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.
Related
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.
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?
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'
I am by no means a sql programmer and I am trying to accomplish something that I am pretty sure has been done a million times before.
I am trying to auto generate a customer number in sql every time a new customer is inserted, but the trigger (or sp?) will only work if at least the first name, last name and another value called case number is entered. If any of these fields are missing, the system generates an error. If the criteria is met, the system generates and assigns a unique id to that customer that begins with letters GL- and then uses 5 digit number so a customer John Doe would be GL-00001 and Jane Doe would be GL-00002.
I am sorry if I am asking too much but I am basically a select insert update guy and nothing more so thanks in advance for any help.
If I were in this situation, I would:
--Alter the table(s) so that first name, last name and case number are required (NOT NULL) columns. Handle your checks for required fields on the application side before submitting the record to the database.
--If it doesn't already exist, add an identity column to the customer table.
--Add a persisted computed column to the customer table that will format the identity column into the desired GL-00000 format.
/* Demo computed column for customer number */
create table #test (
id int identity,
customer_number as 'GL-' + left('00000', 5-len(cast(id as varchar(5)))) + cast(id as varchar(5)) persisted,
name char(20)
)
insert into #test (name) values ('Joe')
insert into #test (name) values ('BobbyS')
select * from #test
drop table #test
This should satisfy your requirements without the need to introduce the overhead of a trigger.
So what do you want to do? generate a customer number even when these fields arn't populated?
Have you looked at the SQL for the trigger? You can do this in SSMS (SQL Server Managment Studio) by going to the table in question in the Object Explorer, expanding the table and then expanding triggers.
If you open up the trigger you'll see what it does to generate the customer number. If you are unsure on how this code works, then post the code for the trigger up.
If you are making changes to an existing system i'd advise you to find out any implications that changing the way data is inputted works.
For example, others parts of the application may depend on all of the initial values being populated, so after changing the trigger to allow incomplete data to be added, you may inturn break something else.
You have probably a unique constraint and/or NOT NULL constraints set on the table.
Remove/Disable these (for example with the SQL-Server Management Console in Design Mode) and then try again to insert the data. Keep in mind, that you will probably not be able to enable the constraints after your insert, since you are violating conditions after the insert. Only disable or reomve the constraints, if you are absolutely sure that they are unecessary.
Here's example syntax (you need to know the constraint names):
--disable
ALTER TABLE customer NOCHECK CONSTRAINT your_constraint_name
--enable
ALTER TABLE customer CHECK CONSTRAINT your_constraint_name
Caution: If I were you, I'd rather try to insert dummy values for the not null columns like this:
insert into customers select afield , 1 as dummyvalue, 2 as dummyvalue from your datasource
A very easy way to do this would be to create a table of this sort of structure:
CustomerID of type in that is a primary key and set it as identity
CustomerIDPrfix of type varchar(3) which stores GL- as a default value.
Then add your other fields and set them to NOT NULL.
If that way is not acceptable and you do need to write a trigger check out these two articles:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa258254(SQL.80).aspx
http://www.kodyaz.com/articles/sql-trigger-example-in-sql-server-2008.aspx
Basiclly it is all about getting the logic right to check if the fields are blank. Experiment with a test database on your local machine. This will help you get it right.
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.