searching through multiple tables with a stored procedures - sql-server

I have two tables Vehicle and Vehicle return(it was spelled incorrectly in the code),I'm trying to create a stored procedure where I can enter the engine number and it would search through Vehicle and Vehicle return to see if it matches the engine number and the criteria that it is in either of the table but every time only thing that works is if the engine number isn't in either of the tables here is my code
create procedure outbound
(
#eng varchar(25)
)
AS
BEGIN
BEGIN TRAN
DECLARE #eng_num VARCHAR(25)
DECLARE #eng_num2 VARCHAR(25)
/* SELECT #eng_num= Engine_num from Vehicle where Engine_num=#eng and Status=1
SELECT #eng_num2= Engine_num from Vehicle_retuns where Engine_num=#eng
IF(#eng=#eng_num)
begin
UPDATE Vehicle SET Description_of_Vehicle='Vehicle has ben sent to Manufactory',Status=0 where Engine_num=#eng_num
end
ELSE IF(#eng=#eng_num2)
begin
UPDATE Vehicle_retuns SET purpose='Vehicle has ben sent to Manufactory',Status=0 where Engine_num=#eng_num2
end*/ the lines of code that is the error is occuring
ELSE
SELECT 'No such Engine number was found'
IF(##ERROR<>0)
BEGIN
SELECT 'An unexpected error has occur'
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN -1
END
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END

Here is a rough sketch of what I think might be required here. There is no need to use an explicit transaction for a single update. Also, I would highly recommend you look at normalizing your messages instead of hard coding those long strings everywhere. Not sure you really mean to set the Description or purpose column depending on the value of status. I would rather see those be foreign keys to a lookup of values but maybe that doesn't work here. I would also recommend you not use column names like "status". Using reserved words is problematic for a number of reasons. Last but not least, you should use try/catch blocks instead of checking ##ERROR.
--EDIT--
Here is some new code that handles the fact that you really do need two updates. I missed this originally.
create procedure outbound
(
#eng varchar(25)
)
AS
BEGIN
IF EXISTS
(
SELECT Engine_num
from Vehicle
where Engine_num = #eng
UNION ALL
SELECT Engine_num
from Vehicle_retuns
where Engine_num = #eng
)
BEGIN
BEGIN TRY
BEGIN TRANSACTION
UPDATE Vehicle
SET Description_of_Vehicle = 'Vehicle has ben sent to Manufactory'
, Status = 0
where Engine_num = #eng
AND Status = 1
UPDATE Vehicle_retuns
SET purpose = 'Vehicle has ben sent to Manufactory'
, Status = 0
where Engine_num = #eng
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
SELECT 'An unexpected error has occurred.'
--I would prefer a message here including the error message and error number instead of just "It failed".
END CATCH
END
ELSE
SELECT 'No such Engine number was found'
END

Related

How to check if sp_rename is done successfully?

