I have a LinQ query which is intended to Update the table concerned.
The code is as follows:
LINQHelperDataContext PersonalDetails = new LINQHelperDataContext();
var PerDetails1 = (from details in PersonalDetails.W_Details_Ts
where details.UserId == userId
select details).First();
PerDetails1.Side = "Bridge";
PerDetails1.TotalBudget = 4000000;
PersonalDetails.SubmitChanges();
However, this change/update does not get reflected in the DB. Also,this does not throw any exception.Please suggest.
Make sure W_Details_Ts has one (or more) member properties marked as primary key. L2S can't generate update or delete statements if it does not know the underlying table's PK member(s).
Related
It must be a classic scenario, but I don't see any question for it...
I receive a lot of arguments in HTTP request for updating a row in the database.
Some other parameters are not set.
I am using some C++ framework for the SQL queries.
And I have a query like:
auto update(R"__(
UPDATE
table
SET
field1 = ?,
field2 = ?
WHERE
id = ?
)__");
exec_update(update, {field1.value_or(<?>), field2.value_or(<?>), id})
Because there can be around 30 fields to update, I don't want to create the query dynamically, but I would rather use some keyword to tell the Postgresql not to change the fields that I don't have new value for, how to achieve that?
Simply, what to put instead of the <?>?
I only found a similar question: How do I update selective fields in SQL (leaving some unchanged)?, which is a special case for this, I want to be able to set even NULL or whatever, I just want to not update some fields from the query without changing the query, I want to just have the values dynamic, not the query.
EDIT: I couldn't find anything better than having the dynamic query like:
auto update(fmt::format(
R"__(
UPDATE
table
SET
field1 = {},
field2 = {},
WHERE
id = {}
)__",
object.get_field1().has_value() ? fmt::format("'{}'", object.get_field1().value())
: "field1",
object.get_field2().has_value() ? fmt::format("'{}'", object.get_field2().value())
: "field2",
id));
, but I am not much satisfied with that.
I'm trying to do an update query in which a single row the table is updated and, if nothing has matched and updated, a new row is inserted. In each case, I need the query to return the ID of the inserted row.
The issue I'm having is this query is returning 2 separate results when the insert case is reached, one for each output (the first empty, the second containing the ID). I'm running this query using SQL Alchemy on python and I'm only able to see the first result, which is empty.
UPDATE [Rights]
SET accessLevel = :access_level
OUTPUT inserted.rightsID
WHERE principal = :principal and [function] = :function
IF ##ROWCOUNT = 0
INSERT INTO Rights(principal, [function], accessLevel)
OUTPUT inserted.rightsID
VALUES(:principal, :function, :access_level)
And I'm calling it like so:
inserted_right_id = session.execute(sql_rights_update, right).fetchall()
Can anyone recommend a way of changing the query so that I can still use the UPSERT method, but only receive one of the IDs? I was considering storing the OUTPUT values into a table and returning that, or wrapping the whole thing in a select but hopefully there's something more elegant out there.
Thanks a million.
Feeling quite dumb. I simply added a
IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM Rights WHERE principal = :principal and [function] = :function)
UPDATE ...
ELSE
INSERT ...
I'm using SQL Server. I'm also relatively new to writing SQL... in a strong way. It's mostly self-taught, so I'm probably missing key ideas in terms of proper format.
I've a table called 'SiteResources' and a table called 'ResourceKeys'. SiteResources has an integer that corresponds to the placement of a string ('siteid') and a 'resourceid' which is an integer id that corresponds to 'resourceid' in ResourceKeys. ResourceKeys also contains a string for each key it contains ('resourcemessage'). Basically, these two tables are responsible for representing how strings are stored and displayed on a web page.
The best way to consistently update these two tables, is what? Let's say I have 5000 rows in SiteResources and 1000 rows in ResourceKeys. I could have an excel sheet, or a small program, which generates 5000 singular update statements, like:
update SiteResources set resoruceid = 0
WHERE siteid IS NULL AND resourceid IN (select resourceid
from ResourceKeys where resourcemessage LIKE 'FooBar')
I could have thousands of those singular update statements, with FooBar representing each string in the database I might want to change at once, but isn't there a cleaner way to write such a massive number of update statements? From what I understand, I should be wrapping all of my statements in begin/end/go too, just in-case of failure - which leads me to believe there is a more systematic way of writing these update statements? Is my hunch correct? Or is the way I'm going about this correct / ideal? I could change the structure of my tables, I suppose, or the structure of how I store data - that might simplify things - but let's just say I can't do that, in this instance.
