I have always heard that much of t-sql is based on "set theory". I had Set theory in high school and I remember it as being simple Unions, Intersections, Differences of Sets. By a Set I mean a collection such as {2,5,7,8,9, ...) That could well described a single row in a table. By unioning several of these rows we could end up with a table.
But how does that relate to t-sql such as
select * from <table name> Where <condition 1> ?
Is it simply that the result returned by the query is a Set? (if so, a Set is simply being used as a synonym for a Collection. No set theory involved.)
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.
How do I select * remaining Records of a table that don't fall true to the 2nd Select statement? Select * From zz_2007_Booth_Visitors
NOT IN
Select * From zz_2007_Booth_Visitors Where [Product Interest - Actuators] Is Null And [Product Interest - Other Actuator] Is Null And [Product Interest - Chillers] Is Null And [Product Interest - Other Chiller] Is Null And [Product Interest - Electronic Products] Is Null And [Product Interest - Other network interfaces] Is Null And [Product Interest - Fittings] Is Null And [Product Interest - High Vacuum] Is Null And [Product Interest - Other high vacuum actuators] Is Null And [Product Interest - Pick& Place and Transfer] Is Null And [Product Interest - Teflon Products] Is Null And [Product Interest - Training] Is Null And [Product Interest - Valves& Manifolds] Is Null
I am having a problem with my team mates believing that primary keys need to be unique. I have the following data listed below and I am getting a violation of a primary key constraint. The primary keys for this table are request, business_req_id and test_case_id. I beleive the error is happening due to the data not being unique. Am I correct?
I am having a problem with my team mates believing that primary keys need to be unique. I have the following data listed below and I am getting a violation of a primary key constraint. The primary keys for this table are request, business_req_id and test_case_id. I beleive the error is happening due to the data not being unique. Am I correct?
I have been tasked with creating a Data Warehouse.
Problem is that old storage vs reporting debate.
I have determined that the data that I will recieve and store will be like follows (simplified form) for expandability
KEY FldKEy FldData DateTime AuditTrail
Daily I will use this data based on use input process this data into the following format and say if fldkey/ flddata open a cycle. populate row with null close date if fldkey/ flddata closes cycle update row with date
If fldkey/ flddata changes a cutable value update row
if fldkey/ flddata changes a cutable value (type 2 table) insert a row into detail update value and obsolete previous row.
KEY DateStart DateEnd FLDDATA1 FLDDATE2 Op_Cl_IND HEADER Record
Problem: FLDKey is a finite count however the max is undefined.
IS there any way to solve the problem of not being able to nail down users to tell you what they want to cut by. What I have been instructed by mgr (old IDMS) is that they wish to see all on the FldData and have the ability to cut by all of it. However the Flddata could be anything (cannot be indexed).
400,000,000 rows at least.
Do I need to nail the users down or am I am missing something.
I understand that there is much involved in figuring up I/Othroughput, but I'm hoping the answer to the following question willbe a simple A, B OR C.Given the configuration below, what hardware component wouldbottleneck first.A. Drive Spindle ThroughputB. SCSI ControllerC. Other Component(if so what component?)Configuration:Controller: Ultra320RAID Config: RAID 5Drives on RAID: 14 - 73gb/15k - SCSI DrivesType of Writes: RandomQuestion Background:I currently have the configuration above on a local box. Our companyhas ordered a SAN and and has space set aside. What I'm trying toacertain is whether or not I'd be better off staying local or ifputting my DB on a SAN would be more beneficial.Other Notes:I've determined using a formula that determines the max theoreticalI/O operations/sec for the # of drives (spindles) and RAID Config...but I've not been able to establish a relationship betweenOperation/sec -> MB/Sec. I'm sure this is for obvious reasons...If anyone has had a related scenario, I'd be interested in hearingyour thoughts.Thanks,Ornac
Hi, our application is failing sometimes, with some select queries. After making traces in the database, I found the following error: Missing join predicate. I googled that, and I only found this useless tip:
Missing Join Predicate: Indicates whether or not the query in question has a join predicate. If not, this can cause the Query Optimizer to produce a less than optimized query plan. The fix to this is to add a join predicate.
So, I dont know what a join predicate is... maybe I used it, but I don't know it by that name.
My co worker designed a database where retail items can be placed in multiple catagories. This seems odd to me..... In general, Isnt it more normal than not to be only one catarory for each item? For example, lets say I was selling a bowling ball with a picture of Mickey Mouse on it. I can then find this item in the "Mickey Mouse" catagory or in the "bowling ball" catagory but in the database the bowling ball has only one catagoryID. When I worked for a multi-million dollar corporate retail store , an item was listed once in only one catagroy. But i am sure items can be viewed
I know there isnt a single rule, I am just looking for a solution. How should the database sturucture be built with this in mind starting out with what is listed below???? Mabey an attributes table?
I have a general theory question for best practices about upsizing an msaccess 2003 split database design to use SQL server instead of the .mdb for data storage.
My data has grown close to msaccess limit, and ive started experiencing lost connections and corruptions frequently. So the next step is to upsize to SQL.
So far DTS seems to do a better job with bringing in the tables and data (then the upsizewizard).
Does any one have a suggestion on how to deal with the front end connecting the sql backend ?
i understand an ADP project file uses OLE connection, is that a better solution then linked tables directly into SQL threw ODBC ?
Reason i ask is the linked tables seem to not break as many things inside the code.
I like writing concise and compact sql code without cursors if possible. My current dilemma has me stuck though.I have 3 tables, but one of them is optionally used and contains a key element of TimeOut to determine which Anesthesia CrnaID to use. It is the optionally used part that has me stumped.
Surgery table CaseID Patient (Sample data: 101,SallyDoe 102,JohnDoe)
AnesthesiaTime table (this table is optionally used, only if the crna's take a break on long cases) CaseID CrnaID TimeIn TimeOut (Sample data: 102,Jack,0800,1030 102,Bart,1030,1130 102,Jack,1130,1215)
Select Patient INNER JOIN Anesthesia produced too many case results. So, I figured out there is an AnesthesiaTime table that only gets used if the anesthesia guys take time-outs. That doesn't happen all the time. I could use TOP 1 on the Anesthesia table, but technically I need to read the AnesthesiaTime table and locate the last time and pull that crna, Jack. I'm not sure how to deal with an optional table. I believe the IF Exists will be pertinent, but not sure of how to build this query. I've tried subquery without success.
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
