Background Information:
In Python, I might write something like this if I want to apply the same logic to different values in a list.
database_list = ["db_1", "db_2", "db_3"]
for x in range(0,len(database_list),1):
print("the database name is " + database_list[x])
What I am trying to do:
What I am trying to do in SSMS, is pull a list of DB objects for each database. I created a stored procedure to pull exactly what I want, but I have to run it against each database, so 10 databases mean running it 10 times.
My goal is to do this with a T-SQL query instead of Python.
I tried doing something like this:
exec sp_MSforeachdb 'USE ?; EXEC [dbo].[my_stored_procedure]';
The problem with this is, [dbo].[my_stored_procedure] has to exist in every database I want to do this in.
How can I create the stored procedure in 1 database, but execute it for all databases or a list of databases that I choose?
I know what you are trying to do and if it's what I think (you seem reluctant to actually say!) you can do the following:
In the master database, create your procedure. Normally you wouldn't do this, but in this case you must prefix it sp_
use master
go
create procedure sp_testproc as
select top 10 * from sys.tables
go
Now if you run this, it will return tables from the master database.
If you switch context to another database and exec master.dbo.sp_testproc, it will still return tables from the master database.
In master, run
sys.sp_MS_marksystemobject sp_testproc
Now switch context to a different database and exec master.dbo.sp_testproc
It will return tables from the database you are using.
Try creating your sproc in master and naming it with an sp_ prefix:
USE master
GO
CREATE PROCEDURE sp_sproc_name
AS
BEGIN
...
END
GO
-- You *may* need to mark it as a system object
EXEC sys.sp_MS_marksystemobject sp_sprocname
See: https://nickstips.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/sql-making-a-stored-procedure-available-to-all-databases/
It should then be available in all dbs
Create the stored procedure in the Master database with the sp_ prefix, and use dynamic SQL in the stored procedure so it resolves object names relative to the current database, rather than the database which contains the stored procedure.
EG
use master
go
CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[sp_getobjects]
AS
exec ('
select *
from [sys].[objects]
where is_ms_shipped = 0
order by type, name
')
go
use AdventureWorks2017
exec sp_getobjects
#LunchBox - it's your single stored procedure (that you create in one database) that is actually going to need to contain the "exec sp_MSforeach ...." command, and instead of the command to be executed being "EXEC ", it will need to be the actual SQL that you were going to put into the stored proc.
Eg. (inside your single stored procedure)
EXEC sp_MSforeachdb 'USE ?; SELECT * FROM <table>; UPDATE <another table> SET ...';
Think of the stored procedure (that you put into one database) as being no different than your Python code file - if you had actually wanted to achieve the same thing in Python, you would have either needed to create the stored proc in each database, or build the SQL statement string in Python and execute it against each database.
I understand what you thought you might be able to achieve with SQL, but stored procedures really don't work the way you were expecting. Even when you're in the context of a different database, but you run EXEC <different_db>.stored_proc, that stored proc ends up running in the context of the database in which it exists (not your context database).
Now, the only one issue you may come up against is that the standard sp_MSforeachdb stored proc has a limit of 2000 characters for the command that can be executed (although, it does have multiple "command" parameters, this may not be practical if you were planning on running a very large code block, perhaps with variables that carry all the way through). If this is something that might impact what you're intending to do, you could do a search online for "sp_MSforeachdb alternatives" - there seem to be a handful that people have created where the command parameter can contain a larger string.
I have a few stored procedures that return the same set of data (same columns) to a user. The stored procedure called depends on certain conditions. These stored procedures are fairly intensive and are being run by every user of the system. I would like to create stored procedure that calls each of these procedures and stores the data on a separate table. I will then run this new stored procedure every 5 minutes or so and let the users pull from the new table.
T_OutboundCallList is a permanent table with the same columns as returned by the two stored procedures.
I would like something like the following but when I try to run this it just runs continuously and I have to stop the procedure.
BEGIN
TRUNCATE TABLE T_OutboundCallList
INSERT T_OutboundCallList EXECUTE p_LeadVendor_GetCallsForCallList
INSERT T_OutboundCallList EXECUTE p_CallLog_GetAbandonedCallsCallList
END
Each of the procedures (*CallList) return a list of calls to be made and I do want them entered into the new table in this order (LeadVendor calls before AbandonedCalls). I also need to clear the table before adding the calls as there may be new calls that need to be higher in the list.
Is there some problem with this procedure that I am not seeing?
