Hi guys,
in my db i have these three tables
1.Stores 2.Products 3.Parts
their structure is something like :
Stores ----Products ----Parts
Stores
----------------
StoreId, StoreName
Products
----------------
ProductId, StoreId, ProductName
Parts
----------------
PartId, ProductId, PartName
now, in my application i wanna to implement a bulk-copy operation so
user can copy products from one store to another one and when a
product copied to new store;
all of it's parts should copy too.
in fact i need a method to insert a Product item in Products table and
synchronously copy it's parts into Parts table and repeat this steps
until all of proucts copied.
how can i do that without cursors or loops ?
Thanks 19 2819
Khafancoder wrote:
in my db i have these three tables
1.Stores 2.Products 3.Parts
their structure is something like :
Stores ----Products ----Parts
Stores
----------------
StoreId, StoreName
Products
----------------
ProductId, StoreId, ProductName
Parts
----------------
PartId, ProductId, PartName
now, in my application i wanna to implement a bulk-copy operation so
user can copy products from one store to another one and when a
product copied to new store;
all of it's parts should copy too.
in fact i need a method to insert a Product item in Products table and
synchronously copy it's parts into Parts table and repeat this steps
until all of proucts copied.
how can i do that without cursors or loops ?
Why do you need to do that at all? It seems like you simply need
to do the following:
insert into Products n (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName)
select o.ProductId, @NewStoreId, o.ProductName
from Products o
where o.StoreId = @OldStoreId
So what about parts records ? they need to copied too !
On May 24, 7:10 pm, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.comwrote:
Khafancoder wrote:
in my db i have these three tables
1.Stores 2.Products 3.Parts
their structure is something like :
Stores ----Products ----Parts
Stores
----------------
StoreId, StoreName
Products
----------------
ProductId, StoreId, ProductName
Parts
----------------
PartId, ProductId, PartName
now, in my application i wanna to implement a bulk-copy operation so
user can copy products from one store to another one and when a
product copied to new store;
all of it's parts should copy too.
in fact i need a method to insert a Product item in Products table and
synchronously copy it's parts into Parts table and repeat this steps
until all of proucts copied.
how can i do that without cursors or loops ?
Why do you need to do that at all? It seems like you simply need
to do the following:
insert into Products n (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName)
select o.ProductId, @NewStoreId, o.ProductName
from Products o
where o.StoreId = @OldStoreId- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ed Murphy (em*******@socal.rr.com) writes:
Why do you need to do that at all? It seems like you simply need
to do the following:
insert into Products n (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName)
select o.ProductId, @NewStoreId, o.ProductName
from Products o
where o.StoreId = @OldStoreId
I suspect that Khafancoder's problem may be that ProductId is a
unique key and not a key together with StoreID. The latter may or
may not be a better design depending on the business requirements.
I guess Khafancode will tell us it is not. I hope then he also
gives us more information about his tables: which are the keys,
if there are any IDENTITY column. And also which version of SQL Server
he is using.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx
Thanx,
here is the db schema : http://i12.tinypic.com/4v5qfbb.gif
(PrimaryKey fields are identity too)
(SQL2005)
On May 25, 12:34 am, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.sewrote:
Ed Murphy (emurph...@socal.rr.com) writes:
Why do you need to do that at all? It seems like you simply need
to do the following:
insert into Products n (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName)
select o.ProductId, @NewStoreId, o.ProductName
from Products o
where o.StoreId = @OldStoreId
I suspect that Khafancoder's problem may be that ProductId is a
unique key and not a key together with StoreID. The latter may or
may not be a better design depending on the business requirements.
I guess Khafancode will tell us it is not. I hope then he also
gives us more information about his tables: which are the keys,
if there are any IDENTITY column. And also which version of SQL Server
he is using.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Khafancoder (kh*********@gmail.com) writes:
Thanx,
here is the db schema : http://i12.tinypic.com/4v5qfbb.gif
(PrimaryKey fields are identity too)
(SQL2005)
Permit me to remark that the designe does not look good to me. I don't
see why you would copy products and parts from one store to another,
and give them new ids. If you have a product "Widgets", would it not
be the same product in each store?
