Combining Pass-Through Queries into a Stored Proc.

Is it possible to combine multiple Views into a Stored Procedure? Can I reference the results from one (1) View within the stored procedure? If so, how would I go about it?
Thanks!!Refer to Books online for Using Pass-Through Queries as Tables topic.

Combining data from multiple columns or views

I am trying to combine/report on data that is in one table. Due to system
limitations I have 3 columns that store the same type of business data.
Salesperson A, B and C are separate columns but need to be combined for
reporting. Can I create another table where I can use a select into to put
Salesperson A into Column 1, Salesperson B into Column 1 and Salesperson C
into Column 1? If so, how?
Here is a sample data line:
Salesperson, Salesperson2, Salesperson3, CommissionRate, DocNumber,
SalesAmount
I thought I could combine it into the following layout:
Salesperson, CommissionRate, DocNumber, SalesAmount but not sure how.Hi Dan,
Do you want to concatenate Salespersons A, B, and C all into one column, or
do you want to create a new row for Salesperson A, Salesperson B, and
salesperson C?
To concatenate, you can do the following:
select SalespersonA+SalespersonB+salespersonC, CommissionRate, DocNumber,
SalesAmount from tbl_name
If you want to create a new table and then insert into it from the other
table where each salesperson has their own row, then it would look something
like this:
create the table with columns for Salesperson, CommissionRate, DocNumber,
SalesAmount
Insert into NewTable
select SalespersonA, commissionRate, DocNumber, SalesAmount
Insert into NewTable
select SalespersonB, CommissionRate, DocNumber, SalesAmount
ect.
"Dan Shepherd" wrote:
> I am trying to combine/report on data that is in one table. Due to system
> limitations I have 3 columns that store the same type of business data.
> Salesperson A, B and C are separate columns but need to be combined for
> reporting. Can I create another table where I can use a select into to put
> Salesperson A into Column 1, Salesperson B into Column 1 and Salesperson C
> into Column 1? If so, how?
> Here is a sample data line:
> Salesperson, Salesperson2, Salesperson3, CommissionRate, DocNumber,
> SalesAmount
> I thought I could combine it into the following layout:
> Salesperson, CommissionRate, DocNumber, SalesAmount but not sure how.|||Thanks for the help... I tried the following syntax and it was not working:
INSERT INTO XCOMMISSIONS (DOCNUMBER, SLSPERSON, ACCTSTATUS, THRDPRTYNAME,
COMMRATE, REFERRATE) VALUES (SELECT DOCNUMBER, SLSPERSON, ACCTSTATUS,
THRDPRTYNAME, COMMRATE, REFERRATE FROM X_SLSPERSONA_VIEW)
"Dan Shepherd" wrote:
> I am trying to combine/report on data that is in one table. Due to system
> limitations I have 3 columns that store the same type of business data.
> Salesperson A, B and C are separate columns but need to be combined for
> reporting. Can I create another table where I can use a select into to put
> Salesperson A into Column 1, Salesperson B into Column 1 and Salesperson C
> into Column 1? If so, how?
> Here is a sample data line:
> Salesperson, Salesperson2, Salesperson3, CommissionRate, DocNumber,
> SalesAmount
> I thought I could combine it into the following layout:
> Salesperson, CommissionRate, DocNumber, SalesAmount but not sure how.|||Change it to
INSERT INTO XCOMMISSIONS (DOCNUMBER, SLSPERSON, ACCTSTATUS,
THRDPRTYNAME,
COMMRATE, REFERRATE) SELECT DOCNUMBER, SLSPERSON, ACCTSTATUS,
THRDPRTYNAME, COMMRATE, REFERRATE FROM X_SLSPERSONA_VIEW
Regards
Amish Shah|||you can also do it with unions and renaming the columns.

Combining data from multiple columns or views

I am trying to combine/report on data that is in one table. Due to system
limitations I have 3 columns that store the same type of business data.
Salesperson A, B and C are separate columns but need to be combined for
reporting. Can I create another table where I can use a select into to put
Salesperson A into Column 1, Salesperson B into Column 1 and Salesperson C
into Column 1? If so, how?
Here is a sample data line:
Salesperson, Salesperson2, Salesperson3, CommissionRate, DocNumber,
SalesAmount
I thought I could combine it into the following layout:
Salesperson, CommissionRate, DocNumber, SalesAmount but not sure how.Hi Dan,
Do you want to concatenate Salespersons A, B, and C all into one column, or
do you want to create a new row for Salesperson A, Salesperson B, and
salesperson C?
To concatenate, you can do the following:
select SalespersonA+SalespersonB+salespersonC, CommissionRate, DocNumber,
SalesAmount from tbl_name
If you want to create a new table and then insert into it from the other
table where each salesperson has their own row, then it would look something
like this:
create the table with columns for Salesperson, CommissionRate, DocNumber,
SalesAmount
Insert into NewTable
select SalespersonA, commissionRate, DocNumber, SalesAmount
Insert into NewTable
select SalespersonB, CommissionRate, DocNumber, SalesAmount
ect.
"Dan Shepherd" wrote:

