I have a table with about 30 fields. I current have several stored procedures which access either a (aggregated) view of this table or the table itself. For many of these SPs I would like to assure that the returned records have all the same fields with the same column names. Is there a way to do this where I don't have to change 20 stored procs if I do need to change the output.
My way around it thus far is to provide clients with lists of ID which they then call SP's that return the data however this seems to be slow compared with getting the data in one shot. I have also considered using the formatting stored procs with a cursor from inside the search stored procs but was unsure if that would really buy me a whole lot.
The typical way to define a standardised and consistent data access method across multiple stored procedures in SQL Server to use Views.
Now your problem description seems to suggest that you are already using Views in order to manage your data access. If you are indeed unable to use Views for a specific reason, perhaps you can clarify the nature of your problem further for us.
Related
I have two different tables which are identical in structure. I have to run the same code on both of them, but at different times and the results have to be saved in seperate destinations. Currently this works by having two separate stored procedures which contain the same code, apart from the source table in the FROM-statement.
This doesn't strike me as very elegant, and changes to the processing have to be done in both stored procedures. How do I combine them in a way that they can still be called separely? Naively I thought I could use a function and give the target and source table as a variable. But my research in table functions revealed that you have to "fill" the table variable with the whole content of the source table first, and I would guess that this decreases performance quite a bit, compared to calling the table directly in a procedure with the FROM statement?
What does SQL Server offer to solve this in a more elegant way?
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction
I have two different tables which are identical in structure. I have to run the same code on both of them
. . .
What does SQL Server offer to solve this in a more elegant way?
Your choices are to keep them separate, or use dynamic SQL. Inelegant schemas require inelegant code.
To help with the maintenance of the two procedures, you could use a script to generate both the stored procedures, so you have a single place to make changes.
The setup
I have the following database setup:
CentralDB
Table: Stores
Table: Users
Store1DB
Table: Orders
Store2DB
Table: Orders
Store3DB
Table: Orders
Store4DB
Table: Orders
... etc
CentralDB contains the users, logging and a Stores table with the name of each store database and general information about each store such as address, name, description, image, etc...
All the StoreDB's use the same structure just different data.
It is important to know that the list of stores will shrink and increase in the future.
The main client communicating with this setup is an API REST Service which gets passed a STOREID in the Header of each request telling it which database to connect to. This works flawlessly so far.
The reasoning
Whenever we need to do database maintenance on one store, we don't want all other stores to be down.
Backup management should be per store
Not having to write the WHERE storeID=x every time and for every table
Performance: each store could run on its own database server if the need arises
The goal
I need my REST API Service to somehow get all orders from all stores in one query.
Will you help me figure out a way to do this without hardcoding all storedb names? I was thinking about a stored procedure on the CentralDB but I was hoping there would be other solutions. In any case it has to be very efficient.
One option would be to have a list of databases stored in a "system" table in CentralDB.
Then you could create a stored procedure that would read the database names from the table, loop through them with cursor and generate a dynamic SQL that would UNION the results from all the databases. This way you would get a single recordset of results.
However, this database design is IMHO flawed. There is no reason for using multiple databases to store data that belongs to the same "domain". All the reasons that you have mentioned can be solved by using a single database with proper database design. Having multiple databases will create multiple problems on the long term:
you will need to change structure of all the DBs when you modify your database model
you will need to create/drop new databases when new stores are added/removed from your system
you will need to have items and other entities that are "common" to all the stores duplicated in all the DBs
what about reporting requirements (e.g. get sales data for stores 1 and 2 together, etc.) - this will require creating complex union queries...
etc...
On the long term, managing and maintaining this model will be a big pain.
I'd maintain a set of views that UNION ALL all the data. Every time a store is added or deleted those views must be updated. This can be automated.
The views provide an illusion to the application that there is only one database.
What I would not do is have each SQL query or procedure query all the database names and create dynamic SQL. That would entail lots of code duplication and an unnecessary loss of performance. This approach is error prone. Better generate code once in a central place and have all other SQL code reference that generated code.
All,
Architecture for crystal report,
I have two option,
Stored procedure with business logic and display data on crystal report.( tight coupled)
as SP are specially designed for the reports - less reusable. but recompiled.
Views to pull data and add business logic on report itself to filter data.(loose coupled)
-reusable views but what about performance compared to SP?
Any suggestions are more welcome...
If I understand your question correctly, I would recommend implementing option 1.
By calling a stored procedure, you will be reducing network traffic because you'd be passing only parameter definitions and the procedure name, instead of the entire query string you'd be sending to the DB in option 2.
Using stored procedures also keeps the plan cache tidy by compiling the set of SQL statements within the stored procedure, instead of storing separate plans for each statement within the string you'd be passing to the DB in option 2.
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.
When using multivalue parameters in sql reporting services is it more appropriate to implement the list filter using a filter on the dataset itself, the data region control or change the actual query that drives the dataset?
SSRS will support any scenario, so then I ask, is there a reason beyond the obvious of why this should be done at one level over another?
It makes sense to me that modifying the query itself and asking the RDBMS to handle the filtering would be most efficient but maybe I am missing something with respect to how the SSRS Data Processing Extension may handle this scenario?
You are correct. The way to go is to pass the parameters through to the database engine.
Reporting Services should only be ideally used to render content. The less data that you need to pass back to the client web browser, the faster the report will render.
You may find my answer to a similar post regarding using mulit-value parameters to be of use.
Passing multiple values for a single parameter in Reporting Services
Hope this helps but please feel free to pose any further questions you may have.
Cheers,
John
Using table-valued UDF is a good approach, but there is still one issue - in case if this function is called in many places of query, and even inside inner select, there can be performance problem. You can resolve this issue using table variable (or temp table eather):
DECLARE #Param (Value INT)
INSERT INTO #Param (Value)
SELECT Param FROM dbo.fn_MVParam(#sParameterString,',')
...
where someColumn IN(SELECT Value FROM #Param)
so function will be called only once.
Othe thing, if you don't use stored procedure, but embedded SQL query instead, you can just put MVP into query:
...
where someColumn IN(#Param)
...
Use the RDBMS to do the main filtering
SSRS provides filtering for the purposes on data driven display and/or dynamic display. Especially useful for sub reports etc