this violates the constraint if i give the two teams on the same date..how to give the condition such that it checks for the violation of condition if the team names are interchanged.. for eg
if i give the values as
Insert Into Games values('chelsea',1,'arsenal',2,'17-1-2000');
and
Insert Into Games values('arsenal',1,'chelsea',2,'17-1-2000');
the above should violate the constraint ..how to do it
When I select a fieldname in a db as a primary key this will keep the uniqueness of that fieldname, but how is that work when I select 2 fieldnames (in Enterprise Manager) and click on the Key it will mark them as my primary key, but I can insert duplicates values in either fieldname.
My company is upgrading one of our products; this involves some data migration and a question about existing indexes with uniqueness constraints has been raised. Here is the issue:
We have a database table with two particular columns that that we index with a uniqueness constraint. My question is: is the uniqueness constraint case sensitive?
For instance, if I have a database that is using a collation of SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS. (case sensitive) and I insert data in these two columns as follows:
test col2test
Test col2test
would this uniqueness constraint be violated even though I'm using a case sensitive collation? I've done tests on this issue and I can't seem to insert this 2nd column; I'm just wanting to be certain that this is the case 100% of the time.
Hi, Can anyone tell me the order in which uniqueness constraints on indexes are enforced vs. when triggers are executed ? I have a unique constraint on an index and a trigger on the column on which the same index has been created. When a row is inserted, the trigger checks if the value for that column already exists in the table - if not, it inserts the row as is, else it gets the max() val of the column (based on another key column) and increments it by one, then does the insert. Creating an index across the two works fine, but if I set the Unique Values property for the index, subsequent inserts bomb out - yet there aren't any duplicates in the final table, as the trigger ensures this. Anyone got any ideas on this? My deduction is that the uniqueness constraint gets enforced before the trigger gets executed, but at the same time this *seems* illogical, as the row has not been inserted into the table at the point where the trigger is executed.
OK - maybe my Google-fu is off today but I'm trying to find out if using a sequence table will provide values that are as unique as the GUID is supposed to be.The reason is that I'm building a DW from the ground up (they won't let me expense my booze which I think is grossly unfair ) and rather than using GUID it ~seems~ like a sequence table would give better results. My concern is that the values won't be unique across tables.
Hi,First of all my apologies if you have seen this mail already but I amre-sending as there were some initial problems.This query is related to defining indexes to be unique or not andconsequences thereof.Some documented facts that I am aware of include1. Defining uniqueness allows optimiser to create optimal plans egselect based on keys in such an index allows the optimiser to determineat most only one row will be returned2. Defining uniqueness ensures that rule (business/Primary key) isenforced, regradless of how the data is entered.We have many cases where non unique indexes are defined. The approach todate has been that even though we are aware of some of the benefitsoffered by defining uniqueness , we have chosen not to add keys to nonunique indexes such that they become unique. The primary reason for thiswas that we did not want to make the keys comprising the indexesunnecessarily large and therefore ensuing consequences when DMLstatements are performed.However, I have concerns that having highly duplicate indexes can haveperformance impacts , including deadlocking. I am also aware Sybase usedto store duplicate values in overflow pages and therefore there wereperformance consequences. Could SQL 2000 have the same behaviour ?Thanking you in advancePuvendran*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
So, I have this idea of a database design I was hoping to get some input on. I usually go through the process of creating a separate column for identity, like an auto-increment integer which serves as a context specific ID that easily can be passed around. However one of the short-comings I've come to realize is that the integer is just that, unique to the context and requires context information to make sense. I'm pounding the idea of creating a separate table whose sole purpose is to provide global (database wide) unique IDs. As such each row in a table can still have an ID but instead of being tied to a specific context it will always make sense within the application. A foreign key constraint can ensure that and a relation. Now, with a global ID which I can create FKs to, I don't have to create a separate table for relations between entities and can have relations through these global IDs and I think that's a good thing because if there are many relations between many entities they don't have to be defined more than once. There is also a single "hub" where all relations fit which will allow me to access most information through some relatively simple joins. My concerns are performance and Linq to SQL implication. I'm worried that Linq to SQL might start pulling an excessive amount of data and I'm worried that the practicality of such a design might hurt the long running of the application development process. But I'm surprisingly interested in what it could mean for a more ubiquitous view of data and tagging. Basically a way of any data to have relations to any other data through this yet simple design decision. If you think this is a good idea or see no particular problem with, please let me know! If you think there's problems with my idea, please motivate your critic but do tell me what I should look out for, or if you know of any better approach to my idea of being able to look at the data through some more common mechanism (which applies to all tables and the entire database mostly from a programming perspective).