I am running the following query:
SELECT * INTO dbo.2015_10_2_cs FROM dbo.2015_10_2
IF NOT EXISTS
(SELECT type FROM sys.indexes WHERE object_id = object_id('dbo.2015_10_2_cs')
AND NAME ='cci' AND type = 5)
BEGIN
CREATE CLUSTERED COLUMNSTORE INDEX cci
ON dbo.2015_10_2_cs
DROP TABLE dbo.2015_10_2
EXEC sp_rename "dbo.2015_10_2_cs" , "dbo.2015_10_2"
END
and I want to make sure that the part where I am renaming the table dbo.2015_10_2_cs to dbo.2015_10_2 is done successfully (without losing any data).
The step inside the loop should be surrounded with SQL transaction to keep the process safe and reliable (in case if any step will fail).
Could anyone help with this? Thanks in advance.
EXEC sp_rename "dbo.2015_10_2_cs" , "dbo.2015_10_2"
This will not do what you expect. The new table will be named [dbo].[dbo.2015_10_2] if you specify the schema name in the new table name. Renamed tables are implicitly in the existing table's schema since one must use ALTER SCHEMA instead of sp_rename to move an object between schemas.
There are a number of other problems with your script. Because the table name starts with a number, it doesn't conform to regular identifier naming rules and must be enclosed in square brackets or double quotes. The literal parameters passed to sp_rename should be single quotes. You can also check to stored procedure return code to ascertain success or failure. The example below performs these tasks in a transaction with structured error handling.
DECLARE #rc int;
BEGIN TRY
BEGIN TRAN;
IF NOT EXISTS
(SELECT type FROM sys.indexes WHERE object_id = object_id(N'dbo.2015_10_2_cs')
AND NAME ='cci' AND type = 5)
BEGIN
CREATE CLUSTERED COLUMNSTORE INDEX cci
ON dbo.[2015_10_2_cs];
DROP TABLE dbo.[2015_10_2];
EXEC #rc = sp_rename 'dbo.[2015_10_2_cs]' , '2015_10_2';
IF #rc <> 0
BEGIN
RAISERROR('sp_rename returned return code %d',16,1);
END;
END;
COMMIT;
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
IF ##TRANCOUNT > 0 ROLLBACK;
THROW;
END CATCH;
You can use an EXISTS checking for the tablename and schema.
IF NOT EXISTS (SELECT 'table does not exist' FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES WHERE TABLE_NAME = N'2015_10_2'AND TABLE_SCHEMA = 'dbo')
BEGIN
RAISERROR('The table doesn''t exist!!!!', 16, 1)
END
sp_rename won't make you lose table contents, it will just change the table reference name and update all it's contraints and indexes references. It will also raise an error if the table to rename does not exist. Maybe what you want is to wrap your process in a transaction and rollback if something fails.
EDIT:
For basic transaction handling you can use the following. Please read the documentation for using transaction, it might take a while to know how it works correctly.
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#Test') IS NOT NULL
DROP TABLE #Test
CREATE TABLE #Test (Number INT)
SELECT AmountRecords = COUNT(1) FROM #Test -- AmountRecords = 0
BEGIN TRY
BEGIN TRANSACTION
-- Do your statements here
INSERT INTO #Test (Number)
VALUES (1)
DECLARE #errorVariable INT = CONVERT(INT, 'NotAnInteger!!') -- Example of error: can't convert
COMMIT
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH -- If something goes wrong
IF ##TRANCOUNT > 0 -- ... and transaction is still open
ROLLBACK -- Revert statements from the BEGIN TRANSACTION onwards
END CATCH
SELECT AmountRecords = COUNT(1) FROM #Test -- AmountRecords = 0 (the transaction was rolled back and the INSERT reverted)
Basically you use BEGIN TRANSACTION to initiate a restore point to go back to if something fails. Then use a COMMIT once you know everything is OK (from that point onwards, other users will see the changes and modifications will be persisted). If something fails (you need TRY/CATCH block to handle errors) you can issue a ROLLBACK to revert your changes.

SQL Server: using table lock hint in select for ensuring correctness?

I've got a project that is trying to apply DDD (Domain Driven Design). Currently, we've got something like this:
begin tran
try
_manager.CreateNewEmployee(newEmployeeCmd);
tran.Commit();
catch
rollback tran
Internally, the CreateNewEmployee method uses a domain service for checking if there's already an employee with the memberId. Here's some pseudo code:
void CreateNewEmployee(NewEmployeeCmd cmd)
if(_duplicateMember.AlreadyRegistered(cmd.MemberId) )
throw duplicate
// extra stuff
saveNewEmployee()
end
Now, in the end, it's as if we have the following SQL instructions executed (pesudo code again):
begin sql tran
select count(*) from table where memberId=#memberId and status=1 -- active
--some time goes by
insert into table ...
end
NOw, when I started looking at the code, I've noticed that it was using the default SQL Server locking level. In practice, that means that something like this could happen:
--thread 1
(1)select ... --assume it returns 0
--thread 2
(2)select ... ---nothing found
(3)insert recordA
--thread 1
(4)insert record --some as before
(5) commit tran
--thread 1
(6) commit tran
So, we could end up having repeated records. I've tried playing with the transaction levels, but the only way I've managed to make it work like it's intended was by changing the select that is used to check if there's already a record in the table. I've ended up using a table lock hint which instructs sql to maintain a lock until the end of the transaction. That was the only way I've managed to get a lock when the select starts (changing the other isolation levels still wouldn't do what I needed since they all allowed the select to run)
So, I've ended up using a table lock which is held from the beginning until the end of the transaction. In practice, that means that step (2) will block until thread 1 ends its job.
Is there a better option for this kind of scenarios (that don't depend on using, say, indexes)?
Thanks.
Luis
You need to get the proper locks on the initial select, which you can do with the locking hints with (updlock, serializable). Once you do that, thread 2 will wait for thread 1 to finish if thread 2 is using the same key range in its where.
You could use the Sam Saffron upsert approach.
For example:
create procedure dbo.Employee_getset_byName (#Name nvarchar(50), #MemberId int output) as
begin
set nocount, xact_abort on;
begin tran;
select #MemberId = Id
from dbo.Employee with (updlock, serializable) /* hold key range for #Name */
where Name = #Name;
if ##rowcount = 0 /* if we still do not have an Id for #Name */
begin;
/* for a sequence */
set #MemberId = next value for dbo.IdSequence; /* get next sequence value */
insert into dbo.Employee (Name, Id)
values (#Name, #MemberId);
/* for identity */
insert into dbo.Employee (Name)
values (#Name);
set #MemberId = scope_identity();
end;
commit tran;
end;
go