> I am trying to combine/report on data that is in one table. Due to system
> limitations I have 3 columns that store the same type of business data.
> Salesperson A, B and C are separate columns but need to be combined for
> reporting. Can I create another table where I can use a select into to pu
t
> Salesperson A into Column 1, Salesperson B into Column 1 and Salesperson C
> into Column 1? If so, how?
> Here is a sample data line:
> Salesperson, Salesperson2, Salesperson3, CommissionRate, DocNumber,
> SalesAmount
> I thought I could combine it into the following layout:
> Salesperson, CommissionRate, DocNumber, SalesAmount but not sure how.|||Thanks for the help... I tried the following syntax and it was not working:
INSERT INTO XCOMMISSIONS (DOCNUMBER, SLSPERSON, ACCTSTATUS, THRDPRTYNAME,
COMMRATE, REFERRATE) VALUES (SELECT DOCNUMBER, SLSPERSON, ACCTSTATUS,
THRDPRTYNAME, COMMRATE, REFERRATE FROM X_SLSPERSONA_VIEW)
"Dan Shepherd" wrote:

> I am trying to combine/report on data that is in one table. Due to system
> limitations I have 3 columns that store the same type of business data.
> Salesperson A, B and C are separate columns but need to be combined for
> reporting. Can I create another table where I can use a select into to pu
t
> Salesperson A into Column 1, Salesperson B into Column 1 and Salesperson C
> into Column 1? If so, how?
> Here is a sample data line:
> Salesperson, Salesperson2, Salesperson3, CommissionRate, DocNumber,
> SalesAmount
> I thought I could combine it into the following layout:
> Salesperson, CommissionRate, DocNumber, SalesAmount but not sure how.|||Change it to
INSERT INTO XCOMMISSIONS (DOCNUMBER, SLSPERSON, ACCTSTATUS,
THRDPRTYNAME,
COMMRATE, REFERRATE) SELECT DOCNUMBER, SLSPERSON, ACCTSTATUS,
THRDPRTYNAME, COMMRATE, REFERRATE FROM X_SLSPERSONA_VIEW
Regards
Amish Shah|||you can also do it with unions and renaming the columns.sqlsql

columns order in entities

Hi friends
i've report model with entities that depend on views. my question is , currently all columns in a entity in the same order as view has them. i mean if i have a view like below

create view vname
as
select name,addess,status from mytable

when i create entity based on this i get attributes in this order
name,address,status
but i want
address,name,status

how can i change it to alphabatical order ?
i know i can change manually in model designer window but there are too many fields to sort !!
is there any better way of doing this ?
Thanks for your helphi guys
so there is no way ?|||is it something for next version ?

columns order in entities

Hi friends
i've report model with entities that depend on views. my question is , currently all columns in a entity in the same order as view has them. i mean if i have a view like below

create view vname
as
select name,addess,status from mytable

when i create entity based on this i get attributes in this order
name,address,status
but i want
address,name,status

how can i change it to alphabatical order ?
i know i can change manually in model designer window but there are too many fields to sort !!
is there any better way of doing this ?
Thanks for your helphi guys
so there is no way ?|||is it something for next version ?