Had you not used the IDENTITY property, it would have been an easy thing:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SELECT @newstoreid = colaesce(MAX(storeid), 0) + 1
FROM Stores WITH (UPDLOCK)
INSERT Stores (StoredId, StoreName)
VALUES(@newstoreid, @newstorename)
SELECT @maxprodid = MAX(ProductId) FROM Products
SELECT @minoldprodid = MIN(ProductId)
FROM Stores
WHERE StoredId = @oldstoreid
INSERT Products (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName, ProductDescription)
SELECT @maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - ProductId, @newstoreid,
ProductName, ProductDescription
FROM Products
WHERE StoreId = @oldstoreid
SELECT @maxpartid = MAX(PartId) FROM Parts
SELECT @minpartid = MIN(Pa.PartId)
FROM Parts Pa
JOIN Products Pr ON Pa.ProductId = Pr.ProductID
WHERE Pr.StoreID = @oldstoreid
INSERT Parts(PartId, ProductId, Partname)
SELECT @maxpartid + 1 + @minpartid - Pa.PartId,
@maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - Pr.ProductId, Pa.Partname
FROM Parts Pa
JOIN Products Pr ON Pa.ProductId = Pr.ProductID
WHERE Pr.StoreID = @oldstoreid
COMMIT TRANSACTION
Since you use IDENTITY, things become far more cumbersome, and you are
probably best off changing the design so that you are at least not
using identity at all. (I would also prefer a key in Parts that
has ProductId as the first column.)
You could use SET IDENTITY_INSERT and then use the above, but that
requires permissions that a plan user may not have. And it would really
serve to stress that you are using IDENTITY when you shouldn't.
Had PartName and ProductName been known to unique, you could have used
the new OUTPUT clause in SQL 2005, but since they permit NULL, it
does not seem a good idea to use them.
insert into Products n (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName)
select o.ProductId, @NewStoreId, o.ProductName
from Products o
where o.StoreId = @OldStoreId
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx
Thanks,
Permit me to remark that the designe does not look good to me. I don't
see why you would copy products and parts from one store to another,
and give them new ids. If you have a product "Widgets", would it not
be the same product in each store?
because copied products or parts info may needed to be changed by each
owner.
so, i will consider disabling identity insertion.
Thanks for answers
On May 26, 12:57 am, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.sewrote:
Khafancoder (khafanco...@gmail.com) writes:
Thanx,
here is the db schema : http://i12.tinypic.com/4v5qfbb.gif
(PrimaryKey fields are identity too)
(SQL2005)
Permit me to remark that the designe does not look good to me. I don't
see why you would copy products and parts from one store to another,
and give them new ids. If you have a product "Widgets", would it not
be the same product in each store?
Had you not used the IDENTITY property, it would have been an easy thing:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SELECT @newstoreid = colaesce(MAX(storeid), 0) + 1
FROM Stores WITH (UPDLOCK)
INSERT Stores (StoredId, StoreName)
VALUES(@newstoreid, @newstorename)
SELECT @maxprodid = MAX(ProductId) FROM Products
SELECT @minoldprodid = MIN(ProductId)
FROM Stores
WHERE StoredId = @oldstoreid
INSERT Products (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName, ProductDescription)
SELECT @maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - ProductId, @newstoreid,
ProductName, ProductDescription
FROM Products
WHERE StoreId = @oldstoreid
SELECT @maxpartid = MAX(PartId) FROM Parts
SELECT @minpartid = MIN(Pa.PartId)
FROM Parts Pa
JOIN Products Pr ON Pa.ProductId = Pr.ProductID
WHERE Pr.StoreID = @oldstoreid
INSERT Parts(PartId, ProductId, Partname)
SELECT @maxpartid + 1 + @minpartid - Pa.PartId,
@maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - Pr.ProductId, Pa.Partname
FROM Parts Pa
JOIN Products Pr ON Pa.ProductId = Pr.ProductID
WHERE Pr.StoreID = @oldstoreid
COMMIT TRANSACTION
Since you use IDENTITY, things become far more cumbersome, and you are
probably best off changing the design so that you are at least not
using identity at all. (I would also prefer a key in Parts that
has ProductId as the first column.)
You could use SET IDENTITY_INSERT and then use the above, but that
requires permissions that a plan user may not have. And it would really
serve to stress that you are using IDENTITY when you shouldn't.
Had PartName and ProductName been known to unique, you could have used
the new OUTPUT clause in SQL 2005, but since they permit NULL, it
does not seem a good idea to use them.
insert into Products n (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName)
select o.ProductId, @NewStoreId, o.ProductName
from Products o
where o.StoreId = @OldStoreId
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Khafancoder (kh*********@gmail.com) writes:
because copied products or parts info may needed to be changed by each
owner.
so, i will consider disabling identity insertion.