Confused with MS SQL Server LOCK would help in INSERT Scenario.(Concurrency)

Business Scenario: This is a ticketing system, and we got so many user using the application. When a ticket(stored in 1st table in below) comes in to the application, any user can hit the ownership button and take ownershipf of it.
Only one user can take ownership for one ticket. If two user tries to hit the ownership button, first one wins and second gets another incident or message that no incident exists to take ownership.
Here i am facing a concurrency issue now. I already have a lock implementation using another table(2nd table in below).
I have two tables;
Table(Columns)
Ticket(TicketID-PK, OwnerUserID-FK)
TicketOwnerShipLock(TicketID-PK, OwnerUserID-FK, LockDate)Note: Here TicketID is set as Primary Key.
Current lock implementation: whenever user one tries to own ticket puts an entry to 2nd table with TicketID, UserID and current date,then goes to update the OwnerUserID in 1st table.
Before insert the above said lock entry, Procedure checks for any other user already created any lock for the same incident.
If already there is lock, lock wont be opened for the user. Else lock entry wont be entered and the user cannot update the ticket onwership.
More Info: There are so many tickets getting opened in 1st table, whenever user tries to take ownership, we should find the next available ticket to take ownership. So need to find ticket and to do some calculation and set a status for that ticket, there one more column in 1st table StatusID. Status will be assigned as Assigned.
Problem: Somehow two user's got the ownership for same ticket at excatly same time, i have even checked the millisecond but that too same.
1. I would like to know if any MS SQL Server LOCK would help in this scenario.
2. Or do i need to block table while insert.(This 2nd rable will not have much data approx. less than 15 rows)
Lock Creation Procedure Below:
ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[TakeOwnerShipGetLock]
#TicketId [uniqueidentifier],
#OwnerId [uniqueidentifier]
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;
BEGIN TRANSACTION TakeOwnership
BEGIN TRY
DECLARE #Lock BIT
SET #Lock = 0
DECLARE #LockDate DATETIME
SELECT #LockDate = LockDate
FROM dbo.TakeOwnershipLock
WHERE TicketId = #TicketId
IF #LockDate IS NULL
AND NOT EXISTS ( SELECT 1
FROM dbo.TakeOwnershipLock as takeOwnership WITH (UPDLOCK)
INNER JOIN dbo.Ticket as Ticket WITH (NOLOCK)
ON Ticket.TicketID = takeOwnership.TicketId
WHERE takeOwnership.TicketId = #TicketId
AND Ticket.OwnerID is NULL )
BEGIN
INSERT INTO dbo.TakeOwnershipLock
( TicketId
,OwnerId
,LockDate
)
VALUES ( #TicketId
,#OwnerId
,GETDATE()
)
IF ( ##ROWCOUNT > 0 )
SET #Lock = 1
END
SELECT #Lock
COMMIT TRANSACTION TakeOwnership
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
-- Test whether the transaction is uncommittable.
IF XACT_STATE() = 1
BEGIN
COMMIT TRANSACTION TakeOwnership
SET #Lock = 1
SELECT #Lock
END
-- Test whether the transaction is active and valid.
IF XACT_STATE() = -1
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION TakeOwnership
SET #Lock = 0
SELECT #Lock
END
END CATCH
END

