"Internal error: An expression services limit has been reached. Please look for potentially complex expressions in your query, and try to simplify them."
Has anyone seen this before and found a good workaround?
I managed to get around this issue by splitting my SQL query into two parts essentially and writing the first SQL select query to a temp table and the second part, a new SQL select statement selects from the temporary table and uses alot of CROSS APPLY operator to Calculate cascading computed columns.
This is an example of how the second part looks but I'm using alot more Cross Applys to produce new columns which are calculations:
Select * from #tempTable
cross apply
(
select HmmLowestSalePrice =
round(((OurSellingPrice + 1.5) / 0.95) - (CompetitorsLowestSalePrice) + 0.08, 2)
) as HmmLowestSalePrice
cross apply
(
select checkLowestSP =
case
when adjust = 'No Room' then 'No Room'
when OrginalTestSalePrice >= CompetitorsLowestSalePrice then 'Minus'
when OrginalTeslSalePrice < CompetitorsLowestSalePrice then 'Ok'
end
) as checkLowestSP
cross apply
(
select AdjustFinalNewTestSP =
case
when FinalNewTestShipping < 0 Then NewTestSalePrice - (FinalNewTestShipping)
when FinalNewTestShipping >= 0 Then NewTestSalePrice
end
) as AdjustFinalNewTestSP
cross apply
(
select CheckFinalSalePriceWithWP =
case
when round(NewAdminSalePrice, 2) >= round(wholePrice, 2) then 'Ok'
when round(NewAdminSalePrice, 2) < round(wholePrice, 2) then 'Check'
end
) as CheckFinalPriceWithWP
DROP TABLE #tempTable
My goal to to put this into a sql report and it work fine if there is 1 user only as the #tempTable will get created and dropped in the same execution and the results are displayed in the report correctly. But in the future if there are concurrent users I'm concerned that they will be writing to the same #tempTable which will affect the results?
I've looked at putting this into stored procedures but still get the error message above.
This issue occurs because SQL Server limits the number of identifiers and constants that can be contained in a single expression of a query. The limit is 65,535. The test for the number of identifiers and constants is performed after SQL Server expands all referenced identifiers and constants. In SQL Server 2005 and above, queries are internally normalized and simplified. And that includes *(asterisk), computed columns etc.
In order to work around this issue, rewrite your query. Reference fewer identifiers and constants in the largest expression in the query. You must make sure that the number of identifiers and constants in each expression of the query does not exceed the limit. To do this, you may have to break down a query into more than one single query. Then, create a temporary intermediate result.
The same issue happens to me when we tried to change the Database Compatibility Level to 150. It is not an issue when it is 140 or lower.
I just had this problem and fixed it by removing the UNIQUE index on my table. For some reason, that seems to trigger this error, although it cannot figure out why.
By the way, the same query does work with several other indexes.
What worked for me was replacing several COALESCE statements with ISNULL whenever was possible
Related
I have been trying to find a solution for a limit-clause based on an input parameter from a Json-File. The current code looks somewhat like this
With myJsonTable (JsonText)
as (
Select JsonText)
Select * from Data
Where...
Limit
Case
WHEN (Select JSON_VALUE(JsonText, '$."Amount"') From myJsonTable is not null
THEN (Select JSON_VALUE(JsonText, '$."Amount"') From myJsonTable)
ELSE (10000000)
END
Which I cant seem to get work. The Output I am getting is
Non-negative integeter value expected in LIMIT clause
Is there a way to cast the select done? Trying different Selects anywhere in the Case clause caused the same error.
Exasol only allows constant expression in the limit clause, so it's not directly possible to specify a select statement that references myJsonTable there.
However, you can workaround this issue by using a approach similar to SQL query for top 5 results without the use of LIMIT/ROWNUM/TOP
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <conditions> in a SQL clause (Either SQL obtained through concatenated strings, either view definition)
I've seen somewhere that this would be used to protect against SQL Injection, but it seems very weird.
If there is injection WHERE 1 = 1 AND injected OR 1=1 would have the same result as injected OR 1=1.
