Changing the columns of a SELECT statement.

I have been "noramlizing" some of the tables that we have been using and I
ran into a problem in one of our stored procedures.
It used to be (with the old table) that you could do something like:
SELECT A, B FROM OldTable
The stored procedure essentially does this.
Now with the new table(s) it is something like:
SELECT *
FROM Table
LEFT OUTER JOIN Attributes ON Attributes.AttributesId = Table.AttributesId
There is in the Attributes table an AttibutesTypeId and an AttributesValue.
So I get 'A' only when AttributesTypeId = 1 and 'B' when AttributesTypeId =
2. The question is how do I return A and B from the stored procedure given
this new table structure? I am tempted to create a temporary table and use a
cursor to move row by row through the table, but there must be a more
efficient way.
Thank you.Kevin
I need a bit more clarification, if you don't mind
You used to have One table called "Big Daddy" now there are 3 tables I
presume.
Table, Attributes and Attributetype
if that assumption is correct, let us know how the columns(old table) have
been distributed in the normalized structure(have the static columns A and B
been converted to AttributeType) , there is probably a way to do it without
the cursor, but right now it is very hard to understand your problem.
Also can you give me the query again that you are trying to run from the OLD
table.
In the query you have specified , it's confusing when you are say the
Attribute has AttributeTypeId but you join it to Table using AttributesId
column, so seems like there is a 3rd table called AttributesType.
it might be just simpler to post the DDL , you don't mind doing it.
Rakesh Ajwani
MCSD, MCSD.NET
"Kevin Burton" wrote:

> I have been "noramlizing" some of the tables that we have been using and I
> ran into a problem in one of our stored procedures.
> It used to be (with the old table) that you could do something like:
> SELECT A, B FROM OldTable
> The stored procedure essentially does this.
> Now with the new table(s) it is something like:
> SELECT *
> FROM Table
> LEFT OUTER JOIN Attributes ON Attributes.AttributesId = Table.AttributesId
> There is in the Attributes table an AttibutesTypeId and an AttributesValue
.
> So I get 'A' only when AttributesTypeId = 1 and 'B' when AttributesTypeId
=
> 2. The question is how do I return A and B from the stored procedure given
> this new table structure? I am tempted to create a temporary table and use
a
> cursor to move row by row through the table, but there must be a more
> efficient way.
> Thank you.
>|||Find the moron that did this to you and kill him. This is called a EAV
design and it is totally wrong in an RDBMS. It confuses data and meta
data and makes your most basic queries run several orders of magnitude
slower. But the lack of speed does not matter; you will have no data
integrity so you cannot trust the answers anyway.
You might also want to get any book on data modeling. Then you will
know that there cannot be such a creature is a "type_id" -- the data
element is either a type with a known code or it is an identifier of
some kind of entity.
I am on a borrowed computer in Brazil, so I cannot cut & paste the
painful details; you can Google old postings on EAV, OTLT and MUCK as
bad design decisions frequently made by non-SQL programmers.|||Kevin Burton wrote:
> I have been "noramlizing" some of the tables that we have been using and I
> ran into a problem in one of our stored procedures.
> It used to be (with the old table) that you could do something like:
> SELECT A, B FROM OldTable
> The stored procedure essentially does this.
> Now with the new table(s) it is something like:
> SELECT *
> FROM Table
> LEFT OUTER JOIN Attributes ON Attributes.AttributesId = Table.AttributesId
> There is in the Attributes table an AttibutesTypeId and an AttributesValue
.
> So I get 'A' only when AttributesTypeId = 1 and 'B' when AttributesTypeId
=
> 2. The question is how do I return A and B from the stored procedure given
> this new table structure? I am tempted to create a temporary table and use
a
> cursor to move row by row through the table, but there must be a more
> efficient way.
> Thank you.
That is what you call "normalization"?!! Go lookup normalization in a
good book is my advice. This is a design problem of your own making I'm
afraid.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Thank you for your reply. In an effort to make things simpler by removing
detail I probably confused things.
The OldTable had columns that looked like:
Id, A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D are types of attributes for the node of Id. We are adding new
types and in the future even more will be added. So rather than keep adding
columns to the OldTable a new table was thought up like:
Id, AttributeId
The AttributeId column is an index to the attributes of Id. It indexes
another new table where the attributes are stored called Attributes. It has
columns like:
AttributeId, Type, Value
So a human will be able to tell what 'Type' is there is a third table
AttributeTypes that has columns like:
Type, Description
So the OldTable would have a row like:
1000, 'A Attribute', 'B Attribute', 'C Attribute', 'D Attribute'
This would translate to the NewTable having content like:
1000, 10
1000, 20
1000, 30
1000, 40
The Attributes table would have content like:
10, 1, 'A Attribute'
20, 2, 'B Attribute'
30, 3, 'C Attribute'
40, 4, 'D Attribute'
The contents of the "lookup" table (AttributeTypes) would look like:
1, 'A'
2, 'B'
3, 'C'
4, 'D'
So to make the query return the same result set as before I am trying:
SELECT Id,
CASE Attributes,Type
WHEN 1 THEN Attributes.Value
ELSE NULL
END AS A,
CASE Attributes,Type
WHEN 2 THEN Attributes.Value
ELSE NULL
END AS B,
CASE Attributes,Type
WHEN 3 THEN Attributes.Value
ELSE NULL
END AS C,
CASE Attributes,Type
WHEN 4 THEN Attributes.Value
ELSE NULL
END AS D
FROM NewTable
INNER JOIN Attributes ON Attributes.AttributeId = NewTable.AttributeId
ORDER BY Id
The problem is that this returns
1000, 'A Attribute', NULL, NULL, NULL
1000, NULL, 'B Attribute', NULL, NULL
1000, NULL, NULL, 'C Attribute',NULL
1000, NULL, NULL, NULL, 'D Attribute'
So I either need to merge the above (preferred) so that it returns just one
row as before:
1000, 'A Attribute', 'B Attribute', 'C Attribute', 'D Attribute'
Or I need to be prepared to add a column any time a new attribute is
speicfied.
Suggestions?
Thank you.
Kevin
"Rakesh Ajwani" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Kevin
> I need a bit more clarification, if you don't mind
> You used to have One table called "Big Daddy" now there are 3 tables I
> presume.
> Table, Attributes and Attributetype
> if that assumption is correct, let us know how the columns(old table) have
> been distributed in the normalized structure(have the static columns A and
B
> been converted to AttributeType) , there is probably a way to do it withou
t
> the cursor, but right now it is very hard to understand your problem.
> Also can you give me the query again that you are trying to run from the O
LD
> table.
> In the query you have specified , it's confusing when you are say the
> Attribute has AttributeTypeId but you join it to Table using AttributesId
> column, so seems like there is a 3rd table called AttributesType.
> it might be just simpler to post the DDL , you don't mind doing it.
> --
> Rakesh Ajwani
> MCSD, MCSD.NET
>
> "Kevin Burton" wrote:
>

