Suppose I have a user table that creates strong relationships (Enforce Foreign Key Constraint) with many additional tables. Such orders table ..
If we try to delete a user with some orders then SqlException will arise.. How can I catch this exception and treat it properly?
Is this strategy at all?
1) first try the delete action if an exception Occur handel it?
2) Or maybe before the delete action using code adapted to ensure that offspring records throughout the database and alert according to .. This piece of work ...
So how to do it?
--Edit:
The goal is not to delete the records from the db! the goal is to inform the user that this record has referencing records. do i need to let sql to execute the delete command and try to catch SqlException? And if so, how to detect that is REFERENCE constraint SqlException?
Or - should I need to write some code that will detect if there are referencing records before the delete command. The last approach give me more but its a lot of pain to implement this kind of verification to each entity..
Thanks
Do you even really want to actually delete User records? Instead I'd suggest having a "deleted" flag in your database, so when you "delete" a user through the UI, all it does is update that record to set the flag to 1. After all, you wouldn't want to delete users that had orders etc.
Then, you just need to support this flag in the appropriate areas (i.e. don't show "deleted" users in the UI).
Edit:
"...but just for the concept, assume that i do want delete the user how do i do that?"
You'd need to delete the records from the other tables that reference that user first, before deleting the user record (i.e. delete the referencing records first then delete the referenced records). But to me that doesn't make sense as you would be deleting e.g. order data.
Edit 2:
"And if so, how to detect that is REFERENCE constraint SqlException?"
To detect this specific error, you can just check the SqlException.Number - I think for this error, you need to check for 547 (this is the error number on SQL 2005). Alternatively, if using SQL 2005 and above, you could handle this error entirely within SQL using the TRY...CATCH support:
BEGIN TRY
DELETE FROM User WHERE UserId = #MyUserId
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
IF (ERROR_NUMBER() = 547)
BEGIN
-- Foreign key constraint violation. Handle as you wish
END
END CATCH
However, I'd personally perform a pre-check like you suggested though, to save the exception. It's easily done using an EXISTS check like this:
IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT * FROM [Orders] WHERE UserId=#YourUserId)
BEGIN
-- User is not referenced
END
If there are more tables that reference a User, then you'd need to also include those in the check.
Related
when looking in symfony2 at the DB Queries I have 18 queries. (I think it is a lot) I am only updating one records.
Anyway. I also saw that some of thoses queries are named 'COMMIT' and 'START TRANSACTION'. Which is not very clear what it does. Any one could explain it to me? thanks.
here an exemple of what I have with Symfony2
Jovan's link is a better read, but in layman's terms, all queries between START TRANSACION and COMMIT are treated as a whole; meaning, if one of those queries fails then they all 'rollback' and fail. START TRANSACTION simply signifies the start of the grouping, and COMMIT finishes it. It's used when you logically need all of the queries to happen.
Say for instance you want to insert a new employee, and they have to have some permissions set. You need to insert into a user table and then a user_roles table.
Now, say you don't use the above, and try running the following two inserts:
INSERT INTO user (...);
INSERT INTO user_roles (...);
What if the first query works, but the second query doesn't? You'll have a 'dangling` user without any permissions, and they'll be sitting in database limbo.
If you instead use a transaction as shown below, you can make sure that either all the queries work, or none of them work.
START TRANSACTION;
INSERT INTO user (...);
INSERT INTO user_roles (...);
COMMIT;
Because database transactions are very serious topic, instead of me trying to explain it here very briefly, I think it would be more beneficial to you to read this wiki article:
Wikipedia: Database Transactions
I have an asp.net Gridview that handles insert operations into a SQL database. Records are only permitted to be inserted if they meet a uniqueness criteria, and this constraint is being enforced using unique indexes in SQL server. If the user attempts to insert a record that already exists, an error message is displayed.
I'm wondering what the best practice is for implementing this.
Check if the record exists SQL side, using IF EXISTS, and locking hints (updlock, holdlock, etc). Return an error code to ASP.net depending on whether the record was inserted
Perform the INSERT operation inside a SQL server try/catch block, relying on the unique index to prevent the insert from occurring if the record exists. Return an error code depending on whether an exception was thrown.
Perform the INSERT operation SQL side, but without SQL try/catch. Handle the PK violation exception inside ASP.net instead.
