I need your help with PostgreSQL. I have a homework in which I have to update a column of a table and display all the information that has been updated, but I have to use a single command to do all that. Even worse, I just can use basic clauses like SELECT, UPDATE, SET, WHERE etc.
Is this possible? I didn't find any example.
I've tried several combinations like:
SELECT * FROM customer
(UPDATE custumer SET bithdate = bithdate + INTERVAL '1 DAY'
WHERE bithcity = 'New York');
This didn't work!
Since this is homework, I'll leave something for you.
Single SQL statement
Start reading about the RETURNING clause of the UPDATE command in the manual.
Another alternative (for more complex scenarios) would be a data-modifying CTE. You still need the RETURNING clause for that.
Or you could create a function you can call in a single statement, but that would violate your requirement of only using simple DML commands.
Single transaction
If more than a single statement is allowed, another option would be a simple UPDATE plus simple SELECT wrapped into a transaction.
Related
I saw the block of SQL below in an article in this page:
select #empname = d.Emp_Name
from deleted d
How do you put something like #empname = d.Emp_Name in a SELECT statement?
What does it do? Is it another way of conditioning, instead of using WHERE clause?
Plus, it seems to be in SQL Server, but just to be sure, isn't it something that can be done in MySQL or some other DBMS?
You can assign to a variable this way...
...but this is probably a mistake. This assignment convention is typically used only when you expect exactly one row. However, the deleted table name indicates a likely trigger, and SQL Server will sometimes batch up individual deletions in a single call to the trigger, such that the table has multiple rows. Therefore this trigger is likely not correctly processing some deletions.
I have a quick question about updates that happen via s SQL Server stored procedure. My question is, if you explicitly use the UPDATE keyword in your stored procedure, that is looking at two different tables, for instance, will that UPDATE regardless of whether or not there is a difference in the values? Or will it ONLY run if there is a difference in values between columns? And will it selectively ONLY update the values that have changed, or the whole row, if it's found that any column is different between the two?
According to the ISO/ANSI SQL standards, all data manipulations, especially writings, must be done even if there is no changes in the values between the old and the new values…
To undestand why, thainks that this query :
UPDATE MyTable
SET Column1 = Column1
Will fire all the UPDATEs triggers and this will make a functionnal difference if the triggers had not been reached !
A +
I have a dozen tables of whom I want to keep the history of the changes. For every one I created a second table with the ending _HISTO and added fields modtime, action, user.
At the moment before I insert, modify or delete a record in this tables I call ( from my delphi app ) a oracle procedure that copies the actual values to the histo table and then do the operation.
My procedure generates a dynamic sql via DBA_TAB_COLUMNS and then executes the generated ( insert into tablename_histo ( fields s ) select fields, sysdate, 'acition', userid from table_name
I was told that I can not call this procedure from a trigger because it has to select the table the trigger is triggered on. Is this true ? Is it possible to implement what I need ?
Assuming you want to maintain history using triggers (rather than any of the other methods of tracking history data in Oracle-- Workspace Manager, Total Recall, Streams, Fine_Grained Auditing etc.), you can use dynamic SQL in the trigger. But the dynamic SQL is subject to the same rules that static SQL is subject to. And even static SQL in a row-level trigger cannot in general query the table that the trigger is defined on without generating a mutating table exception.
Rather than calling dynamic SQL from your trigger, however, you can potentially write some dynamic SQL that generates the trigger in the first place using the same data dictionary tables. The triggers themselves would statically refer to :new.column_name and :old.column_name. Of course, you would have to either edit the trigger or re-run the procedure that dynamically creates the trigger when a new column gets added. Since you, presumably, need to add the column to both the main table and the history table, however, this generally isn't too big of a deal.
Oracle does not allow a trigger to execute a SELECT against the table on which the trigger is defined. If you try it you'll get the dreaded "mutating table" error (ORA-04091), and while there are ways to get around that error they add a lot of complexity for little value. If you really want to build a dynamic query every time your table is updated (IMO this is a bad idea from the standpoint of performance - I find that metadata queries are often slow, but YMMV) it should end up looking something like
strAction := CASE
WHEN INSERTING THEN 'INSERT'
WHEN UPDATING THEN 'UPDATE'
WHEN DELETING THEN 'DELETE'
END;
INSERT INTO TABLENAME_HISTO
(ACTIVITY_DATE, ACTION, MTC_USER,
old_field1, new_field1, old_field2, new_field2)
VALUES
(SYSDATE, strAction, USERID,
:OLD.field1, :NEW.field1, :OLD.field2, :NEW.field2)
Share and enjoy.
