Search Results

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

Page 8/110 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Rails valiation among a three model relationship

    - by Andrew
    I'm working on a three model relationship with one aspect that I'm not sure how to approach. Here's the basic relationship: class Taxonomy has_many :terms # attribute: `inclusive`, default => false end class Term belongs_to :taxonomy has_and_belongs_to_many :photos end class Photo has_and_belongs_to_many :terms end This is pretty straightforward stuff except for one thing: A Taxonomy can be either 'Inclusive' or 'Exclusive'. Exclusive means the terms are mutually exclusive, Inclusive means they're not. So, if a Taxonomy is exclusive ie. taxonomy.inclusive = false, then there can only be one term from that taxonomy attached to a given photo. Now, I can handle this on the client-side without a problem, but I am not quite sure how to set up a validation on Photos (or somewhere else) that says basically: "validate that no more than one term from an exclusive taxonomy is associated with this record." Any ideas on how to do that?

    Read the article

  • Using SQLXML Bulk Load in .NET Environment - Error with One to Many relationship on Complex Type

    - by user331111
    Hi, I have an error when I am importing an XML file using SQLXMLBulkLoad, wondering if anyone could help. Error: Data mapping to column 'Attribute' was already found in the data. Make sure that no two schema definitions map to the same column Full files and details can be found here http://www.experts-exchange.com/Microsoft/Development/MS-SQL-Server/SQL-Server-2005/Q_26102239.html Exert from XSD: <sql:relationship name="EnvironmentDECAttributes" parent="Environment" parent-key="intEnvironmentID" child="DECAttributes" child-key="intEnvironmentID"/> <complexType name="Environment"> <sequence> <element name="ESANumber" minOccurs="0"> <annotation> <documentation> Environmentally Sensitive Area Number </documentation> </annotation> <simpleType> <restriction base="string"> <maxLength value="15"/> <whiteSpace value="collapse"/> </restriction> </simpleType> </element> <element name="Conditions" minOccurs="0" sql:relation="Conditions" sql:relationship="EnvironmentConditions"> <complexType> <sequence> <element name="Condition" type="vms:EnvironmentalConditions" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="5"/> </sequence> </complexType> </element> <element name="DECDistrict" minOccurs="0"> <annotation> <documentation> Department of Environment &amp; Conservation District </documentation> </annotation> <simpleType> <restriction base="string"> <maxLength value="31"/> <whiteSpace value="collapse"/> </restriction> </simpleType> </element> <element name="DECAttributes" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1" sql:relation="DECAttributes" sql:relationship="EnvironmentDECAttributes"> <complexType> <sequence> <element name="Attribute" type="vms:DECAttributes" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" sql:field="Attribute"> <annotation> <documentation> Department of Environment &amp; Conservation attributes. </documentation> </annotation> </element> </sequence> </complexType> </element> </sequence> </complexType> Exert from XML: <Environment> <DECAttributes> <Attribute>WA</Attribute> <Attribute>SA</Attribute> </DECAttributes> </Environment> Any help/ comments would be appreciated Thanks C

