I'm writing a stored procedure which checks for the existence of various tables in various databases, as well as the permissions that the user executing the stored procedure has on those tables. The stored procedure itself resides within a user database (i.e. it's not in the Master db).
To perform my checks, my stored procedure contains lots of SELECT statements. Each of those obviously returns a record set. What I would like is to somehow suppress these record sets so that they are not returned by the stored procedure, and instead return my own, single record set which is just a collection of messages relating to each check the stored procedure performs.
I think the obvious answer is to use a table-valued function instead, but I've not been able to recreate my tests successfully in a Function as they appear in the stored procedure. For starters, I'm having to use temporary tables (not possible in a function) and dynamic SQL (not very compatible with table parameters).
I think I've basically got two choices:
Rewrite my stored procedure as a function and figure out how to do the checks a different way.
Continue using my stored procedure and use an OUTPUT parameter to return my result messages, probably as a delimited string, and in the associated ASP.NET application just ignore all the record sets the stored procedure returns .
Neither of these solutions is very satisfactory. Before I spend any more time pursuing either one, is there a way to discard the record sets produced by the SELECT statements in a stored procedure and explicitly define what record I want it to return?
Hmm, I only can speculate here...
Are you using something like
SELECT ...;
IF ##rowcount > 0
BEGIN
...
END;
?
Then you can rewrite it using something like
IF EXISTS (SELECT ...)
BEGIN
...
END;
or
DECLARE #variable integer;
SELECT #variable = count(*) ...;
IF #variable > 0
BEGIN
...
END;
In general point the results of your queries to a target (variable, table, expression, ...), then they don't get outputted.
And then just execute the query for your desired result in the end.
In my opinion, here is almost no reason to have stored procedures produce record sets. That is what stored functions are for. On occasion, it is needed, because of the use of dynamic SQL or other stored procedures, but not as a general practice. Much, much too often, I see stored procedures being used where stored functions or views are more appropriate.
What should you do? Even SELECT statement in the stored procedure should be one of the following:
Setting (local) variables.
Saving the results in a temporary table or table variable.
The logic for the stored procedure should be working on the local variables. The results should be returned using OUTPUT parameters.
If you need to return rows in a tabular format, you can do that using tables explicitly (such as a global temporary table or real table). Or, you can have one SELECT at the end that does return a single result set. However, if you need this and can phrase the stored procedure as a function, that is better in my opinion.
Related
I have a stored procedure that takes one table, and doing merge to another table. I want to get a table of logs with the data of what happened to each row, without inserting the data to a table.
I understand a stored procedure cannot return a table, and therefore I thought about using a function, but as of my understanding a function can not make transformations on tables.
Is combining a stored procedure with a function the solution? Or is there any thing else that I am not aware of?
A stored procedure can certainly return a result set, which the client can consume directly just like a regular SELECT statement.
That said, there are a range of options, none of which are perfect. Each suits a different scenario, and are described at length by Erland Sommarskog in How to Share Data between Stored Procedures:
Table-valued Functions
Inline Functions
Multi-statement Functions
Using a Table
Sharing a Temp Table
Process-keyed Table
INSERT-EXEC
Using SQLCLR
OPENQUERY
XML
Cursor Variables
For example, you may not wish to use a permanent table, but a temporary table created by the client and populated by the stored procedure can work well, if directly consuming the results of a SELECT inside the procedure is not suitable.
I am calling a stored procedure in my current one and it returns 3 SELECT statements.
I need the first SELECT only.
How can I achieve this? I'm new to T-SQL, in C# I would just get those variables but SQL doesn't work that way.
Is it possible to get the values it returns?
I have 3 possibilities:
1) Make a new stored proc without the last 2 sSELECTs.
2) Pass an optional parameter to the stored proc to indicate if the last 2 SELECTs should run or not. (If the parameter is not passed, the SELECTs will run by default.)
