I want to know how can i validate if my Insert was successful, for example i have this query:
INSERT INTO TEST VALUES ('TEST01');
I am using SQL SERVER 2008 EXPRESS and am running that from Java, but I am calling a Store procedure so I can't get a boolean answer.
You can use ##ROWCOUNT after your insert statement. it Returns the number of rows affected by the last statement.
if it returns grater than 0 it means your rows has been inserted successfully
There are a lot of ways to accomplish this.
Use a try catch block. Insert statement in the try block. Then handle the exception in catch block.
Use the global variable ##error to check if it is non-zero then the previous statement has resulted in error.
There might be other ways as well but these are the ones I can think of now.
These options will catch the error after the insert statement has run. You can also write some sql code to ensure that insert statement is executed only if the values pass data validation checks.
Related
So I'm tracking down a potential bug in a sync process I'm in charge of (written by someone else). When viewing one of the stored procedures that is being called, I noticed something peculiar. Based on my understanding of returns, anything after the return will not be returned. However, I am not positive if this is the case in SQL. Based on the chunk of SQL below, will the delete statement ever run? Or does the SP return information to signify whether rows were deleted (such as how many rows, whether it was successful, etc.)? I am assuming this is a bug in the SP, but want to confirm before taking action. Thanks in advance.
SET ANSI_NULLS ON
GO
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
GO
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[DeleteSalesforce_Contacts]
AS
Return
Delete From dbo.Contacts Where IsDeleted = 1
GO
The documentation is pretty clear on this:
"Exits unconditionally from a query or procedure. RETURN is immediate
and complete and can be used at any point to exit from a procedure,
batch, or statement block. Statements that follow RETURN are not
executed."
The delete statement won't be executed.
The return statement takes an optional parameter, but to use a query as value you would need to use a select in parentheses. Example:
return (select top 1 id from SomeTable)
The delete would never happen when the proc is executed.
The only time a statement after the return is ever executed when a proc is run is if it was related to a goto process and the code was sent there and bypassed the return. This kind of code sometimes used to be written before Try Catch blocks were allowed in SQL Server to do something with errors.
insert into tuseractivitytrack (TrackIndustryId,tracktype) values(null,'news')
When I insert a null value to a column it gives error now what i have done i have put the code of substring in try catch block but still if a error generated it generate a error and the rows does'nt get inserted
You need to use savepoint inside trigger rather than transaction. Can you please provide code
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187844(v=SQL.90).aspx
TSQL: Try-Catch Transaction in Trigger
I have tons of insert statements.
I want to ignore errors during the execution of these lines, and I prefer not to wrap each line seperately.
Example:
try
insert 1
insert 2
insert 3
exception
...
I want that if an exception was thrown in insert 1, it will ignore it and go back to perform insert 2, and etc.
How can I do it?
I'm looking for something like "Resume next" in VB.
If you can move all the inserts to a sql script and then run them in sql*plus, then every insert will run by its own and the script will continue to run.
If you are using plsqldeveloper (you taged it), then open a new command window (wich is exactly like a sql script run by sql*plus) and put your staements like this:
insert into table your_table values(1,'aa');
insert into table your_table values(2/0,'bb');
insert into table your_table values(3,'cc');
commit;
Even though statement (2) will throw an execption, since it's not in a block it will continue to the next command.
UPDATE: According to #CheranShunmugavel comment, add
WHENEVER SQLERROR CONTINUE NONE
at the top of the script (especially if your using sql*plus which there the difault is exit).
You'd need to wrap each INSERT statement with its own exception handler. If you have "tons" of insert statements where any of the statements can fail, however, I would tend to suspect that you're approaching the problem incorrectly. Where are these statements coming from? Could you pull the data directly from that source system? Could you execute the statements in a loop rather than listing each one? Could you load the data first into a set of staging tables that will ensure that all the INSERT statements succeed (i.e. no constraints, all columns defined as VARCHAR2(4000), etc.) and then write a single SQL statement that moves the data into the actual destination table with appropriate validations and exception handling?
