|
This will only work once a new identity has been created or changed should only be used within a stored procedure.
Remarks
After an INSERT, SELECT INTO, or bulk copy statement completes, @@IDENTITY contains the last identity value generated by the statement. If the statement did not affect any tables with identity columns, @@IDENTITY returns NULL. If multiple rows are inserted, generating multiple identity values, @@IDENTITY returns the last identity value generated. If the statement fires one or more triggers that perform inserts that generate identity values, calling @@IDENTITY immediately after the statement returns the last identity value generated by the triggers. The @@IDENTITY value does not revert to a previous setting if the INSERT or SELECT INTO statement or bulk copy fails, or if the transaction is rolled back.
INSERT INTO jobs (job_desc,min_lvl,max_lvl)
VALUES ('Accountant',12,125)
SELECT @@IDENTITY AS 'Identity'
|
|
|
|
|
In sql database , I have two tables named Emp_Info and Emp_Experience
the structure of table is like this;
Emp_Info
========
Emp_Id PrimaryKey(Auto)
Emp_Name
Emp_Age
Emp_Experience
==============
Exp_Id PrimaryKey(Auto)
Emp_Id ForeignKey
Exp_Detail
Exp_Year
. . . . ... and so on
Working on a single form, All these fields have to be enterd and are saved against one button click.The Problem is how can i get the Emp_Id for Emp_Experience table to save Experince and Emp_Info paralelly.The relationship btw Emp_Info and Emp_Experience is one to many. that is, Against one Employee there may be none or many Experiences.
in the scenario, i have to add Experiences first and then save the Employee? What 2 do? any guide line, help .....>?
i need its stored procedure for saving Experiences.
Thnx in Advance
|
|
|
|
|
Use something like,
1. Insert Into Emp_Info............
2. Store newly created auto generated id in a local variable as,
Select @newId = @@IDENTITY
3. Insert Into Emp_Experience....... and use @newId as fk here
Farhan Noor Qureshi
if (this == this) thow this;
|
|
|
|
|
I need to save a record with 8 fields in my sql server table to be exact.
Which of the method is recommended and faster with this scenario.
1. Insert the record using the normal insert statement.
OR
2. Insert the record using the stored procedure (I will create the insert statement inside the stored procedure) call it in my program and pass the insert parameters.
Regardless of Security.. One record at a time using web application.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
A combination of command object with stored proc is usually faster than even with very simple dynamic sql.
dabuskol wrote: (I will create the insert statement inside the stored procedure)
Will your INSERT statement be dynamic for each call? If thats the case then it may not be a good idea to use a stored proc.
Farhan Noor Qureshi
if (this == this) thow this;
|
|
|
|
|
I want to use an Access database for my website (with ASP .NET). This database will have about 50,000+ records. Will an Access database be robust to withstand so many records on a web-server and be fast and efficient? For some reasons, I do not want to use SQL Server or MSDE.
Regards
-- modified at 7:12 Monday 28th November, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Rama Sharma wrote: Will an Access database be robust to withstand so many records on a web-server and be fast and efficient?
MS Access is not designed for such a scenario and IMHO MS Access is an oxymoron to robust-fast-efficient 
Farhan Noor Qureshi
if (this == this) thow this;
|
|
|
|
|
Farhan Noor Qureshi wrote: MS Access is not designed for such a scenario and IMHO MS Access is an oxymoron to robust-fast-efficient
Yes, Access is indeed an oxymoron.
Why is it that you do not want to use MSSQL or MSDE? You may want to look at migrating from Access to either of these, or to MySQL or Firebird...
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply.
But, will MySQL be good and efficient for such a job?
|
|
|
|
|
Rama Sharma wrote: will MySQL be good and efficient for such a job?
It could. Mileage can vary with alot of things. I've found MySQL to work just fine under both Linux and Windows. Firebird is something I have found interesting. I am not sure as to what your requirements are for your website/database, but I hope this can help shed some light.
|
|
|
|
|
Rama Sharma wrote: Will an Access database be robust to withstand so many records on a web-server
I don’t do any web type stuff, but I do have an app with access as its database with a few hundred thousand records. It works with no problems, the bottle neck with my app isn’t the database it’s the 4 Meg token ring network.
BTW, I would rather use SQL Server, but getting access to one in the corporation I work for is insane. 
If data security is of importance then go with SQL Server, Access for all intense purposes has no security.
