraneous url query parameters. So here's the situation that I'm trying to figure out: There's page1 with video1 - url: 123 and video2 - url: abc Then another user creates page2 and submits video3 - url: def and video4 - url: 123 Currently each page has_many videos. But I think I should change it to a many-to-many relationship. But how would I make it so that the url submitted as video4 in the nested form points to video1? Also I how would I make a nested form that creates objects that are connected through a join table?

  Read the article

• Check boxes for a has_many and belongs_to association.

  - by Thomas

  I have a has_many and belongs_to association. class Link < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :categories belongs_to :property end class Property < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :links end In the index and show I have <%= link.property.name %> and it will show the Property that I assigned to the link with the console just fine. I have a problem with figuring out how to show check boxes in the _form that assign a property to the link (a drop down would work as well). It seems everyone who has had this question before has ether a has_many :through or a HABTM relationship and I can't seem to adapt their answers.

  Read the article

• Sum of distinc rows after a 1-many table join

  - by Lock

  I have 2 tables that I am joining. Table 1 has 1-many relationship with table 2. That is, table 2 can return multiple rows for a single row of table 1. Because of this, the records of table 1 is duplicated for as many rows as are on table 2.. which is expected. Now, I have a sum on one of the columns from table 1, but because of the multiple rows that get returned on the join, the sum is obviously multiplying. Is there a way to get this number back to its original number? I tried dividing by the count of rows from table 2 but this didnt quite give me the expected result. Are there any analytical functions that could do this? I almost want something like "if this row has not yet been counted in the sum, add it to the sum"

  Read the article

• Designing Relational Survey Questionnaires Database

  - by user1213055

  I'm trying to build a simple sql database for following access database. Currently there is no relationship and I just have two tables male and female with 6 sections in each form. How can I design it a better way so end user can connect to the database and analyze using STATA or SPSS ? I'm really confused whether I should create one table with all fields or break down into different tables. The database is specific to this study only so I'm not looking for a generic survey database where user can create surveys and capture them. Any feedback or suggestion is much appreciated.

  Read the article

• Hibernate Save Parent Only

  - by user239905

  Hi, I'm having an issue with Hibernate 3.2.5, where I have to save only the parent object in a one-to-many relationship. For example, I have a flower A, that can have many details. Firstly I want to save only the flower, and the details will be added later. This process throws an exception: not-null property references a null or transient value: com.juflora.bean.JFlora._floraSetBackref This is my code: JFlora flora = new JFlora(); flora.setTypeId(Integer.parseInt(type)); flora.setDescription(description); flora.setName(name); flora.setImage(image); flora.setFloraDetails(new HashSet()); session.save(flora); session.getTransaction().commit();

  Read the article

• NHibernate: References still being eagerly selected after specifying AddJoin

  - by cbp

  I have a query which is something like this: Session.CreateSQLQuery( @"SELECT f.*, b.*, z.* FROM Foo f LEFT OUTER JOIN Bar b ON b.Id = f.BarId LEFT OUTER JOIN Zar z ON z.Id = b.ZarId" ) .AddEntity("f", typeof(Foo)) .AddJoin("b", "f.BarId") .AddJoin("z", "f.ZarId") .List<Foo>(); The problem is that I am still getting hundreds of SELECT requests made to the Zar table, even though I have specified that Zar should be joined. As far as I am aware the only relationship is Foo-Bar-Zar, i.e. the reference to Zar is not occurring anywhere else. Is my understanding of AddJoin correct? What could be going wrong? List item

  Read the article

• How can Domain driven design be combined with aspect oriented programming?

  - by anthares

  I'm doing research and one point I want to cover is "What is the relationship between Domain-driven Design and Aspect oriented programming?" I know that a main principle in DDD is separation of concerns and I understand that. What I'm not really certain is, whether aspects in AOP acts like "sub domains" in our domain in DDD. Are these two concepts, basically the same thing. I mean, If I develop an application following AOP and DDD, at the end of the day will it be true that "a sub domain" == "an aspect". I will also appreciate any other opinions what is the common between AOP and DDD.

  Read the article

• Generate a valid array key from an URL string in PHP

  - by John Riche

  I have a PHP array with some predefined values: $aArray = array( 0 => 'value0', 1 => 'value1' ); I need to create a function where the string input will always return the same, valid, array key so that when I call: GiveMeAKey('http://www.google.com'); // May return 0 or 1 I receive always the same key (I don't care which one) from the array. Obvisously I can't store the relationship in a database and the string passed to the GiveMeAKey method can be any URL. I wonder if there is a way of doing that ?

  Read the article

• Doctrine2: Filtering by ManToMany Association

  - by Shroder

  I want to retrieve a collection of objects based on what they are associated to. For example, by a category. This would be a Many to Many relationship. I've been able to achieve that with MEMBER OF, however I need to pass in an array of IDs, opposed to one at a time. I see there is an "IN ()", but it seems to require a subquery, which I would like to avoid. MEMBER OF example: SELECT o FROM Entity\Object1 o WHERE 'CATEGORY_CODE' MEMBER OF o.categories (Edit) This is what I would like to do, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding how entities work in DQL: SELECT o FROM Entity\Object1 o WHERE o.categories.Id IN (id, id, id)

  Read the article

• C# how to store those information?

