I am trying to use an ODBCdataadapter in C# to run a query which needs to select some data into a temporary table as a preliminary step. However, this initial select statement is causing the query to terminate so that data gets put into the temp table but I can't run the second query to get it out. I have determined that the problem is the presence of two select statements in a single dataadapter query. That is to say the following code only runs the first select:
select 1
select whatever from wherever
When I run my query directly through SQL Server Management Studio it works fine. Has anyone encountered this sort of issue before? I have tried the exact same query previously on similar databases using the same C# code (only the connection string is different) and had no problems.
Before you ask, the temp table is helpful because otherwise I would be running a whole lot of inner select statements which would bog down the database.
Assuming you're executing a Command that's command type is CommandText you need a ; to separate the statements.
select 1;
select whatever from wherever;
You might also want to consider using a Stored Procedure if possible. You should also use the SQL client objects instead of the ODBC client. That way you can take advantage of additional methods that aren't available otherwise. You're supposed to get better perf as well.
If you need to support multiple Databases you can just use the DataAdapter class and use a Factory o create the concrete types. This gives you the benefits of using the native drivers without being tied to a specific backend. ORMS that support multiple back ends typically do this. The Enterprise Library Data Access Application Block while not an ORM does this as well.
Unfortunately I do not have write access to the DB as my organization has been contracted just to extract information to a data warehouse. The program is one generalized for use on multiple systems which is why we went with ODBC. I suppose it would not be terrible to rewrite it using SQL Management Objects.
ODBC Connection requires a single select statement and its retrieval from SQL Server.
If any such functionality is required, a Hack can do the purpose
use the query
SET NOCOUNT ON
at the top of your select statement.
When SET NOCOUNT is ON, the count (indicating the number of rows affected by a Transact-SQL statement) is not returned.
When SET NOCOUNT is OFF, the count is returned. It is used with any SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE statement.
The setting of SET NOCOUNT is set at execute or run time and not at parse time.
SET NOCOUNT ON mainly improves stored procedure (SP) performance.
Syntax:
SET NOCOUNT { ON | OFF }
Related
A command , starting with SELECT, cannot modify the database.
Is above statement always true, or are there exceptions?
Maybe in other words, can we create subqueries which include update command?
I don't know any RDMBS that has AFTER | INSTEAD OF Select Triggers implemented, but that would be the situation where SELECT can indirectly modify a database.
There could also be an auditing set up on your server, that tracks SELECT statements. For example in Oracle you have DBMS_FGA package, that you could use to essentially create ON SELECT Trigger, by creating a policy without audit_condition parameter. This will cause an event to fire on every select, and a procedure that modifies a database to be executed. I don't know about transactions in this case, but I think that rollback doesn't affect auditing, otherwise it will be simple to cheat it :).
Another example (Sql Server):
Select * from
OPENQUERY(servername, 'EXEC uspGetRows')
uspGetRows procedure can do a bunch of other stuff in addition to returning rows.
I figure that you rather had in mind explicit modifications, through insert/update/delete statements "merged" with select, but I never heard of something like this. So those are just two examples of situations similiar to INSERT..INTO from comments.
I have multiple select queries which I want to execute asynchronously.
How can I do this in oracle sql ?
I basically want to test something and so want to simulate workload so I don't really care about the result and I know I can do this in multiple threads but this is specific and so would prefer if I can do this entirely in sql. procedures are fine though.
NOTE: there are no update queries only select.
I read about nowait but am not sure how to use it in oracle.
I tried something like -
select * from foo with(nowait) where col1="something";
This is the error I got -
with(nowait)
*
ERROR at line 3:
ORA-00933: SQL command not properly ended
The Oracle info on NOWAIT says:
Specify NOWAIT if you want the database to return control to you immediately
if the specified table, partition, or table subpartition is already locked by
another user. In this case, the database returns a message indicating that the
table, partition, or subpartition is already locked by another user.
This will not do what you want.
Asynchronous queries are an application thing, not a SQL thing. For example I can open TOAD and open a dozen windows and run long queries in all of them and still open another window and run another query. I could open a dozen instances of SQLPLUS and do the same thing. Nothing in the query lets me do this, it's in the application.
