I have an insert trigger which has to insert new records into 2 other databases. The first thing it has to do is get a maxid from a table in each of the databases before the insert. i was going to use a SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE statment before getting the ID and then do my insert. My question is two-fold, first is this the best way to do it. And since I have 2 separate selects to get the 2 maxids in the other 2 databases and tables, do I need 2 of these statements inside the trigger, before each insert, or a separate one for each select?
Thanks
I created the following trigger to ensure that Mastercard or Visa are entered as the credit card type is a credit card table. The trigger works fine when I use one type, but when I add or, it doesn't work. Any advice? Thanks
/* THIS TRIGGERS VERIFIES THAT A VALID CREDIT CARD TYPE IS ENTERED*/
CREATE TRIGGER trg_accepted_credit_card on credit_card_payments for insert as begin
declare @card_type varchar(50)
select @card_type = (select card_type from inserted)
if exists(select 1 from inserted where @card_type != 'Mastercard' OR @card_type != 'Visa')
begin print 'Invalid Credit Card Type.' rollback transaction end end
CREATE TRIGGER [UPDATEEGBKMUTREBATERECORDS] ON [dbo].[GBKMUT] after INSERT AS begin DECLARE@Sum Float SELECT@Sum = SUM(bdr_hfl) FROMinserted WHEREfreefield3 = 'Rebate'
I need @Sum to reset to zero if the ord_no changes. I'm inserting discount records that need to subtract from another account's amount. As records are inserted for one ord_no and Inv_no I need to sum bdr_hfl field. When the ord_no and Inv_no change, I need to subtract that from the amount in the bdr_hfl where the account number is 1040 and the inserted records ord_no and Inv_no match the ord_no and Inv_no where the account is 1040. Then I need the @sum to reset to zero and start summing again.
Hi All, I am using a trigger. I want to get the data of a row before updating inside this trigger and insert it into a backup table. Please anybody help me. Example with code is highly appreciated.
How the procedure will be called inside the trigger,whether first procedure followed by second or parallel it will execute?
CREATE TRIGGER [dbo].[InsertDatFXActualStaging] ON [dbo].[DatFXActualStaging]--change this table to DatFXActualStaging for INSERT AS BEGIN SET NOCOUNT ON;
I'm experiencing a problem I think I should not in my COM+ application. I will describe the setup first and then will expose the problem.
It's a simple COM+ application (dll). Inside it, there's a method to save an object A. Object A is persisted in a table in SQL Server 2000 that uses an identity field for the primary key. What this method does is the following: 1) Insert the record for Object A via ADO 2) Retrieve the Id for the object using SCOPE_IDENTITY via ADO and set it on the object 3) Execute an UPDATE statement based on a certain condition via ADO (this UPDATE statement will fire a trigger, however the trigger will not do anything since the record does not answer the criteria for the trigger) 4) Insert a record for another Object A via ADO 5) Retrieve the Id for the object using SCOPE_IDENTITY via ADO and set it on the object
When I get to step (5), an error is raised because SCOPE_IDENTITY returns NULL. This is as if it was returning the Identity value for the trigger that did not cause any INSERT on the UPDATE statement in (3). All the steps are performed using a single connection.
The trigger will duplicate the updated record in another table if a certain flag is set, so in my case, it was not set yet.
It's just weird that this would happen. If I delete the trigger, everything works fine. @@IDENTITY gives me the same problem. It's really as if the trigger was taking over or something and unless I put something between the two steps I get this error. There's one thing though. In step (3), I was using the adCmdText flag for the ADO statement. If I use adExecuteNoRecords it works fine. However I don't understand why it would be this way, I'm trying to understand why it's not working to begin with, even though the sequence of the steps performed should.
