|
From:
ObjectID - PropertyID - PropertyListValueID
1828 - 41 - 171
1828 - 41 - 170
1828 - 46 - 184
1828 - 47 - 189
To:
ObjectID - 41 - 46 - 47
1828 - 170 - 184 - 189
1828 - 171 - 184 - 189
It's possible? Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Which version of SQL Server?
You could try PIVOT
|
|
|
|
|
Sql server 2012
pivot without aggregation
|
|
|
|
|
I love the opportunity for self promotion, this article [^]will be of use!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
With PIVOT i get:
ObjectID - 41 - 46 - 47
--------------------------------------
1828 - 171 - 184 - 189
or
ObjectID - 41 - 46 - 47
--------------------------------------
1828 - 171 - 184 - 189
1828 - 170 - NULL - NULL
I must do:
select ObjectID from table where [41]=171 and [46]=184
select ObjectID from table where [41]=170 and [46]=184
|
|
|
|
|
Then you need to prepare your data differently, 46 and 47 do not have values for 170 so you need to add them to the result set.
It is a very weird structure you are asking for where missing values reflect the previous value.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I must filter/select every ObjectID with PropertyID=QueryString value and PropertyListValueID=QueryString value
Initial structure:
+----------+------------+---------------------+
| ObjectID | PropertyID | PropertyListValueID |
+----------+------------+---------------------+
| 1828 | 41 | 171 |
| 1828 | 41 | 170 |
| 1828 | 46 | 184 |
| 1828 | 47 | 189 |
+----------+------------+---------------------+
|
|
|
|
|
hi,
use this table as example:
COD surname name CODCAU from from_time to to_time period
1 ROSSI MARCO 301 19/09/2005 0.00 23/09/2005 0.00 p1
1 ROSSI MARCO 301 09/12/2005 0.00 09/12/2005 0.00 p2
1 BIANCHI FABIO 301 12/01/2004 0.00 16/01/2004 0.00 p1
1 BIANCHI FABIO 301 02/04/2004 0.00 02/04/2004 0.00 p2
1 BIANCHI FABIO 301 02/05/2004 0.00 10/05/2004 0.00 p3
then to pivot:
select *
FROM
(
SELECT surname,name,COD,from+' '+from_time+' '+to+' '+to_time as date,period
FROM [pivot]
) as s
PIVOT
(
max(date)
FOR period IN ([p1],[p2],[p3])
)AS p
|
|
|
|
|
Getting this?
Failed to build the OLAP cubes. Error: Failed to process the Analysis Services database DevelopmentOLAP on the SPSQLCLSTR server. Error: OLE DB error: OLE DB or ODBC error: Login timeout expired; HYT00; A network-related or instance-specific error has occurred while establishing a connection to SQL Server. Server is not found or not accessible. Check if instance name is correct and if SQL Server is configured to allow remote connections. For more information see SQL Server Books Online.; 08001; Named Pipes Provider: Could not open a connection to SQL Server [53]. ; 08001.
Errors in the high-level relational engine. A connection could not be made to the data source with the DataSourceID of 'Project Reporting data source', Name of 'Project Reporting data source'.
Errors in the OLAP storage engine: An error occurred while the dimension, with the ID of 'DevelopmentOLAP', Name of 'Timesheet Line Status' was being processed.
Server: The operation has been cancelled.
The User/Account has dbo access. It creates the database but then doesn't seem to be able to do anything after that?
Ideas?
To err is human to really mess up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I want to select a records from access database depends on where clause as the following :
select ID as found from TransLog where UserID='61' and TransType='0' and TransTime =#28-04-14 08:46:46#
but the error occurred when I use the TransTime =#28-04-14 08:46:46#
the error is:: IErrorInfo.GetDescription failed with E_FAIL(0x80004005)
Please help me ASAP.
Thank you very much
|
|
|
|
|
Where did you enter that query? In an MS Access GUI? In a .Net application which connects to your database? Also: is that the correct DateTime format of that user?
|
|
|
|
|
If you User id is int then no need to put single query. And in TransTime put single quote instead of #
select ID as found from TransLog where UserID=61 and TransType='0' and TransTime ='28-04-14 08:46:46'
Sankarsan Parida
|
|
|
|
|
As title says, I would like to know how to return the primary key(the column is always called id) when I perform an insert statement and the database complains about an unique constraint being violated. All my insert statements are in stored procedures. Would like that same stored procedure to return the value of that primary key column of the row that is being violated.
I find that a cleaner solution than responding to an exception in my application by searching the table for the unique values. This would be ok if it were one or a few tables, but not when you got many.
PS: using MSSQL 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I'm fairly that you already have it; you passed it in didn't you?
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Let me clarify:
Let's say I have a table called address with fields: id, street, streetnumber, busnumber, placeid.
id is the primary key of that table.
