Comments for EXEC(@sql) http://www.execsql.com Blogging about SQL Server, SQL XML and related technologies. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:49:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on An explicit value for the identity column in table can only be specified when a column list is used and IDENTITY_INSERT is ON. by narendra http://www.execsql.com/post/an-explicit-value-for-the-identity-column-in-table-can-only-be-specified-when-a-column-list-is-used-and-identity_insert-is-on#comment-20072 narendra Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:49:43 +0000 /post/An-explicit-value-for-the-identity-column.aspx#comment-20072 I've changed key field and place PK as key field.It doesn't work, again reveals same error. please suggest. An explicit value for the identity column in ‘table’ can only be specified when a column list is used and IDENTITY_INSERT is ON. I’ve changed key field and place PK as key field.It doesn’t work, again reveals same error. please suggest. An explicit value for the identity column in ‘table’ can only be specified when a column list is used and IDENTITY_INSERT is ON.

]]> Comment on An explicit value for the identity column in table can only be specified when a column list is used and IDENTITY_INSERT is ON. by narendra http://www.execsql.com/post/an-explicit-value-for-the-identity-column-in-table-can-only-be-specified-when-a-column-list-is-used-and-identity_insert-is-on#comment-20071 narendra Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:48:19 +0000 /post/An-explicit-value-for-the-identity-column.aspx#comment-20071 An explicit value for the identity column in 'table' can only be specified when a column list is used and IDENTITY_INSERT is ON. An explicit value for the identity column in ‘table’ can only be specified when a column list is used and IDENTITY_INSERT is ON.

]]> Comment on Bringing a database out of Restoring state in SQL Server 2005 by Stanley Arnold http://www.execsql.com/post/bringing-a-database-out-of-restoring-state-in-sql-server-2005#comment-19996 Stanley Arnold Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:50:25 +0000 /post/Bringing-a-database-out-of-Restoring-state-in-SQL-Server-2005.aspx#comment-19996 Thanks for the post. Setup a transaction log backup job using database maintenance. Made the mistake of selecting "Back up the tail of the log, and leave the database in the restoring state" This left all the database in the restoring state after the first execution of the log backup. The RESTORE Database WITH RECOVERY resolved the issue. Thanks for the post. Setup a transaction log backup job using database maintenance. Made the mistake of selecting “Back up the tail of the log, and leave the database in the restoring state” This left all the database in the restoring state after the first execution of the log backup. The RESTORE Database WITH RECOVERY resolved the issue.

]]> Comment on Bringing a database out of Restoring state in SQL Server 2005 by Kiran http://www.execsql.com/post/bringing-a-database-out-of-restoring-state-in-sql-server-2005#comment-19955 Kiran Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:40:48 +0000 /post/Bringing-a-database-out-of-Restoring-state-in-SQL-Server-2005.aspx#comment-19955 super!!!! amazing tip...worked like a charm.. super!!!! amazing tip…worked like a charm..

]]> Comment on Bringing a database out of Restoring state in SQL Server 2005 by Allan S. Hansen http://www.execsql.com/post/bringing-a-database-out-of-restoring-state-in-sql-server-2005#comment-19777 Allan S. Hansen Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:08:29 +0000 /post/Bringing-a-database-out-of-Restoring-state-in-SQL-Server-2005.aspx#comment-19777 Sounds like you're trying to restore a backup with the log files missing or incomplete. Sounds like you’re trying to restore a backup with the log files missing or incomplete.

]]> Comment on Bringing a database out of Restoring state in SQL Server 2005 by channa http://www.execsql.com/post/bringing-a-database-out-of-restoring-state-in-sql-server-2005#comment-19775 channa Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:15:10 +0000 /post/Bringing-a-database-out-of-Restoring-state-in-SQL-Server-2005.aspx#comment-19775 unluck for me. I got "The database cannot be recovered because the log was not restore" unluck for me. I got “The database cannot be recovered because the log was not restore”

]]> Comment on Bringing a database out of Restoring state in SQL Server 2005 by Radames Ortega http://www.execsql.com/post/bringing-a-database-out-of-restoring-state-in-sql-server-2005#comment-19702 Radames Ortega Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:44:05 +0000 /post/Bringing-a-database-out-of-Restoring-state-in-SQL-Server-2005.aspx#comment-19702 Thank you for posting this!! Thank you for posting this!!

