How To Represent Maximum Number Of Books Borrowed At Same Time Through A Trigger
Feb 20, 2013
I have to build a database model, create tables and use triggers or/and procedures on it. It's about a library. Books are borrowed by students. They can make a reservation of a book.
I built the database model so far. My problem is how to represent following tasks:
- Students can borrow a maximum of 5 books at the same time.
- bookings/book reservations should be later processed in the order they occurred. That is, who first flagged the book also gets the book/books first
I have following entities:
- Book
- Book exemplar
- Borrowed by (a table between the entities Book exemplar and Student)
- Reserved for (a table between the entities Book exemplar and Student)
- Student
How would you represent the tasks I mentioned above in terms of triggers or procedures?...
I need to write down a sql query wherein in one particular day(user will enter manually), i need to find out a 15 minutes slot wherein purchase order's created or updated are the highest.
i.e. out of 96 slots(15 minute slot each)-I need to find the slot which has maximum number of Purchase orders created or updated.
I have a simple table as shown: I want to have values on the last column to represent the time interval between the 2 date columns (visits); i.e for event-ID 2 for example, I will have
I have an assignment to make a library. Right now I'm at the point of implementing business rules. One is that I need to create a trigger that won't allow a member to exceed a certain number of loans at a time, based on their category (student = 5, Teacher =10 and Researcher = 20).
SQL Server 2000 8.00.760 (SP3)I've been working on a test system and the following UDF worked fine.It runs in the "current" database, and references another database onthe same server called 127-SuperQuote.CREATE FUNCTION fnGetFormattedAddress(@WorkID int)RETURNS varchar(130)ASBEGINDECLARE@Address1 As varchar(50)@ReturnAddress As varchar(130)SELECT@Address1 = [127-SuperQuote].dbo.tblCompany.Address1FROM[Work] INNER JOIN[127-SuperQuote].dbo.tblCompany ON [Work].ClientID =[127-SuperQuote].dbo.tblCompany.CompanyIDWHERE[Work].WorkID = @WorkIDIF @Address1 IS NOT NULLSET @ReturnAddress = @ReturnAddress + @Address1 + CHAR(13)+ CHAR(10)RETURN @ReturnAddressENDSo now the system has gone live and it turns out that the live"SuperQuote" database is on a different server.I've linked the server and changed the function as below, but I get anerror both in QA and when checking Syntax in the UDF builder:The number name 'Zen.SuperQuote.dbo.tblCompany' contains more than themaximum number of prefixes. The maximum is 3.CREATE FUNCTION fnGetFormattedAddress(@WorkID int)RETURNS varchar(130)ASBEGINDECLARE@Address1 As varchar(50)@ReturnAddress As varchar(130)SELECT@Address1 = Zen.SuperQuote.dbo.tblCompany.Address1FROM[Work] INNER JOINZen.SuperQuote.dbo.tblCompany ON [Work].ClientID =Zen.SuperQuote.dbo.tblCompany.CompanyIDWHERE[Work].WorkID = @WorkIDIF @Address1 IS NOT NULLSET @ReturnAddress = @ReturnAddress + @Address1 + CHAR(13)+ CHAR(10)RETURN @ReturnAddressENDHow can I get round this? By the way, I've rather simplified thefunction to ease readability. Also, I haven't posted any DDL because Idon't think that's the problem!ThanksEdward
I have created a local user on Report Server Computer and the user has the administrative rights. When i try to connect Report Server (http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/reportserver) with this user's credantials. (ReportServer directory security is set -only- to Basic Authentication. ). I get the following error.
The number of requests for "XXXServerXXXUser" has exceeded the maximum number allowed for a single user. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SQL Server Reporting Services
Then i try to login using a different user with administrative rights on the machine, i can logon successfully. The system is up for a month but this problem occured today?!? What could be the problem?!?
