Programming noob here, and DBA I am not..
I am creating a table called 'budget' on a 2005 sqlserver databases. The purpose of this table is to simply store the monthly $ allowed to departments for budgeting purposes.
The essential columns in this table will be month, year, dept, amount. I am migrating this from an old foxpro table which did not have an identity/primary key column.
My question is, for my purposes do I need to worry about creating an identity column? I am having a hard time importing the data into SQLserver and having it populate the ID column, so I am inclined to just skip it if it's not needed. Thanks for your $.02
If you're specifying a PK in your insert statement, you'll need to use SET IDENTITY_INSERT <tableName> ON at the beginning of your query.
For more information, look here.
Related
Is there any way to update the modified date time automatically in SQL Server.
I do not want to use Triggers. Also I want to avoid providing the value through application while calling SQL query.
Is there any support in SQL or in Dapper etc.
If you want to keep track of the changes in database you can use a feature called
System-Versioned Temporal Table as explained here.
Using a Temporal Table, you will be able to query the recent state of the row as usual, in addition to the ability to query the full history of that row
It's very handy if you are interested in keeping a history of data changes
I am able to solve the problem using Temporal Table. I am not sure is this a elegant solution. Here is how i solved.
Create Table:
CREATE TABLE extable4 (PriKey int PRIMARY KEY, ColValue varchar(200)
, [ModifiedDateTime] datetime2 (2) GENERATED ALWAYS AS ROW START
, [ModifiedExpiryDateTime] datetime2 (2) GENERATED ALWAYS AS ROW END HIDDEN
, PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME (ModifiedDateTime,[ModifiedExpiryDateTime])
) ;
Insert a record with out providing input to ModifiedDatetime.
insert into extable4(PriKey,ColValue) values(1,'Ver 1');
ModifiedDateTime Populated with systime.
update extable4 set ColValue='Ver 1.1' where PriKey=1;
ModifiedDateTime updated now. :)
i have problem to Transfer data from one sqlserver 2008 r2 to another sql server 2012 databases with different schema, here is some different scenario,
database 1
database 1 with tables Firm and Client, these both have FirmId and ClientId primary key as int datatype,
FirmId is int datatype as reference key used in Client table.
database 2
database 2 with same tables Firm and Client, these both have FirmId and ClientId but primary key as uniqueidentifier,
FirmId is uniqueidentifier datatype as reference key used in Client table.
problem
the problem is not to copy data from 1 database table to 2 database table, but the problem is to maintain the reference key's Firm table into Client table. because there is datatype change.
i am using sql server 2008 r2 and sql server 2012
please help me to resolve / find the solution, i really appreciate your valuable time and effort. thanks
I'll take a stab at it even if I am far from an expert on SQLServer - here is a general procedure (you will have to repeat it for all tables where you have to replace INT with UID, of course...).
I will use Table A to refer to the parent (Firm, if I understand your example clearly) and Table B to refer to the child (Client, I believe).
Delete the relations pointing to Table A
Remove the identity from the id column of Table A
Create a new column with Uniqueidentifier on Table A
Generate values for the Uniqueidentifier column
Add the new Uniqueidentifier column in all the child tables (Table B)
Use the OLD id column to map your child record & update the new Uniqueidentifier value from your parent table.
Drop all the id columns
Recreate the relations
Having said that, I just want to add a warning to you: converting to UID is, according to some, a very bad idea. But if you really need to do that, you can script (and test) the above mentioned procedure.
I've got a legacy database that has several keyless tables. On one, I'd really just like to throw an Identity column on it so I can use it with Entity Framework. Now, I know I can do this:
alter table MyTable
add Id int identity(1,1)
But as this is an old and hoary beast, I want to make sure it's not going to break anything. I can't imagine how it would break any procs or existing data access (some of which is still in VB 6!) but "cant' imagine" isn't quite the same as "absolutely sure."
I was hoping some experts on databases could give me some guidance here.
If your code has any "Select *" in it, it could break something.
example:
You create a #temp table with 3 columns.
Your table in question has 3 columns.
You use "select * from TheTable" to populate the #temp table.
Now you add a 4th column to the table.
Your code will now try to jam 4 columns into a 3 column #temp table.
Having an IDENTITY column that is not the PrimaryKey could be another snap-fu.
I have situation where I need to change the order of the columns/adding new columns for existing Table in SQL Server 2008.