I still don't think this is a good design. Reasonably, there are
inherit properties with a product that does not depend on the store.
I think you need a new table ProductStores:
CREATE TABLE StoreProducts(StoreId bigint NOT NULL,
ProductId bigint NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT pk_ProductStores PRIMARY KEY(StoreId,ProductId))
This table can then be augmented with columns that the store owner can
set as he pleases. If needed, you could also have a StoreProductParts,
with (StoreId, ProductId, PartNo) as key and with (StoreId, ProductId)
as foreign key to StoreProducts and (ProductId, PartNo) as foreign key
to Parts. But it seems funny to me that the same product would have
different parts in different stores.
But of course, I don't know what your real case is like. Maybe you are
only using stores, products and parts for the sake of the example?
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx
But of course, I don't know what your real case is like. Maybe you are
only using stores, products and parts for the sake of the example?
exactly!
so i can't change the design and also i can't disable identity
insertion !!
i'm trying to take an alternative way, something lik this :
--disable check constrains
INSERT INTO Parts
(ProductId, PartName, PartDesc)
SELECT
dbo.CopyProduct(ProductId, @DestinationStoreId) , PartName, PartDesc
FROM Parts WHERE StoreId=@StoreId
--enable check constrains
and CopyProduct functions is supposed to copy requested ProductItem
and return it's Id,
but i can't do that in UDF !!
CREATE FUNCTION CopyProduct(@ProductId bigint, @DestinationStoreId
bigint) RETURNS bigint
AS
BEGIN
INSERT INTO Products (StoreId, ProductName)
SELECT @DestinationStoreId, ProductName FROM Products WHERE
ProductId=@ProductId
RETURN SCOPE_IDENTITY()
END
i think it should solve the problem, but because of sqlserver
restriction i can't do that in a function !!
any idea ?
On May 26, 11:50 am, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.sewrote:
Khafancoder (khafanco...@gmail.com) writes:
because copied products or parts info may needed to be changed by each
owner.
so, i will consider disabling identity insertion.
I still don't think this is a good design. Reasonably, there are
inherit properties with a product that does not depend on the store.
I think you need a new table ProductStores:
CREATE TABLE StoreProducts(StoreId bigint NOT NULL,
ProductId bigint NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT pk_ProductStores PRIMARY KEY(StoreId,ProductId))
This table can then be augmented with columns that the store owner can
set as he pleases. If needed, you could also have a StoreProductParts,
with (StoreId, ProductId, PartNo) as key and with (StoreId, ProductId)
as foreign key to StoreProducts and (ProductId, PartNo) as foreign key
to Parts. But it seems funny to me that the same product would have
different parts in different stores.
But of course, I don't know what your real case is like. Maybe you are
only using stores, products and parts for the sake of the example?
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Khafancoder (kh*********@gmail.com) writes:
>But of course, I don't know what your real case is like. Maybe you are only using stores, products and parts for the sake of the example?
exactly!
so i can't change the design and also i can't disable identity
insertion !!
I presume then that the real tables are more complex than the mock-up
posted.
There is one final question, I will have to ask: in the real Products
table are there any columns beside the IDENTITY column that are unique
within a store? If the answer is yes, then my answer is yes, you
can do it set-based, and if you tell which version of SQL Server you
are using, I can sketch a solution.
If the answer is no, you will have to run a loop and insert the
products one-by-one. You should still be able to copy all parts for
a product in one go, as long as you don't need the part it anywhere.
If this sounds clunky to you, it is because the design is not optimal.
and CopyProduct functions is supposed to copy requested ProductItem
and return it's Id,
but i can't do that in UDF !!
CREATE FUNCTION CopyProduct(@ProductId bigint, @DestinationStoreId
bigint) RETURNS bigint
AS
BEGIN
INSERT INTO Products (StoreId, ProductName)
SELECT @DestinationStoreId, ProductName FROM Products WHERE
ProductId=@ProductId
RETURN SCOPE_IDENTITY()
END
Right. A user-defined function cannot change database state, so
that's a non-starter.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx
There is one final question, I will have to ask: in the real Products
table are there any columns beside the IDENTITY column that are unique
within a store? If the answer is yes, then my answer is yes, you
can do it set-based, and if you tell which version of SQL Server you
are using, I can sketch a solution.
no, there isn't.
but isn't possible through StoreId & ProductId together ?
and finally, isn't any other alternative to do insert in UDFs ?
or executing an sp in a select statement ?
