I am using SQL Server 2008 and SSMS 2012. I have a stored procedure that references a table that does not exist. The editor displays red underlines on the offending table to indicate that something is wrong.
However when I execute the query, I get the message
Command(s) completed successfully.
This is extremely annoying. I also connected to the engine from another machine and it experienced the same problem, which implies its on the server, not ssms. Is there some kind of setting on the database that determines whether the database checks the syntax of stored procedures? PLEASE HELP!
Clarification:
I know that the syntax is wrong. The problem is that SSMS allows me to execute the CREATE or ALTER statement without error even when it references a table that does not exist. I want it to fail. Usually it does, but for some reason it suddenly stopped giving errors. I want it to give me errors. How do I do this?
Your syntax is fine and that is checked when you create the stored procedure. The existence of tables is however not checked until the stored procedure is compiled and that happens when the stored procedure is executed.
What's going on is that the IDE in the management studio hasn't had the schema model refreshed. Since the local instance of SSMS doesn't know the table exists, it throws a redline under the table name; when you actually run the sproc/query, the code sent to the database evaluates properly and runs.
To refresh the SSMS local data, try pressing Ctrl-Shift-R, as described here.
Edit:
You might want to look into Deferred Name Resolution
You will not get an error message when you CREATE or ALTER, but you can check your SPs for missing dependencies with a script afterwards.
Please check my answer to the related question here (I just post a link to avoid duplication):
I'm looking for a reliable way to verify T-SQL stored procedures. Anybody got one?
Related
I'm using mysql workbench as my db client. I have two databases one is giving data mydb_1 and another is receiving the data called mydb_2.
So, below are my doubts :
How can be the data transformation is happening between these DB's?I have checked whether any stored procedure call or triggers have been written but i was unable to find out that because stored_procedures are not visible to my credentials?
I suspect may be i don't have required privilege's, if i don't have proper privilege, so even i wouldn't see the stored procedures? is it dint?
Is there any alternative way to find, how mydb_2 is getting updated?
Because of the access restriction, I was unable to see the stored procedure code.
So, I enabled the MySQL binary log to find, how the data transformation is happening between two databases for the restricted user. Even though
this didn't give entire information but partially I have found some information which can sort my problem.
I been using mysql 5.6 for a while now,
Sometimes when I make some changes in the procedure , table or function and try to save them MySQL refuses to save them and shows a error message like "No Changes detected". here I am not talking about changing cases or managing spacing. Even If I add some new column and add new condition in the procedure its unable to detect the change
Can anybody help me out with this MySQL bug
I have even upgraded to MySQL 5.7 but still problem persist.
I overcome this bug by removing the "DEFINER=root#localhost" part from the editor and then click on "Apply". It works 99% of times.
Eg: For a function or procedure, below is the declaration you see at top. Just remove the DEFINER string as described above and try it.
CREATE DEFINER=root#localhost FUNCTION/PROCEDURE
Since this is not a MySQL server error response, I assume you are trying to update your procedures with the MySQL visual tool workbench (http://www.mysql.com/products/workbench/)
I found bug reports on mysql.com pointing out similar issues. http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=68434
Those might be fixed with the latest version 6.0 of MySQL workbench.
If not, a possible workaround would be to drop and recreate procedures.
If you are using MySQL Work bench this means that the SQL script is identical to the copy in the database.
This generally happens for 1 of 2 reasons
Either the Files are Identical, or the script failed to parse as valid SQL and its has then defaulted to the original script. if you check the message log then the second one should say
Action:Apply changes to [scriptName]_SYNTAX_ERROR
Message:No changes detected
this can be confusing as the Commit Dialogue only displays the message not the action
When sp_recompile is run against a table, I understand that all stored procedures and triggers dependent on that table will be recompiled.
What I don't understand is what parameters SQL Server uses for this recompile. I can't see how parameter sniffing would factor in here. Does it compile an execution plan that is 'generic' using something similar to OPTIMIZE FOR UNKNOWN?
I feel like I'm missing something really obvious.
Does anyone have an understanding of this?
sp_recompile do not executes a recompilation of the objects itself. It deletes only all saved execution-plans. This forces an recompilation by the next call of the object (with the parameters of this next call).
Hey all, I have a linq app using C# express2008 and sqlserver express 2005 (mdf file connection)
I followed the regular dml generation and vanilla datacontext. However i created a repository class to manage the Linq stuff.
In using the functions, selecting data works fine, updating data works in the app.But when i check the data in the tables, nothing has changed.Needless to say, when i close the app, also no change.
I used SQL profiler to see what was being sent to sqlserver express, nothing showed up.
What could be my issues?
Are you calling SubmitChanges() on the DataContext?
No primary key, or no column(s) in the L2S model marked as primary key member(s)..?
Ok... found 'a' soln.
1. changed (forced) default connection string from looking at a file to an instance of sql server (using database instead of file)
2. Attached file to sql server express..and renamed the db.
Ran app again and everything works. Only thing is..the dml still uses the old connection string..so any mods to tables have to be done in sqlserver.
This is just my quicky patch, anyone care to provide a more elaborate view?
We have a single SQL Log for storing errors from multiple applications. We have disabled the elmah.axd page for each one of our applications and would like to have a new application that specifically displays errors from all of the apps that report errors to the common SQL log.
As of now, even though the application for all errors is using the common SQL log, it only displays errors from the current application. Has anyone done this before? What within the elmah code might need to be tweaked?
I assume by "SQL Log" you mean MSSQL Server... If so, probably the easiest way of accomplishing what you want would be to edit the stored procedures created in the SQL Server database that holds your errors.
To get the error list, the ELMAH dll calls the ELMAH_GetErrorsXML proc with the application name as a parameter, then the proc filters the return with a WHERE [Application] = #Application clause.
Just remove the WHERE clause from the ELMAH_GetErrorsXML proc, and all errors should be returned regardless of application.
To get a single error record properly, you'll have to do the same with the ELMAH_GetErrorXML proc, as it also filters by application.
This, of course, will affect any application retrieving errors out of this particular database, but I assume in your case you'll only ever have the one, so this should be good.
CAVEAT: I have not tried this, so I can't guarantee the results...
It's not a problem to override the default Elmah handler factory so that it will filter Elmah logs by applications. I wrote a sample app that shows how to do it with MySql: http://diagnettoolkit.codeplex.com/releases/view/103931. You may as well check a post on my blog where I explain how it works.
Yes, it easily works. However you can't see app name in Elmah/Default.aspx. I haven't found if it is confugurable - just display one column more.