I have an existing empty table like this :
TABLE [dbo].[Answer](
[Id] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL,
[FirstName] [nchar](10) NULL,
[LastName] [nchar](10) NULL,
[Point] [int] NULL,
[Comment] [nchar](10) NULL)
then I create a CMK:
CREATE COLUMN MASTER KEY MyCMK
WITH (
KEY_STORE_PROVIDER_NAME = 'MSSQL_CERTIFICATE_STORE',
KEY_PATH = 'Current User/Personal/f2260f28d909d21c642a3d8e0b45a830e79a1420'
);
And then a CEK based on my CMK:
CREATE COLUMN ENCRYPTION KEY MyCEK
WITH VALUES
(
COLUMN_MASTER_KEY = MyCMK,
ALGORITHM = 'RSA_OAEP',
ENCRYPTED_VALUE =
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
);
Now when I want to encrypt my Point column of my table I get an error like this:
The statement attempts to encrypt, decrypt or re-encrypt the column in-place using a secure enclave, but the current and/or the target column encryption key for the column is not enclave-enabled.
the CMK is not configured to use Secure Enclaves. It is just a simple CMK. what is wrong with the query?
I think I won't be able to encrypt an existing table column because I think it needs in-place encryption which is not possible without Secure Enclaves.
Am I right?
Related
I have a huge table for logging. The definition is:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[TRACELOG]
(
[ID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[TYPE] [varchar](15) NOT NULL,
[DATEHEURE] [datetime] NOT NULL,
[PROGRAMME] [varchar](25) NOT NULL,
[APPLICATION] [varchar](50) NOT NULL,
[DESCRIPTION] [text] NULL,
[UTILISATEUR] [varchar](10) NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]
Indexes are like this:
The table has now about 18 millions or row. When I run a query using ID = 123456, the query is very long.
SELECT *
FROM TRACELOG
WHERE ID = 123456
I'm very surprised... My question is: in a table with IDENTITY, is there an implicit index created on the column in question (not visible in indexes?) or have I to create manually?
NO - having an IDENTITY column does not automatically create an index.
What does create an automatic (and by default clustered) index is the PRIMARY KEY constraint - which is often used on IDENTITY columns.
But not every IDENTITY column has to be the primary key of its table - you have to specify that if you want it that way.
This is a question more about design than about solving a problem.
I created three tables as such
CREATE TABLE [CapInvUser](
[UserId] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[Name] [varchar](150) NOT NULL,
[AreaId] [int] NULL,
[Account] [varchar](150) NULL,
[mail] [varchar](150) NULL,
[UserLevelId] [int] NOT NULL
)
CREATE TABLE [CapInvUserLevel](
[UserLevelId] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[Level] [varchar](50) NOT NULL
)
CREATE TABLE [CapInvUserRegistry](
[UserRegistryId] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[UserLevelId] int NOT NULL,
[DateRegistry] DATE NOT NULL,
[RegistryStatus] VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
)
With a view that shows all the data on the first table with "AreaId" being parsed as the varchar identifier of that table, the UserLevel being parsed as the varchar value of that table, and a join of the registry status of the last one.
Right now when I want to register a new user, I insert into all three tables using separate queries, but I feel like I should have a way to insert into all of them at the same time.
I thought about using a stored procedure to insert, but I still don't know if that would be apropiate.
My question is
"Is there a more apropiate way of doing this?"
"Is there a way to create a view that will let me insert over it? (without passing the int value manually)"
--This are just representations of the tables, not the real ones.
-- I'm still learning how to work with SQL Server properly.
Thank you for your answers and/or guidance.
The most common way of doing this, in my experience, is to write a stored procedure that does all three inserts in the necessary order to create the FK relationships.
This would be my unequivocal recommendation.
I am using SQL Server 2005, and I have 3 tables:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Workflow]
(
[WorkflowId] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[Name] [varchar](50) NOT NULL,
[Description] [varchar](1000) NULL
)
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Application]
(
[ApplicationId] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[Name] [varchar](50) NOT NULL
)
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Rel_Workflow_Application]
(
[WorkflowId] [int] NOT NULL,
[ApplicationId] [int] NOT NULL
)
The rule is that in Rel_Workflow_Application, ApplicationId must exist in the Application table or it can be 0. I don't have a record in table Application where ApplicationId = 0 and I don't wish to create one.
How can I set this constraint?
Though it is possible to use the NOCHECK when creating a foreign key, this is a hack that might prove problematic. I would use null instead of 0 and if 0 needs to show up in queries use coalesce(ApplicationID, 0) in the select statements or create a view which does this and query that view instead.
This cleanly indicates that the foreign key does not have a row in Application.
I have a sequence that looks like this:
CREATE SEQUENCE dbo.NextWidgetId
AS [bigint]
START WITH 100
INCREMENT BY 2
NO CACHE
GO
And a table that looks like this:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Widget_Sequenced]
(
[WidgetId] [int] NOT NULL DEFAULT(NEXT VALUE FOR dbo.NextWidgetId),
[WidgetCost] [money] NOT NULL,
[WidgetName] [varchar](50) NOT NULL,
[WidgetCode] [int] NOT NULL,
[LastChangedBy] [int] NOT NULL,
[RowVersionId] [timestamp] NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Widget_Sequenced]
PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([WidgetId] ASC) ON [PRIMARY]
) ON [PRIMARY]
Is there a way to add a new record to this table structure using Entity Framework?
I tried setting StoreGeneratedPattern for WidgetId to computed and I tried it with Identity. Both gave me errors.
I tried this with EF 5. But I could move to EF 6 if it fixes this.
It's possible from version 6.2, using this code:
System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices.UseScopeIdentity = false;
More information on EF6 does not work with primary key from sequence
You can replace your sequence with IDENTITY(100, 2) and everything will work out of the box.
I'm developing a SQL SERVER 2012 express and developer solution.
I will receive an xml in an stored procedure. In the stored procedure I will parse the xml and insert its data into a table.
My problem here is that in this xml could contain data that exists on the table, and I need to update the data on the table with the new one.
I don't want to check if each row in xml exists on the table.
I think I can use IGNORE_DUP_KEY but I'm not sure.
How can I update or insert new data without checking it?
This is the table where I want to insert (or update) the new data:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[CODES]
(
[ID_CODE] [bigint] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[CODE_LEVEL] [tinyint] NOT NULL,
[CODE] [nvarchar](20) NOT NULL,
[COMMISIONING_FLAG] [tinyint] NOT NULL,
[IS_TRANSMITTED] [bit] NOT NULL,
[TIMESPAN] [datetime] NULL,
[USERNAME] [nvarchar](50) NULL,
[SOURCE] [nvarchar](50) NULL,
[REASON] [nvarchar](200) NULL
CONSTRAINT [PK_CODES] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[CODE_LEVEL] ASC,
[CODE] ASC
)
)
The "IGNORE_DUP_KEY" parameter ,is ignore inserting new row, if he is already exists, but it is not dealing with update in case it exists.
the solution to your request is by MERGE or DML operation (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) .
BTW,
The parameter "IGNORE_DUP_KEY" is covering existsnce for the index key only (index column).