Existing column
MemberName
MemberAddress
Member_ID(pk)
and I want this order
Member_ID(pk)
MemberName
MemberAddress
I got the answer for the same ,
Go on SQL Server → Tools → Options → Designers → Table and Database Designers and unselect Prevent saving changes that require table re-creation
2- Open table design view and that scroll your column up and down and save your changes.
It is not possible with ALTER statement. If you wish to have the columns in a specific order, you will have to create a newtable, use INSERT INTO newtable (col-x,col-a,col-b) SELECT col-x,col-a,col-b FROM oldtable to transfer the data from the oldtable to the newtable, delete the oldtable and rename the newtable to the oldtable name.
This is not necessarily recommended because it does not matter which order the columns are in the database table. When you use a SELECT statement, you can name the columns and have them returned to you in the order that you desire.
If your table doesn't have any records you can just drop then create your table.
If it has records you can do it using your SQL Server Management Studio.
Just click your table > right click > click Design then you can now arrange the order of the columns by dragging the fields on the order that you want then click save.
Best Regards
I tried this and dont see any way of doing it.
here is my approach for it.
Right click on table and Script table for Create and have this on
one of the SQL Query window,
EXEC sp_rename 'Employee', 'Employee1' -- Original table name is Employee
Execute the Employee create script, make sure you arrange the columns in the way you need.
INSERT INTO TABLE2 SELECT * FROM TABLE1.
-- Insert into Employee select Name, Company from Employee1
DROP table Employee1.
Relying on column order is generally a bad idea in SQL. SQL is based on Relational theory where order is never guaranteed - by design. You should treat all your columns and rows as having no order and then change your queries to provide the correct results:
For Columns:
Try not to use SELECT *, but instead specify the order of columns in the select list as in: SELECT Member_ID, MemberName, MemberAddress from TableName. This will guarantee order and will ease maintenance if columns get added.
For Rows:
Row order in your result set is only guaranteed if you specify the ORDER BY clause.
If no ORDER BY clause is specified the result set may differ as the Query Plan might differ or the database pages might have changed.
Hope this helps...
This can be an issue when using Source Control and automated deployments to a shared development environment. Where I work we have a very large sample DB on our development tier to work with (a subset of our production data).
Recently I did some work to remove one column from a table and then add some extra ones on the end. I then had to undo my column removal so I re-added it on the end which means the table and all references are correct in the environment but the Source Control automated deployment will no longer work because it complains about the table definition changing.
The real problem here is that the table + indexes are ~120GB and the environment only has ~60GB free so I'll need to either:
a) Rename the existing columns which are in the wrong order, add new columns in the right order, update the data then drop the old columns
OR
b) Rename the table, create a new table with the correct order, insert to the new table from the old and delete from the old as I go along
The SSMS/TFS Schema compare option of using a temp table won't work because there isn't enough room on disc to do it.
I'm not trying to say this is the best way to go about things or that column order really matters, just that I have a scenario where it is an issue and I'm sharing the options I've thought of to fix the issue
SQL query to change the id column into first:
ALTER TABLE `student` CHANGE `id` `id` INT(10) UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT FIRST;
or by using:
ALTER TABLE `student` CHANGE `id` `id` INT(10) UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT AFTER 'column_name'
When adding a column to an existing table, Oracle always puts the column at the end of the table. Is it possible to tell Oracle where it should appear in the table? If so, how?
The location of the column in the table should be unimportant (unless there are "page sizes" to consider, or whatever Oracle uses to actually store the data). What is more important to the consumer is how the results are called, i.e. the Select statement.
rename YOUR_ORIGINAL_TABLE as YOUR_NEW_TABLE;
create table YOUR_ORIGINAL_TABLE nologging /* or unrecoverable */
as
select Column1, Column2, NEW_COLUMN, Column3
from YOUR_NEW_TABLE;
Drop table YOUR_NEW_TABLE;
Select * From YOUR_ORIGINAL_TABLE; <<<<< now you will see the new column in the middle of the table.
But why would you want to do it? It's seems illogical. You should never assume column ordering and just use named column list if column order is important.
Why does the order of the columns matter? You can always alter it in your select statement?
There's an advantage to adding new columns at the end of the table. If there's code that naively does a "SELECT *" and then parses the fields in order, you won't be breaking old code by adding new columns at the end. If you add new columns in the middle of the table, then old code may be broken.
At one job, I had a DBA who was super-anal about "Never do 'SELECT *'". He insisted that you always write out the specific fields.
What I normally do is:
Rename the old table.