I want to make sure that usernames and folder names (that are stored in the database) are all unique when created by the admin through an admin control panel.
How would I code and use an Index to make sure that the 2 columns are unique?
I've looked at examples on the net but nothing is telling me how I can create an index through Enterprise Manager? Thanks
I want to make sure that usernames and folder names (that are stored in the database) are all unique when created by the admin through an admin control panel.
How would I code and use an Index to make sure that the 2 columns are unique?
I've looked at examples on the net but nothing is telling me how I can create an index through Enterprise Manager? Thanks :)
I"m trying to use a BULK INSERT command to insert data into a table from a file. There is a UNIQUE Index that is being violated and the BULK INSERT fails.
I do not want to drop or disable the index, however, i also do not want to load 'duplicate' records so i keep the CHECK_CONSTRAINTS parameter.
Is there a way to have the duplicate records outputed to the ERRORFILE ?
Is there a system table column to query to determine whether an index is defined as unique in SQL Server 2000? It is easy to find this info in SQL Server 2005, but I don't see a valid column for this on dbo.sysindexes.
All- I have what i'm sure is a question with a simple answer: Supposing I want to modify the select command below to force the display of records with only unique combinations of the two fields person_id and act_session_id (bolded). How would I do this. Note that neither is a key field. (Key field headcount_id was added for completeness.) Thanks! SELECT hd.headcount_id, hd.person_id, hd.act_session_idFROM headcount as hd
I am reading "SQL Server Query Performance Tuning Distilled",on page 104 it talks about one of the index design recommendationswhich is to choose the column that has very high selectivity of valuesinstead of a column that has very few selectivity of values.My question is if I have currently indexes on my tables that have1, 2, 3, 4, ... values only on thousands of rows, are these nonclusteredindexes pretty much useless indexes that I should get rid of?And I know that pretty much the number of selectivity values willalways remain very low.Thank you
I am designing a package to export staging tables into a flat file.The names of the tables will be: TableAStaging_YYYYMM and TableBStaging_YYYYMM. As you can see the names of the tables will be changing each month.
The flat files will have similar naming: C:MyPathFlatFileTableAStaging__YYYYMM and C:MyPathFlatFileTableAStaging__YYYYMM.I want to run the package as an sql job in two steps, one for each table.I need to dynamically pass the table names and file names (together with the path) to the IS package.
As part if a recent requirement I have to export Chinese/Singaporean names in a CSV file. The data in the tables is a NVARCHAR(256).
I am using a FlatFile Connection manager where all the present columns from the table are exported as NVARCHARs. My understanding was that the Chinese/Singaporean names would blend seamlessly with NVARCHARs in place. But, they get garbled when pushed to the CSV.
Here is the connection manager setup
There are a lot of suggestions of fixing this by copying/pasting to a notepad file and changing the formatting... But I cant do that since the file is generated using a schedules SSIS package. How can I tweak the process to fix the issue?
I was wondering if anyone has an idea of how we could find the table names and column names of the tables in our Sql server database at runtime/dynamically given our connection string? Please let me know.
I'm going to be setting up DB mirroring between two SQL Server 2005 boxes. Since these are on two different servers, can the instance names be the same? Is there any reason NOT to do so if the mirror server is going to be used exclusively for DB mirroring?
For example: if the my primary DB is located on SERVER1INSTANCE1, can the mirror be SERVER2INSTANCE1 or do the instance names have to be different even though they're on different boxes.
Hello there. I'm trying to populate a drop down box with a list of all available instances of SQL server (express or not) available on a network. To list all instances I'm using EnumAvailableServers() in SmoApplication.
