I have one table called ClientInfo that stores a client's personal information and another table called EmergencyContactInfo that stores their emergency contact information. Right now I have an update trigger on my ClientInfo table that inserts a single record into a third table called ClientLog if any of their personal information changes. I would also like to create a ClientLog record if the client's emergency contact information changes.
The problem is that the user can change both a client's personal information and their emergency contact information with a single save from my webpage. If I put an update trigger on my EmergencyContact table, then both my triggers will fire and the ClientLog table will insert two new records when I only want one.
From what I understand there is no such thing as an update trigger that spans across multiple tables. What is an alternative approach I could take that would insert a single record when both the client's personal information AND their emergency contact information changes?
Your understanding is correct that a trigger cannot span multiple tables.
There is also no such thing as preventing a trigger from firing.
What you CAN do is include logic in your trigger that prevents it from doing anything if certain conditions are true.
Now I don't know what you're writing to your log table, and what logic you would want to enforce, but an example would be, when the trigger fires, if there is already a log entry (row in the Log Table) for the same Client in the past x hours, then simply don't insert a new row in the log table.
You can even handle multiple row insert/updates with an OUTER JOIN to the log table, or a WHERE NOT EXISTS() clause.
But basically what I'm saying is, let both triggers fire, and in both triggers, check to see if some condition is true/false before writing to the Log Table. Otherwise, do nothing.
You're making this unnecessarily difficult and error prone.
If each data table has a separate log table and it's own trigger, you can ignore the entire issue and just let them work as they're supposed to.
If you want to view the log info together, you can use a JOIN on the two tables when you display the data.
Related
I am working on banking application, I want to add a feature of maker,checker and authorize for every record in a table. I am explaining in below details
Suppose I have one table called invmast table. There are 3 users one is maker, 2nd one is checker and last one is authorize. So when maker user creates a transaction in database then this record is not live (means this record can not be available in invmast table). Once checker checked the record and authorizer authorized the record the record will go live ( means this record will insert in invmast table ). Same thing is applicable for update and delete also. So I want a table structure how to achieve this in real time. Please advice if any.
I am using vb.net and sql server 2008
Reads like a homework assignment.....
Lots of ways to solve this, here's a common design pattern:
Have an invmast_draft table that is identical to invmast but has an additional status column in the table. Apps need to be aware of this table, status column and what its values mean. In your case, it can have at least 3 values - draft, checked, authorized. Makers first create a transaction in this table. Once maker is done, the row is committed with the value "draft" in the status column. Checker then knows there's a new row to check and does his job. When done, row is updated with status set to checked. Authorizer does her thing. When authorizer updates the status as "authorized" you can then copy or move the row to the final invmast table rightaway. Alternatively, you can have a process that wakes up periodically to copy/move batches of rows. All depends on your business requirements. All kinds of optimizations can be performed here but you get the general idea.
I'm starting a new application and was wondering what the best method of logging is. Some tables in the database will need to have every change recorded, and the user that made the change. Other tables may just need to have the last modified time recorded.
In previous applications I've used different methods to do this but want to hear what others have done.
I've tried the following:
Add a "modified" date-time field to the table to record the last time it was edited.
Add a secondary table just for recording changes in a primary table. Each row in the secondary table represents a changed field in the primary table. So one record update in the primary could create several records in the secondary table.
Add a table similar to no.2 but it records edits across three or fours tables, reference the table it relates to in an additional field.
what methods do you use and would recommend?
Also what is the best way to record deleted data? I never like the idea that a user can permanently delete a record from the DB, so usually I have a boolean field 'deleted' which is changed to true when its deleted, and then it'll be filtered out of all queries at model level. Any other suggestions on this?
Last one.. What is the best method for recording user activity? At the moment I have a table which records logins/logouts/password changes etc, and depending what the action is, gives it a code either 1,2, 3 etc.
Hope I haven't crammed too much into this question. thanks.
I know it's a very old question, but I'd wanted to add more detailed answer as this is the first link I got googling about db logging.
There are basically two ways to log data changes:
on application server layer
on database layer.
If you can, just use logging on server side. It is much more clear and flexible.
If you need to log on database layer you can use triggers, as #StanislavL said. But triggers can slow down your database performance and limit you to store change log in the same database.
Also, you can look at the transaction log monitoring.
For example, in PostgreSQL you can use mechanism of logical replication to stream changes in json format from your database to anywhere.
