|
Joan M wrote: Have I done something terrible?
No, it's not VB6 nor JavaScript.
Joan M wrote: Do you think this is a good structure?
Decent 
Just a few questions;
Joan M wrote: (N Tasks_In_Table will have 1 task)
I don't see that table's structure?
Joan M wrote: Price per hour : number
Are you going to lookup a price and enter it manually for every task? How about a table with base-tasks and pricing to choose from? Perhaps with an additional column for discounts or extra?
Also, you use autonumbers for your keys; That means you can enter a customer twice, without problems. I'd prefer a unique constraint on the autonumber, and a PK on the customers name. It's a nice way to ensure that there's a single unique identifyable customer for each project. It'd also mean that a project would require a unique constraint on its autonumber for quick reference, but also a decent PK; the combination of the username and the projectname.
--edit
Free tip; if you're unsure about a structure, populate your example with mock-data and try some queries
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: and a PK on the customers name. It's a nice way to ensure that there's a single unique identifyable customer for each project.
It's nice until you end up with two customers with the same name! 
In my case I also can't use part of the address as I have a Father/Son scenario with the same name living at the same address (besides, people do move house occasionally).
So we have autonumbers - the onboarding process does the necessary checks for duplication
|
|
|
|
|
CHill60 wrote: It's nice until you end up with two customers with the same name!
You, like the computer, and the cashier, need to be able to distinguish between the two, even in a listview. Wouldn't want to bill the father for the son's purchases
CHill60 wrote: So we have autonumbers - the onboarding process does the necessary checks for duplication
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
in sql server there is a group problem statement: DENSE_RANK() OVER (ORDER BY TABLUONGNV3.HOVATEN) AS STT
How to write in sql access issues in groups? I'm not writing well: (Select Count (*) FROM [TABLUONGNV3] as Temp WHERE [Temp].[MANHANVIEN] < [TABLUONGNV3].[MANHANVIEN]) + 1 AS STT
SELECT (Select Count (*) FROM [TABLUONGNV3] as Temp WHERE [Temp].[MANHANVIEN] < [TABLUONGNV3].[MANHANVIEN]) + 1 AS STT, TABLUONGNV3.HOVATEN, TABNHANVIEN.IDNV, TABLUONGNV3.MACANV, TABNHANVIENCA.CANV, TABLUONGNV3.N01, TABLUONGNV3.N02, TABLUONGNV3.N03, TABLUONGNV3.N04, TABLUONGNV3.N05, TABLUONGNV3.N06, TABLUONGNV3.N07, TABLUONGNV3.N08, TABLUONGNV3.N09, TABLUONGNV3.N10, TABLUONGNV3.N11, TABLUONGNV3.N12, TABLUONGNV3.N13, TABLUONGNV3.N14, TABLUONGNV3.N15, TABLUONGNV3.N16, TABLUONGNV3.N17, TABLUONGNV3.N18, TABLUONGNV3.N19, TABLUONGNV3.N20, TABLUONGNV3.N21, TABLUONGNV3.N22, TABLUONGNV3.N23, TABLUONGNV3.N24, TABLUONGNV3.N25, TABLUONGNV3.N26, TABLUONGNV3.N27, TABLUONGNV3.N28, TABLUONGNV3.N29, TABLUONGNV3.N30, TABLUONGNV3.N31, TABNHANVIENCA.TIENMOTCA, TABLUONGNV3.TONGLUONG, TABLUONGNV3.PHAT, TABLUONGNV3.TAMUNG, TABLUONGNV3.THUCNHAN, TABLUONGNV3.GHICHU
FROM TABNHANVIENCA INNER JOIN (TABNHANVIEN INNER JOIN TABLUONGNV3 ON TABNHANVIEN.IDNV = TABLUONGNV3.MANHANVIEN) ON TABNHANVIENCA.IDCANV = TABLUONGNV3.MACANV
WHERE TABLUONGNV3.LUONGTHANG = #06/01/2019#
ORDER BY TABLUONGNV3.HOVATEN;
You see the attached file: http://www.mediafire.com/file/pajlr19fwde8r9l/Query_numbering.xls/file
|
|
|
|
|
As you are not explaining this very well try the following:
1. Simplify your query down to the bare bones to demonstrate your problem e.g. remove all but one of the columns from TABLUONGNV3 from the select.