I think you could use DBMS_SCHEDULER to schedule some sql or procs that execute SQL.
However this is probably not the best way to do this
There are tools for this. The best way maybe to write a procedure you can call from the web and then you can use any performance testing tool that can make a web call...its worked for me before.
You may also consider:
http://sqlmag.com/database-performance-tuning/testing-heavy-load-simulating-multiple-concurrent-operations
What is the DB2 equivalent of SQL Server's SET NOCOUNT ON?
"From the SQL Server documentation:
SET NOCOUNT ON... Stops the message that shows the count of the number of rows affected by a Transact-SQL statement or stored procedure from being returned as part of the result set...
For stored procedures that contain several statements that do not return much actual data, or for procedures that contain Transact-SQL loops, setting SET NOCOUNT to ON can provide a significant performance boost, because network traffic is greatly reduced."
my problem is if I update a row in a table, a trigger runs that update another
row in a different table.
In Hibernate I get this error: "Batch update returned unexpected row
count from update; actual row count: 2; expected: 1".
I think because of the trigger DB2 returns 2 instead of 1, what
is correct. However, is there any way to make DB2 to return 1
without removing the trigger or can I disable the check in Hibernate?
How to handle this issue?
Can anyone plz tell "Set NoCount on"(sql server) equivalent in db2?
There is no equivalent to SET NOCOUNT in DB2 because DB2 does not produce any informational messages after a DML statement has completed successfully. Instead, the DB2 driver stores that type of information in a local, connection-specific data structure called the SQL communications area (SQLCA). It is up to the application (or whatever database framework or API the application is using) to decide which SQLCA variables to examine after executing each statement.
In your case, your application has delegated its database interaction to Hibernate, which compares the number of affected rows reported by DB2 in the SQLCA with the number of rows Hibernate expected its UPDATE statement to change. Since Hibernate isn't aware of the AFTER UPDATE trigger you created, it expects the update statement to affect only one row, but the SQLCA shows that two rows were updated (one by Hibernate's update statement, and one by the AFTER UPDATE trigger on that table), so Hibernate throws an exception to complain about the discrepancy.
This leaves you with two options:
Drop the trigger from that table and instead define an equivalent followup action in Hibernate. This is not an ideal solution if other applications that don't use Hibernate are also updating the table in question, but that's the sort of decision a team gets to make when they inflict Hibernate on a database.
Keep the AFTER UPDATE trigger where it is in DB2, and examine your options for defining Hibernate object mappings to determine if there's a way to at least temporarily disable Hibernate's row count verification logic. One approach that looks particularly encouraging is to specify the ResultCheckStyle.NONE option as part of a custom #SQLUpdate annotation.
For SQL Server and Sybase, there appears to be a third option: Hide the activity of an AFTER UPDATE trigger from Hibernate by activating SET NOCOUNT ON within the trigger. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent in DB2 (or Oracle, for that matter) that allows an application to selectively skip certain activities when tallying the number of affected rows.
I'm using SQL Server 2012, and I'm debugging a store procedure that do some INSERT INTO #temporal table SELECT.
There is any way to view the data selected in the command (the subquery of the insert into?)
There is any way to view the data inserted and/or the temporal table where the insert maked the changes?
It doesn't matter if is the total rows, not one by one
UPDATE:
Requirements from AT Compliance and Company Policy requires that any modification can be done in the process of test and it's probable this will be managed by another team. There is any way to avoid any change on the script?
The main idea is that the AT user check in their workdesktop the outputs, copy and paste them, without make any change on environment or product.
Thanks and kind regards.
If I understand your question correctly, then take a look at the OUTPUT clause:
Returns information from, or expressions based on, each row affected
by an INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, or MERGE statement. These results can be
returned to the processing application for use in such things as
confirmation messages, archiving, and other such application
requirements.
For instance:
INSERT INTO #temporaltable
OUTPUT inserted.*
SELECT *
FROM ...