Changing the columns of a SELECT statement.

I have been "noramlizing" some of the tables that we have been using and I
ran into a problem in one of our stored procedures.
It used to be (with the old table) that you could do something like:
SELECT A, B FROM OldTable
The stored procedure essentially does this.
Now with the new table(s) it is something like:
SELECT *
FROM Table
LEFT OUTER JOIN Attributes ON Attributes.AttributesId = Table.AttributesId
There is in the Attributes table an AttibutesTypeId and an AttributesValue.
So I get 'A' only when AttributesTypeId = 1 and 'B' when AttributesTypeId = 2. The question is how do I return A and B from the stored procedure given
this new table structure? I am tempted to create a temporary table and use a
cursor to move row by row through the table, but there must be a more
efficient way.
Thank you.Kevin
I need a bit more clarification, if you don't mind
You used to have One table called "Big Daddy" now there are 3 tables I
presume.
Table, Attributes and Attributetype
if that assumption is correct, let us know how the columns(old table) have
been distributed in the normalized structure(have the static columns A and B
been converted to AttributeType) , there is probably a way to do it without
the cursor, but right now it is very hard to understand your problem.
Also can you give me the query again that you are trying to run from the OLD
table.
In the query you have specified , it's confusing when you are say the
Attribute has AttributeTypeId but you join it to Table using AttributesId
column, so seems like there is a 3rd table called AttributesType.
it might be just simpler to post the DDL , you don't mind doing it.
--
Rakesh Ajwani
MCSD, MCSD.NET
"Kevin Burton" wrote:
> I have been "noramlizing" some of the tables that we have been using and I
> ran into a problem in one of our stored procedures.
> It used to be (with the old table) that you could do something like:
> SELECT A, B FROM OldTable
> The stored procedure essentially does this.
> Now with the new table(s) it is something like:
> SELECT *
> FROM Table
> LEFT OUTER JOIN Attributes ON Attributes.AttributesId = Table.AttributesId
> There is in the Attributes table an AttibutesTypeId and an AttributesValue.
> So I get 'A' only when AttributesTypeId = 1 and 'B' when AttributesTypeId => 2. The question is how do I return A and B from the stored procedure given
> this new table structure? I am tempted to create a temporary table and use a
> cursor to move row by row through the table, but there must be a more
> efficient way.
> Thank you.
>|||Find the moron that did this to you and kill him. This is called a EAV
design and it is totally wrong in an RDBMS. It confuses data and meta
data and makes your most basic queries run several orders of magnitude
slower. But the lack of speed does not matter; you will have no data
integrity so you cannot trust the answers anyway.
You might also want to get any book on data modeling. Then you will
know that there cannot be such a creature is a "type_id" -- the data
element is either a type with a known code or it is an identifier of
some kind of entity.
I am on a borrowed computer in Brazil, so I cannot cut & paste the
painful details; you can Google old postings on EAV, OTLT and MUCK as
bad design decisions frequently made by non-SQL programmers.|||Kevin Burton wrote:
> I have been "noramlizing" some of the tables that we have been using and I
> ran into a problem in one of our stored procedures.
> It used to be (with the old table) that you could do something like:
> SELECT A, B FROM OldTable
> The stored procedure essentially does this.
> Now with the new table(s) it is something like:
> SELECT *
> FROM Table
> LEFT OUTER JOIN Attributes ON Attributes.AttributesId = Table.AttributesId
> There is in the Attributes table an AttibutesTypeId and an AttributesValue.
> So I get 'A' only when AttributesTypeId = 1 and 'B' when AttributesTypeId => 2. The question is how do I return A and B from the stored procedure given
> this new table structure? I am tempted to create a temporary table and use a
> cursor to move row by row through the table, but there must be a more
