|
Use the Export (DTS) functionality on Enterprise Manager.
This works perfectly.
|
|
|
|
|
1. I have one Access .mdb file. How to read the names of the tables in it, using ADO
2. In the same database, how to read the description field of each column, using ADO again
Any answer will be helpfull. Thanx in advance!!!
|
|
|
|
|
See sample here
http://www.codeproject.com/database/isqlado.asp
This has the source code that you require
|
|
|
|
|
In VB for a data source named MYDB,
Dim cnn As New ADODB.Connection
Dim rs As New ADODB.Recordset
Dim i As Long, j As Long
cnn.Open "MYDB"
Set rs = cnn.OpenSchema(adSchemaTables)
Debug.Print "Number of Records ", rs.RecordCount
Debug.Print "No of Fields : ", rs.Fields.Count
For j = 0 To rs.Fields.Count - 1
Debug.Print rs.Fields(j).Name & " ";
Next j
Debug.Print
For i = 0 To rs.RecordCount - 1
For j = 0 To rs.Fields.Count - 1
Debug.Print rs.Fields(j).Value & " ",
Next j
Debug.Print
rs.MoveNext
Next i
rs.Close
cnn.Close
This should enumerate what tables the database contains. Its a bit like opening a recordset of what tables exist. Tables in tables......
Hope this helps.
Giles
|
|
|
|
|
I recently did this in VC++. If that is your language, let me know and I will post an answer.
|
|
|
|
|
How can I export database from SQL to Interbase?
|
|
|
|
|
If Interbase has a OLE DB provider then you can use DTS (Export / Import Task) from SQL Enterprise manager.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your suggestion. But how can I have a OLE DB provider on Interbase. I have used Borland InterBase 6.01.
Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
check with the vendor if it supports a native OLE DB Provider for Interbase.
If not then it must have a ODBC driver for Interbase. If the ODBC driver exist then you can use this via the OLE DB provider for ODBC
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
after i had delete the records by the following line:
objConnection.execute "DELETE * FROM tea_session_list"
what should i add to the statement to have the autonumber id also being resetted to be start at 1.
i dun wan to do it by compacting database...can i do it in a new script with the delete statement....what should i add to my above statement???
|
|
|
|
|
The only resonable solution to this I see is if you control the ID yourself. Either use a MAX value or a second table that stores the next ID value.
|
|
|
|
|
hi,
can I create a dynamic recordset?
i.e. once i have created a recordset using ADO , can that recordset be updated automatically in case if there is a change in the records on which the query is based.
if possible pls. give an example on how to do it.
pls help
lakshmi
|
|
|
|
|
See MSDN Examples on ADO at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/ado270/htm/mdmscadocodeexamplesinvisualc.asp
Specifically see the CursorType Sample at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/ado270/htm/mdprocursortypexvc.asp
I hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
after i had delete the records by the following line:
objConnection.execute "DELETE * FROM tea_session_list"
what should i add to the statement to have the autonumber id also being resetted to be start at 1
aaa
|
|
|
|
|
Compacting the database will solve your problem
First, eliminate all records in your table. Then, close the database but leave Access running. The menu bar reduces to three options. Go to Tools > Options > Compact Databases.
I am not sure how you would do this at runtime !!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, I'm actually designing an internet application, and I'd like to know how to paginate the information retrieved from the database.
The problem is that I access a huge database (SQLServer 2000) and I don't want tho get all the records everytime I execute a query, I'd like to paginate the records and get them in different queries. I've thought of two methods to do that and I'd like to know which one is better, so if anybody knows it (or knows another way to solve it) please help me!
1.
Use SQL queries of the type
SELECT TOP x
FROM aTable
WHERE aTable.Id > @LastIdReceived
The problem I find in this method, is that I'm accessing a huge table (about 900.000 records) and is a complicated query (with Joins to a lot of other tables) so I think that if I do it this way, each time I have to execute the full query (and there's also the fact that with this way I can't know before the total amount of records affected by the query, I could do a COUNT first, but this would be another query)
2.
