| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
<0> what would be a constraint on a column that it can only have one row with value "1" for each distinct ID field
<1> a trigger
<0> nah it can be done with a constaint
<2> sounds like homework.
<1> in mssql?
<3> just out of curiosity, what is so evil about doing Select * FROM sometable
<2> face-: there's nothing evil about it, it's just lazy.
<1> nothing if you're jus doing something adhoc. would open a door to problems if it was embedded in a proc tho
<4> **** i'm lazy then..I always just do select *
<4> lol
<0> i made myself work today
<4> work on what?
<0> coded alot of crap
<0> extending the old vb6 app we have
<2> quant: excuse me?
<5> did you fart?
<0> where in nj do you live?
<2> Quant: Princeton
<2> Quant: didn't notice you were an op.
<1> i used to work in mahwah
<6> nigga please
<0> Subqueries are not supported in CHECK constraints, table 'dbo.tbl_AccountContacts'.
<0> i wonder if views are supported
<1> trigger
<1> and raise the check constraint error
<0> that's cheesy
<0> my last resort
<0> i wonder if sp_bindrule will let me do this
<0> ok you're right .. meh
<7> **** you all
<2> haha
<0> **** you
<8> ?
<8> one of the bots has tourettes?
<0> no one of the ops :)
<9> Tinkering around with sql, my good sirs?
<10> Whats the limitations on the number of subqueries you can have to make 1 big union query.. VBA is 50 but what about .NET and SQL server or MySQL?
<10> and what do i do if i have 53 select queries to union?
<11> Latency : shoot yourself
<10> so i have split it.. 50 + 3 = Union of that > query3 --> run "Too complex" Anything > 50 is too complex?
<12> Latency: Redesign the ****ed up mess.
<11> 53 selects in a union... what a dumb****
<10> i have 20k records
<5> and?
<11> so?
<12> Is that supposed to be a lot?
<12> I hope not. :)
<11> 20,000 records is nothing
<11> it`s perhaps a medium amount for a flot-file
<11> s/flot/flat
<12> Have a couple of tables with well over a million records, running on Oracle on a p3 500.
<12> 20k is nothing.
<10> well i was thinking maybe it flagged error.. because it would have been slow to process or something
<11> Latency : dummy
<11> did you bother reading the documentation?
<12> I think its flagging it because the design ****s.
<11> Latency : which rdbms is this for?
<10> i know the limit is 50
<11> Latency : which rdbms is this for?
<10> VBA
<12> ...
<11> VBA is not an rdbms
<11> answer the ****ing question
<11> Latency : which rdbms is this for?
<12> You really can't make stuff like this up.
<11> Drk`Angel : quite
<10> well im sure it uses Jet
<11> Latency : twat
<10> i duno what ver.. id have to check
<11> Latency : find out what rdbms the data is held in, then come back
<11> oooo
<11> come back in 30 minutes
<11> damn
<12> 53 unions.
<12> wtf.
<5> i have one thats worse... a dude at work was iterating through with new sql statements for every day of the year, because some years may be leap year and he wanted to average.... do he would run 20,000 queries or more or get the data for a few years.. pull it into access, and avg it
<5> he thought his code was awesome since it was so many lines
<11> Latency : find out what rdbms the data is held in, then come back
<10> Yah.. so i guess you didnt know VBA = Microsoft Access.. thought everybody did
<5> vba doesnt = access moron
<13> hahaha
<11> VBA != ms-access
<10> well thats what im using
<2> VB for Applications
<13> VBA = Microsoft Access
<13> very clevel
<13> r
<11> vba == visual basic for applications
<12> VBA is exported from Access, Excel, Word, Visio
<12> God, every MS app on the planet.
<11> Latency : so, you`re using ms-access?
<10> im using Access
<11> Latency : so, you`re using ms-access?
<10> yes
<11> well done
<11> amd you`re trying to union 53 selects?
<10> yes
<11> on how many tables?
<10> 53 tables.. 1 query = 50 2 query = 3 union that > query3
<2> Latency: what are you actually trying to do?
<10> union all 53 tables
<13> why are there 53 tables
<11> you have a design with 53 tables holdign similar data?
<5> search all tables for "foo"
<2> I got that. To accomplish what?
<13> if they can all be unioned
<10> i have funtion i create to dyn make query
<13> sounds like it should be 1 table
<5> it isnt dynamic if its selecting all tables moron
<11> Latency : type proper english of get kb`d
<0> ^^ lawl
<11> you have a design with 53 tables holding similar data?
<10> yes
<11> s/of/or
<2> Latency: why?
<11> Latency : why?
<13> they should be 1 table
<11> why not one table?
<10> because its designed that way by sets.. and is reqired to be as such
<11> Latency : bollcoks
<11> ffs
<13> that' is not an excuse
<11> bollocks
<10> im trying to union it into 1 table
<11> **** union
<2> Latency: did you design it that way?
<11> change the design
<10> basically create a table
<0> dude
<11> why is it `required` to be 53 identical tables?
<0> create a table with an extra field which differentiates the sets faggg
<2> I love it when people explain parts of their problem and never really explain the heart of the issue.
<13> or when people claim that ridiculously bad backend design is somehow "required"
<10> see here is the thing.. i want to union each set/table and then check to see if any records are not in the comprised table that contains all the records.. if the main one comprised is missing some.. to append them
<11> i love it when people justify a stupid design by saying it`s `required`
<11> Latency : answer the questions you`ve been asked
<2> Latency: stop trying to explain how you want to solve the problem and instead explain the problem you're trying to solve.
<10> i designed the whole thing
<11> why is it `required` to be 53 identical tables?
<11> why not one table?
<10> but the tables of the 53 sets.. are imports from csv files that are from a different application and is required as criteria to stay as such
<11> so?
<13> <@Quant> create a table with an extra field which differentiates the sets faggg
<11> one table to hold all the data - one extra field to id the source
<11> this is not rocket science
<11> in fact
<10> so i have 53 tables.. and i want to add any of those records that are missing in my comprised main table 'Cards' .. to have all of them
<13> heh
<13> HELLO MCFLY
<11> Latency : **** the 53 tables
Return to
#sql
or
Go to some related
logs:
#flash
netsh interface set
#stocks
#politics
#politics
#nhl
hoprp
#windows
#nhl
#computers
|
|