Here is my use case, simplified.
Two tables MyHeaderTable, MyLinesTable;
MyHeaderTable
-------------
pkID [int]
fname
lname
LineID [varchar(8)]
blah1
MyLinesTable
-------------
pkLinID [varchar(8)]
start_date
end_date
blah2
I want to restrict the primary-key for MyLinesTable.pkLinID to come from a column in another table MyHeaderTable.LineID
What is the syntax to set pkLinID = [only values from] MyHeadersTable.LineID
What I tried so far
Select MyLinesTable / right-click Design / right-click Check Constraint... / Add / Expression.
Then I am stuck, what is the syntax for Expression?
If I use the expression
pkLinID = '12345678'
the user interface happily takes it, but obviously i want a set of values from the other table.
P.S. I've done this hundreds of tines with PrimaryKey and ForeignKey constraints, where I just drag and drop, but this is totally different.
EDIT: Example to clarify:
MyHeadersTable has 100 rows, with say values 1 to 100 in MyHeaders.LineID but
myLinestable only has 2 rows, with values myLinestable.pkLinID = 50 and 99; whenever someone inserts a record in MyLinesTable, I want to restrict it to those already existing in MyHeadersTable, and let the DB enforce validation (with contraints, or whatever mechanism is available).
Related
I have a column that store user input text field from a frontend website. User can input any kind of text in it, but they will also put in a specific alphabets combination to represent a job type - for example 'dri'. As an example:
Row 1: P49384; Open vehicle bonnet-BO-dri 22/10
Row 2: P93818; Vehicle exhaust-BO 10/20
Row 3: P1933; battery dri-pu-103/2
Row 4: P3193; screwdriver-pu 423
Row 5: X939; seats bo
Row 6: P9381-vehicle-pu-bo dri
In this case, I will like to filter only rows that contain dri. From the example, you can see the text can be in any order (user behaviour, they will key whatever they like without following any kind of format). But the constant is that for a particular job type, they will put in dri.
I know that I can simply use LIKE in SQL Server to get these rows. Unfortunately, row 4 is included inside when I use this operator. This is because screwdriver contains dri.
Is there any way in SQL Server I can do to strictly only obtain rows that has dri job type, while excluding words like screwdriver?
I tried to use PATINDEX but it failed too - PATINDEX('%[d][r][i]%', column) > 0
Thanks in advance.
Your data is the problem here. Unfortunately even for denormalised data it doesn't appear to have a reliable/defined format, making parsing your data in a language like T-SQL next to impossible. What problems are there? Based on the original sample data, at a glance the following problems exist:
The first data value's delimiter isn't consistent. Rows 1-5 use a semicolon (;), but row 6 uses a hyphen (-)
The last data value's delimiter isn't consistent. Row 1, 2 & 4 use a space ( ), but row 3 uses a hyphen (-).
Internal data doesn't use a consistent delimiter. For example:
Row 1 has a the value Open vehicle bonnet-BO-dri, which appears to be the values Open vehicle bonnet, BO and dri; so the hyphen(-) is the delimiter.
Row 5 has seats bo, which appears to be the values seats and bo, so uses a space ( ) as a delimiter.
The fact that row 6 has vehicle as its own value (vehicle-pu-bo-dri), however, implies that Open vehicle bonnet and Vehicle Exhaust (on rows 1 and 2 respectively) could actually be the values Open, vehicle, & bonnet and Vehicle & Exhaust respectively.