2. Supply us with some sample data for each of the tables left in your simplified query
3. Provide the results that you expect from the sample data provided.
Don't link to files - we won't download them, besides mediafire is a blocked site on my work computer.
|
|
|
|
|
This site has no support for sending attachments, so I use mediafire to send attachments, if your computer is blocked you can bypass the firewall using psiphon3.exe software, you can download this software at address Download Psiphon 3 for PC Windows 7/8/8.1/10 or XP Laptops
Soon receive your feedback
|
|
|
|
|
No - I cannot bypass the firewall using some dodgy download. What makes you think our corporate security is so weak it would allow me to do that
Why not just do what thousands of other members do - type in the details into a post?
|
|
|
|
|
My data SQL Server is reported this error, How does this error fix you ?
SQL Server detected a logical consistency-based I/O error: torn page (expected signature: 0xaaaaaaaa; actual signature: 0x5555aaaa). It occurred during a read of page (1:210768) in database ID 7 at offset 0x00000066ea0000 in file 'G:\Database\MyData.mdf'. Additional messages in the SQL Server error log or system event log may provide more detail. This is a severe error condition that threatens database integrity and must be corrected immediately. Complete a full database consistency check (DBCC CHECKDB). This error can be caused by many factors; for more information, see SQL Server Books Online.
During redoing of a logged operation in database 'MyData', an error occurred at log record ID (30182:834:13). Typically, the specific failure is previously logged as an error in the Windows Event Log service. Restore the database from a full backup, or repair the database.
Could not open new database 'MyData'. CREATE DATABASE is aborted. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 824)
|
|
|
|
|
You need to do what the message tells you and restore the database from your backup. It is impossible from the above to know what caused the page error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The information you provided me cannot correct the error
|
|
|
|
|
Which actions from "Resolution" section did you perform?
What results did you get?
|
|
|
|
|
I do not manipulate anything on my data
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to go back to the error message and follow the suggestions there. This is not a programming problem that anyone here can fix for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Show us your create DB statement
--edit
And what kind of drive is G?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you know?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
SQL server database 824 error means that the page has been read successfully from the disk but there is some issue with the page. Other types of messages that might be shown are “fatal error 824 occurred” , “SQL server detected logical consistency based i/o error”. The exact display message can be more helpful in understanding this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm running an ASP.Net WebAPI that reaches into a MongoDB on the server.
When adding an entity, how would you return the newly added entity Id (Guid) to the client side?
I could return the Entity that was passed in with the new Id on it, but tha seems excessive. Would you return the Guid?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
If you're building a RESTful CRUD application, then don't return either. Return a 201 status and let the client system re-query as necessary/appropriate.
If it absolutely damages your soul not to return something other than a status, then just send back the ID, but you shouldn't really be serving up anything from a PUT or POST, let alone an entity.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
How would the client know what to query? What if I call AddEntity with two identical entities? They both end up with unique Id's, but everything else could be the same.
Or, multiple clients all add records at the same time? Requerying doesn't tell you which one YOUR client added.
And, truthfully, it seems excessive to requiry just because an Add was done. Another round trip to the server?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
modified 31-May-19 13:58pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you've pushed me back to the RFC and, my bad, including the ID with a 201 is the right answer. I need to go revisit some work that I just did :/
HTTP/1.1: Method Definitions
As far as multiple adds, that's a modelling issue. If it's allowable, use PUT. If it's not, use POST and make sure your model checks against field combinations that should be unique. Worst case scenario, use a wrapper with a unique identifier (such as a transaction ID) to avoid multiple inserts.
All that said: when working with REST you should not think of efficiencies in terms of round trips. REST apps are chatty. Instead, efficiencies lie in conformance to standard providing a consistent interface, and providing ways to query and slice up collections effectively.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
OK, but as far as this...
Nathan Minier wrote: As far as multiple adds, that's a modelling issue.
What I meant was there could be any number of clients adding records at the same time. If you had to requery after YOUR instance did an add, you could get back any number of records added by ANY client instance since you did the add. You would have no way of kowing what record YOUR client added versus other clients.
Not sure what Modeling has to do with this
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
We're talking cross purposes then. As I said in the last post, I was mistaken about returning the ID of the added object along with the 201 code. That's why I posted the link for the standard as well.
I assumed you were talking about multiple clients adding unique entities from the way that you worded it. That would be a modelling issue.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