I've got an INSERT that's selecting data from a linked server and attempting to push 10 million rows into the blank table. More or less, it looks like this:
The instance of the SQL Server Database Engine cannot obtain a LOCK resource at this time. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users. Ask the database administrator to check the lock and memory configuration for this instance, or to check for long-running transactions. There are no other active users. I ran it again and monitored the following DMO to watch the growth of locks for that spid:
SELECT request_session_id, COUNT (*) num_locks -- select * FROM sys.dm_tran_locks --where request_session_id = 77 GROUP BY request_session_id ORDER BY count (*) DESC
The number of locks started small and held for a while around 4-7 locks, but at about 5 minutes in the number of locks held by that spid grew dramatically to more than 8 million before finally erroring again with the same message. Researching, I can't figure out why it's not escalating from row locks to table locks at the appropriate threshold. The threshold in was set to 0 at first (Server Properties > Advanced > Parallelism > Locks). I set it to 5000, and it still didn't seem to work. Rewriting the INSERT to include a WITH (TABLOCK) allows it to finish successfully in testing. My problem is that it's coming out of an ETL with source code that I can't edit. I need to figure out how to force it to escalate to locking the entire table via table or server level settings.
A colleague suggested that installing service packs may take care of it (the client is running SQL Server 2008 R2 (RTM)), but I haven't found anything online to support that theory.
We are migrating our database(s) from ORACLE to SQL. In Oracle we were able to issue a SELECT statement and see all of the locks (Blocking and Non-Blocking) currently in the system. The query also included the Process ID of the process we needed to kill in order to get rid of the lock.
We now need to create the same type of query for Microsoft SQL Server 2012. I have seen postings on different sites saying that this info can be obtained using SP_WHO2 or using the SQL Server Management Studio Activity Monitor's PROCESSES tab, but we are looking for a SELECT statement that will give us similar information.
I'm updating one column using trigger but i am getting below error .
UPDATE failed because the following SET options have incorrect settings: 'NUMERIC_ROUNDABORT'. Verify that SET options are correct for use with indexed views and/or indexes on computed columns and/or filtered indexes and/or query notifications and/or XML data type methods and/or spatial index operations.
I have a stored procedure which generates the next sequence number... it uses SERIALIZABLE Option. procs look something like below..
begin SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE BEGIN TRANSACTION
Sequence generating statement...
COMMIT TRANSACTION set @NextSequenceValue = @NextSequenceValue Return @NextSequenceValue end
For some reason when i call the proc with below parameters to get next sequence number.. its hungs up..
declare @NextSequenceValue int set @NextSequenceValue = 0 exec spGetNextSequence 19, 'LotSequence', @NextSequenceValue output, Null select @NextSequenceValue as NextSequenceValue
When i queried sp_who2 it shows that my processid is blocked by some other processid.. and when i do DBCC INPUTBUFFER (blockingprocessid), the query of blocking processid and my nextsequence generation stored proc is not realted at all..
Can you help shed some light on why my nextsequence generating proc is getting hunged...?
Hi all, can anyone give me more information on set transaction isolation level serializable ?? I want to prove some lock to use on online insert and update. Thank you every much.
Hi,I have a problem using serializable transactions. In one transaction Iselect a single specific row from a table using a where clause (thiscauses it to acquire and hold a range lock). In another transaction Iattempt to insert a new row into the table (which does not match thefirst transactions where clause), but it is blocked by the firsttransaction. The reading I have done on SQL Server suggests that Ishould be able to insert rows, as long as the new rows do not match thewhere clause in the other transactions select.Here is what I do:Transaction 1SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SerializableBEGIN TRANSACTIONselect * from test_table where id=1;and then on another session I runTransaction 2SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SerializableBEGIN TRANSACTIONinsert into test_table values (2, 'two');Transaction 2 cannot complete until transaction 1 has finished. I havetried using WITH (ROWLOCK) hints but to no avail. Am I missingsomething important? Is this true of other DBs?(I am able to update rows that are not in transaction 1's where clause)I am using SQL Server version 8.00.760(SP3).Thanks for your help,Magnus.
Hi,Version Info: SQLSERVER 2000 SP3I am trying to understand how SQL Server works with SERIALIZABLE read.I am fairly new to SQL Server, having mainly worked with Informix.We are getting lock timeout error in our application. Our lock timeoutis set to 20 seconds. I am trying to investigate why locks are held forsuch a long time in the first place.I believe SQLServer tries to put keylocks as much as possible forensuring serializibility. For e.g.SELECT column_bfrom table_awhere column_c between 1000 and 1100what if column_c has no index. Does it switch over the data row.And what if a table has no index. Will it go for table lock, as ituse to do in earlier versions.TIA.--email id is bogus
I'm encountering a problem that seems to be due to the StreamError class not being serializable. This was raised on the JDBC Driver Team blog by Jonas on 10/24/2007. Jimmy Wu notes on 10/29/2007 that it is under investigation. Any progress?