Honestly, the solution is to fix your design. As such, your tables should likely look something like this:
CREATE TABLE dbo.Job (JobID varchar(6) CONSTRAINT PK_JobID PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED, --NONCLUSTERED Because it's not always ascending
YourNumericalLikeValue varchar(5) NULL); --Obviously use a better name
CREATE TABLE dbo.JobTypeCompleted(JobTypeID int IDENTITY (1,1) CONSTRAINT PK_JobTypeID PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED,
JobID varchar(6) NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK_JobType_Job FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES dbo.Job (JobID),
JobType varchar(30) NOT NULL); --Must likely this'll actually be a foreign key to an actual job type table
GO
Then, for a couple of your rows, the data would be inserted like so:
INSERT INTO dbo.Job (JobID, YourNumericalLikeValue)
VALUES('P49384','22/10'),
('P9381',NULL);
GO
INSERT INTO dbo.JobTypeCompleted(JobID,JobType)
VALUES('P49384','Open vehicle bonnet'),
('P49384','BO'),
('P49384','dri'),
('P9381','vehicle'),
('P9381','pu'),
('P9381','bo'),
('P9381','dri');
Then you can easily get the jobs you want with a simple query:
SELECT J.JobID,
J.YourNumericalLikeValue
FROM dbo.Job J
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM dbo.JobTypeCompleted JTC
WHERE JTC.JobID = J.JobID
AND JTC.JobType = 'dri');
You can apply like operator in your query as column_name like '%-dri'. It means find out records that end with "-dri"
I have a very large DataTable-Object which I need to import from a client into an MS SQL-Server database via ODBC.
The original Data-Table has two columns:
* First column is the Office Location (quite a long string)
* Second column is a booking value (integer)
Now I am looking for the most efficient way to insert these data into an external SQL-Server. My goal is to replace each office location automatically by an index instead using the full string because each location occurs VERY often in the initial table.
Is this possible via a trigger or via a view on the SQL-server?
At the end I want to insert the data without touching them in my script because this is very slow for these large amount of data and let the optimization done by the SQL Server.
I expect that if I do INSERT the data including the Office location, that SQL Server looks up an index for an already imported location and then use just this index. And if the location did not already exist in the index table / view then it should create a new entry here and then use the new index.
Here a sample of the data I need to import via ODBC into the SQL-Server:
OfficeLocation | BookingValue
EU-Germany-Hamburg-Ostend1 | 12
EU-Germany-Hamburg-Ostend1 | 23
EU-Germany-Hamburg-Ostend1 | 34
EU-France-Paris-Eifeltower | 42
EU-France-Paris-Eifeltower | 53
EU-France-Paris-Eifeltower | 12
What I do need on the SQL-Server is something like these 2 tables as a result:
OId|BookingValue OfficeLocation |Oid
1|12 EU-Germany-Hamburg-Ostend1 | 1
1|23 EU-France-Paris-Eifeltower | 2
1|43
2|42
2|53
2|12
My initial idea was, to write the data into a temp-table and have something like an intelligent TRIGGER (or a VIEW?) to react on any INSERT into this table to create the 2 desired (optimized) tables.
Any hint are more than welcome!
Yes, you can create a view with an INSERT trigger to handle this. Something like:
CREATE TABLE dbo.Locations (
OId int IDENTITY(1,1) not null PRIMARY KEY,
OfficeLocation varchar(500) not null UNIQUE
)
GO
CREATE TABLE dbo.Bookings (
OId int not null,
BookingValue int not null
)
GO
CREATE VIEW dbo.CombinedBookings
WITH SCHEMABINDING
AS
SELECT
OfficeLocation,
BookingValue
FROM
dbo.Bookings b
INNER JOIN
dbo.Locations l
ON
b.OId = l.OId
GO
CREATE TRIGGER CombinedBookings_Insert
ON dbo.CombinedBookings
INSTEAD OF INSERT
AS
INSERT INTO Locations (OfficeLocation)
SELECT OfficeLocation
FROM inserted where OfficeLocation not in (select OfficeLocation from Locations)
INSERT INTO Bookings (OId,BookingValue)
SELECT OId, BookingValue
FROM
inserted i
INNER JOIN
Locations l
ON
i.OfficeLocation = l.OfficeLocation
As you can see, we first add to the locations table any missing locations and then populate the bookings table.
A similar trigger can cope with Updates. I'd generally let the Locations table just grow and not attempt to clean it up (for no longer referenced locations) with triggers. If growth is a concern, a periodic job will usually be good enough.
