Search Results

Search found 32223 results on 1289 pages for 'sql 2012'.

Page 740/1289 | < Previous Page | 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747  | Next Page >

  • postgres subquery w/ derived column

    - by Wells
    The following query won't work, but it should be clear what I'm trying to do: split the value of 't' on space and use the last element in that array in the subquery (as it will match tl). Any ideas how to do this? Thanks! SELECT t, y, "type", regexp_split_to_array(t, ' ') as t_array, sum(dr), ( select uz from f.tfa where tl = t_array[-1] ) as uz, sc FROM padres.yd_fld WHERE y = 2010 AND pos <> 0 GROUP BY t, y, "type", sc;

    Read the article

  • Suggestion on Database structure for relational data

    - by miccet
    Hi there. I've been wrestling with this problem for quite a while now and the automatic mails with 'Slow Query' warnings are still popping in. Basically, I have Blogs with a corresponding table as well as a table that keeps track of how many times each Blog has been viewed. This last table has a huge amount of records since this page is relatively high traffic and it logs every hit as an individual row. I have tried with indexes on the fields that are included in the WHERE clause, but it doesn't seem to help. I have also tried to clean the table each week by removing old ( 1.weeks) records. SO, I'm asking you guys, how would you solve this? The query that I know is causing the slowness is generated by Rails and looks like this: SELECT count(*) AS count_all FROM blog_views WHERE (created_at >= '2010-01-01 00:00:01' AND blog_id = 1); The tables have the following structures: CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS 'blogs' ( 'id' int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment, 'name' varchar(255) default NULL, 'perma_name' varchar(255) default NULL, 'author_id' int(11) default NULL, 'created_at' datetime default NULL, 'updated_at' datetime default NULL, 'blog_picture_id' int(11) default NULL, 'blog_picture2_id' int(11) default NULL, 'page_id' int(11) default NULL, 'blog_picture3_id' int(11) default NULL, 'active' tinyint(1) default '1', PRIMARY KEY ('id'), KEY 'index_blogs_on_author_id' ('author_id') ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=1 ; And CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS 'blog_views' ( 'id' int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment, 'blog_id' int(11) default NULL, 'ip' varchar(255) default NULL, 'created_at' datetime default NULL, 'updated_at' datetime default NULL, PRIMARY KEY ('id'), KEY 'index_blog_views_on_blog_id' ('blog_id'), KEY 'created_at' ('created_at') ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=1 ;

    Read the article

  • Showing multiple models in a single ListView

    - by Veer
    I've three models (Contacts, Notes, Reminders). I want to search all these and produce the filtered result in a single listview and depending upon the selection I've to display the corresponding view(UserControl) to its right. I want the right way of implementing the design or atleast alternatives to this method that I've tried. Now I've tried it using a IntegratedViewModel having all the properties from all the three models. public class IntegratedViewModel { ContactModel _contactModel; NoteModel _noteModel; public IntegratedViewModel(ContactModel contactModel) { _contactModel = contactModel; } // similarly for other models also public string DisplayTitle // For displaying in ListView { get; //same as set set { If(_contactModel != null) return _contactModel.Name; If(_noteModel != null) return _noteModel.Title; } } // All other properties from the three models includin the Name/Title properties for displaying them in the corresponding views(UserControl) } Now I set the itemsSource as the List<IntegratedViewModel>. I've to now bind the visibility of the views to some properties in the MainViewModel. I tried setting bool properties like IsContactViewSelected, IsNoteViewSelected using the setter of SelectedEntity property which is bound to the ListView's SelectedItem. public SelectedEntity { //get set { oldvalue = _selectedEntity; _selectedEntity = value; // now i find the Type of model selected using oldvalue.ModelType // where ModelType is a property in the IntegratedViewModel // according to the type, i set one of the above bool properties to false // and do the same for _selectedEntity but set the property to true // so that the view corresponding to the selectedEntityType is visible // and others are collapsed } } Here is the problem: For eg: let us say, I selected an item of type ContactModel, the old selection being NoteModel. I set the property IsNoteModelSelected to false according to the oldvalue, it sets the property and then Raises the propertychanged event and does not go and check the remaining if condition where i check for _selectedEntity which is used to set the IsContactModelSelected to true.

