I have lots of experience with T-SQL (MS SQL Server).
There it is quite common to first select some set of records into a
table variable or say temp table t, and then work with this t
throughout the whole SP body using it just like a regular table
(for JOINS, sub-queries, etc.).
Now I am trying the same thing in Oracle but it's a pain.
I get errors all the way and it keeps saying
that it does not recognize my table (i.e. my table variable).
Error(28,7): PL/SQL: SQL Statement ignored
Error(30,28): PL/SQL: ORA-00942: table or view does not exist
I start thinking what at all is possible to do with this
table variable and what not (in the SP body) ?
I have this declaration:
TYPE V_CAMPAIGN_TYPE IS TABLE OF V_CAMPAIGN%ROWTYPE;
tc V_CAMPAIGN_TYPE;
What on Earth can I do with this tc now in my SP?!
This is what I am trying to do in the body of the SP.
UPDATE ( SELECT t1.STATUS_ID, t2.CAMPAIGN_ID
FROM V_CAMPAIGN t1
INNER JOIN tc t2 ON t1.CAMPAIGN_ID = t2.CAMPAIGN_ID
) z
SET z.STATUS_ID = 4;
V_CAMPAIGN is a DB view, tc is my table variable
Presumably you are trying to update a subset of the V_CAMPAIGN records.
While in SQLServer it may be useful to define a 'temporary' table containing the subset and then operate on that it isn't necessary in Oracle.
Simply update the table with the where clause you would have used to define the temp table.
E.g.
UPDATE v_campaign z
SET z.status_id = 4
WHERE z.column_name = 'a value'
AND z.status <> 4
I assume that the technique you are familiar with is to minimise the effect of read locks that are taken while selecting the data.
Oracle uses a different locking strategy so the technique is mostly unnecessary.
Echoing a comment above - tell us what you want to achieve in Oracle and you will get suggestions for the best way forward.
Related
I do not fully understand the "USE" statement in Transact-SQL and how it affects the scope of temp tables. I have a user-defined table type in one database but not another, and I've found I need to "USE" that database in order to define a table of that type. Earlier in the query, I define a temporary table. After the "USE" statement, SSMS does not recognize the temp table as a valid object name, however I can still query from it without error.
The skeleton of my SQL query is as follows:
USE MYDATABASE1
[... a bunch of code I did not write...]
SELECT * INTO #TEMP_TABLE FROM #SOME_EARLIER_TEMP_TABLE
USE MYDATABASE2
DECLARE #MYTABLE MyUserDefinedTableType -- this table type only exists in MYDATABASE2
INSERT INTO #MYTABLE(Col1, Col2)
SELECT Col1, Col2 FROM (SELECT * FROM MYDATABASE2.dbo.SOME_TABLE_VALUED_FUNCTION(param1, param2)) T
SELECT A.*, B.Col2
FROM #TEMP_TABLE A
CROSS APPLY DATABASE2.dbo.SOME_OTHER_TABLE_VALUED_FUNCTION(#MYTABLE, A.SomeColumn) B
In the last SELECT statement, SSMS has red squiggly lines under "A.*" and "#TEMP_TABLE", however there is no error running the query.
So my question is: am I doing something "wrong" even though my query still works? Assuming the initial "USE MYDATABASE1" is necessary, what is the correct way to switch databases while still having #TEMP_TABLE available as a valid object name? (Note that moving the definition of #TEMP_TABLE to after "USE MYDATABASE2" would just shift the problem to #SOME_EARLIER_TEMP_TABLE.)
In SQL USE basically tells the query which database is the "default" database.
Temp tables can play tricks on intellisense - unless they're explicitly defined using the CREATE TABLE #MyTempTable route, intellisense doesn't really know what to do with them a lot of the time. Don't worry though - temp tables are scoped to the query.
Although I do feel it's worth pointing out: while UDTs are database specific, you can create an assembly to use across databases
I am trying to read some exiting SQL queries written for MS SQL server.
I don't have access to database, table names etc.. Just raw query format...And I need to do some analysis on the fields required..
I need some help in understanding what certain query statements are doing...such as in the following block...
select FIELD1, x2.FIELD2
into #temp
from #temp1 x1 join #temp2 x2
on x1.FIELD1 = x2.FIELD2
and x1.FIELD3 = x2.MAXOCCUR
I have basic SQL understanding.. But I need to understand couple of things....Why does 'into' and 'from' statements have a '#' infront of table names.....what are x1 and x2 in this case. Why not just say
temp1.FIELD1 = temp2.FIELD2 instead of
x1.FIELD1 = x2.FIELD2
.....Am I missing something or is this query formed weird to begin with....I understand joins etc...
Can someone help me out...
Thanks
That is selecting from two already temp existing temp tables into a new temp table. The x1.FIELD1 is called aliasing. It's used so you don't have to type full table names when writing the query
As mentioned, the # signs indicate a TEMPORARY table.
x1 and x2 are used as "table alias" in this query. Yes, you could write
temp1.FIELD1 = temp2.FIELD2 instead of x1.FIELD1 = x2.FIELD2
but, consider if the tables had long names. Then using an alias makes the query easier to read (for humans. the computer doesn't really care).
