I am trying to add 2 separate columns from separate tables i.e column1 should be added to column 2 when inserted and I want to use a trigger but i don't know the syntax to use...
View 14 RepliesI am new to T-SQL and triggers
Any help will be appreciated
I am trying to change this code to insert firstname, surname (taken from employee table on db A) to firstname, surname on customer table of DB B but also create cust_id on customer table and DB B. currently I am getting all rows of customer.cust_id filled with the same data whenever a new data is inserted into (firstname,surmname of employee table)
Create trigger gen_cust_id ON employee for insert
AS
Update customer SET cust_id =( SELECT
Replicate('0',(4-DATALENGTH(CONVERT(varchar(10),i.id))))
+ Convert (varchar(10),i.id)
+ Substring(i.lastname,1,3)
+ Substring(i.firstname,1,1)
from employee C INNER JOIN inserted i on i.id=c.id)
from employee C INNER JOIN inserted i on i.id=c.id
Saad
SQL 2008R2
Request is to merge or join or case stmt or union or... from up to four unique columns all in separate tables to new combined table (matrix) of results from said.
What is example of best method to do this ?
From my query I am getting results like below in one of the column:
'immediate due 14,289.00
04/15/15 5,213.00
05/15/15 5,213.00
06/15/15 5,213.00
07/15/15 5,213.00
08/15/15 5,213.00
09/15/15 5,213.00
10/15/15 5,213.00
11/15/15 5,210.00'
this same type of many rows are there (i just mentioned one) but having same pattern with tabs as delimiter in between dates and amount.
I need something that shows Date on one side representing particular amount on the other
For Immediate Due it will be current date and the amount besides it.
how can I achieve this.
How can i format my query so that each piece of data appears on a new separate line? Is there a command for a new line feed? does not work.
thanks.
For example:
a: data
b: data
c: data
a: data
b: data
c: data
Hi to all of you,
I am new to SQL I have a problem that I can’t solve.
I have a column with Surname and name (SMITH, James) in one table with data I just need to separate in two columns in one Surname in the other one Name I know how to unite two columns using substrings but not to separate in two columns.
Help is highly appreciated
How to separate a long string and put them into three columns.
For example string
Toronto|Ontario|Canada,Dallas|Texas|USA,New York|New York|USA,Windsor|Ontario|Canada
I have a table with 5 columns, 3 columns are City, State and Country.
I would like to separate them and put those into categories
Continent City State Country Added
Toronto Ontario Canada
Dallas Texas USA
New York New York USA
I have a column containing values for different languages. I want to cut out the values per languate in a seperat column.
The syntax is a 2 letter country code followed by : the value is contained in double quotes. each languate is separated by a ; (except for the last one)
EX ur English, Dutch and Swedish:US:"Project/Prescription sale";NL:"Project/specificatie";SW:"Objektsförsäljning"
The result would Be
column header US
with value Project/Prescription sale
next column header NL
with value Project/specificatie etc.
Here are table examples:
IF OBJECT_ID('[#SALETYPE]','U') IS NOT NULL
DROP TABLE [#SALETYPE]
CREATE TABLE [#SALETYPE](
[SaleType_Id] [int] NOT NULL,
[name] [nvarchar](239) NOT NULL,
[Code] ....
I've a table as below
custid,companyname,phone,address
2,AAAAA,(222) 222-2222,address 2
3,cust 3,(333) 333-3333,address 3
5,BBBBB,(333) 333-3333,DDDDD
6,cust 6,(222) 222-2222,address 6
7,cust 7,(222) 222-2222,address 7
How to split csv values to new fields. so that the desired output should be as below
custidcompanynamephone address
2 AAAAA (222) 222-2222 address 2
3 cust 3 (333) 333-3333 address 3
5 BBBBB (333) 333-3333 DDDDD
6 cust 6 (222) 222-2222 address 6
7 cust 7 (222) 222-2222 address 7
This is the logic I need to incorporate in to sql
if the getdate() < term start date then R
if the getdate() > term date date and getdate() < term end date then C
if the getdate() > term end date then H
I have come up with the following type of case statement that will allow me to determine the first two values (to a degree), however , I need to evaluate the end date as well.
Is there a way to look at multiple columns in a case statement?
CASE
WHEN DATEDIFF(DD,GETDATE(),TRM_BEGIN_DTE) >0 THEN 'R' else 'C' end
We have the below query that pulls benefit ids for employees but it will show each benefit on a separate row but we would like to have just one rows for the employee and columns for each of the benefits.
