I have 20 record group that i need to batch insert them all in one connection so there is two solution (XML or stored procedure). this operation frequently executed so i need fast performance and least overhead
1) I think XML is performs slower but we can freely specify how many record we need to insert as a batch by producing the appropriate XML, I don't know the values of each field in a record, there maybe characters that malformed our XML like using " or filed tags in values so how should i prevent this behavior ?
2) using stored procedure is faster but i need to define all input parameters which is boring task and if i need to increase or decrease the number of records inserted in a batch then i need to change the SP
so which solution is better in my environment with respect to my constrains
XML is likely the better choice, however there are other options
If you're using SQL Server 2008 you can use Table Valued parameters instead.
Starting with .NET 2.0 you had the option to use the SQLBulkCopy
If you're using oracle you can pass a user defined type but I'm not sure what versions of ODP and Oracle that works with.
Note these are all .NET samples. I don't know that this will work for you. It would probably help if you include the database and version and client technology that you're using.
Related
I am trying to execute (call) a SQL Server stored procedure from Infa Developer, I created a mapping (new mapping from SQL Query). I am trying to pass it runtime variables from the previous mapping task in order to log these to a SQL Server table (the stored procedure does an INSERT). It generated the following T-SQL query:
?RETURN_VALUE? = call usp_TempTestInsertINFARunTimeParams (?Workflow_Name?, ?Instance_Id?, ?StartTime?, ?EndTime?, ?SourceRows?, ?TargetRows?)
However, it does not validate, the validation log states 'the mapping must have a source' and '... must have a target'. I have a feeling I'm doing this completely wrong. And: this is not Power Center (no sessions, as far as I can tell).
Any help is appreciated! Thanks
Now with the comments I can confirm and answer your question:
Yes, Soure and Target transformations in Informatica are mandatory elements of the mapping. It will not be a valid mapping without them. Let me try to explain a bit more.
The whole concept of ETL tool is to Extract data from the Source, do all the needed Transformations outside the database and Load the data to required Target. It is possible - and quite often necessary - to invoke Stored Procedures before or after the data load. Sometimes even use the exisitng Stored Procedures as part of the dataload. However, from ETL perspective, this is the additional feature. ETL tool - here Informatica being a perfect example - is not meant to be a tool for invoking SPs. This reminds me a question any T-SQL developer asks with his first PL-SQL query: what in the world is this DUAL? Why do I need 'from dual' if I just want to do some calculation like SELECT 123*456? That is the theory.
Now in real world it happens quite often that you NEED to invoke a stored procedure. And that it is the ONLY thing you need to do. Then you do use the DUAL ;) Which in PowerCenter world means you use DUAL as the Source (or actually any table you know that exists in the source system), you put 1=2 in the Source Filter property (or put the Filter Transforation in the mapping with FALSE as the condition), link just one port with the target. Next, you put the Stored Procedure call as Pre- or Post-SQL property on your source or target - depending on where you actually want to run it.
Odd? Well - the odd part is where you want to use the ETL tool as a trigger, not the ETL tool ;)
This might seem like a silly question, but I'm surprised that I didn't find a clear answer to this already:
Is it possible to use SQL Server parameters for writing a query with dynamic column names (and table names), or does the input just need to be sanitized very carefully?
The situation is that tables and their column names (and amount of columns) are generated dynamically and there is no way to know beforehand to manually write a query. Since the tables & columns aren't known I can't use an ORM, so I'm resorting to manual queries. Usually I'd use parameters to fill in values to prevent SQL injection, however I'm pretty sure that this cannot be done the same way when specifying the table name and/or column names. I want to create generic queries for insert, update, upsert, and select, but I obviously don't want to open myself up to potential injection. Is there a best practices on how to accomplish this safely?
Just as an FYI - I did see this answer, but since there's no way for me to know the column / table names beforehand a case statement probably won't work for this situation.
Environment: SQL Server 2014 via ADO.NET (.NET 4.5 / C#)
There is no mechanism for passing table or column references to procedures. You just pass them as strings and then use dynamic SQL to build your queries. You do have to take precautions to ensure that your string parameters are valid.
One way to do this would be to validate that all table and column reference strings have valid names in sys.tables and sys.columns before building your T-SQL queries. Then you can be sure that they can be used safely.
You can also use literal parameters with dynamic sql when using the sp_executesql procedure. You can't use it to validate your table and column names, but it validates and prevents SQL injection with your other parameters.
I'm working on a data conversion utility which can push data from one master database out to a number of different databases. The utility its self will have no knowledge of how data is kept in the destination (table structure), but I would like to provide writing a SQL statement to return data from the destination using a complex SQL query with multiple join statements. As long as the data is in a standardized format that the utility can recognize (field names) in an ADO query.
What I would like to do is then modify the live data in this ADO Query. However, since there are multiple join statements, I'm not sure if it's possible to do this. I know at least with BDE (I've never used BDE), it was very strict and you had to return all fields (*) and such. ADO I know is more flexible, but I don't know quite how flexible in this case.
Is it supposed to be possible to modify data in a TADOQuery in this manner, when the results include fields from different tables? And even if so, suppose I want to append a new record to the end (TADOQuery.Append). Would it append to two different tables?
The actual primary table I'm selecting from has a complimentary table which is joined by the same primary key field, one is a "Small" table (brief info) and the other is a "Detail" table (more info for each record in Small table). So, a typical statement would include something like this:
select ts.record_uid, ts.SomeField, td.SomeOtherField from table_small ts
join table_detail td on td.record_uid = ts.record_uid
There are also a number of other joins to records in other tables, but I'm not worried about appending to those ones. I'm only worried about appending to the "Small" and "Detail" tables - at the same time.
