I am trying to issue the following statement to lock a record with inner join but I have an error:-
SELECT amaster.acctno,bmaster.balance,bmaster.YEAR
FROM amaster [ROWLOCK] with (Xlock)
INNER JOIN bmaster
ON amaster.acctno = bmaster.acctno
WHERE (bmaster.YEAR = 2007) acctno = 10000100
ORDER BY amaster.acctno
The error:
Msg 4104, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
The multi-part identifier "amaster.acctno" could not be bound.
Here is the situation i am stuck with, see the example first and below explained the problem:
-- 'SESSION A
create table foo (
id integer,
pid integer,
data varchar(10)
);
begin transaction
insert into foo values ( 1, 1, 'foo' )
insert into foo values ( 2, 1, 'bar' )
insert into foo values ( 3, 1, 'bozo' )
insert into foo values ( 4, 2, 'snafu' )
insert into foo values ( 5, 2, 'rimrom' )
insert into foo values ( 6, 2, 'blark' )
insert into foo values ( 7, 3, 'smeg' )
commit transaction
create index foo_id_idx on foo ( id )
create index foo_pid_idx on foo ( pid )
begin transaction
insert into foo values ( 9, 3, 'blamo' )
-- 'SESSION B
begin transaction
select id, data from foo with ( updlock, rowlock ) where id = 5;
-- Problem:
-- Uncommitted transaction in session A, with insert into table FOO, aquires lock on index foo_pid_idx which BLOCKS select with ( updlock, rowlock ) in session B.
-- Insert should aquire only exclusive rowlock. Why does insert block select with ( updlock, rowlock )?
Hello,I need to lock only one row with exclusive lock (nobody else can see ormodify this row), but when I use "with (xlock, rowlock)" it doesn't work.XLOCK always locks whole table.Can anybody help me?Thanks in advance.Magda
Hi,Sql-Server 2000, 2005.A report fetches a lot of rows using the "WITH (ROWLOCK)" syntax (thesql is generated on the fly by a tool and not easily changeable).SELECT col1, col2 FROM mytab WITH (ROWLOCK) WHERE ...."The select-clause runs for several minutes.Another user fetches one of those rows and tries to update it. Theresult is a lock timeout.I suppose that the long running select-clause has put a shared lock onthe rows and the updater (exclusive-lock) will have to wait for thelong-running select and so the lock timeout is expiring.Are all those rows "shared locked" until all are fetched?Would there be any change if the "WITH (ROWLOCK)" is removed, isn'talthough "shared lock" the default behaviour?The "WITH (NOLOCK)" would probably help?What about the definition of optimistic concurrency, shouldn't allselect-clauses contain "WITH (NOLOCK)" to allow an optimisticconcurrency scenario?Regards Roger.PS. Probably some misunderstanding from me here, but this should bethe right place to get it right.
Hello all. I'm a litle confused about what's best to use, either isolation levels or locking per table. Cause there are some queries in the stored procedures where I don't need locking i.e. when I check the status of client, but other queries where I do need locking like when I check the existence of a product.
What's best to use, can I combine both? Could you explain it thecnically?
I've got a SELECT WITH (UPDLOCK, ROWLOCK) WHERE followed by an UPDATE WHERE statement. The results of the SELECT statement are deserialized in C# and updates are made to the deserialized object. Then the object is serialized back into the table with the UPDATE statement. I've got this code running within a transaction scope with the ReadCommited isolation level.
My service receives requests to update data and the requests can come in on different threads. What I'm seeing, is that once in a while, the log messages from my application indicate that two different threads are able to issue the above SELECT statement and both are receiving results. This is a problem since the thread that issues the last UPDATE will overwrite the changes made by the first. Each thread has its own connection and transaction scope.
I've researched all over the place and have tried a few different things, but all things point to the fact that query hints are just hints and that SQL may or may not pay attention to them. If that's the case, how am I suppose to perform a SELECT with the intention of updating so that no one else can do the same? I haven't tried table level locking, but I'd really like to avoid that if possible.
Reading about avoiding deadlocks in SQL, I have found different opnions about whether using or not NOLOCK/ROWLOCK hints on SELECT/UPDATE/DELETE statements. I have several applications executing transactions on the same databases and tables, including inserts, updates and deletes. I wonder if by using NOLOCK/ROWLOCK I could decrease the chances of having deadlocks. At least using ROWLOCK on my update statements?. I just need some advice here.
