Search Results

Search found 31293 results on 1252 pages for 'database agnostic'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 97/1252 | < Previous Page | 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104  | Next Page >

  • All connections in pool are in use

    - by veljkoz
    We currently have a little situation on our hands - it seems that someone, somewhere forgot to close the connection in code. Result is that the pool of connections is relatively quickly exhausted. As a temporary patch we added Max Pool Size = 500; to our connection string on web service, and recycle pool when all connections are spent, until we figure this out. So far we have done this: SELECT SPId FROM MASTER..SysProcesses WHERE DBId = DB_ID('MyDb') and last_batch < DATEADD(MINUTE, -15, GETDATE()) to get SPID's that aren't used for 15 minutes. We're now trying to get the query that was executed last using that SPID with: DBCC INPUTBUFFER(61) but the queries displayed are various, meaning either something on base level regarding connection manipulation was broken, or our deduction is erroneous... Is there an error in our thinking here? Does the DBCC / sysprocesses give results we're expecting or is there some side-effect catch? (for example, connections in pool influence?) (please, stick to what we could find out using SQL since the guys that did the code are many and not all present right now)

    Read the article

  • Best Embedded SQL DB for write performance?

    - by max.minimus
    Has anybody done any benchmarking/evaluation of the popular open-source embedded SQL DBs for performance, particularly write performance? I've some 1:1 comparisons for sqlite, Firebird Embedded, Derby and HSQLDB (others I am missing?) but no across the board comparisons... Also, I'd be interested in the overall developer experience for any of these (for a Java app).

    Read the article

  • Postgresql Output column from another table

    - by muffin
    i'm using Postgresql, my question is specifically about querying from a table that's in another table and i'm really having trouble with this one. In fact, i'm absolutely mentally blocked. I'll try to define the relations of the tables as much as I can. I have a table entry which is like this: Each of the entries has a group_id; when they are 'advanced' to the next stage, the old entries are marked is_active = false, and a new assignment is done, so C & D are advanced stages of A & B. I have another table (which acts as a record keeper) , in which the storage_log_id refers to, this is the storage_log table : But then I have another table, to really find out where the entries are actually stored - storage table : To define my problem properly. Each entry has a storage_log_id (but some doesn't have yet), and a storage_log has a storage_id to refer to the actual table and find the storage label. The sql query i'm trying to do should output this one: Where The actual storage label is shown instead of the log id. This is so far what i've done: select e.id, e.group_id, e.name, e.stage, s.label from operational.entry e, operational.storage_log sl, operational.storage s where e.storage_log_id = sl.id and sl.storage_id = s.id But this just returns 3 rows, showing only the ones that have the seed_storage_log_id set; I should be able to see even those without logs, and especially the active ones. adding e.is_active = true to the condition makes the results empty. So, yeah i'm stuck. Need help, Thanks guys!

    Read the article

  • Too many columns to index - use mySQL Partitions?

    - by Christopher Padfield
    We have an application with a table with 20+ columns that are all searchable. Building indexes for all these columns would make write queries very slow; and any really useful index would often have to be across multiple columns increasing the number of indexes needed. However, for 95% of these searches, only a small subset of those rows need to be searched upon, and quite a small number - say 50,000 rows. So, we have considered using mySQL Partition tables - having a column that is basically isActive which is what we divide the two partitions by. Most search queries would be run with isActive=1. Most queries would then be run against the small 50,000 row partition and be quick without other indexes. Only issue is the rows where isActive=1 is not fixed; i.e. it's not based on the date of the row or anything fixed like that; we will need to update isActive based on use of the data in that row. As I understand it that is no problem though; the data would just be moved from one partition to another during the UPDATE query. We do have a PK on id for the row though; and I am not sure if this is a problem; the manual seemed to suggest the partition had to be based on any primary keys. This would be a huge problem for us because the primary key ID has no basis on whether the row isActive.

    Read the article

  • which is better, creating a view or a new table?

    - by Carson
    I have some demanding mysql queries that are needed to grap same datasets from several mysql tables. I am thinking of creating a table or view to gather all demanding columns from other tables, so as to increase performance. If I create that table, I may need to do extra insert / update / delete operation each time other tables updated. if I create view, I am worrying if the performance can be greatly improved. Because data from other tables are changing very frequently. Most likely, the view may need to be created first everytime before selecting it. Any ideas? e.g. how to cache? other extra measures I can do?

    Read the article

  • how to store data with many categories and many properties efficiently?

