I've written a SQL query for a report that creates a permanent table and then performs a bunch of inserts and updates to get all the data, according to company policy. It runs fine in SQL Server Management Studio and in Crystal Reports 2008 on my machine. However, when I schedule it to run on the server with SAP BusinessObjects Central Management Console, it fails with the error "Associated statement not prepared."
I have found that changing this permanent table to be a temp table makes the query work. Why would this be?
Some research shows that this error is sometimes sent instead of the true error. Other people reporting it talk of foreign key and (I would also assume) duplicate key errors.
Things I would check:
Does your permanent table have any unique constraints that might be violated? Or any foreign key constraints?
Are you creating indexes on the table after it has been created?
Are you creating any views over this permanent table?
What happens if the table already exists before the job is run?
What happens to the table if the job fails?
Are there any intermediate steps (such as within a stored procedure) that might involve additional temp or permanent tables?
ETA: Also check what schema the permanent table belongs to: is it usually created with "dbo"? Are you specifying that explicitly? Is there any chance that there might be a permissions problem?
That is often a generic error. Are you able to run it on the server as the account that it is scheduled to run as? It is most likely a permission error or constraint issue.
Assuming you really need a regular table, why it's not possible to create the permanent table once, vs creating it every time you run the query?
Recreating regular user table each time query runs does not seem right. But to make it work you may try to recreate the table in a separate batch or query (e.g. put GO in the script, that splits it into separate queries).
Regarding why it happens, I'm thinking about statement caching. Server compiles the query and stores the result for some time in case same query has to run again. So it's my speculation that it tries to run the compiled query which refers to the table you have already dropped and recreated under the same name. Name is the same, but physically it's a new table. You could hit some bug in the server this way. Just a speculation, it can be different kind of problem.
Without seeing code it's a guess, but being that you are creating a permanent table everytime you run the report, I assume you must be dropping the table at some point? (Or you'd have a LOT of tables building up over time.)
I suggest a couple angles to consider:
1) Make certain to prefix tables (perhaps by a session ID or soemthing) if you are concerned about concurrency/locking issues and the like so each report run has a table exclusive to itself.
2) If you are dropping the table at the end, instead adjust your logic to leave the table be. Write code that drops when you (re)start the operation. It's possible the report is clinging to the table and you are destroying it prematurely.
Related
We are working on a data warehouse using IBM DB2 and we wanted to load data by partition exchange. That means we prepare a temporary table with the data we want to load into the target table and then use that entire table as a data partition in the target table. If there was previous data we just discard the old partition.
Basically you just do "ALTER TABLE target_table ATTACH PARTITION pname [starting and ending clauses] FROM temp_table".
It works wonderfully, but only for one operation at a time. If we do multiple loads in parallel or try to attach multiple partitions to the same table it's raining deadlock errors from the database.
From what I understand, the problem isn't necessarily with parallel access to the target table itself (locking it changes nothing), but accesses to system catalog tables in the background.
I have combed through the DB2 documentation but the only reference to the topic of concurrent DDL statements I found at all was to avoid doing them. The answer to this question, can't be to simply not attempt it?
Does anyone know a way to deal with this problem?
I tried to have a global, single synchronization table to lock if you want to attach any partitions, but it didn't help either. Either I'm missing something (implicit commits somewhere?) or some of the data catalog updates even happen asynchronously, which makes the whole problem much worse. If that is the case, is there are any chance at all to query if the attach is safe to perform at any given moment?
I'm trying to clear out a lot of clutter in various databases on a SQL Server that were left behind by some sloppy prior employees. My boss is afraid to let me delete unused tables because he believes it might not generate an error message, but might simply cause wrong data to be returned. I don't see how; if a table is joined in a SQL statement and the table doesn't exist, I can't imagine it not raising an error. Is this possible?
In normal circumstance you'd always get an error, however these may not be normal circumstances.
It's unlikely, but if you have procedures building dynamic SQL using the information_schema views to get table names you could potentially write some SQL that fails silently if the table isn't there
It's technically possible depending on how you access the data and how any stored procedures querying said table were written. E.g. if there are TRY CATCH blocks in your T-SQL, it could be possible. But that's just theoretical. In practice, you'll get real ugly errors if you delete a table.
What I would do in the interim is rename the table and then run every unit test and integration test you can find. If something references the table, rename it back to what it was, otherwise dump it.
Is there a way in Oracle to create a table that only exists while the database is running and is only stored in memory? So if the database is restarted I will have to recreate the table?
Edit:
I want the data to persist across sessions. The reason being that the data is expensive to recreate but is also highly sensitive.
Using a temporary table would probably help performance compared to what happens today, but its still not a great solution.
You can create a 100% ephemeral table that is usable for the duration of a session (typically shorter than the duration than the database run time) called a TEMPORARY table. The entire purpose of a table in memory is to make it faster for reading from. You will have to re-populate the table for each session as the table will be forgotten (both structure and data) once the session completes.