Column permissions

1. I denied some user the select permissions on some columns in a table.
However, this user is able to see these columns through the views (SQL
Server 2000). Is there a way to automatically deny the permissions on the
same columns in all the views or it's necessary to set the permissions in
every view?
2. If a column is unchecked in the permissions window, is this the same as
permission granted?
3. I've read somewhere that users should not have access to the tables, only
have access to the views. What is a reason for this recommendation?
Thanks.1) Because of ownership chaining, if the user can read the column in
the view, they can read the column in the table, despite the
permissions being denied.
2) If the column is unchecked, that is permissions revoked, if it is
checked that is permission granted and the red X is denied.
3) This recommendation is based on a few things. First, the problem you
are seeing is remedied by using only views. You don't have to manage
certain permissions twice if everything is in views. Additionally, this
creates an abstraction layer, where the table can be changed and as
long as you update the view, the user never knows about the change.
This also applies to applications. Additionally, direct table access
opens up holes that a DBA may forget to plug. For instance, adding a
new "confidential" column and not denying permission on it. If you
are using views, (not views that just select * from a table), then the
new column will not be available until you explicitly make it so.
Eric Johnson
Consortio Services
Vik wrote:
> 1. I denied some user the select permissions on some columns in a table.
> However, this user is able to see these columns through the views (SQL
> Server 2000). Is there a way to automatically deny the permissions on the
> same columns in all the views or it's necessary to set the permissions in
> every view?
> 2. If a column is unchecked in the permissions window, is this the same as
> permission granted?
> 3. I've read somewhere that users should not have access to the tables, on
ly
> have access to the views. What is a reason for this recommendation?
> Thanks.

Column order/presentation in virtual table (result set from viewor UDF)

I was just messing around with some ad hoc views and table returning
UDFs today so I could look at and print out data from a small table
and noticed something strange.

If I stick my select statement into a View the columns are returned in
the order I specify in the SELECT, but if the same statement is in a UDF
(so I can specify a parameter), the columns are not returned in the
order specified in statement.

I know that relations don't have a specified column order, but it was my
understanding that a SELECT statement could be used to define how you
want your data presented. Views seem to respect the order specified in
the SELECT, but functions don't.

What am I missing? Is there some way to force the order of the columns
returned from a SELECT?

View:

CREATE VIEW dbo.View1
AS
SELECT Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, ForStmt, IfStmt, ChildStmt,
ThenStmt, ElseStmt, NextStmt
FROM dbo.tblStmt
WHERE (Ident LIKE '4.2.%')

Column order from this view:
Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, ForStmt, IfStmt, ChildStmt, ThenStmt,
ElseStmt, NextStmt

Function:

ALTER FUNCTION dbo.Function1
(@.SearchPrm varchar(255))
RETURNS TABLE
AS
RETURN ( SELECT Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, ForStmt, IfStmt,
ChildStmt, ThenStmt, ElseStmt, NextStmt
FROM dbo.tblStmt
WHERE (Ident LIKE @.SearchPrm) )

Column order from this function:
Type, Text, ElseStmt, NextStmt, IfStmt, ChildStmt, ThenStmt, Ident,
ParentStmt, ForStmt

Table:
(I know that this table isn't entirely normalized, but it serves my
purposes to have a matrix instead of a fully normalized relation):

CREATE TABLE dbo.tblStmt (
StmtID INT IDENTITY(1,1) CONSTRAINT PK_Stmt PRIMARY KEY,
Ident VARCHAR(255),
Text TEXT,
ErrorText TEXT,
Type INT,
ParentStmt VARCHAR(255),
ChildStmt VARCHAR(255),
IfStmt VARCHAR(255),
ForStmt VARCHAR(255),
ThenStmt VARCHAR(255),
ElseStmt VARCHAR(255),
NextStmt VARCHAR(255),
FullName VARCHAR(255),
LocalName VARCHAR(255),
Method INT
)

INSERT INTO tblStmt Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, NextStmt
VALUES('4.2.1', 'LineNumberOfResp := EMPTY' 64, '4.2', '4.2.2')

INSERT INTO tblStmt Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, ChildStmt, ForStmt,
NextStmt
VALUES('4.2.2', 'FOR K:= 1 TO 2', 128, '4.2', '4.2.3','4.2.7')

INSERT INTO tblStmt Ident, Text, Type ParentStmt, ChildStmt, ForStmt,
NextStmt
VALUES('4.2.3', 'Person[K].KEEP', 16, '4.2', '4.2.3.1', '4.2.2', '4.2.4')

INSERT INTO tblStmt Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, NextStmt
VALUES('4.2.3.1' 'AuxInterviewerName := DOSENV', 64, '4.2.3', '4.2.3.2')I forgot to mention an important detail. I'm creating the VIEW and
FUNCTION within the context of a Microsoft Access ADP file that's
pointed at the SQL Server 2000 database in question.

If I execute this statement in Query Analyzer:
SELECT * FROM dbo.Function1('4.2.%')
the columns are output as specified in the column list inside the
Function definition (Ident, Text, ..., etc.).