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
SQL : in clause in storedprocedure:how to pass values
I'm using MS SQL Server 2005, and trying to basically script a 2-step process:
Query a table for a list of IDs matching certain criteria
Update a field in that table, where the ID is in the list of IDs returned by the first
With the catch being that steps 1 and 2 might be separated by a considerable time delay and executed in different sessions. Essential the list of IDs used in #2 is historical data: the values which #1 returned at a past point in time.
What I've attempted to do is write all of IDs from #1 into a varchar(8000) in "##, ##, ##, ##," format (this part is working great), and then use that string like:
UPDATE table SET field=newValue WHERE (id IN (#varcharOfCommaSeparatedIDs))
But this is giving me a syntax error, stating that it cannot convert that varchar value into whatever is needed (the error message is being truncated)
Is there a way to do this without putting the entire SQL command into a string and executing that (using EXEC or sp_executesql)? After years of avoiding injection attacks I have a somewhat instinctive (and perhaps irrational) aversion to "dynamic SQL"
If you're passing the values around between SP's on the SQL Server, I highly recommend storing the values in tables...
- Temp Tables (#mytable)
- Table Variables (#table)
- Real Tables
In SQL Server 2008 onwards you can have table valued input parameters...
If you're passing the values in from an app, the dread comma-separated-string is indeed useful. There are many answers on SO that give Table Valued Functions for turning a string into a table of ids, read to be joined on.
SELECT
*
FROM
foo
INNER JOIN
dbo.bar(#mystring) AS bar
ON foo.id = bar.id
Just write it out to a table.
IF EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM Database.dbo.MyHoldingTable)
DROP TABLE Database.dbo.MyHoldingTable
SELECT <fields>
INTO Database.dbo.MyHoldingTable
FROM <other table>
WHERE <conditions>
Then, later:
UPDATE OtherTable
Set Column=NewValue
WHERE ID IN (SELECT id FROM Database.dbo.MyHoldingTable)
Also note you could also use an INNER JOIN on your table instead of a IN clause if you prefer.
I am currently writing a VBA-based Excel add-in that's heavily based on a Jet database backend (I use the Office 2003 suite -- the problem would be the same with a more recent version of Office anyway).
During the initialization of my app, I create stored procedures that are defined in a text file. Those procedures are called by my app when needed.
Let me take a simple example to describe my issue: suppose that my app allows end-users to select the identifiers of orders for which they'd like details. Here's the table definition:
Table tblOrders: OrderID LONG, OrderDate DATE, (other fields)
The end-user may select one or more OrderIDs, displayed in a form - s/he just has to tick the checkbox of the relevant OrderIDs for which s/he'd like details (OrderDate, etc).
Because I don't know in advance how many OrderID s/he will select, I could dynamically create the SQL query in the VBA code by cascading WHERE clauses based on the choices made on the form:
SELECT * FROM tblOrders WHERE OrderID = 1 OR OrderID = 2 OR OrderID = 3
or, much simpler, by using the IN keyword:
SELECT * FROM tblOrders WHERE OrderID IN (1,2,3)
Now if I turn this simple query into a stored procedure so that I can dynamically pass list of OrderIDs I want to be displayed, how should I do? I already tried things like:
CREATE PROCEDURE spTest (#OrderList varchar) AS
SELECT * FROM tblOrders WHERE OrderID IN (#OrderList)
But this does not work (I was expecting that), because #OrderList is interpreted as a string (e.g. "1,2,3") and not as a list of long values. (I adapted from code found here: Passing a list/array to SQL Server stored procedure)
I'd like to avoid dealing with this issue via pure VBA code (i.e. dynamically assigning list of values to a query that is hardcoded in my application) as much as possible. I'd understand if ever this is not possible.
Any clue?
You can create the query-statement string dynamically. In SQL Server you can have a function whose return value is a TABLE, and invoke that function inline as if it were a table. Or in JET you could also create a kludge -- a temporary table (or persistent table that serves the function of a temporary table) that contains the values in your in-list, one per row, and join on that table. The query would thus be a two-step process: 1) populate temp table with INLIST values, then 2) execute the query joining on the temp table.
MYTEMPTABLE
autoincrementing id
QueryID [some value to identify the current query, perhaps a GUID]
myvalue one of the values in your in-list, string
select * from foo
inner join MYTEMPTABLE on foo.column = MYTEMPTABLE.myvalue and MYTEMPTABLE.QueryId = ?
[cannot recall if JET allows ANDs in INNER JOIN as SQL Server does --
if not, adjust syntax accordingly]
instead of
select * from foo where foo.column IN (... )
In this way you could have the same table handle multiple queries concurrently, because each query would have a unique identifier. You could delete the in-list rows after you're finished with them:
DELETE FROM MYTEMPTABLE where QueryID = ?