No exactly, no.
Oracle has the concept of a "global temporary table". With a global temporary table, you create the table once, as with any other table. The table definition will persist permanently, as with any other table.
The contents of the table, however, will will not be permanent. Depending on how you define it, the contents will persist for either the life of the session (on commit perserve rows) or the life of the transaction (on commit delete rows).
See the documentation for all the details:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e25494/tables003.htm#ADMIN11633
Hope that helps.
You can use Oracle's trigger mechanism to invoke a stored procedure when the database starts up or shuts down.
That way you could have the startup trigger create the table, and the shutdown trigger drop it.
You'd probably also want the startup trigger to handle cases where the table exists and truncate it just in case the server stopped suddenly and the shutdown trigger wasn't called.
Oracle trigger documentation
Using Oracle's Global Temporary Tables, you can create a table in memory and have it delete the data at the end of the transaction, or the end of the session.
If I understand correctly, you have some data that needs to be processed when the database is brought online and left available only as long as the database is online. The only use-case I can think of that would require this is if you're encrypting some data and you want to ensure that the unencrypted data is never written to disk.
If this is actually your use-case, I would recommend forgetting about trying to create your own solution for this and, instead, make use of Oracle's encrypted tablespaces or Transparent Data Encryption.
I need help writing a TSQL script to modify two columns' data type.
We are changing two columns:
uniqueidentifier -> varchar(36) * * * has a primary key constraint
xml -> nvarchar(4000)
My main concern is production deployment of the script...
The table is actively used by a public website that gets thousands of hits per hour. Consequently, we need the script to run quickly, without affecting service on the front end. Also, we need to be able to automatically rollback the transaction if an error occurs.
Fortunately, the table only contains about 25 rows, so I am guessing the update will be quick.
This database is SQL Server 2005.
(FYI - the type changes are required because of a 3rd-party tool which is not compatible with SQL Server's xml and uniqueidentifier types. We've already tested the change in dev and there are no functional issues with the change.)
As David said, execute a script in a production database without doing a backup or stop the site is not the best idea, that said, if you want to do changes in only one table with a reduced number of rows you can prepare a script to :
Begin transaction
create a new table with the final
structure you want.
Copy the data from the original table
to the new table
Rename the old table to, for example,
original_name_old
Rename the new table to
original_table_name
End transaction
This will end with a table that is named as the original one but with the new structure you want, and in addition you maintain the original table with a backup name, so if you want to rollback the change you can create a script to do a simple drop of the new table and rename of the original one.
If the table has foreign keys the script will be a little more complicated, but is still possible without much work.
Consequently, we need the script to
run quickly, without affecting service
on the front end.
This is just an opinion, but it's based on experience: That's a bad idea. It's better to have a short, (pre-announced if possible) scheduled downtime than to take the risk.
The only exception is if you really don't care if the data in these tables gets corrupted, and you can be down for an extended period.
In this situation, based on th types of changes you're making and the testing you've already performed, it sounds like the risk is very minimal, since you've tested the changes and you SHOULD be able to do it safely, but nothing is guaranteed.
First, you need to have a fall-back plan in case something goes wrong. The short version of a MINIMAL reasonable plan would include:
Shut down the website
Make a backup of the database
Run your script
test the DB for integrity
bring the website back online
It would be very unwise to attempt to make such an update while the website is live. you run the risk of being down for an extended period if something goes wrong.
A GOOD plan would also have you testing this against a copy of the database and a copy of the website (a test/staging environment) first and then taking the steps outlined above for the live server update. You have already done this. Kudos to you!
There are even better methods for making such an update, but the trade-off of down time for safety is a no-brainer in most cases.
And if you absolutely need to do this in live then you might consider this:
1) Build an offline version of the table with the new datatypes and copied data.
2) Build all the required keys and indexes on the offline tables.
3) swap the tables out in a transaction. 00 you could rename the old table to something else as an emergency backup.
sp_help 'sp_rename'
But TEST FIRST all of this in a prod like environment. And make sure your backups are up to date. AND do this when you are least busy.
I add a column of type tinyint and being set to not allow nulls in a table and generate the change scripts. The table has data in it at this time. The script has code that creates a temp table and inserts the data that is in the current table into. It then deletes the old table and renames this temp table to the same name as the original table. All fine and good. My question is, why if I do the same thing to another table (same field, but different table), the generate change script does not include this new table insertion code?
Any tips would be greatly appreciated!
If the table does not contain data, there is no need to rebuild the table. Essentially Management Studio "plays it safe" behind the scenes by generating the script this way if it thinks it can't do it simply by just modifying the table. In my experience, it often does this when it doesn't really need to, however there are exceptions ... for example if you add your column not at the "end" of the table. Rather than make changes in the UI and script them, I recommend becoming familiar with the ALTER TABLE command. Rebuilding the table in that manner can be catastrophic on a production system, and can usually be avoided.