Only Do Update If There Is Not A Unique Key Constr
Jan 15, 2008
Question: i have to do an update on a table that has a nested index of three fields. however i'm only getting one field as a parameter to work with and i am getting a constraint because there cannot be duplicate records.
Is there a way to only do the update code if the unique key constraint is not thrown? i was thinking about doing this in an if statement but the problem is i do not have all three keys that i can use to do the right query. thanks
Msg 2601, Level 14, State 1, Procedure DFP_report_load, Line 161 Cannot insert duplicate key row in object 'dbo.DFP_Reports_History' with unique index 'ix_report_history_creative_id'.
The duplicate key value is (40736326382, 1, 2015-07-03, 67618862, 355324). Msg 3621, Level 0, State 0, Procedure DFP_report_load, Line 161
The statement has been terminated.
Exception in Task: Cannot insert duplicate key row in object 'dbo.DFP_Reports_History' with unique index 'ix_report_history_creative_id'. The duplicate key value is (40736326382, 1, 2015-07-03, 67618862, 355324).
Im running updates on a table. I would like to only update the table with new records. Right now, Im running a query that will only update the records that were added yesterday. Here is my code:
FROM GRAB where BKDATE = convert(varchar(8), getdate()-1, 112)
I would like to Update like this (incorrect syntax):
FROM GRAB where FCN is distinct
I know the above is incorrect.... what would be correct?
hello . i have a grid for a table that gets updated with recordset.updatebatch for a multi-user application.
the problem is that some of the table fields have to be unique
now imagine the next situation.
user A opens the form user B opens the form user A writes '1000' in the unique field user A saves the recordset with updatebatch
user B writes '1000' in the unique field user B saves the recordset with updatebatch
now there will be two records with the field '1000' !
how can i avoid this ? i cannot check for unique during the update event of the grid because it should check during the time it is saving and not when it is just entering data without having updated the recordset
Create table #test ( id int primary key, Name varchar(100) ) insert into #test values (1,'John') insert into #test values (2,'Walker')
[Code] ....
-- Query 1 : update #test set name = 'Joney' where id = 1
-- Query 2 : set rowcount 1 update #test set name = 'Joney' where id = 1 set rowcount 0
1. #test table have primary key & clustered index. 2. Obviously only one row will be available for an id. 3. In query 1, will the sql server look for matching rows even after it found 1 row? 4. Will query 2 really gains some performance?
I'm trying to update rows in a simple table that has a UNIQUE KEY CONSTRAINT defined on one of its columns. Here is the DDL for the table:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[SEC_USER]( [SEC_USER_ID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [USER_CODE] [varchar](100) NOT NULL, [USER_NAME] [varchar](128) NOT NULL, [EMP_CODE] [varchar](6) NOT NULL,
[Code] ....
When trying to execute the UPDATE statement the query fails with a constraint violation error:
Violation of UNIQUE KEY constraint 'UQ__SEC_USER__A039F1EE62FE8444'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'dbo.SEC_USER'. The duplicate key value is (34337).
What has me baffled is that I'm not doing any insert. Also, the value that it's referencing - 34337 - doesn't exist in the table at all. I'd rather not drop the constraint.
updating the # of Payer from below query to match with the # of rows for each payer record. See the Current and desired results below. The query is currently counting the # of rows for all payers together and updating 3 as # of payers. I need it to count # of rows for each payer like shown inDesired result below. It should be showing 1 for first payer and 2 for 2nd & 3rd based on # of times each payer is repeated..
SELECT b.FILING_IND, b.PYR_CD, b. PAYER_ID, b. PAYER_NAME,a.CLAIM_ICN, (Select Count(*) From MMITCGTD.MMIT_CLAIM a, MMITCGTD.MMIT_TPL b , MMITCGTD.MMIT_ATTACHMENT_LINK c where a.CLAIM_ICN_NU = c.CLAIM_ICN and b.TPL_TS = c.TPL_TS and a.CLAIM_TYPE_CD = 'X'
I have a After insert, update trigger. When I update multiple records with unique constraints column in it update fails. But if this a single record update it works.
I have a database table which needs to make the Index "ParentREF, UniqueName" unique - but this fails because duplicate keys are found. Thus I now need to cleanup these duplicate rows - but I cannot just delete the duplicates, because they might have rows in detail tables. This means that all duplicate rows needs an update on the "UniqueName" value - but not the first (valid) one!
I can find those rows by
SELECT OID, UniqueName, ParentREF, CreatedUTC, ModifiedUTC FROM dbo.CmsContent AS table0 WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT OID, UniqueName, ParentREF FROM dbo.CmsContent AS table1 WHERE table0.ParentREF = table1.ParentREF AND table0.UniqueName = table1.UniqueName AND table0.OID != table1.OID ) ORDER BY ParentREF, UniqueName, ModifiedUTC desc
...but I struggle to make the required SQL (SP?) to update the "invalid" rows. Note: the "valid" row is the one with the newest ModifiedUTC value - this row must kept unchanged!
