Getting data of temp table while debugging - sql-server

While debugging I am unable to watch temp table's value in sql server 2012.I am getting all of my variables value and even can print that but struggling with the temp tables .Is there any way to watch temp table's value?.

SQL Server provides the concept of temporary table which helps the developer in a great way. These tables can be created at runtime and can do the all kinds of operations that one normal table can do. But, based on the table types, the scope is limited. These tables are created inside tempdb database.
While debugging, you can pause the SP at some point, write the select statement in your SP before the DROP table statement, the # table is available for querying.
select * from #temp

I placed this code inside my stored procedure and I am able to see the temp table contents inside the "Locals" window.
INSERT INTO #temptable (columns) SELECT columns FROM sometable; -- populate your temp table
-- for debugging, comment in production
DECLARE #temptable XML = (SELECT * FROM #temptable FOR XML AUTO); -- now view #temptable in Locals window
This works on older SQL Server 2008 but newer versions would probably support a friendlier FOR JSON object. Credit: https://stackoverflow.com/a/6748570/1129926

I know this is old, I've been trying to make this work also where I can view temp table data as I debug my stored procedure. So far nothing works.
I've seen many links to methods on how to the do this, but ultimately they don't work the way a developer would want them to work. For example: suppose one has several processes in the Stored Procedure that updates and modifies data in the same temp table, there is no way to see update on the fly for each process in the SP.
This is a VERY common request, yet no one seems to have a solution other than don't use Stored Procedures for complex processing due how difficult they are to debug. If you're a .NET Core/EF 6 developer and have the correct PK,FK set for the database, one shouldn't really need to use Stored Procedures at all as it can all be handled by EF6 and debug code to view data results in your entities/models directly (usually in web API using models/entities).
Trying to retrieve the data from the tempdb is not possible even with the same connection (as has been suggested).
What is sometimes used is:
PRINT '#temptablename'
SELECT * FROM #temptablename
Dotted thruout the code, you can add a debug flag to the SP and selectively debug the output. NOT ideal at all, but works for many situations.
But this MUST already be in the Stored Procedure before execution (not during). And you must remember to remove the code prior to deployment to a production environment.
I'm surprised in 2022, we still have no solution to this other than don't use complex stored procedures or use .NET Core/EF 6 ... which in my humble opinion is the best approach for 2022 since SSMS and other tools like dbForge and RedGate can't accomplish this either.

Related

How to edit records in SQL-Server stored procedure

I would like to know the secret of how SQL statements in SQL-Server go from being read-only to editable. Right click on any table, and the interface gives the option of "Selecting" or "Editing" records. Is there a property in the SQL statement that designates the recordset as editable or read-only?
I will use the simplest possible example: I have designed a table with two fields: an integer field, designated as an identity and a unique index. The second is an nvarchar, designed for manual editing. Writing a query window, I write a SQL statement for the table, and I am not able to edit the text field. Also, Stored procedures, which I favor because I can evoke them with the greatest effeciency, also renders an uneditable recordset. The only way I have found to succeed is in SSMS, when choosing the edit feature on a table.
I use Microsoft Access extensively, and all the tables that Access hosts are linked to SQL-Server tables. When I use the Microsoft Access JET engine to write queries on these same tables, I can edit the recordsets the queries generate, but not when I use pass-through queries to evoke the same contents in a table function or stored procedure. With no table joins, no calculated fields, nor anything else that would impose a known reason for me not to be able to edit the recordsets, the inability poses a barrier to producing some of my deliverables.
Thanks, in advance, for your support. Here are quick examples:
Select
IDField
, TextField
From
SampTable
Create Procedure TestProc
AS
BEGIN
Select
IDField
, TextField
From
SampTable
END
Create FUNCTION [dbo].[TestFunction]()
RETURNS TABLE
AS
RETURN
(
Select
IDField
, TextField
From
SampTable
)
SQL Server is not the same kind of thing as MS Access. MS access is a combination of front-end and back end at the same time, which is nice and easy for users, and does have its place. It's like a souped up version of excel with some very limited multi user functionality. But with SQL Server, the expectation is that you are splitting the responsibilities between front end and back end.
Yes, SSMS does provide the ability to right click a table (or a view referencing one table) and "edit top 200 rows". Honestly, I wish it didn't. It shouldn't.
If you have an access "front end" using linked tables in SQL Server in the "back end", that's similar functionality. And yeah, there are some limited uses cases where that's an appropriate sort of solution, ideally as a temporary thing. But really, if you're putting data into SQL Server, the expectation is that you're building some kind of "real" user interface, which uses DML statements constructed by the application, or stored procedure execution, or some kind of ORM and DBContext, to modify the data. Even in MS Access, you should switch from direct table editing to forms.
The reason why you can't edit the results of a stored procedure or function is that the output of those objects is just a temporary copy of the data. It's not the "actual data in the tables". And, if you think about it, how could it be? For example, imagine if I wrote a stored procedure like this:
create table t (i int primary key, j int);
create procedure p as begin
select total_j = sum(j) from t;
end
When I run that stored procedure I'm going to get a single value which is the sum of j across all rows. How could I edit this value? If I changed it from, say, 100 to 200, what does that mean in terms of the contents of column j in the table? Do I add 100 to some arbitrary row? Do I add 1 to each of the first 100 rows in order of the primary key? The concept becomes incoherent.
I know what you're thinking: "But what if my stored procedure doesn't aggregate? Surely then the data that comes back can really just be a "pointer" to the data in the table, not a copy?". And yeah, in principle that could be true. But think about the implications of that. While you're looking at the results, can anyone else change the underlying data in the table? Can you both change it at the same time? Who decides how to resolve that problem - the SQL engine? Can someone else drop the table while you are editing data? And so on and so forth.
It's the wrong way to think about SQL Server (or any "real" database engine). The data you see as the result of a select is read from the tables, and sent over the network to the client as your own personal copy. It is no longer connected to the tables it came from.
Oh... and in case you're wondering how you can edit the data "directly in the tables" if you're using linked tables in MS Access: you still can't. Access does some work under the covers for you. To prove this, try linking a SQL Server table to MS Access, then pulling up the row in access, and starting to edit it. Then, before finishing your edit, go in to SSMS and update the row you are editing in access. Then try to save your changes in Access.

