This are just sample table names, but should do for discussing
purpouses.
Create table Invoice
(
InvoiceID Integer Not Null,
CustomerType Integer Not Null,
CustomerCode Integer Not Null,
Amount DECIMAL(10,2) Not Null,
.................
)
Create Table Type1Customer
(
CustomerCode Integer Not Null,
...............................
)
Create Table Type2Customer
(
CustomerCode Integer Not Null,
...............................
)
I need to add a way to restrict the CustomerType and CustomerCode,
in the Invoice table to the correct values.
This means that if customerType equals 1 the customerCode should be
checked against Type1Customer and if customerType equals 2 the
customerCode should be checked against Type2Customer.
I succesfully created a check constraint. That ensures that the valid
values exists when the rows in the Invoice table are inserted or
updated, but doesn´t prevent from deleting records from tables
Type1Customer and Type2Customer that are referenced from the Invoice
table.
I have a question concerning setting up data integrity checks in SQL Server.
I have a table that lists "Groups" to which an Entity belongs. The Entity can belong to multiple Groups. Every entity has 1 and only 1 of its Groups designated as the "Primary Group". Based on this, my table contains multiple records for each Entity. Each record describes 1 Group of which the Entity is a member. In this record, there is a bit field indicating whether the Group is the "Primary Group".
In other DBMS's I have implemented a check constraint on the "Primary Group" column to enforce the business rule that "a Entity may have one and only one Primary Group". I am aware now, that in SQL Server 7, I must implement this rule as a trigger, or in the client or data services layers.
Does anyone know if SQL Server 2000 will allow me to write such a check constraint?
How does one know what a particular trigger or constraint is supposed to be doing on a table. I am just two days old on this position, and no form of documentation, at the same time I am expected to trouble-shoot some error messages. Thanks for your help.
I have several sql server databases that were recently moved to a newserver. In the process of migrating the databases, any triggers andconstraints attached to tables were removed on accident. I need to addthese objects back into the databases, however I'm worried that I willhave problems with referential integrity since there is a chancesomeone may have deleted or updated a record that should have cascadedchanges to other tables but did not since the triggers and constraintswere missing. Is there an easy way to check for problems of thisnature in the databases?Also - I am planning on generating a script from the database on theold server that scripts the triggers and constraints, and then useQuery Analyser to run this script against the database on the newserver. Is this the best way to add these objects back into databasesthat are already populated with data and running on a live server?In in a pretty bad position, but at least these are databases that arenot accessed too frequently, so I'm hoping any referential integrityproblems will be minor.Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.
I have been given the task of moving certain tables (that have PK, FK Constraints) from an existing Database (A) to form another Database (B) but making sure all the references to other tables in the original DB (A) are not affected. I was talled that triggers can solve this but I am not sure where to start. The Question is what I am looking for to replace, and how ??
I created a snapshot replication and after the first replication process i didn't find the triggers and constraints on the subscription side. what happened ? did i do anything in bad or i can't replicate this objects? This necessary for me because i need to create a testdatabase about the production environment - periodically.
Hi, I am developing a database for my company in SQL server 2000 and I have some few problems. Firstly.
I have a customers table and orders table in my DB:
Customers Orders --------- ------ CustID (primary key) ----------------< CustID . ^ ProductID . | Quantity . | . . | . etc. | etc. | relationship (one to many)
What I want to do is: 1) to be able to delete a Customer and automaticaly SQL server delete all the orders that this customer done from the Orders table. 2) If for some reason the CustomerID changes, SQL should be able to automaticaly update the necessary fields with the new values in the Orders table. Finally, 3) I want to be able to insert a new customer that has an order and update both the Customers table and Orders table automaticaly. e.g
CustID Name Address ProductID Quantity etc. ------ ---- ------- --------- -------- ---- 10-003 John London 33-25 2 ...
Such a kind of insert should add automaticaly the following entries in the two tables:
Customers Orders --------- ------ CustID (10-003) CustID (10-003) Name (John) ProductID (33-25) Address(London) Quantity (2) . . . . etc. etc.
A friend of mine told me that this can be done using Foreign Check constraints in SQL server. But I do not know what to do.
