[] is SQL Server specific. ANSI SQL is to delimit identifiers using double-q
uotes. SQL Server
supports the later as well, which is what I prefer, but rest of SQL Server c
ommunity seems to
disagree with me.
I find code using delimiters *much* harder to read, so follow the rules for
"standard identifiers"
when you create your objects, and you can skip these types of delimiters and
laugh at those poor
souls who need to maintain code that uses delimiters.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Dan" <nobody@.nospam.com> wrote in message news:O0CcexwjGHA.5036@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[co
lor=darkred]
> Hi,
> It's got to be a simple question. I'm about to write a relatively simple
queries to manipulate
> data in a MS SQL database. I've got some experience with DB/2 and MySQL.
I've been going through
> some samples/tutorials and noticed that object names are quite often surro
unded by '[]'.
> Could someone please explain the purpose of square brackets surrounding ab
ject names as in the
> below example?
> I think that they are not really needed in this particular example (used f
or illustration purposes
> only?). Still, I'd like to know what their purpose in t-sql is (outside o
f multi-dimensional
> queries)?
> Thanks,
> Dan
> use AdventureWorksDW
> GO
> SELECT
> FirstName as 'First'
> , [MiddleName] as 'Middle'
> , [LastName] as 'Last'
> , [Title]
> FROM [AdventureWorksDW].[dbo].[DimEmployee] as AWD
> WHERE AWD.MiddleName like 'B'
> Order by LastName Asc
> GO
>[/color]As I undestand the ANSI standard, quoted identifiers are supposed to be case
sensitive as well, so that "ColumnA" would not be the same as "columna". In
SQL Server they're not case sensitive (unless you are using a case-sensitive
collation I believe).
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:ezKuK24jGHA.3780@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> [] is SQL Server specific. ANSI SQL is to delimit identifiers using
> double-quotes. SQL Server supports the later as well, which is what I
> prefer, but rest of SQL Server community seems to disagree with me.
> I find code using delimiters *much* harder to read, so follow the rules
> for "standard identifiers" when you create your objects, and you can skip
> these types of delimiters and laugh at those poor souls who need to
> maintain code that uses delimiters.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
>
> "Dan" <nobody@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:O0CcexwjGHA.5036@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
Showing posts with label specific. Show all posts
Showing posts with label specific. Show all posts
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
[How do I...?] SELECT from a specific partition?
If I have a table split up among partitions A, B, C, how do I select only from partition C?
~LeTo do that you would normally know the partition function definition, and use the values that you know would be stored in the corresponding partition.
~LeTo do that you would normally know the partition function definition, and use the values that you know would be stored in the corresponding partition.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
[effeciency] specific result values
Hi.
I had no idea what to name the topic so I hope this is ok.
I feel like I am losing it, even though I am still learning SQL Server - I dont use it much in terms of technical/complex queries and so on but I do use SQL on a regular (almost) basis. I am all about making sure it is secure and effecient and performance and so on - just to give a bit of background about myself.
Say for instance I have an ASP.NET website, which I have developed a discussion board from scratch using SQL Server to store all the information.
Say for instance, we have a topic, and that topic will be "locked".
Would I be correct in saying that on such a table, "Topics", there should be a field which is known as "ActiveStatus" or "IsLocked", and depending on if the thread is locked or not, that value is set on the table field? Am I correct in saying this?
If not - then what is the correct way of stating/retrieving if the topic is locked, in other words, what is the best way to have control over the thread so you can lock the topic?
I cannot think of another way but to store this one value in SQL on this topic table, along with other fields. I would then get the result by calling the procedure from ASP.NET and accordingly, set an image button on the webpage to either "locked" or "post reply"
Sorry for being silly, but I want to confirm if I am about to do this correctly or not. I want to make sure I am doing the best practice all the time, and enjoy doing it naturally. What is the best design/decision on such a scenario/situation?
Many thanks for your input, I greatly appreciate it! :-)
You're not being silly at all.
