However, the userelationship function does not override the active relationship between Operation & Advice and so the measure is limited to Advices directly filtered by the Operation table.
If I delete the relationship between Operation and Advice, then the measure works as expected i.e. Operation indirectly filters Operation Commodity which filters Advice.
I was writing a query using both left outer join and inner join. And the query was ....
SELECT S.companyname AS supplier, S.country,P.productid, P.productname, P.unitprice,C.categoryname FROM Production.Suppliers AS S LEFT OUTER JOIN (Production.Products AS P INNER JOIN Production.Categories AS C
[code]....
However ,the result that i got was correct.But when i did the same query using the left outer join in both the cases
i.e..
SELECT S.companyname AS supplier, S.country,P.productid, P.productname, P.unitprice,C.categoryname FROM Production.Suppliers AS S LEFT OUTER JOIN (Production.Products AS P LEFT OUTER JOIN Production.Categories AS C ON C.categoryid = P.categoryid) ON S.supplierid = P.supplierid WHERE S.country = N'Japan';
The result i got was same,i.e
supplier country productid productname unitprice categorynameSupplier QOVFD Japan 9 Product AOZBW 97.00 Meat/PoultrySupplier QOVFD Japan 10 Product YHXGE 31.00 SeafoodSupplier QOVFD Japan 74 Product BKAZJ 10.00 ProduceSupplier QWUSF Japan 13 Product POXFU 6.00 SeafoodSupplier QWUSF Japan 14 Product PWCJB 23.25 ProduceSupplier QWUSF Japan 15 Product KSZOI 15.50 CondimentsSupplier XYZ Japan NULL NULL NULL NULLSupplier XYZ Japan NULL NULL NULL NULL
and this time also i got the same result.My question is that is there any specific reason to use inner join when join the third table and not the left outer join.
OLEDB source 1 SELECT ... ,[MANUAL DCD ID] <-- this column set to sort order = 1 ... FROM [dbo].[XLSDCI] ORDER BY [MANUAL DCD ID] ASC
OLEDB source 2 SELECT ... ,[Bo Tkt Num] <-- this column set to sort order = 1 ... FROM ....[dbo].[FFFenics] ORDER BY [Bo Tkt Num] ASC
These two tasks are followed immediately by a MERGE JOIN
All columns in source1 are ticked, all column in source2 are ticked, join key is shown above. join type is left outer join (source 1 -> source 2)
result of source1 (..dcd column) ... 4-400-8000119 4-400-8000120 4-400-8000121 4-400-8000122 <--row not joining 4-400-8000123 4-400-8000124 ...
result of source2 (..tkt num column) ... 4-400-1000118 4-400-1000119 4-400-1000120 4-400-1000121 4-400-1000122 <--row not joining 4-400-1000123 4-400-1000124 4-400-1000125 ...
All other rows are joining as expected. Why is it failing for this one row?
I'm having trouble with a multi-table JOIN statement with more than one JOIN statement.
For each order, I need to return the following: CarsID, CarModelName, MakeID, OrderDate, ProductName, Total ordered the Car Category.
The carid (primary key) and carmodelname belong to the Cars table. The makeid and orderdate belong to the OrderDetails table. The productname and carcategory belong to the Product table.
The number of rows returned should be the same as the number of rows in OrderDetails.
Why would I use a left join instead of a inner join when the columns entered within the SELECT command determine what is displayed from the query results?
I have a merge join (full outer join) task in a data flow. The left input comes from a flat file source and then a script transformation which does some custom grouping. The right input comes from an oledb source. The script transformation output is asynchronous (SynchronousInputID=0). The left input has many more rows (200,000+) than the right input (2,500). I run it from VS 2005 by right-click/execute on the data flow task. The merge join remains yellow and the task never finishes. I do see a row count above the flat file destination that reaches a certain number and seems to get stuck there. When I test with a smaller file on the left it works OK. Any suggestions?
A piece of software I wrote starting timing out on a query that left outer joins a table to a view. Both the table and view have approximately the same number of rows (about 170000).
The table has 2 very similar columns, one is a varchar(1) and another is varchar(100). Neither are included in any index and beyond the size difference, the columns have the same properties. One of the employees here uses the varchar(1) column (called miscsearch) to tag large sets of rows to perform some action on. In this case, he had set 9000 rows miscsearch value to "g". The query then should join the table and view for all rows where miscsearch is set to g in the table. This query takes at least 20 minutes to run (I stopped it at this point).