    Read the article

  • Eager/Lazy loaded member always empty with JPA one-to-many relationship

    - by Kaleb Pederson
    I have two entities, a User and Role with a one-to-many relationship from user to role. Here's what the tables look like: mysql> select * from User; +----+-------+----------+ | id | name | password | +----+-------+----------+ | 1 | admin | admin | +----+-------+----------+ 1 row in set (0.00 sec) mysql> select * from Role; +----+----------------------+---------------+----------------+ | id | description | name | summary | +----+----------------------+---------------+----------------+ | 1 | administrator's role | administrator | Administration | | 2 | editor's role | editor | Editing | +----+----------------------+---------------+----------------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) And here's the join table that was created: mysql> select * from User_Role; +---------+----------+ | User_id | roles_id | +---------+----------+ | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 2 | +---------+----------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) And here's the subset of orm.xml that defines the tables and relationships: <entity class="User" name="User"> <table name="User" /> <attributes> <id name="id"> <generated-value strategy="AUTO" /> </id> <basic name="name"> <column name="name" length="100" unique="true" nullable="false"/> </basic> <basic name="password"> <column length="255" nullable="false" /> </basic> <one-to-many name="roles" fetch="EAGER" target-entity="Role" /> </attributes> </entity> <entity class="Role" name="Role"> <table name="Role" /> <attributes> <id name="id"> <generated-value strategy="AUTO"/> </id> <basic name="name"> <column name="name" length="40" unique="true" nullable="false"/> </basic> <basic name="summary"> <column name="summary" length="100" nullable="false"/> </basic> <basic name="description"> <column name="description" length="255"/> </basic> </attributes> </entity> Yet, despite that, when I retrieve the admin user, I get back an empty collection. I'm using Hibernate as my JPA provider and it shows the following debug SQL: select user0_.id as id8_, user0_.name as name8_, user0_.password as password8_ from User user0_ where user0_.name=? limit ? When the one-to-many mapping is lazy loaded, that's the only query that's made. This correctly retrieves the one admin user. I changed the relationship to use eager loading and then the following query is made in addition to the above: select roles0_.User_id as User1_1_, roles0_.roles_id as roles2_1_, role1_.id as id9_0_, role1_.description as descript2_9_0_, role1_.name as name9_0_, role1_.summary as summary9_0_ from User_Role roles0_ left outer join Role role1_ on roles0_.roles_id=role1_.id where roles0_.User_id=? Which results in the following results: +----------+-----------+--------+----------------------+---------------+----------------+ | User1_1_ | roles2_1_ | id9_0_ | descript2_9_0_ | name9_0_ | summary9_0_ | +----------+-----------+--------+----------------------+---------------+----------------+ | 1 | 1 | 1 | administrator's role | administrator | Administration | | 1 | 2 | 2 | editor's role | editor | Editing | +----------+-----------+--------+----------------------+---------------+----------------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) Hibernate obviously knows about the roles, yet getRoles() still returns an empty collection. Hibernate also recognized the relationship sufficiently to put the data in the first place. What problems can cause these symptoms?

    Read the article

  • How do I code this relationship in SQLAlchemy?