    - by Mickey Shine
    We have a large number of data in many categories with many properties, e.g. category 1: Book properties: BookID, BookName, BookType, BookAuthor, BookPrice category 2: Fruit properties: FruitID, FruitName, FruitShape, FruitColor, FruitPrice We have many categories like book and fruit. Obviously we can create many tables for them (MySQL e.g.), and each category a table. But this will have to create too many tables and we have to write many "adapters" to unify manipulating data. The difficulties are: 1) Every category has different properties and this results in a different data structure. 2) The properties of every categoriy may have to be changed at anytime. 3) Hard to manipulate data if each category a table (too many tables) How do you store such kind of data?

    Read the article

  • Easiest solution to sync an offline (local desktop application) database with a central server and multiple pc's?

    - by tyfius
    I have a desktop application which uses a local database. (This can be SQLite, SqlCe, PostgreSQL or any other database I will be able to install locally, I haven't decided which one to use yet.) The plan is to achieve the following: A user can subscribe to some kind of cloud service. If he does his local database should be synced with the online database (one for all users, or one per user, whatever the easiest solution is) so he will be able to sync his local database data between multiple PC's, can access his data online. (Much like dropbox does for files.) What is the best, easiest (and preferably cheapest) solution to achieve this? I am looking into DataObjects.net but I can't find much documentation about their Sync feature. Or, are there other alternatives? For example, I start with some kind of cloud service which allows local caching and use the local caching for users who do not subscribe to the service. Any pointers, tips or experiences are welcome.

    Read the article

  • Table in DB for generating primary keys?

    - by Sapphire
    Do you ever use a separate table for "generating" artificial primary keys for DB (and why)? What I mean is to have a table with two columns, table name and current ID - with which you could get new "ID" for some table by simply locking the row with that table name, getting the current value of the key, increment it by one, and unlock the row. Why would you prefer this over standard integer identity column? P.S. The "idea" is from Fowlers Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture, btw...

    Read the article

  • Foreign keys and NULL in mySQL

    - by Industrial
    Hi everyone, Can I have a column in my values table (value) referenced as a foreign key to knownValues table, and let it be NULL whenever needed, like in the example: Table: values product type value freevalue 0 1 NULL 100 1 2 NULL 25 3 3 1 NULL Table: types id name prefix 0 length cm 1 weight kg 2 fruit NULL Table: knownValues id Type name 0 2 banana Note: The types in the table values & knownValues are of course referenced into the types table. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Running a sharded DB from a single machine

    - by ming yeow
    This sounds kinda dumb, but I have a sharded DB that I no longer think I need to run on 2 machines, and would like to run on one single machine instead. Any ideas on how that can potentially be done? There are lots of resources on how i can achieve the converse, but very little on how this can be done

    Read the article

  • One on One table relation - is it harmful to keep relation in both tables?

    - by EBAGHAKI
    I have 2 tables that their rows have one on one relation.. For you to understand the situation, suppose there is one table with user informations and there is another table that contains a very specific informations and each user can only link to one these specific kind of informations ( suppose second table as characters ) And that character can only assign to the user who grabs it, Is it against the rules of designing clean databases to hold the relation key in both tables? User Table: user_id, name, age, character_id Character Table: character_id, shape, user_id I have to do it for performance, how do you think about it?

    Read the article

  • is Payment table needed when you have an invoice table like this?

    - by EBAGHAKI
    this is my invoice table: Invoice Table: invoice_id creation_date due_date payment_date status enum('not paid','paid','expired') user_id total_price I wonder if it's Useful to have a payment table in order to record user payments for invoices. payment table can be like this: payment_id payment_date invoice_id price_paid status enum('successful', 'not successful')

    Read the article

  • delete rows using sql 'like' command using data from another table

    - by Captastic
    Hi All, I am trying to delete rows from a table ("lovalarm") where a field ("pointid") is like any one of a number of strings. Currently I am entering them all manually however I need to be able to have a list of over 100,000 options. My thoughts are to have a table ("lovdata") containing all possible strings and running a query to delete rows where the field is 'like' any of the strings in the other table. Can anyone point me in the right direction as to if/how I can use like in this way? Many thanks, Cap

    Read the article

  • How do I sync a subset of tables between two databases on the same mysql database server

    - by Mike
    would like to be able to sync a subset of tables between two mysql databases that are running on the same server. One of the databases acts as the master where inserts, updates and deletes can be made. The second database uses those same tables for read-only operations. I do not want to use federated tables to achieve this. The long term goal will be to separate the 2 databases to multiple servers, The second database that has the subset of tables as read-only may also be replicated a few times over to distribute geographically for load and performance purposes each with unqiue data.... Once that is achieved, I plan to use binlog to replicate those specific tables on the secondary databases. In the meantime, I'd like to keep these tables in sync. Is there a more elegant way to do this than other than using a cronjob and mysqldump?