I have a stored procedure that updates a table. I also have an UDF that allows dirty reads (nolock).
What's the precedence level in SQL server? If I add xlock,rowlock to the update statement, will the dirty read wait for the update transaction to commit, or will it perform a dirty read regardless of the locking scheme in the update statement?
I have a SSIS package that is run from one job, nowhere else. The package has TransactionOption NotSupported.
In the SSIS package I first have a sequence container that has TransactionOption Required (Serializable). The sequence container contains several Execute SQL tasks that access the same SQL Server 2005 database. The Execute SQL tasks have TransactionOption supported / Serializable. The first SQL statement is:
select p.column_name
from table_name p with (XLOCK, ROWLOCK)
where p.second_column_name = 'COLUMN_VALUE'
After this there are a couple of SQL tasks, and finally a task containing the following SQL:
select p.third_column_name
from table_name p
where p.second_colomn_name = 'COLUNM_NAME'
The idea is that the first query exclusively locks the row in the table_name-table for mutual exclusion purposes, i.e. so that if for some reason the SSIS package would be executed simultaneously two or more times, only one package execution could lock the row and proceed and the other executions will have to wait. There's an index on column second_column_name in the table to avoid the select locking other rows in addition to the required row.
Some questions:
1) Is it so in my setup that when SSIS runtime executes the sequence container it creates a transaction in the beginning of the sequence container and commits the transaction in the end of the sequence container? And in my setup the Execute SQL tasks in the sequence containar are executed under the same transaction?
2) I have a problem that the second query sometimes gives this error:"ErrorCode: -1073548784. ErrorDescription: Executing the query "XXXXX" failed with the following error: "Transaction (Process ID 73) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction.". Possible failure reasons: Problems with the query, "ResultSet" property not set correctly, parameters not set correctly, or connection not established correctly."
The 1st query has locked the row for the transaction. How can the second query be deadlocked, shouldn't the transaction have a lock on the row? I'd understand if the 1st query failed sometimes, but don't understand how the 2nd quey can fail.
I was writing a query using both left outer join and inner join. And the query was ....
SELECT Â Â Â Â Â Â Â S.companyname AS supplier, S.country,P.productid, P.productname, P.unitprice,C.categoryname FROM Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Production.Suppliers AS S LEFT OUTER JOIN Â Â Â Â Â Â (Production.Products AS P Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â INNER JOIN Production.Categories AS C
[code]....
However ,the result that i got was correct.But when i did the same query using the left outer join in both the cases
i.e..
SELECT Â Â Â Â Â Â Â S.companyname AS supplier, S.country,P.productid, P.productname, P.unitprice,C.categoryname FROM Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Production.Suppliers AS S LEFT OUTER JOIN (Production.Products AS P LEFT OUTER JOIN Production.Categories AS C ON C.categoryid = P.categoryid) ON S.supplierid = P.supplierid WHERE S.country = N'Japan';
The result i got was same,i.e
supplier   country   productid   productname   unitprice   categorynameSupplier QOVFD   Japan   9   Product AOZBW   97.00   Meat/PoultrySupplier QOVFD   Japan  10   Product YHXGE   31.00   SeafoodSupplier QOVFD   Japan  74   Product BKAZJ   10.00   ProduceSupplier QWUSF   Japan   13   Product POXFU   6.00   SeafoodSupplier QWUSF   Japan   14   Product PWCJB   23.25   ProduceSupplier QWUSF   Japan   15   Product KSZOI   15.50   CondimentsSupplier XYZ   Japan   NULL   NULL   NULL   NULLSupplier XYZ   Japan   NULL   NULL   NULL   NULL
and this time also i got the same result.My question is that is there any specific reason to use inner join when join the third table and not the left outer join.
OLEDB source 1 SELECT ... ,[MANUAL DCD ID] <-- this column set to sort order = 1 ... FROM [dbo].[XLSDCI] ORDER BY [MANUAL DCD ID] ASC
OLEDB source 2 SELECT ... ,[Bo Tkt Num] <-- this column set to sort order = 1 ... FROM ....[dbo].[FFFenics] ORDER BY [Bo Tkt Num] ASC
These two tasks are followed immediately by a MERGE JOIN
All columns in source1 are ticked, all column in source2 are ticked, join key is shown above. join type is left outer join (source 1 -> source 2)
result of source1 (..dcd column) ... 4-400-8000119 4-400-8000120 4-400-8000121 4-400-8000122 <--row not joining 4-400-8000123 4-400-8000124 ...
result of source2 (..tkt num column) ... 4-400-1000118 4-400-1000119 4-400-1000120 4-400-1000121 4-400-1000122 <--row not joining 4-400-1000123 4-400-1000124 4-400-1000125 ...