In the separate service you can receive, handle and log changes in any form and in any database (for example just put json you got to Mongo)
You can add triggers to any tracked table to olisten insert/update/delete. In the triggers just check NEW and OLD values and write them in a special table with columns
table_name
entity_id
modification_time
previous_value
new_value
user
It's hard to figure out user who makes changes but possible if you add changed_by column in the table you listen.
say I have 6 tables.
Workstation
Workstation_CL
Location
Location_CL
Features
Features_CL
I am currently using triggers to do inserts into the "_CL" version of each table with an additional field that denotes whether the change was an "UPDATE", "INSERT" or "DELETE".
the workstation table keeps track of the "modified_by" user. if a user updates the location of a "Workstation" object, the "Location" table gets updated as well as the "Workstation" table. the only modification to the Workstation table is the "modified_by" field so that I will know who made the change.
The problem I am having is when I think about pulling an audit report. How will I link records in the "Location_CL" to the ones in the "Workstation_CL" both are populated by separate triggers.
somehow my question portion was erased. sorry about that.
Question: how can I pull some type of unique identifier to have in both the "Workstation_CL" and the "Location_CL" so that I can identify each revision? for instance, when I pull all records from the "Location_CL" and I see all location changes, pulling the username from the "Workstation_CL" that made the location change?
Give each revision a GUID generated by the trigger. Populate a field (RevisionId) in both tables with the value.
You need 2, maybe 3 columns on each audit table.
1) Timestamp, so you know when the changes were made.
2) User changed, so you can track who made the changes - I assume that Location can change independently of Workstation.
3) You might need an identifier for the transaction, too. I THINK you can get an id from the DB, though I'm not sure.
I don't think you can have an effective report without timestamps and users, though, and I don't think you just have the user on one table.
During the trigger event, I was able to exec the following:
SELECT #trans_id=transaction_id FROM sys.dm_tran_current_transaction
which gives me the transaction id for the current operation.
with that, I am able to insert it in to the corresponding _CL table and then perform selects that will match the auto-gen id's.
I'm working on a project where we need to have data entered or updated by some users go through a pending status before being added into 'live data'.
Whilst preparing the data the user can save incomplete records. Whilst the data is in the pending status we don't want the data to affect rules imposed on users editing the live data e.g. a user working on the live data should not run up against a unique contraint when entering the same data that is already in the pending status.
I envisage that sets of data updates will be grouped into a 'data submission' and the data will be re-validated and corrected/rejected/approved when someone quality control the submission.
I've thought about two scenarios with regards to storing the data:
1) Keeping the pending status data in the same table as the live data, but adding a flag to indicate its status. I could see issues here with having to remove contraints or make required fields nullable to support the 'incomplete' status data. Then there is the issue with how to handle updating existing data, you would have to add a new row for an update and link it back to existing 'live' row. This seems a bit messy to me.
2) Add new tables that mirror the live tables and store the data in there until it has been approved. This would allow me to keep full control over the existing live tables while the 'pending' tables can be abused with whatever the user feels he wants to put in there. The downside of this is that I will end up with a lot of extra tables/SPs in the db. Another issue I was thinking about was how might a user link between two records, whereby the record linked to might be a record in the live table or one in the pending table, but I suppose in this situation you could always take a copy of the linked record and treat it as an update?
Neither solutions seem perfect, but the second one seems like the better option to me - is there a third solution?
Your option 2 very much sounds like the best idea. If you want to use referential integrity and all the nice things you get with a DBMS you can't have the pending data in the same table. But there is no need for there to be unstructured data- pending data is still structured and presumably you want the db to play its part in enforcing rules even on this data. Even if you didn't, pending data fits well into a standard table structure.
A separate set of tables sounds the right answer. You can bring the primary key of the row being changed into the pending table so you know what item is being edited, or what item is being linked to.
I don't know your situation exactly so this might not be appropriate, but an idea would be to have a separate table for storing the batch of edits that are being made, because then you can quality control a batch, or submit a batch to live. Each pending table could have a batch key so you know what batch it is part of. You'll have to find a way to control multiple pending edits to the same rows (if you want to) but that doesn't seem too tricky a problem to solve.
I'm not sure if this fits but it might be worth looking into 'Master Data Management' tools such as SQL Server's Master Data Services.
'Unit of work' is a good name for 'data submission'.
You could serialize it to a different place, like (non-relational) document-oriented database, and only save to relational DB on approval.
Depends on how many of live data constraints still need to apply to the unapproved data.
I think second option is better. To manage this, you can use View which will contain both tables and you can work with this structure through view.
Another good approach is to use XML column in a separate table to store necessary data(because of unknown quantity/names of columns). You can create just one table with XML column ad column "Type" do determine which table this document is related with.
First scenerio seems to be good.