    Read the article

  • Speeding up a group by date query on a big table in postgres

    - by zaius
    I've got a table with around 20 million rows. For arguments sake, lets say there are two columns in the table - an id and a timestamp. I'm trying to get a count of the number of items per day. Here's what I have at the moment. SELECT DATE(timestamp) AS day, COUNT(*) FROM actions WHERE DATE(timestamp) >= '20100101' AND DATE(timestamp) < '20110101' GROUP BY day; Without any indices, this takes about a 30s to run on my machine. Here's the explain analyze output: GroupAggregate (cost=675462.78..676813.42 rows=46532 width=8) (actual time=24467.404..32417.643 rows=346 loops=1) -> Sort (cost=675462.78..675680.34 rows=87021 width=8) (actual time=24466.730..29071.438 rows=17321121 loops=1) Sort Key: (date("timestamp")) Sort Method: external merge Disk: 372496kB -> Seq Scan on actions (cost=0.00..667133.11 rows=87021 width=8) (actual time=1.981..12368.186 rows=17321121 loops=1) Filter: ((date("timestamp") >= '2010-01-01'::date) AND (date("timestamp") < '2011-01-01'::date)) Total runtime: 32447.762 ms Since I'm seeing a sequential scan, I tried to index on the date aggregate CREATE INDEX ON actions (DATE(timestamp)); Which cuts the speed by about 50%. HashAggregate (cost=796710.64..796716.19 rows=370 width=8) (actual time=17038.503..17038.590 rows=346 loops=1) -> Seq Scan on actions (cost=0.00..710202.27 rows=17301674 width=8) (actual time=1.745..12080.877 rows=17321121 loops=1) Filter: ((date("timestamp") >= '2010-01-01'::date) AND (date("timestamp") < '2011-01-01'::date)) Total runtime: 17038.663 ms I'm new to this whole query-optimization business, and I have no idea what to do next. Any clues how I could get this query running faster?

    Read the article

  • IntegrityError with Booleand Fields and Postgresql

    - by xRobot
    I have this simple Blog model: class Blog(models.Model): title = models.CharField(_('title'), max_length=60, blank=True, null=True) body = models.TextField(_('body')) user = models.ForeignKey(User) is_public = models.BooleanField(_('is public'), default = True) When I insert a blog in admin interface, I get this error: IntegrityError at /admin/blogs/blog/add/ null value in column "is_public" violates not-null constraint Why ???

    Read the article

  • What does ON [PRIMARY] mean?

    - by Icono123
    I'm creating an SQL setup script and I'm using someone else's script as an example. Here's an example of the script: SET ANSI_NULLS ON GO SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON GO CREATE TABLE [dbo].[be_Categories]( [CategoryID] [uniqueidentifier] ROWGUIDCOL NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_be_Categories_CategoryID] DEFAULT (newid()), [CategoryName] [nvarchar](50) NULL, [Description] [nvarchar](200) NULL, [ParentID] [uniqueidentifier] NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_be_Categories] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [CategoryID] ASC )WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY] ) ON [PRIMARY] GO Does anyone know what the ON [PRIMARY] command does? Regards.

    Read the article

  • What is the proper design of storing temporary users? [closed]

    - by Mendy
    In SO site both real users and temporary users can add a new questions. I assume each user type has a different table. My question is how can I attach the question to the right user? I assuming the temp users have their own table from the following reasons: Temp users don't have all the data that real users have. like: email, password, and all users details. On the other hand, temp users are a lot more then real users. So it make more sense to have they in their own table.

    Read the article

  • which sql query is more efficient: select count(*) or select ... where key>value?

    - by davka
    I need to periodically update a local cache with new additions to some DB table. The table rows contain an auto-increment sequential number (SN) field. The cache keeps this number too, so basically I just need to fetch all rows with SN larger than the highest I already have. SELECT * FROM table where SN > <max_cached_SN> However, the majority of the attempts will bring no data (I just need to make sure that I have an absolutely up-to-date local copy). So I wander if this will be more efficient: count = SELECT count(*) from table; if (count > <cache_size>) // fetch new rows as above I suppose that selecting by an indexed numeric field is quite efficient, so I wander whether using count has benefit. On the other hand, this test/update will be done quite frequently and by many clients, so there is a motivation to optimize it.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104  | Next Page >