Thanks
On May 26, 11:26 pm, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.sewrote:
Khafancoder (khafanco...@gmail.com) writes:
But of course, I don't know what your real case is like. Maybe you are
only using stores, products and parts for the sake of the example?
exactly!
so i can't change the design and also i can't disable identity
insertion !!
I presume then that the real tables are more complex than the mock-up
posted.
There is one final question, I will have to ask: in the real Products
table are there any columns beside the IDENTITY column that are unique
within a store? If the answer is yes, then my answer is yes, you
can do it set-based, and if you tell which version of SQL Server you
are using, I can sketch a solution.
If the answer is no, you will have to run a loop and insert the
products one-by-one. You should still be able to copy all parts for
a product in one go, as long as you don't need the part it anywhere.
If this sounds clunky to you, it is because the design is not optimal.
and CopyProduct functions is supposed to copy requested ProductItem
and return it's Id,
but i can't do that in UDF !!
CREATE FUNCTION CopyProduct(@ProductId bigint, @DestinationStoreId
bigint) RETURNS bigint
AS
BEGIN
INSERT INTO Products (StoreId, ProductName)
SELECT @DestinationStoreId, ProductName FROM Products WHERE
ProductId=@ProductId
RETURN SCOPE_IDENTITY()
END
Right. A user-defined function cannot change database state, so
that's a non-starter.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Khafancoder (kh*********@gmail.com) writes:
>There is one final question, I will have to ask: in the real Products table are there any columns beside the IDENTITY column that are unique within a store? If the answer is yes, then my answer is yes, you can do it set-based, and if you tell which version of SQL Server you are using, I can sketch a solution.
no, there isn't.
but isn't possible through StoreId & ProductId together ?
I don't know what you have in mind here. The key problem is that
when you insert many rows into a table with an IDENTITY column, and you
need to know the generated IDENTITY value for each row and there is
no other columns that identifies the rows, you will need to insert the
rows one by one. Or override the IDENTITY-generation with SET
IDENTITY_INSERT ON. But the latter that the user has privilege for this
operation; it cannot be granted through ownership chain.
and finally, isn't any other alternative to do insert in UDFs ?
or executing an sp in a select statement ?
It's not really meaningful of talking about an alternative to something
which is completely dead.
What you really should do is to change the database design, because the
current design is the root to your problem.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx
Hi again !
i finally decided to disable identity insertion and do the copy
operation by using temporary Map tables which maps Old Ids and New Ids
so :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATE TABLE #MapProducts (SourceProductId bigint, DestProductId
bigint)
INSERT INTO #MapProducts (SourceProductId, DestProductId)
SELECT ProductId, CASE WHEN
((SELECT COUNT(*) FROM #MapProducts) 0) THEN (SELECT
MAX(DestProductId) + 1 FROM #MapProducts)
ELSE (SELECT MAX(ProductId) + 1 FROM Products) END
FROM Products WHERE StoreId=@SourceStoreId
--------------------------------------------------------------------
but another problem, this line :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE WHEN ((SELECT COUNT(*) FROM #MapProducts) 0) THEN (SELECT
MAX(DestProductId) + 1 FROM #MapProducts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
won't be executed because sql engine calculate COUNT before do the
insert operation.
how could i solve that ?
is it possible to force INSERT command to calculate COUNT after
inserting *each record* ?
Thanks
Khafancoder (kh*********@gmail.com) writes:
i finally decided to disable identity insertion and do the copy
operation by using temporary Map tables which maps Old Ids and New Ids
so :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATE TABLE #MapProducts (SourceProductId bigint, DestProductId
bigint)
INSERT INTO #MapProducts (SourceProductId, DestProductId)
SELECT ProductId, CASE WHEN
((SELECT COUNT(*) FROM #MapProducts) 0) THEN (SELECT
MAX(DestProductId) + 1 FROM #MapProducts)
ELSE (SELECT MAX(ProductId) + 1 FROM Products) END
FROM Products WHERE StoreId=@SourceStoreId
--------------------------------------------------------------------
but another problem, this line :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE WHEN ((SELECT COUNT(*) FROM #MapProducts) 0) THEN (SELECT
MAX(DestProductId) + 1 FROM #MapProducts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
won't be executed because sql engine calculate COUNT before do the
insert operation.
how could i solve that ?
is it possible to force INSERT command to calculate COUNT after
inserting *each record* ?
