Let's say I have 'myStoredProcedure' that takes in an Id as a parameter, and returns a table of information.
Is it possible to write a SQL statement similar to this?
SELECT
MyColumn
FROM
Table-ify('myStoredProcedure ' + #MyId) AS [MyTable]
I get the feeling that it's not, but it would be very beneficial in a scenario I have with legacy code & linked server tables
Thanks!
You can use a table value function in this way.
Here is a few tricks...
No it is not - at least not in any official or documented way - unless you change your stored procedure to a TVF.
But however there are ways (read) hacks to do it. All of them basically involved a linked server and using OpenQuery - for example seehere. Do however note that it is quite fragile as you need to hardcode the name of the server - so it can be problematic if you have multiple sql server instances with different name.
Here is a pretty good summary of the ways of sharing data between stored procedures http://www.sommarskog.se/share_data.html.
Basically it depends what you want to do. The most common ways are creating the temporary table prior to calling the stored procedure and having it fill it, or having one permanent table that the stored procedure dumps the data into which also contains the process id.
Table Valued functions have been mentioned, but there are a number of restrictions when you create a function as opposed to a stored procedure, so they may or may not be right for you. The link provides a good guide to what is available.
SQL Server 2005 and SQL Server 2008 change the options a bit. SQL Server 2005+ make working with XML much easier. So XML can be passed as an output variable and pretty easily "shredded" into a table using the XML functions nodes and value. I believe SQL 2008 allows table variables to be passed into stored procedures (although read only). Since you cited SQL 2000 the 2005+ enhancements don't apply to you, but I mentioned them for completeness.
Most likely you'll go with a table valued function, or creating the temporary table prior to calling the stored procedure and then having it populate that.
While working on the project, I used the following to insert the results of xp_readerrorlog (afaik, returns a table) into a temporary table created ahead of time.
INSERT INTO [tempdb].[dbo].[ErrorLogsTMP]
EXEC master.dbo.xp_readerrorlog
From the temporary table, select the columns you want.
Related
I didn't come across in any such scenario where we have to use stored procedure instead of Calculation View, but I read many sites where it is mentioned. One can use Stored Procedure in complex scenarios, but I am confused which scenarios are meant.
Can anyone suggest me such scenarios where we have to use Stored Procedure instead of Graphical Calculation View?
Hierarchies
If you are looking for the parents (or children) of an object for undetermined depth, you have to do many SELECTs in a loop.
If you use views, the loop has to be on ABAP side, causing many roundtrips between the application server and the DB.
Stored procedures are very beneficial in this case, as they can run the loops on HANA side. You only have to more the end result through the network.
Sidenote: you should be using CDS views instead of Calculation views, as they offer many benefits.
First of all they are used by SAP internally in S/4 products, making CDS the way of the present and future.
Also they are ABAP objects, transported together with the referencing ABAP coding.
In a stored procedure, or in an AMDP you can use a script code block which can contain more than a single SELECT statement. You can store temp tables storing outcomes of previous SELECT commands in that AMDP and use later for example.
AMDP enables developers to keep the business logic in it.
But if you are using a view, you are generally limited with allowed functions with a single SELECT statement
For example, I could not use TRIM function within a CDS view but can use in AMDP
There is a Java Swing application which uses an Informix database. I have user rights granted for the Swing application (i.e. no source code), and read only access to a mirror of the database.
Sometimes I need to find a database column, which is backing a GUI element (TextBox, TableField, Label...). What would be best approach to find out which database column and table is holding the data shown e.g. in a TextBox?
My general approach is to capture the state of the database. Commit a change using the GUI and then capture the state of the database again. Then I need to examine the difference. I've already tried:
Use the nrows field of systables: Didn't work, because the number in nrows does not seem to be a realtime representation of the row count.
Create a script with SELECT COUNT(*) ... for all tables: didn't work because too many tables (> 5000). Also tried to optimize by removing empty tables, but there are still too many left.
Is there a simple solution that I'm missing?
Please look at the Change Data Capture API and check if this suits your needs
There probably isn't a simple solution.
You probably need to build yourself a map of the database, or a data dictionary for it. It sounds as though you can eliminate many of the tables from consideration since they're empty — at least for a preliminary pass. If you're dealing with information in a text box, the chances are it is some sort of character data; you can analyze which (non-empty) tables which contain longer character strings, and they'd be the primary targets of your searches. If the schema is badly designed with lots of VARCHAR(255) columns even though the columns normally only hold short strings, life is more difficult. Over time, you can begin to classify tables and columns so that you end up knowing where to look for parts of the application.
One problem to beware of: the tabid in informix.systables isn't necessarily as stable as you'd like. Your data dictionary needs to record its own dd_tabid for the table it describes, and can store the last known tabid from informix.systables, but it needs to be ready to find a new tabid value on occasion. You should probably only mark data in your dictionary for logical deletion.
To some extent, this assumes you can create a database in which to record this information. If you can't create an Informix database, you may have to use something else (MySQL, or SQLite, perhaps) to store the data dictionary. Alternatively, go to your DBA team and ask them for the information. Unless you're trying something self-evidently untoward, they're likely to help (but politics can get in the way — I've no idea how collegial your teams are).
Suppose I have an application which fetches a custom XML packet from the server which represents a dataset. Then, suppose I wish to execute a SQL statement on that data via a dataset. What can I use to do this? I don't need to know the code necessarily, but just what to use to make this possible and a general explanation of how.
For example, I may fetch a list of customers in XML format from the server. Then, I can use any third-party parser to dump that XML data into some client dataset. Then, execute a query on that dataset, for example select * from customers where ZipCode = '12345' without fetching this data from the server again.
