On some Microsoft Access queries, I get the following message: Operation must use an updatable query. (Error 3073). I work around it by using temporary tables, but I'm wondering if there's a better way. All the tables involved have a primary key. Here's the code:
UPDATE CLOG SET CLOG.NEXTDUE = (
SELECT H1.paidthru
FROM CTRHIST as H1
WHERE H1.ACCT = clog.ACCT AND
H1.SEQNO = (
SELECT MAX(SEQNO)
FROM CTRHIST
WHERE CTRHIST.ACCT = Clog.ACCT AND
CTRHIST.AMTPAID > 0 AND
CTRHIST.DATEPAID < CLOG.UPDATED_ON
)
)
WHERE CLOG.NEXTDUE IS NULL;
Since Jet 4, all queries that have a join to a SQL statement that summarizes data will be non-updatable. You aren't using a JOIN, but the WHERE clause is exactly equivalent to a join, and thus, the Jet query optimizer treats it the same way it treats a join.
I'm afraid you're out of luck without a temp table, though maybe somebody with greater Jet SQL knowledge than I can come up with a workaround.
BTW, it might have been updatable in Jet 3.5 (Access 97), as a whole lot of queries were updatable then that became non-updatable when upgraded to Jet 4.
--
I had a similar problem where the following queries wouldn't work;
update tbl_Lot_Valuation_Details as LVD
set LVD.LGAName = (select LGA.LGA_NAME from tbl_Prop_LGA as LGA where LGA.LGA_CODE = LVD.LGCode)
where LVD.LGAName is null;
update tbl_LOT_VALUATION_DETAILS inner join tbl_prop_LGA on tbl_LOT_VALUATION_DETAILS.LGCode = tbl_prop_LGA.LGA_CODE
set tbl_LOT_VALUATION_DETAILS.LGAName = [tbl_Prop_LGA].[LGA_NAME]
where tbl_LOT_VALUATION_DETAILS.LGAName is null;
However using DLookup resolved the problem;
update tbl_Lot_Valuation_Details as LVD
set LVD.LGAName = dlookup("LGA_NAME", "tbl_Prop_LGA", "LGA_CODE="+LVD.LGCode)
where LVD.LGAName is null;
This solution was originally proposed at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/537161/sql-update-woes-in-ms-access-operation-must-use-an-updateable-query
The problem defintely relates to the use of (in this case) the max() function. Any aggregation function used during a join (e.g. to retrieve the max or min or avg value from a joined table) will cause the error. And the same applies to using subqueries instead of joins (as in the original code).
This is incredibly annoying (and unjustified!) as it is a reasonably common thing to want to do. I've also had to use temp tables to get around it (pull the aggregated value into a temp table with an insert statement, then join to this table with your update, then drop the temp table).
Glenn
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.
I know my answer is 7 years late, but here's my suggestion anyway:
When Access complains about an UPDATE query that includes a JOIN, just save the query, with RecordsetType property set to Dynaset (Inconsistent Updates).
This will sometimes allow the UPDATE to work.
Thirteen years later I face the same issue. DISTINCTROW did not solve my problem, but dlookup did.
I need to update a table from an aggregate query. As far as I understand, MS Access always assumes that de junction between the to-update table and the aggregate query is one-to-many., even though unique records are assured in the query.
The use of dlookup is:
DLOOKUP(Field, SetOfRecords, Criteria)
Field: a string that identifies the field from which the data is retrieved.
SetOfRecords: a string that identifies the set o record from which the field is retrieved, being a table name or a (saved) query name (that doesn’t require parameters).
Criteria: A string used to restrict the range of data on which the DLookup function is performed, equivalent to the WHERE clause in an SQL expression, without the word WHERE.
Remark
If more than one field meets criteria, the DLookup function returns the first occurrence. You should specify criteria that will ensure that the field value returned by the DLookup function is unique.