Be aware that some tools (such as bulk inserts) may not invoke triggers, so those will not be usable with the above view.
I am trying to get all the data from all tables in one DB.
I have looked around, but i haven't been able to find any solution that works with my current problems.
I made a C# program that creates a table for each day the program runs. The table name will be like this tbl18_12_2015 for today's date (Danish date format).
Now in order to make a yearly report i would love if i can get ALL the data from all the tables in the DB that stores these reports. I have no way of knowing how many tables there will be or what they are called, other than the format (tblDD-MM-YYYY).
in thinking something like this(that obviously doesen't work)
SELECT * FROM DB_NAME.*
All the tables have the same columns, and one of them is a primary key, that auto increments.
Here is a table named tbl17_12_2015
ID PERSONID NAME PAYMENT TYPE RESULT TYPE
3 92545 TOM 20,5 A NULL NULL
4 92545 TOM 20,5 A NULL NULL
6 117681 LISA NULL NULL 207 R
Here is a table named tbl18_12_2015
ID PERSONID NAME PAYMENT TYPE RESULT TYPE
3 117681 LISA 30 A NULL NULL
4 53694 DAVID 78 A NULL NULL
6 58461 MICHELLE NULL NULL 207 R
What i would like to get is something like this(from all tables in the DB):
PERSONID NAME PAYMENT TYPE RESULT TYPE
92545 TOM 20,5 A NULL NULL
92545 TOM 20,5 A NULL NULL
117681 LISA NULL NULL 207 R
117681 LISA 30 A NULL NULL
53694 DAVID 78 A NULL NULL
58461 MICHELLE NULL NULL 207 R
Have tried some different query's but none of them returned this, just a lot of info about the tables.
Thanks in advance, and happy holidays
edit: corrected tbl18_12_2015 col 3 header to english rather than danish
Thanks to all those who tried to help me solving this question, but i can't (due to my skill set most likely) get the UNION to work, so that's why i decided to refactor my DB.
While you could store the table names in a database and use dynamic sql to union them together, this is NOT a good idea and you shouldn't even consider it - STOP NOW!!!!!
What you need to do is create a new table with the same fields - and add an ID (auto-incrementing identity column) and a DateTime field. Then, instead of creating a new table for each day, just write your data to this table with the DateTime. Then, you can use the DateTime field to filter your results, whether you want something from a day, week, month, year, decade, etc. - and you don't need dynamic sql - and you don't have 10,000 database tables.
I know some people posted comments expressing the same sentiments, but, really, this should be an answer.
If you had all the tables in the same database you would be able to use the UNION Operator to combine all your tables..
Maybe you can do something like this to select all the tables names from a given database
For SQL Server:
SELECT TABLE_NAME
FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES
WHERE TABLE_TYPE = 'BASE TABLE' AND TABLE_CATALOG='dbName'
For MySQL:
SELECT TABLE_NAME
FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES
WHERE TABLE_TYPE = 'BASE TABLE' AND TABLE_SCHEMA='dbName'
Once you have the list of tables you can move all the tables to 1 database and create your report using Unions..
You will need to use a UNION between each select query.
Do not use *, always list the name of the columns you are bringing up.
If you want duplicates, then UNION ALL is what you want.
If you want unique records based on the PERSONID, but there is likely to be differences, then I will guess that an UPDATE_DATE column will be useful to determine which one to use but what if each records with the same PERSONID lived a life of its own on each side?
You'd need to determine business rules to find out which specific changes to keep and merge into the unique resulting record and you'd be on your own.
What is "Skyttenavn"? Is it Danish? If it is the same as "NAME", you'd want to alias that column as 'NAME' in the select query, although it's the order of the columns as listed that counts when determining what to unite.
You'd need a new auto-incremented ID as a unique primary key, by the way, if you are likely to have conflicting IDs. If you want to merge them together into a new primary key identity column, you'd want to set IDENTITY_INSERT to OFF then back to ON if you want to restart natural incrementation.
I am very new to SQL and SQL server, would appreciate any help with the following problem.
I am trying to update a share price table with new prices.
