sql error: build

Showing posts with label build. Show all posts

Sunday, March 11, 2012

"Select TOP " question

I ran two query: one with order by, one does not.
Note that a clustered index has been build on column
DCN, CO_cd. No index on Sta_Rsn_Cd.
1) select top 1 DCN, CO_Cd, Dept from tblTest
where Dept = '212' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'TRN' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'NDF'
and Sufx = 'C'
and check_out <> 'Y'
order by Sta_Rsn_Cd
2) select top 1 DCN, CO_Cd, Dept from tblTest
where Dept = '212' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'TRN' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'NDF'
and Sufx = 'C'
and check_out <> 'Y'
In BOL
"If a SELECT statement that includes TOP also has an ORDER BY clause,
the rows to be returned are selected from the ordered result set. The
entire result set is built in the specified order and the top n rows in
the ordered result set are returned."
It seems that 2) would run faster than 1). When I run,
1) is faster than 2). I use SQL 2000. Any comments?
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!It's hard to say from this. Can you run the SHOWPLAN for each of these
commands and include that here as well.
Rick Sawtell
"YB" <yb@.dex.com> wrote in message
news:eidd8xPoEHA.2948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I ran two query: one with order by, one does not.
> Note that a clustered index has been build on column
> DCN, CO_cd. No index on Sta_Rsn_Cd.
> 1) select top 1 DCN, CO_Cd, Dept from tblTest
> where Dept = '212' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'TRN' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'NDF'
> and Sufx = 'C'
> and check_out <> 'Y'
> order by Sta_Rsn_Cd
> 2) select top 1 DCN, CO_Cd, Dept from tblTest
> where Dept = '212' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'TRN' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'NDF'
> and Sufx = 'C'
> and check_out <> 'Y'
> In BOL
> "If a SELECT statement that includes TOP also has an ORDER BY clause,
> the rows to be returned are selected from the ordered result set. The
> entire result set is built in the specified order and the top n rows in
> the ordered result set are returned."
> It seems that 2) would run faster than 1). When I run,
> 1) is faster than 2). I use SQL 2000. Any comments?
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Thursday, March 8, 2012

"Select TOP " question

I ran two query: one with order by, one does not.
Note that a clustered index has been build on column
DCN, CO_cd. No index on Sta_Rsn_Cd.
1) select top 1 DCN, CO_Cd, Dept from tblTest
where Dept = '212' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'TRN' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'NDF'
and Sufx = 'C'
and check_out <> 'Y'
order by Sta_Rsn_Cd
2) select top 1 DCN, CO_Cd, Dept from tblTest
where Dept = '212' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'TRN' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'NDF'
and Sufx = 'C'
and check_out <> 'Y'
In BOL
"If a SELECT statement that includes TOP also has an ORDER BY clause,
the rows to be returned are selected from the ordered result set. The
entire result set is built in the specified order and the top n rows in
the ordered result set are returned."
It seems that 2) would run faster than 1). When I run,
1) is faster than 2). I use SQL 2000. Any comments?
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
It's hard to say from this. Can you run the SHOWPLAN for each of these
commands and include that here as well.
Rick Sawtell
"YB" <yb@.dex.com> wrote in message
news:eidd8xPoEHA.2948@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I ran two query: one with order by, one does not.
> Note that a clustered index has been build on column
> DCN, CO_cd. No index on Sta_Rsn_Cd.
> 1) select top 1 DCN, CO_Cd, Dept from tblTest
> where Dept = '212' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'TRN' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'NDF'
> and Sufx = 'C'
> and check_out <> 'Y'
> order by Sta_Rsn_Cd
> 2) select top 1 DCN, CO_Cd, Dept from tblTest
> where Dept = '212' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'TRN' and Sta_Rsn_Cd <> 'NDF'
> and Sufx = 'C'
> and check_out <> 'Y'
> In BOL
> "If a SELECT statement that includes TOP also has an ORDER BY clause,
> the rows to be returned are selected from the ordered result set. The
> entire result set is built in the specified order and the top n rows in
> the ordered result set are returned."
> It seems that 2) would run faster than 1). When I run,
> 1) is faster than 2). I use SQL 2000. Any comments?
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

Thursday, February 23, 2012

"Invalid Cursor Error"

. But a
few nightly hours searching can drive you mad every now and then; :-D

> 2) What's your code? Do you use ADO or something like that?
>
Just plain simple Enterprise Manager. I tried to work around it with the web
data administrator but that didn't work either.