Create the new table with columns in the right order.
Create the constraints for that new table.
Populate with data:Insert into new_table select * from renamed table.
I don't think that this can be done without saving the data to a temporary table, dropping the table, and recreating it. On the other hand, it really shouldn't matter where the column is. As long as you specify the columns you are retrieving in your select statement, you can order them however you want.
Bear in mind that, under the tables, all the data in the table records are glued together. Adding a column to the end of a table [if it is nullable or (in later versions) not null with a default] just means a change to the table's metadata.
Adding a column in the middle would require re-writing every record in that table to add the appropriate value (or markers) for that column. In some cases, that might mean the records take up more room on the blocks and some records need to be migrated.
In short, it's a VAST amount of IO effort for a table of any real size.
You can always create a view over the table that has the columns in the preferred order and use that view in a DML statement just as you would the table
I don't believe so - SQL Server doesn't allow these either. The method I always have to use is:
Create new table that looks right (including additional column
Begin transaction
select all data from old table into new one
Drop old table
Rename new table
Commit transaction.
Not exactly pretty, but gets the job done.
No, its not possible via an "ALTER TABLE" statement. However, you could create a new table with the same definition as your current one, albeit with a different name, with the columns in the correct order in the way you want them. Copy the data into the new table. Drop the old table. Rename the new table to match the old table name.
Tom Kyte has an article on this on AskTom
link text
Apparently there's a trick involving marking the "after" columns INVISIBLE; when restored, they end up at the back.
CREATE TABLE yourtable (one NUMBER(5, 0), two NUMBER(5, 0), three NUMBER(5, 0), four NUMBER(5, 0))
ALTER TABLE yourtable ADD twopointfive NUMBER(5, 0);
ALTER TABLE yourtable MODIFY (three INVISIBLE, four INVISIBLE);
ALTER TABLE yourtable MODIFY (three VISIBLE, four VISIBLE);
https://oracle-base.com/articles/12c/invisible-columns-12cr1#invisible-columns-and-column-ordering
1) Ok so you can't do it directly. We don't need post after post saying the same thing, do we?
2) Ok so the order of columns in a table doesn't technically matter. But that's not the point, the original question simply asked if you could or couldn't be done. Don't presume that you know everybody else's requirements. Maybe they have a table with 100 columns that is currently being queried using "SELECT * ..." inside some monstrously hacked together query that they would just prefer not to try to untangle, let alone replace "*" with 100 column names. Or maybe they are just anal about the order of things and like to have related fields next to each other when browsing schema with, say SQL Developer. Maybe they are dealing with non-technical staff that won't know to look at the end of a list of 100 columns when, logically, it should be somewhere near the beginning.
Nothing is more irritating than asking an honest question and getting an answer that says: "you shouldn't be doing that". It's MY job, not YOURS! Please don't tell me how to do my job. Just help if you can. Thanks!
Ok... sorry for the rant. Now...at www.orafaq.com it suggests this workaround.
First suppose you have already run:
CREATE TABLE tab1 ( col1 NUMBER );
Now say you want to add a column named "col2", but you want them ordered "col2", "col1" when doing a "SELECT * FROM tbl1;"
The suggestion is to run:
ALTER TABLE tab1 ADD (col2 DATE);
RENAME tab1 TO tab1_old;
CREATE TABLE tab1 AS SELECT 0 AS col1, col1 AS col2 FROM tab1_old;
I found this to be incredibly misleading. First of all, you're filling "col1" with zero's so, if you had any data, then you are losing it by doing this. Secondly, it's actually renaming "col1" to "col2" and fails to mention this. So, here's my example, hopefully it's a little clearer:
Suppose you have a table that was created with the following statement:
CREATE TABLE users (first_name varchar(25), last_name varchar(25));
Now say you want to insert middle_name in between first_name and last_name. Here's one way:
ALTER TABLE users ADD middle_name varchar(25);
RENAME users TO users_tmp;
CREATE TABLE users AS SELECT first_name, middle_name, last_name FROM users_tmp;
/* and for good measure... */
DROP TABLE testusers_tmp;
Note that middle_name will default to NULL (implied by the ALTER TABLE statement). You can alternatively set a different default value in the CREATE TABLE statement like so:
CREATE TABLE users AS SELECT first_name, 'some default value' AS middle_name, last_name FROM users_tmp;
This trick could come in handy if you're adding a date field with a default of sysdate, but you want all of the existing records to have some other (e.g. earlier) date value.