3) Not an elegant solution, but this might work for your purposes:
In the second stored proc, output the first SELECT into a global temp table, then SELECT * from that temp table. (This will keep everything the same for anything else using the stored proc.)
In the first stored proc, select * from the temp table after you call the 2nd stored proc. (This will give you the results that you are looking for.) At the end of your first stored proc, drop the global temp table.
Some caveats:
If you have several people hitting the stored proc at once, this won't work with a single global temp table- you'll have to figure out some sort of naming convention so that each user gets their own separate table to play with.
If you have a lot of data in the result set, your tempdb database isn't going to be happy.
I didn't undetstood the difference between Stored Functions and Views.
Using Views in SELECT will execute the query and return the result, but Stored Functions do the same thing, don't they? So what is the difference? When I use Views and when Stored Functions?
View:
A view is a virtual table. It does not physically exist. Rather, it is created by a query joining one or more tables. View returns a table.
Stored procedure: A stored procedure is a group of Transact-SQL statements compiled into a single execution plan.
stored procedures returns Output parameters,return codes (which are always an integer value),
a result set for each SELECT statement contained in the stored procedure or any other stored procedures called by the stored procedure,a global cursor that can be referenced outside the stored procedure.
key benefits of stored procedure are Precompiled execution, reduced client/server traffic,efficient reuse of code, programming abstraction and enhanced security controls.
Update:
A stored function is a named PL/SQL Block which is similar to a procedure. The major difference between a procedure and a function is, a function must always return a value, but a procedure may or may not return a value.
1) Return Type: The header section defines the return type of the function. The return datatype can be any of the oracle datatype like varchar, number etc.
2) The execution and exception section both should return a value which is of the datatype defined in the header section
You can have a stored function return the same data a view would in most databases.
The distinction for me is that a function is executed and a view is selected from.
A view will behave as a table.
A view returns a specific pre-defined statement as exactly one result set.
A function returns a single values or a single result set. This however can differ from different types of database.
Several db implementations also have stored procedures where the result can be a single returned value, a result set or several result sets.
Getting simple (PLEASE start reading a book about SQL): A view looks like a table, so you can filter on the results and the filter will efficiently be part of the views execution, or do joins. A SP does not allow this, but a lot more logic. The rest... is in the documentation.
These can never be compares, these have totally different
approach.
A view is a output of a query ,and makes a virtual image of the table,and the input parameters are not accepted.
Main difference is that a Stored Procedure can alter your data, where
as a view only returns it and I believe from a performance point of
view, a stored procedure is better as it caches the execution plan and
will run faster as a result.
storedprocedure/function is a group of sql statements that are pre-executed and it accepts the parameters.it reduces network traffic, gives faster performance, etc.
SQL Functions in programming languages are subroutines used to encapsulate frequently performed logic. these somewhat slow down the performance.
Check these SQL View, SQL Stored Procedures and SQL User-Defined Functions
My Opinion is that SQL Stored Procedure(Stored Functions) are much better to use because it provides custom manipulations on result set also.
From my experiences I'm sharing to you my knowledge:
Don't use views
Better to use a stored procedure(it is compiled sql statement), you can use parametrized procedure as required.
Stored Function is collection of complied sql statement which is faster.
Note: Views is a SELECT statement( with/without JOIN) for a table which select data from table and if we again run a SELECT statement from VIEWS which provide slower result because the internal operation is as ( SELECT * FROM ( SELECT * FROM TargetTable ) )
So, its better to use Stored Function
Update:
Functions are computed values and cannot perform permanent environmental changed to SQL Server (i.e. no INSERT or UPDATE statements allowed).
A Function can be used inline in SQL Statements if it returns a scalar value or can be joined upon if it returns a result set.
Also please see here for performance comparison: SQL-Server Performance: What is faster, a stored procedure or a view?
Can anyone explain what is the exact difference between stored procedures and user defined functions, and in which context each is useful?
This is what i always keep in mind :)
Procedure can return zero or n values whereas function can return one value which is mandatory.
