Some how some records in my table are getting updated with value of xyz in a certain column. Out of hundred of stored procedures, functions, triggers, how can I determine which code is doing this action. Is there a way to search through the database some how through each and every script of the code?
Please help.
One approach is to check syscomments
Contains entries for each view, rule,
default, trigger, CHECK constraint,
DEFAULT constraint, and stored
procedure within the database. The
text column contains the original SQL
definition statements..
e.g. select text from syscomments
If you are having trouble finding that literal string, the values could be coming from a table, or they could be being concatenated within a routine.
Try this
Select text from syscomments
where CharIndex('x', text) > 0
and CharIndex('y', text) > 0
and CharIndex('z', text) > 0
That might help you either find the right routine, or further indicate that the values are coming from a table.
This is going to be nearly impossible to do in SQL Server 2000 because the update might very well be from a variable that has that value or a join to another table that has that value and not hard-coded into the stored proc, trigger etc. The update could also be coming from a DTS package, a job, a piece of dynamic code run by the app or even from query analyzer, so the code itself may not be recorded inthe datbase anywhere.
Perhaps a better approach might be to create an audit table for the table in question and have it record the user and the code from the spid that generated the change as well as the old and new values. You'll have to wait until it happens again, but then you would know exactly what changed the value and what value to put it back to if need be.
Alternatively you could run profiler on the system until it happens but profiler tends to hurt performance and is not usually a good idea to run on a production system. If it is happening very often, it might be an acceptable alternative.
Here's a hint as to how you might get some of the info you want for the eventual trigger code you write:
create table #temp (eventtype nvarchar (1000), parameters int, eventinfo nvarchar (4000), myspid int)
declare #myspid int
select #myspid =##spid
insert #temp (eventtype,parameters, eventinfo)
exec ('dbcc inputbuffer (##spid)')
update #temp
set myspid = #myspid
select hostname, program_name, eventinfo
from #temp t
join sysprocesses s on t.myspid = s.spid
WHERE spid = #myspid
You might use sql-profiler to trac the update of a given table / column.
Related
I am generating XML from 60 tables, and storing this xml in a table.
Table Name : Final_XML_Table
PK FK XML_Content (type xml)
1 1 "XML that I am generating from 60 tables"
When I am running below query , it gives memory exception :
Select * from Final_XML_Table
Things I have tried :
1. Results to text : I am getting only few lines from XML as text in output window
2. Results to file : I am getting only few lines from XML in file.
Please suggest, and also if there is any change , will I have to do this on server's SQL server as well while deployment.
I have also set XML_Data to unlimited :
This is not an answer, but to much for a comment...
The fact, that you are able to store the XML, shows clearly, that the XML is not to big for the database.
The fact that you get an out-of-memory exception with Select * from Final_XML_Table shows clearly, that SSMS has a problem on reading/displaying your XML.
You might try to check the length like here:
DECLARE #tbl TABLE (x XML);
INSERT INTO #tbl VALUES('<root><test>blah</test><test /><test2><x/></test2></root>');
SELECT * FROM #tbl; --This does not work for you
SELECT DATALENGTH(x) FROM #tbl; --This returns just "82" in this case
Might be, that due to a logical error in your XML's creation (a wrong join?) the XML contains multiple/repeated elements. You might try a query like this to get a count of nodes in order to check if this number is realistic:
SELECT x.value('count(//*)','int') FROM #tbl
For the exampe above this returns "5"
You might do the same with your original XML.
With a query like the following you can retrieve all node names of the first level, the second level and so on. You can check if this looks okay:
SELECT firstLevel.value('local-name(.)','varchar(max)') AS l1_node
,SecondLevel.value('local-name(.)','varchar(max)') AS l2_node
--add more
FROM #tbl
OUTER APPLY x.nodes('/*') AS A(firstLevel)
OUTER APPLY A.firstLevel.nodes('*') AS B(SecondLevel)
--add more
And - of course - you might open the ResourceMonitor to look at the actual usage of memory...
Come back with more details...
That error isn't a SQL Server error, it's from SSMS. It means that SSMS has run out of memory.
SSMS is only a 32bit application, so can only address 2GB of RAM. If it tries to address more than that, the error will occur. if you've had SSMS open and returned some very large datasets, that RAM is going to get used up.
In all honesty, if you're running a query like SELECT * FROM Final_XML_Table then I would hazard a guess that the dataset is huge. Add a WHERE clause, or don't return the dataset on screen. if you really need to view the data (all of it), export it to something else. But I very much doubt you need to look at every row, if you're returning around 2GB of data.
