In MySQL you can do SELECT CREATE TABLE .... and it will return the CREATE statement that was used to create this table. I need to do the same in SQL Server.
Is there any similar functionality in SQL Server? I have a table name test_table.
I need to run a SELECT statement that would return the CREATE TABLE string that was used to create this table. I tried this but it didn't work. How can I achieve this result in SQL Server?
You could try SELECT INTO and specify the name of a temporary table (prefixed with #). It also works with physical tables (although I've not found a use for this). Something like this
select '123' as colName into #newTable;
select * from #newTable;
colName
123
I am using SQL Server. I have a stored procedure that does the following:
INSERT INTO Tbl1
SELECT col1, col2, col3
FROM Tbl2
My question is: does this need a transaction with commit? From looking online it does not seem so. I will have it as part of a nightly batch process so want to make sure it behaves properly. Should I do a try catch in this case?
If you have just only this statement it doesn't matter, because implicitly it is a transaction. In case of failure it won't insert any rows, but in other case it will commit the changes. You might have a scenario when at the beggining of your procedure you delete rows and then inserting rows into a table. In such scenario it might be good to wrap it up in one transaction. Thanks to this when delete succeedes, but insert fails you will still have data in your table.
I was looking for a way to pin query result in 'Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio' similar to how we can do in Oracle SQL Developer. I googled about it but it didn't help. Anyone knows how this can be achieved
Not for query results, but if you are trying to compare result sets in SQL visually, you are doing it the wrong anyway; visual comparisons are far too prone to error. You should be using the EXCEPT keyword to compare results. Load your data from query 1 into a temp table or table variable and do the same for the second query. Below is an example; feel free to populate the tables and see the results for yourself.
DECLARE #Table1 TABLE (val int)
DECLARE #Table2 TABLE (val int)
select * FROM #Table1
EXCEPT
select * FROM #Table2
select * FROM #Table2
EXCEPT
select * FROM #Table1
Using SQL Server 2014:
Is there any performance difference between the following statements?
DELETE FROM MyTable where PKID IN (SELECT PKID FROM #TmpTableVar)
AND
DELETE FROM MyTable INNER JOIN #TmpTableVar t ON MyTable.PKID = t.PKID
In your given example the execution plans will be the same (most probably).
But having same execution plans doesn't mean that they are the best execution plans you can possibly have for this statement.
The problem I see in both of your queries is the use of the Table Variable.
SQL Server always assumes that there is only 1 row in the table variable. Only in SQL Server 2014 and later version this assumption has been changed to 100 rows.
So no matter how many rows you have this the table variable SQL Server will always assume you have one row in the #TmpTableVar.
You can change your code slightly to give SQL Server a better idea of how many rows there will be in that table by replacing it with a Temporary table and since it is a PK_ID Column in your table variable you can also create an index on that table, to give best chance to sql server to come up with the best possible execution plan for this query.
SELECT PKID INTO #Temp
FROM #TmpTableVar
-- Create some index on the temp table here .....
DELETE FROM MyTable
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM #Temp t
WHERE MyTable.PKID = t.PKID)
Note
In operator will work fine since it is a primary key column in the table variable. but if you ever use IN operator on a nullable column, the results may surprise you, The IN operator goes all pear shape as soon as it finds a NULL values in the column it is checking on.
I personally prefer Exists operator for such queries but inner joins should also work just fine but avoid IN operators if you can.
I have searched for paging in SQL Server. I found most of the solution look like that
What is the best way to paginate results in SQL Server
But it don't meet my expectation.
Here is my situation:
I work on JasperReport, for that: to export the report I just need pass the any Select query into the template, it will auto generated out the report
EX : I have a select query like this:
Select * from table A
I don't know any column names in table A. So I can't use
Select ROW_NUMBER() Over (Order By columsName)
And I also don't want it order by any columns.
Anyone can help me do it?
PS: In Oracle , it have rownum very helpful in this case.
Select * from tableA where rownum > 100 and rownum <200
Paging with Oracle
You should use ROW_NUMBER with an ORDER BY - because without an ORDER BY there is no determinism in how rows are returned. You can run the same query three times and get the results back in three different orders. Especially if merry-go-round scans come into play.
So unless you want your report to have the possibility of showing the same rows to users on multiple pages, or some rows never on any page, you need to find a way to order the result set to make it deterministic.
From my opinion, you can use sql query to find out how many columns in a table, and then find out a proper one for ' order by ' to depend on.
The script of how to get out columns of an table refer to : How can I get column names from a table in SQL Server?
Check out this link
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186734.aspx
SQL Server has similar function ROW_NUMBER. Though it behaves a bit differently.
SQL Server provides no guarantee of row order unless you have have specified a column in order by clause. I would recommend that you give an order by clause that has unique values.
Thank for all your help. Because of order by are required when paging in MS SQL Server, so I used ResultSetMetaData to get the Columns name and do paging as well.
You can use the below query aswell.
declare #test table(
id int,
value1 varchar(100),
value2 int)
insert into #test values(1,'10/50',50)
insert into #test values(2,'10/60',60)
insert into #test values(3,'10/60',61)
insert into #test values(4,'10/60',10)
insert into #test values(5,'10/60',11)
insert into #test values(6,'10/60',09)
select *
from ( select row_number() over (order by (select 0)) as rownumber,* from #test )test
where test.rownumber<=5