Procedures can have input/output parameters for it whereas functions can have only input parameters.
Procedure allows select as well as DML statement in it whereas function allows only select statement in it.
Functions can be called from procedure whereas procedures cannot be called from function.
Exception can be handled by try-catch block in a procedure whereas try-catch block cannot be used in a function.
We can go for transaction management in procedure whereas we can't go in function.
Procedures can not be utilized in a select statement whereas function can be embedded in a select statement.
UDF can be used in the SQL statements anywhere in the WHERE/HAVING/SELECT section where as Stored procedures cannot be.
UDFs that return tables can be treated as another rowset. This can be used in JOINs with other tables.
Inline UDF's can be though of as views that take parameters and can be used in JOINs and other Rowset operations.
Source http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/286539/Difference-between-stored-procedure-and-function
A function always returns a value, and can not perform DML statements (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE).
A stored procedure can not return a value - you need to use an OUT parameter - and can run DML statements.
Advantage of Using a Function vs a Stored Procedure?
Aside from the comparison above, they are equal. But given the comparison, depending on what you need to do it's likely you will use a stored procedure more often than you will a function.
User defined function has few limitiations like DML statments canbe used etc pls check
Differences:
Procedures can accept input(default), output and inout type parameters for it. Functions can accept only input type parameters.
Procedures may or may not return a value or may return more than one value using the OUTPUT and/or INOUT parameters. A procedure may return upto 1024 values through OUTPUT and/or INOUT parameters.
Function always returns only one value.
Stored procedure returns always integer value by default zero. Function return type could be scalar or table or table values.
Stored procs can create a table but can’t return table. Functions can create, update and delete the table variable. It can return a table
Stored Procedures can affect the state of the database by using insert, delete, update and create operations. Functions cannot affect the state of the database which means we cannot perform insert, delete, update and create operations operations on the database.
Stored procedures are stored in database in the compiled form. Function are parsed and conpiled at runtime only.
Stored procs can be called independently using exec keyword. Stored procedure cannot be used in the select/where/having clause. Function are called from select/where/having clause. Even we can join two functions.
Normally stored procedure will be used for perform specific tasks.
Functions will be used for computing value. Stored procedure allows getdate () or other non-deterministic functions can be allowed.
Function won’t allow the non-deterministic functions like getdate().
In Stored procedures we can use transaction statements. We can’t use in functions.
The stored procedures can do all the DML operations like insert the new record, update the records and delete the existing records. The function won’t allow us to do the DML operations in the database tables like in the stored procedure. It allows us to do only the select operation. It will not allow to do the DML on existing tables. But still we can do the DML operation only on the table variable inside the user defined functions.
Temporary tables (derived) can be created in stored procedures. It is not possible in case of functions.
When sql statements encounters an error, T-SQL will ignore the error in a SPROC and proceed to the next statement in the remaining code. In case of functions, T-SQL will stop execution of next statements.
Refer this link :
https://www.spritle.com/blogs/2011/03/03/differences-between-stored-procedures-and-user-defined-functions/
I'm using SQL Server 2005, and I would like to know how to access different result sets from within transact-sql. The following stored procedure returns two result sets, how do I access them from, for example, another stored procedure?
CREATE PROCEDURE getOrder (#orderId as numeric) AS
BEGIN
select order_address, order_number from order_table where order_id = #orderId
select item, number_of_items, cost from order_line where order_id = #orderId
END
I need to be able to iterate through both result sets individually.
EDIT: Just to clarify the question, I want to test the stored procedures. I have a set of stored procedures which are used from a VB.NET client, which return multiple result sets. These are not going to be changed to a table valued function, I can't in fact change the procedures at all. Changing the procedure is not an option.
The result sets returned by the procedures are not the same data types or number of columns.
The short answer is: you can't do it.
From T-SQL there is no way to access multiple results of a nested stored procedure call, without changing the stored procedure as others have suggested.
To be complete, if the procedure were returning a single result, you could insert it into a temp table or table variable with the following syntax:
INSERT INTO #Table (...columns...)