If I remove the "where" clause and join all rows in the two tables, the query completes in about 20 seconds. If set the varchar(100) column (called descrip) to "g" for the same rows set via miscsearch, the query completes in about 20 seconds.
If I force the join type to a hash join, the query completes using miscsearch in about 30 seconds.
So, this works:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER HASH JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE miscsearch = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
and this works:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE descrip = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
But this does't:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE miscsearch = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
What should I be looking for here to understand why this is happening?
How can I set a one-to-one relationship using the Management Studio Express and SQL Server 2005 Express tblClient, CleintID (PK) tblProcess, ClientID (FK)
Hello I have need to write a query that I can pass in a bunch of filter criteria, and return 1 result....it's just ALL of the criteria must be matched and a row returned: example: Transaction table: id, reference attribute table: attributeid, attribute transactionAttribute: attributeid, transactionid Example dat Attribute table contains: 1 Red, 2 Blue, 3 Green Transaction table contains: 1 one, 2 two, 3 three transactionAttribute contains: (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,3), (3,1)
If I pass in Red, Blue, Green - I need to be returned "one" only If I pass in Red - I need to be returned "three" only If I pass in Red, Green - nothing should be returned as it doesn't EXACTLY match the filter criteria
If anyone's able to help that would be wonderful! Thanks, Paul
How to create a relation between gf_game and gf_gamegenre here? gf_gamegenre is responsible for the relation between a game and it's genre(s). The relationship between gf_genre and gf_gamegenre worked. (http://img361.imageshack.us/my.php?image=relationzl9.jpg)
When I try to set a relationshop between gamegenre and game I'm getting this error: 'gf_game' table saved successfully'gf_gamegenre' table- Unable to create relationship 'FK_gf_gamegenre_gf_game'. The ALTER TABLE statement conflicted with the FOREIGN KEY constraint "FK_gf_gamegenre_gf_game". The conflict occurred in database "gamefactor", table "dbo.gf_game", column 'gameID'. Thanks for any help!
Can anyone provided insight on how to create a one-to-one relationship between SQL tables? Every time I try to link two tables that should be one-to-one, the link says one-to-many. How can I specify one-to-one when SQL Server automatically thinks it is a one-to-many? Thanks, Kellie
Hey, I know I'm asking a stupid question but I need to get a clear response please: why using One-to-One relationship instead of meging the 2 tables in only one? thanks.
I created 2 tables with one to one relationship. if I add a record intable A, how does table B record get created? Does SQL do thisautomatically because it is one to one relationship? or do I need tocreate a trigger? if i need a trigger, how do I get the ID of newrecord to create the same ID in table B?thanks for any help.Joe Klein
Hi,Do you guys know what's wrong with a one-to-one relationship?The reason I want to make it like this is that at the very end of the chain,the set of keys is huge. I want to limit the number of columns to be thekey. i.e. the [company] table has 1 column as the key. The [employee]table will have 2 columns as the key.e,g,If I add a [sale] table to the [company]-[employee] relationship, the thirdtablewill have 3 columns as the key -- "company id", "employee id", and "saleid".(e.g.)I have a company with many employees and computers. But instead of classifyall these, I just want to call all these as an entity. A company is anentity. An employee is just another entity. etc.So, instead of a one-to-many:[company]---*[employee]---*[sale]||*[computer]I make it one-to-one.[entity]---*[entity]If I want to know the name and address of the entity "employee", I will havea 1-to-1 table [employee] to look up the information for this employeeentity.[entity]---*[entity]||[company]||[employee]||[computer]||[sale]--[color=blue]> There is no answer.> There has not been an answer.> There will not be an answer.> That IS the answer!> And I am screwed.> Deadline was due yesterday.>> There is no point to life.> THAT IS THE POINT.> And we are screwed.> We will run out of oil soon.[/color]
How do I create a one to one relationship in a SQL2005 Express database? The foreign key needs to be the same as the primary key so it can't just increment to the next number.
Hi. I get this error when i try to create a relationship in a db diagram (sql 2005) "'tblActivedir' table saved successfully 'tblClient' table - Unable to create relationship 'FK_tblClient_tblActivedir1'. Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK_tblClient_tblActivedir1' on table 'tblClient' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY constraints. Could not create constraint. See previous errors."