> efficient way.
> Thank you.
That is what you call "normalization"?!! Go lookup normalization in a
good book is my advice. This is a design problem of your own making I'm
afraid.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--|||Thank you for your reply. In an effort to make things simpler by removing
detail I probably confused things.
The OldTable had columns that looked like:
Id, A, B, C, D
A, B, C, D are types of attributes for the node of Id. We are adding new
types and in the future even more will be added. So rather than keep adding
columns to the OldTable a new table was thought up like:
Id, AttributeId
The AttributeId column is an index to the attributes of Id. It indexes
another new table where the attributes are stored called Attributes. It has
columns like:
AttributeId, Type, Value
So a human will be able to tell what 'Type' is there is a third table
AttributeTypes that has columns like:
Type, Description
So the OldTable would have a row like:
1000, 'A Attribute', 'B Attribute', 'C Attribute', 'D Attribute'
This would translate to the NewTable having content like:
1000, 10
1000, 20
1000, 30
1000, 40
The Attributes table would have content like:
10, 1, 'A Attribute'
20, 2, 'B Attribute'
30, 3, 'C Attribute'
40, 4, 'D Attribute'
The contents of the "lookup" table (AttributeTypes) would look like:
1, 'A'
2, 'B'
3, 'C'
4, 'D'
So to make the query return the same result set as before I am trying:
SELECT Id,
CASE Attributes,Type
WHEN 1 THEN Attributes.Value
ELSE NULL
END AS A,
CASE Attributes,Type
WHEN 2 THEN Attributes.Value
ELSE NULL
END AS B,
CASE Attributes,Type
WHEN 3 THEN Attributes.Value
ELSE NULL
END AS C,
CASE Attributes,Type
WHEN 4 THEN Attributes.Value
ELSE NULL
END AS D
FROM NewTable
INNER JOIN Attributes ON Attributes.AttributeId = NewTable.AttributeId
ORDER BY Id
The problem is that this returns
1000, 'A Attribute', NULL, NULL, NULL
1000, NULL, 'B Attribute', NULL, NULL
1000, NULL, NULL, 'C Attribute',NULL
1000, NULL, NULL, NULL, 'D Attribute'
So I either need to merge the above (preferred) so that it returns just one
row as before:
1000, 'A Attribute', 'B Attribute', 'C Attribute', 'D Attribute'
Or I need to be prepared to add a column any time a new attribute is
speicfied.
Suggestions?
Thank you.
Kevin
"Rakesh Ajwani" wrote:
> Kevin
> I need a bit more clarification, if you don't mind
> You used to have One table called "Big Daddy" now there are 3 tables I
> presume.
> Table, Attributes and Attributetype
> if that assumption is correct, let us know how the columns(old table) have
> been distributed in the normalized structure(have the static columns A and B
> been converted to AttributeType) , there is probably a way to do it without
> the cursor, but right now it is very hard to understand your problem.
> Also can you give me the query again that you are trying to run from the OLD
> table.
> In the query you have specified , it's confusing when you are say the
> Attribute has AttributeTypeId but you join it to Table using AttributesId
> column, so seems like there is a 3rd table called AttributesType.
> it might be just simpler to post the DDL , you don't mind doing it.
> --
> Rakesh Ajwani
> MCSD, MCSD.NET
>
> "Kevin Burton" wrote:
> > I have been "noramlizing" some of the tables that we have been using and I
> > ran into a problem in one of our stored procedures.
> >
> > It used to be (with the old table) that you could do something like:
> >
> > SELECT A, B FROM OldTable
> >
> > The stored procedure essentially does this.
> >
> > Now with the new table(s) it is something like:
> >
> > SELECT *
> > FROM Table
> > LEFT OUTER JOIN Attributes ON Attributes.AttributesId = Table.AttributesId
> >
> > There is in the Attributes table an AttibutesTypeId and an AttributesValue.
> > So I get 'A' only when AttributesTypeId = 1 and 'B' when AttributesTypeId => > 2. The question is how do I return A and B from the stored procedure given
> > this new table structure? I am tempted to create a temporary table and use a
> > cursor to move row by row through the table, but there must be a more
> > efficient way.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >

Changing the collation

Dear gurus,
I am pursuing for a statement or function which allow me change the
collation at database level.
Thanks in advance and regards,
Enrichi enric,
I think you can change collation on database level using "alter database
collate command "
ALTER DATABASE database
{ ADD FILE < filespec > [ ,...n ] [ TO FILEGROUP filegroup_name ]
| ADD LOG FILE < filespec > [ ,...n ]
| REMOVE FILE logical_file_name
| ADD FILEGROUP filegroup_name
| REMOVE FILEGROUP filegroup_name
| MODIFY FILE < filespec >
| MODIFY NAME = new_dbname
| MODIFY FILEGROUP filegroup_name {filegroup_property | NAME =
new_filegroup_name }
| SET < optionspec > [ ,...n ] [ WITH < termination > ]
| COLLATE < collation_name >
}
thanks,
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
MCP #2324787
"Enric" wrote:

> Dear gurus,
> I am pursuing for a statement or function which allow me change the
> collation at database level.
> Thanks in advance and regards,
> Enric|||Yes, but that will not change collation for the existing tables. For that, y
ou need to do ALTER
TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN for each table and each column in the database. And i
t also require you to
drop indexes (and probably a few more things). Not fun...
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Jose G. de Jesus Jr MCP, MCDBA" <Email me> wrote in message
news:2CA8C84A-C24A-4F58-8860-4C3F3D454037@.microsoft.com...
> hi enric,
> I think you can change collation on database level using "alter database
> collate command "
>
> ALTER DATABASE database
> { ADD FILE < filespec > [ ,...n ] [ TO FILEGROUP filegroup_name ]
> | ADD LOG FILE < filespec > [ ,...n ]
> | REMOVE FILE logical_file_name
> | ADD FILEGROUP filegroup_name
> | REMOVE FILEGROUP filegroup_name
> | MODIFY FILE < filespec >
> | MODIFY NAME = new_dbname
> | MODIFY FILEGROUP filegroup_name {filegroup_property | NAME =
> new_filegroup_name }
> | SET < optionspec > [ ,...n ] [ WITH < termination > ]
> | COLLATE < collation_name >
> }
> --
> thanks,
> --
> Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
> MCP #2324787
>
> "Enric" wrote:
>

Changing Field name of an existing Table

Hi,
Is it possible to change any fieldname of an existing table?I mean to say
by TSQL statement.We know that we can alter the data type and width etc.
But I haven't got any info about filedname change.So if it is possible
Please help...
And Is there any TSQL command to alter multiple columns in a single statement?

Please help...
Thanks!!
Joydeepif it is not a primary or a foriegn key you can do something like so...

ALTER TABLE Mytable
ADD INQUIRYID2 BIGINT
GO
UPDATE MyTable SET INQUIRYID2 = INQUIRYID
GO
ALTER TABLE MyTable
DROP COLUMN INQUIRYID

But this a bad idea. What about the existing database object that reference the existing column. Oh well too late. A thousand application buga have just been created. Update your resume. You want biggie size|||if you can connect the db thru EM, just type the new name....|||if you can connect the db thru EM, just type the new name....