EXEC MySproc ...parameters...
You can use the same syntax for a procedure that returns multiple results, but it will only process the first result, the rest will be discarded.
I was easily able to do this by creating a SQL2005 CLR stored procedure which contained an internal dataset.
You see, a new SqlDataAdapter will .Fill a multiple-result-set sproc into a multiple-table dataset by default. The data in these tables can in turn be inserted into #Temp tables in the calling sproc you wish to write. dataset.ReadXmlSchema will show you the schema of each result set.
Step 1: Begin writing the sproc which will read the data from the multi-result-set sproc
a. Create a separate table for each result set according to the schema.
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[usp_SF_Read] AS
SET NOCOUNT ON;
CREATE TABLE #Table01 (Document_ID VARCHAR(100)
, Document_status_definition_uid INT
, Document_status_Code VARCHAR(100)
, Attachment_count INT
, PRIMARY KEY (Document_ID));
b. At this point you may need to declare a cursor to repetitively call the CLR sproc you will create here:
Step 2: Make the CLR Sproc
Partial Public Class StoredProcedures
<Microsoft.SqlServer.Server.SqlProcedure()> _
Public Shared Sub usp_SF_ReadSFIntoTables()
End Sub
End Class
a. Connect using New SqlConnection("context connection=true").
b. Set up a command object (cmd) to contain the multiple-result-set sproc.
c. Get all the data using the following:
Dim dataset As DataSet = New DataSet
With New SqlDataAdapter(cmd)
.Fill(dataset) ' get all the data.
End With
'you can use dataset.ReadXmlSchema at this point...
d. Iterate over each table and insert every row into the appropriate temp table (which you created in step one above).
Final note:
In my experience, you may wish to enforce some relationships between your tables so you know which batch each record came from.
That's all there was to it!
~ Shaun, Near Seattle
There is a kludge that you can do as well. Add an optional parameter N int to your sproc. Default the value of N to -1. If the value of N is -1, then do every one of your selects. Otherwise, do the Nth select and only the Nth select.
For example,
if (N = -1 or N = 0)
select ...
if (N = -1 or N = 1)
select ...
The callers of your sproc who do not specify N will get a result set with more than one tables. If you need to extract one or more of these tables from another sproc, simply call your sproc specifying a value for N. You'll have to call the sproc one time for each table you wish to extract. Inefficient if you need more than one table from the result set, but it does work in pure TSQL.
Note that there's an extra, undocumented limitation to the INSERT INTO ... EXEC statement: it cannot be nested. That is, the stored proc that the EXEC calls (or any that it calls in turn) cannot itself do an INSERT INTO ... EXEC. It appears that there's a single scratchpad per process that accumulates the result, and if they're nested you'll get an error when the caller opens this up, and then the callee tries to open it again.
Matthieu, you'd need to maintain separate temp tables for each "type" of result. Also, if you're executing the same one multiple times, you might need to add an extra column to that result to indicate which call it resulted from.
Sadly it is impossible to do this. The problem is, of course, that there is no SQL Syntax to allow it. It happens 'beneath the hood' of course, but you can't get at these other results in TSQL, only from the application via ODBC or whatever.
There is a way round it, as with most things. The trick is to use ole automation in TSQL to create an ADODB object which opens each resultset in turn and write the results to the tables you nominate (or do whatever you want with the resultsets). you can also do it in DMO if you enjoy pain.
There are two ways to do this easily. Either stick the results in a temp table and then reference the temp table from your sproc. The other alternative is to put the results into an XML variable that is used as an OUTPUT variable.
There are, however, pros and cons to both of these options. With a temporary table, you'll need to add code to the script that creates the calling procedure to create the temporary table before modifying the procedure. Also, you should clean up the temp table at the end of the procedure.
With the XML, it can be memory intensive and slow.
You could select them into temp tables or write table valued functions to return result sets. Are asking how to iterate through the result sets?