I have the following scenario/requirements for which I am not sure what is the best way to address to perform in the fastest way possible, looking for some guidance of features to use and examples of them, if available
I will receive anywhere between 10k to 100k of entities (in XML format) from a web service that I want to upsert (some rows might exist, others might not).
here are some of the requirements:
The source of the XML is a web service that I'm calling from C# code. Actually two different methods. For one of the methods, the return schema will be something flat that I can map directly to one of my tables. For the other, it will return an XML representation that I might need to work with in C# in order to be able to map it to flat entities for my tables. In that scenario, would it be best to do the modifications needed and then write to file to an XML to use as source?
The returned XML can contain up to 150k entities in XML, that may or may not exist in my tables yet, so I'm looking to upsert them. The files, when written to disk, can weight up to 20 megabytes. I asked if they could do JSON instead of XML, but apparently that's not a choice.
The SQL database is on a different server than my IIS server, so I rather avoid having the SQL server retrieve the XML from a file, I rather pass it from C# as a string or as a Table Value Parameter.
The tables are rather simple and don't have indexes other than the PK ones.
I've never been big on XML, although it got way easier with LINQ to XML, which I was initially using to parse each record and send individual inserts but the performance was just bad, so based on some research I've been doing, I'm thinking I could use:
Upserts from SQL server through MERGE statements.
Pass the whole XML as a parameter and use OPENXML to use as source in the MERGE statement.
Or, somehow generate a Table Value Parameter in C# and pass that to SQL to use on the MERGE.
I read on this similar question (which didnt have access to upsert/merge) that instead of trying to upsert directly from the XML, that it might be better to insert everything to a temporary table and do the merge/upsert against the temporary table?
Would this work and be considerably fast?
If anyone has had a similar scenario, can you share your thoughts/ideas about what combination of features would be best?
Thanks.
You are on the right track. I have a similar setup using XML to transfer data between an online portal and the client-server application. The rest of the setup is very similar to what you have.
The fact that your tables are not indexed is a bit of a concern, if you are comparing any fields that are not PK Fields, regardless of how you index the temp tables. It is important to have either one index with all of the fields used in the merge match clause, or an index for each of them - I find the former yields better performance. Beyond that, using an XML parameter, OpenXML and temp tables is the way to go.
The following code has not been tested, so may need a bit of debugging, but it will put you on the right track. A couple of notes: If all of the fields in the OpenXML WITH clause are attributes, then you can drop the last parameter (i.e. ", 2") and field source specifiers (i.e. "#id" for the detail table). Although the data in your description is flat, in which case you will only need one table, I do often need to import into linked records. I have included a simple master-detail relationship example in the code below, just for the sake of completeness.
CREATE PROCEDURE usp_ImportFromXML (#data XML) AS
BEGIN
/*
<root>
<data>
<match_field_1>1</match_field_1>
<match_field_2>val2</match_field_2>
<data_1>val3</data_1>
<data_2>val4</data_2>
<detail_records>
<detail_data id="detailID1">
<detail_1>blah1<detail_1>
<detail_2>blah2<detail_2>
</detail_data>
<detail_data id="detailID2">
<detail_1>blah3<detail_1>
<detail_2>blah4<detail_2>
</detail_data>
</detail_records>
</data>
<data>
...
</root>
*/
DECLARE #iDoc INT
EXEC sp_xml_preparedocument #iDoc OUTPUT, #data
SELECT * INTO #temp
FROM OpenXML(#iDoc, '/root/data', 2) WITH (
match_field_1 INT,
match_field_2 VARCHAR(50),
data_1 VARCHAR(50),
data_2 VARCHAR(50)
)
SELECT * INTO #detail
FROM OpenXML(#iDoc, '/root/data/detail_data', 2) WITH (
match_field_1 INT '../../match_field_1',
match_field_2 VARCHAR(50) '../../match_field_2',
detail_id VARCHAR(50) '#id',
detail_1 VARCHAR(50),
detail_2 VARCHAR(50)
)
EXEC sp_xml_removedocument #iDoc
CREATE INDEX #IX_temp ON #temp(match_field_1, match_field_2)
CREATE INDEX #IX_detail ON #detail(match_field_1, match_field_2, detail_id)
MERGE data_table a
USING #temp ta
ON ta.match_field_1 = a.match_field_1 AND ta.match_field_2 = a.match_field_2
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET data_1 = ta.data_1, data_2 = ta.data_2
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT (match_field_1, match_field_2, data_1, data_2) VALUES (ta.match_field_1, ta.match_field_2, ta.data_1, ta.data_2)
MERGE detail_table a
USING (SELECT d.*, p._key FROM #detail d, data_table p WHERE d.match_field_1 = p.match_field_1 AND d.match_field_2 = p.match_field_2) ta
ON a.id = ta.id AND a.parent_key = ta._key
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET detail_1 = ta.detail_1, detail2 = ta.detail_2
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT (parent_key, id, detail_1, detail_2) VALUES (ta._key, ta.id, ta.detail_1, ta.detail_2)
DROP TABLE #temp
DROP TABLE #detail
END
Use (3). Process the data ready for upset in C#. C# is made for this kind of algorithmic work. It is both the right programming language as well as the faster programming language. T-SQL is not the right tool. You do not want to use XML with T-SQL for very high performance stuff because it burns CPU like crazy. Instead use the fast TDS protocol to send TVP or bulk data.