> I can tell you that *no* alter table /alter column statement supports that
> natively..
> --does *not* work
> ALTER TABLE table1 ALTER COLUMN nid ADD IDENTITY (1, 1)
> Therefore, I think that the 'cursor error' is raised because some
> object/component that you use, did not test this possibility and now it
bugs
> out...
>
Yep that's what I figured out as well. Enterprise Manager generates some
extra statements to support that I've read somewhere.

> 3) Having the latest ODBC / oledb drivers might help.
> Mine is 3.525.1022.0 (odbc32.dll) 2000.85.1022.0(sqloledb.dll) and so
on...
>
I will check that...

> 4)
> this below works...
>
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
> SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
> SET ARITHABORT ON
> SET NUMERIC_ROUNDABORT OFF
> SET CONCAT_NULL_YIELDS_NULL ON
> SET ANSI_NULLS ON
> SET ANSI_PADDING ON
> SET ANSI_WARNINGS ON
> COMMIT
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> CREATE TABLE dbo.Tmp_Table1
> (
> nID int NOT NULL IDENTITY (1, 1),
> adfs char(10) NULL
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> SET IDENTITY_INSERT dbo.Tmp_Table1 ON
> GO
> IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM dbo.Table1)
> EXEC('INSERT INTO dbo.Tmp_Table1 (nID, adfs)
> SELECT nID, adfs FROM dbo.Table1 TABLOCKX')
> GO
> SET IDENTITY_INSERT dbo.Tmp_Table1 OFF
> GO
> DROP TABLE dbo.Table1
> GO
> EXECUTE sp_rename N'dbo.Tmp_Table1', N'Table1', 'OBJECT'
> GO
> ALTER TABLE dbo.Table1 ADD CONSTRAINT
> PK_Table1 PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
> (
> nID
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> COMMIT
>
I will try that as well. It's always usefull to have such workarounds.
Tnx a lot 4 your time.
yours sincerly
Michael

"Invalid Cursor Error"

Sunday, February 19, 2012

"Invalid Cursor Error"