The issue is that the Instance column in the returned data table is always empty, and both the Name and the Server columns contain the same string -- the name of the computer the SQL server is installed. Locally I have SSE installed, the instance name is <computer_name>SQLEXPRESS, however, using Smo I can't seem to get to the either full instance name or just the instance name. I can't assume SQLEXPRESS, since there may be more than one installed.
Alternately I used EnumRegisteredServers() in SmoApplication.SqlServerRegistrations and that, while returning instance information (can be retrieved from the RegisteredServer in the returned collection), doesn't always return the remote SQL servers in the list.
Any idea how can this be done? Maybe I'm going at it the wrong way, maybe there's another class / method I need to use to retrieve all instances?
Im trying to get the column names from a database and display them in textboxes. someone has already helped me by tellnig me that i need to use the FillSchema command. Which works just fine and I can see only the colum names in a datagrid when i bind it to that.
The problem is that I do not know how to extract the name of a column and put it in to a textbox ?
Hi,How do I display the column names from my Sql server table?In asp3 the recordset allowed thisforeach key in rs ColumnName = key.name ColumnValue = key.valuenextHow do I do this in .Net?I want to use a DataReader so I can read through each record and only display the ones I want.TABLE_ONEColumn_OneColumn_TwoColumn_Threethanks,
Are there any problems w/ installing SQL Server 7.0 on a computer with a name such as 05005sql? I know that SQL will take the computer name as the SQL Server name, however, I am concerned about the numeric beginning of the computer name. Any suggestions?
I have created a database which has a table whose name is 128 characters long; this table has a column whose name is 128 characters long. When I issue the command sp_helpconstraint table_name, SQL Server 7 returns the message "string or binary data would be truncated."
My company is going to start a Cancel web site so customers can cancel their future orders by simply filling out a form. I was wondering what would be the best way to compare the cancel db to db that is used to store customer information and order information.
The cancel website will only hold the name, address, and Credit Card Number used. There will not be a customer/order number. The simple Credit Card to Credit Card search will be easy but I was more worried about comparing the rest of the information in case the Credit Card search fail. I was told the "standard" look up was to take the first 3 letters of the first name and the last 3 letters of the last name. If that comes up with more then one record, take that set and see if the zip code matches up and/or part of the street address matches up (counting we do not have very reliable people inputting the information into the system is not going to help this search).
Anyway, any suggestions on comparing the data would be great.
I have inherited a database which had no clustered indexes at all, only non-clustered. WHen I started experimenting with creating some I got error messages back complaining that the name already existed in sysobjects. I have come to find out they tool they use to create the indexes, names the index the same as exisiting table(isn't this a great idea). Other than my current problem, does anyone see other issues might run into. My thought is to drop all the indexes with the table names and recreate them with a better standard. Has anyone else ever run into or done this? THanks
I have a database with a whole lot of records (over 70 mill) I am looking for a quick way to search the name fields for incorrect names and give me a count. Example:
I mostly need it to search for 3 or more duplicate characters in a row, but through the whole name. I am not sure if this is even possible. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Is it possible for MS SQL 2k to get confused when we have two stored proces that has the same name for their transactions and both stored procs are exec at the same time?
Example:
Create Procedure SP1
as
Begin Transaction TranName1 Commit Transaction TranName1
Begin Transaction TranName2 Commit Transaction TranName2
Create Procedure SP2
as
Begin Transaction TranName2 Commit Transaction TranName2
Begin Transaction TranName3 Commit Transaction TranName3
We are seeing some very weird data corruption but luckily its been way under 1%(something like 500 bad rows out of a few million). The only thing we can think of since it is such a very low number is maybe when blocking occurs SQL has trouble handing two transactions with the same name in its queue. Beyond that we have no idea what could be causing this issue.
I am using ADO controls for MSSQL Database. The server name on my machine is different from the server name on the machine where i am running my application. When i make changes to my application, i have to rebuild the connection on my ADO Control. Is there a way to create a server name on my developement machine to match the server name where i run my application?