XML is not the only limitation, that's just an example. I might want to do the same to some application settings loaded from an INI file. Either way, the concept is that the original source of the data is unknown.
Whether the dataset stores its temporary data in the memory or on the disk doesn't matter, but it would be excellent if it could keep it in the disk.
TXQuery (http://code.google.com/p/txquery/) is a component that provides a local SQL engine for executing SQL queries against one or more TDataSets. The only issues I have had with it is updating data via a TDBGrid of a query joining multiple tables (TDataSets) - specifically which table is being updated.
AnyDac v6 (now FireDac) also has a local SQL engine. http://www.da-soft.com/anydac/docu/frames.html?frmname=topic&frmfile=Local_SQL.html
Edit: For the example SQL in your question, because it only involves a single table, you do this with just a Filter on the datatset. For example
ADataSet.Filtered := False;
ADataSet.Filter := 'ZipCode=' + QuotedStr('12345');
ADataSet.Filtered := True;
Such a feature can be done using a local database. You just insert the TDataSet result into a local in-memory (or file-based) stand-alone database, then you can use regular SQL queries on it, including JOIN.
You can for instance use SQLite3, or the free edition of NexusDB.
NexusDB embedded has the benefit of being a native Delphi database, so stick to the DB.pas TDataSet paradigm.
Another option is to use the so-called Virtual Table mechanism of SQLite3, which allows to expose any data (even from TDataSet, XML, JSON or in-memory objects) to the SQLite3 engine, just as regular tables. Then you can run SQL statements on those "virtual" tables, including JOINs. With this approach, you do not require to INSERT the data into regular tables, but the data remain in their original form. Of course, you will miss some performance features like indexes, which should be handled on the virtual table provider side. We use this feature as the database core of our mORMot ORM/SOA framework, and this is pretty powerful.
The general process that you want to perform is complicated by the difference in data representation. SQL data is stored in tables made up of distinguishable records. XML is a structured representation of data, but in tree form rather than table/row form.
Each of these data forms may be qualified by a schema that provides a context for the data.
You have two general paths that you can follow:
Take the XML, and based on the schema insert it into a set of interlinked tables, then perform the SQL query. - if you have the schema, you can use code generators to make a parser, and then based ont the parse tree, you can insert into a local db with tables constructed on the fly. You can set up my SQL pretty easily from https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/installing.html and then in your version of delphi make a connection to the database, first fill it in, then query. This would satisfy your desire to have the data stored on the disk. unless you purge the tables when done, the data are still available in the local machine db.
This seems like more work than:
Use Xpath or Xquery and work directly on the XML. For this, a package like saxon in your favorite environment, or expat in python would work nicely.
Let me know if either of these paths seems as if it may be fruitful.
I'm using EF 4.1 (Code First). I need to add/update products in a database based on data from an Excel file. Discussing here, one way to achieve this is to use dbContext.Products.ToList() to force loading all products from the database then use db.Products.Local.FirstOrDefault(...) to check if product from Excel exists in database and proceed accordingly with an insert or add. This is only one round-trip.
Now, my problem is there are two many products in the database so it's not possible to load all products in memory. What's the way to achieve this without multiplying round-trips to the database. My understanding is that if I just do a search with db.Products.FirstOrDefault(...) for each excel product to process, this will perform a round-trip each time even if I issue the statement for the exact same product several times ! What's the purpose of the EF caching objects and returning the cached value if it goes to the database anyway !
There is actually no way to make this better. EF is not a good solution for this kind of tasks. You must know if product already exists in database to use correct operation so you always need to do additional query - you can group multiple products to single query using .Contains (like SQL IN) but that will solve only check problem. The worse problem is that each INSERT or UPDATE is executed in separate roundtrip as well and there is no way to solve this because EF doesn't support command batching.
Create stored procedure and pass information about product to that stored procedure. The stored procedure will perform insert or update based on the existence of the record in the database.
You can even use some more advanced features like table valued parameters to pass multiple records from excel into procedure with single call or import Excel to temporary table (for example with SSIS) and process them all directly on SQL server. As last you can use bulk insert to get all records to special import table and again process them with single stored procedures call.
I am using Delphi2010 and I'm trying to do an insert into multiple tables. I don't know the best way to do this. What I'm wondering is if there is a possible way to do one insert using one of Delphi's tools like the TQuery or TClientDataSet or would it be better to use code (we use Pascal language). An array maybe? I haven't been using Delphi that long but I have inserted and updated info into one table before, not multiple. Also, these tables use pretty much the same field names.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance!!
Call a stored procedure to update your tables simultaneously, with a transaction wrapper. Or re-design your database to eliminate duplicate/redundant data, so that you would never need to update several tables at once.
Note that this answer is perfectly valid, given the information provided in the question...
(Note: it's late, couldn't sleep, bored. This is what you get, given the quality of the information in the question!)
Another possible solution could be to make a updateable view on the database, and update the view from Delphi.
Making a updateable view just moves the work of updating 2 tables to the SQL instead of in Delphi.
This moves the business logic to the sql instead of in the Delphi. It propobly also generates less network trafic.
As Chris writes: use transactions, when 2 or more updates/inserts is dependent of each other.
Which data access componentes do you use ?
Which restrictions do you have ?
do you want to insert the same values into both tables ?
why not easy like:
for i = low(tables) to high(tables) do
begin
query.sql.text := 'insert into '+tables[i]+' (fields) values('+ ...)';
query.execsql;
end;