The query that worked for me is:
UPDATE tblTarifaDeCorretagem
SET tblTarifaDeCorretagem.ValorCorretagem =
[tblTarifaDeCorretagem].[TarifaParteFixa]+
DLookUp(
"[ParteVariável]",
"cstParteVariavelPorOrdem",
"[IdTarifaDeCorretagem] = " & [tblTarifaDeCorretagem].[IdTarifaDeCorretagem]
);
I would try building the UPDATE query in Access. I had an UPDATE query I wrote myself like
UPDATE TABLE1
SET Field1 =
(SELECT Table2.Field2
FROM Table2
WHERE Table2.UniqueIDColumn = Table1.UniqueIDColumn)
The query gave me that error you're seeing. This worked on my SQL Server though, but just like earlier answers noted, Access UPDATE syntax isn't standard syntax. However, when I rebuilt it using Access's query wizard (it used the JOIN syntax) it worked fine. Normally I'd just make the UPDATE query a passthrough to use the non-JET syntax, but one of the tables I was joining with was a local Access table.
This occurs when there is not a UNIQUE MS-ACCESS key for the table(s) being updated. (Regardless of the SQL schema).
When creating MS-Access Links to SQL tables, you are asked to specify the index (key) at link time. If this is done incorrectly, or not at all, the query against the linked table is not updatable
When linking SQL tables into Access MAKE SURE that when Access prompts you for the index (key) you use exactly what SQL uses to avoid problem(s), although specifying any unique key is all Access needs to update the table.
If you were not the person who originally linked the table, delete the linked table from MS-ACCESS (the link only gets deleted) and re-link it specifying the key properly and all will work correctly.
(A little late to the party...)
The three ways I've gotten around this problem in the past are:
Reference a text box on an open form
DSum
DLookup
I had the same issue.
My solution is to first create a table from the non updatable query and then do the update from table to table and it works.
Mine failed with a simple INSERT statement. Fixed by starting the application with 'Run as Administrator' access.
MS Access - joining tables in an update query... how to make it updatable
Open the query in design view
Click once on the link b/w tables/view
In the “properties” window, change the value for “unique records” to “yes”
Save the query as an update query and run it.
You can always write the code in VBA that updates similarly. I had this problem too, and my workaround was making a select query, with all the joins, that had all the data I was looking for to be able to update, making that a recordset and running the update query repeatedly as an update query of only the updating table, only searching the criteria you're looking for
Dim updatingItems As Recordset
Dim clientName As String
Dim tableID As String
Set updatingItems = CurrentDb.OpenRecordset("*insert SELECT SQL here*");", dbOpenDynaset)
Do Until updatingItems .EOF
clientName = updatingItems .Fields("strName")
tableID = updatingItems .Fields("ID")
DoCmd.RunSQL "UPDATE *ONLY TABLE TO UPDATE* SET *TABLE*.strClientName= '" & clientName & "' WHERE (((*TABLE*.ID)=" & tableID & "))"
updatingItems.MoveNext
Loop
I'm only doing this to about 60 records a day, doing it to a few thousand could take much longer, as the query is running from start to finish multiple times, instead of just selecting an overall group and making changes. You might need ' ' around the quotes for tableID, as it's a string, but I'm pretty sure this is what worked for me.
I kept getting the same error until I made the connecting field a unique index in both connecting tables. Only then did the query become updatable.
Philip Stilianos
In essence, while your SQL looks perfectly reasonable, Jet has never supported the SQL standard syntax for UPDATE. Instead, it uses its own proprietary syntax (different again from SQL Server's proprietary UPDATE syntax) which is very limited. Often, the only workarounds "Operation must use an updatable query" are very painful. Seriously consider switching to a more capable SQL product.
For some more details about your specific problems and some possible workarounds, see Update Query Based on Totals Query Fails.
I kept getting the same error, but all SQLs execute in Access very well.
and when I amended the permission of AccessFile.
the problem fixed!!
I give 'Network Service' account full control permission, this account if for IIS
When I got this error, it may have been because of my UPDATE syntax being wrong, but after I fixed the update query I got the same error again...so I went to the ODBC Data Source Administrator and found that my connection was read-only. After I made the connection read-write and re-connected it worked just fine.