SELECT
hcd.PersonId,
hcd.PlanYear,
hcd.TaxIdNumber,
hcd.LastName,
hcd.FirstName,
hcd.BirthDate,
[code]....
I am trying to take the results of a query and re-orient them into separate columns.
select distinct
W_SUMMARYDETAILS.FACILITY_ID,
W_SUMMARYDETAILS.REPORTING_YEAR, (2011 - 2014, I want these years broken out into columns for each year)
W_SUMMARYDETAILS.FACILITY_NAME,
W_DEF_SUMMARYDETAILS.REPORTING_PERIOD (2011 - 2013, I want these years broken out into columns for each year)
From W_SUMMARYDETAILS
full outer join W_DEF_SUMMARYDETAILS
on W_SUMMARYDETAILS.FACILITY_ID=W_DEF_SUMMARYDETAILS.FACILITY_ID and
W_SUMMARYDETAILS.REPORTING_YEAR=W_DEF_SUMMARYDETAILS.REPORTING_PERIOD
As of now the query puts all the years into a single column -- one for DEF_SUMMARY and another for SUMMARY.
I am looking to create 7 additional columns for all the individual years in the results instead of just two columns.
SELECT DISTINCT CASE WHEN SM.SERVICE_TYPE_N = 1 THEN 'LABORATORY'
WHEN SM.SERVICE_TYPE_N = 2 THEN 'PODIATRY'
WHEN SM.SERVICE_TYPE_N = 3 THEN 'ADMINISTRATION'
WHEN SM.SERVICE_TYPE_N = 4 THEN 'DIET'
WHEN SM.SERVICE_TYPE_N = 5 THEN 'DENTAL'
[Code] ....
In the above query i need to calculate 100%,30% and percentage other than 100 and 30 and show them in separate columns how to do that?
1)ROUND(SUM(BM.CONCESSION_AMOUNT_M),2)AS [100_PERCENT]
WHERE BM.BILL_AMOUNT_M=BM.CONCESSION_AMOUNT_M
2)ROUND(SUM(BM.CONCESSION_AMOUNT_M),2)AS [30_PERCENT]
WHERE AND BM.CONCESSION_AMOUNT_M=BM.BILL_AMOUNT_M * 0.30
3) ROUND(SUM(BM.CONCESSION_AMOUNT_M),2)AS [OTHER_CONCESSION_PERCENT]
WHERE BM.CONCESSION_AMOUNT_M between BM.BILL_AMOUNT_M*0.001 and BM.BILL_AMOUNT_M*0.299
OR BM.CONCESSION_AMOUNT_M between BM.BILL_AMOUNT_M*0.301 and BM.BILL_AMOUNT_M*0.999
I have the following 2 Sql queries. They both are rowcounts of the same column but based on different criteria. What I want to do is return the two results side by side in separate columns:
-- Subscriptions since Sept. 24th
SELECT count(*)
FROM SiteMemberTable103 s(nolock)
JOIN clientmembertable25 c(nolock) ON s.memberid = c.memberid
WHERE site_firstjoindate is not null
and c.clientunsubscribe = 0
and c.validemailaddr = 1
and s.unsubscribe = 0
-- Subscriptions in February
SELECT count(*)
FROM SiteMemberTable103 s(nolock)
JOIN clientmembertable25 c(nolock) ON s.memberid = c.memberid
WHERE site_firstjoindate BETWEEN '2006-02-01 00:00:00.000' AND '2006-03-01 00:00:00.000'
AND c.clientunsubscribe = 0
AND c.validemailaddr = 1
AND s.unsubscribe = 0
It seems like a UNION ALL should work but it just returns the results in one column. I tried changing the count by specifying a different column for each but that doesn't work either. I also tried writing it as one query and using alias to differentiate the two tables but that just gives me syntax errors. I suspect there is a more elegant way to do this but I'm at a loss. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Caeanis
I have 2 tables:
TransactionsImport (which is the destination table)
TransactionsImportDelta
I need to do the following:
Get the records with the latest date and time in the destination table TransactionsImport
Get the records with the latest date and time in the destination table TransactionsImportDelta table
Insert the records from the TransactionsImportDelta table into TransactionsImport that have a greater date & time than the current records in TransactionsImport table.
Problem is date & time are in separate columns:
Table structure:
Date Time ID
2011121305154107142201008300100
2011121305154122B1L13ZY0000A07YD
2011121304504735142201090002600
2011121304504737142201095008300
2011121304504737142201090002600
Can you separate a domain attribute into two columns in the Excel Add-In?