SQL Server 2008 : find out which stored procedures writes to certain table

I am trying to hunt down a certain stored procedure which writes to certain table (it needs to be changed) however going through every single stored procedure is not a route I really want to take. So I was hoping there might be a way to find out which stored procedures INSERT or UPDATE certain table.
I have tried using this method (pinal_daves_blog), but it is not giving me any results.
NOTICE: The stored procedure might not be in the same DB!
Is there another way or can I somehow check what procedure/function has made the last insert or update to table.
One brute-force method would be to download an add-in from RedGate called SQL Search (free), then do a stored procedure search for the table name. I'm not affiliated at all with RedGate or anything, this is just a method that I have used to find similar things and has served me well.
http://www.red-gate.com/products/sql-development/sql-search/
If you go this route, you just type in the table name, change the 'object types' ddl selection to 'Procedures' and select 'All databases' in the DB ddl.
Hope this helps! I know it isn't the most technical solution, but it should work.
There is no built-in way to tell what function, procedure, or executed batch has made the last change to a table. There just isn't. Some databases have this as part of their transaction logging but SQL Server isn't one of them.
I have wondered in the past whether transactional replication might provide that information, if you already have that set up, but I don't know whether that's true.
If you know the change has to be taking place in a stored procedure (as opposed to someone using SSMS or executing lines of SQL via ADO.NET), then #koppinjo's suggestion is a good one, as is this one from Pinal Dave's blog:
USE AdventureWorks
GO
--Searching for Empoloyee table
SELECT Name
FROM sys.procedures
WHERE OBJECT_DEFINITION(OBJECT_ID) LIKE '%Employee%'
There are also dependency functions, though they can be outdated or incomplete:
select * from sys.dm_sql_referencing_entities( 'dbo.Employee', 'object' )
You could run a trace in Profiler. The procedure would have to write to the table while the trace is running for you to catch it.

How do I inspect table variables and temporary tables from within a debugging session in SSMS 2008?

