I have two tables: table 1 is disk based storage and table 2 is in memory storage. I create a DML trigger on table 2 and in that trigger, I insert a record into table 1. Will it be possible?
You can't, it's not possible in the same in-memory transaction using mvcc isolation access a disk-based table through the trigger.
For workaround this you could saving to a stage table memory-based inside the trigger and insert or update to table 1 from stage table using update-join between a memory-based-disk and table-based-disk although it cames with some admin to manage and control but works.
DDL Tiggers still doesn't work even SQL 2017.
Related
I am trying to create a stored procedure to recreate a table from scratch, with a possible change of schema (including possible additions/removals of columns), by using a DROP TABLE followed by a SELECT INTO, like this:
BEGIN TRAN
DROP TABLE [MyTable]
SELECT (...) INTO [MyTable] FROM (...)
COMMIT
My concern is that errors could be generated if someone tries to access the table after it has been dropped but before the SELECT INTO has completed. Is there a way to lock [MyTable] in a way that will persist through the DROP?
Instead of DROP/SELECT INTO, I could TRUNCATE/INSERT INTO, but this would not allow the schema to be changed. SELECT INTO is convenient in my situation because it allows the new schema to be automatically determined. Is there a way to make this work safely?
Also, I would like to be sure that the source tables in "FROM (...)" are not locked during this process.
If you try to make a significant change to the table (like adding a column in the middle of existing columns, not at the end) using SSMS and see what script it generates, you'll see that SSMS uses sp_rename.
The general structure of the SSMS's script:
create a new table with temporary name
populate the new table with data
drop the old table
rename the new table to the correct name.
All this in a transaction.
This should keep the time when tables are locked to a minimum.
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SELECT (...) INTO dbo.Temp_MyTable FROM (...)
DROP TABLE dbo.MyTable
EXECUTE sp_rename N'dbo.Temp_MyTable', N'dbo.MyTable', 'OBJECT'
COMMIT
DROP TABLE MyTable acquires a schema modification (Sch-M) lock on it until the end of transaction, so all other queries using MyTable would wait. Even if other queries use the READ UNCOMMITTED isolation level (or the infamous WITH (NOLOCK) hint).
See also MSDN Lock Modes:
Schema Locks
The Database Engine uses schema modification (Sch-M)
locks during a table data definition language (DDL) operation, such as
adding a column or dropping a table. During the time that it is held,
the Sch-M lock prevents concurrent access to the table. This means the
Sch-M lock blocks all outside operations until the lock is released.
Can I alter my memory optimized table? Like adding column or changing data types etc. If yes, how to do it?
I am using SQL Server 2014
Thanks
According to Altering Memory-Optimized Tables (SQL Server 2014):
Performing ALTER operations on memory-optimized tables is not
supported. This includes such operations as changing the bucket_count,
adding or removing an index, and adding or removing a column. This
topic provides guidelines on how to update memory-optimized tables.
Updating the definition of a memory-optimized table requires you to create a new table with the updated table definition, copy the data to the new table, and start using the new table.
But it will be possible with SQL Server 2016:
In SQL Server 2016 Community Technology Preview 2 (CTP2) you can
perform ALTER operations on memory-optimized tables by using the ALTER
TABLE statement. The database application can continue to run, and any
operation that is accessing the table is blocked until the alteration
process is completed.
In the previous release of SQL Server, you had to manually complete
several steps to update memory-optimized tables.
I have used SQL Merge for CRUD operations in a table that holds records more than 3 million and due to merge locks the table this would gives time out errors on other selects and updates in the production environment.
Site has been accessed by multiple users at a given time and same table could be updated by different set of users at the same time.
so based on my scenario is using SQL merge is efficient or do i have to use INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements?
is there are any way that improve merge by only locking the data record instead of locking the entire table?
This is caused by a very stupid default setting in sql server.
