I have a table in MSSQL 2005 Express that stores user data. I would like to maintain the cases of user names, but I need to insure that they are not duplicated using different cases. Is there a way that I can create a constraint to enforce this?
Can someone point me to a tutorial on how to search against a SQL Server 2000 using a case insensitive search when SQL Server 2000 is a case sensitive installation?
We need to install CI database on CS server, and there are some issueswith stored procedures.Database works and have CI collation (Polish_CI_AS). Server hascoresponding CS collation (Polish_CS_AS). Most queries and proceduresworks but some does not :-(We have table Customer which contains field CustomerID.Query "SELECT CUSTOMERID FROM CUSTOMER" works OK regardless ofcharacter case (we have table Customer not CUSTOMER)Following TSQL generate error message that must declare variable @id(in lowercase)DECLARE @ID INT (here @ID in uppercase)SELECT @id=CustomerID FROM Customer WHERE .... (here @id in lowercase)I know @ID is not equal to @id in CS, but database is CI and tablenames Customer and CUSTOMER both works. This does not work forvariables.I suppose it is tempdb collation problem (CS like a server collationis). I tried a property "Identifier Case Sensitivity" for myconnection, but it is read only and have value 8 (Mixed) by default -this is OK I think.DO I MISS SOMETHING ????
I am working in a SQL server database that is configured to be case-insensetive but I would like to override that for a specific query. How can I make my query case-sensitive with respect to comparison operations?
I am curious with using replication in sql server 2005 one way from db A (source) replicating to db B(destination) in which db A has a collation of CS and db B has a collation of CI. Will there be any problems with this scenario? Thanks in advance!
Yesterday I received a response to my CI/CS Collation problem and therecommendation was to try and restore a CI Collation database to a CSCollation database. After creating a blank CS database a full restore(Force restore over existing database) does change the Collation toCI. I'm unsure as to how I can restore without changing theCollation. Any suggestions?
After all the pain I've been going through with code pages and collation, I was asked how, when sql server does it's joins and predicate searches, how does it actual (internals now) know the an "A" = "a" in an insensitive search?
We have an in-house set of databases created by a member of staff who left the organisation in circumstances that mean he will not respond to queries relating to his work here. The programs he produced whilst in our employ are compiled and we have no access to the code, or the tools that he used (don't ask).
The programs allow the user to limit views based on various fields, but not the most useful field, a "memo" type field containing a textual description of work requests.
I only have Delphi 7 to use for the program development and have been using ADO, but my problem is I need to perform a case-insensitive search of a varchar(max) column based on text entered by user, but have been unsuccessful using LIKE and UPPER (which it appears you cannot use with a varchar).
Can anyone provide suggestions for what I am sure is a rather mundane and easy task for all of you.
Please note that I have only the Delphi, and no direct access to the SQL management tools.
I tried to retreive an input column using GetVirtualInputColumnByName, to map it with output, it gave error. I found that it is because the value passed bstrName parameter was in different case. say for example in the column it is "ColNo1" where as in the GetVirtualInputColumnByName i used "Colno1".
Can anyone tell, Is there anyway to find the column in a case in-sensitive way?
I don't quite understand what I am asking for so hopefully this is enough to get an answer or some explanation.
Using SQL2014 I need to use a Chinese collation. I have been told that even with a Chinese collation Latin characters are there. Is there a Chinese collation that will provide Latin case-insensitive behavior?
A UNIQUE INDEX must inherently impose a unique constraint and a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT is most likely implemented via a UNIQUE INDEX. So what is the difference? When you create in Enterprise Manager you must select one or the other.
What's the difference in the effect of the followings: CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX and ALTER TABLE dbo.titles ADD CONSTRAINT titleind UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED
I found there're two settings in Indexs/Keys dialog box of the management studio, Is Unique, and Type. The DDL statements above are generated by setting Is Unique to yes plus Type to Index, and just Type to Unique Key, respectively. What's the difference between them?
Does anyone know how to how to performance case-insensitive search onXML data type in SQLServer 2005? Or I have to convert all the xml datato lower case before I store it?Thanks in advance.John
We are using SQL CE 3.5 on tablet PCs, that synchs with our host SQL 2005 Server using Microsoft Synchronization Services. On the tablets, when inserting a record, we get the following error: A duplicate value cannot be inserted into a unique index. [ Table name = refRegTitle,Constraint name = PK_refRegTitle But the only PK on this table is RegTitleID.
The table structure is: [RegTitleID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [RegTitleNumber] [int] NOT NULL, [RegTitleDescription] [varchar](200) NOT NULL, [FacilityTypeID] [int] NOT NULL, [Active] [bit] NOT NULL,
The problem occurs when a Title Number is inserted and a record with that number already exists. There is no unique constraint on Title Number. Has anyone else experienced this?
Hi everyone, I need urgent help to resolve this issue... As far as the performance goes which one is better.. Unique Index(col1, col2) OR Unique constraint(col1, col2) ? Unique constraint automatically adds a unique index and unique index takes care of uniqueness then whats the use of unique constraint ?
BOL says a unique constraint is preferred over a unique index. It also states that a unique constraint creates a unique index. What then is the difference between the two, and why is a constraint preferred over the index?
What is the simplest way to add a unique constraint on a field of type varchar(7) that can allow any number of <NULL>'s?
I only want to ensure that when this field is updated, it is updated with a value that has not been used.
IF EXISTS (SELECT Project FROM tbProjects WHERE Project = @cProject) RAISERROR('Project number already used!',16,1) ELSE UPDATE tbProjects SET Project = @cProject WHERE ProjectID = @iProjectID GO
Also, I cannot allow the user to chante the project field value once it is set.
I have a table with two column, c1 and c2. c1 is set as primary key. I want c2 to be set with unique constraint.
I choose this talbe in object explorer, right click and select modify. Then I choose "index/key" from "table designer" menu.
The problem is that in the "index/key" dialog, the "Columns" item (under General) is always c1. if I click the "..." button to popup "index column", I could only choose either "c1" or <None> under "column name" dropdownlist.
How could I choose c2 and set unique constraint on it?
create table Test ( [recId] [int] identity(1, 1) not null, [code] [varchar](50) not null, [prime] [bit] not null constraint [DF_Test_prime] default (cast(0 as bit)), constraint [PK_Test] primary key clustered ( [recId] ) with fillfactor = 90 on [primary] ) on [primary] go
insert into Test (code, prime) values ('AVA', cast(1 as bit)) insert into Test (code, prime) values ('BUS', cast(1 as bit)) insert into Test (code, prime) values ('BUS', cast(0 as bit)) insert into Test (code, prime) values ('BUS', cast(0 as bit)) insert into Test (code, prime) values ('CAR', cast(1 as bit)) insert into Test (code, prime) values ('CAR', cast(0 as bit)) insert into Test (code, prime) values ('RLW', cast(1 as bit)) insert into Test (code, prime) values ('RLW', cast(0 as bit)) insert into Test (code, prime) values ('RLW', cast(0 as bit))
select * from Test
I need to create a constraint on this table that will not allow me to have two rows that are prime for the same code. So the following insert statement should fail:
-- This should fail insert into Test (code, prime) values ('RLW', cast(1 as bit))