Normally I'd consider using exceptions to handle valid operations to be bad practice - i.e. software should not throw exceptions unless something is broken. However if the unique index on the table in SQL is going to implement the desired constraint, why bother performing a manual check for existence of the record?
I would make a separate call to check if the record already exists. If yes, show message to user, if no make insert. The reason I would do it this way is because I prefer keeping all the business logic in the application.
If you insist in making just one stored proc call:
I would check before I insert. I would also add an output parameter to the stored proc that returns a message if the insert was unsuccessful. In my application if I see a message in the output parameter, I will display that to the user.
I'm unable to retrieve the latest inserted id from my SQL Server 2000 db using a typed dataset in asp.NET
I have created a tableadapter and I ticked the "Refresh datatable" and "Generate Insert, Update and Delete statements". This auto-generates the Fill and GetData methods, and the Insert, Update, Select and Delete statements.
I have tried every possible solution in this thread
http://forums.asp.net/t/990365.aspx
but I'm still unsuccesfull, it always returns 1(=number of affected rows).
I do not want to create a seperate insert method as the auto-generated insertCommand perfectly suits my needs.
As suggested in the thread above, I have tried to update the InsertCommand SQL syntax to add SELECT SCOPY_IDENTITY() or something similar, I have tried to add a parameter of type ReturnValue, but all I get is the number of affected rows.
Does anyone has a different take on this?
Thanks in advance!
Stijn
I decided to give up, I can't afford to waste any more time on this.
I use the Insert statement after which I do a select MAX(id) query to hget the insert ID
If anyone should have a solution, I'll be glad to read it here
Thanks
Stijn
I successfully found a way to get the incremental id after insert using my table adapter.
My approach is a little different, I'm using a Store procedure to make the insert, so my insert command has all the values but the ID, I made the sp return the ID just calling:
SET #ID=SCOPE_IDENTITY()
and then
COMMIT TRAN
and last line will be
RETURN #ID
Then I searched my table adapter parameters for InsertCommand and set the #RETURNVALUE to the column of the incremental ID of the table, so when it's executed automatically put the return value on the id field.
Hope this help
You need to tell your table's table-adapter to refresh the
data-table after update/insert operation.
This is how you can do that.
Open the properties of TableAdapter -> Default Select Query -> Advnaced options. and Check the option of Refresh the data table. Save the adapter now. Now when you call update on table-adapter, the data-table will be updated [refreshed] after the update/insert operation and will reflect the latest values from database table. if the primary-key or any coloumn is set to auto-increment, the data-table will have those latest value post recent update.
Now you can Call the update as TableAdapterObj.Update(ds.dataTable);
Read latest values from the DataTable(ds.dataTable) coloumns and assign respective values into the child table before update/insert. This will work exactly the way you want.
alt text http://ruchitsurati.net/files/tds1.png
I would like to find out if it is possible to find out which package or procedure in a package is updating a table?
Due to a certain project being handed over (the person who handed over the project has since left) without proper documentation, data that we know we have updated always go back to some strange source point.
We are guessing that this could be a database job or scheduler that is running the update command without our knowledge. I am hoping that there is a way to find out where the source code is calling from that is updating the table and inserting the source as a trigger on that table that we are monitoring.
Any ideas?
Thanks.
UPDATE: I poked around and found out
how to trace a statement back to its
owning PL/SQL object.
In combination with what Tony mentioned, you can create a logging table and a trigger that looks like this:
CREATE TABLE statement_tracker
( SID NUMBER
, serial# NUMBER
, date_run DATE
, program VARCHAR2(48) null
, module VARCHAR2(48) null
, machine VARCHAR2(64) null
, osuser VARCHAR2(30) null
, sql_text CLOB null
, program_id number
);
CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER smb_t_t
AFTER UPDATE
ON smb_test
BEGIN
INSERT
INTO statement_tracker
SELECT ss.SID
, ss.serial#
, sysdate
, ss.program
, ss.module
, ss.machine
, ss.osuser
, sq.sql_fulltext
, sq.program_id
FROM v$session ss
, v$sql sq
WHERE ss.sql_address = sq.address
AND ss.SID = USERENV('sid');
END;
/
In order for the trigger above to compile, you'll need to grant the owner of the trigger these permissions, when logged in as the SYS user:
grant select on V_$SESSION to <user>;
grant select on V_$SQL to <user>;
You will likely want to protect the insert statement in the trigger with some condition that only makes it log when the the change you're interested in is occurring - on my test server this statement runs rather slowly (1 second), so I wouldn't want to be logging all these updates. Of course, in that case, you'd need to change the trigger to be a row-level one so that you could inspect the :new or :old values. If you are really concerned about the overhead of the select, you can change it to not join against v$sql, and instead just save the SQL_ADDRESS column, then schedule a job with DBMS_JOB to go off and update the sql_text column with a second update statement, thereby offloading the update into another session and not blocking your original update.