For some reason sql server blocks all readers on a table while a writer is using that table. You can correct this oversight from microsoft like this :
ALTER DATABASE yourdatabase SET SINGLE_USER WITH ROLLBACK IMMEDIATE
ALTER DATABASE yourdatabase SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON with NO_WAIT
ALTER DATABASE yourdatabase SET MULTI_USER
There is an excellent article about this here http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2013/01/implementing-snapshot-or-read-committed-snapshot-isolation-in-sql-server-a-guide/#comment-2220427
I would like to populate a table from a (potentially large) view on a scheduled basis.
My process would be:
Disable indexes on table
Truncate table
Copy data from view to table
Enable indexes on table
In SQL Server, I can wrap the process in a transaction such that when I truncate the table a schema modification lock will be held until I commit. This effectively means that no other process can insert/update/whatever until the entire process is complete.
However I am aware that in Oracle the truncate table statement is considered DDL and will thus issue an implicit commit.
So my question is how can I mimic the behaviour of SQL Server here? I don't want any other process trying to insert/update/whatever whilst I am truncating and (re)populating the table. I would also prefer my other process to be unaware of any locks.
Thanks in advance.
Make your table a partitioned table with a single partition and local indexes only. Then whenever you need to refresh:
Copy data from view into a new temporary table
CREATE TABLE tmp AS SELECT ... FROM some_view;
Exchange the partition with the temporary table:
ALTER TABLE some_table
EXCHANGE PARTITION part WITH TABLE tmp
WITHOUT VALIDATION;
The table is only locked for the duration of the partition exchange, which, without validation and global index update, should be instant.
I am trying to find a highly efficient method of auditing changes to data in a table. Currently I am using a trigger that looks at the INSERTED and DELETED tables to see what rows have changed and inserts these changes into an Audit table.
The problem is this is proving to be very inefficient (obviously!). It's possible that with 3 thousand rows inserted into the database at one time (which wouldn't be unusual) that 215000 rows would have to be inserted in total to audit these rows.
What is a reasonable way to audit all this data without it taking a long time to insert in to the database? It needs to be fast!
Thanks.
A correctly written trigger should be fast enough.
You could also look at Change Data Capture
Auditing in SQL Server 2008
I quite often use AutoAudit:
AutoAudit is a SQL Server (2005, 2008, 2012) Code-Gen utility that creates
Audit Trail Triggers with:
Created, CreatedBy, Modified, ModifiedBy, and RowVersion (incrementing
INT) columns to table
Insert event logged to Audit table
Updates old and new values logged to Audit table Delete logs all
final values to the Audit table
view to reconstruct deleted rows
UDF to reconstruct Row History
Schema Audit Trigger to track schema changes
Re-code-gens triggers when Alter Table changes the table
Update: (Original edit was rejected, but I'm re-adding it):
A major upgrade to version 3.20 was released in November 2013 with these added features:
Handles tables with up to 5 PK columns
Performance improvements up to 90% faster than version 2.00
Improved historical data retrieval UDF
Handles column/table names that need quotename [ ]
Archival process to keep the live Audit tables smaller/faster but retain the older data in archive AutoAudit tables
As others already mentioned - you can use Change Data Capture, Change Tracking, and Audit features in SQL Server, but to keep it simple and use one solution to track all SQL Server activities including these DML operations I suggest trying ApexSQL Comply. You can disable all other, and leave DML auditing option only
It uses a centralized repository for captured information on multiple SQL Server instances and their databases.
It would be best to read this article first, and then decide on using this tool:
http://solutioncenter.apexsql.com/methods-for-auditing-sql-server-data-changes-part-9-the-apexsql-solution/
SQL Server Notifications on insert update delete table change
SqlTableDependency C# componenet provides the low-level implementation to receive database notification creating SQL Server Queue and Service Broker.
Have a look at http://www.sqltabledependency.it/
For any record change, SqlTableDependency's event handler will get a notification containing modified table record values as well as DML - insert, update, delete - change executed on your database table.
You could allow the table to be self auditing by adding additional columns, for example:
For an INSERT - this is a new record and it's existence in the table is the audit itself.
With a DELETE - you can add columns like IsDeleted BIT \ DeletingUserID INT \ DeletingTimestamp DATETIME to your table.
With an UPDATE you add columns like IsLatestVersion BIT \ ParentRecordID INT to track version changes.