Dear,
Does anyone have a clue when Microsoft is going to release it's next service
pack for SQL-Server? I'm running build 859 at this moment and I can't alter
any table anymore in my enterprise manager. ALTER TABLE is fine as long as
you don't wish to change a column into an identity column. I do not intend
to spend money on this by calling the support line, since I know what the
problem is and spending money on this seems absurd. There is no kb article
for that error as well(although it's is fixed in higher builds than 859) so
there is a big chance they don't want to give me a higher build because of
that (at least that is what appears from other articles). Anyone who can
help me? My development time reduces drastically and reinstalling isn't an
option!
yours sincerly
Michael"Michael Gaillez" <michael.gaillez@.howest.be> wrote in message
news:%23Xuj6WnNEHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Dear,
> Does anyone have a clue when Microsoft is going to release it's next
service
> pack for SQL-Server? I'm running build 859 at this moment and I can't
alter
> any table anymore in my enterprise manager. ALTER TABLE is fine as long as
> you don't wish to change a column into an identity column. I do not intend
> to spend money on this by calling the support line, since I know what the
> problem is and spending money on this seems absurd. There is no kb article
1) If they can't fix that problem, you dont have to spend money, they'll pay
that back.
2) What's your code? Do you use ADO or something like that?
I can tell you that *no* alter table /alter column statement supports that
natively..
--does *not* work
ALTER TABLE table1 ALTER COLUMN nid ADD IDENTITY (1, 1)
Therefore, I think that the 'cursor error' is raised because some
object/component that you use, did not test this possibility and now it bugs
out...
3) Having the latest ODBC / oledb drivers might help.
Mine is 3.525.1022.0 (odbc32.dll) 2000.85.1022.0(sqloledb.dll) and so on...
4)
this below works...
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
SET ARITHABORT ON
SET NUMERIC_ROUNDABORT OFF
SET CONCAT_NULL_YIELDS_NULL ON
SET ANSI_NULLS ON
SET ANSI_PADDING ON
SET ANSI_WARNINGS ON
COMMIT
BEGIN TRANSACTION
CREATE TABLE dbo.Tmp_Table1
(
nID int NOT NULL IDENTITY (1, 1),
adfs char(10) NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
SET IDENTITY_INSERT dbo.Tmp_Table1 ON
GO
IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM dbo.Table1)
EXEC('INSERT INTO dbo.Tmp_Table1 (nID, adfs)
SELECT nID, adfs FROM dbo.Table1 TABLOCKX')
GO
SET IDENTITY_INSERT dbo.Tmp_Table1 OFF
GO
DROP TABLE dbo.Table1
GO
EXECUTE sp_rename N'dbo.Tmp_Table1', N'Table1', 'OBJECT'
GO
ALTER TABLE dbo.Table1 ADD CONSTRAINT
PK_Table1 PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
nID
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
COMMIT
> for that error as well(although it's is fixed in higher builds than 859)
so
> there is a big chance they don't want to give me a higher build because of
> that (at least that is what appears from other articles). Anyone who can
> help me? My development time reduces drastically and reinstalling isn't an
> option!
> yours sincerly
> Michael
>|||"Egbert Nierop (MVP for IIS)" <egbert_nierop@.nospam.invalid> wrote in
message news:#BisWlsNEHA.1276@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> "Michael Gaillez" <michael.gaillez@.howest.be> wrote in message
> news:%23Xuj6WnNEHA.1348@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Dear,
> >
> > Does anyone have a clue when Microsoft is going to release it's next
> service
> > pack for SQL-Server? I'm running build 859 at this moment and I can't
> alter
> > any table anymore in my enterprise manager. ALTER TABLE is fine as long
as
> > you don't wish to change a column into an identity column. I do not
intend
> > to spend money on this by calling the support line, since I know what
the
> > problem is and spending money on this seems absurd. There is no kb
article
> 1) If they can't fix that problem, you dont have to spend money, they'll
pay
> that back.
>
Well they were nice and are going to send me the patch. I was a bit
frustrated but if they send me the fix, my problems should be over :). But a
few nightly hours searching can drive you mad every now and then; :-D
> 2) What's your code? Do you use ADO or something like that?
>
Just plain simple Enterprise Manager. I tried to work around it with the web
data administrator but that didn't work either.
> I can tell you that *no* alter table /alter column statement supports that
> natively..
> --does *not* work
> ALTER TABLE table1 ALTER COLUMN nid ADD IDENTITY (1, 1)
> Therefore, I think that the 'cursor error' is raised because some
> object/component that you use, did not test this possibility and now it
bugs
> out...
>
Yep that's what I figured out as well. Enterprise Manager generates some
extra statements to support that I've read somewhere.
> 3) Having the latest ODBC / oledb drivers might help.
> Mine is 3.525.1022.0 (odbc32.dll) 2000.85.1022.0(sqloledb.dll) and so
on...
>
I will check that...
> 4)
> this below works...
>
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
> SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
> SET ARITHABORT ON
> SET NUMERIC_ROUNDABORT OFF
> SET CONCAT_NULL_YIELDS_NULL ON
> SET ANSI_NULLS ON
> SET ANSI_PADDING ON
> SET ANSI_WARNINGS ON
> COMMIT
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> CREATE TABLE dbo.Tmp_Table1
> (
> nID int NOT NULL IDENTITY (1, 1),
> adfs char(10) NULL
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> SET IDENTITY_INSERT dbo.Tmp_Table1 ON
> GO
> IF EXISTS(SELECT * FROM dbo.Table1)
> EXEC('INSERT INTO dbo.Tmp_Table1 (nID, adfs)
> SELECT nID, adfs FROM dbo.Table1 TABLOCKX')
> GO
> SET IDENTITY_INSERT dbo.Tmp_Table1 OFF
> GO
> DROP TABLE dbo.Table1
> GO
> EXECUTE sp_rename N'dbo.Tmp_Table1', N'Table1', 'OBJECT'
> GO
> ALTER TABLE dbo.Table1 ADD CONSTRAINT
> PK_Table1 PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
> (
> nID
> ) ON [PRIMARY]
> GO
> COMMIT
>
I will try that as well. It's always usefull to have such workarounds.
Tnx a lot 4 your time.
yours sincerly
Michael

Monday, February 13, 2012

"DISTINCT" problem...

