In my VB.Net desktop application, I have several places where I am accessing a table, both for reading and for updating. For example:
Dim tempCount As Integer = Glbl.GlobalDataSet.Tables("Profiles").Rows.Count
The above does not work. However, the following does:
Dim tempCount As Integer = Glbl.GlobalDataSet.Tables(4).Rows.Count
I am pretty sure it was working in th past (I have recently switched to VS 2010 - could this have anything to do with it?) but it is not working now.
How can I make the first statement work, so can access tables by table name instead of by index?
It should be working, make sure that the name of the DataTable is correct. Use the property window to check then rebuild the project.
Make sure that the table name is assigned to the tables 4 in your dataset, if not before writing the first code part in your question change the table name like
Glbl.GlobalDataSet.Tables(4).TableName = "Profiles"
after this try getting the count of the table using table name, or while filling the database values from database to the dataset you fill it by specifying the table name.
DAdapter.Fill(Glbl.GlobalDataSet.Tables("Profiles"))
Related
I have a database, which contains information that I can't share images of due to compliance reasons.
I have a table I need to copy data from, so I was using the following SQL:
INSERT INTO completedtrainingstestfinal (MALicenseNum)
SELECT MALicenseNum
FROM CompletedTrainings
WHERE (CompletedTrainings.MALicenseNum IS NOT NULL)
AND (CompletedTrainings.Employee = completedtrainingstestfinal.Employee);
It keeps popping up the Enter Parameter Value, centered on the new table (named completedtrainingstestfinal) at the Employee column.
Background: The original table is a mess, and this is to be the replacement table, I've had to pivot the table in order to clean it up, and am now trying to remove an ungodly amount of nulls. The goal is to clean up the query process for the end users of this who need to put in training and certification/recertification through the forms.
When you look in the old table, it has been designed to reference another table and display the actual names, but as seen in the image below it is storing the data as the integer number Employee.
The new table Employee column was a direct copy but only displays the integer, my instincts tell me that the problem is here, but I have been unable to find a solution. Anyone have any suggestions to throw me in the right direction?
Edited to add: It might be an issue where the tables have different numbers of rows?
This is the design view of the two relevant tables :
Table 1
Table 2
I am using Visual Studio and have an Access database with a couple of tables that are related. They are using default drag/drop binding using WinForms to the dataset which was automatically generated as well.
I want the parent table to include a column with the count of the number of related records with that ID in the results. The tables look like this if it matters:
I added an additional query to the table adapter (as you can see from the screenshot) that does what it needs to do (without including the linked ID's) thinking that was how to do it. Am I at least on the right track? The query looks like this:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS WorkerCount
FROM (tblJobLaborTech INNER JOIN tblJobLabor ON tblJobLaborTech.JobLaborID = tblJobLabor.JobLaborID)
WHERE (tblJobLabor.JobLaborID = 494)
And of course I need to change 494 to something variable which will match the corresponding record when it runs, but
WHERE (tblJobLabor.JobLaborID = tblJobLaborTech.tblJobLaborTechID)
doesnt seem to preview at all (no value given for parameter)
so i also tried
WHERE (tblJobLabor.JobLaborID = #JLID)
which also doesnt preview.
But that's only the start of the problem. Let's say I can get that part working, how do I get the result of that Scalar query to run for each record in the calling query and return in the dataset as if it were another field in that table?
You don't need to do this using the DB. A datatable can count the records present along a child relation
In your tblJobLabor add another datacolumn (right click, add>>column) and set its Expression property to:
Count(Child(XXX).JobLaborID)
Replace XXX with the name of this DataRelation I've highlighted:
More information can be found by looking at the fairly lengthy documentation on DataColumn.Expression at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.data.datacolumn.expression?view=netframework-4.8
I am helping a small school with their database which I created three years ago and that works fine.
I am now creating a attendance register as a new feature to it and am struggling with the update query fields.
I have two tables and one append query which works well with the form I have created. I have combobox to filter the class to check the register which works well. The problem I am faced with is when running the query, it updates all 180 students and not the ones filtered per class.
I need to append the data only for the class selected. Thank You
Please help.