Thanks,
Brian
Without seeing the code in your *CallList procs it is hard to say what issue you are having. You should have the insert commands inside of your nested procedure. You can use the results of a procedure to insert data, but not like you are above. It is using OPENROWSET, and I think you will be better off the way I suggested.
Can you advice me how I can retrieve caller ID or Name which executed a trigger?
For example I want to know which SP executes a trigger or maybe trigger called by updates from management studio?
I know that ##PROCID returns ID of trigger and can't be used.
Also I know solution when in SP we write CONTEXT_INFO and read it from trigger.
But in this case we should SET CONTEXT_INFO in all SPs that modifies some table.
Is there exists some simplest way like ##PROCID ?
If it's SQL Server 2005 or 2008, and a DDL trigger, you can use eventdata().
Here's a link to the msdn page.
Basically it returns an XML dataset that you can parse to get things like who called it (data(/EVENT_INSTANCE/LoginName)[1]), what the command was, etc.
I hava a stored procedure named PROC_fetchTableInfo (simple select from sys.tables) in a database named
Cust
I would like use this procedure in a another database named
Dept
I tried to execute this sp in this database using command
EXECUTE Cust.dbo.PROC_fetchTableInfo
but as a result I get tables from the database Cust. How to get this procedure to work in database Dept?
A stored procedure is tighly bound to the objects in its code. If Cust.dbo.PROC_fetchTable references a table T, that is stricly the table T in schema dbo in database Cust. You can invoke the procedure from any other place, it will always refer to this table.
If you need to run the same procedure in another table on another database then the best solution, by far, is to have a new procedure: Dept.dbo.PROC_fetxTableInfo. This is better than the alternative of using Dynamic-SQL. While this seems counteruintuitive from a DRY and code reuse perspective, T-SQL is a data access language is not a programming language, leave your C/C# mind set at the door when you enter the database. Just have another procedure in the Dept database.
Your procedure, Cust.dbo.PROC_fetchTableInfo looks at data in the Cust database. Sounds like you need a copy of it in the Dept database.
Alternately (and quite unsatisfactory to me) you can add a parameter that controls which database to query by building the query in the sproc dynamically.
Perhaps you could create it in some "Common" database and call it like EXEC Common..PROC_fetchTableInfo #databaseName='Dept'
This is possible (if you are trying to write some utility function that you can use across all databases). You can create it in the master database, give it a sp_ prefix and mark it as a system object.
use master
go
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.sp_sys_tables_select
AS
SELECT * FROM sys.tables
GO
EXEC sys.sp_MS_marksystemobject 'dbo.sp_sys_tables_select'
GO
EXEC tempdb.dbo.sp_sys_tables_select
EXEC msdb.dbo.sp_sys_tables_select
When it comes to creating stored procedures, views, functions, etc., is it better to do a DROP...CREATE or an ALTER on the object?
I've seen numerous "standards" documents stating to do a DROP...CREATE, but I've seen numerous comments and arguments advocating for the ALTER method.
The ALTER method preserves security, while I've heard that the DROP...CREATE method forces a recompile on the entire SP the first time it's executed instead of just a a statement level recompile.
Can someone please tell me if there are other advantages / disadvantages to using one over the other?
ALTER will also force a recompile of the entire procedure. Statement level recompile applies to statements inside procedures, eg. a single SELECT, that are recompiled because the underlying tables changes, w/o any change to the procedure. It wouldn't even be possible to selectively recompile just certain statements on ALTER procedure, in order to understand what changed in the SQL text after an ALTER procedure the server would have to ... compile it.
For all objects ALTER is always better because it preserves all security, all extended properties, all dependencies and all constraints.
This is how we do it:
if object_id('YourSP') is null
exec ('create procedure dbo.YourSP as select 1')
go
alter procedure dbo.YourSP
as
...
The code creates a "stub" stored procedure if it doesn't exist yet, otherwise it does an alter. In this way any existing permissions on the procedure are preserved, even if you execute the script repeatedly.
Starting with SQL Server 2016 SP1, you now have the option to use CREATE OR ALTER syntax for stored procedures, functions, triggers, and views. See CREATE OR ALTER – another great language enhancement in SQL Server 2016 SP1 on the SQL Server Database Engine Blog. For example:
CREATE OR ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.MyProc
AS
BEGIN
SELECT * FROM dbo.MyTable
END;
Altering is generally better. If you drop and create, you can lose the permissions associated with that object.
If you have a function/stored proc that is called very frequently from a website for example, it can cause problems.