ZeePain! wrote: This seems like one of those programs that started small, grew incrementally, building internal pressure, and finally barfed all over its source code sneakers. Or something.
thedailywtf.com[^]
-- modified at 3:09 Tuesday 29th November, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
As a standalone application, it can work just fine, except when you start getting alot of users accessing it at the same time.
Rama is doing something along the lines of web accessed data and I would move away from Access at that point.
|
|
|
|
|
computerguru92382 wrote: As a standalone application, it can work just fine, except when you start getting alot of users accessing it at the same time.
Well I don’t know about using Access as a front end (Access is a huge memory / network hog), but an application using the Access database then you right, I have about 20 users accessing data off of the Access database. Don’t think I would want to add any more than that.
My saving grace here is I would rather scale my app up to using SQL server; sadly that’s just not an option. So with a little creativity anything’s possible. 
ZeePain! wrote: This seems like one of those programs that started small, grew incrementally, building internal pressure, and finally barfed all over its source code sneakers. Or something.
thedailywtf.com[^]
|
|
|
|
|
sfdougl wrote: My saving grace here is I would rather scale my app up to using SQL server
That is the point I am trying to get to. Don't get me wrong about Access. It's good for getting the feet wet and developing ideas, but when there is an increase of users and scalability, then some kind of database server needs to come in play.
|
|
|
|
|
computerguru92382 wrote: when there is an increase of users and scalability, then some kind of database server needs to come in play.
I was just providing my experience and not diminishing your earlier comments or a proper data warehouse. There are many sides to dealing with database issues. They (databases) are like hammers choose the right one for the job. Some times putting a tack into the wall with a sledge hammer will only get you a broken finger and a whole in the wall; try and bust out a concrete step with a tack hammer and you will never get the job done.
ZeePain! wrote: This seems like one of those programs that started small, grew incrementally, building internal pressure, and finally barfed all over its source code sneakers. Or something.
thedailywtf.com[^]
|
|
|
|
|
sfdougl wrote: I was just providing my experience and not diminishing your earlier comments or a proper data warehouse.
I didn't think you were. I was doing the same myself. A client of mine has a very large Access database and he's about ready to scale up to something that can handle his business demands. I like the hammer analogy, since I am doing an addition on my home, I can relate House gets done wth the right tools.
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
The hammer analogy is a good one, I happen to be one of those folks who has a hammer for each day of the week, umm well okay two weeks. For me it’s always about choosing the right tool for the job no matter what the job is.
I like doing carpentry & plumbing as much as programming. There isn’t much more satisfying as actually working for a buck.
The one great thing about plumbing is the general rule of thumb, all sh*t flows down hill.
ZeePain! wrote: This seems like one of those programs that started small, grew incrementally, building internal pressure, and finally barfed all over its source code sneakers. Or something.
thedailywtf.com[^]
|
|
|
|
|
sfdougl wrote: plumbing is the general rule of thumb, all sh*t flows down hill
Thank God I live on the top of a hill 
|
|
|
|
|
ZeePain! wrote: This seems like one of those programs that started small, grew incrementally, building internal pressure, and finally barfed all over its source code sneakers. Or something.
thedailywtf.com[^]
|
|
|
|
|
hi i am real beginer in sql server so my question is how to change sarver name because my program don't work on other computer give me error with server name so my server name is "NIKOLA-I2IIHEHC" how to make the same name on other computer ???
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there,
Am a bit confusing what are u asking about? 
papa1980 wrote: my program don't work on other computer
What problem when the program runs on other PC?? And how do you think the user has to change the computer's name to run your application 
<< >>
|
|
|
|
|
Am a bit confusing what are u asking about?
Yes, what are you trying to accomplish with having the same server name of two different computers? That is going to cause you more confusion down the road.
|
|
|
|
|
papa1980 wrote: my program don't work on other computer give me error with server name so my server name is "NIKOLA-I2IIHEHC"
Is the problem your experiencing related the connection string? It’s of poor design to hard code the server name into your application. Store the server name in an ini file or xml file.
ZeePain! wrote: This seems like one of those programs that started small, grew incrementally, building internal pressure, and finally barfed all over its source code sneakers. Or something.
thedailywtf.com[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there!
Can you help me how to define global variables in MS SQL 2000 or 2005 (@@...) and create a function that auto-start when MS SQL server start. I've searched a lot in google but i still can't found the answer
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
I cant say any thing about 2005 but there is no global variable in 2000. Use a status table instead.
Farhan Noor Qureshi
if (this == this) thow this;
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