    - by Martin Del Vecchio
    I am new to SQLAlchemy (and SQL, for that matter). I can't figure out how to code the idea I have in my head. I am creating a database of performance-test results. A test run consists of a test type and a number (this is class TestRun below) A test suite consists the version string of the software being tested, and one or more TestRun objects (this is class TestSuite below). A test version consists of all test suites with the given version name. Here is my code, as simple as I can make it: from sqlalchemy import * from sqlalchemy.ext.declarative import declarative_base from sqlalchemy.orm import relationship, backref, sessionmaker Base = declarative_base() class TestVersion (Base): __tablename__ = 'versions' id = Column (Integer, primary_key=True) version_name = Column (String) def __init__ (self, version_name): self.version_name = version_name class TestRun (Base): __tablename__ = 'runs' id = Column (Integer, primary_key=True) suite_directory = Column (String, ForeignKey ('suites.directory')) suite = relationship ('TestSuite', backref=backref ('runs', order_by=id)) test_type = Column (String) rate = Column (Integer) def __init__ (self, test_type, rate): self.test_type = test_type self.rate = rate class TestSuite (Base): __tablename__ = 'suites' directory = Column (String, primary_key=True) version_id = Column (Integer, ForeignKey ('versions.id')) version_ref = relationship ('TestVersion', backref=backref ('suites', order_by=directory)) version_name = Column (String) def __init__ (self, directory, version_name): self.directory = directory self.version_name = version_name # Create a v1.0 suite suite1 = TestSuite ('dir1', 'v1.0') suite1.runs.append (TestRun ('test1', 100)) suite1.runs.append (TestRun ('test2', 200)) # Create a another v1.0 suite suite2 = TestSuite ('dir2', 'v1.0') suite2.runs.append (TestRun ('test1', 101)) suite2.runs.append (TestRun ('test2', 201)) # Create another suite suite3 = TestSuite ('dir3', 'v2.0') suite3.runs.append (TestRun ('test1', 102)) suite3.runs.append (TestRun ('test2', 202)) # Create the in-memory database engine = create_engine ('sqlite://') Session = sessionmaker (bind=engine) session = Session() Base.metadata.create_all (engine) # Add the suites in version1 = TestVersion (suite1.version_name) version1.suites.append (suite1) session.add (suite1) version2 = TestVersion (suite2.version_name) version2.suites.append (suite2) session.add (suite2) version3 = TestVersion (suite3.version_name) version3.suites.append (suite3) session.add (suite3) session.commit() # Query the suites for suite in session.query (TestSuite).order_by (TestSuite.directory): print "\nSuite directory %s, version %s has %d test runs:" % (suite.directory, suite.version_name, len (suite.runs)) for run in suite.runs: print " Test '%s', result %d" % (run.test_type, run.rate) # Query the versions for version in session.query (TestVersion).order_by (TestVersion.version_name): print "\nVersion %s has %d test suites:" % (version.version_name, len (version.suites)) for suite in version.suites: print " Suite directory %s, version %s has %d test runs:" % (suite.directory, suite.version_name, len (suite.runs)) for run in suite.runs: print " Test '%s', result %d" % (run.test_type, run.rate) The output of this program: Suite directory dir1, version v1.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 100 Test 'test2', result 200 Suite directory dir2, version v1.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 101 Test 'test2', result 201 Suite directory dir3, version v2.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 102 Test 'test2', result 202 Version v1.0 has 1 test suites: Suite directory dir1, version v1.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 100 Test 'test2', result 200 Version v1.0 has 1 test suites: Suite directory dir2, version v1.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 101 Test 'test2', result 201 Version v2.0 has 1 test suites: Suite directory dir3, version v2.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 102 Test 'test2', result 202 This is not correct, since there are two TestVersion objects with the name 'v1.0'. I hacked my way around this by adding a private list of TestVersion objects, and a function to find a matching one: versions = [] def find_or_create_version (version_name): # Find existing for version in versions: if version.version_name == version_name: return (version) # Create new version = TestVersion (version_name) versions.append (version) return (version) Then I modified my code that adds the records to use it: # Add the suites in version1 = find_or_create_version (suite1.version_name) version1.suites.append (suite1) session.add (suite1) version2 = find_or_create_version (suite2.version_name) version2.suites.append (suite2) session.add (suite2) version3 = find_or_create_version (suite3.version_name) version3.suites.append (suite3) session.add (suite3) Now the output is what I want: Suite directory dir1, version v1.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 100 Test 'test2', result 200 Suite directory dir2, version v1.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 101 Test 'test2', result 201 Suite directory dir3, version v2.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 102 Test 'test2', result 202 Version v1.0 has 2 test suites: Suite directory dir1, version v1.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 100 Test 'test2', result 200 Suite directory dir2, version v1.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 101 Test 'test2', result 201 Version v2.0 has 1 test suites: Suite directory dir3, version v2.0 has 2 test runs: Test 'test1', result 102 Test 'test2', result 202 This feels wrong to me; it doesn't feel right that I am manually keeping track of the unique version names, and manually adding the suites to the appropriate TestVersion objects. Is this code even close to being correct? And what happens when I'm not building the entire database from scratch, as in this example. If the database already exists, do I have to query the database's TestVersion table to discover the unique version names? Thanks in advance. I know this is a lot of code to wade through, and I appreciate the help.

    Read the article

  • Linq 2 SQL One to Zero or One relationship possible?

    - by Mr. Flibble
    Is it possible to create a one to zero or one relationship in Linq2SQL? My understanding is that to create a one to one relationship you create a FK relationship on the PK of each table. But you cannot make the PK nullable, so I don't see how to make a one to zero or one relationship work? I'm using the designer to automatically create the model - so I would like to know how to set up the SQL tables to induce the relationship - not some custom ORM code.

    Read the article

  • How do you model roles / relationships with Domain Driven Design in mind?

    - by kitsune
    If I have three entities, Project, ProjectRole and Person, where a Person can be a member of different Projects and be in different Project Roles (such as "Project Lead", or "Project Member") - how would you model such a relationship? In the database, I currently have the following tablers: Project, Person, ProjectRole Project_Person with PersonId & ProjectId as PK and a ProjectRoleId as a FK Relationship. I'm really at a loss here since all domain models I come up with seem to break some "DDD" rule. Are there any 'standards' for this problem? I had a look at a Streamlined Object Modeling and there is an example what a Project and ProjectMember would look like, but AddProjectMember() in Project would call ProjectMember.AddProject(). So Project has a List of ProjectMembers, and each ProjectMember in return has a reference to the Project. Looks a bit convoluted to me. update After reading more about this subject, I will try the following: There are distinct roles, or better, model relationships, that are of a certain role type within my domain. For instance, ProjectMember is a distinct role that tells us something about the relationship a Person plays within a Project. It contains a ProjectMembershipType that tells us more about the Role it will play. I do know for certain that persons will have to play roles inside a project, so I will model that relationship. ProjectMembershipTypes can be created and modified. These can be "Project Leader", "Developer", "External Adviser", or something different. A person can have many roles inside a project, and these roles can start and end at a certain date. Such relationships are modeled by the class ProjectMember. public class ProjectMember : IRole { public virtual int ProjectMemberId { get; set; } public virtual ProjectMembershipType ProjectMembershipType { get; set; } public virtual Person Person { get; set; } public virtual Project Project { get; set; } public virtual DateTime From { get; set; } public virtual DateTime Thru { get; set; } // etc... } ProjectMembershipType: ie. "Project Manager", "Developer", "Adviser" public class ProjectMembershipType : IRoleType { public virtual int ProjectMembershipTypeId { get; set; } public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual string Description { get; set; } // etc... }

