|
Short answer - You can't. It is a data READER - not an updater. It's not like opening a recordset in VB6.
You need to ExecuteSQL with appropriate SQL to udpate the records (i.e. UPDATE table SET field=value WHERE key=id).
To do it the way you want it would better to use a DataSet or something a little more robust - plenty of info on MSDN.
|
|
|
|
|
Table-A is having 4 columns. I want to select values from Table-A with values from Event columns as column names as shown in Table-B. I need a stored procedure for selecting it if its possible.
TABLE-A
ID.No--Name-----Event-----------Amount_Paid
1---- Terry---ReliefFund------100
1---- Terry---Donation--------200
2---- John----Festival--------100
2---- John----Donation--------300
TABLE-B
ID.No---Name----ReliefFund------Donation--------Festival
1-------Terry---100-------------200-------------0
2-------John----0---------------300-------------100
Please help..., thanks
modified on Saturday, December 11, 2010 12:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
For this what query you have developed?
What error it shows?
With Regards,
Kasson
|
|
|
|
|
|
SELECT * FROM mytable AS A
PIVOT (
SUM(AMOUNT)
FOR MEVENT IN([ReliefFund], [Donation], [Festival])
) AS M
|
|
|
|
|
This article [^]may be of use to you
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
This Link[^] may help you.
|
|
|
|
|
I have an sql query which gives the output as follows:
OutputFileid
-----------
4
5
6
I want to get this output in horizontal fashion , like 4,5,6 so that I can pass to another query as an 'in' parameter.
I was getting that, but the second query returned an error saying that "Conversion failed when converting the varchar value '4,5,6' to data type int".
Following is the full stored procedure which i am using for getting the desired result.
ALTER procedure [dbo].[IsBCastRefExistsforProcess]
(@processId int)
as
begin
DECLARE @FILEIDs varchar(100)
select @FILEIDs= COALESCE(@FILEIDs+',' ,'')+ convert(varchar,outputfileid)+''from OutputFiles where ProcessId = @processid
PRINT @FILEIDs
if (LEN(@FILEIDs) > 0)
begin
select eg.EJVColumnId,eg.EJVColumnName
from EJVGedaColumns eg,
GedaColumnMapping gc
where eg.EJVColumnId = gc.EJVColumnId
and eg.EJVColumnName like '%BCAST_REF%'
and gc.OutputFileid in (@FILEIDs)
end
end
when I tried to execute exec IsBCastRefExistsforProcess 1234 it is giving the above error. Is there anyway which i can achieve this?
select @FILEIDs= COALESCE(@FILEIDs+',' ,'')+ convert(varchar,outputfileid)+''from OutputFiles where ProcessId = @processid
This gives me the values in horizontal fashion.
I tried giving 'and gc.OutputFileid in (Convert(int,@FILEIDs)) - But end up with same error.
Please help.
Thanks
Success is the good fortune that comes from aspiration, desperation, perspiration and inspiration.
|
|
|
|
|
I fixed it!!.
I put the same in a dynamic sql and it got worked. Like this,
SET @SQL = 'select eg.EJVColumnId,eg.EJVColumnName,gc.OutputFileid from EJVGedaColumns eg,GedaColumnMapping gc
where eg.EJVColumnId = gc.EJVColumnId and eg.EJVColumnName like ''%BCAST_REF%''
and gc.OutputFileid in ('+@FILEIDs+')'
EXEC (@SQL)
Hope this will help somebody.
Thanks
Success is the good fortune that comes from aspiration, desperation, perspiration and inspiration.
|
|
|
|
|
meeram395 wrote: EXEC (@SQL)
other then EXEC you can also use sp_executesql procedure that will give you a way to input parameter with a strong datatype to avoid data mismatch conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much Hiren, for the help. I will try that.
Success is the good fortune that comes from aspiration, desperation, perspiration and inspiration.
|
|
|
|
|
As an alternative; you could create a function that returns[^] a table (with those ints). You could pass these even as parameters[^] 
I are Troll 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much Eddy. This is too good.
Success is the good fortune that comes from aspiration, desperation, perspiration and inspiration.
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the times that I'm sad that I work in Oracle.
No such thing in Oracle as I know of.
"When did ignorance become a point of view" - Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
sample join table query in MY SQL
Plz help
|
|
|
|
|
good subject lines give good Google results.
|
|
|
|
|
5
Had it been written like yoda speaks I would have give a 6.
