|
Then you will need to find out what built-in function does string extraction and replace 'mid' with that function name. It probable that the parameters will be different to.  Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
and that is one more reason why giving appropriate names to everything is important.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a datagridview control on my win form, pls how do i get it to show multiple tables records.
thanks .
|
|
|
|
|
get your tables from the database
put them all in the same dataset
create the relationships between the tables
set the dataset as the datasource for the DGV
[edit] this belongs in the winforms forum, but the above is the way to do it [/edit]Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I'm preparing an WPF article that creates storages automatically from classes with nesting and else.
The issue is that in the ACCESS db execute , everything works fine but images bigger than 12 KB I get the error:
'System resource exceeded.'
I show the process:
public Database db;
public DBEngine engine;
this.db = this.engine.OpenDatabase(file, Missing.Value, Missing.Value, Missing.Value);
access.db.Execute(String.Concat(query, values), Missing.Value);
in values, the data is directly:
0x89504E47...454E44AE426082
It works with small images, and if I add with the Access directly design it works, so the field type is right, Maybe is an issue with connection size properties. Does any store a big image with DAO12,ADO, or OLEDB with an Insert statement?
Thanks in advance, a great article is coming...
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever I have needed to use images with an Access database, I have always stored the images in the file system and then just a pointer to the image in the database (an url, path or whatever is appropriate for the app). Access does not play well with images when trying to store them in the database.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, you can always do that, but is a test, in access I can do, and I would like to know how to do in code.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
in one of my tables, I'm using Int32 as a data type for the identity column.
This Int32 identity value is autogenerated. Now it has reached the maximum value for Int32, although the total number of rows is "only" 1.6 billion, because some rows were deleted and because I used an identity seed of 400 million on this column when creating the table for various reasons.
Now, no new rows can be added to the table, because the Int32 autogenerated identity column value is hitting the maximum value for Int32.
One of the options would obviously be to change the data type of the identity column to another data type, let's say Int64 (biginit in MS SQL terms). However, changing Int32 to Int64 on 1.6 billion rows might seem like a small step for a human, but it's a big step for such a database..
Even if I turn off all logging, I switch the recovery model to simple and I delete all indexes on this table, the process of changing Int32 to Int64 on this column fails since there's not enough disk space to make this change. I'm using two 1000 GB hard drivers in RAID0, so the total space is 1000GB and the database with all indexes is 315 GBs big. For some reason, even 700 GBs is not enough for this operation.
Since there are still roughly 500 million values for this Int32 identity column theoretically available, I'm thinking my best bet at this point would be to try to reorganize the identity column values so that they reorder themselves to begin with 1 and will defragment themselves so there will be no holes in the used Int32 values for the identity column.
But I haven't found a way on how to do this. Does anyone know if this is possible?
Thanks very much for any input,
Michal
|
|
|
|
|
You could do this by using the CASCADE ON UPDATE for Foreign Key relationships to the Identity PK that you are having problems with. If you try this, make sure that you have thoroughly tested it many times before attempting it on your production server. Even then, I would be extremely concerned about taking this route.
If I had your problem, I would pay for a Sql Server DBA expert to come in and advise on how to partition your data to enable you to change the PK to a BigInt.
|
|
|
|
|
Turn off logging, switch to simple recovery, then use a SELECT INTO statement to make a copy of the table (but with bigint column instead of int). SELECT INTO is a bulk copy operation which requires minimal resources.
GO
SELECT CAST(ColumnName AS BIGINT) AS ColumnName,
OtherColumns
INTO NewTable
FROM Table1;
GO
DROP TABLE Table1;
GO
-- Use sp_rename to rename NewTable to Table1
GO
-- Re-add primary key/constraints/etc.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
I would script out the indexes and keys before dropping table1.
Be interested to see if this works within the disk constraints he has. We had to go to a san for one of our databases, could no longer do normal maintenance on the dammed thing.Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
No idea. But let this be a cautionary tale to anyone who is considering is using integer/auto values for keys.
I'll stick with GUIDs.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I'll stick with GUIDs.