For inserting current date and time into the database, is it more efficient and performant and faster to do getDate() inside SQL Server and insert the value OR to do System.DateTime.Now in the application and then insert it in the table? I figure even small differences would be magnified if there is moderate traffic, so every little bit helps. Thanks.
I'm trying to execute a stored procedure within the case clause of select statement. The stored procedure returns a table, and is pretty big and complex, and I don't particularly want to copy the whole thing over to work here. I'm looking for something more elegant.
@val1 and @val2 are passed in
CREATE TABLE #TEMP( tempid INT IDENTITY (1,1) NOT NULL, myint INT NOT NULL, mybool BIT NOT NULL )
INSERT INTO #TEMP (myint, mybool) SELECT my_int_from_tbl, CASE WHEN @val1 IN (SELECT val1 FROM (EXEC dbo.my_stored_procedure my_int_from_tbl, my_param)) THEN 1 ELSE 0 FROM dbo.tbl WHERE tbl.val2 = @val2
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM #TEMP WHERE mybool = 1
If I have to, I can do a while loop and populate another temp table for every "my_int_from_tbl," but I don't really know the syntax for that.
Just wonder whether is there any indicator or system parameters that can indicate whether stored procedure A is executed inside query analyzer or executed inside application itself so that if execution is done inside query analyzer then i can block it from being executed/retrieve sensitive data from it?
What i'm want to do is to block someone executing stored procedure using query analyzer and retrieve its sensitive results. Stored procedure A has been granted execution for public user but inside application, it will prompt access denied message if particular user has no rights to use system although knew public user name and password. Because there is second layer of user validation inside system application.
However inside query analyzer, there is no way control execution of stored procedure A it as user knew the public user name and password.
Looking forward for replies from expert here. Thanks in advance.
Note: Hope my explaination here clearly describe my current problems.
I have read that even during read procedures (sql select statements), sql server uses row locking. I know that you can use the NOLOCK keyword, but if you don't everytime that a user makes a selects statement on a table, does sql server really lock those rows, and if so are they then unavailable to another user who wants to make a select statement at the same time on that same table? That does not seem like it would be the case otherwise it would not scale well. Thanks for any clarification on this.
I am using SQL Server7.0. I opened a table through the Enterprise Manager and left it open. In the Query Analyzer when I try to update a field on that table(more than 2000 rows), it goes on running. When I watched the Current Activity, it shows that the update process is being blocked by the select query. But if I try to update the same column for less than 1500 rows, there is no blocking issue and the update occurs immediately. Can anybody let me know why this is happening and what should I do to prevent it?
To I got the following error message. Can some one tell how to solve this issue.
Server: Msg 1204, Level 19, State 1, Procedure OPEN_OBJECTS, Line 2 SQL Server has run out of LOCKS. Rerun your statement when there are fewer active users, or ask the system administrator to reconfigure SQL Server with more LOCKS.
Hi I have a big query which updates around 14000 rows at a time if i place a lock on the table and others try to update the same table is it possible to let them know that table is locked by someone else.
I have a stored proc which will be entering/updating a record into a table. The table's key is an integer field which I may have to increment by one. I know I can use
declare @nextid int set @netxid = max(id) from table insert @nextid into table Is some kind of lock the best way to approach this?
I Have 359 locks on MY Database ,They are always there on my DB.The DB is a development database and lots of summary Stored procedures will be running on this DB. Does it effect the performance.How can I remove those locks. Thanks.
Hi I want to write all my select ststements using locks how i should write a select ststement using locks i searched for examples but iam not getting the syntax Plz give me one example for select statements using locks
How to lock a Row in SQL2000 so that nobody can select that row. I applied ROWLOCK, but i am not finding the way. My query is "SELECT * FROM tablename WITH (ROWLOCK)" Is this the correct way to write locks. I would be thankful if u help me