Then, send the data to the server using either a TVP or a bulk-insert (SqlBulkCopy) to a temp table. The latter technique is great for very many rows (>10k?). Bulk insert uses special TDS features. It does not use SQL batches to transfer the data. It does not get faster than this.
Then use the MERGE statement as you described. Use big batch sizes, potentially all rows in one batch.
The best way I've found is to bulk insert into a temp table from your C# code, then issue the merge once the data is in SQL Server. I have an example here on my blog SQL Server Bulk Upsert
I use this in production to insert millions of rows daily, and have yet to find a faster way to do it. Give it a try, I think you will be impressed with the performance of the solution.
I want to insert some data on the local server into a remote server, and used the following sql:
select * into linkservername.mydbname.dbo.test from localdbname.dbo.test
But it throws the following error
The object name 'linkservername.mydbname.dbo.test' contains more than the maximum number of prefixes. The maximum is 2.
How can I do that?
I don't think the new table created with the INTO clause supports 4 part names.
You would need to create the table first, then use INSERT..SELECT to populate it.
(See note in Arguments section on MSDN: reference)
The SELECT...INTO [new_table_name] statement supports a maximum of 2 prefixes: [database].[schema].[table]
NOTE: it is more performant to pull the data across the link using SELECT INTO vs. pushing it across using INSERT INTO:
SELECT INTO is minimally logged.
SELECT INTO does not implicitly start a distributed transaction, typically.
I say typically, in point #2, because in most scenarios a distributed transaction is not created implicitly when using SELECT INTO. If a profiler trace tells you SQL Server is still implicitly creating a distributed transaction, you can SELECT INTO a temp table first, to prevent the implicit distributed transaction, then move the data into your target table from the temp table.
Push vs. Pull Example
In this example we are copying data from [server_a] to [server_b] across a link. This example assumes query execution is possible from both servers:
Push
Instead of connecting to [server_a] and pushing the data to [server_b]:
INSERT INTO [server_b].[database].[schema].[table]
SELECT * FROM [database].[schema].[table]
Pull
Connect to [server_b] and pull the data from [server_a]:
SELECT * INTO [database].[schema].[table]
FROM [server_a].[database].[schema].[table]
I've been struggling with this for the last hour.
I now realise that using the syntax
SELECT orderid, orderdate, empid, custid
INTO [linkedserver].[database].[dbo].[table]
FROM Sales.Orders;
does not work with linked servers. You have to go onto your linked server and manually create the table first, then use the following syntax:
INSERT INTO [linkedserver].[database].[dbo].[table]
SELECT orderid, orderdate, empid, custid
FROM Sales.Orders
WHERE shipcountry = 'UK';
I've experienced the same issue and I've performed the following workaround:
If you are able to log on to remote server where you want to insert data with MSSQL or sqlcmd and rebuild your query vice-versa:
so from:
SELECT * INTO linkservername.mydbname.dbo.test
FROM localdbname.dbo.test
to the following:
SELECT * INTO localdbname.dbo.test
FROM linkservername.mydbname.dbo.test
In my situation it works well.
#2Toad: For sure INSERT INTO is better / more efficient. However for small queries and quick operation SELECT * INTO is more flexible because it creates the table on-the-fly and insert your data immediately, whereas INSERT INTO requires creating a table (auto-ident options and so on) before you carry out your insert operation.
I may be late to the party, but this was the first post I saw when I searched for the 4 part table name insert issue to a linked server. After reading this and a few more posts, I was able to accomplish this by using EXEC with the "AT" argument (for SQL2008+) so that the query is run from the linked server. For example, I had to insert 4M records to a pseudo-temp table on another server, and doing an INSERT-SELECT FROM statement took 10+ minutes. But changing it to the following SELECT-INTO statement, which allows the 4 part table name in the FROM clause, does it in mere seconds (less than 10 seconds in my case).
