|
|
Pete O`Hanlon wrote: Colin wrote this article
Thanks for the plug. 
|
|
|
|
|
Use parameterised queries.
For example:
INSERT INTO MyTable(Column1, Column2) VALUES(@value1, @value2);
cmd.Parameters.Add("@value1", someValue)
cmd.Parameters.Add("@value2", someOtherValue)
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery()
|
|
|
|
|
is the Select Top functionality or an alternative available in sql server 2000?
if I have this data...
100
200
330
445
665
887
999
...I know I can achieve it by ordering it and then using the if value > ALL ... but what if it is a lot more complicated than this?
thanks
Visual Studio can't evaluate this, can you?
public object moo<br />
{<br />
__get { return moo; }<br />
__set { moo = value; }<br />
}
|
|
|
|
|
joon_ wrote: is the Select Top functionality or an alternative available in sql server 2000?
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Which is it?
SELECT TOP didn't exist before 2005, did it..?
Visual Studio can't evaluate this, can you?
public object moo<br />
{<br />
__get { return moo; }<br />
__set { moo = value; }<br />
}
|
|
|
|
|
joon_ wrote: SELECT TOP didn't exist before 2005, did it..?
Yes, it did. TOP was introduced in SQL Server 2000
|
|
|
|
|
I found my problem, it seems that Select TOP has changed it's capabilities a lot in 2005, and this was the issue. Thanks.
On a sidenote, I'm sorry for the poor quality of some of my posts, but I'm really just trying to learn and help people at the same time. Thank you for remaining professional and not just breaking down all of my ideas because you think I'm an idiot.
Visual Studio can't evaluate this, can you?
public object moo<br />
{<br />
__get { return moo; }<br />
__set { moo = value; }<br />
}
|
|
|
|
|
i am useing dbcomman connection to conect sql
when trying to connect through lan computer
show time out
hoe to over come
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increment the connection timeout of SQL server Connection properties.
Knock out 't' from can't,
You can if you think you can
|
|
|
|
|
use CommandTimeout property of dbCommand to increase timeout time
DbCommand cmd = new DbCommand();
cmd.CommandTimeout = 60; // 60 secs timeout
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
I hava stored procedure that runs three different queries. Two of these queries involve selecting aggregate data. i have to join these three resultsets on a common field. How can i do this inside a stored procedure and then output the result of join to the caller.
Amna Ahmad
|
|
|
|
|
If all three queries have the same data layout, just use the UNION command.
(SELECT * FROM table WHERE [somefield] = 0)<br />
UNION<br />
(SELECT * FROM table WHERE [somefield] <> 0)
Visual Studio can't evaluate this, can you?
public object moo<br />
{<br />
__get { return moo; }<br />
__set { moo = value; }<br />
}
|
|
|
|
|
JOIN and UNION mean different things. The original poster did not supply enough information to decide that he really meant UNION. He also indicated the possibility of only one common column so UNION would not be the the answer in that situation.
|
|
|
|
|
amnaahmad wrote: i have to join these three resultsets on a common field
You could put the results of the three individual queries in a temp table, or table variable. You can then join on the three tables.
It is possible to do everything that you want in one query, but the query optimiser doesn't seem to be too good at joining subqueries - especially if there is a lot of source data before the aggregation is done.
If you need help with the JOIN itself then can you supply more information about how the result sets are related.
|
|
|
|
|
two of the subqueries return aggregate data. while the third query returns data without aggregating. the columns returned by the threee queries are not same so we cannot UNION. i need to join the table on a common field. I can join this with the help of derived table or CTE ( common table expressions) . But CTE cannot be used in CLR stored procedures? Can it be? - Since my table are pretty large, i need an optimal solution.
|
|
|
|
|
amnaahmad wrote: But CTE cannot be used in CLR stored procedures? Can it be?
Why are you using CLR stored procedure here? As far as I can see everything can be done in SQL. CLR stored procedures should only be used when an action cannot be completed in SQL as CLR stored procedures are slower.
Run your two aggregating queries and store their result in a temp table or table variable. Then join as normal
SELECT a.column1, a.column2, b.column3, b.column4, c.column5, c.column6
FROM a
INNER JOIN b ON a.pk = b.fk
INNER JOIN c ON a.pk = c.fk
|
|
|
|
|
I am using CLR stored procedures coz i am dynamically constructing queries. The table name is passed as an argument as well as columns and the where condition. If i do it in TSQL it would become too cumbersome.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this is the appropriate forum for this.
If I have a long Sql query executing that fetches a recordSet what is the best mode
to show a progress to the user? As long as the query is executed on the server-side
I don't have any ideea how long it will take nor what percent is completed of the query.
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan Balazs wrote: If I have a long Sql query executing that fetches a recordSet what is the best mode
to show a progress to the user?
There is no progress information comming back from the server, no does it even know in advance how many records are going to be affected, a ProgressBar that shows 0 to 100% is impossible. The only thing you can do is make a ProgressBar that doesn't progress. That means making a kind of static scrolling image that just shows something is going on, but nothing about how far along the process is.
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
|
|
|
|
|
You could first do a Count Query,
SELECT Count(*) FROM table
and then write your code so that you fetch 100 records at a time (or 42 or whatever number) and link that to your progress bar. This would be cumbersome, but progressbars are very important to end-users so it might be considerable.
Visual Studio can't evaluate this, can you?
public object moo<br />
{<br />
__get { return moo; }<br />
__set { moo = value; }<br />
}
|
|
|
|
|
joon_ wrote: This would be cumbersome
And also very very inefficient.
|
|
|
|
|
What would be your suggestion, if the progress bar was a requirement?
Visual Studio can't evaluate this, can you?
public object moo<br />
{<br />
__get { return moo; }<br />
__set { moo = value; }<br />
}
|
|
|
|
|
You know the CommandTimeout - the point at which the query will automatically fail if it takes too long. Progress along time. It might be that you often don't get the progress bar going fully to 100%, but it does tell people that it is progressing and they will know that their wait will be over by the time it does reach 100%.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
