Search Results

Search found 8603 results on 345 pages for 'altering tables'.

Page 70/345 | < Previous Page | 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  | Next Page >

  • Configuring Multiple ASP.NET MVC Sites To Use a Single Database For Authentication/Membership

    - by Maxim Z.
    Is it possible for two or more ASP.NET MVC sites to use a single SQL Server database for authentication and other things? Here's how I'm thinking of setting it up: I will combine the current database of each site into one single database, prefixing the tables with the name of the site they belong to. I currently have authentication tables generated by the asp.net_regsql.exe utility. How should I combine those tables? I'm guessing that the way to do it is to somehow set the "application_id" column in those tables... Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • MySQL auto increments disappeared

    - by Lizard
    I have a mysql database with 60 tables most of the tables have primary keys (expect pivot tables) all these primary keys had the attribute AUTO INCREMENT Then over night some how all the primary keys had that attribute removed, and the default value set to 0. I have no idea how this may have been caused. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Two different definitions of database schema

    - by AspOnMyNet
    a) I found two definitions of schema: FIRST - A set of information that describes a table is known as a schema, and schemas are used to describe specific tables within a database, as well as entire databases (and the relationship between tables in them, if any). SECOND - A database schema is a way to logically group objects such as tables, views, stored procedures etc. Think of a schema as a container of objects. I assume the two descriptions describe entirely different concepts, which just happen to use the same name? b) A database schema is a way to logically group objects such as tables, views, stored procedures etc. Think of a schema as a container of objects. If I understand the above definition correctly, then database schema is similar to a namespace, only difference being that we can assign access permissions to database schema, while same can’t be done with namespaces? thanx

    Read the article

  • MSSQL choosing row (from group) with max value

    - by sriehl
    I have a large database and am putting together a report of the data. I have aggregated and summed the data from many tables to get two tables that look like the following. id | code | value id | code | value 13 | AA | 0.5 13 | AC | 2.0 13 | AB | 1.0 14 | AB | 1.5 14 | AA | 2.0 13 | AA | 0.5 15 | AB | 0.5 15 | AB | 3.0 15 | AD | 1.5 15 | AA | 1.0 I need to get a list of id's, with the code (sumed from both tables) with the largest value. 13 | AC 14 | AA 15 | AB There are 4-6 thousand records and it is not possible to change the original tables. I'm not too worried about performance as I only need to run it a few times a year.

    Read the article

  • Database table copying

    - by vbNewbie
    I am trying to rectify a previous database creation with tables that contains data that needs to be saved. Instead of recreating a completely new database since some of the tables are still reusable, I need to split a table that exists into 2 new tables which I have done. Now I am trying to insert the data into the 2 new tables and because of duplicate data in the old table I am having a hard time doing this. Old table structure: ClientProjects clientId PK clientName clientProj hashkey MD5 (clientname and clientProj) new table structures: client clientId PK clientName projects queryId PK clientId PK projectName I hope this makes sense. The problem is that in the old table for example you have clients with multiple clientIds.

    Read the article

  • Sql Server 2008 Cross-database table linking (relationships)

    - by Alex
    Hi guys, I have a bit of an issue, and to be honest I don't think there's an answer, but I'll give it a try anyway. So I have two databases [A]-Company and [B]-Product. Both databases have a Country table which is then linked to other tables in each individual database. The problem is that the data between the two Country tables is a complete duplicate. So, I essentially have to duplicate some of the relationships in each database, and maintenance on top of that is just difficult... So, I'm curious is there a way to create a cross-database relationship between tables so I can have only one set of Country+Helper tables that govern both databases? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • mysqldump parameter to ensure DROP VIEW IF EXISTS rather than incorrect DROP TABLE IF EXISTS

    - by doublejosh
    Wonder if there is a parameter I can pass in mmysqldump equivalent for SQL Servery mysqldump that will make the incorrect "DROP TABLE IF EXISTS" statements into "DROP VIEW IF EXISTS", so that populating a database in an automated development environment refresh will work? Clarification, I'm getting DROP TABLE IF EXISTS statements in my .sql dump file even though they aren't tables. FYI: This is a Drupal site. The tables in question are ubercart meta statistics tables.