What i have is 2 tables. 1 named client 1 named activedir
In the client table the columns i want to bind with activedirtable are FR1 and DC1 I want to bind them in the ID of the activedir table (both, in different fk relationships) so that they get the id of activedir. Fr1 has an fk relationship with activedir (pk is activedir' id) and DC1 exactly the same in another fk. So i want both columns to comunicate with activedir. If p.e. activedir has 3 elements (a,b,c) when i delete element a then werever FR1 or DC1 have this element(binded to it's id) then the element will also be deleted (id of the element) from both FR1 and DC1 I don't want to set Delete and Update action to none because i want the element changed or deleted from activedir, to do the same on Fr1 or DC1 or both. Any help? Thanks.
I am trying to create a 1:1 relationship, but not primary key to primary key. In table 1 I have a uniqueidentifier as a primary key. In table 2 I have an int as the primary key and a column that takes the uniqueidentifier from table 1. Everytime I drag and drop the relationship line and link table 1 to table 2 it creates a 1:N relationship: ie. tbl1.primarykey links to tbl2.column2. So I'm not linking primary key to primary key however I still want a 1:1 relationship.
SQLServer 2005 - I have two tables. One has a field defined as a Primary Unique Key. The other table has the same field, but the Index is defined as non-Unique, non-clustered. There is no primary key defined on the second table. I want to set up a one-to-many relationship between the two, but am not allowed.
This should be simple. What am I doing incorrectly?
This is the message that i get when trying to assign keys when creating diagrams in visual express:
'tbh_Polls' table saved successfully 'tbh_PollOptions' table - Unable to create relationship 'FK_tbh_PollOptions_tbh_Polls'. The ALTER TABLE statement conflicted with the FOREIGN KEY constraint "FK_tbh_PollOptions_tbh_Polls". The conflict occurred in database "C:USERSSTICKERDOCUMENTSMY WEB SITESPERCSHARPAPP_DATAASPNETDB.MDF", table "dbo.tbh_Polls", column 'PollID'.
PollID is my primary key in tbh_Polls
And PollID is in tbh_PollOptions table
No matter what I do, I get this message, I'm Lost!
I have a fact table with 2 fields : "Dim Code 1" and "Dim Code 2" that I want to link with a Dim table. I don't want to create two dimensions Dim1 and Dim2 but only one dimension with something like :
Shirt shirt_id client_id meas_arm meas_neck meas_shoulder color_code description My question Is it possible to have a relationship linking one single table to other several one. For example i wanted to relate the field client_id from table client which is the primary to tables shirt,trousers and smoking with the client_id field which is the foreign key ?
Hi there everyone, this is my first post so go easy on me :) Basically I am trying to get my database to copy the value in the UserId (unique identifier field) from the aspnet_Users table to a foreign key UserId in a table called userclassset. I have made this field the same datatype and created a relationship between the two. Unfortunately, when I add a user using the ASP.Net configuration tool it does not automatically copy this value into my own custom table. I have noticed it is however automatically copied into the aspnet_Membership table. Any pointers on how to solve this would be great! Thanks :)
Hi, how can i make optional relationship? for example: In table A, there is column 1, column 2, column3. In table B, there is column 4, column 5 and column 6. column 1 and column 2 are primary keys for table A and table B. The relationships between table A and table B are column 2 and column 5; column3 and column 6. but optional (ie. when data exists in column 2, then column3 is null) how can i set the relationship? because one of the columns data is null each time, error always occurs.
Hello, I created some SQL 2005 tables using Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio. I need to get the script code of those tables. I was able to do that by right clicking over each table. But how can I get the code for the relationships between the tables? Can't I create relationships between two tables by using T-SQL? Thanks, Miguel
When I try to insert a record on my DB (SQL 2005 Express) I get a constraint error. This is my table setup which has been simplified to expose the problem I have: Categories TABLEint CatId PKvarchar CatName : Items TABLEint ItemId PKvarchar ItemName : X_Items_Categoriesint CatIdint ItemId So basically I have a one-to-many relationship between Items and Categories, in other words each item is associated to one or more categories and this association is done via the X_Items_Categories cross table. On this cross table I set two constraints:
The CatId of each entry in the cross table (X_Items_Categories) must exist in the Category table, and