Today in my MS-Access 2003 with an ODBC tabla pointing to a SQL Server 2000 with sa password gave me the same error.
I defined a Primary Key on the table in the SQL Server database, and the issue was gone.
There is another scenario here that would apply. A file that was checked out of Visual Source Safe, for anyone still using it, that was not given "Writeablity", either in the View option or Check Out, will also recieve this error message.
Solution is to re-acquire the file from Source Safe and apply the Writeability setting.
To further answer what DRUA referred to in his/her answer...
I develop my databases in Access 2007. My users are using access 2007 runtime. They have read permissions to a database_Front (front end) folder, and read/write permissions to the database_Back folder.
In rolling out a new database, the user did not follow the full instructions of copying the front end to their computer, and instead created a shortcut. Running the Front-end through the shortcut will create a condition where the query is not updateable because of the file write restrictions.
Copying the front end to their documents folder solves the problem.
Yes, it complicates things when the users have to get an updated version of the front-end, but at least the query works without having to resort to temp tables and such.
check your DB (Database permission) and give full permission
Go to DB folder-> right click properties->security->edit-> give full control
& Start menu ->run->type "uac" make it down (if it high)
The answer given above by iDevlop worked for me. Note that I wasn't able to find the RecordsetType property in my update query. However, I was able to find that property by changing my query to a select query, setting that property as iDevlop noted and then changing my query to an update query. This worked, no need for a temp table.
I'd have liked for this to just be a comment to what iDevlop posted so that it flowed from his solution, but I don't have a high enough score.
I solved this by adding "DISTINCTROW"
so here this would be
UPDATE DISTINCTROW CLOG SET CLOG.NEXTDUE
I'm using sqlite3_exec() function in order to execute an SQL Insert command. The problem starts when I need to insert strings that need to be encoded.
For example, I want to insert the following string: "f('hello')". If I want to insert this string I need to change "'" to "''".
My question is, how do I encode these strings? Is there a function I can count on? or a table that details all the needed encodes?
Thanks! :-)
Instead of manually escaping strings (which is error-prone and invites SQL injection attacks), I'd strongly recommend using prepared statements and bind values; read up on sqlite3_bind_XXX and sqlite3_prepare_v2
Using bind values will solve this problem and it will also make sqlite faster because it remembers previously executed sql statements and it can reuse their execution plans. This doesn't work when the sql statement is always slightly different because it hashes the complete sql statement.
sqlite_mprintf supports %q for that.
"Maybe" you should use something like a prepared statement. I am not an expert in SQLite, but I found this link (http://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/stmt.html) and it could help you. It is about SQL Statement Object.
I'm working in Ubuntu with MySql and I also have Query Browser and Administrator installed, I'm not afraid of the command line either if it helps.
I want simply to be able to run a query and see a result set but then convert that result set into a series of commands that could be used to create the same rows in a table of an identical schema.
I hope the question makes sense, it's quite a simple problem and one that must have been solved but I can't for the life of me work out where this kind of conversion is made available.
Thanks in advance,
Gav
I think you need to use a command line utility mysqldump http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/mysqldump.html
if you want to dump one or more tables.
If you need to dump a result of an arbitrary query and restore it later, take a look on SELECT ... INTO OUTFILE and LOAD DATA INFILE( http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/load-data.html)
I do not know if I understood you at all but you can use a SELECT INTO statement.
SELECT *
INTO new_table_name
FROM old_tablename
WHERE ...
I'm connected to an OpenEdge DataServer via ODBC (not our product, we are just accessing their database, I hardly have any information and certainly no help from the other side).
Anyhow, I just need to execute a simple Select, add a couple of rows and I need the equivalent of an IsNull statement.
Basically I'd like to execute
SELECT ISNULL(NULL,'test')
This fails with a Syntax Error. I've looked around at something they misleadingly call a "documentation" but there are only references to SP_SQL_ISNULL but I can't get that to work either. I'm fit in T-SQL, so any pointers in any direction appreciated, even if it's just a RTFM with a link to TFM :)
Thanks
Thanks to Catalin and this question I got on the right track. I kept thinking I needed a OpenEdge specific function but actually I needed to use only ODBC SQL syntax.