The table has three columns: share code, date, price.
The share code + date = PK
As you can imagine, if you have thousands of share codes and 10 years' data for each, the table can get very big. So I have created a separate table called a share ID table, and use a share ID instead in the first table (I was reliably informed this would speed up the query, as searching by integer is faster than string).
So, to summarise, I have two tables as follows:
Table 1 = Share_code_ID (int), Date, Price
Table 2 = Share_code_ID (int), Share_name (string)
So let's say I want to update the table/s with today's price for share ZZZ. I need to:
Look for the Share_code_ID corresponding to 'ZZZ' in table 2
If it is found, update table 1 with the new price for that date, using the Share_code_ID I just found
If the Share_code_ID is not found, update both tables
Let's ignore for now how the Share_code_ID is generated for a new code, I'll worry about that later.
I'm trying to use a merge query loosely based on the following structure, but have no idea what I am doing:
MERGE INTO [Table 1]
USING (VALUES (1,23-May-2013,1000)) AS SOURCE (Share_code_ID,Date,Price)
{ SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULD BE AN INNER JOIN HERE OR SOMETHING }
ON Table 2 = 'ZZZ'
WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET Table 1.Price = 1000
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT { TO BOTH TABLES }
Any help would be appreciated.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/bb510625(v=sql.100).aspx
You use Table1 for target table and Table2 for source table
You want to do action, when given ID is not found in Table2 - in the source table
In the documentation, that you had read already, that corresponds to the clause
WHEN NOT MATCHED BY SOURCE ... THEN <merge_matched>
and the latter corresponds to
<merge_matched>::=
{ UPDATE SET <set_clause> | DELETE }
Ergo, you cannot insert into source-table there.
You could use triggers for auto-insertion, when you insert something in Table1, but that will not be able to insert proper Shared_Name - trigger just won't know it.
So you have two options i guess.
1) make T-SQL code block - look for Stored Procedures. I think there also is a construct to execute anonymous code block in MS SQ, like EXECUTE BLOCK command in Firebird SQL Server, but i don't know it for sure.
2) create updatable SQL VIEW, joining Table1 and Table2 to show last most current date, so that when you insert a row in this view the view's on-insert trigger would actually insert rows to both tables. And when you would update the data in the view, the on-update trigger would modify the data.
I have a table in MS SQL 2005. And would like to do:
update Table
set ID = ID + 1
where ID > 5
And the problem is that ID is primary key and when I do this I have an error, because when this query comes to row with ID 8 it tries to change the value to 9, but there is old row in this table with value 9 and there is constraint violation.
Therefore I would like to control the update query to make sure that it's executed in the descending order.
So no for ID = 1,2,3,4 and so on, but rather ID = 98574 (or else) and then 98573, 98572 and so on. In this situation there will be no constraint violation.
So how to control order of update execution? Is there a simple way to acomplish this programmatically?
Transact SQL defers constraint checking until the statement finishes.
That's why this query:
UPDATE mytable
SET id = CASE WHEN id = 7 THEN 8 ELSE 7 END
WHERE id IN (7, 8)
will not fail, though it swaps id's 7 and 8.
It seems that some duplicate values are left after your query finishes.
Try this:
update Table
set ID = ID * 100000 + 1
where ID > 5
update Table
set ID = ID / 100000
where ID > 500000
Don't forget the parenthesis...
update Table
set ID = (ID * 100000) + 1
where ID > 5
If the IDs get too big here, you can always use a loop.
Personally I would not update an id field this way, I would create a work table that is the old to new table. It stores both ids and then all the updates are done from that. If you are not using cascade delete (which could incidentally lock your tables for a long time), then start with the child tables and work up, other wise start with the pk table. Do not do this unless you are in single user mode or you can get some nasty data integrity problems if other users are changin things while the tables are not consistent with each other.
PKs are nothing to fool around with changing and if at all possible should not be changed.
Before you do any changes to production data in this way, make sure to take a full backup. Messing this up can cost you your job if you can't recover.