|
Paul Unsworth wrote: s there a way of copying the source table to the destination regardless of what fields are in it
Not to my knowledge and your DBAs will already have told you this 
It is, via a LOT of design commitment create a package that reads the source structure and changes the destination structure but I would take a suit of armour when you approach the DBAs, they will first deny it is possible, then point out it is unreasonable and then quit if you insist. There is nothing a DBA hates more than someone screwing with their data structure.
I have done this when the business rule was that columns were only ever ADDED and never MOVED, but it was a right, royal PITA.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Haha. Fairy nuff. I suppose it makes sense. Although not quite what I want.
I suppose I'm just a control freak... 
It's just our DBA's are as quick as geriatric slugs. Countless forms to fill in, just so that they can take a week to think about it, then either say no, hope that the requestee forgets about it, or say "yes. It will be operational in 2 weeks...". Can be a little frustrating.
I hope not all DBA's are like this. I may look into DB admin myself...
Thanks for you reply.
oooo, the Jedi's will feel this one....
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Unsworth wrote: I hope not all DBA's are like this
A crappy DBA is a developers nightmare, however the timeframe you find so irritating may be due to all the change management crap the DBA has to go through to effect an "Enterprise" level change. I work on departmental systems and do not need to conform to these rules thankfully.
This particular change, while challenging, goes against all their training so I would think you have buckleys of getting it done
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
i am trying to insert data or save data from language other than english in an access database.but it is giving me some error and not allowing me to save the same.
if anyone can find a solution please let me know as soon as possible.
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
- Can you show the code to insert/update?
- What error did you get?
I are troll 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Experts
I Have a database having only one table and this table has 12 Columns all Columns
have data type varchar(Max).Now i fill Grid By Searching Record on Particular Field
After The Result Come To me in grid i further filter the record in the incoming
result set that is come in grid.this filter process may me n -times so how i can
save the incoming result and filter them.the data inside the table is near about 100000 (1Lakhs) records.The Record search is also faster.
Currently i am using the SQL Server 2005 and C#.Net(2.0 Framework).
How i Make It Faster and Filter the record in n-pass. so i have not make round trip
on sql server every time when i search the record . i have display the record not to
save or update it in Database. i am not change my data type beacuse it store heavy
Data inside the single fields
Thanku
Dinesh Sharma
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of filtering your data in the grid, why not use a stored procedure (with parameters) to just return the records you are interested in?
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
But Accutly Query Creating At Runtime User Can Search The Record in Any Fields.
Ok I am Agree With u i am making SP but the data come one time i filter using SP
but the next time i have filter data from the in coming result set not from whole database. i mean to say that where we can store result temp. so i can filter further
from in coming result accutly it a search engine software,so where we can store it.
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming you have some sort of applciation you could store the data from your first search locally and then filter that - in .net a datatable would be the thing to use, otherwise maybe some sort of collection?
Bob
Ashfield Consultants Ltd
Proud to be a 2009 Code Project MVP
|
|
|
|
|
pls send me example if possible
|
|
|
|
|
Without knowing anything about your application, including what language it is in and what type of application it is, how can I? Anyway, 2 minutes on google should give you plenty of examples, its a common enough thing to do.
Bob
Ashfield Consultants Ltd
Proud to be a 2009 Code Project MVP
|
|
|
|
|
i have mention my tech. what i am using for you'r knowledge i am using sql server v2005
and VS 2005 .
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I had forgotten. Anyway, just google for datatable, dataadaptor and filter and you should be sorted, ther are hundreds of examples available.
Bob
Ashfield Consultants Ltd
Proud to be a 2009 Code Project MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Get all the data from the database once and store into DATASET.
Next by the help of DATAVIEW( http://www.csharp-examples.net/dataview-rowfilter/[^] ) you can filter the records.
You don't have to make N-number of round trips for that.
Hope this helps.
Niladri Biswas
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a bit of an SQL novice, so I have a feeling this is easy, but I can't figure it out and I'm Googled out trying to find the answer.
I have a query:
SELECT CONTACT.FIRSTNAME, CONTACT.LASTNAME, CONTACT.COMPANYNAME, CONTACT.USER2, EMAIL.ADDRESS
FROM dbo.CONTACT CONTACT, dbo.EMAIL EMAIL
WHERE CONTACT.CONTACTID = EMAIL.CONTACTID
ORDER BY CONTACT.LASTNAME DESC
That's fine, but contacts may have more than one email. So I might get, the following records as a result:
Ann Onymous Initech v7.35 ann.onymous@initech.com
Ann Onymous Initech v7.35 a.onymous@initech.com
Ann Onymous Initech v7.35 onymousa@initech.com
If I use Count(EMAIL.ADDRESS) I'd get 3 for Ann.