That won't fly, as you have noticed. You need to compute the new
id:s from what is given before you start inserting. And this should
not be impossible. Please review this piece of code, which is the
same I posted a couple of days back:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SELECT @newstoreid = colaesce(MAX(storeid), 0) + 1
FROM Stores WITH (UPDLOCK)
INSERT Stores (StoredId, StoreName)
VALUES(@newstoreid, @newstorename)
SELECT @maxprodid = MAX(ProductId) FROM Products
SELECT @minoldprodid = MIN(ProductId)
FROM Stores
WHERE StoredId = @oldstoreid
INSERT Products (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName, ProductDescription)
SELECT @maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - ProductId, @newstoreid,
ProductName, ProductDescription
FROM Products
WHERE StoreId = @oldstoreid
SELECT @maxpartid = MAX(PartId) FROM Parts
SELECT @minpartid = MIN(Pa.PartId)
FROM Parts Pa
JOIN Products Pr ON Pa.ProductId = Pr.ProductID
WHERE Pr.StoreID = @oldstoreid
INSERT Parts(PartId, ProductId, Partname)
SELECT @maxpartid + 1 + @minpartid - Pa.PartId,
@maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - Pr.ProductId, Pa.Partname
FROM Parts Pa
JOIN Products Pr ON Pa.ProductId = Pr.ProductID
WHERE Pr.StoreID = @oldstoreid
COMMIT TRANSACTION
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx
Thanks for reply,
i think it won't be a right logic for creating new id s ; or may be i
didn't understand the algorithm correctly
SELECT @maxprodid = MAX(ProductId) FROM Products
SELECT @minoldprodid = MIN(ProductId)
FROM Stores
WHERE StoredId = @oldstoreid
INSERT Products (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName, ProductDescription)
SELECT @maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - ProductId, @newstoreid,
ProductName, ProductDescription
FROM Products
WHERE StoreId = @oldstoreid
Suppose Product Ids are from 1 to 100
so
@maxprodid=100
@minoldprodid = 1
and so, if we gonna to copy a record with id=50 it will be :
@maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - ProductId = 100 + 1 + 1 - 50
= 52
and 52 is id of an existing product record
Thanks in Advance
On May 31, 12:47 am, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.sewrote:
Khafancoder (khafanco...@gmail.com) writes:
i finally decided to disable identity insertion and do the copy
operation by using temporary Map tables which maps Old Ids and New Ids
so :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATE TABLE #MapProducts (SourceProductId bigint, DestProductId
bigint)
INSERT INTO #MapProducts (SourceProductId, DestProductId)
SELECT ProductId, CASE WHEN
((SELECT COUNT(*) FROM #MapProducts) 0) THEN (SELECT
MAX(DestProductId) + 1 FROM #MapProducts)
ELSE (SELECT MAX(ProductId) + 1 FROM Products) END
FROM Products WHERE StoreId=@SourceStoreId
--------------------------------------------------------------------
but another problem, this line :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE WHEN ((SELECT COUNT(*) FROM #MapProducts) 0) THEN (SELECT
MAX(DestProductId) + 1 FROM #MapProducts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
won't be executed because sql engine calculate COUNT before do the
insert operation.
how could i solve that ?
is it possible to force INSERT command to calculate COUNT after
inserting *each record* ?
That won't fly, as you have noticed. You need to compute the new
id:s from what is given before you start inserting. And this should
not be impossible. Please review this piece of code, which is the
same I posted a couple of days back:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SELECT @newstoreid = colaesce(MAX(storeid), 0) + 1
FROM Stores WITH (UPDLOCK)
INSERT Stores (StoredId, StoreName)
VALUES(@newstoreid, @newstorename)
SELECT @maxprodid = MAX(ProductId) FROM Products
SELECT @minoldprodid = MIN(ProductId)
FROM Stores
WHERE StoredId = @oldstoreid
INSERT Products (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName, ProductDescription)
SELECT @maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - ProductId, @newstoreid,
ProductName, ProductDescription
FROM Products
WHERE StoreId = @oldstoreid
SELECT @maxpartid = MAX(PartId) FROM Parts
SELECT @minpartid = MIN(Pa.PartId)
FROM Parts Pa
JOIN Products Pr ON Pa.ProductId = Pr.ProductID
WHERE Pr.StoreID = @oldstoreid
INSERT Parts(PartId, ProductId, Partname)
SELECT @maxpartid + 1 + @minpartid - Pa.PartId,
@maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - Pr.ProductId, Pa.Partname
FROM Parts Pa
JOIN Products Pr ON Pa.ProductId = Pr.ProductID
WHERE Pr.StoreID = @oldstoreid
COMMIT TRANSACTION
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
i solve the problem by using:
SELECT @maxprodid = MAX(ProductId) FROM Products
INSERT Products (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName,
ProductDescription)
SELECT @maxprodid + ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ProductId) ,
@newstoreid,
ProductName, ProductDescription
FROM Products
WHERE StoreId = @oldstoreid
is it correct ?
