|
I'd suggest you maintain a table of who log on/off your application and use this as the basis for your solution.
Every time someone logs on, add them to the table. Everytime the log off, remove them from the table.
You can then do a simple
select satement to get a list of all the logged on users and display that in a list box.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks do much for you help,
now i try to put in action your advice hoping to work out this feature if i can't i will tell you about my error.
Have a happy work.
Nice Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I have two mysql database servers(primary and secondary).when primary is up all clients will connect to primary server,what ever the changes done in primary should refeclt in secondary and if primary in down all clients will connect to secondary server ,and these changes should reflect into primary if it become up.
In this situation which method I can use for syncronization fo database.
(I am using sqlyog tool but it's not working as per my requirement)
Please any body cal tell the solution for my problem.
ranjith. 
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks in advance
How to install SQL server Named Instance , because during installations whenever i choose option of Named Instance and give name then it adds System name with this
like System\ServerInstance.
Can i install an instance with Name only without System Name like 'ServerInstance'
or can i rename existing instance
Best of regards,
Mirza Rahman
modified on Saturday, May 23, 2009 3:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
An instance is ALWAYS identified by server\instance. The idea being to allow multiple instances on a single server. If you need a SERVER named something then rename the server and then install SQL server.
Why this is important to you is beyond me!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the Post but Changing the Name of the Server will be quite expensive as other services have to re config
Actually I have to Audit a System in which the Developer has Hard coded the Server Name everywhere and in reporting etc , i know its wrong , to avoid changing the Name everywhere i want to rename instance to its Hard coded instance is there any way
Best Of Regards ,
Mirza Rahman
|
|
|
|
|
softdev_sup wrote: the Developer has Hard coded the Server Name
I presume you no longer have the developer  .
I'm afraid you are in for a nasty bit of work, you can't change the server name , you can't format the instance to meet your needs.
I don't think aliases will meet your needs but you should investigate that, also look into linked servers.
If all else fails you will need to rewrite the code. DO NOT DO A SEARCH & REPLACE, this will only move the problem into the future for some other poor schmuck to deal with.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the Post
i also used Alias , but is not there any other way to rename the Server Instance
No i have to audit the existing system , one of that flaws also includes this problem , he will fixed these bugs after wards , when we will submit our report to the client
any how thanks alot
Best of regards,
Mirza Rahman
|
|
|
|
|
Hi to All,
I know my subject doesn't say much...All i need to know...is there any method so that the primary key of a table maintains its value after deletion of records.
Eg: if the table has primary key from 1-10. Now if I delete the row 1....primary key starts from 2-10....next time I insert a new record, it shoul generate the primary key as 1.
I am using VB.NET2005 with Ms acceess2007
Thanks in advance
-----------------------------
I am a beginner
|
|
|
|
|
Why did you cross post - even if you apologised it is still rude.
See my response in the VB forum! - your still screwed 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
himangshuS wrote: next time I insert a new record, it shoul generate the primary key as 1.
Why should it?
A primary key's value should be meaningless, except for the purpose of maintaining a reference. If you really want a serial number without gaps, consider adding an int-column for this purpose. 
I are troll
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
How can I bypass an SQL Server 2005 TRIGGER with no potential concurrency issues? The trigger is executed ON UPDATE, where the table is updated by an ASP.Net web application... so there will be multiple users concurrently using this specific function.
So far I have found 3 possible solutions, but I don't know if there will be concurrency problems with these solutions.
1. Disable the trigger at the beginning of the update procedure, and enable it at the end <-- definitely has concurrency issues
2. Using CONTEXT_INFO() http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/SQLExamples/Wiki/View.aspx?title=AuditOrBypassTriggerExecution[^] <-- not sure about concurrency problems with this solution
3. Using a #tempTable http://www.mydatabasesupport.com/forums/sqlserver-programming/201598-ignoring-trigger.html[^] <-- see last post by Erland Sommarskog, not sure about concurrency problems with this solution
What do you think? Or are there other better solutions?
Thank you in advance.
Rafferty
|
|
|
|
|
I have to check on a couple of things and was thinking of creating about 200million dummy records. I had a for loop and an insert statement in mind. Is there a faster way of creating and inserting such a mass volume of data into a database?
|
|
|
|
|
What database system? Does it have a bulk insert option?
