I am using Visual Studio 2005 professional and SQL Server 2005 Express Edition.
I am having a bit of an issue at the moment with my project. I have a large SQL server database (over 600,000 rows of data decoded from a text datafile and stored by my C# program) where I need to select a series of distinct rows.
I have a datacolumn of varchar(10) called UID which is assigned to every row in my database. It's not a unique code so it can happen several times. By selecting a specific UID code, I can narrow down my selection to a specific range of rows (which are incremental in order). This range will contain many names.
What I want to do is find a UID which will have one of two names. I have so far done this:
SELECT DISTINCT F1.UID FROM MyDataBase F1
INNER JOIN MyDataBase F2 ON
F1.LineIndex < F2.LineIndex AND
F1.UID = F2.UID AND
F1.Names IN (Bob', 'John', 'Peter', 'Sarah', 'Anne', 'Stewart', 'David', 'Alan', 'Linda') AND
F2.Names IN ('Bob', 'John', 'Peter', 'Sarah', 'Anne', 'Stewart', 'David', 'Alan', 'Linda')
This will return any UID which contains at least two of these names. The LineIndex ensures that the comparison doesn't happen on the same row of data (it's a column set to type int with IDENTITY(1,1) which is also my PRIMARY KEY). This is partially what I want, the selection of UID rows which will have at least two names from the list. Also, the same name will never appear twice in the same UID list.
Now, the problem I am facing is that I want a select a UID range with names in the order I have specified, so if I want a UID list where the names I want are Peter and Linda, I only want to return a set of UID rows where Peter appears earlier in the returned rows than Linda.
It is possible that other UIDs have the same names, but in reverse order, starting Linda, Alan, David etc...John, Bob. I would want to discard these entries.
Can anyone please give me any hints as to how I could get around this?
I am trying to do selective updates for rows where a column matches a column in another table. I want to do something like this, only 'this' does not work, and nothing else I could think of (I tried joins also) worked. What am I missing? I hope this explanation makes sense.
UPDATE queryresultsmodel SET queryresultsmodel.tableforcedoutdate = getdate() Where Exists (Select tablename from queryresultsmodel q inner join orphanul o on q.tablename = o.name)
I have to write an SQL Server 2000 stored procedure that returns rows from a table (a SELECT with an ORDER BY). A front end system calls the stored procedure and displays the returned rows. If there is more than one screen's worth of data (ie more than 20 rows returned from the table) then there is a requirement that the stored procedure only returns the rows for the screen ie, for screen 1 I need to return rows 1-20, for screen2 I need to return rows 21-40, screen 3 = rows 41-60.
The screen number will be passed into the stored procedure so I can work out what rows to return, the only problem is how can I tell SQL Server to only select the required rows (ie, say rows 21 to 40 from the returned rows). I can't see any arguments that allow selective rows to be returned (apart from TOP).
if you notice on the 8 and 9th rows the only difference between them is in the E column(0 and 1). What I am trying to do here is to display all with max(E). So in the above example, I should display rows 1-7,9,10 (8th row will not display because the 9th row has 1 in the E column). this is the query I have been using on SQL Server 2000 but I keep on displaying all the rows:
SELECT A,B,C,D,max(E) FROM <table> WHERE ( A = '012345A' ) AND ( B >= '01/01/2001' ) AND ( C <= '01/31/2001' ) GROUP BY A, B, C, D
Can anyone help me understand how to come up with the correct data? I have a table with sales orders. If one is put in incorrectly another one is inserted to back it out, then a third is inserted. Here is a sample:
I am new to SQL,I wrting a query which I will at the later stage create a report but my query is creating duplicate records,I have tried the group by and the sub selects but this still bring all uneccessary columns I do not need,
I have a query that goes
Select name Date from date from date to summary Estimated value
I know in this database i only have 1 record containing that information but immediately when i ass the estimated value field a lot of duplicate,I have tried using group by the same thing happens,or even when i tried having count then all the columns disappear.