To get what
ISNULL(col,4)
does you can use
COALESCE(col,4)
which "returns the data type of expression with the highest data type precedence. If all expressions are nonnullable, the result is typed as nonnullable."MSDN
Basically it will convert to 4 if the value is null (and therefore not convertable).
I am not 100% sure, but I think ODBC driver expects a valid SQL statement, and not an DBMS specific SQL statement, like the one you provided.
I have been working with T-SQL in MS SQL for some time now and somehow whenever I have to insert data into a table I tend to use syntax:
INSERT INTO myTable <something here>
I understand that keyword INTO is optional here and I do not have to use it but somehow it grew into habit in my case.
My question is:
Are there any implications of using INSERT syntax versus INSERT INTO?
Which one complies fully with the standard?
Are they both valid in other implementations of SQL standard?
INSERT INTO is the standard. Even though INTO is optional in most implementations, it's required in a few, so it's a good idea to include it if you want your code to be portable.
You can find links to several versions of the SQL standard here. I found an HTML version of an older standard here.
They are the same thing, INTO is completely optional in T-SQL (other SQL dialects may differ).
Contrary to the other answers, I think it impairs readability to use INTO.
I think it is a conceptional thing: In my perception, I am not inserting a row into a table named "Customer", but I am inserting a Customer. (This is connected to the fact that I use to name my tables in singular, not plural).
If you follow the first concept, INSERT INTO Customer would most likely "feel right" for you.
If you follow the second concept, it would most likely be INSERT Customer for you.
It may be optional in mySQL, but it is mandatory in some other DBMSs, for example Oracle. So SQL will be more potentially portable with the INTO keyword, for what it's worth.
In SQL Server 2005, you could have something in between INSERT and INTO like this:
INSERT top(5) INTO tTable1 SELECT * FROM tTable2;
Though it works without the INTO, I prefer using INTO for readability.
One lesson I leaned about this issue is that you should always keep it consistent! If you use INSERT INTO, don't use INSERT as well. If you don't do it, some programmers may ask the same question again.
Here is my another related example case: I had a chance to update a very very long stored procedure in MS SQL 2005. The problem is that too many data were inserted to a result table. I had to find out where the data came from. I tried to find out where new records were added. At the beginning section of SP, I saw several INSERT INTOs. Then I tried to find "INSERT INTO" and updated them, but I missed one place where only "INSERT" was used. That one actually inserted 4k+ rows of empty data in some columns! Of course, I should just search for INSERT. However, that happened to me. I blame the previous programmer IDIOT:):)
They both do the same thing. INTO is optional (in SQL Server's T-SQL) but aids readability.
I started wtiting SQL on ORACLE, so when I see code without INTO it just looks 'broken' and confusing.
Yes, it is just my opinion, and I'm not saying you should always use INTO. But it you don't you should be aware that many other people will probably think the same thing, especially if they haven't started scripting with newer implementations.
With SQL I think it's also very important to realise that you ARE adding a ROW to a TABLE, and not working with objects. I think it would be unhelpful to a new developer to think of SQL table rows/entries as objects. Again, just me opinion.
INSERT INTO is SQL standard while INSERT without INTO is not SQL standard.
I experimented them on SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite as shown below.
Database
INSERT INTO
INSERT
SQL Server
Possible
Possible
MySQL
Possible
Possible
PostgreSQL
Possible
Impossible
SQLite
Possible
Impossible
In addition, I also experimented DELETE FROM and DELETE without FROM on SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite as shown below:
Database
DELETE FROM
DELETE
SQL Server
Possible
Possible
MySQL
Possible
Impossible
PostgreSQL
Possible
Impossible
SQLite
Possible
Impossible
I prefer using it. It maintains the same syntax delineation feel and readability as other parts of the SQL language, like group BY, order BY.
If available use the standard function. Not that you ever need portability for your particular database, but chances are you need portability for your SQL knowledge.
A particular nasty T-SQL example is the use of isnull, use coalesce!