I want to create a table trigger for insert and update. How can I get the values of the current record that is inserted/updated?
within the trigger, you can use a table called 'inserted' to access the values of the new records and the new version of the updated records. Similarly, the table called 'deleted' allows you to access deleted records and the original versions of updated records.
using function 'update' on column ( if you wanna check the fact of update) or retrieving rows from table 'inserted'
While triggers can be used for this, I'd be very careful about deciding to implement them. They are an absolute bear to debug, and can lead to a lack of maintainability.
if you need to do cascading updates (i.e. altering table A in turn changes table B), I would either use a stored procedure (which can be tested and debugged more easily than a trigger), or if you're fortunate enough to be using an ORM (Entity framework, NHibernate, etc.) perform this function within your model or repository.
Related
I've almost seen every post concerning this question but haven't captured the best one. Some of them recommend using Identity but some triggers to perform incrementing integer column.
I'd like also to use triggers as there will be more delete happen in my table in this case. In addition, as I have mainly come from Interbase DBMS where I used to create a before insert trigger on table this issue sucks until now as I migrated from Interbase to MS SQL Server.
This is how I did in Interbase
CREATE trigger currency_bi for currency
active before insert position 0
AS
declare variable m integer;
begin
select max(id)+1 from currency into :m;
if (:m is NULL ) then m=1;
new.id=:m;
end
So, as I should frequently use this, which is the best way to create a trigger that increments integer column using max(id)+1 ?
Don't use triggers to do this, it will either kill the performance or cause all sorts of concurrency problems, depending on your use of transactions and locking.
It's better to use one of mechanisms available in the engine -- identity property or sequence object.
If you're running a newer version of SQL Server, with sequence feature available, use sequence. It will allow you to reserve a range of ids from the client applcation, and assign them to new rows on the client, before sending them to server for insert.
Always use Identity option , because as you told that you frequently delete the record, in this case trigger will some time give wrong information ( Called Isolation level).
Suppose one transaction delete the highest one record and just before or same time your trigger fired. So it get the deleted highest record which is not exist after few second.
So when you fired select query, it show the gap which is wrong.
Sqlserver give the inbuilt mechanism of this type of situation with auto identity true option.
http://mrbool.com/understanding-auto-increment-in-sql-server/29171
You donot bother about this. Also draw back of trigger is if multiple insert happened, then it always fired after the last insert statement.
Try to never use trigger , as it is harmful and not controllable.
Still if you want , then add in your insert statement , not use trigger
How can I auto-increment a column without using IDENTITY?
I have a dozen tables of whom I want to keep the history of the changes. For every one I created a second table with the ending _HISTO and added fields modtime, action, user.
At the moment before I insert, modify or delete a record in this tables I call ( from my delphi app ) a oracle procedure that copies the actual values to the histo table and then do the operation.
My procedure generates a dynamic sql via DBA_TAB_COLUMNS and then executes the generated ( insert into tablename_histo ( fields s ) select fields, sysdate, 'acition', userid from table_name
I was told that I can not call this procedure from a trigger because it has to select the table the trigger is triggered on. Is this true ? Is it possible to implement what I need ?
Assuming you want to maintain history using triggers (rather than any of the other methods of tracking history data in Oracle-- Workspace Manager, Total Recall, Streams, Fine_Grained Auditing etc.), you can use dynamic SQL in the trigger. But the dynamic SQL is subject to the same rules that static SQL is subject to. And even static SQL in a row-level trigger cannot in general query the table that the trigger is defined on without generating a mutating table exception.
Rather than calling dynamic SQL from your trigger, however, you can potentially write some dynamic SQL that generates the trigger in the first place using the same data dictionary tables. The triggers themselves would statically refer to :new.column_name and :old.column_name. Of course, you would have to either edit the trigger or re-run the procedure that dynamically creates the trigger when a new column gets added. Since you, presumably, need to add the column to both the main table and the history table, however, this generally isn't too big of a deal.
