I'm working with an ancient SQL Server 8.00.194, and I need to know the collation setting of the database and specific column.
I've naively tried to use documentation, but it seems that there were no such thing as sys.databases (same for sys.columns, sys.tables):
SELECT * FROM sys.databases
Msg 208, Level 16, State 1, Line 5
Invalid object name 'sys.databases'.
Also I have tried to view properties from UI with Management Studio, but it breaks all the time:
Cannot show requested dialog.
Failed to retrieve data for this request. (SqlManagerUI)
UPD. I kinda know that this is possible, because somebody has changed the collation on one column on this server, and that's why I'm doing this.
Yes, the metadata views have changed (or rather, first appeared) in SQL Server 2005. Before that, you could query the following:
select * from master..sysdatabases;
select * from sysobjects;
select * from syscolumns;
An easier way would be looking at the INFORMATION_SCHEMA views - these are ANSI standard and existed even in 2000, in almost the same form as they are now. In particular, INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS shows column collation, that's for certain.
Related
I'm a finance person (little programming background) so I maybe asking something obvious for database programming experts but will appreciate any advice
Background:
I'm accessing Oracle NetSuite database via ODBC from Microsoft SQL Management Studio
Connection as a Linked Server is established successfully
I'm trying to execute the following SQL statements:
select * from [NETSUITE_SB2].[SB-B].[Administrator].[VARIANCE] -- success
select * from [NETSUITE_SB2].[SB-B].[Administrator].[WTAX_JOB] -- "Msg 7314, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
The OLE DB provider "MSDASQL" for linked server "NETSUITE_SB2" does not contain the table ""SB-B"."Administrator"."WTAX_JOB"". The table either does not exist or the current user does not have permissions on that table."
Upon some testing, it appears that whether the query is successfully run depends on whether the table name contains "_" (underscore) - for all tables without underscore I've tried, it worked, for all tables with underscore that I've tried, it failed.
Can anyone help me figure out how to overcome this?
Thanks in advance!
Instead of using a 4-part name in SQL Server and having SQL Server generate a query for the linked server, try using the OPENQUERY function and passing a query in the target system's SQL dialect directly. Something like:
select *
from OPENQUERY([NETSUITE_SB2], 'select * from [SB-B].[Administrator].[WTAX_JOB]' )
I just encountered this myself in a new instance that I just set up. I had been using Suite Connect for 4+ years without running into this issue before.
I believe the issue with the situation here is the "[SB-B]" part of the name because it contains the "-" dash. I found that a "," comma or "." period were the issue with my name [Acme, Inc.]. Ether the period or comma threw the error.
The second part of the 4-part name is the NetSuite [Company Name] under General Settings Company Info. I changed the name in NetSuite and removed the comma and period and the problem went away. Maybe most special characters cause the issue?
Just remember you'll have to update your second part name in each query you created before.
While using OPENQUERY is a solution, I just don't like the extra quotes needed so I prefer normal SQL.
Can anybody tell me what does the error mean? Whenever I open the query builder it will prompt with an error indicating that SQL syntax errors were encountered.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189012.aspx
I looked at the following page in MSDN but I don't understand what it means...
For instance, what do these bullet points from the MSDN article mean?
The SQL statement is incomplete or contains one or more syntax errors.
The SQL statement is valid but is not supported in the graphical panes (for example, a Union query).
The SQL statement is valid but contains syntax specific to the data connection you are using.
USER (which you've apparently decided is an appropriate table name) is a SQL Server reserved word.
The best solution is to rename your table, so you don't have to escape the table name every time you want to query it and to make it clear it's your user data (hey, there's a table name suggestion - userdata).
The other option is to escape the name by surrounding it with square brackets:
SELECT * FROM [users]
Note that it will get old fast having to do this with every query. Again, the best solution would be to rename the table to something that isn't a reserved word.
I'm using SQL Server 2012 and its Management Studio.
I am adding schemas in an existing database and there is a question I have regarding parameters. I noticed on a stored procedure page that the person has a parameter: #PersonID int,.
When I scroll down the page, so many times when he calls the parameter, he refers to it as #personid.
Does this actually make a difference in terms of functionality or performance or is it fine to keep it s it is?
The same applies to when calling a table. He has a table saved as 'Support.ErrorLog', but he calls it as below in his procedure:
insert into [support].[errorlog]...
TLDR; Case sensitiveness matters unless collation level is set as to ignore case sensitiveness. It does not matter in terms of functionality or performance.
If the code in question is working and in use, it seems that the database collation level is set to case insensitive.
You can verify this by running the following query
SELECT CONVERT (varchar, SERVERPROPERTY('collation'));
Like on my server instance for a particular DB the result was
SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS
Here _CI_ means Case insensitive.
Had it been case sensitive the value would be something like
SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS
You can read more about collation at this excellent MS knowledge base
I've hit a bit of an impasse. I have a query that is generated by some C# code. The query works fine in Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio when run against the same database.
However when my code tries to run the same query I get the same error about an invalid column and an exception is thrown. All queries that reference this column are failing.
The column in question was recently added to the database. It is a date column called Incident_Begin_Time_ts .
An example that fails is:
select * from PerfDiag
where Incident_Begin_Time_ts > '2010-01-01 00:00:00';
Other queries like Select MAX(Incident_Being_Time_ts); also fail when run in code because it thinks the column is missing.
Any ideas?
Just press Ctrl + Shift + R and see...
In SQL Server Management Studio, Ctrl+Shift+R refreshes the local cache.
I suspect that you have two tables with the same name. One is owned by the schema 'dbo' (dbo.PerfDiag), and the other is owned by the default schema of the account used to connect to SQL Server (something like userid.PerfDiag).