What a revolting idea, I got stuck with a GUID project in the late 90s, worst project I ever worked on, especially in the development phase when the numbers are useful, I can remember single or even double digit numbers where I have no chance with a 17 character string!
I use bigint on transaction tables and int on static tables, never has a problem. We move multiple 100k+ batches into and out of transaction tables daily and bigint works nicely thank you.Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: especially in the development phase
And after a few months or years?
And, perhaps, you could mock it up; have your own Guid class that returns:
g = new System.Guid ( "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001" ) ;
g = new System.Guid ( "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000002" ) ;
etc.
for during development.
P.S. Maybe I should get right on that.
|
|
|
|
|
After a few more years it is the problem of the support team  . I know that's not a reasonable answer!
PIEBALDconsult wrote: And, perhaps, you could mock it up; have your own Guid class that returns:
and the difference between
Select * from SomeTable where ID = 1
and
Select * from SomeTable where ID = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001'
Is that in the 2nd instance I HAVE to cut and paste or 29 key strokes plus 4 shifts oh yeah and the ', and I can remember 1. Nope guids are a developers nightmare, if I knew before hand that a contract used guids for IDs I would refuse the contract (I have not been desperate for work for a looong time).
IMHO the only valid application for guids is in a distributed application where the data is to be merged and even then I would opt for a locationid or only put the guids on the transaction table!Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I've used them for a few projects now (by choice) and I find them superior in ways that matter to me.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I find them superior in ways that matter to me
Would you care to elaborate, I'm very interested to hear how they are of a benefit other than the distributed requirement I am aware of.Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using GUIDs as keys in another database where multiple servers need to write to the same table. so this is the model of the distributed app you were talking about.
but even there it's not ideal. just yesterday I was thinking about changing this structure. in another table of the same database I'm storing rows that contain this GUID as a FK. there are many rows with the same GUID and I need to group these rows based on the GUID.
the problem is obviously the performance. I have a clustered index on a table that has this GUID as a FK on which I base the clustering. since new GUIDs don't come in a sequential order (they're generated randomly), each insert with a new GUID into this GUID-clustered table will force the index to be recalculated. this wouldn't happen with sequential autogenerated values like int.
Michal
|
|
|
|
|
| If you opt for the identity type column the cost is a complex primary key on the merged table (ID & Server) and I'd think that may have a higher cost than the guid. As piebald suggested a custom guid based on an identity field and server may be a good idea! Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
| So did Geralds ideas help? Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
hello, guys,
thanks much for your suggestions!
update: I have selected the 1.6 billion rows from the old table into a new table without any problems (it took a while, though). I did the cast to bigint on the way. the growth of the log file was nothing compared to me trying to change the Int32 to Int64 directly in the old table.
I scripted the constraints from the old table and now I'm adding them to the new table (will take a while I guess as after adding the constraints I'm re-checking them)
after that I'll take note what indexes were in the old table, I'll drop the old table, rename the new table and build the indexes on the new table.
I'll update you how it goes. obviously, I have a full backup of the last state of the database (file copy DB + LOG).
thanks again for you help so far!
Michal
|
|
|
|
|
update: so I'm again at the beginning.
the attempt to set the bigint column in the new table to Identity results in the SQL server growing the LOG so that it fills the whole disk and then it stops doing anything.
why should this simple operation be so dramatically demanding?
I'll now try to repeat the whole process, but first I'll create the new table with the Identity column already set up and only then I'll select into this table from the original table.
I'll appreciate any suggestions.
thanks,
Michal
|
|
|
|
|
| Don't forget to turn indentity insert on Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
yes, I know, thanks. I've done this already with the same DB before.
let's see, I'll update you, thanks much.
Michal
|
|
|
|
|
actually, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to also set up all indexes (most importantly, the clustered one) on the blank new table before I do the bulk INSERT INTO.
this way SQL will be building the indexes along the way as it copies the data. I think this is potentially less time-and-space costly compared to SQL having to physically repartition the data in the clustered index later on, after the INSERT INTO has completed.
let's see
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
