|
hai sir
the date is one fiels but we are comparing here one fiels with fromdate and todate
|
|
|
|
|
A date does not contain subfields. You're prolly referring to the parts called "day", "month" and "year", but it takes all three to create a date.
A date is not internally stored as a combination of "day, month, year", but as a number, representing "days passed since <startdate>".
The date that you "see" (the string) is a visual representation of the same fact, but formatted for your local culture. It's a visualisation of the date (the plain number in the database) in a specific, culture-dependant string.
In other words; if it fits in a DateTime, then you won't have to check whether the month is larger than "12" 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everybody.
I would like to know about dictionaries: How do they work?
By "dictionary" I mean a program that translates a word from one language to another.
So my questions are:
1. What kind of database do they usually use to store data?
2. How do they search so quickly?
3. Where can I get more info about dictionaries/their development?
PS if it's not the right place I posted at.
|
|
|
|
|
msn92 wrote: 1. What kind of database do they usually use to store data?
A fast, embedded database. Often some custom format.
msn92 wrote: 2. How do they search so quickly?
Indexes
msn92 wrote: 3. Where can I get more info about dictionaries/their development?
Download the Ergane[^] dictionaries, and take a look at the structure. The dictionaries are in MS-Access format, and they should provide a decent starting point.
Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight.
-- Bill Gates
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your reply Eddy Vluggen!
Could MS-Access database be "A fast, embedded database" ?
|
|
|
|
|
msn92 wrote: Could MS-Access database be "A fast, embedded database" ?
Yup, those databases are actually the datafiles that the Ergane-application itself uses
"The wine is good, but the meat is rotten"
|
|
|
|
|
Hello. I was tried figuring out how to use my different pc to perform DML/DDL operation in Mircosoft SQL Server and whose effect will be shown in Main PC. There demo is described below.
3 PC. 2 PC = Client for DML/DDL Operation. 1 PC = Server to reflect changes.
OS in 3 PCs = XP Pro.
All 3 PCs have Sql Server 2005 installed.
Now.. what I want to do is .. if I do any DML/DDL operation from those two pcs which acting as a client the changes should affect in the Main Server PC.
I m not figuring out the way to LINK those two PC's SQL Server with the Main PC's SQL Server.
Please assist me in finding a technique to solve this problem. We already connect these 3 pcs successfully with LAN but not getting a way to solve this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Is the SqlServer on these PCs the Express version?
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds weird and not very good.
Do you want all 3 servers to reflect the changes made in 1?
There is not way that I know of to do this 'on the fly', you can use something like Red-Gate SQL Compare and data compare to synchronise the structure but this is a seperate operation, it generates a script that could be run on each server.
Backup/Restore will include the data (obviously)
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I have Developer Edition of SQL Server.
What actually will happen is 2 data entry operators will enter datas from 2 pcs and the changes should be made in the database reside in my Server PC. It doesn't matter for me if those 2 pcs are having SQL Server installed.
My main concern if DML/DDL from 2 pc should affect Server PC.
|
|
|
|
|
What is the client the DE users are using?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I didn't get you mate.
All PCs have Developer Edition [DE]. And application are made by me and my friends.
Suppose when I open SQL Server 2005 and Run the Insert Query on a table then that insert should ALSO reflect in SERVER. We don't care if that Data will store in Client side too.
|
|
|
|
|
Because this is such a broad issue I have posted a link to a resource that might help you out. Replication[^]
“If you think you are worth what you know, you are very wrong. Your knowledge today does not have much value beyond a couple of years. Your value is what you can learn and how easily you can adapt to the changes this profession brings so often.”-– Jose M. Aguilar
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.. Sorry to say from my above post regarding this
Suppose when I open SQL Server 2005 and Run the Insert Query on a table then that insert should ALSO reflect in SERVER. We don't care if that Data will store in Client side too
This will provide inconsistency if 1 client is used to re-enter the data already entered by other client.
So I think, continuous Synchronization should be there between databases as soon as any DDL/DML operation will done. How to achieve this ?
|
|
|
|
|
nt_virus wrote: So I think, continuous Synchronization should be there between databases as soon as any DDL/DML operation will done. How to achieve this ?
It's obvious you think you know the answer already. Let us know how that works for you.
“If you think you are worth what you know, you are very wrong. Your knowledge today does not have much value beyond a couple of years. Your value is what you can learn and how easily you can adapt to the changes this profession brings so often.”-– Jose M. Aguilar
|
|
|
|
|
I think your issues may be that you are using SQL Server as a client type tool. Normal design is a database server (sql server) and a client tool (winforms or web form). The client tool resides on the PCs and connect to the server.
You seem to have 3 servers and the are using servers as clients. Thats why you are having trouble getting a sensible response. Nobody in their right minds would build such a solution. Go back to start and design your solution properly, build the client in C#/VB and have them connect to the server.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, I am creating a desktop database application with C# and MS SQL SERVER 2008 EXPRESS,
and I have a few Q's about it.
