SQL & PL/SQL :: Update Table With Primary Key In Where Clause
Dec 11, 2012
Is is required to check the number of rows updated in a table when the primary key of the table is used in the filter criteria of the update statement? As I know,by default it will update only one record. But if it happens to be an important transaction table and only one record is required to be updated, then is it the best practice to use the 'SQL%ROWCOUNT' check in the query, even if the update query is using primary key in filter clause.
Example:Consider Trans table with trans_id as primary key. Then:
Update Trans
set trans_status='pass'
where trans_id=123;
I know this will update only one record. But what is the best practice? Shall I use 'SQL%ROWCOUNT' after this update to double check whether the record is updated or not?
Inside procedure,I need to validate all the columns (Ex:col1 should not accept more than 40 chars) and update status(containing error or not) of these columns into another column in the same table.For this,I mentioned only 'UPDATE' statements.So 'WHERE' clause of some update statements not using Primary keys.
In that table composite primary key was created.This procedure is successfully complied & executed now.But this procedure took more than 10 mins to execute.I need to reduce the time to less than a min.
I am using the Oracle 10g and I have question related to "for Update" clause.We have the data warehouse db, so no foreign key constraint between parent and child.We process the data files every hour, the condition is If we find the row in parent table then we go and look into child tables and perform insertion (if no corresponding record is present) or updation (if one corresponding record is present) in the child table.
The problem is If I run the two process simultaneously for the same kind of data, and if no record is present in the child table then it create the duplicate in child table.My question is if I use FOR Update clause while selecting the data in parent table will it lock the child table for any insertion or updation?
Ex- We have employee table for employee 1
In my data files I have the row for employee 1, so when I run the select query on employee table I found 1 row.The I look the child table "Salary" as there is no record for emp_id =1 in this table I insert the record for this
Emp_id Salary 1 500
The problem is if both the process run at same time then I get duplicate rows in child table
Emp_id Salary 1 500 1 500
we do not want the duplicate row insertion. Can I lock the child table during first process run
update siebel.s_contact set marital_stat_cd = case when (marital_stat_cd = 'Casado') then 'Married' when (marital_stat_cd = 'Solteiro') then 'Single' when (marital_stat_cd = 'Divorciado') then 'Divorced' end
As you can see i forgot the else, so my update is wrong.
I thought i could rollback the update issuing the rollback statement, but when i have issue the rollback, the i query the table to confirm that the update was rollbacked and for my suprise the update is commited.
I didn�t issue the commit statement after the update and i confirmed that the auto-commit feature to worksheets is disabled, so i don�t understand whit the update was commited.
primary key constraint on transaction_dtl_bk is affecting the insertion of next correct rows.
CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE NP_DB.san_po_nt_wnpg_1 ( dt DATE ) IS v_sql_error VARCHAR2 (100); -- added by sanjiv v_sqlcode VARCHAR2 (100); ---- added by sanjiv added by sanjiv
I have a base table (Table A) block with multiple records displayed. I need to track audits to this underlying table in the following way:
If user updates a field in the block I want the pre-changed record's audit fields to be set and I need to create a copy of the record with the changed values. Basically any changes will result in the record being logically deleted, and a copy record created with the newly changed values.
Tried to implement in the block's pre-update trigger which will call a package to directly update Table A then Insert into Table A, then requery the block. Is there a clean and efficient way to do this?
if a table contains two columns and both are part of the primary key of that table (Kind of obvoius).
should i opt for a index organized tbale in this case ?Or should i opt for another running sequential colum which would serve as a primary key of this table and define the actual two columns of the system as unique keys.
there is a drawback if a most of the tables of a database contain composite primary keys?
i want to create a trigger that will update a table when there is an insert or update.i can't across this error that i don't even know what it means "table %s.%s is mutating, trigger/function may not see it".
*Cause: A trigger (or a user defined plsql function that is referenced in this statement) attempted to look at (or modify) a table that was in the middle of being modified by the statement which fired it.
*Action: Rewrite the trigger (or function) so it does not read that table.
CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER set_date_end BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE OF issued ON shares_amount FOR EACH ROW DECLARE BEGIN INSERT INTO shares_amount(date_end) VALUES(SYSDATE); END set_date_end; /
I have a column "empno" in EMP table and "deptno" in DEPT table . I want to update both the columns with single UPDATE statement. With out a creation of stored procedure or view(updating it through view).
I need to copy the changed and deleted data in an other table. I have searched this site ,asktom and other sites also. I found the following solution from asktom website. But it gives me the changed columns data only and i need the primary key with changed data and deleted rows also.
DROP TABLE emp; CREATE TABLE emp AS (SELECT * FROM scott.emp); CREATE TABLE audit_table
Is it possible to apply primary key on table having some duplicate record?I can do this by deleting duplicate record, But I don't want to delete exisitng data.
I would like to reorganize a table inorder of primary key but I'm not sure if I'm expecting the right thing from dbms_redefinition package.
I am working on oracle 9i 9.2.0.8
I have the following table :
SELECT * from SCOTT.TESTTABLE ID REF ---------- ---------- 1 FF 2 BB 3 CC 4 DD 8 EE 6 ZZ 7 YY 5 GG
when I use the CODEexec dbms_redefinition.start_redef_table('SCOTT', 'TESTTABLE', 'TESTTABLE2', 'id id, ref ref', dbms_redefinition.cons_use_pk);
Would the newly created scott.testtable be created in order of primary key (ID) thus a select * from scott.testtable will give me an ordered result?
When I do the test, the table before and after the redefinition is exactly the same so why use the CONS_USE_PK if it doesn't order the table by primary key?
I have normal tables with hugh Data and would like to increase the performace by following means:
1) Add a new column in each table. Say this column Name is IS_LIVE. This new column have only two value 1 ( LIVE ) OR 0 ( NOT LIVE ). 2) Change the normal tables to Partitioned table. There would be only two partitioned in all the table. The partitioned key column would be IS_LIVE and both partitioend recrods would be in two different tablespace. 3) Added a POLICY function to these partitioned table to Always add a Query Predicate of '1' to all queuries.
I am interested to know that what kind of Indexes ( Global Or local ) would be suitable for these kind of Design.Is there any use of having Local index on IS_LIVE.Please note that Primary Key doesnot have this new column in it.
I have an employee table which has a primary key and a self referencing foreign key, as shown here
create table employee ( id not null, name not null, department not null, supervisor_id not null ,constraint constraint_1 primary key (id) ,constraint constraint_2 foreign key (supervisor_id) references employee (id));
Now if i make the primary key composite, as shown below -
create table employee ( id not null, name not null, department not null, supervisor_id not null ,constraint constraint_1 primary key (id, name) ,constraint constraint_2 foreign key (supervisor_id) references employee (id));
Oracle is throwing the following error -
ORA-02270: no matching unique or primary key for this column-list
How can this error be fixed without changing the composite primary key?
I've a staging table STG_TABLEA which has a primary key discount_seq_no.
I am creating a pl/sql procedure to populate a primary key (discount_seq_no) with a database sequence. The intent is to keep this populated with next value incrementing by 1.
I am using Oracle 11.2.0.2 version.
I've put together the below code, not sure on next steps...
BEGIN UPDATE STG_TABLEA SET A.DISCOUNT_SEQ_NO = "INSERT A SEQUENCE HERE AND KEEP INCREMENTING the seq value by 1 COMMIT; EXCEPTION WHEN OTHERS THEN RAISE; END;
I have a partioned table that has close to 2 billion rows and a PK of all columns. Becuase of time constrains my APP team wants the PK disabled while they pump into hundreds of thousands of rows with a batch process.
Now I am finding when I enable the PK its eating up close to close to 200GB of temp space.
Is there something I can do to reduce the amount of temp space being used?
i'm new to oracle environment.how can i specify NONCLUSTERD INDEX on Primary cloumn during table creation.By default it will create clusterd index but i need non-clusterd index on it.
I'm using following stmt to create normal primary constarint during table creation,
CONSTRAINT PKFORM_PROPS PRIMARY KEY (FORM_PROPS_PK) USING INDEX TABLESPACE DB123_INDEX
how can i change the above query, so that it should create NONCLUSTERED INDEX on Primary key column.
