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.
Related
Is there a way to prevent sql from throwing an error when I try to save a record that already exists. I've got a composite key table for a many-to-many relationship that has only the two values, when I update a model from my application, it tries to save all records, the records that already exist throw an error Cannot insert duplicate key is there a way of having the database ignore these, or do I have to handle it in the application?
you are calling an INSERT and trying to add duplicated keys. This error is by design, and essential. The DB is throwing an exception for an exceptional and erroneous condition.
If you are, instead, trying to perform an "upsert" you may need to use a stored procedure or use the MERGE syntax.
If, instead, you don't want to UPDATE but to just ignore rows already in the table, then you need to simply add an exception to your INSERT statement... such as
....
WHERE
table.Key <> interting.key
Try something like this with your insert statement.
insert into foo (x,y)
select #x,#y
except
select x,y from foo
This will add a record to foo, ONLY if it is not already in the table.
You could try creating your index with the IGNORE_DUP_KEY option so that you only get a warning when you have duplicate keys rather than a true error.
The other option and possibly the better one is to use the MERGE statement rather than insert. The MERGE statement let's you do Inserts, Updates and Deletes all in one statement and sounds like it should work out well for what you are trying to do.
Last but not least, as you said fix it in your app and only insert the rows that need to be added.
I need to merge two tables in following way:
Target has one extra Column ID. This Id is coming FROM another Single Column Master Table.
While Inserting the Record in Merge Statement I need to INSERT a new row into mater table and use its id to insert into TARGET table.
I have created a Stored Procedure that Inserts and returns newly inserted ID. Now the Problem is inside SQL Merge, we can't call a stored Proc.
What could be the solution of this issue? Cant use Scalar functions as INSERT can't be performed in Functions.
DECLARE #temp INT
MERGE dbo.mytabletarget T
USING dbo.mytableSource S
ON T.refId=S.RefId
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE
SET T.col1=S.col1,
T.Col2=S.Col2
WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET THEN
INSERT (Id,col1,col2)
VALUES({Here i need value from SP. SP simply Inserts a new Id into master table and Returns it},S.col1,S.col2);
GO
What could be the solution of this issue?
Do not use a stored procedure. Obvious, isn't it?
For a merge statement, you pretty much are stuck with doing the commands right there in the statement. Merge focuses on ETL loads and has advantages as well as limitations.
Basically, put the logic into the merge statement.
While Inserting the Record in Merge Statement I need to INSERT a new row into mater table
and use its id to insert into TARGET table.
Hm, lookup table maintenance?
The regular approach for that is ti make sure the lookup table is filled first (in a separate statement). ETL (and that is where merge comes from) often works along stages for that particular reason.
Sorry, I do not have a better solution either ;(
I need a sql statement, to insert a new row in one database table and update an existing row in another database table based on some conditions.
Is there a way to do this? To insert a row in one table and update a row in another database table in one sql statement?
Thanks in advance!
Yes, they are called Transactions, and are implemented with START TRANSACTION and COMMIT/ROLLBACK with something like:
START TRANSACTION;
INSERT INTO ...
UPDATE table2 SET name='TOTO' WHERE type=1;
COMMIT;
EDIT
This is not in fact one SQL query, but the operation is done atomically - and I think that is what you need.
A single SQL statement allows you to update one table, not several; if that statement is a MERGE then you can specify insert/update/delete actions but still targeting just the same one target table.
If you just want consistency, use transactions; until a transaction is committed, changes within it are not visible to the outside world.
If you want that a single update (which you cannot control) resulted in a coordinated insert, use an on update trigger in the table being updated. The trigger would insert appropriate row(s) into other table(s).
You can use Trigger to update second table on insert of first table
Yes, it's possible with stored procedures.
Watch this: Stored procedures
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.
I would like to run my UPDATE statement on my table and see what the results will be without actually changing the table.
For example:
UPDATE MyTable SET field1=TRIM(field1);
I would like to see the result of that without actually changing the tables content. Is this possible?
Specifically I am asking about MySQL.
Also, I know I could just run a SELECT statement as follows:
SELECT TRIM(field1) FROM MyTable;
But I would like to know if I can do it the other way.
If you are using InnoDB tables - use a transaction. If you don't like the results, ROLLBACK - If they are OK, the COMMIT
START TRANSACTION;
UPDATE MyTable SET field1=TRIM(field1);
COMMIT; (or ROLLBACK;)
If you can't use a transaction, you can push the content of that table into a temporary table (insert select), and do your update on that first.