"When did ignorance become a point of view" - Dilbert
|
|
|
|
|
whatever it takes to get people to try and use Google as a first step when in need.
|
|
|
|
|
Well said.
With Regards,
Kasson
|
|
|
|
|
Overview... Client has an inventory DB in SQL with over 2 million records. The inventory db is constantly updated by .NET 3.5 winforms app that queries another 3rd party db via web services. the inventory is essently in constant update. Client is looking for faster performance as it's taking days to cycle thru the whole table and inventoried items will continue to grow.
I have no control over the structure of the SQL table as its tied to other applications and I have no control over the 3rd party web service that I'm getting the updated info from.. I only have control over the winform app that communicates with the two. It simply queries the webservice for inventory data, do some work with the data, and update the results into SQL db. But it has to run down thru the entire inventory table.
I've inherited this app and so most of the work I've done was specific to functional tweaks and code cleanup but now the client is looking for more speed. Throwing 5 figures worth of hardware horsepower and my "tweaks" isn't giving him the results he was expecting. While his old hardware was inadequate for what he was doing, I explained throwing muscle doesn't really fix slow software.
Sending Update queries 1 record at a time whether via the .NET app or even calling a Stored Procedure just seems inefficient when your dealing with a dataset of this size.. And when it takes days to update, it runs 24/7 which causes other issues.
My thought is to do work with the data via a datatable and then do one big update to SQL. I'm not talking loading all records.. currently the app loops thru chunks of 500-1000 records at a time. There has to be way better than a 1 by 1 record update encapsulated in a big For-Loop.
Advice, Comments, Opinions?
I've done similar work with datatables but it was for manipulating CSV files and on much smaller scale (< 1000 rows). But it seems logical that the priciples would be the same and faster than calling SQL directly to update 1 record at a time.
Thanks In Advance!
|
|
|
|
|
Couple of things come to mind ...
Assuming the communication via the web-service is probably the slowest component in the process ...
Can you make your application multi-threaded or at least run more than one instance of the applicaiton ?
We had a process that used to process transaction from a single table which would cause many records to be updated; the problem was that new transactions were being added to the table faster than we could process them. As a quick and dirty fix for this customer was to create multiple "processor" applications; each instance of the "processor" applicaiton would read from the transaction table and handle only those records assigned to it. The workload assignment was broken into departments, Processor-A would handle transactions from Dept-A, etc. This actually worked out for us and the total throughput increased dramatically.
The advantage of this approach was that we didn't have to modify the original "proccessor" application drastically in order to get it to work.
Might be something you want to consider. ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Good luck.
David
|
|
|
|
|
the web service is by far the slowest and also most restrictive component.. Right now the client is running between 4 and 8 instances of the app at once.. but when the app is only knocking out combined average 30,000 records an hour(on a good day), we're still talking days to cycle the whole table running 24/7. Each instance of the app is set up to queue up 500-1000 records at a time.. Queue as in queue build an array of IDs that will hit the webservices.. But then it updates record by record in a for-loop. Grabbing 500 IDs, adding them to an arraylist alone is silly slow.. Especially when a DT.Fill can do thousands of records in a couple seconds or less.
Among the "tweaks" I've done for the client is I have created the ability break down and categorize the workload for each instance of the app. This has helped the client some for specific business needs but in the end the entire inventory catalog needs to be updated as frequently as possible.
Given the web services constraints this project has a utopian theoretical max of 150,000 records an hour.. whether it's with 1 instance or with 20 instances.. at a certain threshold the webservice will start denying requests (security measure). I don't ever expect to see 150,000/hr with the current environment.. But I'd like to think that I could achieve a stable 80,000-100,000/hr if I could avoid having the app code from looping and hitting the SQL for each and every record it has queued up.
Too bad .NET doesn't have a BulkUpdate class similar to BulkCopy..
|
|
|
|
|
ok. seems like you've got a handle on the situation.
Regarding the updates and looping ...
If you have a table, #StagingTable, and it has the updates, then you should be able to do a join on your update statement. Something like this ...
UPDATE Table1
SET Table1.Field1 = #StagingTable.Field1
FROM Table1 INNER JOIN StagingTable ON Table1.Field2 = StagingTable.Field2
WHERE <whatever you="" need="">
By doing this, you will certainly reduce the amount of network traffic between the client computer and db server.
Let the db server do all the heavy work ...
Just an idea.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