I often use a for or while loop and a parameterized insert statement.
|
|
|
|
|
SQL Server.... Forgot about the bulk insert...I could use that with the for loop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cold use something like:
insert into table xxx
select '1', 3 , 'testdata'
from northwind..customers a, northwind..customers b, northwind..customers c
add more northwind x's to get more records.
If you don't have the northwind database, any other (big) table on the sqlserver can be used.
Wout Louwers
|
|
|
|
|
hi all,
i m trying to make a trigger for the database and i dont know how first where to write it?
and for example i make a master table and 3 other tables
Master_Table : will be in it all the actions
Table_1 : when insert a new record the max(ID) and the table name will be wriiten in the Master_Table
Table_2 : when update a record the (ID)of the updated record and the table name will be wriiten in the Master_Table
Table_3 : when delete a record the (ID)of the deleteded record and the table name will be wriiten in the Master_Table
i make this but it still gives me an error when execute but when i comment all of it except TriggerExInsert it works
CREATE TRIGGER TriggerExDelete<br />
ON Table_3 <br />
AFTER DELETE<br />
AS <br />
BEGIN<br />
-- SET NOCOUNT ON added to prevent extra result sets from<br />
-- interfering with SELECT statements.<br />
SET NOCOUNT ON;<br />
<br />
INSERT INTO MasterTable(ID,ActionA)<br />
SELECT ID, 'DELETE'<br />
FROM deleted<br />
<br />
END<br />
GO<br />
<br />
CREATE TRIGGER TriggerExUpdate<br />
ON Table_2 <br />
AFTER UPDATE<br />
AS <br />
BEGIN<br />
-- SET NOCOUNT ON added to prevent extra result sets from<br />
-- interfering with SELECT statements.<br />
SET NOCOUNT ON;<br />
<br />
INSERT INTO MasterTable(ID,ActionA)<br />
SELECT ID, 'UPDATE'<br />
FROM inserted<br />
<br />
END<br />
GO<br />
<br />
CREATE TRIGGER TriggerExInsert<br />
ON Table_1 <br />
AFTER INSERT<br />
AS <br />
BEGIN<br />
-- SET NOCOUNT ON added to prevent extra result sets from<br />
-- interfering with SELECT statements.<br />
SET NOCOUNT ON;<br />
<br />
INSERT INTO MasterTable(ID,ActionA)<br />
SELECT ID, 'INSERT'<br />
FROM inserted<br />
<br />
END<br />
GO<br />
<br />
Thanx a lot for the help!
modified on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:10 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Beesan, I'm not going to help you with the triggers - I don't hate you that much.
Triggers are EVIL - they are difficult to very support, imagine 2 years from now when you look at the master table and wonder where all the data comes from. When they go wrong it can have dramatic, negative affects on your system.
I believe you have a design problem. Master seem to be acting as a log type table, I think a better solution is to have the logging data with the record IE add the created/modified dates to each table and use a view or query to get the information from the individual tables.
There are a number of logging solutions around, triggers are one of the nastier methods of achieving this.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
hi,
Please help me with a querry
I have 2 table (A and B) which are related with id (foreign keys.)
Now I want to view all the ids of table A which are not there in table B.
thanks in advance
-----------------------------
I am a beginner
|
|
|
|
|
try this:
SELECT A.PrimaryKey
FROM A
WHERE A.PrimaryKey NOT IN
(
SELECT B.ForeignKey
FROM B
)
Phil
I won’t not use no double negatives.
|
|
|
|
|
SELECT T1.ID
FROM T1
LEFT OUTER JOIN T2
ON T1.ID=T2.ID
WHERE T2.ID IS NULL
|
|
|
|
|
We offer you the best traffic campaign to instantly increase your web traffic & sales. We use breakthrough technology to submit your ads and instantly put your product in front of millions of potential customers. Visit us at: http://www.clicknearn.net/2385-57.html
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to advertise, contact the site administrators and pay for it, like normal intelligent people do.
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
|
|
|
|
|
i am developing a windows application with VS 2005
a i need to populate a combo box with the
column value from my table in the database
i'm using a stored procedure and anytime
i try de code in visual studio i do have
a violation of primary key constraints error
but when i execute the stored procedure in
my query analyzer, it returns the real values
please can someone tell why this is happening??
Jondo
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