Create a temporary table of indexes with the query I need and then, retrieve the information I need by joining it with the real table (with the amount of records I need). The problem I see this way is that if there are a lot of users asking for queries at the same time, creating so many temporary tables might be inefficient.
So, If somebody has ever faced this problem I'd like to know which way is better or if there's another way I've not thought about.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read it and I think it's more less what I'd thought as my second option. The problem I see is maybe creating the temporary table won't be efficient when a lot of users are asking queries since a lot of temporary tables will be created on the server (and I expect that situation), am I wrong and it won't affect too much ? Maybe there isn't a better way to do it.
thanks for everything.
|
|
|
|
|
The site that Chris suggested would provide an efficient program because the temporary tables are created in memory, and then destroyed as soon as the stored procedure ends.
--
Andrew (first post in this forum  ).
|
|
|
|
|
how about using the standard "allow paging" properties in VS.NET
it makes the paging very simple...
|
|
|
|
|
First off, using a SQL statement such as "Select count(*) from here inner join this on here.id = this.id" will return a lot faster than actually having to return the actual results of the query. I would say that it is always a good idea to look at the size of your returning recordset when dealing with such large datasets.
Second, there are a few pages from another site that I have used in the past for searches that will result in large recordset. I would recommend this first page because you are using SQL Server 2000 you can write your query as a stored procedure and page through it. The second link allows you to do the same thing with a generic recordset via a SQL statement built on the client-side. Good Luck, hope this helps.
Links:
1. Paging Through Records Using A Stored Procedure
2. Paging Though Database Results N Records At A Time
Nick Parker
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, I'm actually designing an internet application, and I'd like to know how to paginate the information retrieved from the database.
The problem is that I access a huge database (SQLServer 2000) and I don't want tho get all the records everytime I execute a query, I'd like to paginate the records and get them in different queries. I've thought of two methods to do that and I'd like to know which one is better, so if anybody knows it (or knows another way to solve it) please help me!
1.
Use SQL queries of the type
SELECT TOP x
FROM aTable
WHERE aTable.Id > @LastIdReceived
The problem I find in this method, is that I'm accessing a huge table (about 900.000 records) and is a complicated query (with Joins to a lot of other tables) so I think that if I do it this way, each time I have to execute the full query (and there's also the fact that with this way I can't know before the total amount of records affected by the query, I could do a COUNT first, but this would be another query)
2.
Create a temporary table of indexes with the query I need and then, retrieve the information I need by joining it with the real table (with the amount of records I need). The problem I see this way is that if there are a lot of users asking for queries at the same time, creating so many temporary tables might be inefficient.
So, If somebody has ever faced this problem I'd like to know which way is better or if there's another way I've not thought about.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there an equivalent to the C/C++ bitwise operators (&, |, ^) for use in SQL programming? And if not any suggestions on how to "best" emulate them. Using something like
select ...
from table t
where t.columnA in ( 1,2,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 );
or
select ...
from table t
where t.columnA in ( 4,5,6,7,12,13,14,15 );
doesn't sound too inviting from a maintenance standpoint. If I ever add another combination, I have to change all of the 'in' lists.
Thanks.
Chris Meech
|
|
|
|
|
The Case construct I am referring to is like this:
Case {expression}
{result 1} : {code block}
{result 2} : {code block}
{result 3} : {code block}
{result 4} : {code block}
Else {code block}
End Case
I would like to do something like this in tSQL on SQL Server 2000. Rather than using daisy chained If statements.
Any ideas?
Jason Jystad
Cito Technologies
www.citotech.net
Sonork ID 11.9918
>-------------------------------------------------<
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one instruction -- from which, by induction, one can deduce that every program can be reduced to one instruction that doesn't work.
>-------------------------------------------------<
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