When you have an unqualified reference to a schema object (such as a table) — one not qualified by schema name — the object reference must be resolved. Name resolution occurs by searching in the following sequence for an object of the appropriate type (table) with the specified name. The name resolves to the first match:
Under the default schema of the user.
Under the schema 'dbo'.
The unqualified reference is bound to the first match in the above sequence.
As a general recommended practice, one should always qualify references to schema objects, for performance reasons:
An unqualified reference may invalidate a cached execution plan for the stored procedure or query, since the schema to which the reference was bound may change depending on the credentials executing the stored procedure or query. This results in recompilation of the query/stored procedure, a performance hit. Recompilations cause compile locks to be taken out, blocking others from accessing the needed resource(s).
Name resolution slows down query execution as two probes must be made to resolve to the likely version of the object (that owned by 'dbo'). This is the usual case. The only time a single probe will resolve the name is if the current user owns an object of the specified name and type.
[Edited to further note]
The other possibilities are (in no particular order):
You aren't connected to the database you think you are.
You aren't connected to the SQL Server instance you think you are.
Double check your connect strings and ensure that they explicitly specify the SQL Server instance name and the database name.
In my case I restart Microsoft SQL Sever Management Studio and this works well for me.
If you are running this inside a transaction and a SQL statement before this drops/alters the table you can also get this message.
I eventually shut-down and restarted Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio; and that fixed it for me. But at other times, just starting a new query window was enough.
If you are using variables with the same name as your column, it could be that you forgot the '#' variable marker. In an INSERT statement it will be detected as a column.
Just had the exact same problem. I renamed some aliased columns in a temporary table which is further used by another part of the same code. For some reason, this was not captured by SQL Server Management Studio and it complained about invalid column names.
What I simply did is create a new query, copy paste the SQL code from the old query to this new query and run it again. This seemed to refresh the environment correctly.
In my case I was trying to get the value from wrong ResultSet when querying multiple SQL statements.
In my case it seems the problem was a weird caching problem. The solutions above didn't work.
If your code was working fine and you added a column to one of your tables and it gives the 'invalid column name' error, and the solutions above doesn't work, try this: First run only the section of code for creating that modified table and then run the whole code.
Including this answer because this was the top result for "invalid column name sql" on google and I didn't see this answer here. In my case, I was getting Invalid Column Name, Id1 because I had used the wrong id in my .HasForeignKey statement in my Entity Framework C# code. Once I changed it to match the .HasOne() object's id, the error was gone.
I've gotten this error when running a scalar function using a table value, but the Select statement in my scalar function RETURN clause was missing the "FROM table" portion. :facepalms:
Also happens when you forget to change the ConnectionString and ask a table that has no idea about the changes you're making locally.
I had this problem with a View, but the exact same SQL code worked perfectly as a query. In fact SSMS actually threw up a couple of other problems with the View, that it did not have with the query. I tried refreshing, closing the connection to the server and going back in, and renaming columns - nothing worked. Instead I created the query as a stored procedure, and connected Excel to that rather than the View, and this solved the problem.
Access 2007 databases querying linked oracle 10g tables are returning flawed result sets when using the WHERE clause to filter-out unwanted records. Oddly, some filtering is happening, but not reliably.
I can reliably demonstrate/produce the problem like this:
Create a *new* database with Access 2007.
Create a second *new* database with Access 2007, and then "save-as" 2000.
Create a third *new* database with an older version of Access.
Run the following query in each database:
SELECT
STATUS,
ID,
LAST_NAME,
FIRST_NAME
FROM
Oracle10g_table
WHERE
STATUS="A"
In both databases created with Access 2007, running this query will give you a result set in which some of the records where (STATUS="A") = false have been filtered out, but not all of them.
In databases created with older versions of access, the where clause filters properly, and the result set is correct.
STATUS is a text field
The table is a "linked" table to an Oracle10g Database
The table has 68k rows
I've tested my timeout at 60, 1000 and 0
Has anyone run into this problem?
I wonder if this is a new "feature" of access that will also affect 2010. Could this have anything to do with ODBC?
Thanks for any help,
- dave
MORE...
I just tried an alternate form of the query, using HAVING instead of WHERE, and it worked! Problem is, besides that this shouldn't change anything (yes -- more virtual tables, but shouldn't change the end result) my end-users will be using the Access 2007 visual query designer, not typing SQL directly, which is going to default any criteria they enter into a WHERE.
My hunch is that one of your ODBC drivers used by Access to connect to Oracle is treating "A" as a column name not the literal 'A'. Have you tried single quotes on the 'A'? In Oracle double quotes are used to reference column names, is there a column named "A" by any chance?
Oracle Query Example #1
Select object_name from all_objects
where "OBJECT_NAME" = 'DUAL'
Oracle Query Example #2
with example as (
Select object_name as "Fancy Column Name" from all_objects
)
select * from example
where "Fancy Column Name" = 'DUAL'
I've had a similar problem. In my case, changing the ODBC driver worked, but I could also just change the 'unique record identifier' to a column with no nulls in it. It still doesn't have to be the "right" unique record identifier.
This turned-out to be an ODBC-related issue. Our tech support service unit installs connectivity on each of our workstations -- they program it themselves, and who knows what they actually put into it -- but the net result is that when you link to an ODBC datasource with Access (of any version), our network servers show-up in the 'machine data source' tab, so we just click on the one we want and away we go. This has worked well until Access 2007.
What I did was create a "new" machine data source, which let me choose the ODBC driver myself (instead of making me use the one our tech support folks created). I picked "Microsoft ODBC for Oracle", entered the name of the server I wanted, and that all it took. Now the WHERE-clause inconsistent filtering problem is solved (I hope).
The only thing remaining is to send this back to our tech support folks, so they can clean-up their installation. Should I ask for hazard pay? :-) hehe