The stored proc will be dropped for a few milliseconds/seconds, and during that time, all queries will fail.
If you do an alter, you don't have this problem.
The templates for newly created stored proc are usually this form:
IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sysobjects WHERE type = 'P' AND name = '<name>')
BEGIN
DROP PROCEDURE <name>
END
GO
CREATE PROCEDURE <name>
......
However, the opposite is better, imo:
If the storedproc/function/etc doesn't exist, create it with a dummy select statement. Then, the alter will always work - it will never be dropped.
We have a stored proc for that, so our stored procs/functions usually like this:
EXEC Utils.pAssureExistance 'Schema.pStoredProc'
GO
ALTER PROCECURE Schema.pStoredProc
...
and we use the same stored proc for functions:
EXEC Utils.pAssureExistance 'Schema.fFunction'
GO
ALTER FUNCTION Schema.fFunction
...
In Utils.pAssureExistance we do a IF and look at the first character after the ".": If it's a "f", we create a dummy fonction, if it's "p", we create a dummy stored proc.
Be careful though, if you create a dummy scalar function, and your ALTER is on a table-valued function, the ALTER FUNCTION will fail, saying it's not compatible.
Again, Utils.pAssureExistance can be handy, with an additional optional parameter
EXEC Utils.pAssureExistance 'Schema.fFunction', 'TableValuedFunction'
will create a dummy table-valued function,
Additionaly, I might be wrong, but I think if you do a drop procedure and a query is currently using the stored proc, it will fail.
However, an alter procedure will wait for all queries to stop using the stored proc, and then alter it. If the queries are "locking" the stored proc for too long (say a couple seconds), the ALTER will stop waiting for the lock, and alter the stored proc anyway: the queries using the stored proc will probably fail at that point.
DROP generally loses permissions AND any extended properties.
On some UDFs, ALTER will also lose extended properties (definitely on SQL Server 2005 multi-statement table-valued functions).
I typically do not DROP and CREATE unless I'm also recreating those things (or know I want to lose them).
I don't know if it's possible to make such blanket comment and say "ALTER is better". I think it all depends on the situation. If you require this sort of granular permissioning down to the procedure level, you probably should handle this in a separate procedure. There are benefits to having to drop and recreate. It cleans out existing security and resets it what's predictable.
I've always preferred using drop/recreate. I've also found it easier to store them in source control. Instead of doing .... if exists do alter and if not exists do create.
With that said... if you know what you're doing... I don't think it matters too much.
If you perform a DROP, and then use a CREATE, you have almost the
same effect as using an ALTER VIEW statement. The problem is that you need to entirely re-establish your permissions on who can and can’t use the view. ALTER retains any dependency information and set permissions.
You've asked a question specifically relating to DB objects that do not contain any data, and theoretically should not be changed that often.
Its likely you may need to edit these objects but not every 5 minutes. Because of this I think you've already hit the hammer on the head - permissions.
Short answer, not really an issue, so long as permissions are not an issue
We used to use alter while we were working in development either creating new functionality or modifying the functionality. When we were done with our development and testing we would then do a drop and create. This modifys the date/time stamp on the procs so you can sort them by date/time.
It also allowed us to see what was bundeled by date for each deliverable we sent out.
Add with a drop if exists is better because if you have multiple environments when you move the script to QA or test or prod you don't know if the script already exists in that environment. By adding an drop (if it already exists) and and then add you will be covered regardless if it exists or not. You then have to reapply permissions but its better then hearing your install script error-ed out.
From a usability point of view a drop and create is better than a alter. Alter will fail in a database that doesn't contain that object, but having an IF EXISTS DROP and then a CREATE will work in a database with the object already in existence or in a database where the object doesn't exist. In Oracle and PostgreSQL you normally create functions and procedures with the statement CREATE OR REPLACE that does the same as a SQL SERVER IF EXISTS DROP and then a CREATE. It would be nice if SQL Server picked up this small but very handy syntax.
This is how I would do it. Put all this in one script for a given object.
IF EXISTS ( SELECT 1
FROM information_schema.routines
WHERE routine_schema = 'dbo'
AND routine_name = '<PROCNAME'
AND routine_type = 'PROCEDURE' )
BEGIN
DROP PROCEDURE <PROCNAME>
END
GO
CREATE PROCEDURE <PROCNAME>
AS
BEGIN
END
GO
GRANT EXECUTE ON <PROCNAME> TO <ROLE>
GO