|
Hi,
Since you have set the ID column as Identity it will be incremented automatically whenever a new record inserted into the table. You do not need to supply values for ID field via SQL-Command.
Try following SQL Command this works fine for me.
Create table table1 (ID int primary key identity not null, Name1 VarChar(30))
insert into table1 (Name1) values ('John Adams1')
insert into table1(Name1) values ('John Adams2')
insert into table1(Name1) values ('John Adams3')
insert into table1(Name1) values ('John Adams4')
insert into table1(Name1) values ('John Adams5')
Select * from table1
Hope this helps  .
Regards,
John Adams
ComponentOne LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks John.
John_Adams wrote: Create table table1 (ID int primary key identity not null, Name1 VarChar(30))
I think, that's exactly how I defined my ID-column in table definitions
Name: ID
data type: int
primary key
allow null = false
identity = yes (begin with 1, increase 1)
But when inserting a new row via INSERT-command I just receive this message telling me I am not allowed to insert NULL in ID. But I don't give a value for ID at all in my INSERT-command.
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
Have you switched IDENTITY_INSERT on by mistake?
SET IDENTITY_INSERT table OFF
Maybe a space between identity and insert, check the docs.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Mark. You are right, it was switched on. Now it works fine.
Thanks.
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
There are several ways to insert images into a report. The first method I tried was a database based solution. IE 7.0 was unable to render the image. It worked on FireFox 2.0 only. However FireFox had other lacks which obstructed developement.
Then I went on using project based method, wich gave exectly the same result.
The embeded solution is not suitable for us, because we have hundreds of reports and the size is an important factor.
The URL based method worked fine with outer addresses like:
http://szerver1.krk-gyarfas.sulinet.hu/~ref/erdokertes_elemei/kazetta2.jpg
BUT IT DIDN'T WORK WITH local images like:
http://rs1/ReportServer?%2fGrassReports%2flogo.png
In later case the Report Manager truncated the URL of the imeges to:
http://rs1/
This seems to be a BUG. If there is a workaround then please send it asap!
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
in an insert statement how to insert a row when all the values are not supplied
please help
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
show the table name followed by the columns you have
sort of
insert into table1(name, firstname) values ('Smith','Fred')
where table 1 also contains the address etc
Hope this helps, but I suspect you need a book on SQL before going much further.
Bob
Ashfield Consultants Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
I am trying to set dynamic field in the page header .
If the report has multiple pages, header(with the field) occurs while viewing the report.
But while exporting to PDF or Excel , header(with the field) comes on first page only. Other pages do not contain the header information.
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
hai.
currently i m using asp.net with c# (2.0 framework)
sql server 2000.
i need to convert row into column. (without using pivot table. since some days back i found a query to execute it in "google". but i missed the query)
for example...
ID - Name
101 - Rajesh
102 - Jay
103 - Karthick
104 - Vishnu
i need the output as...
ID - NAME - ID - NAME - ID - NAME - ID - NAME
101 Rajesh 102 Jay 103 Karthick 104 Vishnu
how to achieve it? help me - KARAN
|
|
|
|
|
Karan_TN wrote: (without using pivot table
The whole technique is pivoting - taking rows and turning them into columns is pivoting.
Karan_TN wrote: ID - NAME - ID - NAME - ID - NAME - ID - NAME
101 Rajesh 102 Jay 103 Karthick 104 Vishnu
What happens when you have 50,000 records? You cannot string them together in a single row, and if you could what use would it be?
I think you need to think about what you are trying to achieve and then decide how you need the data.
Bob
Ashfield Consultants Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Bob.. You are right.
let me think upon some other way.
thanks for understanding
|
|
|
|
|
I've written a series of ASP and winform applications for a database my one of my company's software vendors built. The vendor puts user login credentials in the sql connection strings in order to authenticate users. Since the same database is to be used, I have to use the same authentication method to keep users from being confused with additional usernames/passwords to remember.
Other than an attacker appending Integrated Security=True to the end of the connection string. What security issues should I be concerned about with this method?
|
|
|
|
|
Make sure that the connecting user only have access to the bare minimum he requires.
Such as only execute on sprocs and not access to change the sprocs, or direct access to the underlying tables.
|
|
|
|
|
<sarcasm>HAHAHA!! Of COURSE all users have very as-needed access to the DB! Our software vendor's thought of that!</sarcasm>
Of course, with any of my tables I try to keep things restricted to stored procs that certain users have access to.
Thanks for pointing this out, though. I appreciate any response.
|
|
|
|
|
I would be concerned about storing user names and passwords as plain text.
Bob
Ashfield Consultants Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
In the DB, the user credentials are stored in the syslogins table, so there's at least that bit of security.
In most of my user side applications, I've been known to use a 1-1 and onto encryption to store credentials. I've been known to be lazy at times, however.
Fortunately, no one at this company is familiar with memory editors much less CLR reflection.
Thanks for the input.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep this in mind for your web apps. It doesn't apply to desktop apps because pooling is rarely an issue there.
Pool Fragmentation Due to Integrated Security
Connections are pooled according to the connection string plus the user identity. Therefore, if you use Basic authentication or Windows Authentication on the Web site and an integrated security login, you get one pool per user. Although this improves the performance of subsequent database requests for a single user, that user cannot take advantage of connections made by other users. It also results in at least one connection per user to the database server. This is a side effect of a particular Web application architecture that developers must weigh against security and auditing requirements.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8xx3tyca.aspx[^]
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book,
only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
|
|
|
|
|
Hello all,
I want to write simle trigger in sql server for auto generate numbers. Can any one help me regarding this. and also want to know the Basic Structure of triggers in sql server 2005.Please help me regarding this.
Thanks
Rizana
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly, you don't need a trigger to auto generate numbers, have an identity column instead.
Secondly for the basic structure of a trigger try reading the help.
In fact, in light of your question, I suggest you read up on triggers before attempting to use them as you seem unclear about what they are for.
Bob
Ashfield Consultants Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Mr.bob,
i want to write trigger only, because i want to generate number with Preceeding alphabets like 'a001' 'b002' for taht only i need triggers usually in my graduation i wrote trigger in oracle 9 i. but i dont know with the sql server. any way thanks for your suggestion. can i get the above with out trigger Please let me Know.
Thanks
RRiiizzzz
|
|
|
|
|
What is the benifit i get using stored procedure instead of tables in my web application using asp.net with c#
|
|
|
|
|
harish.k12 wrote: What is the benifit i get using stored procedure instead of tables in my web application using asp.net with c#
Security - If you provide access to the stored procs only and revoke access directly to the tables.
Consistent interface with the database - If you update your table structure it can easily break any applications that rely on the old structure. With stored procedures you get to define exactly what inputs and outputs are meaning that if you change your table structure the only other changes needed are to stored procedures (also in the database) so your applications will never need to be updated and redeployed.
|
|
|
|
|
... and performance. I know dynamic sql queries now get the query plan cached, but for anything slightly complex a stored procedure will consistently outperform dynamic sql. You are also (or should be) moving lots less data around the network - consider the select statment for a table of 25 columns compared to a simple "up_getaccount @accountid= 'abc'"
Bob
Ashfield Consultants Ltd
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
.