When I add news rows using the Insert into select code, the new rows get added randomly in between the already existing rows, instead of getting added to the end of the table.
I'm using, Insert into Table1 (Name1) select Name from Table2.
SQL tables are modeled after unordered sets, and hence you should not assume that there is any order to your data in the table. The only order which exists is what you specify when you query using ORDER BY, e.g.
SELECT Name1
FROM Table1
ORDER BY Name1
An index can also be thought of a way of ordering your records, but these two are mostly distinct entities from your actual table.
I agree with Tim's answer. But if you still want the data inserted in the way you want, then you can try to add the primary key yourself which is incremental (like 1,2,3 ... or 10,20,30 ...).
Although I don't recommend it, but I think following can help you if you don't want to handle the primary key yourself.
How do I add a auto_increment primary key in SQL Server database?
Related
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'
Good day
I have a situation where two users are saving data to the same database and there are primary key conflicts.
Is it possible to write a stored procedure or trigger which will generate a unique identity by adding two columns.
For instance: I have table2 related to table1 by Table1ID. Increment and seed is 1 for both.
If I had to add a row to table2 I would like the autogenerated ID number to be added to a text column thereby making it unique. So the ID would be something like JoeSoap5.
If you want to generated something unique you can use the build-in function "NEWID()". Type and executed the following code:
SELECT NEWID()
If you need to insert record in second table when record in your first table is inserted, is is possible to implement this using TRIGGERS. In your case you can use "AFTER INSERT TRIGGER" or "BEFORE INSERT TRIGGER" - generally this will be a piece of code that will be executed AFTER/BEFORE row in your first table is inserted.
You don't specify your SQL Server version.
SQL 2012 introduces the concept of a sequence - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff878091.aspx - which would allow you to do just what you want.
I have a table of orders with orderID. I want when I create a new row in orders, and automatically have it add the same orderID to a new row in orderDetails. I got the auto incrementing to work, however whenever I try to link the two, adding cascade delete, it gives me an error.
'order' table saved successfully
'orderDetail' table
- Unable to create relationship 'FK_orderDetail_order'.
Cascading foreign key 'FK_orderDetail_order' cannot be created where the referencing column 'orderDetail.orderID' is an identity column.
Could not create constraint. See previous errors.
Which seems to be because of the fact there is no orderID at row creation. Without these two linked it's pretty hard to link an order to its information.
I am using Microsoft SQL server mgt studio. I learned via command-line MySQL, not SQL, so this whole GUI stuff is throwing me off (and I'm a tad rusty).
Your problem is that 'orderDetail.orderID' should not be an identity column (auto-incrementing). It should be based on the orderId in the Order table. You can do that in a variety of ways. If you are using stored procedures, and making separate calls to the database for the orderDetail records, have the code save the order row first, and return the newly created OrderId value, then use that value on the calls to save orderdetails. If you are making one call to a stored proc that saves the order header record and all order detail records in one call, then in the stored procd, insert the ordfer record forst, use Scope_identity() to extract the newly created orderId into a T-SQL variable,
Declare #orderId Integer
Insert Orders([Order table columns])
Values([Order table column values])
Set #orderId = scope_Identity()
and then use the value in #orderId for all inserts into the OrderDetails table...
Insert OrderDetails(OrderId, [Other OrderDetail table columns])
Values(#orderId , [Other OrderDetail table column values])
You want a AFTER INSERT trigger on the order table - in this, the newly given ID is available as NEW.orderID and can now easily be inserted into orderDetails.
Just do this via the command line. I certainly do.
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.
I'm inserting a large amount of rows into an empty table with a primary key constraint on one column.
If there is a duplicate key error, is there any way to find out the value of the key (or row) that caused the error?
Validating the data prior to the insert is sadly not something I can do right now.
Using SQL 2008.
Thanks!
Doing the count(*) / group by thing is something I'm trying to avoid, this is an insert of hundreds of millions of rows from hundreds of different DB's (some of which are on remote servers)...I don't have the time or space to do the insert twice.
The data is supposed to be unique from the providers, but unfortunately their validation doesn't seem to work correctly 100% of the time and I'm trying to at least see where it's failing so I can help them troubleshoot.
Thank you!
There's not a way of doing it that won't slow your process down, but here's one way that will make it easier. You can add an instead-of trigger on that table for inserts and updates. The trigger will check each record before inserting it and make sure it won't cause a primary key violation. You can even create a second table to catch violations, and have a different primary key (like an identity field) on that one, and the trigger will insert the rows into your error-catching table.
Here's an example of how the trigger can work:
CREATE TRIGGER mytrigger ON sometable
INSTEAD OF INSERT
AS BEGIN
INSERT INTO sometable SELECT * FROM inserted WHERE ISNUMERIC(somefield) = 1 FROM inserted;
INSERT INTO sometableRejects SELECT * FROM inserted WHERE ISNUMERIC(somefield) = 0 FROM inserted;
END
In that example, I'm checking a field to make sure it's numeric before I insert the data into the table. You'll need to modify that code to check for primary key violations instead - for example, you might join the INSERTED table to your own existing table and only insert rows where you don't find a match.
The solution would depend on how often this happens. If it's <10% of the time then I would do the following:
Insert the data
If error then do Bravax's revised solution (remove constraint, insert, find dup, report and kill dup, enable constraint).
This means it's only costing you on the few times an error occurs.
If this is happening more often then I'd look at sending the boys over to see the providers :-)
Revised:
Since you don't want to insert twice, could you:
Drop the primary key constraint.
Insert all data into the table
Find any duplicates, and remove them
Then re-add the primary key constraint
Previous reply:
Insert the data into a duplicate of the table without the primary key constraint.
Then run a query on it to determine rows which have duplicate values for the rpimary key column.
select count(*), <Primary Key>
from table
group by <Primary Key>
having count(*) > 1
Use SSIS to import the data and have it check for this as part of the data flow. That is the best way to handle. SSIS can send the bad records to a table (that you can later send to the vendor to help them clean up their act) and process the good ones.
I can't believe that SSIS does not easily address this "reality", because, let's face it, oftentimes you need and want to be able to:
See if a record exists with a certain unique or primary key
If it does not, insert it
If it does, either ignore it or update it.
I don't understand how they would let a product out the door without this capability built-in in an easy-to-use manner. Like, say, set an attribute of a component to automatically check this.