I build an application that should show a on line magazin.
the articles in the magazin have name' article ID and "type"- "humor", "news" a ns so...
all of the article stored in a table and i use "SELECT DISTINCT type" to get the list of the types...
but' i want this types to be sorted, and if i use "ORDER BY theorder" i get an error massage- "you can't use DISTINCT with out including the column name".
so i changed to:
"SELECT DISTINCT type, theorder FROM..."
but then i get each type more then one' since the theorder column has diferent values...
how can i get the types, only one time each, and sort them?

Can you post your exact query? It should look something like this...
select distinct type from myTable order by theorder
Order by values do not have to appear in a select list, that only applies to the group by clause.

|||this is my query:cmd.CommandText = "SELECT DISTINCT type FROM tbl_paper WHERE alonNUM='" & alonNUM & "' ORDER BY theorder"and this the error massage and i copyed it from the screen:ORDER BY items must appear in the select list if SELECT DISTINCT is specified.|||This is a flaw with your data. You are saying you want to order by a field that is not distinct to each of your "types". How does the system know which one of the "theorder" fields to use for each of the "type" fields? I think you need to examine the data or how you want to display this field.
Anyhow, without getting multiple "types" back you cant do this type of query with the order by clause based on your data.

Nick|||This will happen even if your Data in the table is 100% correct. When? If you have 1:Many mapping, then you can't avoid having duplicate rows with join.
But in your case, it seems single table. So you table is not designed properly. If you add addition column to the select list then the combined value for all select columns will
be tried for distinctness. In this case {type, theorder} pair is distinct even though you might see multiple copies of the same type.|||Instead of DISTINCT, try a GROUP BY, and use a MAX() or a MIN() on the other column, like this:

SELECT
type,
MAX(theorder)
FROM
tbl_paper
WHERE
alonNUM='something'
GROUP BY
type
ORDER BY
2

This will give you one row per type, ordered by the maximum theorder value found for each type.

Friday, January 27, 2012

using Inner join when the field in my data table has the Null default value:

I have a datatable : Data_Table and a look up table: Lk_table. Myfield that Iuse in Inner Join is defined in both thedata and look table.

So I build my query like this:

SELECT * FROM dbo. Data_Table INNER JOIN

dbo. Lk_table ON dbo.Data_Table.MyField = dbo.Lk_table.Myfield

The pb, sometimes Ihave myfield still with its default null value in the datatable: Data_Table.So, I end up getting 0 record when I execute the query shown above.

How do I turn that around so that even if myfield in Data_Tableis Null, I still get the records from Data_Table. (I don t want a set ofrecords including all possible values from the look up table: Lk_Table)

Try to use LEFT join instead of inner join:

SELECT * FROM dbo. Data_Table LEFT JOIN dbo. Lk_table
ON dbo.Data_Table.MyField = dbo.Lk_table.Myfield

|||

Try to use LEFT join instead of inner join:

SELECT * FROM dbo. Data_Table LEFT JOIN dbo. Lk_table
ON dbo.Data_Table.MyField = dbo.Lk_table.Myfield

Or use such query:

SELECT * FROM dbo. Data_Table ,dbo. Lk_table
WHERE dbo.Data_Table.MyField = dbo.Lk_table.Myfield

OR dbo.Data_Table.MyField is null

Sunday, March 11, 2012

"Select TOP " question

Thursday, March 8, 2012

"Select TOP " question

Thursday, February 23, 2012

"Invalid Cursor Error"

"Invalid Cursor Error"

Sunday, February 19, 2012

"Invalid Cursor Error"

Monday, February 13, 2012

"DISTINCT" problem...

Friday, January 27, 2012

using Inner join when the field in my data table has the Null default value:

sql error

Blog Archive

About Me