P.S. There would be several ways of handling data type issues for the join. You could cast the string value in MYTEMPTABLE as required, or you could have multiple columns in MYTEMPTABLE of varying datatypes, inserting into and joining on the correct column:
MYTEMPTABLE
id
queryid
mytextvalue
myintvalue
mymoneyvalue
etc
I have written this query:
UPDATE tbl_stock1 SET
tbl_stock1.weight1 = (
select (b.weight1 - c.weight_in_gram) as temp
from
tbl_stock1 as b,
tbl_sales_item as c
where
b.item_submodel_id = c.item_submodel_id
and b.item_submodel_id = tbl_stock1.item_submodel_id
and b.status <> 'D'
and c.status <> 'D'
),
tbl_stock1.qty1 = (
select (b.qty1 - c.qty) as temp1
from
tbl_stock1 as b,
tbl_sales_item as c
where
b.item_submodel_id = c.item_submodel_id
and b.item_submodel_id = tbl_stock1.item_submodel_id
and b.status <> 'D'
and c.status <> 'D'
)
WHERE
tbl_stock1.item_submodel_id = 'ISUBM/1'
and tbl_stock1.status <> 'D';
I got this error message:
Operation must use an updatable query. (Error 3073) Microsoft Access
But if I run the same query in SQL Server it will be executed.
Thanks,
dinesh
I'm quite sure the JET DB Engine treats any query with a subquery as non-updateable. This is most likely the reason for the error and, thus, you'll need to rework the logic and avoid the subqueries.
As a test, you might also try to remove the calculation (the subtraction) being performed in each of the two subqueries. This calculation may not be playing nicely with the update as well.
Consider this very simple UPDATE statement using Northwind:
UPDATE Categories
SET Description = (
SELECT DISTINCT 'Anything'
FROM Employees
);
It fails with the error 'Operation must use an updateable query'.
The Access database engine simple does not support the SQL-92 syntax using a scalar subquery in the SET clause.
The Access database engine has its own proprietary UPDATE..JOIN..SET syntax but is unsafe because, unlike a scalar subquery, it doesn’t require values to be unambiguous. If values are ambiguous then the engine silent 'picks' one arbitrarily and it is hard (if not impossible) to predict which one will be applied even if you were aware of the problem.
For example, consider the existing Categories table in Northwind and the following daft (non-)table as a target for an update (daft but simple to demonstrate the problem clearly):
CREATE TABLE BadCategories
(
CategoryID INTEGER NOT NULL,
CategoryName NVARCHAR(15) NOT NULL
)
;
INSERT INTO BadCategories (CategoryID, CategoryName)
VALUES (1, 'This one...?')
;
INSERT INTO BadCategories (CategoryID, CategoryName)
VALUES (1, '...or this one?')
;
Now for the UPDATE:
UPDATE Categories
INNER JOIN (
SELECT T1.CategoryID, T1.CategoryName
FROM Categories AS T1
UNION ALL
SELECT 9 - T2.CategoryID, T2.CategoryName
FROM Categories AS T2
) AS DT1
ON DT1.CategoryID = Categories.CategoryID
SET Categories.CategoryName = DT1.CategoryName;
When I run this I'm told that two rows have been updated, funny because there's only one matching row in the Categories table. The result is that the Categories table with CategoryID now has the '...or this one?' value. I suspect it has been a race to see which value gets written to the table last.
The SQL-92 scalar subquery is verbose when there are multiple clauses in the SET and/or the WHERE clause matches the SET's clauses but at least it eliminates ambiguity (plus a decent optimizer should be able to detects that the subqueries are close matches). The SQL-99 Standard introduced MERGE which can be used to eliminate the aforementioned repetition but needless to say Access doesn't support that either.
The Access database engine's lack of support for the SQL-92 scalar subquery syntax is for me its worst 'design feature' (read 'bug').
Also note the Access database engine's proprietary UPDATE..JOIN..SET syntax cannot anyhow be used with set functions ('totals queries' in Access-speak). See Update Query Based on Totals Query Fails.
Keep in mind that if you copy over a query that originally had queries or summary queries as part of the query, even though you delete those queries and only have linked tables, the query will (mistakenly) act like it still has non-updateable fields and will give you this error. You just simply re-create the query as you want it but it is an insidious little glitch.
You are updating weight1 and qty1 with values that are in turn derived from weight1 and qty1 (respectively). That's why MS-Access is choking on the update. It's probably also doing some optimisation in the background.
The way I would get around this is to dump the calculations into a temporary table, and then update the first table from the temporary table.
There is no error in the code. But the error is Thrown because of the following reason.
Please check weather you have given Read-write permission to MS-Access database file.
The Database file where it is stored (say in Folder1) is read-only..?
suppose you are stored the database (MS-Access file) in read only folder, while running your application the connection is not force-fully opened. Hence change the file permission / its containing folder permission like in C:\Program files all most all c drive files been set read-only so changing this permission solves this Problem.
In the query properties, try changing the Recordset Type to Dynaset (Inconsistent Updates)