    Read the article

  • How to avoid multiple, unused has_many associations when using multiple models for the same entity (

    - by mikep
    Hello, I'm looking for a nice, Ruby/Rails-esque solution for something. I'm trying to split up some data using multiple tables, rather than just using one gigantic table. My reasoning is pretty much to try and avoid the performance drop that would come with having a big table. So, rather than have one table called books, I have multiple tables: books1, books2, books3, etc. (I know that I could use a partition, but, for now, I've decided to go the 'multiple tables' route.) Each user has their books placed into a specific table. The actual book table is chosen when the user is created, and all of their books go into the same table. The goal is to try and keep each table pretty much even -- but that's a different issue. One thing I don't particularly want to have is a bunch of unused associations in the User class. Right now, it looks like I'd have to do the following: class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :books1, :books2, :books3, :books4, :books5 end class Books1 < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user end class Books2 < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user end First off, for each specific user, only one of the book tables would be usable/applicable, since all of a user's books are stored in the same table. So, only one of the associations would be in use at any time and any other has_many :bookX association that was loaded would be a waste. I don't really know Ruby/Rails does internally with all of those has_many associations though, so maybe it's not so bad. But right now I'm thinking that it's really wasteful, and that there may just be a better, more efficient way of doing this. Is there's some sort of special Ruby/Rails methodology that could be applied here to avoid having to have all of those has_many associations? Also, does anyone have any advice on how to abstract the fact that there's multiple book tables behind a single books model/class?

    Read the article

  • How to convert this foreach loop into Linq code?

    - by a-galkin
    I am new one with Linq and I would like to modify my old c# code to use Linq. The idea of this code to select all tables where it's not set and reference’s field PrimaryTable equal "myTable" foreach (Table table in dbServer.Tables) { if (!table.IsSet) { foreach (Reference refer in table.References) { if (refer.PrimaryTable == "myTable") { tables.Add(table); } } } } After digging in internet I have got this code var q = from table in dbServer.Tables let refers = from refer in table.References where refer.PrimaryTable == "myTable" select refer.ForeignTable where refers.Contains(table.Name) select table; But it does not work at all and I need your help to make it works. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Negative Primary Keys

    - by bjax
    Are there any repercussions using Negative Primary Keys for tables (Identity Increment -1, Identity Seed -1 in SQL Server 2005)? The reason for this is we're creating a new database to replace an existing one. There are similar tables between the two databases and we'd like the "source" of the information to be transparent to our applications. The approach is to create views that unions tables from both databases. Negative PKs ensures the identities don't overlap.

    Read the article

  • Database Modelling - Conceptually different entities but with near identical fields

    - by Andrew Shepherd
    Suppose you have two sets of conceptual entities: MarketPriceDataSet which has multiple ForwardPriceEntries PoolPriceForecastDataSet which has multiple PoolPriceForecastEntry Both different child objects have near identical fields: ForwardPriceEntry has MarketPriceDataSetId (foreign key to parent table) StartDate EndDate SimulationItemId ForwardPrice PoolPriceForecastEntry has PoolPriceForecastDataSetId (foreign key to parent table) StartDate EndDate SimulationItemId ForecastPoolPrice If I modelled them as separate tables, the only difference would be the foreign key, and the name of the price field. There has been a debate as to whether the two near identical tables should be merged into one. Options I've thought of to model this is: Just keep them as two independent, separate tables Have both sets in the one table with an additional "type" field, and a parent_id equalling a foreign key to either parent table. This would sacrifice referential integrity checks. Have both sets in the one table with an additional "type" field, and create a complicated sequence of joining tables to maintain referential integrity. What do you think I should do, and why?

    Read the article

  • Request for comments: Ruby script that counts the length of a MySQL table name

    - by bakerjr
    Hi, I'm new at ruby and I would like to ask you guys if there's something that could improve my Ruby code. Here's my script: #!/usr/bin/ruby -w require 'mysql' dbh = Mysql.real_connect('localhost', 'db_user', 'password', 'db_table') tables = dbh.query('show tables') tables.each do |table| puts "#{table}" + " (" + "#{table}".length.to_s + ")" end I'd love to hear your comments. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Are GUID primary keys bad in theory, or just practice?

    - by Yarin
    Whenever I design a database I automatically start with an auto-generating GUID primary key for each of my tables (excepting look-up tables) I know I'll never lose sleep over duplicate keys, merging tables, etc. To me it just makes sense philosophically that any given record should be unique across all domains, and that that uniqueness should be represented in a consistent way from table to table. I realize it will never be the most performant option, but putting performance aside, I'd like to know if there are philosophical arguments against this practice?