    Read the article

  • mysql Delete and Database Relationships

    - by Colin
    If I'm trying to delete multiple rows from a table and one of those rows can't be deleted because of a database relationship, what will happen? Will the rows that aren't constrained by a relationship still be deleted? Or will the entire delete fail? Thanks, Colin

    Read the article

  • Getting fields_for and accepts_nested_attributes_for to work with a belongs_to relationship

    - by Billy Gray
    I cannot seem to get a nested form to generate in a rails view for a belongs_to relationship using the new accepts_nested_attributes_for facility of Rails 2.3. I did check out many of the resources available and it looks like my code should be working, but fields_for explodes on me, and I suspect that it has something to do with how I have the nested models configured. The error I hit is a common one that can have many causes: '@account[owner]' is not allowed as an instance variable name Here are the two models involved: class Account < ActiveRecord::Base # Relationships belongs_to :owner, :class_name => 'User', :foreign_key => 'owner_id' accepts_nested_attributes_for :owner has_many :users end class User < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :account end Perhaps this is where I am doing it 'rong', as an Account can have an 'owner', and may 'users', but a user only has one 'account', based on the user model account_id key. This is the view code in new.html.haml that blows up on me: - form_for :account, :url => account_path do |account| = account.text_field :name - account.fields_for :owner do |owner| = owner.text_field :name And this is the controller code for the new action: class AccountsController < ApplicationController # GET /account/new def new @account = Account.new end end When I try to load /account/new I get the following exception: NameError in Accounts#new Showing app/views/accounts/new.html.haml where line #63 raised: @account[owner] is not allowed as an instance variable name If I try to use the mysterious 'build' method, it just bombs out in the controller, perhaps because build is just for multi-record relationships: class AccountsController < ApplicationController # GET /account/new def new @account = Account.new @account.owner.build end end You have a nil object when you didn't expect it! The error occurred while evaluating nil.build If I try to set this up using @account.owner_attributes = {} in the controller, or @account.owner = User.new, I'm back to the original error, "@account[owner] is not allowed as an instance variable name". Does anybody else have the new accepts_nested_attributes_for method working with a belongs_to relationship? Is there something special or different you have to do? All the official examples and sample code (like the great stuff over at Ryans Scraps) is concerned with multi-record associations.

    Read the article

  • Displaying Many-To-Many Database relationship in VB.NET 2008 with DataGrid, MS SQL 2008

    - by user337501
    Computer bombed while posting this, couldnt find a duplicate question but if there is one, forgive me. So, I've run into a wall. And rather than use a ladder to avoid it, I'd like go through it. I'm setting up what I can best describe as a many-to-many relationship in a database. To examplify, imagine I have three primary tables: Items, Categories, Sections(nevermind the potential redundancy) Then I have another table, Properties. Items, Categories, and Sections can be associated with many properties. A single property can be associated with one, all, or none of the other tables. The best way I can figure to do this is to have join tables make the relationship. i.e. tblItems----(Foreign Key)----tblItems_To_Properties----(Foreign Key)----tblProperties In this example, tblItems simply has an "ItemID" Primary Key. tblItems_To_Properties has its own Primary Key(tblItems_To_PropertiesID), a Foreign Key to the Item(ItemID) and a Foreign key to the Property(PropertyID). The Properties table simply has its primary key(PropertyID) I hope this example isnt too confusing...if I have to I can find a way to put a diagram up or something. My problem is, I want to display this in a DataGrid using the Master-Detail method(DevExpress GridControl). I use the tblItems as a test, and I can see the Items in the parent view, but in the child view I see(understandably) the join table and that is it. My goal is to make it so the Grid ignores the join table and shows the Properties table as the only child. Any help on this method or insight into another solution would be muuuuuuuch appreciat