It makes sense to add a column such as IsLocked or TopicLocked to your Topics table, preferably with a bit datatype, since the value will be either 1 for locked or 0 for unlocked. Then your web page can query that value and allow access to the topic or not.
Good luck with your application.
|||Many thanks and yes I was also thinking of using the bit datatype
Thank-you! I just want to make sure im not being silly and missing something obvious :)
have a great day!
Monday, February 13, 2012
[2005] Who created this table?
Is there a command I can use to find out WHO created a specific table?
~LeShort of asking your coworkers?
If you have Lumigent's Log Explorer, you can extract some of that information (at least when the table was created) from the transaction logs or the transaction log backups.
If you do not have the applicable transaction logs, you are pretty much reduced to trying to figure out who has rights to create tables, and asking them.|||Unless it was a sandbox (so who would care anyway), I would have total control over my databases.
I'm not too sanguin about a wild west show|||Unless it was a sandbox (so who would care anyway), I would have total control over my databases.
I'm not too sanguin about a wild west show
It is a sandbox, but we told our developers not to create dummy tables. So we are trying to crack down.
So it looks like Sql Server 2005 has NO way of determining who created a table. That's too bad.
`Le|||For 2005 you can define DDL triggers that will fire on a create table statement. You can use them to create an audit trail.
~LeShort of asking your coworkers?
If you have Lumigent's Log Explorer, you can extract some of that information (at least when the table was created) from the transaction logs or the transaction log backups.
If you do not have the applicable transaction logs, you are pretty much reduced to trying to figure out who has rights to create tables, and asking them.|||Unless it was a sandbox (so who would care anyway), I would have total control over my databases.
I'm not too sanguin about a wild west show|||Unless it was a sandbox (so who would care anyway), I would have total control over my databases.
I'm not too sanguin about a wild west show
It is a sandbox, but we told our developers not to create dummy tables. So we are trying to crack down.
So it looks like Sql Server 2005 has NO way of determining who created a table. That's too bad.
`Le|||For 2005 you can define DDL triggers that will fire on a create table statement. You can use them to create an audit trail.
[.NET and SQL Server 2000] Explicit order Insert
My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together
.
What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? Ho
w
would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
occured in that batch if an error occurs?
Thank you very much,
Yohan MacDonaghLooking more into it, it looks like the best way is to use the DataSet and
DataAdapter objects in .NET.
Can anyone answer this, however: when a datasource is being updated via a
DataAdapter, is the table locked from inserts during the update?
"Yohan" wrote:
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept togeth
er.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updatin
g
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> Thank you very much,
> Yohan MacDonagh|||"Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
each row a BatchID and a SetID.
David|||Unfortuantly, I cannot. I am limited by an existing (and very old) data
schema. There are no relationships. Each property of an object in .NET is a
new row in this schema (very weird, I know).
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So giv
e
> each row a BatchID and a SetID.
> David
>
>
variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together
.
What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? Ho
w
would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
occured in that batch if an error occurs?
Thank you very much,
Yohan MacDonaghLooking more into it, it looks like the best way is to use the DataSet and
DataAdapter objects in .NET.
Can anyone answer this, however: when a datasource is being updated via a
DataAdapter, is the table locked from inserts during the update?
"Yohan" wrote:
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept togeth
er.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updatin
g
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> Thank you very much,
> Yohan MacDonagh|||"Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
each row a BatchID and a SetID.
David|||Unfortuantly, I cannot. I am limited by an existing (and very old) data
schema. There are no relationships. Each property of an object in .NET is a
new row in this schema (very weird, I know).
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So giv
e
> each row a BatchID and a SetID.
> David
>
>
[.NET and SQL Server 2000] Explicit order Insert
My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
occured in that batch if an error occurs?
Thank you very much,
Yohan MacDonagh
Looking more into it, it looks like the best way is to use the DataSet and
DataAdapter objects in .NET.
Can anyone answer this, however: when a datasource is being updated via a
DataAdapter, is the table locked from inserts during the update?
"Yohan" wrote:
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> Thank you very much,
> Yohan MacDonagh
|||"Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
each row a BatchID and a SetID.
