I am creating indexes on two separate tables in the same Database (MS SQL Server), and I got an error saying that an index already exists.
This error does NOT come up again if I changed index name to another.
Please help. Many Thanks.
Screenshot from Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
I'd strongly suggest that the visual designer is leading you astray. IIRC, indexes used to have schema-scoped names (back in the 7.0 or 2000 era, I think. Before user/schema separation) and later gained the ability to only need to be unique at an individual table level1.
If you try to create a duplicate index manually, you receive the error:
The operation failed because an index or statistics with name '<name>' already exists on table '<table name>'.
Since that's clearly not the error you're seeing, I strongly suspect that it's old code in the visual designer and yet another reason not to use it.
1Unfortunately, we're in an area where historic documentation from the right period is no longer available from the Microsoft website. It used to be easier to verify these recollections because you could still find the "What's new in SQL Server 2000", etc pages there.
Related
This question was migrated from Stack Overflow because it can be answered on Database Administrators Stack Exchange.
Migrated 5 days ago.
I've been tasked with migrating data from an instance of SQL Server 2000 to 2019. There are a total of four databases to bring over, three of which I was able to backup/restore into 2008 and then into 2019 without any issues. Please note: I am not a DBA in any sense, though I'm the closest thing to one on hand.
The fourth and final database presented the following error that prevented moving from 2008 to 2019:
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: An error occurred while processing the log for database 'DbNameHere'. The log block version 2 is unsupported. This server supports log version 3 to 6. (Microsoft.SqlServer.SmoExtended)
Is there a simple fix for this problem that I'm missing in the various SSMS menus?
Alternatively, is there a way to copy raw data from one server to another via, for instance, a flat file, and preserve the identity columns as identity columns? That is, I don't want to just strip that column and bulk insert, as they are often used as foreign keys in other tables, and with twenty-some-odd years of data, something is bound to break in doing this.
An example of an ideal final result in this solution would be something like: legacy table X has 1000 rows, the last of which has an identity column value of 1000. Once the move is complete, new table X has 1000 rows, the last of which has an identity column value of 1000, and upon insert the next row automatically increments to 1001.
Apart from unsuccessfully messing around with flat files, I've also tried the "Copy Database" option in SSMS, which also failed.
I would attempt to get SQL Server to rebuild the transaction log. Based on the error message, that might sort out the situation.
You first use sp_detach_db to detach the database. It is now very likely that the ldf file isn't needed when you do a subsequent attach, and perhaps rebuilding the log this way will sort the situation.
Then you attach the database, without the ldf file. Use CREATE DATABASE with either of the FOR ATTACH or FOR ATTACH_REBUILD_LOG options.
I would do this on the 2008 instance, since from what I understand you got the database in there successfully. But feel free to play around regarding on which version (2000 or 2008) you do the detach and also on which version (2000, 2008, 2019) you do the attach.
I have a number of tables in Access, linked in from SQL Server. From these I've created a simple query that I am trying to export to SharePoint following this guide.
When I run the export I get the following error:
I've assumed the export is conflicting with the enforced Title column in SharePoint lists. The query originally had a column called Title, so I first tried renaming it with an alias. This didn't work so now I've removed that column from the query entirely but I'm still getting this error.
Google hasn't helped, I've managed to find someone with the same issue, but they removed the title column and that worked for them.
What is causing this, and what can be done to fix it, or work around it?
Using
Access 2013 and SharePoint 2010 with a SQL Server 2008 R2 database
So I've solved it:
Access sneds up the tables used in the query, including columns not used in the query.
Because one of the tables had a column called Table it created a conflict.
I have a query in Access 2007. It's worked fine for months, but I'm suddenly getting a "the recordset is not updateable" error. Thinking an error must have been caused by a recent change, I went back to archived versions (that definitley worked) - they're all chucking out the same error. The table itself is updatable; indeed, another query on the same table works just fine. What could have suddenly happened to break my query? Code follows:
SELECT Prospects.Company, Contactnames.*, IIf([Prospects]![Key Contact]=[ContactID],True,False) AS [Key Contact], Prospects.Status
FROM Contactnames INNER JOIN Prospects ON Contactnames.CompanyID=Prospects.ID
WHERE (((Prospects.Status) Not Like "Duplicate"));
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Oli.
