Search Results

Search found 9926 results on 398 pages for 'lookup tables'.

Page 83/398 | < Previous Page | 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90  | Next Page >

  • Designing a game database

    - by Ronald
    I'm trying to design a database to record game histories for a game I'm working on. I have 3 different tables: users, gamehistories, and gamescores. Columns for tables: users: uid, displayname, email gamehistories: gid, pubID, start (datetime), end (datetime) gamescores: gid, uid, score I am trying to produce the following result set given a userID (uid): Opponent's displayname, my score, opponent's score, duration Any ideas? Is my design ok? How can I query these tables to get game histories for a given uid?

    Read the article

  • PHP, MySQL Per row output

    - by Jake
    Been all over the place and spent 8 hours working loops and math...still cant get it... I am writing a CP for a customer. The input form will allow them to add a package deal to their web page. Each package deal is stored in mysql in the following format id header item1 item2 item3...item12 price savings The output is a table with 'header' being the name of the package and each item being 1 of the items in the package stored in a row within the table, then the price and amount saved (all of this is input via a form and INSERT statement by the customer, that part works) stored rows as well. Here is my PHP: include 'dbconnect.php'; $query = "SELECT * FROM md "; $result = mysql_query($query); while ($row = mysql_fetch_array($result)) { //Print 4 tables with header, items, price, savings //Go to next row (on main page) and print 4 more items //Do this until all tables have been printed } mysql_free_result($result); mysql_close($conn); ? Right now the main page is simpley a header div, main div, content wrap and footer div. Ideal HTML output of a 'package' table, not perfect and a little confusing $header $item1 $item2 ect... $price$savings I basically want the PHP to print this 4 times per row on the main page and then move to the next row and print 4 times and continue until there are no more items in the array. So it could be row 1 4 tables, row 2 4 tables, row 3 3 tables. Long, confusing and frustrating. I about to just do 1 item per row..please help Jake

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2005 user permissions

    - by karl
    I have created a database and some dbo.tables. Now I want to create a user that are can read and write to these tables, but not modify or drop. However I want this user to be able to create own tables and let him do what he want with these. Is this possible? Could someone explain how this can be done?

    Read the article

  • How do I retrieve a list of base class objects without joins using NHibernate ICriteria?

    - by Kristoffer
    Let's say I have a base class called Pet and two subclasses Cat and Dog that inherit Pet. I simply map these to three tables Pet, Cat and Dog, where the Pet table contains the base class properties and the Cat and Dog tables contain a foreign key to the Pet table and any additional properties specific to a cat or dog. A joined subclass strategy. Now, using NHibernate and ICriteria, how can I get a list of "pure" Pet objects (not cats or dogs, just pets), without making any joins to the other tables?

    Read the article

  • How to fill dataset when sql is returning more than one table

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    How to fill multiple tables in a dataset. I m using a query that returns me four tables. At the frontend I am trying to fill all the four resultant table into dataset. Here is my Query. Query is not complete. But it is just a refrence for my Ques Select * from tblxyz compute sum(col1) suppose this query returns more than one table, I want to fill all the tables into my dataset I am filling result like this con.open(); adp.fill(dset); con.close(); Now when i checks this dataset. It shows me that it has four tables but only first table data is being displayed into it. rest 3 dont even have schema also. What i need to do to get desired output

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Table locks in long query - Solution: NoLock?

    - by Kovu
    a report in my application runs a query that needs between 5 - 15 seconds (constrained to count of rows that will be returned). The query has 8 joins to nearly all main-tables of my application (Customers, sales, units etc). A little tool shows me, that in this time, all those 8 tables are locked with a shared table lock. That means, no update operation will be done in this time. A solution from a friend is, to have every join in the query, which is not mandetory to have 100% correct data (dirty read), with a NoLock, so only 1 of this 8 tables will be locked completly. Is that a good solution? For a report in which 99% of data came from one table, unlock the less prio tables?

    Read the article

  • Default Value or Binding in "Transfer SQL Server Object Task"

    - by Kronass
    Hi, I want to move 500 table from Database to other with their data and constraints all the tables have column who has default value, I used SSIS using "Transfer SQL Server Object Task" and I choose to copy all tables, copy data and primary keys, it copies the table except the default bindings I tried in SQL Server 2008 CopyAllDRIObjects Property but still the same result. How can I copy all tables from database to other with their data and maintaining their constraints.

    Read the article

  • Trying to verify understanding of foreign keys SQL Server

    - 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

  • What will be best strategy for designing database for a magazine online?

    - by Kaveh
    Hello; I have design a magazine online and worry that is it the best approch or at least a good approch or no,the magazine contains articles+news in all subjects, i have one table for both articles+news ,but i would like to know that is this good or i must separate articles and news (it is clear that beside the main table there are several tables for categories ,tags,and photos and tables for relation between these tables)? Thanks

    Read the article

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

< Previous Page | 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90  | Next Page >