  - by 5YrsLaterDBA

  I have a PrivilegeGroup table, a Privileges table and a link table because the PrivilegeGroup table and the Privileges table is a many to many relationship. I am thinking about load all contents of PrivilegeGroup table and Privilege table into memory from database at beginning when application started. I want to save them in a form easily to look up. Usually we will look up the PrivilegeCode via GroupId. Which structure is good for this purpose? array of list? dictionary?

  Read the article

• How do I customize the format of git rebase --interactive commit messages?

  - by adamjford

  Hi everyone, I use git for my local work (and love it ever so much), and I follow a workflow similar to the one described in this article. So basically, when starting on a new feature, I create a branch for it, go through the usual hack then commit cycle, and when I think I'm done with it, I squash it into a single commit using git rebase --interactive master, and these squashed commit messages always end up looking like the example in the article, reproduced here: [#3275] User Can Add A Comment To a Post * Adding Comment model, migrations, spec * Adding Comment controller, helper, spec * Adding Comment relationship with Post * Comment belongs to a User * Comment form on Post show page Of course, that's after a bunch of removing # This is the xth commit message lines and copy/pasting * in front of each commit message. Now, what I was wondering, is there any way to customize how git rebase -i outputs the merged commit messages so I don't have to do all that hacking? (I use msysgit, if that matters.) Thanks!

  Read the article

• Text property in a UserControl in C#

  - by yeyeyerman

  I have a control with a inner TextBox. I want to make a direct relationship between the Text property of the UserControl and the Text property of the TextBox. The first thing I realized is that Text was not being displayed in the Properties of the UserControl. Then I added the Browsable(true) attribute. [Browsable(true)] public override string Text { get { return m_textBox.Text; } set { m_textBox.Text = value; } } Now, the text will be shown for a while, but then is deleted. This is because the information is not written within the xxxx.Designer.cs. How can this behviour be changed?

  Read the article

• iOS Development: Can I store an array of integers in a Core Data object without creating a new table to represent the array?

  - by BeachRunnerJoe

  Hello. I'm using Core Data and I'm trying to figure out the simplest way to store an array of integers in one of my Core Data entities. Currently, my entities contain various arrays of objects that are more complex than a single number, so it makes sense to represent those arrays as tables in my DB and attach them using relationships. If I want to store a simple array of integers, do I need to create a new table with a single column and attach it using a one-to-many relationship? Or is there a more simple way? Thanks in advance for your wisdom!

  Read the article

• Problem with nhibernate join

  - by MexicanHacker

  I'm trying to do a join like this using fluent nhibernate: Id(x => x.Id); Map(x => x.SourceSystemRecordId,"sourceSystemRecord_id"); Then Join("cat.tbl_SourceSystemRecords", SourceSystemRecords); But, it seems I don't have a way to specify the column I want to join with from the first table, in this case I need to join on SourceSystemRecordId and not on Id Is there any way I can specify this? I tried References() but that requires me to create an object for this relationship, what I need is to aggregate the columns in sourcesystem records to the ones in the main table.

  Read the article

• How is a constructor executed?

  - by simion

  I am doing some reviison from the lecture slides and it says a constructor is executed in the following way; If the constructor starts with this, recursively execute the indicated constructor, then go to step 4. Invoke the explicitly or implicitly indicated superclass constructor (unless this class is java.lang.Object) Initialise the fields of the object in the order in which they were declared in this class Execute the rest of the body of this constructor. What i dont undertsand is that, a constructor can never "start" with this, because even if it forms no class heirarchy/relationship then super() is inserted by default. How would this fit in with the description above? Thanks

  Read the article

• Core Data-Linking one-to-many relationships

  - by Stelmate

  I have a one-to-many relationship where each department has many employees. When I create a new employee object I just link it to the parent department manually by setting the property to the instance of the department I have fetched from my fetch request. However, this seems to be improper because when I try to access the set of employees from the department by simply accessing the .employees property on my department object instance it returns a 0 count. Isn't the fault suppose to fire once I access a property? Am I linking my parent/child objects incorrectly?

  Read the article

• user_objects oracle

  - by mysticfalls

  I would just like to ask what is the difference between user_constraints and user_objects. I have this two database. I run a script on both DB that resulted a unique constraint error. To solve the problem I delete the constraint on user_constraint table for both DB. After that DB1 run without error.. DB2 however failed, I checked the user_constraint for both db and the constraints was deleted. I was asked to check the user_objects.. and found that DB2 has that same constraint_name as the object_name in user_objects table.. Any info regarding their relationship, use, similarites, etc will be appreciated ... Thanks..

  Read the article

• Rails 3 Order By Count on has_many :through

  - by goo

  I have an application where I can list Items and add tags to each Item. The models Items and Tags are associated like this: class Item < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :taggings has_many :tags, :through => :taggings end class Tagging < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :item belongs_to :tag end class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :taggings has_many :items, :through => :taggings end So, this many-to-many relationship allows me to set n tags for each Item, and the same tag can be used several times. I'd like to list all tags ordered by the number of items associated with this tag. More used tags, shows first. Less used, last. How can I do that? Regards.

  Read the article

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