EXEC ('USE MyDatabase;
BEGIN TRY DROP TABLE TempID3 END TRY BEGIN CATCH END CATCH;
SELECT Field1, Field2, Field3
INTO TempID3
FROM SourceServer.SourceDatabase.dbo.SourceTable;') AT [DestinationServer]
GO
The query is run on DestinationServer, changes to right database, ensures the table does not already exist, and selects from the SourceServer. Minimally logged, and no fuss. This information may already out there somewhere, but I hope it helps anyone searching for similar issues.
I have a requirement to update a column with multiple values. The query looks like below.
Update table1 set column1 = (
select value from table2 where table1.column0 = table2.coulmn
)
Is there any generalised stored procedure for a requirement like the above?
short of creating a statement as a string and using the "execute" statement, I don't know of one. Generally "execute" is frowned on as it's a potential injection attack point.
Why would you want to update one table with information that is easily available in another? Seems like you are just guaranteeing that you are going to have to run this query every single time you perform an update, insert or delete against the camsnav table. Otherwise how are you going to keep them in sync?
Also, if you cannot guarantee that the sub-query will return exactly one row, it is probably safer to use the SQL Server-specific and proprietary update format:
UPDATE f SET nav = n.nav
FROM camsfolio AS f
INNER JOIN camsnav AS n
ON f.schcode = n.schcode;
SQL Server doesn't use "generalised stored procedures" for this kind of thing. It's up to you to build your own SP, composed using an appropriate parameterized UPDATE statement.
I'm still fairly new to T-SQL and SQL 2005. I need to import a column of integers from a table in database1 to a identical table (only missing the column I need) in database2. Both are sql 2005 databases. I've tried the built in import command in Server Management Studio but it's forcing me to copy the entire table. This causes errors due to constraints and 'read-only' columns (whatever 'read-only' means in sql2005). I just want to grab a single column and copy it to a table.
There must be a simple way of doing this. Something like:
INSERT INTO database1.myTable columnINeed
SELECT columnINeed from database2.myTable
Inserting won't do it since it'll attempt to insert new rows at the end of the table. What it sounds like your trying to do is add a column to the end of existing rows.
I'm not sure if the syntax is exactly right but, if I understood you then this will do what you're after.
Create the column allowing nulls in database2.
Perform an update:
UPDATE database2.dbo.tablename
SET database2.dbo.tablename.colname = database1.dbo.tablename.colname
FROM database2.dbo.tablename INNER JOIN database1.dbo.tablename ON database2.dbo.tablename.keycol = database1.dbo.tablename.keycol
There is a simple way very much like this as long as both databases are on the same server. The fully qualified name is dbname.owner.table - normally the owner is dbo and there is a shortcut for ".dbo." which is "..", so...
INSERT INTO Datbase1..MyTable
(ColumnList)
SELECT FieldsIWant
FROM Database2..MyTable
first create the column if it doesn't exist:
ALTER TABLE database2..targetTable
ADD targetColumn int null -- or whatever column definition is needed
and since you're using Sql Server 2005 you can use the new MERGE statement.
The MERGE statement has the advantage of being able to treat all situations in one statement like missing rows from source (can do inserts), missing rows from destination (can do deletes), matching rows (can do updates), and everything is done atomically in a single transaction. Example:
MERGE database2..targetTable AS t
USING (SELECT sourceColumn FROM sourceDatabase1..sourceTable) as s
ON t.PrimaryKeyCol = s.PrimaryKeyCol -- or whatever the match should be bassed on
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET t.targetColumn = s.sourceColumn
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT (targetColumn, [other columns ...]) VALUES (s.sourceColumn, [other values ..])
The MERGE statement was introduced to solve cases like yours and I recommend using it, it's much more powerful than solutions using multiple sql batch statements that basically accomplish the same thing MERGE does in one statement without the added complexity.
You could also use a cursor. Assuming you want to iterate all the records in the first table and populate the second table with new rows then something like this would be the way to go:
DECLARE #FirstField nvarchar(100)
DECLARE ACursor CURSOR FOR
SELECT FirstField FROM FirstTable
OPEN ACursor
FETCH NEXT FROM ACursor INTO #FirstField
WHILE ##FETCH_STATUS = 0
BEGIN
INSERT INTO SecondTable ( SecondField ) VALUES ( #FirstField )
FETCH NEXT FROM ACursor INTO #FirstField
END
CLOSE ACursor
DEALLOCATE ACursor
MERGE is only available in SQL 2008 NOT SQL 2005
insert into Test2.dbo.MyTable (MyValue) select MyValue from Test1.dbo.MyTable
This is assuming a great deal. First that the destination database is empty. Second that the other columns are nullable. You may need an update instead. To do that you will need to have a common key.