Unfortunately, this will only tell you half the story. The statement you're going to see logged is going to be the most proximal statement - in this case, an update - even if the original statement executed by the process that initiated it is a stored procedure. This is where the program_id column comes in. If the update statement is part of a procedure or trigger, program_id will point to the object_id of the code in question - you can resolve it thusly:
SELECT * FROM all_objects where object_id = <program_id>;
In the case when the update statement was executed directly from the client, I don't know what program_id represents, but you wouldn't need it - you'd have the name of the executable in the "program" column of statement_tracker. If the update was executed from an anonymous PL/SQL block, I'm not how to track it back - you'll need to experiment further.
It may be, though, that the osuser/machine/program/module information may be enough to get you pointed in the right direction.
If it is a scheduled database job then you can find out what scheduled database jobs exist and look into what they do. Other things you can do are:
look at the dependencies views e.g. ALL_DEPENDENCIES to see what packages/triggers etc. use that table. Depending on the size of your system that may return a lot of objects to trawl through.
Search all the database source code for references to the table like this:
select distinct type, name
from all_source
where lower(text) like lower('%mytable%');
Again that may return a lot of objects, and of course there will be some "false positives" where the search string appears but isn't actually a reference to that table. You could even try something more specific like:
select distinct type, name
from all_source
where lower(text) like lower('%insert into mytable%');
but of course that would miss cases where the command was formatted differently.
Additionally, could there be SQL scripts being run through "cron" jobs on the server?
Just write an "after update" trigger and, in this trigger, log the results of "DBMS_UTILITY.FORMAT_CALL_STACK" in a dedicated table.
The purpose of this function is exactly to give you the complete call stack of al the stored procedures and triggers that have been fired to reach your code.
I am writing from the mobile app, so i can't give you more detailed examples, but if you google for it you'll find many of them.
A quick and dirty option if you're working locally, and are only interested in the first thing that's altering the data, is to throw an error in the trigger instead of logging. That way, you get the usual stack trace and it's a lot less typing and you don't need to create a new table:
AFTER UPDATE ON table_of_interest
BEGIN
RAISE_APPLICATION_ERROR(-20001, 'something changed it');
END;
/
I have an error occuring frequently from our community server installation whenever the googlesitemap.ashx is traversed on a specific sectionID. I suspect that a username has been amended but the posts havn't recached to reflect this.
Is there a way a can check the data integruity by performing a select statement on the database, alternatively is there a way to force the database to recache?
This error could be thrown by community server if it finds users that aren't in the instance of MemberRoleProfileProvider.
See CommunityServer.Users AddMembershipDataToUser() as an example
UPDATE:
I Solved this problem for my case by noticing that the usernames are stored in two tables - cs_Users and aspnet_Users. Turns out somehow the username was DIFFERENT in each table. Manually updating so the names were the same fixed this problem.
Also, the user would left out of membership in the following line of the stored procedure cs_Membership_GetUsersByName:
INSERT INTO #tbUsers
SELECT UserId
FROM dbo.aspnet_Users ar, #tbNames t
WHERE LOWER(t.Name) = ar.LoweredUserName AND ar.ApplicationId = #ApplicationId
The #tbNames is a table of names comes from cs_Users(?) at some point and therefore the usernames didn't match and user was not inserted in to the result later on.
See also: http://dev.communityserver.com/forums/t/490899.aspx?PageIndex=2
Not so much an answer, but you can find the affected data entries by running the following query...
Select *
FROM cs_Posts
Where UserID Not In (Select UserID
From cs_Users Where UserAccountStatus = 2)