I want to filter out the duplicate rows based on three columns. I got this quick query from Microsoft site to filter out the duplicate rows, but I am getting the result that filters out the non-duplicate one too. Below is the query
;With Temp as ( SELECT row_number() over (partition by [id],[p_date], order by [id],[p_date],) as Row,
[code]...
In the above case id is null, but in some rows id is not null . The above is obviously not duplicate.
In a table I have some rows with flag A & B for a scode, some scode with only A and some are only B flags.
I would like to fetch all rows with flag A when both flags are present, no rows with B should be fetched. Fetch all rows when only single flags are present for a scode.How to achieve this using TSQL code.
Hi. I have a SQL statement currently ending with "ORDER BY sc.TypeID, sc.ObjetID DESC"where the TypeID can be of value 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 9 and 10. What I would like to achieve is to selectively order the datas by TypeID, meaning in this case that I want ALL the TypeID of value "1" to come first and then all the rest ("2" and higher) un-ordered. This is important that the rest remains unordered by their TypeID as I only want them to be ordered by their ID (ObjetID DESC). Is that possible? If yes how?Thank you.Francis
Hello all, Is there a way to do a selective restore? I need to create a dev db and the prod backup is 17 gig and I have a space crunch on the server. My idea was to restore the complete backup and subsequently shrink the db size after truncating data in tables which are not frequently used? Is that a good idea. Any help will be appreciated.
I need to be able to export from an existing database, all fields with a certain column id. I have been pointed in the direction of bcp, however I am having difficulty finding the right syntax.
Is it possible to use replication for inserts and updates only for some tables and inserts updates and deletes on others. I want to be able to delete data from the source database but not my replicated database. Does anyone know of a way to use replication to facilite this?
I'm in the current mode of migration from WIn2k and I 'm trying to setup user where they are only allowed access to one table.
If I grant thenm read /write access to the db they can obviously see all of the db due to the size of the db I do not wish to go down the root of denying every table as there is over 100. Is there an easier way??
I was trying to use the case statement in where clause so that the comparison (> , <, =) can be made depending upon the value of the local variable @fl.
PLease tell me how to do that. Or suggest me how can I make selective comparison (<,>,=) in where clause depending upon a local variable. Please note that I donot want to use if/else satement and write select statement everytime based on the local variable as in that case the code length will be huge. Please suggest me a coensized query.
SQL that I queried:
use pubs go
declare @fl int
select fl = 3
select * from titles where case fl when 1 then price > 90 when 2 then price < 90 when 3 then price = 90 end
The following error is given
Server: Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 7 Line 7: Incorrect syntax near '>'.
HI, Is it possible in SQL Server to restore Databases partially? In the sense, I want to backup just 2 tables from a database & restore them, instead of having to take a backup of the entire database & restore the entire database.
One way to do would be to export data & then importing data for only those selective tables, but I dont want to do that, bcause that would probably take more time & can be error prone.
I need to 'copy' selective (filtered) rows from table 'A' to table 'B' on a regular basis, but only if they do not exist in table 'B'. If rows get deleted from table 'A' they must remain table 'B'. If rows change in table 'A' (unlikely) they should be update in table 'B'
What feature of SQL should I be using? - triggerering a stored procedure on Insert - replication - SSIS
I've got a report linking to a SSAS cube. It has 2 row groups Region and Country. The Country group is a subset of the Region group and works fine, it collapses and expands ok.
Now, due to a boss who doesn't like the way this looks, I have to find another way to display it. I was wondering if it is possible to have a report parameter that could be selected and the appropriate column grouping be displayed depending on the value.
i.e. User selects Report Parameter value 'Region' and the Region row group becomes visible, the Country group becomes invisible. The exact opposite happening if the user selects Country.
I can't find any obvious way to do this. Any ideas?
We have a Table that contains a schedule. The schedule has certain pieces of information that are required to be updated by certain members of the organization, specifically Shift, Start Date, and Line. Each record also has a column for the customer that it is for.
The schedule has a Column, [CSR] which lists the name of the person who is responsible for updating it. Format of that is domainnamejohndoe
What we would like to do is block domainnamejohndoe from being able to update or insert on any of the records that he is not responsible for.