Later edit: What about the usage in a view definition?
Thank you for your answers.
Still,
I don't understand why would someone use this construction for defining a view, or use it inside a stored procedure.
Take this for example:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1 AND table.Field=Value
If the list of conditions is not known at compile time and is instead built at run time, you don't have to worry about whether you have one or more than one condition. You can generate them all like:
and <condition>
and concatenate them all together. With the 1=1 at the start, the initial and has something to associate with.
I've never seen this used for any kind of injection protection, as you say it doesn't seem like it would help much. I have seen it used as an implementation convenience. The SQL query engine will end up ignoring the 1=1 so it should have no performance impact.
Just adding a example code to Greg's answer:
dim sqlstmt as new StringBuilder
sqlstmt.add("SELECT * FROM Products")
sqlstmt.add(" WHERE 1=1")
''// From now on you don't have to worry if you must
''// append AND or WHERE because you know the WHERE is there
If ProductCategoryID <> 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND ProductCategoryID = {0}", trim(ProductCategoryID))
end if
If MinimunPrice > 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND Price >= {0}", trim(MinimunPrice))
end if
I've seen it used when the number of conditions can be variable.
You can concatenate conditions using an " AND " string. Then, instead of counting the number of conditions you're passing in, you place a "WHERE 1=1" at the end of your stock SQL statement and throw on the concatenated conditions.
Basically, it saves you having to do a test for conditions and then add a "WHERE" string before them.
Seems like a lazy way to always know that your WHERE clause is already defined and allow you to keep adding conditions without having to check if it is the first one.
Indirectly Relevant: when 1=2 is used:
CREATE TABLE New_table_name
as
select *
FROM Old_table_name
WHERE 1 = 2;
this will create a new table with same schema as old table. (Very handy if you want to load some data for compares)
I found this pattern useful when I'm testing or double checking things on the database, so I can very quickly comment other conditions:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
AND Table.Field=Value
AND Table.IsValid=true
turns into:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
--AND Table.Field=Value
--AND Table.IsValid=true
1 = 1 expression is commonly used in generated sql code. This expression can simplify sql generating code reducing number of conditional statements.
Actually, I've seen this sort of thing used in BIRT reports. The query passed to the BIRT runtime is of the form:
select a,b,c from t where a = ?
and the '?' is replaced at runtime by an actual parameter value selected from a drop-down box. The choices in the drop-down are given by:
select distinct a from t
union all
select '*' from sysibm.sysdummy1
so that you get all possible values plus "*". If the user selects "*" from the drop down box (meaning all values of a should be selected), the query has to be modified (by Javascript) before being run.
Since the "?" is a positional parameter and MUST remain there for other things to work, the Javascript modifies the query to be:
select a,b,c from t where ((a = ?) or (1==1))
That basically removes the effect of the where clause while still leaving the positional parameter in place.
I've also seen the AND case used by lazy coders whilst dynamically creating an SQL query.
Say you have to dynamically create a query that starts with select * from t and checks:
the name is Bob; and
the salary is > $20,000
some people would add the first with a WHERE and subsequent ones with an AND thus:
select * from t where name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
Lazy programmers (and that's not necessarily a bad trait) wouldn't distinguish between the added conditions, they'd start with select * from t where 1=1 and just add AND clauses after that.
select * from t where 1=1 and name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
where 1=0, This is done to check if the table exists. Don't know why 1=1 is used.
While I can see that 1=1 would be useful for generated SQL, a technique I use in PHP is to create an array of clauses and then do
implode (" AND ", $clauses);
thus avoiding the problem of having a leading or trailing AND. Obviously this is only useful if you know that you are going to have at least one clause!
Here's a closely related example: using a SQL MERGE statement to update the target tabled using all values from the source table where there is no common attribute on which to join on e.g.
MERGE INTO Circles
USING
(
SELECT pi
FROM Constants
) AS SourceTable
ON 1 = 1
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE
SET circumference = 2 * SourceTable.pi * radius;
If you came here searching for WHERE 1, note that WHERE 1 and WHERE 1=1 are identical. WHERE 1 is used rarely because some database systems reject it considering WHERE 1 not really being boolean.