    Read the article

  • Is there an ORM that supports composition w/o Joins

    - by Ken Downs
    EDIT: Changed title from "inheritance" to "composition". Left body of question unchanged. I'm curious if there is an ORM tool that supports inheritance w/o creating separate tables that have to be joined. Simple example. Assume a table of customers, with a Bill-to address, and a table of vendors, with a remit-to address. Keep it simple and assume one address each, not a child table of addresses for each. These addresses will have a handful of values in common: address 1, address 2, city, state/province, postal code. So let's say I'd have a class "addressBlock" and I want the customers and vendors to inherit from this class, and possibly from other classes. But I do not want separate tables that have to be joined, I want the columns in the customer and vendor tables respectively. Is there an ORM that supports this? The closest question I have found on StackOverflow that might be the same question is linked below, but I can't quite figure if the OP is asking what I am asking. He seems to be asking about foregoing inheritance precisely because there will be multiple tables. I'm looking for the case where you can use inheritance w/o generating the multiple tables. Model inheritance approach with Django's ORM

    Read the article

  • SqlServer2008 + expensive union

    - by Tim Mahy
    Hi al, we have 5 tables over which we should query with user search input throughout a stored procedure. We do a union of the similar data inside a view. Because of this the view can not be materialized. We are not able to change these 5 tables drastically (like creating a 6th table that contains the similar data of the 5 tables and reference that new one from the 5 tables). The query is rather expensive / slow what are our other options? It's allowed to think outside the box. Unfortunately I cannot give more information like the table/view/SP definition because of customer confidentiality... greetings, Tim

    Read the article

  • How to model a mutually exclusive relationship in sql server

    - by littlechris
    Hi, I have to add functionality to an existing application and I've run into a data situation that I'm not sure how to model. I am being restricted to the creation of new tables and code. If I need to alter the existing structure I think my client may reject the proposal..although if its the only way to get it right this is what I will have to do. I have an Item table that can me link to any number of tables, and these tables may increase over time. The Item can only me linked to one other table, but the record in the other table may have many items linked to it. Examples of the tables/entities being linked to are "Person", "Vehicle", "Building", "Office". These are all separate tables. Example of Items are "Pen", "Stapler", "Cushion", "Tyre", "A4 Paper", "Plastic Bag", "Poster", "Decoration" For instance a "Poster" may be allocated to a "Person" or "Office" or "Building". In the future if they add a "Conference Room" table it may also be added to that. My intital thoughts are: Item { ID, Name } LinkedItem { ItemID, LinkedToTableName, LinkedToID } The LinkedToTableName field will then allow me to identify the correct table to link to in my code. I'm not overly happy with this solution, but I can't quite think of anything else. Please help! :) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Hibernate question hbm2ddl.auto possible values and what they do

    - by Suzan
    I really want to know more about the update, export and the values that could be given to hbm2ddl.auto. I need to know when to use the update and when not? And what is the alternative? These are changes that could happen over DB: New tables new columns in old tables columns deleted data type of a column changed a type of a column changed it attributes tables have been dropped values of a column has changed In each case what is the best solution?

    Read the article

  • SqlServer2008 + expensive union all

    - by Tim Mahy
    Hi al, we have 5 tables over which we should query with user search input throughout a stored procedure. We do a union all of the similar data inside a view. Because of this the view can not be materialized. We are not able to change these 5 tables drastically (like creating a 6th table that contains the similar data of the 5 tables and reference that new one from the 5 tables). The query is rather expensive / slow what are our other options? It's allowed to think outside the box. Unfortunately I cannot give more information like the table/view/SP definition because of customer confidentiality... greetings, Tim

    Read the article

  • What are the reasons *not* to use a GUID for a primary key?

    - by Yarin
    Whenever I design a database I automatically start with an auto-generating GUID primary key for each of my tables (excepting look-up tables) I know I'll never lose sleep over duplicate keys, merging tables, etc. To me it just makes sense philosophically that any given record should be unique across all domains, and that that uniqueness should be represented in a consistent way from table to table. I realize it will never be the most performant option, but putting performance aside, I'd like to know if there are philosophical arguments against this practice?

    Read the article

  • Using an ORM with a database that has no defined relationships?