If I double-click on the Function's object in MS Access and enter 4.2.%
in the prompt for the parameter, then the column list is output in the
strange order as noted below (Type, Text, ElseStmt, ..., etc.).

So, this may actually be a Microsoft Access problem, but if anyone has
any information, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Beowulf wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I was just messing around with some ad hoc views and table returning
UDFs today so I could look at and print out data from a small table
and noticed something strange.
>
If I stick my select statement into a View the columns are returned in
the order I specify in the SELECT, but if the same statement is in a UDF
(so I can specify a parameter), the columns are not returned in the
order specified in statement.
>
I know that relations don't have a specified column order, but it was my
understanding that a SELECT statement could be used to define how you
want your data presented. Views seem to respect the order specified in
the SELECT, but functions don't.
>
What am I missing? Is there some way to force the order of the columns
returned from a SELECT?
>
View:
>
CREATE VIEW dbo.View1
AS
SELECT Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, ForStmt, IfStmt, ChildStmt,
ThenStmt, ElseStmt, NextStmt
FROM dbo.tblStmt
WHERE (Ident LIKE '4.2.%')
>
Column order from this view:
Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, ForStmt, IfStmt, ChildStmt, ThenStmt,
ElseStmt, NextStmt
>
Function:
>
ALTER FUNCTION dbo.Function1
(@.SearchPrm varchar(255))
RETURNS TABLE
AS
RETURN ( SELECT Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, ForStmt, IfStmt,
ChildStmt, ThenStmt, ElseStmt, NextStmt
FROM dbo.tblStmt
WHERE (Ident LIKE @.SearchPrm) )
>
Column order from this function:
Type, Text, ElseStmt, NextStmt, IfStmt, ChildStmt, ThenStmt, Ident,
ParentStmt, ForStmt
>
Table:
(I know that this table isn't entirely normalized, but it serves my
purposes to have a matrix instead of a fully normalized relation):
>
CREATE TABLE dbo.tblStmt (
StmtID INT IDENTITY(1,1) CONSTRAINT PK_Stmt PRIMARY KEY,
Ident VARCHAR(255),
Text TEXT,
ErrorText TEXT,
Type INT,
ParentStmt VARCHAR(255),
ChildStmt VARCHAR(255),
IfStmt VARCHAR(255),
ForStmt VARCHAR(255),
ThenStmt VARCHAR(255),
ElseStmt VARCHAR(255),
NextStmt VARCHAR(255),
FullName VARCHAR(255),
LocalName VARCHAR(255),
Method INT
)
>
INSERT INTO tblStmt Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, NextStmt
VALUES('4.2.1', 'LineNumberOfResp := EMPTY' 64, '4.2', '4.2.2')
>
INSERT INTO tblStmt Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, ChildStmt, ForStmt,
NextStmt
VALUES('4.2.2', 'FOR K:= 1 TO 2', 128, '4.2', '4.2.3','4.2.7')
>
INSERT INTO tblStmt Ident, Text, Type ParentStmt, ChildStmt, ForStmt,
NextStmt
VALUES('4.2.3', 'Person[K].KEEP', 16, '4.2', '4.2.3.1', '4.2.2', '4.2.4')
>
INSERT INTO tblStmt Ident, Text, Type, ParentStmt, NextStmt
VALUES('4.2.3.1' 'AuxInterviewerName := DOSENV', 64, '4.2.3', '4.2.3.2')

|||It is indeed an MS Access problem (specific to ADP-s). You can reorder
the columns in the resulting datasheet freely and Access remembers the
position and width of the columns when you open the table/view/function
again. Access usually asks "Do you want to save changes to the layout
of function '...' ?". If you respond "yes", it stores this information
in the database, using extended properties for the objects and for the
columns.

Razvan|||Razvan Socol wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

It is indeed an MS Access problem (specific to ADP-s). You can reorder
the columns in the resulting datasheet freely and Access remembers the
position and width of the columns when you open the table/view/function
again. Access usually asks "Do you want to save changes to the layout
of function '...' ?". If you respond "yes", it stores this information
in the database, using extended properties for the objects and for the
columns.

Thanks for the reply, even though the question turned out to be off-topic.

Column Alias in views

Hi All,
I am currently transferring my Access application to SQL Server. Access allows you to declare and use aliases in the query at the same time.

e.g.
Select field1 as Alias1, field2 as Alias2, Alias1 & " " & Alias2 as Alias3 from table1;

In Access the above query will execute perfectly, no problem. However in SQL Server, if you try to run the same query it will give an error "Invalid column name Alias1" meaning that SQL Server is searching for Alias1 as a field in the table, not as an alias from the query.