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <proper conditions>
I've seen homespun frameworks do stuff like this (blush), as this allows lazy parsing practices to be applied to both the WHERE and AND Sql keywords.
For example (I'm using C# as an example here), consider the conditional parsing of the following predicates in a Sql query string builder:
var sqlQuery = "SELECT * FROM FOOS WHERE 1 = 1"
if (shouldFilterForBars)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Bars > 3";
}
if (shouldFilterForBaz)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Baz < 12";
}
The "benefit" of WHERE 1 = 1 means that no special code is needed:
For AND - whether zero, one or both predicates (Bars and Baz's) should be applied, which would determine whether the first AND is required. Since we already have at least one predicate with the 1 = 1, it means AND is always OK.
For no predicates at all - In the case where there are ZERO predicates, then the WHERE must be dropped. But again, we can be lazy, because we are again guarantee of at least one predicate.
This is obviously a bad idea and would recommend using an established data access framework or ORM for parsing optional and conditional predicates in this way.
Having review all the answers i decided to perform some experiment like
SELECT
*
FROM MyTable
WHERE 1=1
Then i checked with other numbers
WHERE 2=2
WHERE 10=10
WHERE 99=99
ect
Having done all the checks, the query run town is the same. even without the where clause. I am not a fan of the syntax
This is useful in a case where you have to use dynamic query in which in where
clause you have to append some filter options. Like if you include options 0 for status is inactive, 1 for active. Based from the options, there is only two available options(0 and 1) but if you want to display All records, it is handy to include in where close 1=1.
See below sample:
Declare #SearchValue varchar(8)
Declare #SQLQuery varchar(max) = '
Select [FirstName]
,[LastName]
,[MiddleName]
,[BirthDate]
,Case
when [Status] = 0 then ''Inactive''
when [Status] = 1 then ''Active''
end as [Status]'
Declare #SearchOption nvarchar(100)
If (#SearchValue = 'Active')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 1'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'Inactive')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 0'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'All')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where 1=1'
End
Set #SQLQuery = #SQLQuery + #SearchOption
Exec(#SQLQuery);
Saw this in production code and asked seniors for help.
Their answer:
-We use 1=1 so when we have to add a new condition we can just type
and <condition>
and get on with it.
I do this usually when I am building dynamic SQL for a report which has many dropdown values a user can select. Since the user may or may not select the values from each dropdown, we end up getting a hard time figuring out which condition was the first where clause. So we pad up the query with a where 1=1 in the end and add all where clauses after that.
Something like
select column1, column2 from my table where 1=1 {name} {age};
Then we would build the where clause like this and pass it as a parameter value
string name_whereClause= ddlName.SelectedIndex > 0 ? "AND name ='"+ ddlName.SelectedValue+ "'" : "";
As the where clause selection are unknown to us at runtime, so this helps us a great deal in finding whether to include an 'AND' or 'WHERE'.
Making "where 1=1" the standard for all your queries also makes it trivially easy to validate the sql by replacing it with where 1 = 0, handy when you have batches of commands/files.
Also makes it trivially easy to find the end of the end of the from/join section of any query. Even queries with sub-queries if properly indented.
I first came across this back with ADO and classic asp, the answer i got was: performance.
if you do a straight
Select * from tablename
and pass that in as an sql command/text you will get a noticeable performance increase with the
Where 1=1
added, it was a visible difference. something to do with table headers being returned as soon as the first condition is met, or some other craziness, anyway, it did speed things up.
Using a predicate like 1=1 is a normal hint sometimes used to force the access plan to use or not use an index scan. The reason why this is used is when you are using a multi-nested joined query with many predicates in the where clause where sometimes even using all of the indexes causes the access plan to read each table - a full table scan. This is just 1 of many hints used by DBAs to trick a dbms into using a more efficient path. Just don't throw one in; you need a dba to analyze the query since it doesn't always work.