Now I insert a row in that table with data in the following fields: street, streetnumber, busnumber, placeid. id is generated by a sequence, but that part doesn't matter. The unique constraint is about those 4 fields.
Suppose I want to insert 2 people who live at the same address, but while this is unknown to me.
Instead of getting a unique constraint warning, I would like to get the id of the record that matches the data I'm trying to insert. I've thought about doing it in the same stored procedure, but I don't know that much about errorhandling inside a stored procedure. I am trying to avoid to having to handle it in my application.
Could you help me out with that?
|
|
|
|
|
Nico Haegens wrote: I want to insert 2 people who live at the same address
Get rid of the unique constraint if it doesn't support the application properly.
Why not check the table first, before trying to insert the record?
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
My point is to link the two people to the same address, instead of making 2 duplicate addresses.
Checking the table every time I make an insert, makes the process slower than if I were to do it after, cause then I only need to check the database twice when the exception occurs instead of twice every time I do the insert.
|
|
|
|
|
We did that at one place I worked. We had a table of addresses and checked for the address each time. It wasn't slow. You could probably make a hash to speed it up.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Nico Haegens wrote: I would like to know how to return the primary key(the column is always called id) ...All my insert statements are in stored procedures
Write a lot of code - duplicating every constraint that you have. In every stored procedure that does an insert. So if you have a unique name constraint in your customer table then your insert for the customer first checks to see that the name is unique. If it isn't then it throws an error. If it is then it proceeds to doing the actual insert. Course you might want to create a table transaction as well since someone could insert a different row with the name as well.
Naturally this isn't efficient. Nor performant. Applications should be coded to prevent this in the first place rather than relying on the database to provide error notification (versus error prevention.)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is one of the situations I have:
I insert a person and an address the person provided. Addresses are in a seperate table.
So brief table layout:
person table: firstname, lastname, addressid
address table: id, street, streetnbr, busnbr, placeid. There is a unique constraint on the combination of all 4 fields that aren't the id.
Person A comes along to one of my client's employees and gives his info and a certain address.
Person B comes along to another one of my client's employees, gives his info and the same address as person A.
here is what currently happens in my app:
app receives sqlexception with the error saying there was a unique constraint problem and I respond to it in app by doing a sql statement that selects the record that matches the unique address.
Here is what I would like to happen:
stored procedure for Address tries to insert the address, finds out it already exists(throws exception in db) cause of the unique constraint and instead of supplying the id of the newly inserted record, it supplies the id of the existing record. Imo, this is far faster than what I have now, as the problem is handled before it leaves the stored procedure.
Problem is, I know nothing about error handling in SQL Server.
Here is my current sql statement for my SP:
ALTER procedure [dbo].[AddressInsert](@street varchar(255), @streetnumber varchar(255), @busnumber varchar(255), @placeid bigint, @newid bigint output) as begin
set @newid = next value for dbo.baseidseq
insert into [Address](baseid, street, streetnumber, busnumber, placeid) values(@newid, @street, @streetnumber, @busnumber, @placeid) end
What statement(s) do I add to return the id of the row that matches the parameters provided?
I assume I have to add something like select * from address where street = @street, etc. But what else?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Nico
Sorry that this is not an answer, but more out of curiosity..
Lets say a man joins the company.
He gets an address ID.
His wife who lives at the same address joins the company.
With your app, you want to assign the same address ID to his wife.
They get divorced.
The man moves to another address, and tells the company his new address.
You update that address ID with the new address and then his wife will have moved back in with him since they share and address ID?
|
|
|
|
|
Here, in the real world, there's at least 5 families living at my address 
--edit
They moved out when I moved in, obviously.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Not a VW bug I hope. 
|
|
|
|
|
Nico Haegens wrote: Person A comes along to one of my client's employees and gives his info and a certain address.
Person B comes along to another one of my client's employees, gives his info and the same address as person A.
here is what currently happens in my app:
What you have described is a hypothetical implementation scenario.
However what is the exact business case where this happens? Not what might happen but what does the actual people of this company using the application do?
Nico Haegens wrote: Problem is,
You don't have a problem until there is a business case.
For example given your description a 'customer' could in fact have the very same address as a different 'customer' and your current implementation would prevent you from entering it (regardless of why.) That can happen because a person might be legally incorporated as different companies yet work out of the same office (one person after all.) But as a legal entity the address in not in fact the 'same' despite being the same physical location.
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the "address" can of worms, there is another relating to phone numbers and names (marry/divorce) and surname/first name designation (try working in Asia).
The technical answer to your problem is that you MUST include a search for existing address in your insert procedure.
Defining the business case is going to drive you nuts, toss it back to the business/BA, their job is to tell you what you want. It can be entertaining watching the reaction when you start asking some of the questions you have received here.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