We are using the Excel Add-In as the UI for business users and they want to see one of the domain attributes as 2 different columns.
The attribute is Store, currently it is displayed like this:
"123 {STORENAME }".
They want it displayed in two columns in the Excel document for easier filtering/sorting: Store Number and Store Name.
Is this possible? If one column is changed the other would change right along with it.
I have two tables
Books
-BookID
-CustomerID
Magazines
-MagazineID
-CustomerID
How would i write a single sql statement where i can get that counts how many bookIDs are listed for each custoemrID and how many magzaineIDs are listed for each customerID and have it return one table that looks like this:
CustomerID, BookCount, MagazineCount
I have stored procedure on Server A which goes to ServerB to check and update table and then update on Server A as well.I have Trigger which suppose to execute stored procedure (as i mentioned above). But it failed with this error:--
Trigger code:--
CREATE TRIGGER [tr_DBA_create_database_notification] ON ALL SERVERÂ
AFTER CREATE_DATABASE
ASÂ
--execute dbadmin.dbo.usp_DBA_Refresh_DBAdmin_Tables
Error:--The operation could not be performed because OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI11" for linked server "xxx" was unable to begin a distributed transaction.Process ID 62 attempted to unlock a resource it does not own: DATABASE 21. Retry the transaction, because this error may be caused by a timing condition. If the problem persists, contact the database administrator.
Same stored procedure, if i execute manually or if i create sql job and execute this stored procedure, it works just fine..In trigger also, if i execute start job which has stored procedure, it works.My question is,why it failed when i execute stored procedure in TRIGGER.
If you see below there are 2 customer names on 1 loan, most of them share the same lastname and address, I want to separate it with fields,LoanID, customer 1 Firstname, Customer 1 Lastname, Customer 2 FirstName, Customer 2 Lastname, Adddress,zip
Loan IDFirst NameLastnameAddressaddress 2CityStateZip
1236048Joey Yesen xxxx abc GROVE RDNULLCLEVELANDTX77327
1236048Dickey Yesen xxxx abc GROVE RDNULLCLEVELANDTX77327
1235983Randy Seany xxxx abc Haleyville StNULLAuroraCO80018
1235983Barry Seanyxxxx abc Haleyville StNULLAuroraCO80018
The query I am using
select
L.Loanid
,B.FirstMiddleName
,B.LastName
,MA.AddressLine1
,MA.AddressLine2
,MA.City
,MA.State
,MA.Zip
from Loan AS L
LEFT JOIN Status As S on S.LoanID = L.LoanID
LEFT JOIN Borrower B on B.LoanID = L.LoanID
LEFT JOIN MailingAddress MA on MA.LoanID = L.LoanID
where S.PrimStat = '1' and B.Deceased = '0'
I have values in two columns separated by commas, like shown below:
I need the Output Like
How to do this in SQL server ?
We have some tables that we have spread across two databases. The segregation isn’t essential, but the entities involved were disparate enough that we thought it made sense. However, our client app regularly & frequently requires information that can only be answered by queries to tables in both databases. It has been suggested that segregating the tables as we have introduces a performance hit. At this stage, it would be relatively easy to re-combine the tables into one DB.
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi There,
Can anybody suggest me what is the best way to take a column with comma separated stings and output them into multiple columns with strings?
for example if I have a column with "watertown, newton" as a string, I need to separate them to two columns with watertown and newton values?
Is Derived column transformation the best way to do it?
Thanks.
Sam.
Hello,
I am working with a database that among other things uses multipart keys as the unique indexes which are not consistent from say one table where a parent record resides to another table which contains related child records. For example I am working with two tables right now, one that contains content that I'll call Contents and the other which contains Usage information about the contents (number of view, a rating and comments give by a customer) which I'll call ContentsUsage. The system that manages the data for the tables has a versioning system by which, whn a content item is added (first time) a "unique" id (guid) and a version number of 1 is created along with the rest of data items in the Contents table and likewise in the ContentsUsage table (essentially a one to one mapping) on the like named fields in that table. Now, each time a given record in the Contents table is updated a new version, with the same guid is created in the Contents and ContentsUsage table. So one side I have:ContentGUID > AAAAVersion > 1ContentGUID > AAAAVersion > 2And the other table (ContentsUsage)ContentGUID > AAAAVersion > 1ContentGUID > AAAAVersion > 2
While both of these tables have a quasi-unique record (row_id) of type char and stored as a guid neither obviously are the same in the two tables and having reviewed the database columns for these tables I find that the official unique key's for these tables are different (table 1, Contents combines the ContentGUID and Version) as the composite / mutli-key index, while table ContentsUsage uses the RowGUID as it's unique index.