I am Trying to add a check constraint that if the paymenttotal is 0 the column is allowed to have null and if its greater then 0 it is not allow to have null. Here is what I have so far but i get some syntax errors, See if you can see what im doing wrong and how to get this to be valid. Thanks heres what I got so far
Code:
ALTER TABLE Invoices WITH CHECK PaymentDate SMALLDATETIME NULL, CHECK (PaymentTotal = 0) PaymentDate SMALLDATETIME NOT NULL, CHECK (PaymentTotal > 0)
I also had this before i changed it to that and I got syntax erros as well but i dunno which is closer.
I would like to establish a constraint that extablishes one to one relation between ID1 and ID2. Meaning in the above example ID2 =122 should not be assingned to any ID1 other than 1. (For example, I should not be able to insert another row like ID1EffDateExpDateID2ID2_Location 41/1/200712/31/9999122ABC)
Beacause this table is maintained in a manual way, sometimes the ID2 which has already been assigned an ID1 is being assigned to another ID1.
What kind of constraint or rule will avoid this scenerio.
I have an Account table as well as a Bank table. The bank table has a total assets field. There is a foreign key in Account referencing Bank.
What I need is a check constraint that verifies that the total sum of the account balances for a particular bank is less than that banks total assets.
I've been thinking about this one for a while but it's just confusing me. How do I create the expression in the constraint for this? Currently I am using SQL Server Management Studio Express so I'm creating this constraint with the gui.
Hello, I want to write a unique constraint that applies to more than one column. What I mean is that the uniqueness should be that if column A is 5 and column B is 3 no other row where A and B has those values can exist.
Do I write this as a check constraint ? Or how do I do it ?
Also, is there anyone who knows some good reading on how to use Link Tables (many to many relations) in MS SQL Server ?
I am working with an evaluation copy of SQL Server 2000 for the firsttime; my DB experience lies with MS Access.I have a simple table in SQL Server (tblCompany) that has a fieldcalled "Ticker." When new company stock tickers (i.e., MSFT forMicrosoft) are entered into the field, I'd like them in allcaps--whether the user types msft, Msft, MsFt, etc. In Access, thiswas easy--simply set the Format to ">" in table design view.In SQL Server Design Table view, I've clicked on "Manage Constraints"and put the following code in that I found elsewhere:([Ticker] = upper([Ticker]))I then checked all three boxes below: "Check existing data oncreation," "Enforce constraint for replication," and "Enforceconstraint for INSERTs and UPDATEs." The first one, "Check existingdata..." is checked as I've already entered in some data in the fieldin lowercase to see if the check constraint would go back and changeit to Upper Case--this because I'm wanting to ultimately migrate atable from Access to SQL Server and ensure that all Tickers are inUpper Case.I'm able to do this and then save the table design with changes; butevery time, I then go and look at the table data to see if the checkconstraint was applied, and each time it is not; then, I go back to"Manage Constraints" and find that the "Check existing data..." box isunchecked. I've gone through this SEVERAL times.Hoping this is something simple. Apologize for my "newbieness." I'vegot a "For Dummies" book in front of me as well as numerous Internetwindows open, trying to figure this out. Have checked books online onthe MSFT site as well to no avail.Thanks in advance--RAD
I have tables that are replicated using transactional and merge replication. As a result I am unable to use automatic identity management as transactional replication doesn€™t seem to understand it.
Therefore I have implemented a version of the automatic mechanisms that seems to work in a hybrid environment. It is based on a central table that holds the maximum identity for each table that has been issued to date. Valid identity ranges are issued to each publisher and subscriber as needed in a similar way to the automatic mechanisms and tables are reseeded as needed.
I want to enforce the ranges in a similar way to the automatic mechanism using a check constraint similar to this:
alter table [dbo].[test1] with NOCHECK add CONSTRAINT repl_identity_range_48DF13ED_D503_4F5C_AED9_4E504D03E752 check NOT FOR REPLICATION (([id] > 10001 and [id] <= 20001) or ([id] > 50001 and [id] <= 70001))
This works OK on a client subscriber, but if the change is made on the publisher, then the alter statement itself is replicated out to all clients €“ which is not what is wanted. I have traced the automatic mechanisms using profiler and they issue an alter statement as above €“ following dropping of the constraint €“ but the check constraint isn€™t replicated. I can't see how this is achieved.
How do I stop the check constraint being replicated?