    Read the article

  • How to check if an entityset is populated

    - by TheQ
    How can i check if an entityset of a linq-object is populated or not? Example code below. My model have two methods, one joins data, and the other does not: public static Member GetMemberWithSettings(Guid memberId) { using (DataContext db = new DataContext()) { DataLoadOptions dataLoadOptions = new DataLoadOptions(); dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Member>(x => x.Settings); db.LoadOptions = dataLoadOptions; var query = from x in db.Members where x.MemberId == memberId select x; return query.FirstOrDefault(); } } public static Member GetMember(Guid memberId) { using (DataContext db = new DataContext()) { var query = from x in db.Members where x.MemberId == memberId select x; return query.FirstOrDefault(); } } Then my control have the following code: Member member1 = Member.GetMemberWithSettings(memberId); Member member2 = Member.GetMember(memberId); Debug.WriteLine(member1.Settings.Count); Debug.WriteLine(member2.Settings.Count); The last line will generate a "Cannot access a disposed object" exception. I know that i can get rid of that exception just by not disposing the datacontext, but then the last line will generate a new query to the database, and i don't want that. What i would like is something like: Debug.WriteLine((member1.Settings.IsPopulated()) ? member1.Settings.Count : -1); Debug.WriteLine((member2.Settings.IsPopulated()) ? member2.Settings.Count : -1); Is it possible?

    Read the article

  • best database design for city zip & state tables

    - by ryan a
    My application will need to reference addresses. Street info will be stored with my main objects but the rest needs to be stored seperately to reduce redundancy. How should I store/retrieve ZIPs, cities and states? Here are some of my ideas. single table solution (cant do relationships) [locations] locationID locationParent (FK for locationID - 0 for state entries) locationName (city, state) locationZIP two tables (with relationships, FK constraints, ref integrity) [state] stateID stateName [city] cityID stateID (FK for state.stateID) cityName zipCode three tables [state] stateID stateName [city] cityID stateID (FK for state.stateID) cityName [zip] zipID cityID (FK for city.cityID) zipName Then I read into ZIP codes amd how they are assigned. They aren't specifically related to cities. Some cities have more than one ZIP (ok will still work) but some ZIPs are in more than one city (oh snap) and some other ZIPs (very few) are in more than one state! Also some ZIPs are not even in the same state as the address they belong to at all. Seems ZIPs are made for carrier route identification and some remote places are best served by post offices in neighboring cities or states. Does anybody know of a good (not perfect) solution that takes this into consideration to minimize discrepencies as the database grows?

    Read the article

  • mysql reference result from subquery

    - by iamrohitbanga
    this is what i am doing update t1 set x=a,y=b where a and b are obtained from (select query here) i know the select query the select query returns multiple results which are the same when i use group by or distinct query execution slows down considerably a and b are forward references so mysql reports an error i want to set a equal to the value obtained in the first row and b equal to the value obtained in the first row for the respective columns, to avoid group by. i don't know how to refer to the first result from the select query. how can i achieve all this?

    Read the article

  • Oracle select query

    - by Jasim
    I have a table like this C1 C2 C3 Code 1 2 3 33 1 2 3 34 2 4 1 14 1 2 3 14 i want to select only those record whose code is appearing only in single row. ie, in this case rows with code 33 and 34.. as they appear only once in this table. How can i write a query for that

    Read the article

  • How to prevent a specific directory from running Php, Html, and Javascript languages?

    - by Emily
    Hi, Let's say i have an image uploader script, i want to prevent the upload directory from executing Php or even html by only showing it as plain text, i've seen this trick in many websites but i don't know how they do it. Briefly, if i upload evil.php to that directory, and i try to access it i will only see a plain text source , No html or php is executed. ( but i still want the images to appear normally ofcourse) I know i can do like that by header("content-type:text/plain"); but that's will not be helpful, because what i want, is to set the content-type:text/plain automatically by the server for every thing outputed from the upload directory except images. Note: i'm running php 5.3.2/Cent OS and the latest cPanel. Thanks

    Read the article

  • What is this hacker trying to do?

    - by JW
    If you do a search for: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=0x57414954464F522044454C4159202730303A30303A313527&hl=en&start=30&sa=N you will see a lot of examples of an attempted hack along the lines of: 1) declare @q varchar(8000) select @q = 0x57414954464F522044454C4159202730303A30303A313527 exec(@q) -- What is exactly is it trying to do? Which db is it trying to work on? Do you know of any advisories about this?