So if he attempts to change the shift for example, it denies the change and possible pops up an error indicating that the change was blocked because he is not the responsible party.
Input in this is through a query which views the table data in MS Access. It cannot be moved to a Form without some serious redesign, so I cannot put the block in there. I assumed that this could be blocked with a Trigger that checks the [CSR] column, matches it to the logged in user through the suser_sname(suser_sid()) and then either allows or denies the update.
So is this a viable idea, or should I explore the move to an input form and make the change there in MS Access via VBA.
At first we started with just an audit trail, but I started to think that the audit trail would be needed only for records that should be allowed to be changed and that we should deny changes to those who are not allowed to make them.
Below is the audit trail trigger, I figure that the change should occur somewhere within that first IF statement, or make the first IF the second, and the first should be the permission check.
At this point I am stuck as to how to block the updates. I tried using Deny but that was not working. Filtering the results by only showing the logged in user their records is not an option as they need visibility to the entire schedule.
This is for SQL 2000 SP4/Windows 2000 SP4
CREATE TRIGGER audit_mschange ON dbo.T_PP_Table_2 FOR update AS IF (UPDATE([Start Dt]) OR Update(shift) or Update (comments) or Update(status) or Update (line)) BEGIN
SELECT ins.[PP Ord No], del.line,ins.line, del.shift,ins.shift, del.comments,ins.comments, del.status, ins.status, getdate(), suser_sname(suser_sid()), del.[Start Dt], ins.[Start Dt] FROM inserted ins, deleted del WHERE ins.[PP Ord No]=del.[PP Ord No] AND ins.autonumber=del.autonumber AND (ins.status <> del.status OR ins.[Start Dt] <> del.[Start Dt] or ins.status <> del.status or ins.comments <> del.comments or ins.line <> del.line ) END
Dear netters,We are looking to build a SQL Server database that will be hooked up toa Web server (WebLogic or a .NET).The database will house data for multiple customers, and therequirement is to have no customer see other customer data. Web serverwill be responsible for authenticating users (ids and passwords will bemaintained there/possibly stored in the database, but will not beactual database logins) -- and establishing pooled connections to thedatabase, using some sort of a proxy login.Ideally, we do not want to have the database itself visible to "theworld", it should reside behind a firewall, and be accessible throughthe Web server, which will do all authentication and routing.We want to have either tables or views defined in such a way that:1. Users can only see their own data and NEVER can see anybody else's.2. Users' access to the database is logged (this includes updates aswell as queries).3. We would like to provide some sort of a reporting mechanism -- whereusers can form their own queries. So, something like a Crystal or anAccess front end, that users are typically familiar with... The problemis that this requires users having direct access to the database (?),and opens up tables (unless, there is a way to create parameterizedviews that will always restrict access to a subset of records).Any advice on how to best implement this is greatly appreciated.Thank you in advance!
I am beginning design for a project to maintain an on-line archive of historical data for a production database, and then truncate old, rarely-used data from the production database. I am considering a method whereby we (A) replicate data changes from the production database to an archive database and (B) truncate old data from the production database according to predetermined business rules.
I am trying to determine whether SQL Server merge or transactional replication can be used to accomplish the replication portion of this requirement.
Given this scenario, there are two types of modifications that are made to the production database: (1) application inserts, deletes and updates which should be replicated, and (2) truncation deletes (as described in "B", above) which should not be replicated.
My question is: Will I be able to control the replication process such that application deletes are replicated, but "truncation" deletes are not? Could static row filters somehow be used to accomplish this?
I have been banging my head against a brick wall with this for a couple of days now. I am wrighting a custom front end for one of our SQLServer DB's and need to run a select agains the DateTime Field. The field Format is [DD/MM/YYYY HH:MM:SS]. I am tring to get the select to pull all the records on a set date only (keeping the time available but not selecting against it) so that the brass can see at what time on a given day an action was performed. Problem is, the way the programing software works, I can only build the SQL using string information. I have tried CONVERT and CAST both ways (converting the date to varchar and converting the string to date and also converting them both at the same time). Everything that I have tried returns an empty data set when used with the WHERE LIKE criteria (oh yeah, I'm also using LIKE % wildecards to retrive all the times against a specific date) but does populate when no filter is applied.