I'm stepping through a stored procedure in SQL Server Management Studio 2008 (SSMS). The code creates some table variables as well as temporary # tables that I would like to inspect as I go along. Now the other local variables I can see in the "Locals" window and while the table variables are listed there, I can't see their contents. I would also like to inspect the # temp tables but again any select statement that I want to run against them will need to come from the same session as the code that I'm stepping through.
Is this possible in the SSMS 2008 debugger?
I built a procedure which will display the content of a temp table from another database connection. (which is not possible with normal queries).
Note that it uses DBCC PAGE & the default trace to access the data so only use it for debugging purposes.
This is largely the same question as this one: How to see the values of a table variable at debug time?
It appears that the short answer is: NO! This hasn't been implemented in SSMS 2008.
See this post on Microsoft Connect: SQL Debugging - All About Tables: Table Variables, #Temp, ##Global Temp, Source (Input) and Output Tables
What I do in a complex proc is add an input varaiable with a default value of 0 to the end of whatever variables I have called #test. (by doing it this way, I won't break any exisiting calls to the proc)
Then at each point where I might want to see the values of a table variable or temp table I put an if statement and I might even add a column so I know at what point I am looking at the table:
IF #test = 1
BEGIN
SELECT 'after updating field 3' as TestStep, * FROM #temp
END
Now they only run if running in test mode and I can see whatever I need to when debugging a problem two years from now. I also print any dynamic SQl statments I created in the test mode as well.

Parse all stored procedures in a database

Does anyone know of a way to verify the correctness of the queries in all stored procedures in a database?
I'm thinking of the scenario where if you modify something in a code file, simply doing a rebuild would show you compilation errors that point you to places where you need to fix things. In a database scenario, say if you modify a table and remove a column which is used in a stored procedure you won't know anything about this problem until the first time that procedure would run.
What you describe is what unit testing is for. Stored procedures and functions often require parameters to be set, and if the stored procedure or function encapsulates dynamic SQL--there's a chance that a [corner] case is missed.
Also, all you mention is checking for basic errors--nothing about validating the data returned. For example - I can change the precision on a numeric column...
This also gets into the basic testing that should occur for the immediate issue, and regression testing to ensure there aren't unforeseen issues.
You could create all of your objects with SCHEMABINDING, which would prevent you from changing any underlying tables without dropping and recreating the views and procedures built on top of them.
Depending on your development process, this could be pretty cumbersome. I offer it as a solution though, because if you want to ensure the correctness of all procedures in the db, this would do it.
I found this example on MSDN (SQL Server 2012). I guess it can be used in some scenarios:
USE AdventureWorks2012;
GO
SELECT p.name, r.*
FROM sys.procedures AS p
CROSS APPLY sys.dm_exec_describe_first_result_set_for_object(p.object_id, 0) AS r;
Source: sys.dm_exec_describe_first_result_set_for_object

How to refactor a trigger that uses the inserted and deleted tables, to move common code to a stored procedure

I have a trigger that will be dynamically created, as it will be attached to a view that is also dynamically generated. I don't want my stored procedure to have the entire trigger within it, so I would like to move most of it to a stored procedure, but I won't know the fields in the inserted and deleted tables.
The trigger is about 90 lines long, and the only part I really need to be different between triggers is:
DECLARE #DEBUG bit = 1
DECLARE #EntityName nvarchar(128) = 'Lot'
SELECT * INTO #MYINSERTED FROM INSERTED
SELECT * INTO #MYDELETED FROM DELETED
If I could move the rest of it to a stored procedure then that would be great.
The problem with just passing in the #DEBUG and #EntityName and using #MYINSERTED and #MYDELETED in the stored procedure then I would have a problem if two people are inserting or updating the same view at the same time.
The best bet would be to pass a table variable to remove any concurrency issues but I am not certain the best way to do that.
Thank you.
This would actually be a bad idea. SQL is not like your run-of-the-mill procedural language. The SQL 'compilation' binds to a physical access path plan, meaning that the statements are compiled into plans that say 'open rowset with ID 1234, seek a record and retrieve its content' and that '1234' is determined during the compilation of a batch by the optimizer. Which means that moving common code into a procedure as you plan more often hurts more than it benefits. The procedure cannot be bound to a 'generic' access path, it needs to know the actual tables and objects it should look into for selects and updates and the like. You either end up doing dynamic SQL in the procedure or moving only non data bound, generic, parts of the procedure (eg. calculations) which creates very convoluted code and still can hurt performance while at the same time decreasing the procedure readability.
Much more advisable is to have a template and generate your triggers from these template via various code generation techniques, like XML and XSLT.
I suspect the metadata/schema about inserted and deleted are the core problem here (which is why you are using SELECT * INTO).
If you are code generating the trigger and view dynamically, I would say it probably doesn't make much difference. After all, all the triggers and views are code generated and can be regenerated as your system gets new capabilities or the core SP is improved.
Only if the triggers and views are customized and are never regenerated, then there would be a benefit of sharing a core SP which can be modified and upgraded instead of regenerating the views and triggers.
The overhead of regenerating is probably outweighed by generated code which will have a solid execution plan and better binding.

Resources