ATM the preferred (cause easiest) way is to rename the invalid rows with UniqueName = OID because if I use any other name I risk to create another double entry.
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?
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?
hi team, .Can i create umique constraint with out unique index.when i am creating a unique constraint sql creates a unique index (default) can i have only unique constraint ?
I am having a problem trying to figure out the best way to get the results I need. I have a table of part numbers that is joined with a table of notes. The table of notes is specific to the part number and user. A row in the notes table is only created if the user has entered notes on that part number. I need to create a search that grabs all matches on a keyword and returns the records. The problem is that it currently returns a row from the parts table with no notes and a separate row with the notes included if they had created an entry. It seems like this should be easy but it eludes me today. Here is the code
Code Snippet create procedure SearchPartKeyword ( @Keyword varchar(250) = null, @Universal_Id varchar(10) = null ) as select p.PartNumber, p.Description, p.ServiceOrderable, n.MyNotes, p.LargestAssembly, p.DMM, p.Legacy, p.Folder, p.Printer from Parts p inner join notes n on p.PartNumber = n.Identifier where n.Universal_ID = @Universal_ID and p.Description like @Keyword union select p.PartNumber, p.Description, p.ServiceOrderable, '' as MyNotes, p.LargestAssembly, p.DMM, p.Legacy, p.Folder, p.Printer from Parts p where p.Description like @Keyword
and the results: PartNo Description SO Notes LA DMM Legacy Folder Printer de90008 MAIN BOARD 1 DGF1 114688 0 0 0 de90008 MAIN BOARD 1 I love this part Really I do DGF1 114688 0 0 0
This could return multiple part numbers and If they have entered notes I want the row with the notes
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))
update xxx_TableName_xxx set d_50 = 'DE',modify_timestamp = getdate(),modified_by = 1159
where enc_id in
('C24E6640-D2CC-45C6-8C74-74F6466FA262',
'762E6B26-AE4A-4FDB-A6FB-77B4782566C3',
'D7FBD152-F7AE-449C-A875-C85B5F6BB462')
but From linked server this takes 8 minutes????!!!??!:
update [xxx_servername_xxxx].xxx_DatabaseName_xxx.dbo.xxx_TableName_xxx set d_50 = 'DE',modify_timestamp = getdate(),modified_by = 1159
where enc_id in
('C24E6640-D2CC-45C6-8C74-74F6466FA262',
'762E6B26-AE4A-4FDB-A6FB-77B4782566C3',
'D7FBD152-F7AE-449C-A875-C85B5F6BB462')
What settings or whatever would cause this to take so much longer from the linked server?
Edit: Note) Other queries from the linked server do not have this behavior. From the stored procedure where we have examined how long each query/update takes... this particular query is the culprit for the time eating. I thought it was to do specefically with this table. However as stated when a query window is opened directly onto that server the update takes no time at all.
2nd Edit: Could it be to do with this linked server setting? Collation Compatible right now it is set to false? I also asked this question in a message below, but figured I should put it up here.
I am hoping someone can shed light on this odd behavior I am seeing running a simple UPDATE statement on a table in SQL Server 2000. I have 2 tables - call them Table1 and Table2 for now (among many) that need to have certain columns updated as part of a single transaction process. Each of the tables has many columns. I have purposely limited the target column for updating to only ONE of the columns in trying to isolate the issue. In one case the UPDATE runs fine against Table1... at runtime in code and as a manual query when run in QueryAnalyzer or in the Query window of SSManagementStudio - either way it works fine. However, when I run the UPDATE statement against Table2 - at runtime I get rowsaffected = 0 which of course forces the code to throw an Exception (logically). When I take out the SQL stmt and run it manually in Query Analyzer, it runs BUT this is the output seen in the results pane... (0 row(s) affected) (1 row(s) affected) How does on get 2 answers for one query like this...I have never seen such behavior and it is a real frustration ... makes no sense. There is only ONE row in the table that contains the key field passed in and it is the same key field value on the other table Table1 where the SQL returns only ONE message (the one you expect) (1 row(s) affected) If anyone has any ideas where to look next, I'd appreciate it. Thanks
