| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
<0> return 2800 rows. And
<0> 55000 + 288000 + 290000 + 1081
<0> All four tabels outer join
<0> ill put the sql query up
<0> http://sql-servers.com/nopaste/?show=260
<0> patient is 55000 and to two _rel tabels is the 288000 amd 290000
<1> this query is to find what, open bookings?
<0> yeap. Its part of finding a avalible booking time
<1> i think i'm not following your logic: you are left joining to the booking table, which i ***ume has one entry per booking entered, correct?
<1> so, if a booking wasn't made, it has no entry in booking, yes?
<0> yeap
<1> so why left join to it
<0> argh sorry.
<0> It when showing bookins in the large picture
<0> s/it/is
<1> are there 'empty' bookings that sit waiting to be used?
<1> or do they simply not exist in the booking table
<0> They do not exist. Its looking though the booking table and for thoes records it find it join the appropate two relation tabels on and some bookingnotifications
<1> ok, you don't need the outer joins then
<1> if there is no booking, there is no booking chair, or booking dentist
<1> for that non existent booking
<0> Hm youre right
<1> not only that, there is no patient for a booking that doesn't exist
<0> LOL... it just speeded up by a factor two...
<1> change them all to inner joins i think
<1> verify the result is what you need, but it doesn't seem necessary to outer join
<0> yeap. ill take a round trip to check if it depends on the outer joins somewhere. Thanks
<1> np
<0> Went in and asking the main developer for the cause of outer joins. There where a reason.. it was for future development. Hehe.. .They will be removed until time is
<1> thats a bull**** answer
<1> its like you buying a bra just in case you grow large breasts in the future
<0> Yeap :) Thats why it will be removed in future releases until time is :)
<2> he
<2> where do i put an index on my sql2000 table? on teh primarykey?
<3> yes
<2> good
<4> hey guys. can anyone help me with a access report question? I am trying to create a report that displays all the fields in the db or one field in the db if an option is given.
<4> I know I have to do this in vba, but is there a way to change/filter the existing recordset for the report?
<5> heh
<5> MattyT, come on over to #vba
<4> k
<6> hi!
<6> I want to query by LIKE '%xxx%' in an SP (mssql). This works fine but if i replace it with LIKE '%@search%' it wont work. Any reason for this?
<6> no matter what I set the @search variable to
<1> LIKE '%' + @search + '%' i believe
<6> hang on.. me try
<6> hmm no
<6> i still get results that doesnt include the @search
<6> the syntax %xxx% is correct, right?
<6> [select all records that contains xxx somewhere in column x]
<1> yes
<6> hmm.. looks correct. maybe i look at the wrong place
<6> as long as I have LIKE '%text%' it works. When doing LIKE '%'+@search+'%' (@search = 'text') it fails
<4> I thought that ms used "*" instead of "%"
<4> may be mistaken though
<6> dont think so (but yes in access)
<6> it seem like its the syntax in the SP that is wrong somehow since it works if i hardcode it into the query
<6> and its no syntax error, it just returns wrong records
<6> if anyone cares: http://sql-servers.com/nopaste/?show=261
<1> are you checking a 'list' of numbers?
<1> if so, what you have is terribly inaccurate
<6> sortow
<6> the list looks like 8030,1234,3453,1232
<6> etc
<1> 1,8293987,23 would yield a match
<1> the idlist is varchar?
<6> but yes it hmmm might not be the smartest way
<6> when i think of it
<6> i tried to make a shortcut. I want to return all items in sub-items from a hieraky-tree. And to loop recursive seemed slow
<1> use this: WHERE charindex(',' + @me_id + ',',',' + dbo.eshop_menuurl.meurl_idlist + ',') > 0)
<6> and since the idlist is containing a list of all its parents i though this might work
<6> df: what is that? dont follow the logic
<1> you have an idlist which is denormalizing parent id's
<6> mmm
<1> 1,12,57,8
<6> yes
<1> its a string
<6> yes
<1> you want to match an input var (string) to that list, but have to treat it like a list
<6> hmm
<1> so if you p*** 1, you want a match on the first item, not on the first and second
<6> true.. 1 != 10
<6> so yout charindex will handle this?