    Read the article

  • Fluent NHibernate - Cascade delete a child object when no explicit parent->child relationship exists

    - by John Price
    I've got an application that keeps track of (for the sake of an example) what drinks are available at a given restaurant. My domain model looks like: class Restaurant { public IEnumerable<RestaurantDrink> GetRestaurantDrinks() { ... } //other various properties } class RestaurantDrink { public Restaurant Restaurant { get; set; } public Drink { get; set; } public string DrinkVariety { get; set; } //"fountain drink", "bottled", etc. //other various properties } class Drink { public string Name { get; set; } public string Manufacturer { get; set; } //other various properties } My db schema is (I hope) about what you'd expect; "RestaurantDrinks" is essentially a mapping table between Restaurants and Drinks with some extra properties (like "DrinkVariety" tacked on). Using Fluent NHibernate to set up mappings, I've set up a "HasMany" relationship from Restaurants to RestaurantDrinks that causes the latter to be deleted when its parent Restaurant is deleted. My question is, given that "Drink" does not have any property on it that explicitly references RestaurantDrinks (the relationship only exists in the underlying database), can I set up a mapping that will cause RestaurantDrinks to be deleted if their associated Drink is deleted? Update: I've been trying to set up the mapping from the "RestaurantDrink" end of things using References(x => x.Drink) .Column("DrinkId") .Cascade.All(); But this doesn't seem to work (I still get an FK violation when deleting a Drink).

    Read the article

  • CakePHP belongsTo relationship with a variable 'model' field.

    - by gomezuk
    I've got a problem with a belongsTo relationship in CakePHP. I've got an "Action" model that uses the "actions" table and belongs to one of two other models, either "Transaction" or "Tag". The idea being that whenever a user completes a transaction or adds a tag, the action model is created to keep a log of it. I've got that part working, whenever a Transaction or Tag is saved, the aftersave() method also adds an Action record. The problem comes when I try to do a find('all') on the Action model, the related Transaction or Tag record is not being returned. actions: id model model_id created I thought I could use the "conditions" parameter in the belongsTo relationship like this: <?php class Action extends AppModel { var $name = 'Action'; var $actsAs = array('Containable'); var $belongsTo = array( 'Transaction' => array( 'foreignKey' => 'model_id', 'conditions' => array("Action.model"=>"Transaction") ), 'User' => array( 'fields' => array('User.username') ), 'Recommendation' => array( 'conditions' => array("Action.model"=>"Recommendation"), 'foreignKey' => 'model_id' ) ); } ?> But that doesn't work. Am I missing something here, are my relationships wrong (I suspect so)? After Googling this problem I cam across something called Polymorphic Behaviour but I'm not sure this will help me.

    Read the article

  • Updating extra attributes in a has_many, :through relationship using Rails

    - by Robbie
    I've managed to set up a many-to-many relationship between the following models Characters Skills PlayerSkills PlayerSkills, right now, has an attribute that Skills don't normally have: a level. The models look something like this (edited for conciseness): class PlayerSkill < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :character belongs_to :skill end class Skill < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :player_skills has_many :characters, :through => :player_skills attr_accessible :name, :description end class Character < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user has_many :player_skills has_many :skills, :through => :player_skills end So nothing too fancy in the models... The controller is also very basic at this point... it's pretty much a stock update action. The form I'm looking to modify is characters#edit. Right now it renders a series of checkboxes which add/remove skills from the characters. This is great, but the whole point of using has_many :through was to track a "level" as well. Here is what I have so far: - form_for @character do |f| = f.error_messages %p = f.label :name %br = f.text_field :name %p = f.label :race %br = f.text_field :race %p = f.label :char_class %br = f.text_field :char_class %p - @skills.each do |skill| = check_box_tag "character[skill_ids][]", skill.id, @character.skills.include?(skill) =h skill.name %br %p = f.submit After it renders "skill.name", I need it to print a text_field that updates player_skill. The problem, of course, is that player_skill may or may not exist! (Depending on if the box was already ticked when you loaded the form!) From everything I've read, has_many :through is great because it allows you to treat the relationship itself as an entity... but I'm completely at a loss as to how to handle the entity in this form. As always, thanks in advance for any and all help you can give me!