Will give you all the rows from the INSERT statement that was inserted into the temporal table, which were selected from the other table.
Is there any reason you can't just do this: SELECT * FROM #temporal? (And debug it in SQL Server Management Studio, passing in the same parameters your application is passing in).
It's a quick and dirty way of doing it, but one reason you might want to do it this way over the other (cleaner/better) answer, is that you get a bit more control here. And, if you're in a situation where you have multiple inserts to your temp table (hopefully you aren't), you can just do a single select to see all of the inserted rows at once.
I would still probably do it the other way though (now I know about it).
I know of no way to do this without changing the script. Howeer, for the future, you should never write a complex strored proc or script without a debug parameter that allows you to put in the data tests you will want. Make it the last parameter with a default value of 0 and you won't even have to change your current code that calls the proc.
Then you can add statements like the below everywhere you will want to check intermediate results. Further in debug mode you might always rollback any transactions so that a bug will not affect the data.
IF #debug = 1
BEGIN
SELECT * FROM #temp
END
We have an SSIS package that ran in production on a SQL 2008 box with a 2005 compatibility setting. The package contains a SQL Task and it appears as though the SQL at the end of the script did not run.
The person who worked on that package noted before leaving the company that the package needed "GOs" between the individual SQL commands to correct the issue. however, when testing in development on SQL Server 2008 with 2008 compatibility, the package worked fine.
From what I know, GO's place commands in batches, where commands are sent to the database provider in a batch, for efficiency's sake. I am thinking that the only way that GO should effect the outcome is if there was an error in that script somewhere above it. I can imagine GO in that case, and only that case, effecting the outcome. However, we have seen no evidence of any errors logged.
Can someone suggest to me whether or not GO is even likely related to the problem? Assuming no error was encountered, my understanding of the "GO" command suggests that it use or lack of use is most likely unrelated to the problem.
The GO keyword is, as you say, a batch separator that is used by the SQL Server management tools. It's important to note, though, that the keyword itself is parsed by the client, not the server.
Depending on the version of SQL Server in question, some things do need to be placed into distinct batches, such as creating and using a database. There are also some operations that must take place at the beginning of a batch (like the use statement), so using these keywords means that you'll have to break the script up into batches.
A couple of things to keep in mind about breaking a script up into multiple batches:
When an error is encountered within a batch, execution of that batch stops. However, if your script has multiple batches, an error in one batch will only stop that batch from executing; subsequent batches will still execute
Variables declared within a batch are available to that batch only; they cannot be used in other batches
If the script is performing nothing but CRUD operations, then there's no need to break it up into multiple batches unless any of the above behavioral differences is desired.
All of your assumptions are correct.
One thing that I've experienced is that if you have a batch of statements that is a pre-requisite for another batch, you may need to separate them with a GO. One example may be if you add a column to a table and then update that column (I think...). But if it's just a series of DML queries, then the absence or presence of GO shouldn't matter.
I've noticed that if you set up any variables in the script their state (and maybe the variables themselves) are wiped after a 'GO' statement so they can't be reused. This was certainly the case on SQL Server 2000 and I presume it will be the case on 2005 and 2008 as well.
Yes, GO can affect outcome.
GO between statements will allow execution to continue if there is an error in between. For example, compare the output of these two scripts:
SELECT * FROM table_does_not_exist;
SELECT * FROM sys.objects;
...
SELECT * FROM table_does_not_exist;
GO
SELECT * FROM sys.objects;
As others identified, you may need to issue GO if you need changes applied before you work on them (e.g. a new column) but you can't persist local or table variables across GO...
Finally, note that GO is not a T-SQL keyword, it is a batch separator. This is why you can't put GO in the middle of a stored procedure, for example ... SQL Server itself has no idea what GO means.
EDIT however one answer stated that transactions cannot span batches, which I disagree with:
CREATE TABLE #foo(id INT);
GO
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
GO
INSERT #foo(id) SELECT 1;
GO
SELECT ##TRANCOUNT; -- 1
GO
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
GO
DROP TABLE #foo;
GO
SELECT ##TRANCOUNT; -- 0