I am working on a project where my college wants only newly inserted or updated data. It concerns ca. 5 SQL Server tables. Values in many columns could be updated/changed (surname, id, department, exit date, residence, family status, etc)
none of these tables have timestamp or datetime column, when was last change made.
I would like to use triggers (insert and update) to get only newly inserted / updated values.
My question is, is it a good approach? If yes, should I use triggers on original tables or is it better to get data into one view and use triggers on views?
You don't have to write your own triggers and tracking tables to keep track of changing data. SQL Server Change Tracking will do that for you.
Related
I have created 7 tables in SQL Server database, and this tables will be historical tables, that means data will be loaded daily without replacing the old data.
I have created a view by joining these tables. And my requirement here is, when ever the data is loaded in tables, the new data (current day data) should be loaded into the views replacing the old data, and it should be done when ever the table data is loaded.
Can any one please provide me an SQL query for this job?
All you have to do is create a default column on the table (named insertionDate, for example), which default value is current date, which will be the insertion date.
I recommend this approach beacause the default column prevents schema erros.
Then create a view using this column as filter via getdate() such as ... where insertionDate = getdate()
I am coding in ASP.NET C# 4. The database is SQL Server 2012.
I have a table that has 2000 rows and 10 columns. I want to load this table in memory and if the table is updated/inserted in any way, I want to refresh the in-memory copy from the DB.
I looked into SQL Server Change Tracking, and while it does what I need, it appears I have to write quite a bit of code to select from the change functions -- more coding than I want to do for a simple scenario that I have.
What is the best (simplest) solution for this problem? Do I go with CacheDependency?
I currently have a similar problem: I'm implementing a rest service that returns a table with 50+ columns and I want to cache the data on the client to reduce trafic.
I'm thinking about this implementation:
All my tables have the fields
ID AutoIncrement (primary key)
Version RowVersion (a numeric value that will be incremented
every time the record is updated)
To calculate a "fingerprint" of the table I use the select
select count(*), max(id), sum(version) from ...
Deleting records changes the first value, inserting the second value and updating the third value.
So if one of the three values changes, i have to reload the table.
I was working with one product where almost every table had those columns. As developers we constantly had to join to Users table to get Id of who created record and it's just a mess in a code.
I'm designing new product and thinking about this again. Does it have to be like this? Obviously, it is good to know who created record and when. But having 300+ tables reference same User table doesn't seem to be very good..
How do you handle things like this? Should I create CreatedBy column only on major entities where it's most likely needed on UI and than deal with joining? Or should I go and put it everywhere? Or maybe have another "Audit" table where I store all this and look it up only on demand(not every time entity displayed on UI)
I'm just worrying about performance aspect where every UI query will hit User table..
EDIT: This is going to be SQL Server 2008 R2 database
The problem with that approach is that you only know who created the row and who changed the row last. What if the last person to update the row was correcting the previous updater's mistake?
If you're interested in doing full auditing for compliance or accountability reasons, you should probably look into SQL Server Audit. You can dictate which tables you're auditing, can change those on the fly without having to mess with your schema, and you can write queries against this data specifically instead of mixing the auditing logic with your normal application query logic (never mind widening every row of the table itself). This will also allow you to audit SELECT queries, which other potential solutions (triggers, CDC, Change Tracking - all of which are either more work or not complete for true auditing purposes) won't let you do that.
I know that this is an older post, but one way to avoid the lookup on the user table is to de-normalize the audit fields.
So instead of a userid in the CreatedBy field you insert a username itself. This will allow for a review of the table without the user look and also allow for any changes in your user table not reflect in the audit fields. Such as deleted users.
I usually add the following to the end of a table
IsDeleted bit default 0
CreatedBy varchar(20)
CreatedOn datetime2 default getdate()
UpdatedBy varchar(20)
UpdatedOn datetime2 default getdate()
I have a SQL Server as backend and use ms access as frontend.