Contents RowGUID (unique key)ContentGUIDVersionViewsRatingComments................RowGUID ContentGUID (unique key)Version (unique key)Description.....
Bearing this in mind I am unable of course to link directly the two tables by using the just the ContentGUID and have to combine the additional Version to I believe obtain the actual "unique" record in question. The question is in terms of writing queries, what would the most efficient query be? What would be the best way to join the two in a query? And are there any pitfalls with the current design that you can see with the way this database (or specifically these tables are defined)? It's something I inherited, so fire away at will on the critique. Having my druthers I would have designed these tables using a unique key of type int that was autogenerated by the database.
Any advice, thoughts or comments would be helpful.
Thanks,P.
I've read that if particular tables are frequently queried together through a join then these tables should be placed on different devices on different physical disks.
What does this mean exactly and how would you configure this?
Is this a common practice in high-performance real-world environments (or should it be)?
I would like to 'one table' record to separate 'two or three tables'
. I just know use the DTS , try to import and export again and agian.
So trouble.
Could you give me some suggestions for me? For example ,
'Cursor' write in new table . But I try to SQL Server Books Online
which is not suitable for me solving problems. One table separate two
or three tables. Can you wirte the detail example for me?
Thx a lot.
Hi,
We are building an application for online system for people to place ADs for selling various used items like Car, Electronics, Houses, Books etc.
If someone selling a car then he can fill out headline, year, make, model, mileage, transmission, condition, color, price, description, contact etc.
Similarly if someone selling a digital camera he will fillout headline, memory, zoom, megapixel, maker, model, color, batter, description etc.
Option 1: I can have a main table to hold the common attributes of all different types of ADs (headline, images, contact, price, color, condition, description)
+ 1 table to store string values of all ADs (car: maker, model, square feet (if house), memory, megapixel (camera) etc)
+ 1 table to store the droplist select values(car: transmission, door, seat etc; house: year_built)
pros: single table for all ADs. unique IDs for all ADs, easy to extend as new attributes can be dropped easily.
cons: lot of physical reads of 2nd and 3rd table from join. 10 times physical reads compared to option 2 when reading 5000 records.
Option 2: have different set of table for each AD type. Car will have its own main table + 1 table to store multiselect list box values.
Similarly housing will have its own set of tables
pros: 10% less physical read than option 1.
cons: hard to add new attributes. We have to modify the main table by adding one column.
Query will go to different table based on the category.
Do you have any suggestions on which way to go?Thanks
We have a large Datawarehouse and the size is 50TB.. The tables are placed in filegroups based on the schema like fact, dimensions, raw data each sit on seperate filegroups. I am thinking will it make sense to seperate the large facts which are having billions of rows so that they reside on filegroups on their own..
View 9 Replies View RelatedI am trying to tie together tables that show quantities of a product committed to an order and quantities on hand by a location.
My end result should look like the below example.
Item Location QtyOnHandByLocation SumQtyCommitTotal
Prod1 NJ 10 10
Prod1 NY 10 0
Prod1 FL 0 0
Prod1 PA 0 0
So I can see I have 10 items in NJ On Hand and Committed to an order. 10 available in NY but not on an order. Then the other two locations have no quantities.
Below is the CTE but it produces inaccurate results. I've tried running it several different ways by playing with the grouping but have no luck thus far.
--create the temp table
Create table #SalesLine
(
Novarchar (50) not null
, LocationCodevarchar (50) not null
, QtyCommitint not null
)
create table #ItemLedgerEntry
[code]....
I am close to the desired results but can't find a way.