Hello people,I might sound a little bit crazy, but is there any possibility that youcan incorporate 4^15 (1,073,741,824) tables into a SQL Database?I mean, is it possible at all? There might be a question of whereanyone would want so many tables, but i'm a bioinformatics guy and I'mtrying to deal with genomic sequences and was coming up with a newalgorithm, where the only limit is the number of tables I can put intoa Database.So, can you please advise if its possible to put in so many tables intoa SQL database? Or is the Bekerley DB better?
if SQL SERVER 2000 only allow 8060 bytes per row, then how can it store images or CLOB data? Is there a way that would let us change the maximum number of bytes per row? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Hello people, I might sound a little bit crazy, but is there any possibility that you can incorporate 1,073,741,824 tables into a SQL Database?
I mean, is it possible at all? There might be a question of where anyone would want so many tables, but i'm a bioinformatics guy and I'm trying to deal with genomic sequences and was coming up with a new algorithm, where the only limit is the number of tables I can put into a Database.
So, can you please advise if its possible to put in so many tables into a SQL database? Or is the Bekerley DB better?
I am reading SQL Server 2000 Black book (Coriolis publisher) and Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Optimization guide (Jenney Lynne Fields PH publisher).
In the Black book page 56, it says :"..up to a total of 16 instances. In the optimization guide page 144, it says :"There is no theoretical limit to the number of instances of SQL server you can run simultaneously..."
I take error 610 "Maximum number of databases that may be accessed by a transaction is 8. This number has been exceeded by this query" when I execute a SELECT query.
My db contains two table Employee_detail and Student_Detail.Employee_detail has Emp_id and Student_Detail has stud_id.Now my problem is that i want to get one maximum no from these two table.
I need a small SQL server for up to 10 users. If I understand the EULAs and FAQs correctly, there is no limit on the number of users imposed by the SQL Server 2005 Express license. If so, then the number of users is only limited by the OS's license so all I need is SQL Server 2005 Express (free), Windows XP Pro (10 users limit) and no CALs for either Windows or SQL Server.
I am trying to setup transactional replication between Server A and Server B. There are 265 databases on each server.
I am running SQL Server 2005 on Windows Server 2003. The problem comes in at the 201st database. The message in the SQL Server Agent Error Log is :
Warning,[398] The job (WSSWPG09-EmpirePaint-WSSWPG06-104) has been queued because the maximum number of working threads (400) are already running. This job will be executed as soon as one of the working thread finishes execution.
SQL Server's max worker threads is set to 0. The Distribution, LogReader and T-SQL subsystems have been increased to 200 max_worker_threads.
Is there some other setting (maybe a Windows Registry setting) that can be configured to fix this? Or have I just hit a physical maximum of the processor?
I am upgrading from Access, where you can only have 10 fields in a primary key or unique index. Is this also the limit in SQL Server? If not, what is the limit?
I am adding a table within my vb.net program using New datatable(tblname) function, then adding 22 columns (col01 to col22) to this table using .columns.add (colname) function without any error.The program however throws an exception when trying to assign a value to column number 14 (col14) saying this column does not belong to table tblname. Assigning a value from col01 to col13 is working fine.Is there a limitation on number of columns can be added to a table using code?
I have a problem with a piece of code, which updates some tables using transaction. This process brings the program to a halt when updating large files.
With smaller files, the process finishes without problems.
I have noticed that, if a comment out the "begin transaction" and respective "commit", the same code executes without problems, even when updating large files.
I suspect that there is a limit on the number of records a transaction can hold before a commit is issued. I am surprised however, that SQL Server halts, without messages or warnings.
Is this a configuration issue? If there is a limit on the number of records a transaction can hold, what is this limit:? Anything I can do to have a warning form SQL Server when a situation like this is reached (or indeed to avoid this situation) ?
via VBScript, I am inserting data into one table as below: Code:
conn.Source = "INSERT INTO img (imageDesc,imageName,imageDate,imageUser,imageIP) VALUES ('"& ni &"','"& fn &"','"& Now() &"',"& Session("MM_UserID") &",'"& Request.ServerVariables("REMOTE_HOST") &"')"
In another table, I want to insert the primary key (imageID) of this newly inserted row into a new table called "t_image_Site" along with another value in another column.