This is where my SQL is at just now:
SELECT Files.FileID, Useres.UserName, FileStatusLog.StatusCode, FileStatusLog.StatusDate FROM (Files INNER JOIN FileStatusLog ON Files.FileID = FileStatusLog.FileID) INNER JOIN Users ON FileStatusLog.UserID = Users.UserID WHERE (((CONVERT(varchar(10), FileStatusLog.StatusDate,103) LIKE '%{variable}%'));
This also returns an emtpy data set when the LIKE is replaced with ='{exact date entry in format: DD/MM/YYYY}', but does return the full table when the WHERE is removed and also when the LIKE is set to just a bare '%' with no other filter values.
Because of the fact that the results are returned when LIKE '%' is used I am not even sure if it is the CONVERT that is causing the problem. I have even tried assigning the escape character manualy to '+' incase the / values of the date in the LIKE variable where escaping other characters. Needless to say this did not make life any better.
As you may have noticed already SQL is not exactly my strong suit, but no one else here even knows what it is, never mind what it's used for, so I got droped with the task. Also - The DB was created by a third party so I have no write permissions to the DB.
Any help with this would be greatly appreciated as it's gotten personal now
I have a filetable that contains a binary file. I need to do a selective read of the file stored in the file table. I can write a C# CLR function that will open the file, read n bytes the from a starting byte. Or I can write a SQL statement that reads the stream in the filetable into a VARBINARY variable using SUBSTRING beginning at the starting byte (offset from 1) for the same n bytes.
Both give me the same result. However, the SQL statement takes considerably longer to read. I know there is overhead in reading through SQL (interpreted language), but the difference in performance is substantial, and I can only attribute this performance degradation if SQL first tries to "load" the entire stream before it identifies the portion of the stream that it needs to read beginning at the starting byte offset.
I wonder if this is the case or if there is another option to read a stream from a filetable directly through SQL queries that is more efficient.
I need help with filtering a specific set of numbers. I have a Sql database that is connected to my sql report I have created a tsql statement that pulls a clients name, PO, and invoice number. The prblem I am having is I have 2 different types of invoice numbers one number looks like 123456-1234-T the other looks like 123455-1234-L I need to beable to pull only the invoices with T on one report and L on another report can some on show me how I can sort these in a tsql script
This may be simple, but I can't figure a way to do this. I have the following data returned to a table and need to sum only the items where HDMethod=0 in the table footer. For some reason, something like:
=Sum(Iif(Fields!HDMethod.Value=0, Fields!BDExtended.Value, Nothing)) returns all the rows. There is a LEFT OUTER JOIN: dbo.[Billing Detail].Item = dbo.[History Detail].Item between the tables touched in the query if that helps.
a text input for filtering a gridview that displays the data an SqlDataSource that contains the query. Users can either enter something into the text input or leave it blank. Depending on that, the gridview should either display all data (unfiltered, because nothing was entered into the text field) or filtered data (when something is entered). Now my problem is in defining the query in the SqlDataSource. I could do something like this: SELECT * FROM myTable WHERE myField = @p1; and then add in the appropriate <asp:ControlParameter /> under the <SelectParameters> tag. However, this sorta "fixes" the filter. Regardless of whether users actually type something in or not, the filter is in effect. I want it in such a way that if users do not type in anything, the query essentially becomes: SELECT * FROM myTable; Is there any way to achieve this? Thanks in advance, jason
I'm not sure if this is possible and have been having trouble figuring out the code to do this. I am assigning row_number to a gridview. I then want to filter the results with a dropdown. I am able to get the filter to filter the status but it either renumbers the gridview or it leaves the row numbers blank. Is there a way to have the row_numbers stick to the gridview when I filter? Example below. Thanks Normal:IssueNumber(row_number), Status1, Open2, Open3, Closed4, Open5, Closed "Open" Filter:IssueNumber(row_number), Status1, Open2, Open4, Open "Closed" Filter:IssueNumber(row_number), Status3, Closed5, Closed