How do I debug a complex query with multiple nested sub-queries in SQL Server 2005?
I'm debugging a stored procedure and trigger in Visual Studio 2005. I'd like to be able to see what the results of these sub-queries are, as I feel that this is where the bug is coming from. An example query (slightly redacted) is below:
UPDATE
foo
SET
DateUpdated = ( SELECT TOP 1 inserted.DateUpdated FROM inserted )
...
FROM
tblEP ep
JOIN tblED ed ON ep.EnrollmentID = ed.EnrollmentID
WHERE
ProgramPhaseID = ( SELECT ...)
Visual Studio doesn't seem to offer a way for me to Watch the result of the sub query. Also, if I use a temporary table to store the results (temporary tables are used elsewhere also) I can't view the values stored in that table.
Is there anyway that I can add a watch or in some other way view these sub-queries? I would love it if there was some way to "Step Into" the query itself, but I imagine that wouldn't be possible.
Ok first I would be leary of using subqueries in a trigger. Triggers should be as fast as possible, so get rid of any correlated subqueries which might run row by row instead of in a set-based fashion. Rewrite to joins. If you only want to update records based on what was in the inserted table, then join to it. Also join to the table you are updating. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish with this trigger? It might be easier to give advice if we understood the business rule you are trying to implement.
To debug a trigger this is what I do.
I write a script to:
Do the actual insert to the table
without the trigger on on it
Create a temp table named #inserted
(and/or one named #deleted)
Populate the table as I would expect
the inserted table in the trigger to
be populated from the insert you do.
Add the trigger code (minus the
create or alter trigger parts)
substituting #inserted every time I
reference inserted. (if you plan to
run multiple times until you are
ready to use it in a trigger throw
it in an explicit transaction and
rollback after checking your
results.
Add a query to check the table(s)
you are changing with the trigger for
the values you wanted to change.
Now if you need to add debug
statements to see what is happening
between steps, you can do so.
Run making changes until you get the
results you want.
Once you have the query working as
you expect it to, it is easy to take
the # signs off inserted and use it
to create the body of the trigger.
This is what I usually do in this type of scenerio:
Print out the exact sqls getting generated by each subquery
Then run each of then in the Management Studio as suggested above.
You should check if different parts are giving you the right data you expect.
can anyone tell that how to update some records of a table without using update statement. it is possible using select statement.
I don't think you can update the table without update statement.
It is not possible with a select statement.
You can delete a row and insert the same row + your changes which is in many ways like an update, but will cause lots of trouble with foreign keys.
Oh, and your DBA might kill you.
You can use
REPLACE INTO tablename(primary key, ...{rest of the columns in the table})
VALUES(the same primary key, new values );
This will delete the previous row and insert a new row with the same primary key and updated column values. Not so much worthwhile, but maybe there is some other way.
It depends what tools you are using and what you actually want to achieve.
There are libraries which allow you to update data you got from a select statement. (eg. ORM's like NHibernate, I think ADO.NET also). These libraries are writing the update statements for you
You can use functions or triggers which change data when you just perform a select statement. In these functions or trigger, you still have an update statement.
For security reasons, you have to make sure that nobody injects an update statement into your select statement. So it is not just save to only perform a select statement.
how to update some records of a table
without using update statement.
Use a MERGE statement.
it is possible using select statement.
Logically, an update is a delete and an insert: INSERT INTO..SELECT to a staging table, modifying the data as appropriate, then DELETE then INSERT INTO..SELECT from staging table.
On the off chance you were asking how this happened when a module ran a select statement it created, then you need to read up on SQL injection. You cannot do an update without an update statment of some kind (includiing not only update but doing delete and then insert or useiing merge) and the user must have update permission on a table, but you can add an update to a select statement that is dymanically created if you haven't correctly parametized it to avoid SQL injection.