Add Status column in the table.There is no need to remove Nullable constraint just add one function to check the required fields based on flag like If flag is 1(incomplete) Null is allowed otherwise Not allowed.
regarding second doubt do you want to append the data or update the whole data.
I'd like to get some advice on database design. Specifically, consider the following (hypothetical) scenario:
Employees - table holding all employee details
Users - table holding employees that have username and password to access software
UserLog - table to track when users login and logout and calculate
time on software
In this scenario, if an employee leaves the company I also want to make sure I delete them from the Users table so that they can no longer access the software. I can achieve this using ON DELETE CASCADE as part of the FK relationship between EmployeeID in Employees and Users.
However, I don't want to delete their details from the UserLog as I am interested in collating data on how long people spend on the software and the fact that they no longer work at the company does not mean their user behaviour is no longer relevant.
What I am left with is a table UserLog that has no relationships with any other tables in my database. Is this a sensible idea?
Having looked through books etc / googled online I haven't come across any DB schemas with tables that have no relationships with others and so my gut instinct here is saying that my approach is not robust...
I'd appreciate some guidance please.
My personal preference in this case would be to "soft delete" an employee by adding a "DeletedDate" column to the Employees table. This will allow you to maintain referential integrity with your UserLog table and all details for all employees, past and present, remain available in the database.
The downside to this approach is that you need to add application logic to check for active employees.
Yes, this is perfectly sensible. The log is just a raw audit of data that should never change. It doesn't need to be normalized (and shouldn't be) and/or linked to other tables.
Ideally, I would put write-heavy audit logging in a different database entirely than the read-heavy transactional day-to-day stuff. They may grow differently over time. But starting small it's fine to keep them in the same database as long as you understand the fundamental differences between them.
On a side note, I would recommend not deleting the users from the tables. Maybe have some kind of IsActive or IsDeleted bit on them that would effectively blind them from the application, but deleting should be avoided if possible.
The problem you have here is that it's perfectly possible to insert UserLog data for users that have never existed as there's no link to the table that defines valid users.
I would say that perhaps the better course of action would be to mark the users as invalid and remove all their personal details when they leave rather than delete the record entirely.
That's not to say there aren't situations where it is valid to have a table (or tables) on the database that don't reference others.
Is this a sensible idea
The problem is this. Since the data isn't linked you can delete something from the employee table and still have references in the UserLog. After the employee infomration is deleted, you have no way of knowing what Log data ties back to. Is this ok? Technically yes. There is nothing preventing you from doing it, but then why are you keeping the data in the first place? You also have no guarantee that the data in the table actually is about an employee. Someone could accidently enter a wrong EmployeeID in the table that doesn't belong to anyone. Keys help prevent data corruption. It's always better to have extra data than it is to have bad data.
What I've found is that you never want to delete data when possible. Space is cheap, and you can add flags etc. to show the record isn't active. Yes, this does cause more work (this can be quickly remedied by creating a view which only shows active employees), and saying that you should never delete data is far fetched, but you start linking data together. Deleting becomes very difficult. If you are not adding a FK just so you can delete records, it's a tell tale sign you need to rethink your strategy.
Relying on Cascade Delete can be very dangerous too. The model you are stating is that anytime you don't want data deleted you have to know not to add a FK to that table which links it back to users. It doesn't take long for someone to forget this.
What you can do is use logical deletion or disabling a user by adding a bool value Deleted or Disabled to the Users table.
Or replace the EmployeeId with the name of the employee in the UserLog.
An alternative to using the soft delete process, is to store all the historical details you would want about the user at the time the log record is created rather than store the employee id. So you might have username, logintime, logouttime, sessionlength in your table.
Sensible? Sure, as in it makes sense as you've described your need to keep those users indefinitely. The problem you'll run into is maintaining the tables. Instead of doing a cascading update once, you'll have to use at least two updates in order to insert a new user.
I think a table as you are suggesting is perfectly fine. I frequently encounter log tables that are do not have explicit relationships with other tables. Just because a database is "relational" doesn't mean everything has to relate haha.
One thing that I do notice though is that you are using EmployeeID in the log, but not using it as a foreign key to your Employee table. I understand why you don't want that, since you will be dropping employees. But, if you are dropping them completely, then the EmployeeID column is meaningless.
A solution to this would be to keep a flag for employees, such as active, that tracks if they are active or not. That way, the log data is meaningful.
IANADBA but it's generally considered very bad practice indeed to delete almost anything from a DB ever,It would be far better here to have some kind of locked flag / "deleted" datestamp on your users table and preserve your FK.