|
What do you mean 'merge' the data?
The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec² - Marcus Dolengo
|
|
|
|
|
It depends on what you mean by merge. But at a most basic level SQL Server is designed to be used by multiple users simultaneously.
I suppose if the uploaded data is meant to be uploaded in a specific sequence and the second set of data starts being "merged" before the first then you have a problem. If the data doesn't have that sort of constrant then I don't see there being a problem.
Will the two sets of data being uploaded overlap in anyway? e.g. they both cause the same row to be updated. If that is the case who wins? In other words which update gets retained, and which is overwritten or thrown away? If there is no over lap then there is no problem.
If the two sets of data pertain to only new information that is being added to the database then I don't see any real problem at all.
But, it really all depends on what you mean by "merge"
|
|
|
|
|
In SQL Server 08, the 'Execute SQL' ability is grayed out in the Query designer.
I don't see how it could be permisions because if I right click on the table and choose 'Edit top 1000 rows' I get the thousand rows.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not being silly, but does the query window have the current focus? The only time it greys out for me is when the Query window loses focus.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep it has focus. I open the query designer, add a table to it and right click in the designer.
The Execute SQL option is grayed out.
Is this how you operated it?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
enipla wrote: query designer
Actually, I just discovered there is a thing called a Query Designer. I normally just write queries. I never knew about this crazy thing.
It is greyed out for me too.
Have you considered just writing the query SQL yourself? That isn't greyed out.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I can write the query myself, but the designer is VERY helpful, and that's how I'm used to doing it.
It worked in previous versions.
This is nuts. MS help hasn't been able to find anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
iam using if else for updating and inserting, i need to do this for 3 tables how can i unite them using unions or join..
IF EXISTS (SELECT col1,col2,col3,col4
FROM TableB)
UPDATE TableB
SET col2=TableA.col2,
col3=TableA.col3,
col4=TableA.col4
from TableA
where (TableB.col1 = TableA.col1
and TableA.Col5='no')
ELSE
INSERT INTO TableB (col1,col2,col3,col4)
select TableA.col1,TableA.col2,TableA.col3,TableA.col4
from TableA
where TableA.Col5='no';
and i need to repeat this code for TableC and TableD (along with TableA) for updating TableB. How can i unite all in one procedure.Hope iam clear if not i can...Please help...
may be the solution is simple but i dont know...
i tried but unable to ...
i cannot use 3 sp's, i need all in one procedure
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
I don't fully see what you are trying to do. But if "unite all in one procedure" you mean that it all happens as one operation then you might want to look at transactions. If you wrap all of this up in a transaction it will appear as one procedure. Nothing else accessing the database will be able to see a half updated set of data. They'll either see the data as it was before the transaction, or they'll be locked out until the transaction is complete and when the lock is released they'll see it as the complete result.
|
|
|
|
|
i have these data in the database table, Meetings
MeetingID Details Hour Minute
1 Meeting Details1 14 10
2 Meeting Details2 14 15
how can i select all the fields of MeetingID 2?
<br />
SELECT MeetingID, Hour, Minute, Details<br />
FROM Meetings<br />
WHERE (Hour =<br />
(SELECT MAX(Hour) <br />
FROM Meetings)) AND (Minute =<br />
(SELECT MAX(Minute) <br />
FROM Meetings))<br />
but this code doesn't fetch any record
|
|
|
|
|
Of course it doesn't - the row with the max hour might not be the same row as the row with the max minute.
If you stored the meeting time in a single field (of type datetime or smalldatetime) which would be the right solution, this would be easy.
SELECT TOP 1 * FROM Meeting ORDER BY MeetingDateTime DESC
As it is with your table you can just do
SELECT TOP 1 * FROM MEeting Order BY Hour DESC, Minute DESC
|
|
|
|
|
|
whether you search for MeetingID =2 or for which where Meeting time is maximum
I think you want to get the all detail of meeting for which meeting time is highest. use following query
SELECT *<br />
FROM mettings<br />
WHERE (hour*60+minute) =(select max(hour*60+minute) from mettings)
hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
thank you for helping out
|
|
|
|
|
Rupesh Kumar Swami wrote: SELECT *
FROM mettings
WHERE (hour*60+minute) =(select max(hour*60+minute) from mettings)
 Why? Multiply the hour by 60 and add the minutes? If anything the other way round, surely?
|
|
|
|
|
the math is fine, it is calculating minutes since midnight.
On a big table it could be slow...
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: Why? Multiply the hour by 60 and add the minutes?
if there are multiple records, for which Metting time is equal to Highest Metting time, then it display all records.
However your suggestion is better.
|
|
|
|
|
i provide my database to client and all stored procedured are open he can view ,so is there any way to encrypt the stored procudered
i have used with encryption clause it is good but it can be easily decrypted by a software which is freely available on net.
|
|
|
|
|
Why did you give your database-password to the client? If he can't open the damn thing, he can't peek in it
I are troll
|
|
|
|
|
actually we have to take the database back up and then we send it to client wherein client restore the database and make changes in web config of asp.net and uses the application
so is there any way where we can lock the database so that he can not peek in or encrypt the stored procedure
|
|
|
|
|
You can do smart things. Just make some table with sources of your procedures encrypted in some heavy algorithm. Then decode it outside of database (or even inside through some .dll with C# CLR integration) and execute it programmatically. Or you can write stored procedure that will exec your encrypted stored procedure
Wish you luck!
Adrian Pasik
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I am using query something like that
select * from table1 where column1 = 'value1' and column2 = 'value2';
and I have created the index like this
create index index1
on table1(
column2
);
i have used only one column because column2 is usually unique and can only sometimes repeat
Will the query will use the index or do i have to create index with both columns? I am using Oracle database.
Regards
Shajeel
|
|
|
|
|
The program I'm working on has a screen full of project data. The client wants to be able to run a "Google like" text search across all the text/lookup fields to return matching projects. Of course they want to be able to search on phrases also, matching all words, some words, etc.
The data is spread across around 10 tables. My first thought was to use Contains() in some capacity, but the db isn't full-text indexed. I'm not sure it would help if it was.
My remaining options seem to be:
1. Concatenate all the string info for each record into a field. Build up a custom select string with multiple Like searches, one for each word in the phrase to search. Run this with exec. Pretty sure the performance will suck on this one.
or
2. Concatenate all the string info for each record into a field. Select this data into a temp table and use a cursor to delete the non-matches for each word in the phrase to search. Pretty sure the performance will suck on this one also.
Are there any options I'm missing or has anyone got any better ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
thrakazog wrote: 1. Concatenate all the string info for each record into a field. Build up a custom select string with multiple Like searches, one for each word in the phrase to search. Run this with exec. Pretty sure the performance will suck on this one.
Well, it ranges from sucky to extremely sucky, depending on the implementation. I'm hoping to write an article about this topic in the weekend
A fast tip; why not create a shadow-table that holds the same columns, as varchar-types? It's a lot faster than converting everything on the fly, and you can let the server insert a varchar-record with a trigger from the original table.
Good luck
I are troll
|
|
|
|
|
There's a new article (not by me btw), containing a simple search-engine algorithm[^] that could be adapted to work with SQL CE
--edit--
This[^] is the article that you wanted 
I are troll
modified on Saturday, March 7, 2009 3:22 PM
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
