|
karthiBalu wrote: Now i want to have INSERT Query for each and every record separately.
What is it exactly your trying to do here? 
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean to insert data from one table to another via T-SQL?????
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I have a problem but I dont know this problem is for which forum Sql server or no if its not for
this forum im really sorry.
I bought Sql Server 2005 but when i want to install it,it says you have a newer version of Sql Server in your system
I installed VS2005 and my Operating systems is XP Pack2 Can you help
me,please.
Thanks
-- modified at 13:39 Sunday 17th September, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
messages wrote: g
VS2005 (professional or higher) installs SQL Server 2005 as part of the default installation, so you already have it installed.
|
|
|
|
|
VS 2005 installs SQL Server 2005 EXPRESS as part of default installation.
|
|
|
|
|
During installation ur vs.net 2005 slect custom mode and do not install sql express 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I have created a database for my application. One of the tables manages the employees data. It has got 2 columns listing primary skillset and secondary skill set (free text to give a summary of skillsets). Both these columns are optional. It is basically aimed at capturing skillsets of employees in a department but could be extended to all.
Now, what comments I receive from some of team members is that these skillsets columns being optional should be placed in a different table with a link to employee_master.
Should I do this really? If so, why should I? How does this improve the existing design? What is wrong with having it all in a single table?
Thanks in advance,
|
|
|
|
|
Since they are optional, they could be 'missing' if in a linked table. That is, you would simply not add the linked row until there was some data to supply. This would conserve space in the database (but would complicate your application design a bit, since you would need to deal with returning no rows for the join). It would also simplify tasks like locating which employees had no skillsets, etc.
If you keep this in the main table, every row will have the colums, which take up some space even if NULL.
|
|
|
|
|
The key advantage that separating the skillset information out to an Employee_Skillset table is that you could store much more information, make it easier to retrieve and have greater control over the data entry. You could have columns to cover not just the skill but the level and any qualifications held. It is perfectly possible to store and retrieve this data from free-text columns but you have a greater chance of simple things like spelling mistakes causing incorrect query results.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
i have no idea about using a SQL database but i need it in my application.
any help 
salie
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't know anything about it, how can you know you need it?
|
|
|
|
|
coz it is one of the requirements of the project c want i mean 
salie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any way in sql reporting services to let the end-user change the field that is being sorted and how it is sorted (ASC/DESC)?
-GK
|
|
|
|
|
I'm having a problem connecting to the Sql Server database setup on my local machine. I can connect to my company's network database with no problem so it has to be something wrong with my connection string.
I'm using Sql Server 2005.
Here's the current string I'm using in my web.config file:
----------------------------------------------------------------
<add name="DBConn"
connectionString="Server=(local);Initial Catalog = <my database name>;User Id =<the username I log in with>;Password=<I don't login with a password so I left this property blank>"
providerName="System.Data.SqlClient"/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Where can I locate the necessary data for each of these properties? I'm pretty sure the "Server" property is correct however the rest is a pure guess.
Please help. I can't progress until I'm able to connect to my database.
Thanks in advance.
-Goalie35
|
|
|
|
|
I think you need to do some reading on connection strings
Goalie35 wrote:
User Id =<the username I log in with>
It may not be the name you log in with
Goalie35 wrote:
Password=<I don't login with a password so I left this property blank>"
You need to specify a password
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
How about removing the user/password and use Trusted_Connection=true;
see http://www.connectionstrings.com for more info.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the help guys.
Smallguy78, the Trusted_Connection=True worked.
Thanks.
-Goalie35
|
|
|
|
|
The trusted_connection=true relates to your windows userid and passward. The user_id and password relate to SQL Server login information.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
i am using microsoft access to view SQL.I need help on how to set a column to currency [this column result after multiplying the number of units bought(UNIT_BOUGHT) and the unit price(UNIT_PRICE)(unit price is in currency)].So the results are named SUBTOTAL,i want them to contain currency.
LudereMP
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suing MS Access as a front-end to a SQL back-end database?
If so, you can set the column type to 'Currency' in the table designer.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
I have the following tables
Person
---------------
Id
Name
Locations
---------------
Id
Name
PersonLocation
---------------
Id
PersonId
LocationId
So each person can be in multiple locations.
The problem with the 3rd table is with a lots of Locations, this table can grow huge (2million+ rows). Even with indexes on PersonId and LocationId, I'm thinking this will make inserts take a lot longer once the table is big. Is this the optimum way of storing the relationship between the two tables? Or there a clevered way of doing the storage?
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the wonderfull world of relational databases!
This is the most efficient, and the most sensible, way to store this information. Whilst 2 million records may seem a lot, it really isn't. Inserting and deleting will not be noticably slower when the table has many rows than when the table has few rows in it.
The alternative to this structure would be to use a denormalised table that has the person_name and location_name stored. Not only does this arrangement require more storage space, but what happens if:
1. You need to change the name of a location or person?
2. Two or more people have the same name?
BTW, you only need a single non-clustered index on the personid and locationid fields as I assume that the combination would be unique.
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
Yes the combination will be unique so a clustered index would work.
|
|
|
|
|
A clustered index in this case may not be useful unless your searches will always be on one column such as Person_id. A clustered index over the two columns will be no advantage in this case as the combinations are unique. Having a clustered index on a table may mave an impact on performance as it involves a physical re-ordering of data every time that a change is made. In this case you will still need a non-clustered unique index covering both person_id and location_id to ensure uniqueness of combinations.
Ian
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