If you are using linked ODBC tables, you need to include the primary key field(s) from all tables in the query if you want the query to be updateable. Here are some potential "gotchas":
Access may not recognize the primary key fields correctly in a linked ODBC table; often (always?) Access picks the first unique index it finds for a table (based on alphabetical order of index name) and assumes that index is the primary key
adding replication to tables in MS SQL Server (and perhaps other RDBMS's) will add a GUID column with a unique index; along with the above point, this can cause Access to think your linked tables have different primary keys than they really do
Changes made to the design of ODBC linked tables are not automatically reflected in Access; linked ODBC tables can be refreshed via Tools --> Database Utilities --> Linked Table Manager... (among other ways)
The likely reason is that it's not the query that has changed, but the database.
Check that the database file hasn't been write protected. That would cause that error message.
EDIT2: Found a fix! I used the number of the desired schema instead of the name. Should've thought of that before, really! And i think the error messages could've been a bit better aswell. Thanks for all your time!
How can i get the names of all tables inside a database through sql inside asp classic?
The server is running windows 2008, iis7.5 and microsoft jet. I've tried all the querys i could find on the internet (and here) but none have worked.
If i add a ; to the query to run a set of querys at the same time it gives me an error because the statement isn't over at the semicolon.
The master.mdf database cannot be accessed because it's of unknown format.
The sysobjects variable apparently doesn't exist.
I am using mssql 2000 format. (.mdf)
The connection is made through classic asp with the Microsoft.Jet.OLEDB.4.0 provider and ADODB connection/recordset.
How do I get list of all tables in a database using TSQL?
Query to get the names of all tables in SQL Server 2008 Database
EDIT:
I've found two folders containing databases. One is in C:\program files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL10_50.SQLEXPRESS\mssql\binn\templates and contains master.mdf, mastlog.ldf, model.mdf, modellog.ldf, msdbdata.mdf and msdblog.ldf. The other one is also in the \binn\template data directory and contains master.mdf, mastlog.ldf, model.mdf, modellog.ldf, MSDBData.mdf, MSDBLog.ldf, mssqlsystemresource.ldf, mssqlsystemresource.mdf, tempdb.mdf and templog.ldf. Maybe these is of some interest?
How can i tell if i have permission? Does it give a permission denied error?
Please help! No, don't. Read the 2nd edit at the top.
USE YOUR_DATABASE
GO
SELECT *
FROM sys.Tables
GO
Have you tried the example from:
http://www.kamath.com/codelibrary/cl002_listtables.asp
I almost always use the INFORMATION_SCHEMA views:
SELECT * FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES
If this isn't working for you, the SQL user your site is running under may not have access to the system objects. This is actually a good thing, as giving your site access to the underlying database schema can leave you vulnerable to SQL injection.
So if you do go this route, proceed with caution.
The mdf by itself is useless: you need a database engine (a.k.a. a SQL Server instance) to "run" it. As I understand the question, this is your problem.
Then you can use sysobjects in your database: unless you have added your tables to the master database
There is no practical way to use an mdf directly: if nothing else download MSDE
I had a notion to use a database column of type replication ID, but have since changed my approach and want to use this column for another purpose.
However, I'm unable to use SQL to drop the column to remove it from my database.
My SQL is:
ALTER TABLE foo_bar DROP COLUMN theFoo;
However, I get a "syntax error" and I'm assuming this has something to do with this column being a replication ID.
I'd rather not download the file and edit it directly using the MS Access application, but not sure if that's my only recourse.
Thanks so much in advance.
Regards,
Kris
If you have access to the database in a command shell, Michael Kaplan's Replication System Removal Fields utility should do the trick. However, I've found that in some circumstances, it's unable to do the job. Also note that the utility will only work with a Jet 4 format database (MDB), not ACE format (ACCDB).
If all else fails, you can recreate the table structure and append the existing data to it. That can get messy if you have referential integrity defined, though, but it will get the job done, and likely most of it is scriptable (if not all possible using just DDL).
Here is a link that may help you, I had a similar idea but when browsing the web found this
AccessMonster - Replication-ID-Field-size
EDIT: Well I don't have much time but what I was thinking of first was if you could alter the column to make it different (not a replication ID) and then drop it. (two separate actions). But I have not tested this.