How to prevent multi threaded application to read this same Sql Server record twice

I am working on a system that uses multiple threads to read, process and then update database records. Threads run in parallel and try to pick records by calling Sql Server stored procedure.
They call this stored procedure looking for unprocessed records multiple times per second and sometimes pick this same record up.
I try to prevent this happening this way:
UPDATE dbo.GameData
SET Exported = #Now,
ExportExpires = #Expire,
ExportSession = #ExportSession
OUTPUT Inserted.ID INTO #ExportedIDs
WHERE ID IN ( SELECT TOP(#ArraySize) GD.ID
FROM dbo.GameData GD
WHERE GD.Exported IS NULL
ORDER BY GD.ID ASC)
The idea here is to set a record as exported first using an UPDATE with OUTPUT (remembering record id), so no other thread can pick it up again. When record is set as exported, then I can do some extra calculations and pass the data to the external system hoping that no other thread will pick this same record again in the mean time. Since the UPDATE that has in mind to secure the record first.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working and the application sometimes pick same record twice anyway.
How to prevent it?
Kind regards
Mariusz
I think you should be able to do this atomically using a common table expression. (I'm not 100% certain about this, and I haven't tested, so you'll need to verify that it works for you in your situation.)
;WITH cte AS
(
SELECT TOP(#ArrayCount)
ID, Exported, ExportExpires, ExportSession
FROM dbo.GameData WITH (READPAST)
WHERE Exported IS NULL
ORDER BY ID
)
UPDATE cte
SET Exported = #Now,
ExportExpires = #Expire,
ExportSession = #ExportSession
OUTPUT INSERTED.ID INTO #ExportedIDs
I have a similar set up and I use sp_getapplock. My application runs many threads and they call a stored procedure to get the ID of the element that has to be processed. sp_getapplock guarantees that the same ID would not be chosen by two different threads.
I have a MyTable with a list of IDs that my application checks in an infinite loop using many threads. For each ID there are two datetime columns: LastCheckStarted and LastCheckCompleted. They are used to determine which ID to pick. Stored procedure picks an ID that wasn't checked for the longest period. There is also a hard-coded period of 20 minutes - the same ID can't be checked more often than every 20 minutes.
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[GetNextIDToCheck]
-- Add the parameters for the stored procedure here
AS
BEGIN
-- SET NOCOUNT ON added to prevent extra result sets from
-- interfering with SELECT statements.
SET NOCOUNT ON;
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
BEGIN TRY
DECLARE #VarID int = NULL;
DECLARE #VarLockResult int;
EXEC #VarLockResult = sp_getapplock
#Resource = 'SomeUniqueName_app_lock',
#LockMode = 'Exclusive',
#LockOwner = 'Transaction',
#LockTimeout = 60000,
#DbPrincipal = 'public';
IF #VarLockResult >= 0
BEGIN
-- Acquired the lock
-- Find ID that wasn't checked for the longest period
SELECT TOP 1
#VarID = ID
FROM
dbo.MyTable
WHERE
LastCheckStarted <= LastCheckCompleted
-- this ID is not being checked right now
AND LastCheckCompleted < DATEADD(minute, -20, GETDATE())
-- last check was done more than 20 minutes ago
ORDER BY LastCheckCompleted;
-- Start checking
UPDATE dbo.MyTable
SET LastCheckStarted = GETDATE()
WHERE ID = #VarID;
-- There is no need to explicitly verify if we found anything.
-- If #VarID is null, no rows will be updated
END;
-- Return found ID, or no rows if nothing was found,
-- or failed to acquire the lock
SELECT
#VarID AS ID
WHERE
#VarID IS NOT NULL
;
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION;
END CATCH;
END
The second procedure is called by an application when it finishes checking the found ID.
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[SetCheckComplete]
-- Add the parameters for the stored procedure here
#ParamID int
AS
BEGIN
-- SET NOCOUNT ON added to prevent extra result sets from
-- interfering with SELECT statements.
SET NOCOUNT ON;
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
BEGIN TRY
DECLARE #VarLockResult int;
EXEC #VarLockResult = sp_getapplock
#Resource = 'SomeUniqueName_app_lock',
#LockMode = 'Exclusive',
#LockOwner = 'Transaction',
#LockTimeout = 60000,
#DbPrincipal = 'public';
IF #VarLockResult >= 0
BEGIN
-- Acquired the lock
-- Completed checking the given ID
UPDATE dbo.MyTable
SET LastCheckCompleted = GETDATE()
WHERE ID = #ParamID;
END;
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION;
END CATCH;
END
It does not work because multiple transactions might first execute the IN clause and find the same set of rows, then update multiple times and overwrite each other.
LukeH's answer is best, accept it.
You can also fix it by adding AND Exported IS NULL to cancel double updates.
Or, make this SERIALIZABLE. This will lead to some blocking and deadlocking. This can safely be handled by timeouts and retry in case of deadlock. SERIALIZABLE is always safe for all workloads but it might block/deadlock more often.