Here is a use case... however I am not too concerned with the technicalities of why I should or not use 1 = 1.
I am writing a function, using pyodbc to retrieve some data from SQL Server. I was looking for a way to force a filler after the where keyword in my code. This was a great suggestion indeed:
if _where == '': _where = '1=1'
...
...
...
cur.execute(f'select {predicate} from {table_name} where {_where}')
The reason is because I could not implement the keyword 'where' together inside the _where clause variable. So, I think using any dummy condition that evaluates to true would do as a filler.
I have a table with grouped tasks:
tt_plan_task_id is the id
records with tt_plantype=1 represent 'groups'
tasks in/under a group have a tt_group_id pointing to the tt_plan_task_id
there are tasks that don't belong to a group (tt_group_id is null)
groups nest multiple levels
I need to fix (update) the tt_fromdate field values for the group records if they do not match the min(tt_fromdate) from the underlying tasks (they always have a value).
To fix them all I could do
update tt_plan_task g
set tt_fromdate=
(select min(t.tt_fromdate) from tt_plan_task t
where (t.tt_group_id=g.tt_plan_task_id))
where (g.tt_plantype=1)
This statement avoids the UPDATE FROM syntax that I see in many (SQL server) answers - Firebird does not support that.
There are 2 complications
I want to do the update only if g.tt_fromdate <> min(t.tt_fromdate), so I would have to add a reference to min(tt_fromdate) to the outer where.
I tried using an alias for the aggregate and referencing that but that got me nowhere (syntax errors)
SQL Server does not like the table alias in the update, but solutions like these use the UPDATE FROM syntax again ;-( How do I work around that then?
How do I tie 1. and 2. into my update statement so that it works?
As noted in the title, this needs to execute in SQL Server, Oracle, and Firebird
Note: Since groups can contain groups, the update should ideally be executed 'from the bottom up', i.e. deepest groups first.
But since this is just a rough correction for a corrupt database, doing one 'lineair' pass over all groups is good enough.
To get around SQL Server's non-standard way for update table aliases, simply don't use any.
As to using the aggregate result in both the SET clause and the WHERE clause, I suppose the only way all DBMS work with, is to write the aggregation query twice.
update tt_plan_task
set tt_fromdate =
(
select min(t.tt_fromdate)
from tt_plan_task t
where t.tt_group_id = tt_plan_task.tt_plan_task_id
)
where (tt_plantype=1)
and
(
tt_fromdate <>
(
select min(t.tt_fromdate)
from tt_plan_task t
where t.tt_group_id = tt_plan_task.tt_plan_task_id
)
);
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <conditions> in a SQL clause (Either SQL obtained through concatenated strings, either view definition)
I've seen somewhere that this would be used to protect against SQL Injection, but it seems very weird.
If there is injection WHERE 1 = 1 AND injected OR 1=1 would have the same result as injected OR 1=1.
Later edit: What about the usage in a view definition?
Thank you for your answers.
Still,
I don't understand why would someone use this construction for defining a view, or use it inside a stored procedure.
Take this for example:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1 AND table.Field=Value
If the list of conditions is not known at compile time and is instead built at run time, you don't have to worry about whether you have one or more than one condition. You can generate them all like:
and <condition>
and concatenate them all together. With the 1=1 at the start, the initial and has something to associate with.
I've never seen this used for any kind of injection protection, as you say it doesn't seem like it would help much. I have seen it used as an implementation convenience. The SQL query engine will end up ignoring the 1=1 so it should have no performance impact.
Just adding a example code to Greg's answer:
dim sqlstmt as new StringBuilder
sqlstmt.add("SELECT * FROM Products")
sqlstmt.add(" WHERE 1=1")
''// From now on you don't have to worry if you must
''// append AND or WHERE because you know the WHERE is there
If ProductCategoryID <> 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND ProductCategoryID = {0}", trim(ProductCategoryID))
end if
If MinimunPrice > 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND Price >= {0}", trim(MinimunPrice))
end if
I've seen it used when the number of conditions can be variable.