As far as I understand, you just need to update everything in table SiteResources with empty parameter 'placement of a string'. If so, here is the code:
UPDATE a
SET resourceid = 0
FROM SiteResources a
WHERE EXISTS (select * from ResourceKeys b where a.resourceid = b.resourceid)
AND a.siteid IS NULL
For some specific things like 'FooBar'-rows you can add it like this:
UPDATE a
SET resourceid = 0
FROM SiteResources a
WHERE EXISTS (select * from ResourceKeys b where a.resourceid = b.resourceid and b.resourcemessage IN ('FooBar', 'FooBar2', 'FooBar3', ...))
AND a.siteid IS NULL
Let me see if I understood the question correctly. You'd like to update resourceid to 0 if the resourcemessage corresponds to a list of strings ? If so, you can build your query like this.
UPDATE r
SET resourceid = 0
FROM SiteResources r
JOIN ResourceKeys k ON r.resourceid = k.resourceid
WHERE k.resourcemessage IN ('FooBar', ...)
AND r.siteid IS NULL;
This is using an extended UPDATE syntax in transact-sql allowing you to use a JOIN in the UPDATE statement. But maybe it's not exactly what you want ? Why do you use the LIKE operator in your query, without wildcard (%) ?
With table-valued parameters, you can pass a table from your client app to the SQL batch that your app submits for execution. You can use this to pass a list of all the strings you need to update to a single UPDATE that updates all rows at once.
That way you don't have to worry about all of your concerns: the number of updates, transactional atomicitty, error handling. As a bonus, performance will be improved.
I recommend that you do a bit of research what TVPs are and how they are used.
This is my first time using the Entity Framework and I'm getting some confusing results. I know a particular table contains 3 distinct rows when I run this SQL query:
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE service_month = 201012
When I run this query against the framework however, I get 3 rows, but they are all copies of the first row (VB syntax).
Dim temp = _context.mytable.Where(Function(x) x.service_month = 201012)
Did I set up something incorrectly? This is how I'd do it with LINQ to SQL so I feel like I'm missing something.
Fix your primary key definition in your EDMX. (If your table has no PK, add one.) When all rows return the same "key", the EF returns the same object instance.
I experienced this in Code First 5.0.13 when I had used a [Key] attribute in the business object that came from the wrong library. It should be
System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.KeyAttribute
I am trying to update my current table by drawing data from another table.
My database (dbo_finance)
column - test
The other database is assestsc and I am going to pull the data from column issuename1,
however I only want to pull the issuename1 when the field [MinSecClass] is = 9.
This is what I wrote
UPDATE dbo_finance
SET [dbo_finance].cusip9 = AssetsC.cusip
FROM dbo_finance INNER JOIN AssetsC ON dbo_finance.test = AssetsC.[IssueName1]
WHERE (AssetsC.MinSecClass = 9)
Thanks, first time really using SQL
Well I would use aliases, it's a good habit to get into:
UPDATE f
SET [dbo_finance].cusip9 = AssetsC.cusip
FROM dbo_finance f
INNER JOIN AssetsC a ON f.test = a.[IssueName1]
WHERE (a.MinSecClass = 9)
Now that will work fine if the assets table will only return one value for cuspid for each record. If this is a one to many relationship you may need to get more complex to truly get the answer you want.
I see several serious design flaws in your table structure. First joins fields that are dependant as something as inherently unstable as issue name are a very poor choice. You want PK and FK field to be unchanging. Use surrogate keys instead and a unique index.
The fact that you have a field called cusp9 indicates to me that you are denormalizing the data. Do you really need to do this? Do you undestand that this update will have to run in a trigger ever time the cuspid assoicated with MinSecClass changes? Whya re you denormalizing? Do you currently have performance problems? A denormalized table like this can be much more difficult to query when you need data from several of these numbered fields. Since you already have the data in the assets table what are you gaining except a maintenance nightmare by duplicating it?
UPDATE dbo_finance
SET cusip9 = (
SELECT A1.cusip
FROM AssetsC AS A1
WHERE dbo_finance.test = A1.IssueName1
AND AssetsC.MinSecClass = 9
)
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM AssetsC AS A1
WHERE dbo_finance.test = A1.IssueName1
AND A1.MinSecClass = 9
);
Because you're using SQL 2008, you can take advantage of the new(ish) MERGE statement.
MERGE INTO dbo_finance
USING (SELECT IssueName1, cusip FROM AssetsC WHERE MinSecClass = 9) AS source
ON dbo_finance.test = source.IssueName1
WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET dbo_finance.cusip9 = source.cusip;