The article property schema option can be set to stop replicating check constraints, but this seems to have no effect. If the publication property replicate_ddl is set to 0 then I do see the behaviour that I want. However, I do need to be able to replicate most schema changes due to upgrades etc €“ so this doesn€™t look like a viable option €“ except possibly for the transactional publication.
When our DB was converted from 6.5 to 7, the some column check constraints changed to table constraints.
Is there a way to change them back, short of rebuilding the table? I can't find a syntax to add a column constraint without adding a column. Some of the affected tables contain millions of rows, so I'd rather not rebuild them.
When I create a test table with a column and a table check, I see that in sysconstraints "colid" and "status" are different, and in sysobjects "info" and "status" are different. I am leary of tweaking the database catalog though. Heck, this is SQL 7; I don't even know if these are real tables or mirages.
create table zzzfoo ( myname char(30) check (myname in ('foo', 'bar')), myfuzz char(30), check (myfuzz in ('cotton', 'wool', 'linen')) )
select sc.* from sysconstraints sc, sysobjects so where sc.id = (select id from sysobjects where name = 'zzzfoo') and sc.constid = so.id and so.type = 'C'
Let's say I create a multi-statement function like this:CREATE FUNCTION dbo.Test ()RETURNS @res TABLE (N int NOT NULL CHECK (N >= 0))ASBEGININSERT INTO @resSELECT 1RETURNENDThat works fine. Then I make a change in the function's body, replace theCREATE FUNCTION with ALTER FUNCTION, and execute the batch. I get an error:Server: Msg 3729, Level 16, State 3, Procedure Test, Line 9Cannot ALTER 'dbo.Test' because it is being referenced by object'CK__Test__N__5D2E32EB'.Indeed, if I look at the list of dependencies for the function in QA'sobject tree, I can see the check constraint referenced in the errormessage.ALTER FUNCTION works fine if I don't specify the CHECK constraint in thedefinition of the @res table.So it seems that the only way to modify such a function is to drop andrecreate. Is that a known behavior? Is there any particular reason for it?Thanks.--(remove a 9 to reply by email)
I have one table like below Test table. My requirement is to create constraints to confirm <g class="gr_ gr_331 gr-alert gr_gramm Grammar only-ins replaceWithoutSep" data-gr-id="331" id="331">uniqueness</g> of STID value 101 with LN.
likeÂ
ID - LN - STID 1 - 'ABC' - 101 Â ---- Valid Row 2 - 'ABC' - 202 --- Valid Row 3 - 'ABC' - 202 --Valid Row (as I want only unique when LN = 'ABC' with STID = 101) 4 - 'ABC' - 101 -- Invalid Row (As I want uniqueness base on LN and STID = 1011)
create table dbo.Test ( ID int identity, LN varchar(50), STID bigint )
Is this possible with constraints as I don't want to use <g class="gr_ gr_1041 gr-alert gr_gramm Grammar only-ins doubleReplace replaceWithoutSep" data-gr-id="1041" id="1041">trigger</g>.
I have come across this problem with SQL server both on 2000 and 2005. I am stating an example here.
I have two partitioned tables and a view on top of both tables as below: create table [dbo].[Table_1] ( [TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED CHECK NOT FOR REPLICATION ([TableID] BETWEEN 1 AND 999), [AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL , ) ON [Primary] GO
create table [dbo].[Table_2] ( [TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED CHECK NOT FOR REPLICATION ([TableID] BETWEEN 1000 AND 1999), [AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL , ) ON [Primary] GO create view TableView as select * from Table_1 union all select * from Table_2 GO
Note the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause on the check constraint on the TableID column.
I then ran the query execution plan for the following query on both SQL server 2000 and 2005. select * from TableView where TableID = 10
On both the versions the execution plan shows and Index seek on both the tables in the view. This means that my partitioning is not working. If I remove the primary key constraint from the TableID column, the same query on the view shows a table scan on all the underlying tables. This is even worse.
Next, create the same tables and views again, now without the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause on the check constraint as show below: create table [dbo].[Table_1] ( [TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED CHECK ([TableID] BETWEEN 1 AND 999), [AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL , ) ON [Primary] GO
create table [dbo].[Table_2] ( [TableID] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED CHECK ([TableID] BETWEEN 1000 AND 1999), [AnyOtherColumn] int NOT NULL , ) ON [Primary] GO
create view TableView as select * from Table_1 union all select * from Table_2 GO
Now run the query execution plan for the same query again.
select * from TableView where TableID = 10
This time you would see that it does an index scan only on the first parititon table. This time it proves that the partitioning works.
