|
My case is
Input is "abdknmgbm".
BUT
The record in database that i want to query out is "abkdnmgmb"
The input and database record is quite similar.
String length is same, only some arrangement of character are not same.
In the above case, dk and kd ; bm and mb.
How i write query for this string searching?
Help and Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are using SQL server try SOUNDEX. Do not know if it will work though.
|
|
|
|
|
Cannot work. Because they are not in english word.
|
|
|
|
|
You could try the LIKE operator[^].
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the swap char will not always are char 3 and 4 and last 2 chars.
For example it may also be like this :
Input: " abcdkazbmopdkubmgt "
The wanted result is : "abckdazmbopkdumbgt"
Input and wanted result length are same.
BUT the input string length is not always the same.
Very hard to solve this.  Tq.
|
|
|
|
|
So? Those have a Levenshtein Distance of 10 (8 if you Trim) -- maybe that's within your threshdold, I dunno.
|
|
|
|
|
I have read about Levenshtein Distance. New knowledge for me. Thx.
But how can i apply into my coding? I am using Asp.net with C#. I have no idea about this.
|
|
|
|
|
If you think it will do what you need you can write a function in C# or VB and add it to SQL Server (I assume you're using SQL Server). As to how to add it to SQL Server, I'd rather write a tip than post it here.
Given that the function has the signature int Levenshtein ( string , string ) you would then be able to say:
SELECT * FROM sometable WHERE dbo.Levenshtein ( somefield , @somevalue ) < @somethreshold
The threshold should probably be based on the lengths of the strings, for instance half the length of the shorter string.
To make things more efficient, you could write a function with the signature bool IsSimilar ( string , string , int ) that will return false as soon as the Levenshtein Distance between the strings exceeds the threshold (the third parameter).
SELECT * FROM sometable WHERE dbo.IsSimilar ( somefield , @somevalue , @somethreshold ) = 1
|
|
|
|
|
lhsunshine wrote: How i write query for this string searching
Very inefficiently.
If you have a lot of data then you should probably look for another way to implement the search.
|
|
|
|
|
Inefficient is better than nothing or wrong. 
|
|
|
|
|
"It works on my machine" 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone! I need to know the maximum number of concurrent connections to SQL Server 2008. When I check from Server properties in Management Studio, it is set to zero with a text description that zero means unlimted connections.
However, on a Microsoft Page here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187882.aspx[^] there is a maxiumum of 32767 concurrent connections.
Could this value be for an older SQL Server since mine has unlimited concurrent connections (zero). I need to know this in my design plans of a new project. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot comment on the number of connections, but in your design, you might want to consider a 3 Tier approach where each client does not have a direct connection to the database; only the middle tier would connect. This would greatly reduce the number of connections to the database.
Just a thought. ![Java | [Coffee]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Danzy83 wrote: I need to know this
No, you probably don't actually. You're using a "disconnected architecture", right?
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: You're using a "disconnected architecture", right?
Bloody hell is it even possible to build a "Connected" app on sql server? No don't answer that or we will see questions here about why there are locking issues on such a design.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, uh, nope, no way, nuh uh, can't be done. 
|
|
|
|
|
Danzy83 wrote: I need to know the maximum number of concurrent connections to SQL Server 2008
Why would your database need to handle that many connections?
At any rate if you have a windows server which is going to run an application (regardless of the applications running) that needs to handle a lot of connections then the server itself must be configured for that.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa560610%28v=bts.10%29.aspx[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Jschell I am thinking of this as if it is a national project in design stage. In the design, data will be accessed by medical institutions so I have to consider connections to the server in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely use a Web Service.
|
|
|
|
|
Danzy83 wrote: n the design, data will be accessed by medical institutions so I have to consider connections to the server in advance.
That is a business requirement not an implementation requirement. So exactly what do you think is going to be connecting to your database?
And did you actually attempt to size this? How many requests will your product generate? How long will it take to process them? How many users will be using it? What is the expected sustained rate? What is the burst rate?
If a request took 1 second and was made once an hour then you could handle 10,800,000 requests without reconfiguring anything on the database server.
There are less than 6,000 hospitals in the US. There are less than 200,000 medical clinics. How many of those are there in your market?
At least where I am selling into medical concerns is significantly difficult, even for institutions that have money. Many institutions operate on tight budgets. So expecting to own the entire market is highly unrealistic. (And yes I have worked on products in the medical industry.) So what is your real expected market share? What is your realistic expected growth rate?
And this of course completely ignores how these places are going to connect to you. The "internet" means that you are going to expose your database directly to the internet. Which is a bad idea and I suspect (hope) that institutions would refuse to do business with that arrangement.
Most performance problems occur due to architecture and design problems. Not technological problems. Attempting to solve serious performance problems with technology is likely to fail because technology only allows for incremental impacts on performance. And this of course presumes you use the technology right in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
To capture what are the Stored procedures are being hit in Production environment the profiler would be used. Whether it would be slowdown the environment? Whether it will affect the performance? If so, what are the alternative to trace the SP hits without affecting the performance?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 3137078 wrote: Whether it would be slowdown the environment?
AFAIK, it will not affect performance. Profiler is a tool just to track the transactions happening at defined server and not modify any call.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Sandeep, while it may impact your SSMS app it is only listening to traffic on the server and showing you the content, somewhat like a network sniffer!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I get SqlTransaction.Zombie exception in production(In .NET Windows application not ASP.NET application). I got answer in below article how and when the exception is thrown. In production one server application available which perform DB operation and there could be more than one client applications to interact with server.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dataaccesstechnologies/archive/2010/08/24/zombie-check-on-transaction-error-this-sqltransaction-has-completed-it-is-no-longer-usable.aspx
In the article, it is given that connection is explicitly closed. My question is in real world application what are the possibilities to close the connection (in few cases only it occurs in production)? I would like to hear the possible scenarios to reproduce it.
One of the servers is getting stopped due to the Exception. Please do help.
Is there possibility for SPs to close the connection unexpectedly? If so, please do describe. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