Any advice/tutorials... this can be done with a trigger if I'm not mistaken?
My team at work has spent the past week troubleshooting performance issues experienced by users of our asp.net 2.x web application. We've got a probe running on one of the web servers that has identified a frequently occuring error that no one has seen before and I can't find anywhere online. MSSQL error "system.data.oledb.oledbcommand.executenonquery(Maximum number of unique SQL exceeded) Has anyone here ever seen this error before?The web server, application, SQL servers and databases all seem to be configured properly, but users are experiencing latency and this frequently occurring error is a mystery to us.
I have a Sqlserver 6.5 production server used for web based applications Compaq 5500 4 GIG RAM, 4 processor
Sql Memory config on that server is 1048576 (which is 2048 MB) and the run value is 640000 (which is 1250 MB). runvalue for user connections was 500
We have only 90 user connections may increase upto 100 depends on the connections. We don't have any overload on that server.
Error: I was seeing "unable to connect maximum no. of 500 configured user connections are already connected" in the error log.
Action Taken:
I increased the user connections to 600 and rebooted the server. Immediately the same error I can see in the error log. But we have only 20 user connections at that time. I can able to connect.
In MS Sql Server 2000, if you run a stored procedure that query's morethan 8 databases, you get this error gets raised:Maximum number of databases used for each query has been exceeded. Themaximum allowed is 8.In 2005, does this maximum number still exist? if so, is it still 8, orhas the number been increased?Thanks,Mike
I have a situation with a 6 server setup whereby merge agentswill not run if other merge agents are alreay running. Basicallywe have a 5 laptop, one tower config with the tower being thepublisher. In theory we want to be able to hook a laptop upand have it sync within, say, 5 mins. Trouble is, if agents forthe other laptops are running (trying and failing to connect becausethose laptops aren't connected) then the agents for the laptop that*is* connected won't run. It seems to be a 'maximum number of runningagents' issue. Is this is user defined setting, and if so where can I set it?Many thanks, sorry if this has been answered many many times before.Jim--Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk"Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water."
First of all, field names have been changed to protect the innocent. Second, I did *not* create this table...I'm troubleshooting issues with a previously created table. I've no idea why almost every field needs to be an NVARCHAR data type of that size. Finally, as you can probably guess, I'm getting this error on a SQL Server 2000 database. (Yeah, it's past time we upgraded to SQL Server 2005 at least...explain that to management, please. I suggest you speak slowly and use small words.)
Anyhow, the error is "Warning: The table 'ExampleTable' has been created but its maximum row size (13348) exceeds the maximum number of bytes per row (8060). INSERT or UPDATE of a row in this table will fail if the resulting row length exceeds 8060 bytes."
Am I misunderstanding how the row size is calculated? How is SQL Server getting 13,348 bytes from the above statement?
Any and all constructive suggestions/ideas are much appreciated! Thanks!
I'm using 2 OLE DB Commands; 1 to perform an insert the other an update. I have found that on the column mapping tab, I only have 10 parameters available to map to. The issue is I need 40 parameters. Am I doing something wrong? Is there a setting I am missing? Is there another way to do this? Am I out of luck . Here is the sql query I am using, so you can see that I have the correct number of parameters listed:
I need to update many rows in some table. I've made such SQL query:
UPDATE [%TableName%] SET [%FieldName%] = CASE WHEN ID = 1 THEN '1' WHEN ID =2 THEN '2' .... END; [%FieldName2%] = CASE WHEN ID = 1 THEN '1' WHEN ID = 2 THEN '2' .... END; WHERE ID IN {1, 2, ...}
Are there some limitations for CASE operator? How many "when - then" conditions can I include in query?