Let's suppose we have the table customers, with structure like this:
Customers:
|ID|Nmae |SecondName | Adres |ShipID|Promoted |
------------------------------------------------------
|1 |John |axxx | ytutyt | 5 | false |
|2 |Adam |bxxx | qwefsd 18 | 23 | false |
|3 |Eddie |cxxx | fsdfssf 7 | 28 | true |
|4 |Eddie |dxxx | fsadsdf 42| 14 | true |
|5 |Mark |exxx | hdgdssf 2 | 33 | true |
|6 |Mathew|fxxx | xcvxzx 75 | 45 | false |
I am new in the Database programming, but knowing the goal of my application,
I suppose in the future I will experience at least 2 kinds of problems:
1) I guess every month I will have even 100 000 new records but there are necessary
only for two months. After that time I would like to move the unncessessarty records
somewhere else than in the customers table in order to avoid performance loss, but
I'd like to have access to them on demand.
Whats the best way to do it? To create other table with schema like Customers,
and every two months move data from Customers to that new table,
so that customers will always contain data maximally 2 months old?
2) I would like a new logical table PromotedCustomers containing
every record from Customers that has "Promoted" value set to true. What is essential here,
is that I would like searching in this new table faster than searching in Cusotmers table.
For example, supposing I have Customers table like above:
SELECT Name FROM Customers WHERE Promoted = true AND Name = Eddie
returns 2 records, but has to search 6 rewcords (whole Customers table)
If I had PromotedCustomers table the way I want, I could write:
SELECT Name FROM PromotedCustomers WHERE Name = Eddie
It also returns 2 records, query is a little bit shorter, but whats most important for me:
ONLY 3 RECORDS HAS TO BE SEARCHED, and performance is important in my app.
Is it possible to create such a table?
Thanx for any help 
|
|
|
|
|
I think your data design may be flawed (I don't know your business so I cannot be more definite), the ShipID on your customer table makes me suspicious that you are creating a new customer per order. You should have at least 3 tables to support an order processing system. Customer, Order and OrderLines. 100k customers per month also makes me suspicious of your structure.
100k records per month is not a large volume (for SQL Server, I don't use express) and I would look to archiving annually rather than monthly. Then I'd use an OLAP cube to retain reporting infrastructure.
Promoted is a flag/attribute of the Customer table, not a separate table. Remember every field does not need to be filled in the table. I would make the promoted field a date field giving you the option of making time based queries.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
i have a little problem. I have a table "customers" and a table "partnerships". In the customer database i have stored a few customer with a ID as primary key. In my partnership database i have two columns (partner1, partner2) where i want to store partnerships between them. So now the problem, it should be unnessecary if partner1=1 and partner2=2 or partner1=2 and partner2=1. And one partnership shouldn't be stored two times. So how can i realize this? In my selects it is easy, i easily have:
select * from partnerships where (partner1='1' and partner2='2') or (partner1='2' and partner2='1')
But how to make the right constraints, that this isn't saved to times, so i don't want to have something like this:
partner1 partner2
1 2
2 1
Maybe someone has a solution for me?
|
|
|
|
|
I cant see a simple way to do this using relationships, you could set up a complex structure that concatenates the IDs in order of size and faff about with that but it would be ugly as sin. I'd just have a proc that checked for existence before inserting.
OR make it a convention that the highest is always Parent 1, this does not help with constraints though it would simplify your query.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
hi
I want to restore mdf file in my sqlserver database. i am using:
EXEC sp_attach_single_file_db @dbname = 'testerDB',
@physname = 'F:\DB.mdf'
to restore that mdf file
but it gives the error:
ERROR: ERROR: Unable to open the physical file "F:\DB.mdf". Operating system error 5: "5(Access is denied.)".
I am working with SQL Server 2005 express edition
and Os is Vista Ultimate.
Please Help
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
There are about 1.2^10 reasons why this would occur and none of them have anyting to with your OS being Vista.
“If you think you are worth what you know, you are very wrong. Your knowledge today does not have much value beyond a couple of years. Your value is what you can learn and how easily you can adapt to the changes this profession brings so often.”-– Jose M. Aguilar
|
|
|
|
|
If u don't know the answer then its ok...
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, smarty pants, see Eddy's post to understand why your problem had absolutely nothing to do with the OS you are using.
“If you think you are worth what you know, you are very wrong. Your knowledge today does not have much value beyond a couple of years. Your value is what you can learn and how easily you can adapt to the changes this profession brings so often.”-– Jose M. Aguilar
|
|
|
|
|
A file that ends in ".mdf" is a database, not a backup. You can restore backups (*.bak), but not the "*.mdf".
You can, however, attach the database to your local server by right-clicking on the "databases"-node and choosing "attach" from the SQL Server Management Studio.
Good luck with your venture
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
