Hi
Just because no rows are updated does not mean it is an error!! @@ERROR will
still be 0
The number of rows changed will be in @@ROWCOUNT. This could have been
ascertained with a simple test such as:
create table Myupdatetable ( id int, val char(1) )
insert into Myupdatetable ( id, val ) values ( 1, 'A' )
insert into Myupdatetable ( id, val ) values ( 2, 'B' )
insert into Myupdatetable ( id, val ) values ( 3, 'C' )
UPDATE Myupdatetable
SET id = id + 2
WHERE ID % 2 = 1
SELECT @@ERROR, @@ROWCOUNT
UPDATE Myupdatetable
SET id = id + 2
WHERE ID = 0
SELECT @@ERROR, @@ROWCOUNT
John
"M Wells" <planetquirky@planetthoughtful.org> wrote in message
news:8j6p60h8a3h3odaj2g6p371dsbt334m1pi@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> Hi All,
>
> Just wondering if you perform an update using a where condition that
> actually returns no rows to be updated, does @@Error contain an error
> message afterwords?
>
> We want to fire an update ona table against records that may or may
> not exists. As a matter of course we test for an @@Error afterwards
> and rollback our transaction and exit our stored proc if an error is
> returned.
>
> However, we don't want this to happen if there are no records in the
> target table that match the where clause of the update statement.
>
> So, if no records are found, does this raise an error?
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Much warmth,
>
> Murrau[/color]