    - by Ahmad
    Consider a database(MSSQL 2005) that consists of 100+ tables which have primary keys defined to a certain degree. There are 'relationships' between tables, however these are not enforced with foreign key constraints. Consider the following simplified example of typical types of tables I am dealing with. The are clear relations between the User and City and Province tables. However, they key issues is the inconsistent data types in the tables and naming conventions. User: UserRowId [int] PK Name [varchar(50)] CityId [smallint] ProvinceRowId [bigint] City: CityRowId [bigint] PK CityDescription [varchar(100)] Province: ProvinceId [int] PK ProvinceDesc [varchar(50)] I am considering a rewrite of the application (in ASP.net MVC) that uses this data source as is similar in design to MVC storefront. However I am going through a proof of concept phase and this is one of the stumbling blocks I have come across. What are my options in terms of ORM choice that can be easily used and why? Should I even be considering an ORM? (The reason I ask this is that most explanations and tutorials all work with relatively cleanly designed existing databases, or newly created ones when compared to mine. I am thus having a very hard time trying to find a way forward with this problem) There is a huge amount of existing SQL queries, would a datamappper(eg IBatis.net) be more suitable since we could easily modify them to work and reuse the investment already made? I have found this question on SO which indicates to me that an ORM can be used - however I get the impression that this a question of mapping? Note: at the moment, the object model is not clearly defined as it was non-existent. The existing system pretty much did almost everything in SQL or consisted of overly complicated, and numerous queries to complete fucntionality. I am pretty much a noob and have zero experience around ORMs and MVC - so this an awesome learning curve I am on.

    Read the article

  • How to isolate data per customer, Django powered website

    - by Sawwy
    I have recently started learning python and django and working on a project that includes building a website for collecting information from customers. I am currently trying to figure out best way to isolate the customer data (collected information is sensitive and should only be accessible by customer and the service provider). I found this post Postgresql - one database for everyone, or one-database per customer and my question is that can I automate the model inheritance with customer creation via admin? To be specific, when save() is called for adding customer via django admin, this should create the customer specific tables (create a new set of tables with 'company_name' -prefix). For more information of the environment, I have extended the basic user registration with custom UserProfile adding 'company' and 'role' fields for each user. Upon login, the 'company' of the user will be checked to filter out tables without the 'company_name' prefix. 'Role' will further filter the which company-specific tables and set rights (view, edit). will appreciate any suggestions if more elegant methods could be used to solve the data isolation problem than model inheritance.

    Read the article

  • Trying to verify understanding of Foreign Keys MSSQL

    - by msarchet
    So I'm working on just a learning project to expose myself to doing some things I do not get to do at work. I'm just making a simple bug and case tracking app (I know there are a million this is just to work with some tools I don't get to). So I was designing my database and realized I've never actually used Foreign Keys before in any of my projects, I've used them before but never actually setting up a column as a FK. So I've designed my database as follows, which I think is close to correct (at least for the initial layout). However When I try to add the FK's to the linking Tables I get an error saying, "The tables present in the relationship must have the same number of columns". I'm doing this by in SQLSMS by going to the Keys 'folder' and adding a FK. Is there something that I am doing wrong here, I don't understand why the tables would have to have the same number of columns for me to add a FK relationship between the tables?

    Read the article

  • Database Modelling - Conceptually different entities with near identical fields

    - by Andrew Shepherd
    Suppose you have two sets of conceptual entities: MarketPriceDataSet which has multiple ForwardPriceEntries PoolPriceForecastDataSet which has multiple PoolPriceForecastEntry Both different child objects have near identical fields: ForwardPriceEntry has StartDate EndDate SimulationItemId ForwardPrice MarketPriceDataSetId (foreign key to parent table) PoolPriceForecastEntry has StartDate EndDate SimulationItemId ForecastPoolPrice PoolPriceForecastDataSetId (foreign key to parent table) If I modelled them as separate tables, the only difference would be the foreign key, and the name of the price field. There has been a debate as to whether the two near identical tables should be merged into one. Options I've thought of to model this is: Just keep them as two independent, separate tables Have both sets in the one table with an additional "type" field, and a parent_id equalling a foreign key to either parent table. This would sacrifice referential integrity checks. Have both sets in the one table with an additional "type" field, and create a complicated sequence of joining tables to maintain referential integrity. What do you think I should do, and why?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77  | Next Page >