I have a report that's created each day as a flat textfile.Because I came from the Access world, I created a macro that importsit with a schema that gives meaningful names to the various columns,and then uses a query to massage some of the data for me (deletes thefirst blank row and does a couple of calculations)Then I use DTS to import the Access query as a table.the textfile has a column called "File_num", and among several others,a column called "Serial_num". (the file numbers represent shipments,and sometimes there are more than one serial number in the shipment,etc., so there is a separate line for every serial number)Naturally, I would like to split this info into two tables..one thatdoes not contain the serial numbers and has a primary key on the"File_num" column, and another table that would contain just the"File_num" and "Serial_num" columns. That way I could relate themlater...but most importantly, it will give me a table where I can usethe "File_num" as my primary key.What would be the best way to import these two tables from one sourcetextfile? The other thing that gives me problems is that the textfile has no column names, and the first row is always blank.I'm very new to SQL and DTS and would appreciate any direction.Thanks,Larry- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
View 1 Replies View Related
In database DB1, I have table DB1.dbo.Suppliers1. This table has an ID column of type INT named SUPPL1_ID
In database DB2, I have table DB2.dbo.Suppliers2. This table has an ID column of type INT named SUPPL2_ID
I would like to update DB2.dbo.Suppliers2 based on values from DB1.dbo.Suppliers1 joining on SUPPL1_ID = SUPPL2_ID.
How can I do this in SSIS?
Assumptions:
linked servers are not an option, as I want the SSIS package to be portable and not dependent on server environments.
TIA.
-El Salsero
Currently we have one customer database containing various tables. As part of requirements for a new client, we need to manage their data in a totally separate database. The tables and structure are exactly the same but we would be loading data into a separate database.
I am looking for a way to combine tables with the same name in each database when I run queries, rather than having to query each database separately. Currently we actually have many queries set up in MS Access which use an ODBC link to query the data off SQL server. I am aware it is possible to apply a UNION SELECT in Access from 2 separate ODBC connections, but this is extremely slow.So my initial question is - is there a way to provide access to the tables from both databases over the same ODBC link? If this cannot be done over ODBC I guess we can consider more "modern" methods, but ideally we want to keep this in MS Access as that is where our existing queries are based. I was hoping that some kind of view can be treated as an ODBC connection.I mentioned ideally we want to keep the reporting queries in MS Access.
Using below script to export the select statement result to .xls
declare @sql varchar(8000)
select @sql = 'bcp "select * from Databases..Table" queryout c:bcpTom.xls -c -t, -T -S' + @@servername
exec master..xp_cmdshell @sql
But result is not exporting in seperate tabs, all 4 column details are exporting in single cell.
how to export the data in columns to separate tabs in excel.
Dear all,
In my current database design, there is one table (PState) which has a Primary Key (int) and a few other fields.
During development, a pattern started to arise; for certain rows in PState, I wanted to specify an additional set of columns (over 10 of them with quite large lengths) for each row in PState. However, as these additional columns would only be required in approximately 20% of the rows of PState, there would be plenty of NULL values in PState if I would make this table wider than necessary. So, I decided to create a separate table with those optional columns (PStateWFI). In order to attach these additional columns in PStateWFI to PState in the cases they were needed, I would obviously have to create a Foreign Key constraint on the Primary Key of PStateWFI so that these optional rows would know which row in PState they would belong to.
However, the problem with this approach is that one could define multiple rows in PStateWFI referring to the same row in PState, which would not make sense. Thus, a UNIQUE index constraint added to the constrained ID column in PStateWFI would make sense to ensure that there could only be one set of optional columns added to each row in PState. But now, when adding the UNIQUE index, the FK constraint started to appear as a bidirectional key link in the Diagram; hence, new entries in PState would have to meet a FK constraint based on PStateWFI, which was not intended.
Hence, I had to create a quite awkward design to enforce the constraints:
1. The PState table has a Primary Key (PState.ParticleID, int, Identity Specification: Yes)
2. The PStateWFI table has a Primary Key (PstateWFIID, int, Identity Specification: Yes)
3. PStateWFI has field "PStateID" which has a FK constraint to PState.ParticleID (which is a one-way constraint operating in the correct way and does not constrain insertions in PState)
4. PStateWFI has an additional column ParticleIDIndex which has a UNIQUE Index attached to it.
5. There is a check constraint on PStateWFI enforcing PStateWFI.ParticleIDIndex = PStateWFI.ParticleID.
Although this structure does the job, it makes it necessary to add a redundant column in PStateWFI by duplicating the PStateWFI.ParticleID into PStateWFI.ParticleIDIndex, since I can't create a UNIQUE index on PStateWFI.ParticleID without constraining the PState table as well. So, insertions into this table would have to insert the same value into two columns. Not a big deal, but appears slightly ugly.
Basically I'd hope someone could explain why a bidirectional FK constraint has to be enforced on the primary key table in a relationship when the constrained column in the primary key table has a UNIQUE index attached on it. I have a few other cases where the above approach would benefit from a more clear structure.
Thanks in advance for any advice.