]]> Comment on Drop User: The database principal owns a schema in the database, and cannot be dropped by Matias http://www.execsql.com/post/drop-user-the-database-principal-owns-a-schema-in-the-database-and-cannot-be-dropped#comment-19641 Matias Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:26:38 +0000 /post/The-database-principal-owns-a-schema-in-the-database-and-cannot-be-dropped.aspx#comment-19641 10 puntos master 10 puntos master

]]> Comment on Filter parameters in a Stored Procedure by Simon http://www.execsql.com/post/filter-parameters-in-a-stored-procedure#comment-19424 Simon Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:44:16 +0000 /post/Filter-parameters-in-a-Stored-Procedure.aspx#comment-19424 This is a neat solution to an issue I'd come to think of as just a fact of life. If an OR/M such as LINQ to SQL is not an option, it has the potential to greatly simplify the DAL in a situation where you wish to use stored procedures and filter in the DB rather than retireve all data and filter in the application. However, there is a stumbling block. You wrote: "Of course, me using <= is basically irrelevant, as any logical operation can be performed within the second part of the OR statement." Whilst any logical operation can be performed, what do you think is the neatest way of achieving this. e.g. in the first call to the SPROC I may want to retrieve all Products with a length less than 10. However, the next query may want all products with a length greater than 15, or equal to 20. I can't think of a tidy way of specifying the operator to use. One solution I thought of would be to have a different variable for each operator, ie. @LengthLT INT = NULL @LengthEQ INT = NULL @LengthGT = NULL You would then supply the @LengthLT variable if you wanted Products with length less than your value, @LengthEQ for equal to etc. However, it makes the code start to look really messy as you then have a whole lot more variables to test. I realise I'm replying to a three year old post, but if you happen to have an idea up your sleeve, or someone else stumbles upon this, I'd love to have your thoughts on it. Thanks Simon This is a neat solution to an issue I’d come to think of as just a fact of life. If an OR/M such as LINQ to SQL is not an option, it has the potential to greatly simplify the DAL in a situation where you wish to use stored procedures and filter in the DB rather than retireve all data and filter in the application.

However, there is a stumbling block. You wrote:

“Of course, me using <= is basically irrelevant, as any logical operation can be performed within the second part of the OR statement."

Whilst any logical operation can be performed, what do you think is the neatest way of achieving this. e.g. in the first call to the SPROC I may want to retrieve all Products with a length less than 10. However, the next query may want all products with a length greater than 15, or equal to 20. I can't think of a tidy way of specifying the operator to use.

One solution I thought of would be to have a different variable for each operator, ie.

@LengthLT INT = NULL
@LengthEQ INT = NULL
@LengthGT = NULL

You would then supply the @LengthLT variable if you wanted Products with length less than your value, @LengthEQ for equal to etc. However, it makes the code start to look really messy as you then have a whole lot more variables to test.

I realise I'm replying to a three year old post, but if you happen to have an idea up your sleeve, or someone else stumbles upon this, I'd love to have your thoughts on it.

Thanks
Simon

]]> Comment on Drop User: The database principal owns a schema in the database, and cannot be dropped by Rajkumar http://www.execsql.com/post/drop-user-the-database-principal-owns-a-schema-in-the-database-and-cannot-be-dropped#comment-18767 Rajkumar Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:13:19 +0000 /post/The-database-principal-owns-a-schema-in-the-database-and-cannot-be-dropped.aspx#comment-18767 Thank a lot , you just saved me...Great Job Thank a lot , you just saved me…Great Job

]]>