I have written a working T-SQL MERGE statement. The premise is that Database A contains records about customer's support calls. If they are returning a product for repair, Database B is to be populated with certain data elements from Database A (e.g. customer name, address, product ID, serial number, etc.) So I will run an SQL Server job that executes an SSIS package every half hour or so, in which the MERGE will do one of the following:
If the support call in Database A requires a product return and it
is not in Database B, INSERT it into Database B..
If the support call in Database A requires a product return and it
is in Database B - but data has changed - UPDATE it in Database B.
If there is a product return in Database B but it is no longer
indicated as a product return in Database A (yes, this can happen - a customer can change their mind at a later time/date and not want to pay for a replacement product), DELETE it from Database
B.
My problem is that Database B has an additional table with a 1-to-many FK relationship with the table being populated in the MERGE. I do not know how, or even if, I can go about using a MERGE statement to first delete the records in the table with FK constraint before deleting the records as I am currently doing in my MERGE statement.
Obviously, one way would be to get rid of the DELETE in the MERGE and hack out writing IDs to delete in a temp table, then deleting from the FK table, then the PK table. But if I can somehow delete from both tables in WHEN NOT MATCHED BY SOURCE that would be cleaner code. Can this be done?
You can only UPDATE, DELETE, or INSERT into/from one table per query.
However, if you added an ON DELETE CASCADE to the FK relationship, the sub-table would be cleaned up as you delete from the primary table, and it would be handled in a single operation.
Related
Can I do row-specific update / delete operations in a DB2 table Via SQL, in a NON QUNIQUE Primary Key Context?
The Table is a PHYSICAL FILE on the NATIVE SYSTEM of the AS/400.
It was, like many other Files, created without the unique definition, which leads DB2 to the conclusion, that The Table, or PF has no qunique Key.
And that's my problem. I can't override the structure of the table to insert a unique ID ROW, because, I would have to recompile ALL my correlating Programs on the AS/400, which is a serious issue, much things would not work anymore, "perhaps". Of course, I can do that refactoring for one table, but our system has thousands of those native FILES, some well done with Unique Key, some without Unique definition...
Well, I work most of the time with db2 and sql on that old files. And all files which have a UNIQUE Key are no problem for me to do those important update / delete operations.
Is there some way to get an additional column to every select with a very unique row id, respective row number. And in addition, what is much more important, how can I update this RowNumber.
I did some research and meanwhile I assume, that there is no chance to do exact alterations or deletes, when there is no unique key present. What I would wish would be some additional ID-ROW which is always been sent with the table, which I can Refer to when I do my update / delete operations. Perhaps my thinking here has an fallacy as non Unique Key Tables are purposed to be edited in other ways.
Try the RRN function.
SELECT RRN(EMPLOYEE), LASTNAME
FROM EMPLOYEE
WHERE ...;
UPDATE EMPLOYEE
SET ...
WHERE RRN(EMPLOYEE) = ...;
I have a table from which I want to UPSERT into another, when try to launch the query, I get the "cannot affect row a second time" error. So I tried to see if I have some duplicate on my first table regarding the field with the UNIQUE constraint, and I have none. I must be missing something, but since I cannot figure out what (and my query is a bit complex because it is including some JOIN), here is the query, the field with the UNIQUE constraint is "identifiant_immeuble" :
with upd(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k) as(
select id_parcelle, batimentimmeuble,etatimmeuble,nb_loc_hab_ma,nb_loc_hab_ap,nb_loc_pro, dossier.id_dossier, adresse.id_adresse, zapms.geom, 1, batimentimmeuble2
from public.zapms
left join geo_pays_gex.dossier on dossier.designation_siea=zapms.id_dossier
left join geo_pays_gex.adresse on adresse.id_voie=(select id_voie from geo_pays_gex.voie where (voie.designation=zapms.nom_voie or voie.nom_quartier=zapms.nom_quartier) and voie.rivoli=lpad(zapms.rivoli,4,'0'))
and adresse.num_voie=zapms.num_voie
and adresse.insee=zapms.insee_commune::integer
)
insert into geo_pays_gex.bal2(identifiant_immeuble, batimentimmeuble, id_etat_addr, nb_loc_hab_ma, nb_loc_hab_ap, nb_loc_pro, id_dossier, id_adresse, geom, raccordement, batimentimmeuble2)
select a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k from upd
on conflict (identifiant_immeuble) do update
set batimentimmeuble=excluded.batimentimmeuble, id_etat_addr=excluded.id_etat_addr, nb_loc_hab_ma=excluded.nb_loc_hab_ma, nb_loc_hab_ap=excluded.nb_loc_hab_ap, nb_loc_pro=excluded.nb_loc_pro,
id_dossier=excluded.id_dossier, id_adresse=excluded.id_adresse,geom=excluded.geom, raccordement=1, batimentimmeuble2=excluded.batimentimmeuble2
;
As you can see, I use several intermediary tables in this query : one to store the street's names (voie), one related to this one storing the adresses (adresse, basically numbers related through a foreign key to the street's names table), and another storing some other datas related to the projects' names (dossier).
I don't know what other information I could give to help find an answer, I guess it is better I do not share the actual content of my tables since it may touch some privacy regulations or such.
Thanks for your attention.