You can concatenate conditions using an " AND " string. Then, instead of counting the number of conditions you're passing in, you place a "WHERE 1=1" at the end of your stock SQL statement and throw on the concatenated conditions.
Basically, it saves you having to do a test for conditions and then add a "WHERE" string before them.
Seems like a lazy way to always know that your WHERE clause is already defined and allow you to keep adding conditions without having to check if it is the first one.
Indirectly Relevant: when 1=2 is used:
CREATE TABLE New_table_name
as
select *
FROM Old_table_name
WHERE 1 = 2;
this will create a new table with same schema as old table. (Very handy if you want to load some data for compares)
I found this pattern useful when I'm testing or double checking things on the database, so I can very quickly comment other conditions:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
AND Table.Field=Value
AND Table.IsValid=true
turns into:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
--AND Table.Field=Value
--AND Table.IsValid=true
1 = 1 expression is commonly used in generated sql code. This expression can simplify sql generating code reducing number of conditional statements.
Actually, I've seen this sort of thing used in BIRT reports. The query passed to the BIRT runtime is of the form:
select a,b,c from t where a = ?
and the '?' is replaced at runtime by an actual parameter value selected from a drop-down box. The choices in the drop-down are given by:
select distinct a from t
union all
select '*' from sysibm.sysdummy1
so that you get all possible values plus "*". If the user selects "*" from the drop down box (meaning all values of a should be selected), the query has to be modified (by Javascript) before being run.
Since the "?" is a positional parameter and MUST remain there for other things to work, the Javascript modifies the query to be:
select a,b,c from t where ((a = ?) or (1==1))
That basically removes the effect of the where clause while still leaving the positional parameter in place.
I've also seen the AND case used by lazy coders whilst dynamically creating an SQL query.
Say you have to dynamically create a query that starts with select * from t and checks:
the name is Bob; and
the salary is > $20,000
some people would add the first with a WHERE and subsequent ones with an AND thus:
select * from t where name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
Lazy programmers (and that's not necessarily a bad trait) wouldn't distinguish between the added conditions, they'd start with select * from t where 1=1 and just add AND clauses after that.
select * from t where 1=1 and name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
where 1=0, This is done to check if the table exists. Don't know why 1=1 is used.
While I can see that 1=1 would be useful for generated SQL, a technique I use in PHP is to create an array of clauses and then do
implode (" AND ", $clauses);
thus avoiding the problem of having a leading or trailing AND. Obviously this is only useful if you know that you are going to have at least one clause!
Here's a closely related example: using a SQL MERGE statement to update the target tabled using all values from the source table where there is no common attribute on which to join on e.g.
MERGE INTO Circles
USING
(
SELECT pi
FROM Constants
) AS SourceTable
ON 1 = 1
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE
SET circumference = 2 * SourceTable.pi * radius;
If you came here searching for WHERE 1, note that WHERE 1 and WHERE 1=1 are identical. WHERE 1 is used rarely because some database systems reject it considering WHERE 1 not really being boolean.
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <proper conditions>
I've seen homespun frameworks do stuff like this (blush), as this allows lazy parsing practices to be applied to both the WHERE and AND Sql keywords.
For example (I'm using C# as an example here), consider the conditional parsing of the following predicates in a Sql query string builder:
var sqlQuery = "SELECT * FROM FOOS WHERE 1 = 1"
if (shouldFilterForBars)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Bars > 3";
}
if (shouldFilterForBaz)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Baz < 12";
}
The "benefit" of WHERE 1 = 1 means that no special code is needed:
For AND - whether zero, one or both predicates (Bars and Baz's) should be applied, which would determine whether the first AND is required. Since we already have at least one predicate with the 1 = 1, it means AND is always OK.
For no predicates at all - In the case where there are ZERO predicates, then the WHERE must be dropped. But again, we can be lazy, because we are again guarantee of at least one predicate.
This is obviously a bad idea and would recommend using an established data access framework or ORM for parsing optional and conditional predicates in this way.