The Holy Book says ...

sp_rename

Changes the name of a user-created object (for example, table, column, or user-defineddata type) in the current database.
Syntax

sp_rename [ @.objname = ] 'object_name' ,
[ @.newname = ] 'new_name'
[ , [ @.objtype = ] 'object_type' ]
Arguments

[@.objname =] 'object_name'
Is the current name of the user object (table, view, column, stored procedure, trigger, default, database, object, or rule) or data type. If the object to be renamed is a column in a table, object_name must be in the form table.column. If the object to be renamed is an index, object_name must be in the form table.index. object_name is nvarchar(776), with no default.
[@.newname =] 'new_name'
Is the new name for the specified object. new_name must be a one-part name and must follow the rules for identifiers. newname is sysname, with no default.
[@.objtype =] 'object_type'
Is the type of object being renamed. object_type is varchar(13), with a default of NULL, and can be one of these values.
ValueDescriptionCOLUMNA column to be renamed.DATABASEA user-defined database. This option is required when renaming a database.INDEXA user-defined index.OBJECTAn item of a type tracked in sysobjects. For example, OBJECT could be used to rename objects including constraints (CHECK, FOREIGN KEY, PRIMARY/UNIQUE KEY), user tables, views, stored procedures, triggers, and rules.USERDATATYPEA user-defined data type added by executing sp_addtype.


I don't know why you are providing a round about way of doing the same thing.|||You can try out this one.

EXECUTE sp_rename N'MyTable.MyCurrFName', N'MyNewFName', 'COLUMN'

MyTable has a Field MyCurrFName. It will be renamed to MyNewFName|||You are better off either a). Create a view that has the name you want, or b). unloading, dropping, create, and load

There was a very good article that discusses why do the alter causes sql server to waste a lot of space on the data pages...Now if I can find on Nigel's web site I'll post a link|||Here's the link

http://www.mindsdoor.net/SQLAdmin/AlterTableProblems.html|||thanks Brett, thats really a good link. never thought of it.

Changing DB

I'm getting error message "you can't use USE statement in stored procedure
or trigger".
So the problem is using USE statement in stored procedure.
Sorry what I wasn't clear enough.
Thank you. David P.
"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message
news:eOYNeqmyDHA.1932@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> David,
> You can't use a parameter after USE, but you can do something like
> this, I believe, if you know the names of all the databases that might
> be chosen:
> if @.db = 'somedatabase'
> use somedatabase
> else if @.db = 'differentdatabase'
> use differentdatabase
> else if ...
> If you wish, you can also return silently or throw an error if the value
> passed for @.db is not one you've taken care of.
> SK
>
>
> David Potahisnsky wrote:
>
database.[QUOTE]
working[QUOTE]
it[QUOTE]
doesn't[QUOTE]
>

---

Sorry - my mistake.
SK
David Potahisnsky wrote:

quote:

---

>I'm getting error message "you can't use USE statement in stored procedure
>or trigger".
>So the problem is using USE statement in stored procedure.
>Sorry what I wasn't clear enough.
>
>Thank you. David P.
>
>
>"Steve Kass" <skass@.drew.edu> wrote in message
>news:eOYNeqmyDHA.1932@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>database.
>
>working
>
>it
>
>doesn't
>
>
>

---

Changing date to string of numbers

I basic question but can someone help.

I have a SELECT statement, the result of which populates adatagrid. The first column has consecutive dates in it and I wantto hyperlink each date to a seperate Javascript function (theJavascript is created on the fly and is unique for each date). Ineed a different function name for each function and so tried the datebut "/" is not allowed in the Javasript function name. I thinkthe easiest way will be to produce a new column with the date expressesddmmyyyy, ddmmyy or some such unique number (but not dd/mm/yyyy). I tried :-

"CASE " & _
"WHEN t3.date = t3.date THEN (DAY(t3.Date) + MONTH(t3.Date) + YEAR(t3.Date)) ELSE NULL END AS [javaKey]

but this adds the year to the month to the day - not a unique result as 1/2/06 and 2/1/06 are the same.

I am just getting to grips with VB.Net (as an amature) but am a distinct beginner at SQL!

Many thanks

Mike

Hi Mike,

You can use the ISO format in this place:

CONVERT(NCHAR(8), [Date], 112)AS newDate

the date format will be yyyymmdd.

You can always check CONVERT DATE function from Books Online to convert your date.

Hope this helps.

|||Hi Limno

Many thanks. Your reply is just what I need. It works great.

I am sorry that could not figure it out for myself. I do usebooks on line and I have "Microsoft SQL Server 2005 A Beginner'sGuide" (which I got before I realise my server uses 2000!) and "SAMSTeach Yourself SQL 24 Hours". I started off learning VB.net butas my project goes on, rather than feeling that I am becoming competentat producing the web pages I want, I seem require more and moreknowledge (like SQL, JavaScript & CSS). Sometimes I feel I amgetting there, the next minute feel totally inadequate!! I strive tolearn, and in the meantime I really do appreciate the help of peoplelike yourself.

Many many thanks for your time and patience.

Regards

Mike