EDIT : I found a workaround by deleting the entries present in the zapms table from the bal2 table, as such
delete from geo_pays_gex.bal2 where bal2.identifiant_immeuble in (select id_parcelle from zapms);
it is not entirely satisfying though, since I would have prefered to keep track of the data creator and the date of creation, as much as the fact that the data has been modified (I have some fields to store this information) and here I simply erase all this history... And I have another table with the primary key of the bal2 table as a foreign key. I am still in the DB creation so I can afford to truncate this table, but in production it wouldn't be possible since I would lose some datas.
For example, I have a table GAME and PRICE, then I have an MQT called FPS_PRICE that is created using the following statement:
SELECT A.GAMENAME, B.GAMEPRICE
FROM GAME A, PRICE B
WHERE A.GAMEID=B.GAMEID
AND A.GAMETYPE='FPS';
If either the table GAME or PRICE gets dropped... does the MQT FPS_PRICE get dropped as well?
(I would test it out for myself,
but I don't have administrator access for the database in question)
Thanks!
Straight from Info Center:
All indexes, primary keys, foreign keys, check constraints,
materialized query tables, and staging tables referencing the table
are dropped. All views and triggers that reference the table are made
inoperative. (This includes both the table referenced in the ON clause
of the CREATE TRIGGER statement, and all tables referenced within the
triggered SQL statements.) All packages depending on any object
dropped or marked inoperative will be invalidated. This includes
packages dependent on any supertables above the subtable in the
hierarchy. Any reference columns for which the dropped table is
defined as the scope of the reference become unscoped.
The way to prevent it being dropped is to make it with a simple CREATE TABLE, rather than making it a materialized table.
I have a "services" table for detailing services that we provide. Among the data that needs recording are several small one-to-many relationships (all with a foreign key constraint to the service_id) such as:
service_owners -- user_ids responsible for delivery of service
service_tags -- e.g. IT, Records Management, Finance
customer_categories -- ENUM value
provider_categories -- ENUM value
software_used -- self-explanatory
The problem I have is that I want to keep a history of updates to a service, for which I'm using an update trigger on the table, that performs an insert into a history table matching the original columns. However, if a normalized approach to the above data is used, with separate tables and foreign keys for each one-to-many relationship, any update on these tables will not be recognised in the history of the service.
Does anyone have any suggestions? It seems like I need to store child keys in the service table to maintain the integrity of the service history. Is a delimited text field a valid approach here or, as I am using postgreSQL, perhaps arrays are also a valid option? These feel somewhat dirty though!
Thanks.
If your table is:
create table T (
ix int identity primary key,
val nvarchar(50)
)
And your history table is:
create table THistory (
ix int identity primary key,
val nvarchar(50),
updateType char(1), -- C=Create, U=Update or D=Delete
updateTime datetime,
updateUsername sysname
)
Then you just need to put an update trigger on all tables of interest. You can then find out what the state of any/all of the tables were at any point in history, to determine what the relationships were at that time.
I'd avoid using arrays in any database whenever possible.
I don't like updates for the exact reason you are saying here...you lose information as it's over written. My answer is quite simple...don't update. Not sure if you're at a point where this can be implemented...but if you can I'd recommend using the main table itself to store historical (no need for a second set of history tables).
Add a column to your main header table called 'active'. This can be a character or a bit (0 is off and 1 is on). Then it's a bit of trigger magic...when an update is preformed, you insert a row into the table identical to the record being over-written with a status of '0' (or inactive) and then update the existing row (this process keeps the ID column on the active record the same, the newly inserted record is the inactive one with a new ID).
This way no data is ever lost (admittedly you are storing quite a few rows...) and the history can easily be viewed with a select where active = 0.
The pain here is if you are working on something already implemented...every existing query that hits this table will need to be updated to include a check for the active column. Makes this solution very easy to implement if you are designing a new system, but a pain if it's a long standing application. Unfortunately existing reports will include both off and on records (without throwing an error) until you can modify the where clause
I'm working on an application that imports data from Access to SQL Server 2008. Currently, I'm using a stored procedure to import the data individually by record. I can't go with a bulk insert or anything like that because the data is inserted into two related tables...I have a bunch of fields that go into the Account table (first name, last name, etc.) and three fields that will each have a record in an Insurance table, linked back to the Account table by the auto-incrementing AccountID that's selected with SCOPE_IDENTITY in the stored procedure.
Performance isn't very good due to the number of round trips to the database from the application. For this and some other reasons I'm planning to instead use a staging table and import the data from there. Reading up on my options for approaching this, a cursor that executes the same insert stored procedure on the data in the staging table would make sense. However it appears that cursors are evil incarnate and should be avoided.
Is there any way to insert data into one table, retrieve the auto-generated IDs, then insert data for the same records into another table using the corresponding ID, in a set-based operation? Or is a cursor my only option here?
Look at the OUTPUT clause. You should be able to add it to your INSERT statement to do what you want.
BTW, if you need to output columns into the second table that weren't inserted into the first one, then use MERGE instead of INSERT (as suggested in the comment to the original question) as its OUTPUT clause supports referencing other columns from the source table(s). Otherwise, keeping it with an INSERT is more straightforward, and it does give you access to the inserted identity column.
I'm having experiment to worked out in inserting multiple record into related table using databinding. So, try this!
Hopefully this is very helpful. Follow this link How to insert record into related tables. for more information.