Database

Code4Ever wrote: could it handle 500 read/write requests No sorry that is not a valid question based on your original post. Exactly how are 2000 users supposed to generate that many messages at one time?

On the Initiate Restore tab, choose Azure Blobs (Azure Storage) as the Datasource type and select the Backup Instance you want to restore. The backup instance is the storage account that contains the blobs you want to restore. On the Select recovery point tab, select the type of backup you want to restore.

jsc42 wrote: I have not found any specific answer for MySql Interesting. I couldn't either. I know it happens in C++ so I attempted to find that expression ("short circuit") in the standard and as far as I can tell it does not exist. I used the actual book to look it up. So for that (C++) it is expressed like the following "The operators && and || will not evaluate their second argument unless doing so is necessary" For C it is expressed as the following "Expressions connected by && or || are evaluated left to right, and evaluation stops as soon as the truth of falsehood of the result is known" Then I looked for that terminology in MySQL docs (8) and found nothing on the page that defines AND and OR that would suggest that. I also attempted the same for PL/SQL and also found nothing.

Just whole integers, maybe up to 20 if the customer gets real bad, or excited about their swimming pool while it's being built. If it ain't broke don't fix it Discover my world at jkirkerx.com

After thinking about this a bit more than required; Member 11533892 wrote: But I didn't want to divide the execution of the update into 2 variables!!! You mean you don't want to execute two update-statements for the same record. Two variables cost nothing nowadays, so that doesn't make any sense. Two updates must be atomic, or you get concurrency issues. Could be simply solved by using a transaction. You may find the error to be the design of the table, not the update-statement. I'm going to guess a lot of those fields can be "NULL" or revert to some preset default value. ..but, let me give you a solution from a VB6 programmer view; you can rename all columns into numbers. So if column one is named [Name], you replace that with [1]. You can keep a list in Excel to look up the column names. That way, the update-statement is shorted a lot, and a huge lots of them would fit in a VARCHAR(MAX) command. :rolleyes: Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

I got this off SO, wrt "Code: 1292 SQL State: 22007": "Change the system timezone to the one that does not use DST ..." Who knows why, right? When everything you always wanted to know about anything was everywhere. Exactly as it is, I mean.

Awesome, thanks! If it's not broken, fix it until it is. Everything makes sense in someone's mind. Ya can't fix stupid.

I needed it to show the last payment made on an invoice. But thanks for your advice.

There are a few ways you can prevent the exception from being thrown when trying to access a property that does not exist in the underlying table: Use the "select" statement to select only the properties that exist in the table: Copy code UserEntity? user = dc.Users .Where(x => x.UserName.CompareTo(entity.UserName) == 0) .Select(x => new UserEntity { UserName = x.UserName, Email = x.Email }) .FirstOrDefault(); Use the "dynamic" keyword to avoid the compile-time check for the property: Copy code dynamic user = dc.Users .Where(x => x.UserName.CompareTo(entity.UserName) == 0) .FirstOrDefault(); Use a try-catch block to catch the exception and handle it: Copy code try { UserEntity? user = dc.Users .Where(x => x.UserName.CompareTo(entity.UserName) == 0) .FirstOrDefault(); } catch (SqlException ex) { // handle the exception here } You can check if property exists before accessing it: Copy code if(entity.GetType().GetProperty("FullName") != null) { //use the property } It's important to note that the first and second approach may have an impact on the performance of the application. In general, it is best to use the first approach (selecting only the properties that exist in the table) to ensure that the application is only querying the necessary data and to avoid any unexpected behavior.

Calin Negru wrote: If you ask me it`s not a DB job to abstract the idea of files. Abstraction is literally what it is all about whether we are talking about databases, file systems, or even, say, cooking. A cake recipe, for example, is an abstraction of the process of converting a particular set of ingredients into a particular cake. The recipe is not the cake itself, the ingredients from which the cake is made, or the physical process of making the cake. It is metadata for an abstraction of all three. Databases and file systems are abstractions of magnetic charges on a disk platter filtered through many layers of other abstractions rising to their 'visible' representations. Databases and file systems are different tools for different purposes, so it is not surprising that their representations of those magnetic charges differ. A database is not a file system. While it might store its contents in files, it needn't. Until version 19, for example, Oracle allowed for 'raw' storage so that no file system was even involved. While a database can store its data in files that can be 'seen' in the file system, that is only a handy method of organization so that they can be managed, as files, by file system tools such as Windows Explorer or Linux commands such as ls, cp, and del. Internally, those database files are not file systems, and they cannot be abstracted into a file system-like representation. Because most databases are relational and not hierarchical, there is not even a plausible way in which to represent them as if they were file systems. Software that represents logical database structure hierarchically such as SQL Server Management Studio (for Microsoft) and SQL Developer (for Oracle) are not representing the physical structures within the data files hierarchically but rather the logical organization of tables according to the 'recipe' provided by the data dictionary. Internally, database file contents are not files and folders tucked away inside the files that appear in the file system. SSMS and SQL Developer are only representing the logical organization of data tables, indexes, tablespaces and what not in a hierarchical way. But though this may give the impression of a file system inside the database files, there is no such thing within them. Going back to the original question: Quote: Does the difference reside in the fact that in a data base file the da

When I look at the posted link it certainly looks to me like it provides an answer to the question asked. So perhaps you might want to explain how that does not answer your question.