So how do I tell SQL to just get me the first email record and not the other two? e.g.
Ann Onymous Initech v7.35 ann.onymous@initech.com
I'm pretty sure its simple...but..so am I! 
|
|
|
|
|
Like this:
SELECT CONTACT.FIRSTNAME, CONTACT.LASTNAME, CONTACT.COMPANYNAME, CONTACT.USER2, first(EMAIL.ADDRESS)
FROM dbo.CONTACT CONTACT
inner join dbo.EMAIL EMAIL on CONTACT.CONTACTID = EMAIL.CONTACTID
GROUP BY CONTACT.FIRSTNAME, CONTACT.LASTNAME, CONTACT.COMPANYNAME, CONTACT.USER2
ORDER BY CONTACT.LASTNAME DESC
|
|
|
|
|
I believe First() is an MSAccess function which in such a situation cannot be used when the DB is Sql Server
Niladri Biswas
|
|
|
|
|
You're right I'm querying SQL Server and First() doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know whether you are testing others or not but I guess you are so because you statement reveals that.
Any way, use the Top 1 statement of sql server to obtain the same.
SELECT TOP 1 CONTACT.FIRSTNAME, CONTACT.LASTNAME, CONTACT.COMPANYNAME, CONTACT.USER2, EMAIL.ADDRESS
FROM dbo.CONTACT CONTACT, dbo.EMAIL EMAIL
WHERE CONTACT.CONTACTID = EMAIL.CONTACTID
ORDER BY CONTACT.LASTNAME DESC
Hope this helps
Niladri Biswas
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestion but that only gets a single record, I need the record for each customer, but only once with the first email address (which is the primary address).
Min and Max 'work' in that they only return one record per customer, but the result is not reliably the first email address.
|
|
|
|
|
Divide your query into multiple smaller subqueries, and the problem is easier to tackle. Assuming SQL2005;
SELECT *,
(SELECT TOP 1 dbo.EMAIL.Address
FROM dbo.EMAIL
WHERE dbo.EMAIL.ContactId = dbo.CONTACT.ContactId)
FROM dbo.CONTACT
I are troll
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, that worked.
I knew it would be simple!
|
|
|
|
|
$request2 = mysql_query("SELECT * FROM tablename WHERE status IN('In Progress','Pending') ORDER BY FIND_IN_SET('urgent', priority) DESC, FIND_IN_SET('high', priority) DESC, priority DESC, status DESC") or die(mysql_error());
Above is my query. I want the query to show me all the cases where the status is "In Progress" or "Pending" then order them by the priority (urgent, high, mid, low) in that order, then order them DESC by status.
Example:
Case 1, urgent, Pending
Case 2, urgent, In Progress
Case 3, high, Pending
Case 4, high, In Progress
...
For some reason though, random cases aren't displayed in my table. Everything works fine if I leave out the ORDER BY section, but for some reason when ordering is added it stops working. Also, the mid and low sections always seem to show up, but random high and urgent cases do not. I don't understand what is wrong. Can someone please help? I'll gladly provide more information if needed.
|
|
|
|
|
You could show us an example of some of the records that are not getting displayed.
Check to see if nulls are getting in the way.
Another thing you can do is take the order by clause and turn it into part of your select statement output to see what the computer is seeing for those seemingly random records.
Something like this, although you might have to clean up the syntax to get it to run.
$request2 = mysql_query("SELECT tablename.*, FIND_IN_SET('urgent', priority), FIND_IN_SET('high', priority), priority, status FROM tablename WHERE status IN('In Progress','Pending') ") or die(mysql_error());
This way you might have a clearer view of why a given record gets dropped.
_____________________________
Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day
Teach a man to mug... -Scott M.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply, I'll try that today if I have time. None of my fields allow nulls so I don't think that is the problem.
Now here's something interesting. I put the same values in my HTML form on the previous page (the one that enters them into the database) and submitted, then it shows up in the list, where the first one with the same values does not. I went into MySQL itself and can't find anything wrong with the data...it seems exactly the same in both places. Now one was made before the sorting query was setup and one was made after...would that somehow make a difference? I wouldn't think so since it's just a query...but might as well cover all possibilities.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