David
|||Unfortuantly, I cannot. I am limited by an existing (and very old) data
schema. There are no relationships. Each property of an object in .NET is a
new row in this schema (very weird, I know).
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
> each row a BatchID and a SetID.
> David
>
>
variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
occured in that batch if an error occurs?
Thank you very much,
Yohan MacDonagh
Looking more into it, it looks like the best way is to use the DataSet and
DataAdapter objects in .NET.
Can anyone answer this, however: when a datasource is being updated via a
DataAdapter, is the table locked from inserts during the update?
"Yohan" wrote:
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> Thank you very much,
> Yohan MacDonagh
|||"Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
each row a BatchID and a SetID.
David
|||Unfortuantly, I cannot. I am limited by an existing (and very old) data
schema. There are no relationships. Each property of an object in .NET is a
new row in this schema (very weird, I know).
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
> each row a BatchID and a SetID.
> David
>
>
[.NET and SQL Server 2000] Explicit order Insert
My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
occured in that batch if an error occurs?
Thank you very much,
Yohan MacDonaghLooking more into it, it looks like the best way is to use the DataSet and
DataAdapter objects in .NET.
Can anyone answer this, however: when a datasource is being updated via a
DataAdapter, is the table locked from inserts during the update?
"Yohan" wrote:
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> Thank you very much,
> Yohan MacDonagh|||"Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
each row a BatchID and a SetID.
David|||No such thing as an ordered INSERT. What you need to do is add a batch
number or othetr identifier to tell you what batches belong together.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Unfortuantly, I cannot. I am limited by an existing (and very old) data
schema. There are no relationships. Each property of an object in .NET is a
new row in this schema (very weird, I know).
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> > My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> > a
> > variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> > collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> > in
> > each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> > together.
> >
> > What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> > SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> > (updating
> > won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> > How
> > would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> > occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
> each row a BatchID and a SetID.
> David
>
>|||In that case please explain what you mean by a batch being "kept
together". Are you referring to an IDENTITY column here? Please post
DDL and sample data so that we can understand the problem:
http://www.aspfaq.com/etiquette.asp?id=5006
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--
variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
occured in that batch if an error occurs?
Thank you very much,
Yohan MacDonaghLooking more into it, it looks like the best way is to use the DataSet and
DataAdapter objects in .NET.
Can anyone answer this, however: when a datasource is being updated via a
DataAdapter, is the table locked from inserts during the update?
"Yohan" wrote:
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows? How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> Thank you very much,
> Yohan MacDonagh|||"Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> a
> variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> in
> each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> together.
> What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> (updating
> won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> How
> would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> occured in that batch if an error occurs?
A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
each row a BatchID and a SetID.
David|||No such thing as an ordered INSERT. What you need to do is add a batch
number or othetr identifier to tell you what batches belong together.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Unfortuantly, I cannot. I am limited by an existing (and very old) data
schema. There are no relationships. Each property of an object in .NET is a
new row in this schema (very weird, I know).
"David Browne" wrote:
> "Yohan" <Yohan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A0C46B5C-6B07-46F1-9203-D3B4EDDD341F@.microsoft.com...
> > My current project, which I am programming in .NET, requires me to insert
> > a
> > variable number of rows, which make up a set, in a specific order. A
> > collection of sets that are inserted one after the other is a batch. Rows
> > in
> > each set MUST be kept together, and sets in each batch MUST be kept
> > together.
> >
> > What is the best way to implement this, both on the .NET side and also the
> > SQL Server side? Should I lock the table from inserts and updates
> > (updating
> > won't be a problem, but inserting will be) before I start inserting rows?
> > How
> > would I implement a system that would roll back all the inserts that have
> > occured in that batch if an error occurs?
> A subset of rows must be defined in terms of shared column values. So give
> each row a BatchID and a SetID.
> David
>
>|||In that case please explain what you mean by a batch being "kept
together". Are you referring to an IDENTITY column here? Please post
DDL and sample data so that we can understand the problem:
http://www.aspfaq.com/etiquette.asp?id=5006
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)