My question is does SQL Server have a facility to declare and use alias directly as in Access and if no, is there a workaround?

Thanks for your time.

Regards:
Prathmeshhi

try this

Select field1 as Alias1, field2 as Alias2, field1 + ' ' + field2 as Alias3 from table1;

hope this will solve ur problem|||Hi,
Ok, I think I need to explain a bit more detail. I have got a database table that stores data about different equipments. Each equipment is identified by 3 distinct fields Area, Type, No. So a particular equipment tag would be of type:
Area+Type+No.

Now at the same time the table also holds the description of the equipment which comes from 2 fields desc1 and desc2. So the whole equimment desc would be desc1+desc2

Now on the reports the equiptag and equipment desc need to be concatenated to form one equipment number i.e. Area+type+No+Desc1+desc2

So what I wanted to do was
Select Area+type+No as Equiptag, Desc1+Desc2 As EquipDesc, EquipTag+EquipDesc As EquipNo from equipment;

but obviously SQL Server will give an error of invalid column for "EquipTag" and "EquipDesc"

So, Is there any way to do this?

Regards:
Prathmesh|||Hi,

So what I wanted to do was

Select
Area+type+No as Equiptag,
Desc1+Desc2 As EquipDesc,
EquipTag+EquipDesc As EquipNo
from
equipment;

but obviously SQL Server will give an error of invalid column for "EquipTag" and "EquipDesc"

So, Is there any way to do this?

To the best of my knowledge, you can't use an alias as part of a formula within the same SQL. You would either have to do this:

Select
Area+type+No as Equiptag,
Desc1+Desc2 As EquipDesc,
Area+type+No+Desc1+Desc2 As EquipNo
from
equipment;

or you could try creating a subquery like this:

SELECT
t.EquipTag,
t.EquipDesc,
t.EquipTag+t.EquipDesc As EquipNo
FROM
(SELECT
Area+type+No as Equiptag,
Desc1+Desc2 As EquipDesc
FROM
equipment) t

Regards,

hmscott|||Thanks hmscott,
The subquery idea is a good one. I'll give it a try. I was just curious if this could be done similar to Access or not. I must say, being an Access programmer, there are certain things in SQL Server which really annoy you. Most of my queries use this type of aliasing, so I now have to go and rewrite them to replace Aliasing.

Another thing is the "concat null yields null" thing. When you concat 2 strings and one is null, the returned string is Null. Huh!!! Why? I think this is totally stupid. In Access, this is not at all a problem. It just discards the nulls, and returns the concatenated string without nulls. Well I guess this is typical Microsoft behaviour. I tried executing the stored procedure to set the concat null yeidls null to false, but it does not work. I cannot figure out why. A similar question was posted in this forum asking why it does not work, but nobody was able to answer. If anybody has got any suggestions, please do let me know.

Thanks.

Regards:
Prathmesh|||All databases are different. All databases have things that are worse than other databases or extra things that are better than other databases. There is no reason. What is included in the SQL Standard should be the same accross databases but for anything else ...|||hi Prathmesh,

try this

SELECT ISNULL(columnwithnull,'') + nonnullcolumns from yourtable|||Hi baburaj,
Yep, that is what I am using now. However, I have decided on something else. I am planning to use SQL Server backend to Access frontend, because all my forms , reports, etc. are in Access.I am going to do all the complex join queries on SQL Server side as views and link the tables via odbc to Access using the Access "link tables" facility and the required formatting I will still do on Access side. This way I can have best of both worlds. I can make use of SQL server's performance and Access' formatting features.

Thanks to all for your help and suggestion guys.|||Another thing is the "concat null yields null" thing. When you concat 2 strings and one is null, the returned string is Null. Huh!!! Why? I think this is totally stupid. In Access, this is not at all a problem. It just discards the nulls, and returns the concatenated string without nulls. Well I guess this is typical Microsoft behaviour. I tried executing the stored procedure to set the concat null yeidls null to false, but it does not work. I cannot figure out why. A similar question was posted in this forum asking why it does not work, but nobody was able to answer. If anybody has got any suggestions, please do let me know.
Not entirely true - Access also provides the "+" concatenation operator where Null + "Something" = Null.
Rather than thinking of it as a bind you need to think through the implications. The + operator is great, for example, when putting together a csv address string for presentation - you don't need to use a load of conditional statements to exclude the comma if, for example, the address has no House Name.