I would like to know why does the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause in the check constraint make such a huge difference?
I'm putting a process together to run a DBCC CHECKCONSTRAINTS process against copies of client databases.The author application doesn't set the constraints as trusted, and therefore we need to check the integrity of the data.
The problem is that some of the Check constraints have a definition that is longer than 4,000 characters.When this is the case, DBCC CHECK CONSTRAINTS fails.One option is that I write a cursor to select the constraints that have a definition less than 4,000 characters and then call the DBCC command for those particular constraints. However, I'd prefer a more elegant approach - ideally a way to run DBCC CHECKCONSTRAINTS against all constraints regardless of the length of the definition
I have Variable , data source and conditional transformation which checks the count(*) if the count == 0 then I connect an script component and change variable to false(initial it is True) and write into a log file...
Then I check that variable on predence constarint at workflow if variable==True then success. BUT Whenever I run the package my dataflow gets green even the condition does not meet like count==0 . So my variable's value is "False". Actually if the condition doesnt meet then my script shouldnt work. Am I missing something???
I know that INSTEAD OF triggers are not allowed on updatable views that use WITH CHECK OPTION, but this is different. WITH CHECK OPTION has no effect on a view used to update a table with INSTEAD OF triggers. Can you create an updatable view that uses WITH CHECK OPTION on a table that has INSTEAD OF triggers?
The following code demonstrates the problem. Comment out the create trigger statement to see the behavior change.
create table test (test int not null) GO create view test_view as select * from test where test < 0 with check option GO /**/create trigger test_insert on test instead of insert as insert into test select * from inserted GO insert into test values (1) GO insert into test_view values (2) GO select * from test select * from test_view GO drop view test_view GO drop table test GO
I have a question about a table with triggers or maybe a check constraint.I have the following create tables:
create table bid( seller char(10) not null, item_nummer numeric(3) not null, )
create table Item( startprice char(5) not null, description char(22) not null, start_date char(10) not null, end_date char(10) not null, seller char(10) not null, item_nummer numeric(3) not null, )
What i'm trying to make is this trigger/constraint: colomn "seller" from table Item will get NULL as long as systemdate is > start_date and end_date, then it will get the value from seller from table bid on the same item_nummer in both table).
I have to migrate all objects alogwith all constraints,SP,Triggers, indexes etc from Development instance to Production instance of a DB, all those things are created through wizard ie. Sql server 2000 Enterprise Manager. if i use DTS it only mirates data along with tables and views but constraints,SP,Triggers, indexes etc not yet copied.
can any body help me how can I solve this problem by copying all objects alogwith all constraints,SP,Triggers etc from Development instance to Production instance.
I know this is probably a flick of a switch but I cannot figure out which switch. Setup is SQL Server / Stored Procedures / DAL / BLL(skipped for testing) / PL. The stored procedure queries from only one table and two columns are ignored because they are being phased out. I can run the stored procedure and preview the data in the DAL but when I create a page with an ODS linked to the DAL and a GridView I get this error. I checked every column that does not allow nulls and they all have values. I checked unique columns (ID is the only unique and is Identity=Yes in the table definition). I checked foreign-key columns for values that are not in the foreign table and there are none. Any ideas why do I get this? Failed to enable constraints. One or more rows contain values violating non-null, unique, or foreign-key constraints.
Hi, I am getting the above error when trying to load a report into my Web Application, I have tracked the error down to one specific field in my database. Even though this field is a NVarChar field and is of size 30 it would seem that there is an issue returning the value from the field. I can write it into the database no problems but when I try to get it out of the database it returns the above error. e.g MOB 401.908.804 - Fails 0401.907.324 - okay 8239 9082 (pager) - fails Anyone got an idea on how to fix this???? Regards.. Peter.
This isn€™t an problem as such, it€™s more of a debate.
If a table needs a number of update triggers which do differing tasks, should these triggers be separated out or encapsulated into one all encompassing trigger. Speaking in terms of performance, it doesn€™t make much of an improvement doing either depending upon the tasks performed. I was wondering in terms of maintenance and best practice etc. My view is that if the triggers do totally differing tasks they should be a trigger each on their own.