Thnx
On May 31, 1:31 am, Khafancoder <khafanco...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks for reply,
i think it won't be a right logic for creating new id s ; or may be i
didn't understand the algorithm correctly
SELECT @maxprodid = MAX(ProductId) FROM Products
SELECT @minoldprodid = MIN(ProductId)
FROM Stores
WHERE StoredId = @oldstoreid
INSERT Products (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName, ProductDescription)
SELECT @maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - ProductId, @newstoreid,
ProductName, ProductDescription
FROM Products
WHERE StoreId = @oldstoreid
Suppose Product Ids are from 1 to 100
so
@maxprodid=100
@minoldprodid = 1
and so, if we gonna to copy a record with id=50 it will be :
@maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - ProductId = 100 + 1 + 1 - 50
= 52
and 52 is id of an existing product record
Thanks in Advance
On May 31, 12:47 am, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.sewrote:
Khafancoder (khafanco...@gmail.com) writes:
i finally decided to disable identity insertion and do the copy
operation by using temporary Map tables which maps Old Ids and New Ids
so :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATE TABLE #MapProducts (SourceProductId bigint, DestProductId
bigint)
INSERT INTO #MapProducts (SourceProductId, DestProductId)
SELECT ProductId, CASE WHEN
((SELECT COUNT(*) FROM #MapProducts) 0) THEN (SELECT
MAX(DestProductId) + 1 FROM #MapProducts)
ELSE (SELECT MAX(ProductId) + 1 FROM Products) END
FROM Products WHERE StoreId=@SourceStoreId
--------------------------------------------------------------------
but another problem, this line :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE WHEN ((SELECT COUNT(*) FROM #MapProducts) 0) THEN (SELECT
MAX(DestProductId) + 1 FROM #MapProducts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
won't be executed because sql engine calculate COUNT before do the
insert operation.
how could i solve that ?
is it possible to force INSERT command to calculate COUNT after
inserting *each record* ?
That won't fly, as you have noticed. You need to compute the new
id:s from what is given before you start inserting. And this should
not be impossible. Please review this piece of code, which is the
same I posted a couple of days back:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
SELECT @newstoreid = colaesce(MAX(storeid), 0) + 1
FROM Stores WITH (UPDLOCK)
INSERT Stores (StoredId, StoreName)
VALUES(@newstoreid, @newstorename)
SELECT @maxprodid = MAX(ProductId) FROM Products
SELECT @minoldprodid = MIN(ProductId)
FROM Stores
WHERE StoredId = @oldstoreid
INSERT Products (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName, ProductDescription)
SELECT @maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - ProductId, @newstoreid,
ProductName, ProductDescription
FROM Products
WHERE StoreId = @oldstoreid
SELECT @maxpartid = MAX(PartId) FROM Parts
SELECT @minpartid = MIN(Pa.PartId)
FROM Parts Pa
JOIN Products Pr ON Pa.ProductId = Pr.ProductID
WHERE Pr.StoreID = @oldstoreid
INSERT Parts(PartId, ProductId, Partname)
SELECT @maxpartid + 1 + @minpartid - Pa.PartId,
@maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - Pr.ProductId, Pa.Partname
FROM Parts Pa
JOIN Products Pr ON Pa.ProductId = Pr.ProductID
WHERE Pr.StoreID = @oldstoreid
COMMIT TRANSACTION
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Khafancoder wrote:
i think it won't be a right logic for creating new id s ; or may be i
didn't understand the algorithm correctly
> SELECT @maxprodid + 1 + @minprodid - ProductId,
Presumably this should be @maxprodid - @minprodid + 1 + ProductId
Khafancoder (kh*********@gmail.com) writes:
i solve the problem by using:
SELECT @maxprodid = MAX(ProductId) FROM Products
INSERT Products (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName,
ProductDescription)
SELECT @maxprodid + ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ProductId) ,
@newstoreid,
ProductName, ProductDescription
FROM Products
WHERE StoreId = @oldstoreid
is it correct ?