Harry
It seems that you wish to only update or append the rows that match the combobox on your form. You can refer to an open form in a query in MS Access. With your append query in design view, under the field that you want to match and type in Form! followed by the name of your form, another dot or exclamation, and the name of your combo, say:
Forms!Form1!Combo0
In SQL View an append query would look something like:
INSERT INTO Table1 ( AText )
SELECT Table2.AText
FROM Table2
WHERE Table1.ID=[Forms]![Form1]![Combo0]
Similarly for an update query:
UPDATE Table1b
SET Table1b.ADate = Date()
WHERE Table1b.ID=[Forms]![Form1]![Combo0]
Hi I have a table which was designed by a lazy developer who did not created it in 3rd normal form. He saved the arrays in the table instead of using MM relation . And the application is running so I can not change the database schema.
I need to query the table like this:
SELECT * FROM myTable
WHERE usergroup = 20
where usergroup field contains data like this : 17,19,20 or it could be also only 20 or only 19.
I could search with like:
SELECT * FROM myTable
WHERE usergroup LIKE 20
but in this case it would match also for field which contain 200 e.g.
Anybody any idea?
thanx
Fix the bad database design.
A short-term fix is to add a related table for the correct structure. Add a trigger to parse the info in the old field to the related table on insert and update. Then write a script to [parse out existing data. Now you can porperly query but you haven't broken any of the old code. THen you can search for the old code and fix. Once you have done that then just change how code is inserted or udated inthe orginal table to add the new table and drop the old column.
Write a table-valued user-defined function (UDF in SQL Server, I am sure it will have a different name in other RDBMS) to parse the values of the column containing the list which is stored as a string. For each item in the comma-delimited list, your function should return a row in the table result. When you are using a query like this, query against the results returned from the UDF.
Write a function to convert a comma delimited list to a table. Should be pretty simple. Then you can use IN().
hey guys, could someone show me the simple update query through vb? I need to add new fields to the table (just 3) and add a couple text boxes on a form so that users can add some additional data relative to the record (which is already what this form is based on).
So the first form I have is a form that populates a list, when the user double clicks on a selection from that list, it opens a new form, so that the ID of the the table that is tied to this form that I need to add the these text boxes on (all the combo boxes and text boxes relative to one record are tied to the active form at this point, however there are all unbound. On a button click there is already vb that saves the information to the table). I did not create this however, it was built by someone who is not there anymore, and apparently is better than I at this stuff. My problem is that there is soooo much vb that checks for records, and various sql statements based on case, that I cannot decipher it to its simplest form.
So I was looking for a simple example of an update sql statement in vb so I can try to break this apart.
I need it to update the record based on the ID: sql WHERE RecordID = me.RecordID
I actually thought I knew how to do this based on examples, however every time I try, then try to run on button click, I get a run-time error of SYNTAX error, and the debug just highlights the db.execute(sql) part. So I tried to get the resulting immediate window of the sql statement, and it looks fine to me:
UPDATE tblMain
SET [Name] = "John Doe",
[DATE] = #9/30/2009#,
[TYPE] = "TypeA",
WHERE RecordID = 958;
Can I update a table without accounting for every field in the table (because this one has about 15 plus the new 3, so I am ignoring about 14 fields here, but I do not want to alter those anyway???
So as always, I appreciate the help yall!! Thanks!
EDIT:
Sorry I always forget this....I was actaully trying it DAO....
Dim db as DAO.Database
Dim sql as String
set db = CurrentDb
etc
You were thaaat close! You have a simple extra comma after your last column. Get rid of it and it works fine.
UPDATE tblMain SET
[Name] = "John Doe",
[DATE] = #9/30/2009#,
[TYPE] = "TypeA"
WHERE RecordID = 958;
Yes, you can absolutely update only a few columns rather than all of them. That is a best practice, BTW.
Finally, It's considered bad practice to name your columns after reserved words like "Name" and "Date", but I know you inherited this.
You were wise to include Debug.Print sql in your code. bpayne already pointed out the extra comma in your SQL statement.
I want to point out another trouble shooting technique you may find useful to debug SQL statement problems.
Copy the statement from the Immediate Window, and paste it into the SQL View of a new query. Modify the query in the query designer until you can get it working, then revise your VBA code to generate a matching SQL statement.
In this case you might not have noticed the extra comma. However, you could create another new query and build the UPDATE statement from scratch in the query designer. After getting that one working, you could compare its SQL View to the failing query.