Having review all the answers i decided to perform some experiment like
SELECT
*
FROM MyTable
WHERE 1=1
Then i checked with other numbers
WHERE 2=2
WHERE 10=10
WHERE 99=99
ect
Having done all the checks, the query run town is the same. even without the where clause. I am not a fan of the syntax
This is useful in a case where you have to use dynamic query in which in where
clause you have to append some filter options. Like if you include options 0 for status is inactive, 1 for active. Based from the options, there is only two available options(0 and 1) but if you want to display All records, it is handy to include in where close 1=1.
See below sample:
Declare #SearchValue varchar(8)
Declare #SQLQuery varchar(max) = '
Select [FirstName]
,[LastName]
,[MiddleName]
,[BirthDate]
,Case
when [Status] = 0 then ''Inactive''
when [Status] = 1 then ''Active''
end as [Status]'
Declare #SearchOption nvarchar(100)
If (#SearchValue = 'Active')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 1'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'Inactive')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 0'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'All')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where 1=1'
End
Set #SQLQuery = #SQLQuery + #SearchOption
Exec(#SQLQuery);
Saw this in production code and asked seniors for help.
Their answer:
-We use 1=1 so when we have to add a new condition we can just type
and <condition>
and get on with it.
I do this usually when I am building dynamic SQL for a report which has many dropdown values a user can select. Since the user may or may not select the values from each dropdown, we end up getting a hard time figuring out which condition was the first where clause. So we pad up the query with a where 1=1 in the end and add all where clauses after that.
Something like
select column1, column2 from my table where 1=1 {name} {age};
Then we would build the where clause like this and pass it as a parameter value
string name_whereClause= ddlName.SelectedIndex > 0 ? "AND name ='"+ ddlName.SelectedValue+ "'" : "";
As the where clause selection are unknown to us at runtime, so this helps us a great deal in finding whether to include an 'AND' or 'WHERE'.
Making "where 1=1" the standard for all your queries also makes it trivially easy to validate the sql by replacing it with where 1 = 0, handy when you have batches of commands/files.
Also makes it trivially easy to find the end of the end of the from/join section of any query. Even queries with sub-queries if properly indented.
I first came across this back with ADO and classic asp, the answer i got was: performance.
if you do a straight
Select * from tablename
and pass that in as an sql command/text you will get a noticeable performance increase with the
Where 1=1
added, it was a visible difference. something to do with table headers being returned as soon as the first condition is met, or some other craziness, anyway, it did speed things up.
Using a predicate like 1=1 is a normal hint sometimes used to force the access plan to use or not use an index scan. The reason why this is used is when you are using a multi-nested joined query with many predicates in the where clause where sometimes even using all of the indexes causes the access plan to read each table - a full table scan. This is just 1 of many hints used by DBAs to trick a dbms into using a more efficient path. Just don't throw one in; you need a dba to analyze the query since it doesn't always work.
Here is a use case... however I am not too concerned with the technicalities of why I should or not use 1 = 1.
I am writing a function, using pyodbc to retrieve some data from SQL Server. I was looking for a way to force a filler after the where keyword in my code. This was a great suggestion indeed:
if _where == '': _where = '1=1'
...
...
...
cur.execute(f'select {predicate} from {table_name} where {_where}')
The reason is because I could not implement the keyword 'where' together inside the _where clause variable. So, I think using any dummy condition that evaluates to true would do as a filler.
I have written this query:
UPDATE tbl_stock1 SET
tbl_stock1.weight1 = (
select (b.weight1 - c.weight_in_gram) as temp
from
tbl_stock1 as b,
tbl_sales_item as c
where
b.item_submodel_id = c.item_submodel_id
and b.item_submodel_id = tbl_stock1.item_submodel_id
and b.status <> 'D'
and c.status <> 'D'
),
tbl_stock1.qty1 = (
select (b.qty1 - c.qty) as temp1
from
tbl_stock1 as b,
tbl_sales_item as c
where
b.item_submodel_id = c.item_submodel_id
and b.item_submodel_id = tbl_stock1.item_submodel_id
and b.status <> 'D'
and c.status <> 'D'
)
WHERE
tbl_stock1.item_submodel_id = 'ISUBM/1'
and tbl_stock1.status <> 'D';
I got this error message:
Operation must use an updatable query. (Error 3073) Microsoft Access
But if I run the same query in SQL Server it will be executed.