Use the log error clause. More information in Avoiding Bulk INSERT Failures with DML Error Logging
Are there any cases where an INSERT in SQL (specifically Oracle-PL/SQL) can fail without an exception being thrown? I'm seeing checks in code after INSERT where it verifies that SQL%ROWCOUNT = 1 ELSE it raises its own user-defined exception. I don't see how that can ever happen.
It can't fail without an exception, no. Probably the developer who wrote the code didn't know that.
An after statement trigger could conceivably delete the row just inserted. And of course an INSERT...SELECT might find no rows to insert, and so would result in SQL%ROWCOUNT = 0.
In addition to the trigger-based issue #mcabral mentioned, you could have an insert that is successful but inserts other than 1 row. For example, the insert into blah(col1) select col2 from foo style of insert.
As #TonyAndrews and #GinoA mentioned, there are several ways an INSERT could return something other than exactly one row (triggers, INSERT INTO tablename SELECT... syntax).
But the bigger issue is that you're in PL/SQL. As such, the SQL%ROWCOUNT value can be used as a condition to determine the program execution flow including issuing COMMIT or ROLLBACK statements.
Even with just raising a user-defined exception, the calling PL/SQL block can handle the exception itself.
EDIT: Someone should modify the question title to indicate PL/SQL (as indicated in the question itself), since that's not the same thing as SQL scope the title suggests.
Query:
BEGIN TRY
SELECT #AccountNumber,
#AccountSuffix,
#Sedat,
#Dedo,
#Payalo,
#Artisto
FROM SWORDBROS
WHERE AMAZING ='HAPPENS'
END TRY
EGIN CATCH
Print #Sedat
END CATCH
How can I get the #Sedat, is it possible?
SQL 2005 , it will be in an SP
Like this, no?
BEGIN TRY
SELECT #AccountNumber,
#AccountSuffix,
#Sedat,
#Dedo,
#Payalo,
#Artisto
FROM SWORDBROS
WHERE AMAZING ='HAPPENS'
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
--error handling only
END CATCH
--There is no finally block like .net
Print #Sedat
IN a proc when I want to trap the exact values that caused an erorr, this is what I do. I declare a table variable (very important must be a table variable not a temp table) that has the fields I want to have information on. I populate the table variable with records as I go. In a multitep proc, I would add one record for each step if I wanted to see the who process or only a record if I hit an error (which I would populate in this case in the catch block typically). Then in The catch block I would rollback the transaction and then I would insert the contents of the table varaible into a permanent exception processing table. You could also just do a select of this table if you wanted, but if I'm going to this much trouble it usually is for an automated process where I need to be able to research the problem at a later time, not see the problem when it hits becasue I'm not running it on my mchine or where I could see a select or print statement. By using the table varaible which stay in scope even after the rollback, my information is still available for me to log in my exception logging table. But it important that you do the logging to any permananent table after the rollback or the process will rollback with everything else.
which database are you using?
also, which programming language is this?
usually there would be an INTO clause and some local variables declared.
your query should also have a FROM clause at a minimum
It is not clear if you are expecting the returned values to be placed into the # variables or whether you are trying to dynamically specify which columns you want selected. In a Sql Server stored procedure you usually return a result set, not a bunch of individual variables. The syntax you have will not work if you want column values returned since what you have will dynamically specify which columns are wanted based on the column names passed into the stored procedure. And this will not work since the stored procedure must know which columns you are going after when it is analyzed as it is stored. Now the except clause will be trigged if there is a problem reading from the database (communication down, disk error, etc.) in which case none of the column values will be known.
Use the Sql Query Analyzer tool (under the "Tools" menu in SqlManager after you have selected a database) to define your stored procedure and test it. If you installed the documentation when you installed SqlManager go to Start>Programs>Microsoft Sql Server>Books Online and open the "Transact-SQL Reference" node for documentation on what can be done.