Yes, that is a lot better solution that what I posted originally. If
we ignore the fact that it didn't work, I think I wrote it under the
assumption was you were using SQL 2000, and not had access to the
row-number function.
Fairly irrelevant discussion follows: The idea was that if you needed
to copy products 1, 7, 9, 13, and the first available ID was 101, you
would get ids 101, 107, 109 and 113 simply because this would be the easiest
way to solve it on SQL 2000. To get a contiguous series you would have
needed a temp table/table variable with an IDENTITY column.
More relevant final comment: the row_number() function is one of the
absolutely most important additions in SQL 2005.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx
Thanks to everyone :)
On Jun 1, 12:41 am, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.sewrote:
Khafancoder (khafanco...@gmail.com) writes:
i solve the problem by using:
SELECT @maxprodid = MAX(ProductId) FROM Products
INSERT Products (ProductId, StoreId, ProductName,
ProductDescription)
SELECT @maxprodid + ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ProductId) ,
@newstoreid,
ProductName, ProductDescription
FROM Products
WHERE StoreId = @oldstoreid
is it correct ?
Yes, that is a lot better solution that what I posted originally. If
we ignore the fact that it didn't work, I think I wrote it under the
assumption was you were using SQL 2000, and not had access to the
row-number function.
Fairly irrelevant discussion follows: The idea was that if you needed
to copy products 1, 7, 9, 13, and the first available ID was 101, you
would get ids 101, 107, 109 and 113 simply because this would be the easiest
way to solve it on SQL 2000. To get a contiguous series you would have
needed a temp table/table variable with an IDENTITY column.
More relevant final comment: the row_number() function is one of the
absolutely most important additions in SQL 2005.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books...
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: jason |
last post by:
What are the technical challenges in getting a local SMTP email server set
up on a win3k system or alternatively on a win2k pro local work statation.
We are on the verge of acquiring a new win3k...
|
by: Noel |
last post by:
Hi,
I am a tad confused about if there are any benefits from using
asynchronous vs synchronous network communication.
As my example, I have been writing a dns lookup stack with a network...
|
by: Chris |
last post by:
Hi.
I have a ibrary I'm trying to use via javascript within IE. This
library uses an asynchronous model where I call into a function and
pass it a callback function as one of its arguments. My...
|
by: David |
last post by:
Hello
I'm testing the XMLHttpRequest object in Firefox and IE. The code
below works well in IE and Firefox. It shows "1" when the string is a
number and "0" when not. The page aspxTest.aspx only...
|
by: duncansinclair |
last post by:
The following code works in IE, but in Forefox (1.0.7 & 1.5) the
Asyncronous function (testA) works fine but the Synchronous one (testS)
does not. It just doesn't work & I get no errors.
...
|
by: Pro1712 |
last post by:
Hi,
this may be a stupid question:
How can I can call the DoWork-function of a BackgroundWorker
synchronous?
Or in other words:
How can I extend the BackgroundWorker class with a function...
|
by: AECL_DEV |
last post by:
Hello Everyone,
Ive seen alot of people saying that the best way to AJAX Validate a form is
through the submit button, because validation should be synchronous. Im
wondering, is there any good...
|
by: HugeBob |
last post by:
Hi All,
I've got a question about Asynchronous vs Synchronous mode with the
XMLHttpRequest object. What are the ramifications of using one mode
vs the other? If the script uses Asynchronous...
|
by: ozkhillscovington |
last post by:
We have sp's in place that do BULK INSERTS from txt files into the tables. This works fine, however they have asked us to add a field that identifies accounting ctr. The only thing that identifies...
|
by: Simon |
last post by:
Hi All,
An experiment i'm doing requires requires a synchronous cross-domain
request, without using a proxy. I wondered if anyone had any ideas to
help me achieve this.
Below is what I have...
|
by: Faith0G |
last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often need to import Excel data into databases (such as MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle) for data analysis and processing. Usually, we use database tools like Navicat or the Excel import...
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
| |