    Read the article

  • Group by query design help

    - by Midhat
    Consider this data PK field1 field2 1 a b 2 a (null) 3 x y 4 x z 5 q w I need to get this data select all columns from all rows where field1 has count 1 i tried and finally settled for select * from mytable where field1 in (select field1 from mytable group by field1 having count(field1)>1 ) order by field1 but there has to be a better way than this

    Read the article

  • Relating text fields to check boxes in Java

    - by Finzz
    This program requires the user to login and request a database to access. The program then gets a connection object, searches through the database storing the column names into a vector for later use. The problem comes with implementing text fields to allow the user to search for specific values within the database. I can get the check boxes and text fields to appear using a gridlayout and add them to a panel. How do I relate the text fields to their appropriate check box? I've tried adding them to a vector, but then they can't also be added to the panel as well. I've searched for a way to name the text fields as the loop cycles through the column names, but it seems impossible to do without having them declared ahead of time. This can't be done either, as it's impossible to determine the attributes that the user will request. I just need to be able to know the names of the text fields so I can test to see if the user entered information and perform the necessary logic. Let me know if you have to see the rest of the code to give an answer, but hopefully you get the general idea of what I'm trying to accomplish. Picture of UI: try { ResultSet r2 = con.getMetaData().getColumns("", "", rb.getText(), ""); colNames1 = new Vector<String>(); columns1 = new Vector<JCheckBox>(); while (r2.next()) { colNames1.add(r2.getString(4)); JCheckBox cb = new JCheckBox(r2.getString(4)); JTextField tf = new JTextField(10); columns1.add(cb); p3.add(cb); p3.add(tf); } }

    Read the article

  • Using a trigger to record audit information vs. stored procedure

    - by Germ
    Suppose you have the following... An ASP.NET web application that calls a stored procedure to delete a record. The table has a trigger on it that will insert an audit entry each time a record is deleted. I want to be able to record in the audit entry the username of who deleted the record. What would be the best way to go about achieving this? I know I could remove the trigger and have the delete stored procedure insert the audit entry prior to deleting but are there any other recommeded alternative? If a username was passed as a parameter to the delete stored procedure, is there anyway to get this value in the trigger that's excuted when the record is deleted? I'm just throwing this out there...

    Read the article

  • Rails 3 fields_for agressive loading?

    - by Seth
    Hi all, I'm trying to optimize (limit) queries in a view. I am using the fields_for function. I need to reference various properties of the object, such as username for display purposes. However, this is a rel table, so I need to join with my users table. The result is N sub-queries, 1 for each field in fields_for. It's difficult to explain, but I think you'll understand what I'm asking if I paste my code: <%= form_for @election do |f| %> <%= f.fields_for :voters do |voter| %> <%= voter.hidden_field :id %> <%= voter.object.user.preferred_name %> <% end %> <% end %> I have like 10,000 users, and many times each election will include all 10,000 users. That's 10,000 subqueries every time this view is loaded. I want fields_for to JOIN on users. Is this possible? I'd like to do something like: ... <%= f.fields_for :voters, :joins => :users do |voter| %> ... <% end %> ... But that, of course, doesn't work :(

    Read the article

  • Group and count in Rails

    - by alamodey
    I have this bit of code and I get an empty object. @results = PollRoles.find( :all, :select => 'option_id, count(*) count', :group => 'option_id', :conditions => ["poll_id = ?", @poll.id]) Is this the correct way of writing the query? I want a collection of records that have an option id and the number of times that option id is found in the PollRoles model. EDIT: This is how I''m iterating through the results: <% @results.each do |result| %> <% @option = Option.find_by_id(result.option_id) %> <%= @option.question %> <%= result.count %> <% end %>

    Read the article

  • Find all those columns which have only null values, in a MySQL table

    - by Robin v. G.
    The situation is as follows: I have a substantial number of tables, with each a substantial number of columns. I need to deal with this old and to-be-deprecated database for a new system, and I'm looking for a way to eliminate all columns that have - apparently - never been in use. I wanna do this by filtering out all columns that have a value on any given row, leaving me with a set of columns where the value is NULL in all rows. Of course I could manually sort every column descending, but that'd take too long as I'm dealing with loads of tables and columns. I estimate it to be 400 tables with up to 50 (!) columns per table. Is there any way I can get this information from the information_schema? EDIT: Here's an example: column_a column_b column_c column_d NULL NULL NULL 1 NULL 1 NULL 1 NULL 1 NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL The output should be 'column_a' and 'column_c', for being the only columns without any filled in values.

    Read the article

  • How to use a varying database?

    - by nimo
    I want to use a database which name is stored in a variable. How do I do this? I first thought this would work but it doesn't: exec('use '+@db) That will not change database context Suggestions anyone?

    Read the article

  • Access is re-writing - and breaking - my query!