Oracle does not allow a trigger to execute a SELECT against the table on which the trigger is defined. If you try it you'll get the dreaded "mutating table" error (ORA-04091), and while there are ways to get around that error they add a lot of complexity for little value. If you really want to build a dynamic query every time your table is updated (IMO this is a bad idea from the standpoint of performance - I find that metadata queries are often slow, but YMMV) it should end up looking something like
strAction := CASE
WHEN INSERTING THEN 'INSERT'
WHEN UPDATING THEN 'UPDATE'
WHEN DELETING THEN 'DELETE'
END;
INSERT INTO TABLENAME_HISTO
(ACTIVITY_DATE, ACTION, MTC_USER,
old_field1, new_field1, old_field2, new_field2)
VALUES
(SYSDATE, strAction, USERID,
:OLD.field1, :NEW.field1, :OLD.field2, :NEW.field2)
Share and enjoy.
I'm using triggers on my sql database to capture change information for a table, it seems to be having a problem with nhibernate though.
The table has a few columns and primary keys and triggers on it. The triggers look like this
CREATE TRIGGER [dbo].[tr_Instrument_update] ON [dbo].[Instrument] FOR UPDATE AS
BEGIN
INSERT [MyAudit].[audit].[Instrument]
SELECT 'Updated', i.*
FROM inserted
INNER JOIN [MyAudit].[dbo].[Instrument] i ON inserted.[InstrumentID] = i.[InstrumentID]
END
Basically on every change we copy the row into the audit table. I have tested and if I modify the data directly through sql management studio triggers function correctly and I get data written to the audit table, however if i update through my app I get the following:
NHibernate.StaleObjectStateException
was unhandled by user code
Message=Row was updated or deleted by
another transaction (or unsaved-value
mapping was incorrect)
I assume this is because the trigger updates another table in another database, is there anyway to make nhibernate ignore this as the change will not affect any of its data, in our mappings we have no reference to this audit data.
Figured out that the trigger was causing Nhibernate to do two identical update calls for some reason. The solution was to SET NOCOUNT ON inside the trigger. Still not sure though why nhibernate makes two updates!
I'm trying to add a simple trigger to a table- the 1st issue i came accross was that this table has text columns - so the for delete, insert, update triggers aren't going to float. 'instead of' does though.
I am now up against the fact that the table has cascades set on it. Do you know if there's a way to get around that little gem or am I basically fubared?
Create a new table, which everyone uses instead of the cascading table. Then build your "instead of" trigger onto the new table, and update the old table within the trigger.
The old table will cascade as normal, but your new table doesn't have any cascades.
UPDATE:
You could try adding a view rather that creating another table. You could even exclude those text columns from the view.
I don't know what version of SQL Server you are on but text columns are deprecated - they will NOT be in the next version of SQL Server. If you are on any version higher than 2000, I would suggest you make it an immediate prioroity to fix those by making them nvarchar(max) (You will also need to change code that uses CONTAINS, WRITETEXT and other text type code).
That said, I always got the value of text column in a trigger by joining inserted to the actual table itself on the primary key.
I'm not sure what to do about your cascade question as we do not allow cascade delete or update for performance reasons. As far as I can tell triggers will still fire (and should definitely be written to handle multiple record inserts, updates or deletes, but I strongly feel all triggers should be written this way). What problem exactly are you running into with the cascades?
I am currently not in a location to test any of this out but would like to know if this is an option so I can start designing the solution in my head.
I would like to create an insert trigger on a table. In this insert trigger, I would like to get values from the inserted virtual table and use them to UPDATE the same table. Would this work or would we enter some kind of infinite loop (even though the trigger is not for update commands).
As an example if a row was inserted (which represents a new rate/cost for a vendor) I would like to update the same table to expire the old rate/cost for that vendor. The expiration is necessary vs updating the record that already exists so a history of rates/costs can be kept for reporting purposes (not to mention that the current reporting infrastructure expects this type of thing to happen and we are migrating current reports/data to SQL Server).
Thanks!
If you have only an INSERT trigger and no UPDATE trigger then there isn't any problem, but I assume you want to catch also UPDATEs and perhaps even DELETEs.
The INSTEAD OF triggers are guaranteed not to behave recursively:
If an INSTEAD OF trigger defined on a
table executes a statement against the
table that would ordinarily fire the
INSTEAD OF trigger again, the trigger
is not called recursively
With and INSTEAD OF trigger you must do both the original INSERT and the UPDATE you desire.
This doesn't sound like it would cause any problems to me, providing you're not doing an INSERT in another UPDATE trigger.