Thanks,
dinesh
I'm quite sure the JET DB Engine treats any query with a subquery as non-updateable. This is most likely the reason for the error and, thus, you'll need to rework the logic and avoid the subqueries.
As a test, you might also try to remove the calculation (the subtraction) being performed in each of the two subqueries. This calculation may not be playing nicely with the update as well.
Consider this very simple UPDATE statement using Northwind:
UPDATE Categories
SET Description = (
SELECT DISTINCT 'Anything'
FROM Employees
);
It fails with the error 'Operation must use an updateable query'.
The Access database engine simple does not support the SQL-92 syntax using a scalar subquery in the SET clause.
The Access database engine has its own proprietary UPDATE..JOIN..SET syntax but is unsafe because, unlike a scalar subquery, it doesn’t require values to be unambiguous. If values are ambiguous then the engine silent 'picks' one arbitrarily and it is hard (if not impossible) to predict which one will be applied even if you were aware of the problem.
For example, consider the existing Categories table in Northwind and the following daft (non-)table as a target for an update (daft but simple to demonstrate the problem clearly):
CREATE TABLE BadCategories
(
CategoryID INTEGER NOT NULL,
CategoryName NVARCHAR(15) NOT NULL
)
;
INSERT INTO BadCategories (CategoryID, CategoryName)
VALUES (1, 'This one...?')
;
INSERT INTO BadCategories (CategoryID, CategoryName)
VALUES (1, '...or this one?')
;
Now for the UPDATE:
UPDATE Categories
INNER JOIN (
SELECT T1.CategoryID, T1.CategoryName
FROM Categories AS T1
UNION ALL
SELECT 9 - T2.CategoryID, T2.CategoryName
FROM Categories AS T2
) AS DT1
ON DT1.CategoryID = Categories.CategoryID
SET Categories.CategoryName = DT1.CategoryName;
When I run this I'm told that two rows have been updated, funny because there's only one matching row in the Categories table. The result is that the Categories table with CategoryID now has the '...or this one?' value. I suspect it has been a race to see which value gets written to the table last.
The SQL-92 scalar subquery is verbose when there are multiple clauses in the SET and/or the WHERE clause matches the SET's clauses but at least it eliminates ambiguity (plus a decent optimizer should be able to detects that the subqueries are close matches). The SQL-99 Standard introduced MERGE which can be used to eliminate the aforementioned repetition but needless to say Access doesn't support that either.
The Access database engine's lack of support for the SQL-92 scalar subquery syntax is for me its worst 'design feature' (read 'bug').
Also note the Access database engine's proprietary UPDATE..JOIN..SET syntax cannot anyhow be used with set functions ('totals queries' in Access-speak). See Update Query Based on Totals Query Fails.
Keep in mind that if you copy over a query that originally had queries or summary queries as part of the query, even though you delete those queries and only have linked tables, the query will (mistakenly) act like it still has non-updateable fields and will give you this error. You just simply re-create the query as you want it but it is an insidious little glitch.
You are updating weight1 and qty1 with values that are in turn derived from weight1 and qty1 (respectively). That's why MS-Access is choking on the update. It's probably also doing some optimisation in the background.
The way I would get around this is to dump the calculations into a temporary table, and then update the first table from the temporary table.
There is no error in the code. But the error is Thrown because of the following reason.
Please check weather you have given Read-write permission to MS-Access database file.
The Database file where it is stored (say in Folder1) is read-only..?
suppose you are stored the database (MS-Access file) in read only folder, while running your application the connection is not force-fully opened. Hence change the file permission / its containing folder permission like in C:\Program files all most all c drive files been set read-only so changing this permission solves this Problem.
In the query properties, try changing the Recordset Type to Dynaset (Inconsistent Updates)