I have two tables (persons and managers), manager is derived from persons (a 1:1 relation), thus i created a view managersFull which is basically a:
SELECT *
FROM `managers` `m`
INNER JOIN `persons` `p`
ON `m`.`id` = `p`.`id`
id in persons is autoincrementing and the primary key, id in managers is the primary key and a foreign key, referencing persons.id
now i want to be able to insert a new dataset with a form in ms access, but i can’t get it to work. no error message, no status line, nothing. the new rows aren’t inserted, and i have to press escape to cancel my changes to get back to design view in ms access.
i’m talking about a managers form and i want to be able to enter manager AND person information at the same time in a single form
my question is now: is it possible what i want to do here? if not, is there a “simple” workaround using after insert triggers or some lines of vba code?
thanks in advance
The problem is that your view is across several tables. If you access multiple tables you could update or insert in only one of them.
Please also check the MSDN for more detailed information on restrictions and on proper strategies for view updates
Assuming ODBC, some things to consider:
make sure you have a timestamp field in the person table, and that it is returned in your managers view. You also probably need the real PK of the person table in the manager view (I'm assuming your view takes the FK used for the self-join and aliases it as the ID field -- I wouldn't do that myself, as it is confusing. Instead, I'd use the real foreign key name in the managers view, and let the PK stand on its own with its real name).
try the Jet/ACE-specific DISTINCTROW predicate in your recordsource. With Jet/ACE back ends, this often makes it possible to insert into both tables when it's otherwise impossible. I don't know for certain if Jet will be smart enough to tell SQL Server to do the right thing, though.
if neither of those things works, change your form to use a recordsource based on your person table, and use a combo box based on the managers view as the control with which you edit the record to relate the person to a manager.
Ilya Kochetov pointed out that you can only update one table, but the work-around would be to apply the updates to the fields on one table and then the other. This solution assumes that the only access you have to these two tables is through this view and that you are not allowed to create a stored procedure to take care of this.
To model and maintain two related tables in access you don’t use a query or view that is a join of both tables. What you do is use a main form, and drop in a sub-form that is based on the child table. If the link master and child setting in the sub-form is set correctly, then you not need to write any code and access will insert the person’s id in the link field.
So, don’t use a joined table here. Simply use a form + sub-form setup and you be able to edit and maintain the data and the data in the related child table.
This means you base the form on the table, and not a view. And you base the sub-form on the child table. So, don't use a view here.
I have many tables in my database which are interrelated. I have a table (table one) which has had data inserted and the id auto increments. Once that row has an ID i want to insert this into a table (table three) with another set of ID's which comes from a form(this data will also be going into a table, so it could from from that table), the same form as the data which went into the first table came from.
The two ID's together make the primary key of the third table.
How can I do this, its to show that more than one ID is joined to a single ID for something else.
Thanks.
You can't do that through a trigger as the trigger only has available to it the data that you already inserted not data that is currenlty only residing in your user interface.
Normally how you handle this situation is that you write a stored proc that inserts the meeting, returns the id value (using scope_identity() in SQL Server, but I'm sure other databases would have method to return the auto-generated id as well). Then you would use that value to insert to the other table with the other values you need for that table. You would of course want to wrap the whole thing in a transaction.
I think you can probably do what you're describing (just write the INSERTs to table 3) in the table 1 trigger) but you'll have to put the additional info for the table 3 rows into your table 1 row, which isn't very smart.
I can't see why you would do that instead of writing the INSERTs in your code, where someone reading it can see what's happening.
The trouble with triggers is that they make it easy to hide business logic in the database. I think (and I believe I'm in the majority here) that it's easier to understand, manage, maintain and generally all-round deal with an application where all the business rules exist in the same general area.
There are reasons to use triggers (for propagating denormalised values, for example) just as there are reasons for useing stored procedures. I'm going to assert that they are largely related to performance-critical areas. Or should be.