<6> let me try!
<1> so, you take @me_id, which we say is 1, and you add a comma to the front and back of it: ,1, then you take your list, and add a comma to the front and back of it: ,1,12,57,8,
<1> and you try to match the first string to the second, removing ambiguity with 'partial' matches
<1> charindex is similar to like in some sense
<1> this is the poor man's 'list handling'
<6> will it handle the partial matches now as well? i hate it when i dont understand what i paste into my code :)
<1> read my explanation and why it will never do partial matches
<1> ,1, = ,1, it doesn't equal ,12,
<6> okay so what you say is this will never work?
<1> huh?
<1> of course it will work
<6> sorry i need time to think :)
<1> i'll go get cigarettes while you do
<6> cool
<6> maaan this is ODD
<6> df: this one works as you say: http://sql-servers.com/nopaste/?show=263
<6> But still, if i replace the searchstring with a @var it fails
<7> anyone buy any small (2-3tb) iSCSI > sata storage units lately?
<8> ioNix_, i don't know what to tell you then since i use the code i gave you extensively
<6> yes the code seem to word
<6> work
<6> the problem it in the variable-handling
<6> as soon as i replace the searchstring with a @variable it fails
<6> i guess its a very simple syntax thing?
<1> i would imagine
<6> check this line out: (charindex(';'+@me_id+';',';' + dbo.eshop_menuurl.meurl_idlist + ';') > 0)
<6> looks alright?
<6> and @me_id is a varchar
<1> yes
<1> i ***ume meurl_idlist is a varchar as well and that you're p***ing in the value as a string
<6> arghghg... gaaaaaah
<6> (charindex(';8230;',';' + dbo.eshop_menuurl.meurl_idlist + ';') > 0) <--- this works perfectly
<6> i need to curse at something!
<9> CURES U DAMNT ALL TO HELL AND BACK SITHSPAWN
<6> thanks
<9> np
<10> I'm using DB2 and I need to construct a query to return rows correlated to a UNION product. Could anyone give me some pointers on how to construct this? When I try to use WHERE ordernum IN (SELECT... UNION SELECT...) it tells me UNION is not valid. I'm trying to use HAVING, but I've never had much luck with it. :P
<11> db2 on what machine?
<1> having is for group by queries
<11> theres the mainframe version and then theres the unix version
<1> is your union unioning only a single column?
<11> they are very different
<10> DB2 on an iSeries
<10> the UNION is returning a single column
<11> paste the whole query on the paste site
<10> okay, working on it
<12> SELECT * FROM Table1 WHERE ID IN (SELECT ID FROM Table2 UNION SELECT ID FROM Table3); <-- something to that effect?
<10> halo yeah
<10> here it is: http://sql-servers.com/nopaste/?show=264
<12> What's with the #s? Those actually a part of the column names?
<11> you can replace the whole where in (...) clause with an or
<13> Why are you unioning to the same table 3 times instead of just using an or in the where?
<10> halo yeah
<10> Drk`Angel: it was what I came up with that returned the rows I needed :P
<11> try an or
<12> Nix the ()s around the subselects
<13> Try the or. It'll be faster, and you won't have the problem with union bitching at you.
<12> But yeah, refactor with ORs or IN ()
<10> ah, I remember now... I need to return order numbers that only have all three item numbers ***ociated with them
<11> union = or
<10> oh, okay
<13> union is or anyways, so this isn't doing that already.
<11> so if you do an union you will get teh same result as an or only takes longer
<10> interesting...
<13> well, union is or in this context, rather.
<12> INTERSECT would work, wouldn't it?
<13> Yeah
<13> You beat me to it.
Return to
#sql
or
Go to some related
logs:
visio csharp
CHKDSK is verifying indexes
#politics
#debian
#linux-noob
#nhl
sendto in send_ip_packet: sendto => Operation not permitted
#politics
#gentoo
#windowsxp
|
|