All other rows are joining as expected. Why is it failing for this one row?
I'm having trouble with a multi-table JOIN statement with more than one JOIN statement.
For each order, I need to return the following: CarsID, CarModelName, MakeID, OrderDate, ProductName, Total ordered the Car Category.
The carid (primary key) and carmodelname belong to the Cars table. The makeid and orderdate belong to the OrderDetails table. The productname and carcategory belong to the Product table.
The number of rows returned should be the same as the number of rows in OrderDetails.
Why would I use a left join instead of a inner join when the columns entered within the SELECT command determine what is displayed from the query results?
I have a merge join (full outer join) task in a data flow. The left input comes from a flat file source and then a script transformation which does some custom grouping. The right input comes from an oledb source. The script transformation output is asynchronous (SynchronousInputID=0). The left input has many more rows (200,000+) than the right input (2,500). I run it from VS 2005 by right-click/execute on the data flow task. The merge join remains yellow and the task never finishes. I do see a row count above the flat file destination that reaches a certain number and seems to get stuck there. When I test with a smaller file on the left it works OK. Any suggestions?
A piece of software I wrote starting timing out on a query that left outer joins a table to a view. Both the table and view have approximately the same number of rows (about 170000).
The table has 2 very similar columns, one is a varchar(1) and another is varchar(100). Neither are included in any index and beyond the size difference, the columns have the same properties. One of the employees here uses the varchar(1) column (called miscsearch) to tag large sets of rows to perform some action on. In this case, he had set 9000 rows miscsearch value to "g". The query then should join the table and view for all rows where miscsearch is set to g in the table. This query takes at least 20 minutes to run (I stopped it at this point).
If I remove the "where" clause and join all rows in the two tables, the query completes in about 20 seconds. If set the varchar(100) column (called descrip) to "g" for the same rows set via miscsearch, the query completes in about 20 seconds.
If I force the join type to a hash join, the query completes using miscsearch in about 30 seconds.
So, this works:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER HASH JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE miscsearch = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
and this works:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE descrip = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
But this does't:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE miscsearch = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
What should I be looking for here to understand why this is happening?
We are trying to migrate from sql 2005 to 2012. I am changing one of the implicit join to explicit join. As soon as I change the join, the number of rows returned are fewer than before.
INSERT #RIF_TEMP1 (rf1_row_no,rf1_rif, rf1_key_id_no, rf1_last_date, rf1_start_date) SELECT currow.rf0_row_no, currow.rf0_rif, currow.rf0_key_id_no, prevrow.rf0_start_date, currow.rf0_start_date FROM #RIF_TEMP0 currow LEFT JOIN #RIF_TEMP0 prevrow ON (currow.rf0_row_no = prevrow.rf0_row_no + 1)
[Code] ....
the count returned from both the queries is different.
I am not sure what am I doing wrong. The count of #RIF_TEMP0 is always 32, it never changes, but the variable @countTemp is different for both the queries.
Why does this right join return the same results as using a left (or even a full join)?There are 470 records in Account, and there are 1611 records in Contact. But any join returns 793 records.
select Contact.firstname, Contact.lastname, Account.[Account Name] from Contact right join Account on Contact.[Account Name] = Account.[Account Name] where Contact.[Account Name] = Account.[Account Name]
Is there a way to do a super-table join ie two table join with no matching criteria? I am pulling in a sheet from XL and joining to a table in SQLServer. The join should read something like €œfor every row in the sheet I need that row and a code from a table. 100 rows in the sheet merged with 10 codes from the table = 1000 result rows.
This is the simple sql (no join on the tables):
select 1.code, 2.rowdetail from tblcodes 1, tblelements 2
I read that merge joins work a lot faster than hash joins. How would you convert a hash join into a merge join? (Referring to output on Execution Plan diagrams.) THANKS
There is a table called "tblvZipCodes" that contain a zipcode of all cities, area code that are located in that zip code.