    - by FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
    I have a query in MS Access (2003) that makes use of a subquery. The subquery part looks like this: ...FROM (SELECT id, dt, details FROM all_recs WHERE def_cd="ABC-00123") AS q1,... And when I switch to Table View to verify the results, all is OK. Then, I wanted the result of this query to be printed on the page header for a report (the query returns a single row that is page-header stuff). I get an error because the query is suddenly re-written as: ...FROM [SELECT id, dt, details FROM all_recs WHERE def_cd="ABC-00123"; ] AS q1,... So it's Ok that the round brackets are automatically replaced by square brackets, Access feels it needs to do that, fine! But why is it adding the ; into the subquery, which causes it to fail? I suppose I could just create new query objects for these subqueries, but it seems a little silly that I should have to do that.

    Read the article

  • c# Column datatype Date type (NOT DateTime)

    - by Sha Le
    Hi All: I want know is there good way to detect Column DataType for Date field (NOT DateTime)? This what currently I do: switch (dt.Columns[col].DataType.FullName) { case "System.DateTime": formatedVal = Formatter.GetDateTime(val); break; // which is NOT possible, but something equivalent am looking for case "System.Date": formatedVal = Formatter.GetDate(val); break; default: formatedVal = val.ToString(); break; } Thanks a bunch. :-)

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to access a MS Access database using PHP?

    - by Jack Roscoe
    Hi, I need to access some data from an MS Access database and retrieve some data from it using PHP. I've looked around the web, and found the following line which seems to correctly connect to the database: $conn->Open("DRIVER={Microsoft Access Driver (*.mdb)}; DBQ=C:\wamp\www\data\MYDB.mdb"); However, I have tried to retrieve some data in the following way: $query = "SELECT pageid FROM pages_table"; $result = mysqli_query($conn, $query); $amount_of_pages = 0; if(mysqli_num_rows($result) <= 0) echo "No results found."; else while($row = mysqli_fetch_array($result, MYSQL_ASSOC)) $amount_of_pages++; And was presented with the following errors: Warning: mysqli_query() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli, object given in C:\wamp\www\data\index.php on line 19 Warning: mysqli_num_rows() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, null given in C:\wamp\www\data\index.php on line 23 No results found. I don't really understand the connection to the Access database, is there something I should be doing differently? Thanks in advance for any help.

    Read the article

  • Violation of primary key constraint, multiple users

    - by MC.
    Lets say UserA and UserB both have an application open and are working with the same type of data. UserA inserts a record into the table with value 10 (PrimaryKey='A'), UserB does not currently see the value UserA entered and attempts to insert a new value of 20 (PrimaryKey='A'). What I wanted in this situation was a DBConcurrencyException, but instead what I have is a primary key violation. I understand why, but I have no idea how to resolve this. What is a good practice to deal with such a circumstance? I do not want to merge before updating the database because I want an error to inform the user that multiple users updated this data.

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Select pages that are not tagged?

    - by lauthiamkok
    Hi, I have a db with two tables like these below, page table pg_id title 1 a 2 b 3 c 4 d tagged table tagged_id pg_id 1 1 2 4 I want to select the pages which are tagged, I tried with this query below but doesn't work, SELECT * FROM root_pages LEFT JOIN root_tagged ON ( root_tagged.pg_id = root_pages.pg_id ) WHERE root_pages.pg_id != root_tagged.pg_id It returns zero - Showing rows 0 - 1 (2 total, Query took 0.0021 sec) But I want it to return pg_id title 2 b 3 c My query must have been wrong?? How can I return the pages which are not tagged correctly? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Can't delete record via the datacontext it was retrieved from

    - by Antilogic
    I just upgraded one of my application's methods to use compiled queries (not sure if this is relevant). Now I'm getting contradicting error messages when I run the code. This is my method: MyClass existing = Queries.MyStaticCompiledQuery(MyRequestScopedDataContext, param1, param2).SingleOrDefault(); if (existing != null) { MyRequestScopedDataContext.MyClasses.DeleteOnSubmit(existing); } When I run it I get this message: Cannot remove an entity that has not been attached. Note that the compiled query and the DeleteOnSubmit reference the same DataContext. Still I figured I'd humor the application and add an attach command before the DeleteOnSubmit, like so: MyClass existing = Queries.MyStaticCompiledQuery(MyRequestScopedDataContext, param1, param2).SingleOrDefault(); if (existing != null) { MyRequestScopedDataContext.MyClasses.Attach(existing); MyRequestScopedDataContext.MyClasses.DeleteOnSubmit(existing); } BUT... When I run this code, I get a completely different contradictory error message: An attempt has been made to Attach or Add an entity that is not new, perhaps having been loaded from another DataContext. This is not supported. I'm at a complete loss... Does anyone else have some insight as to why I can't delete a record via the same DataContext I retrieved it from?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747  | Next Page >