Stored Procedure Does Not Fire Last Command

On our SQL Server (Version 10.0.1600), I have a stored procedure that I wrote.
It is not throwing any errors, and it is returning the correct values after making the insert in the database.
However, the last command spSendEventNotificationEmail (which sends out email notifications) is not being run.
I can run the spSendEventNotificationEmail script manually using the same data, and the notifications show up, so I know it works.
Is there something wrong with how I call it in my stored procedure?
[dbo].[spUpdateRequest](#packetID int, #statusID int output, #empID int, #mtf nVarChar(50)) AS
BEGIN
-- SET NOCOUNT ON added to prevent extra result sets from
-- interfering with SELECT statements.
SET NOCOUNT ON;
DECLARE #id int
SET #id=-1
-- Insert statements for procedure here
SELECT A.ID, PacketID, StatusID
INTO #act FROM Action A JOIN Request R ON (R.ID=A.RequestID)
WHERE (PacketID=#packetID) AND (StatusID=#statusID)
IF ((SELECT COUNT(ID) FROM #act)=0) BEGIN -- this statusID has not been entered. Continue
SELECT ID, MTF
INTO #req FROM Request
WHERE PacketID=#packetID
WHILE (0 < (SELECT COUNT(ID) FROM #req)) BEGIN
SELECT TOP 1 #id=ID FROM #req
INSERT INTO Action (RequestID, StatusID, EmpID, DateStamp)
VALUES (#id, #statusID, #empID, GETDATE())
IF ((#mtf IS NOT NULL) AND (0 < LEN(RTRIM(#mtf)))) BEGIN
UPDATE Request SET MTF=#mtf WHERE ID=#id
END
DELETE #req WHERE ID=#id
END
DROP TABLE #req
SELECT #id=##IDENTITY, #statusID=StatusID FROM Action
SELECT TOP 1 #statusID=ID FROM Status
WHERE (#statusID<ID) AND (-1 < Sequence)
EXEC spSendEventNotificationEmail #packetID, #statusID, 'http:\\cpweb:8100\NextStep.aspx'
END ELSE BEGIN
SET #statusID = -1
END
DROP TABLE #act
END
Idea of how the data tables are connected:
From your comments I get you do mainly C# development. A basic test is to make sure the sproc is called with the exact same arguments you expect
PRINT '#packetID: ' + #packetID
PRINT '#statusID: ' + #statusID
EXEC spSendEventNotificationEmail #packetID, #statusID, 'http:\\cpweb:8100\NextStep.aspx'
This way you 1. know that the exec statement is reached 2. the exact values
If this all works than I very good candidate is that you have permission to run the sproc and your (C#?) code that calls it doesn't. I would expect that an error is thrown tough.
A quick test to see if the EXEC is executed fine is to do an insert in a dummy table after it.
Update 1
I suggested to add PRINT statements but indeed as you say you cannot (easily) catch them from C#. What you could do is insert the 2 variables in a log table that you newly create. This way you know the exact values that flow from the C# execution.
As to the why it now works if you add permissions I can't give you a ready answer. SQL security is not transparent to me either. But its good to research yourself a but further. Do you have to add both guest and public?
It would also help to see what's going inside spSendEventNotificationEmail. Chances are good that sproc is using a resource where it didn't have permission before. This could be an object like a table or maybe another sproc. Security is heavily dependent on context/settings and not an easy problem to tackle with a Q/A site like SO.

Resources