Hi SQL fans,I realized that I often encounter the same situation in a relationdatabase context, where I really don't know what to do. Here is anexample, where I have 2 tables as follow:__________________________________________ | PortfolioTitle|| Portfolio |+----------------------------------------++-----------------------------+ | tfolio_id (int)|| folio_id (int) |<<-PK----FK--| tfolio_idfolio (int)|| folio_name (varchar) | | tfolio_idtitle (int)|--FK----PK->>[ Titles]+-----------------------------+ | tfolio_weight(decimal(6,5)) |+-----------------------------------------+Note that I also have a "Titles" tables (hence the tfolio_idtitlelink).My problem is : When I update a portfolio, I must update all theassociated titles in it. That means that titles can be either removedfrom the portfolio (a folio does not support the title anymore), addedto it (a new title is supported by the folio) or simply updated (atitle stays in the portfolio, but has its weight changed)For example, if the portfolio #2 would contain :[ PortfolioTitle ]id | idFolio | idTitre | poids1 2 1 102 2 2 203 2 3 30and I must update the PortfolioTitle based on these values :idFolio | idTitre | poids2 2 202 3 352 4 40then I should1 ) remove the title #1 from the folio by deleting its entry in thePortfolioTitle table2 ) update the title #2 (weight from 30 to 35)3 ) add the title #4 to the folioFor now, the only way I've found to do this is delete all the entriesof the related folio (e.g.: DELETE TitrePortefeuille WHERE idFolio =2), and then insert new values for each entry based on the new givenvalues.Is there a way to better manage this by detecting which value has to beinserted/updated/deleted?And this applies to many situation :(If you need other examples, I can give you.thanks a lot!ibiza
The Folowing code is not working anymore. (500 error)
Set objRS = strSQL1.Execute strSQL1 = "SELECT * FROM BannerRotor where BannerID=" & cstr(BannerID) objRS.Open strSQL1, objConn , 2 , 3 , adCmdText If not (objRS.BOF and objRS.EOF) Then objRS.Fields("Exposures").Value =objRS.Fields("Exposures").Value + 1 objRS.update End If objRS.Close
The .execute Method works fine
strSQL1 = "UPDATE BannerRotor SET Exposures=Exposures+1 WHERE BannerID=" & cstr(BannerID) objConn.Execute strSQL1
If I have a table with 1 or more Nullable fields and I want to make sure that when an INSERT or UPDATE occurs and one or more of these fields are left to NULL either explicitly or implicitly is there I can set these to non-null values without interfering with the INSERT or UPDATE in as far as the other fields in the table?
EXAMPLE:
CREATE TABLE dbo.MYTABLE( ID NUMERIC(18,0) IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, FirstName VARCHAR(50) NULL, LastName VARCHAR(50) NULL,
[Code] ....
If an INSERT looks like any of the following what can I do to change the NULL being assigned to DateAdded to a real date, preferable the value of GetDate() at the time of the insert? I've heard of INSTEAD of Triggers but I'm not trying tto over rise the entire INSERT or update just the on (maybe 2) fields that are being left as null or explicitly set to null. The same would apply for any UPDATE where DateModified is not specified or explicitly set to NULL. I would want to change it so that DateModified is not null on any UPDATE.
INSERT INTO dbo.MYTABLE( FirstName, LastName, DateAdded) VALUES('John','Smith',NULL)
INSERT INTO dbo.MYTABLE( FirstName, LastName) VALUES('John','Smith')
INSERT INTO dbo.MYTABLE( FirstName, LastName, DateAdded) SELECT FirstName, LastName, NULL FROM MYOTHERTABLE
hi need help how to send an email from database mail on row update from stored PROCEDURE multi update but i need to send a personal email evry employee get an email on row update like send one after one email
i use FUNCTION i get on this forum to use split from multi update
how to loop for evry update send an single eamil to evry employee ID send one email
in sql server 2000 i know how to make primary key using enterprise manager i want to make one of the columns foreign key,how to do that using enterprise manager.and what is the difference between both.
In this table there are two columns, one called "company number" (NUMBER) and one called "company name" (VARCHAR). I have an index called agents_PK that are unique and indexes both columns with company number as first and company name as second in the column order.
But when I look at the data in the column company number its not unique, I find several rows with the same number.
I've always used the identity field in SQL server to maintain the unique id for a table. With the new DB design at work we brought in a dba and she made us move away from allowing SQL maintain the unique field and having us maintain the unique field in code. To do that we had to begin a transaction, do a select max(id) + 1, insert into table, commit transaction. Doing it this way, I'm starting to see deadlocks due to the transactions locking the table.
Getting down to what I wanted to know, what is the pro's/con's you guys see in maintaining the unique ID this way and is there a better way of creating an unique id in T-SQL code?
I know that primary key is a unique key .I read somewhere that a table can have both primary key and unique key at a time .Am I Right?Pl give clarification as asap. Thank U
I am using the sql function unique id ( create a new default call it newid and then give it the value newid() ) The problem is I'm trying to automatically populate that uniqueid field with the random 36 bit character. if I create a new record it will create the 36bit character, but how do I add the 36bit character to an existing table?
Dear experts, if i've created one unique key on one column, will it creates an index on that? if so, is there any way to find how every index was created?
i mean wether it was created with create index or it was created while the primary key or unique key creation.
thank you very much....i've been using the PBGUY query