    Read the article

  • Implementing a 1 to many relationship with SQLite

    - by Patrick
    I have the following schema implemented successfully in my application. The application connects desk unit channels to IO unit channels. The DeskUnits and IOUnits tables are basically just a list of desk/IO units and the number of channels on each. For example a desk could be 4 or 12 channel. CREATE TABLE DeskUnits (Name TEXT, NumChannels NUMERIC); CREATE TABLE IOUnits (Name TEXT, NumChannels NUMERIC); CREATE TABLE RoutingTable (DeskUnitName TEXT, DeskUnitChannel NUMERIC, IOUnitName TEXT, IOUnitChannel NUMERIC); The RoutingTable 'table' then connects each DeskUnit channel to an IOUnit channel. For example the DeskUnit called "Desk1" channel 1 may route to IOunit name "IOUnit1" channel 2, etc. So far I hope this is pretty straightforward and understandable. The problem is, however, this is a strictly 1 to 1 relationship. Any DeskUnit channel can route to only 1 IOUnit channel. Now, I need to implement a 1 to many relationship. Where any DeskUnit channel can connect to multiple IOUnit channels. I realise I may have to rearrange the tables completely, but I am not sure the best way to go about this. I am fairly new to SQLite and databases in general so any help would be appreciated. Thanks Patrick

    Read the article

  • Fluent NHibernate - Delete a related object when no explicit relationship exists in the model

    - by John Price
    I've got an application that keeps track of (for the sake of an example) what drinks are available at a given restaurant. My domain model looks like: class Restaurant { public IEnumerable<RestaurantDrink> GetRestaurantDrinks() { ... } //other various properties } class RestaurantDrink { public Restaurant Restaurant { get; set; } public Drink { get; set; } public string DrinkVariety { get; set; } //"fountain drink", "bottled", etc. //other various properties } class Drink { public string Name { get; set; } public string Manufacturer { get; set; } //other various properties } My db schema is (I hope) about what you'd expect; "RestaurantDrinks" is essentially a mapping table between Restaurants and Drinks with some extra properties (like "DrinkVariety" tacked on). Using Fluent NHibernate to set up mappings, I've set up a "HasMany" relationship from Restaurants to RestaurantDrinks that causes the latter to be deleted when its parent Restaurant is deleted. My question is, given that "Drink" does not have any property on it that explicitly references RestaurantDrinks (the relationship only exists in the underlying database), can I set up a mapping that will cause RestaurantDrinks to be deleted if their associated Drink is deleted?

    Read the article

  • How to map a 0..1 to 1 relationship in Entity Framework 3

    - by sako73
    I have two tables, Users, and Address. A the user table has a field that maps to the primary key of the address table. This field can be null. In plain english, Address exist independent of other objects. A user may be associated with one address. In the database, I have this set up as a foreign key relationship. I am attempting to map this relationship in the Entity Framework. I am getting errors on the following code: <Association Name="fk_UserAddress"> <End Role="User" Type="GenesisEntityModel.Store.User" Multiplicity="1"/> <End Role="Address" Type="GenesisEntityModel.Store.Address" Multiplicity="0..1" /> <ReferentialConstraint> <Principal Role="Address"> <PropertyRef Name="addressId"/> </Principal> <Dependent Role="User"> <PropertyRef Name="addressId"/> </Dependent> </ReferentialConstraint> </Association> It is giving a "The Lower Bound of the multiplicity must be 0" error. I would appreciate it if anyone could explain the error, and the best way to solve it. Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Hibernate Relationship Mapping/Speed up batch inserts

    - by manyxcxi
    I have 5 MySQL InnoDB tables: Test,InputInvoice,InputLine,OutputInvoice,OutputLine and each is mapped and functioning in Hibernate. I have played with using StatelessSession/Session, and JDBC batch size. I have removed any generator classes to let MySQL handle the id generation- but it is still performing quite slow. Each of those tables is represented in a java class, and mapped in hibernate accordingly. Currently when it comes time to write the data out, I loop through the objects and do a session.save(Object) or session.insert(Object) if I'm using StatelessSession. I also do a flush and clear (when using Session) when my line count reaches the max jdbc batch size (50). Would it be faster if I had these in a 'parent' class that held the objects and did a session.save(master) instead of each one? If I had them in a master/container class, how would I map that in hibernate to reflect the relationship? The container class wouldn't actually be a table of it's own, but a relationship all based on two indexes run_id (int) and line (int). Another direction would be: How do I get Hibernate to do a multi-row insert?