The problem I have with the inner join is that there are more than 1 cities in one zipcode code. Is there a way to just return only the 1st row and not return the rest of the rows from the tblvZipCodes in the INNER JOIN query?
Thanks..
Code:
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Year, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Make, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Model, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.ModelType, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Color, dbo.tblvZipCodes.ZIPCode, dbo.tblvZipCodes.City, dbo.tblvZipCodes.County, dbo.tblvZipCodes.State, dbo.tblvZipCodes.AreaCode, dbo.tblvZipCodes.Region, dbo.tblaAccounts.Name, dbo.tblaAccounts.PhoneOne, dbo.tblaAccounts.AccountID, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AcceptedID, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Series, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.BodyStyle, dbo.tblaAccounts.WebSite, dbo.tblaAccounts.SalesEmail, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.EmailTo, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.PhotoURL, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Mileage, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.RawID, dbo.tblvRegions.Name AS RegionName, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.VIN, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Style, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.StockDate FROM dbo.tblPurchaseRaw INNER JOIN dbo.tblaAccounts ON dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AccountID = dbo.tblaAccounts.AccountID INNER JOIN dbo.tblvZipCodes ON dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.ZipCode = dbo.tblvZipCodes.ZIPCode INNER JOIN dbo.tblvRegions ON dbo.tblvZipCodes.Region = dbo.tblvRegions.RegionID WHERE (CONVERT(char, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.StockDate, 101) <> '01/01/1900') AND (dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.SoldRawID IS NULL) AND (dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AcceptedID <> - 10) AND (dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AcceptedID <> - 1) ORDER BY dbo.tblvZipCodes.ZIPCode
hello, i am running mysql server 5 and i have sql syntax like this: select sales.customerid as cid, name, count(saleid) from sales inner join customers on customers.customerid=sales.customerid group by sales.customerid order by sales.customerid; it works fine and speedy. but when i change inner join to right join, in order to get all customers even there is no sale, my server locks up. note: there is about 10000 customers and 15000 sales. what can be the problem? thanks,
I have 2 tables, I will add sample data to them to help me explain...Table1(Fields: A, B)=====1,One2,Two3,ThreeTable2(Fields: A,B)=====2,deux9,neufI want to create a query that will only return data so long as the key(Field A) is on both tables, if not, return nothing. How can I dothis? I am thnking about using a 'JOIN' but not sure how to implementit...i.e: 2 would return data- but 9 would not...any help would be appreciated.
Hi,Just curious. Would you use ANSI style table joining or the 'oldfashion' table joining; especially if performance is the main concern?What I meant is illustrated below:ANSI Styleselect * from a join b on a.id = b.idOld Styleselect * from a, b where a.id = b.idI noticed that in some SQL, the ANSI is much faster but sometimes, theold style looks much better.It's ridiculous to try out both styles to see which is better wheneverwe want to write an SQL statement.Please comment.Thanks in advance.
Hello, everyoneI have one question about the standard join and inner join, which oneis faster and more reliable? Can you recommend me to use? Please,explain me...ThanksChamnap
Where function_code is the function of the area e.g. Auditorium, Classrom, etc, etc. And not all components are available for all functions e.g. Carpeting is available for Classrooms but not Power Plants or Warehouses.
I need to self join the above table to itself on system_code and system_component_code and find out which rows are missing from each side.
A query that I've been banging away at with no success is:
SELECT c1.*, c2.* FROM [dbo].[component_multiplier_table] c1 FULL OUTER JOIN [dbo].[component_multiplier_table] c2 ON (c1.system_component_code = c2.system_component_code) AND (c1.[system_code] = c2.[system_code]) WHERE c1.function_code = '2120' AND c2.[function_code] = '2750' AND (c1.[system_code] IS NULL OR c2.system_code IS NULL);
I added the is null conditions, no joy. I've tried every flavor of outer join w/o success.
Could any T-SQL gurus out there help me figure out how to do this in a set before I start coding
SELECT * FROM a LEFT OUTER JOIN b ON a.id = b.id instead of
SELECT * FROM a LEFT JOIN b ON a.id = b.id
generates a different execution plan?
My query is more complex, but when I change "LEFT OUTER JOIN" to "LEFT JOIN" I get a different execution plan, which is absolutely baffling me! Especially considering everything I know and was able to research essentially said the "OUTER" is implied in "LEFT JOIN".