Is such a thing possible in an ADO Query? I'm willing to tweak and modify the SQL statement in any way necessary to make this possible. I have a bad feeling though that it's not possible.
Compatibility:
SQL Server 2000 through 2008 R2
Delphi XE2
Editing these Fields which have no influence on the joins is usually no problem.
Appending is ... you can limit the Append to one of the Tables by
procedure TForm.ADSBeforePost(DataSet: TDataSet);
begin
inherited;
TCustomADODataSet(DataSet).Properties['Unique Table'].Value := 'table_small';
end;
but without an Requery you won't get much further.
The better way will be setting Values by Procedure e.g. in BeforePost, Requery and Abort.
If your View would be persistent you would be able to use INSTEAD OF Triggers
Jerry,
I encountered the same problem on FireBird, and from experience I can tell you that it can be made(up to a small complexity) by using CachedUpdates . A very good resource is this one - http://podgoretsky.com/ftp/Docs/Delphi/D5/dg/11_cache.html. This article has the answers to all your questions.
I have abandoned the original idea of live ADO query updates, as it has become more complex than I can wrap my head around. The scope of the data push project has changed, and therefore this is no longer an issue for me, however still an interesting subject to know.
The new structure of the application consists of attaching multiple "Field Links" on various fields from the original set of data. Each of these links references the original field name and a SQL Statement which is to be executed when that field is being imported. Multiple field links can be on one single field, therefore can execute multiple statements, placing the value in various tables, etc. The end goal was an app which I can easily and repeatedly export a common dataset from an original source to any outside source with different data structures, without having to recompile the app.
However the concept of cached updates was not appealing to me, simply for the fact pointed out in the link in RBA's answer that data can be changed in the database in the mean-time. So I will instead integrate my own method of customizable data pushes.
The environment I am working with is CF8 and SQL 2005 and the datatype CLOB is disabled on the CF administrator. My concern is, will there be a performance ramification by enabling the CLOB datatype in the CF Administrator.
The reason I want/need to enable it is, SQL is building the AJAX XML response. When the response is large, the result is either truncated or returned with multiple rows (depending on how the SQL developer created the stored proc). Enabling CLOB allows the entire result to be returned. The other option I have is to have SQL always return the XML result in multiple rows and have CF join the string for each result row.
Anyone with some experience with this idea or have any thoughts?
Thanks!
I really think that returning Clob data is likely to be less expensive then concatenating multiple rows of data into an XML string and then parsing it (ick!). What you are trying to do is what CLOB is designed for. JDBC handles it pretty well. The performance hit is probably negligible. After all - you have to return the same amount of character data either way, whether in multiple rows or a single field. And to have to "break it up" on the SQL side and then "reassemble" it on the CF side seems like reinventing the wheel to be sure.
I would add that questions like this sometimes mystify me. A modest amount of testing would seem to be able to answer this question to your own satisfaction - no?
I would just have the StoredProc return the data set, or multiple data sets, and just build the XML the way you need it via CF.
I've never needed to use CLOB. I almost always stick to the varchar datatype, and it seems to do the job just fine.
There are also options where you could call the Stored Proc, which triggers MSSQL to generate an actual xml file (not just a string) and simply return you the file name. Then you can use CFFILE action="read" to grab the xml string and parse it accrodingly. Assuming your web server and db have a common file storage area.
I need to copy data from one database to another using a VB.NET program.
The target database is SQL Server the source database is some proprietary ODBC compliant database.
I need to loop through a list of table to copy. Read the data from the source database table for a given modified date. Delete the corresponding date from the target database table and insert the records from the source table. The databases are of the same structure i.e. table names and field names, but the data types may differ (however they are compliant e.g. double in source, float in target). No primary keys exist.
Heres how I may do it :
Firstly execute a Delete command to the target.
I could then use a DataReader to obtain data from the source, loop through the Items and create an Insert Command for each row. Add Parameters to the Command with the appropriate values and execute. And wrap the whole thing in a Transaction.
I was just wondering if I am missing a trick here. Any Suggestions
I think you should use the right for the job and I'm guessing that that is SSIS in this case, but I could be wrong and perhaps you have already explored that path.
In that case yes a datareader would do depnding how much data you have. A datatable might even be eassier and faster to program (no need to worry about datatypes since the adapter should take care of that.
The trick would be to use set based operations and not the 'row at a time' concept which we programmers were first taught :)
Here's some pseudocode
INSERT INTO DestTable (columns, columns...)
(Select ModifiedRow from SourceTable where date = Modified)
Perhaps your requirements are more complicated and may need the row by row approach, but this is normally not the case.
I'd opt to put this code in a job step and schedule on SQL. It could also be a stored procedure run from .net.
Also, using SSIS for a db to db transfer is most likely overkill unless you are going to be using some of the special transformations in there.
Take a look at the SqlBulkCopy class. If you can get the source into a DataTable or read it with an IDataReader then it's eligible. It will also attempt to convert between compatible types. See Single Bulk Copy Operations for more details.
This would be more desirable than using INSERT statements for each row.
Dim reader As System.IO.DirectoryInfo
reader = My.Computer.FileSystem.GetDirectoryInfo("c:\program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\mssql\data")
If (reader.Attributes And System.IO.FileAttributes.ReadOnly) > 0 Then
MsgBox("File is readonly!")
Else
MsgBox("Database is not read-only protected")
End If
Check all the tables first