    Read the article

  • How do I unlink a file-folder relationship?

    - by Ovesh
    When asking IE to save an HTML page locally, with the option "Web page, complete", an html file is created along with a folder that contains all associated files (images, js, css etc). An association is created between the html file and the folder, so that when the file is deleted/moved, so is the folder. First, I'd like to know what this kind of association is called. Further, I'd like to know how to "unlink" this file-folder association.

    Read the article

  • How to get address the object of an related entity with CoreData ?

    - by eemceebee
    Hi Ok, after I ran into a dead end modifieing an existing Apple example for CoreData, I started completely new creating my own project and that worked fine,..... until I tried to access a related entity. So here is what I did. I created 2 entities, where one is just the detail information of the other one, so there is a one-2-one relationship. Entity #1, Stocks: name value details -- relationship to Entity #2 Entity #2, StockDetails: bank published stock -- relationship to Entity #1 Now, I created the "Managed Object Class" for both of the Entities. Then I created a few lines to put some data into it NSManagedObjectContext *context = [self managedObjectContext]; Stocks *stockinfo= [NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:@"Stocks" inManagedObjectContext:context]; stockinfo.name = @"Apple"; stockinfo.value = [NSNumber numberWithInt:200]; StockDetails *thestockdetails = [NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:@"StockDetails" inManagedObjectContext:context]; thestockdetails.bank = @"Bank of America"; thestockdetails.published = [NSDate date]; thestockdetails.stock = stocks_; stockinfo.details = thestockdetails ; NSError *error; if (![context save:&error]) { NSLog(@"A Problem occured, couldn't save: %@", [error localizedDescription]); } Just want to mention here, that I do not get an error with this. Next I put everything into a UITableViewController for a preview and another for a detail view. The preview just shows infos form Entity #1 (Stocks) and when selected it shows the detail view. Now here I also display the infos form Entity #1 (Stocks) but I want to show the Entity #2 (StockDetails) aswell. This is how I try to access the data : StockDetails *details_ = [stockinfo details]; And this gives me a EXC_BAD_ACCESS. So any idea what I am doing wrong here ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • "Too many indexes on table" error when creating relationships in Microsoft Access 2010.

    - by avianattackarmada
    I have tblUsers which has a primary key of UserID. UserID is used as a foreign key in many tables. Within a table, it is used as a foreign key for multiple fields (e.g. ObserverID, RecorderID, CheckerID). I have successfully added relationships (with in the the MS Access 'Relationship' view), where I have table aliases to do the multiple relationships per table: *tblUser.UserID - 1 to many - tblResight.ObserverID *tblUser_1.UserID - 1 to many - tblResight.CheckerID After creating about 25 relationships with enforcement of referential integrity, when I try to add an additional one, I get the following error: "The operation failed. There are too many indexes on table 'tblUsers.' Delete some of the indexes on the table and try the operation again." I ran the code I found here and it returned that I have 6 indexes on tblUsers. I know there is a limit of 32 indexes per table. Am I using the relationship GUI wrong? Does access create an index for the enforcement of referential integrity any time I create a relationship (especially indexes that wouldn't turn up when I ran the script)? I'm kind of baffled, any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • JPA/EJB3 Relationship

    - by sdoca
    I have been reading about JPA and EJB3 and would like to confirm that my understanding of their relationship is correct. Here's what I think I know... JPA is a specification that has been implemented by a number of vendors including: JBoss/Hibernate Oracle/TopLink Essentials (now EclipseLink) Apache/OpenJPA EJB3 is a specification that is implemented in Application Servers including: Glassfish JBoss Is this correct?

    Read the article

  • MongoDB index/RAM relationship

    - by Tegan Clark
    I'm about to adopt MongoDB for a new project and I've chosen it for flexibility, not scalability. From the documentation and web posts I keep reading that all indexes are in RAM. This just isn't making sense to me as my indexes will easily be larger than the amount of available RAM. Can anyone share some insight on the index/RAM relationship and what happens when both an individual index and all of my indexes exceed the size of available RAM?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >