Database Acting Strange

MY DATABASE FOR SHOPPING CART IS ACTING STRANGE IT HAS AUTOMATICALLY DESTOYED ALL PRIMARY KEYS. AND HAS CREATED 4 DUPLICATE RECORDS FOR EACH RECORD SO AT THIS STAGE I HAVE AROUNG 15000 RECORDS IN EACH TABLE IT MEANS 15 TIMES 4 60000 RECORDS. CAN ANYONE UPDATEME WHY THIS HAS HAPPENED AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO DELETE EXISTING DUPLICATES. I NEED FAST REPLY IN THIS MATTER AS THIS IS URGENT. IF POSSIBLE KINDLY WRITE QUERIES TRIGGERS FOR FUTURE PROBLEMS AS WELL AS THESE DAYS I AM SICK SO MY BRAIN AINT WORKING IN THIS MATTER. URGENT URGENT URGENT THANKS ALOT I HAVE PREVIOUSLY POSTED AND HAVE GOT A GOOD RESPONSE. AND HOPE A GOOD ONE AGAIN. ONE MORE THING IS THAT I HAVE A BACKUP HERE AT MY OFFICE SYSTEM IT ALSO HAS DONE THE SAMETHING. I MADE A NEW DATABASE AND TRYED TO IMPORT DATA WITH DISTINCT KEYWORD BUUT IT IS NOT COPYING IT AS WELL. URGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED IF ANYONE CAN DO.It's that damn Miracle thing againnn....I hate when that happens...

Who else has sa rights to the server?|||Computers are like dogs. They can sense fear. You need to stop panicking and find out exactly when this occured, what was running, who was logged in, what the last code changes implemented were, etc...
Standard problem solving mode.

SQL Server will not, of its own accord, drop keys and duplicate records. Someone or some code did this.|||...and if I could write queries and triggers for future problems I'd be a wealthy man.|||Originally posted by blindman
...and if I could write queries and triggers for future problems I'd be a wealthy man.

LOL

Still working on the AI_DBA module?|||Oh, I finished that months ago. Works like a charm. But if I release it, I'd be out of a job.

If someone invented a light bulb that never burned out, who would want to manufacture them?|||What does that module do?|||AI_DBA module automatically and flawlessly performs all Database Administration and Development duties without the need for high-priced talent. It's user inteface consists of a single button that says "OK". It senses the manner and duration of the keypress to intuitively analyze the user's intentions and create a complete Requirements Document based upon the user's subconcious needs rather than just what they SAY they want, and completes the task within and regardless of all the unreasonable restrictions placed upon it by a boss who "knows better". It's "I told you so" submodule has been completely removed to spare any egos, and if you have an internet connection it automatically logs into dbforums three times each day and answers all questions containing the text words "date" and "format".|||OK-OK, I got the drift :)|||Originally posted by blindman
AI_DBA module automatically and flawlessly performs all Database Administration and Development duties without the need for high-priced talent. It's user inteface consists of a single button that says "OK". It senses the manner and duration of the keypress to intuitively analyze the user's intentions and create a complete Requirements Document based upon the user's subconcious needs rather than just what they SAY they want, and completes the task within and regardless of all the unreasonable restrictions placed upon it by a boss who "knows better". It's "I told you so" submodule has been completely removed to spare any egos, and if you have an internet connection it automatically logs into dbforums three times each day and answers all questions containing the text words "date" and "format".

Yup...that's about right...

I like the subconcious part...

DataAdapter - SELECT Statement - items in last 30 days

I'm using DataList to return vales stored in an SQL database, of which one of the fields contains the date the record was added.

I am trying to fill the dataset with items only from the last 30 days.
I've tried a few different ways, but all the database rows are returned.

What is the WHERE clause I sholud use to do this??

ThanksTry with the following SQL statement, i belive it should work.

select * from <tablename> where datediff(day, <columnname>, getdate()) < 30

Hope it solves your issue.|||Thanks very much, it worked a treat

Data type mismatch in criteria expresioin

Hi again, I'm having problems with an insert record page to insert records into a msaccess database via sql and dreamweaver mx.asp pages.

There are four date fields that can be entered (all not required), but it keep getting the

ERROR;Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Data type mismatch in criteria expression.

from my documentation there seems to be a known problem with msaccess and update/insert server behaviours....

Has anyone managed to overcome this issue, and if so, how ??

thanks for your help...That may be because of the Date format on the access database.
Try to insert the date in this format:
aaaa-mm-dd

______________
Paulo Gonalves|||thanks heaps...I actually got it sorted about 20 minutes before I read your reply...and you were right...I had the msaccess date formats set to an input mask that I don't think dreamweaver took a liking to...

cheers.

Data type in audit record

Hi,

I want my application to audit any data changes (update, insert,
delete) made by the users. Rather than have an audit table mirroring
each user table, I'd prefer to have a generic structure which can log
anything. This is what I've come up with:

TABLE: audit_record
*audit_record_id (uniqueidentifier, auto-assign, PK) - unique
idenfiier of the audit record
table_name (varchar) - name of the table where the action (insert/
update/delete) was made
pk_value (varchar) - primary key of the changed record. If the PK
itself has changed, this will store the old value.
user_id (varchar) - user who changed the record
date (datetime) - date/time at which the change was made
action (int) - 0, 1 or 2 (insert, update, delete)

TABLE: audit_column
*audit_record_id (uniqueidentifier, composite PK) - FK to
cdb_audit_record table
*column_name (varchar, composite PK) - name of the column with changed
data
new_value (text?) - value after the change

So every column which changes has its new value logged individually in
the audit_column table. However, I'm not sure what data type the
new_value column should have. The obvious answer (to me) is text, as
that can handle any necessary data type with the appropriate
conversion (we don't store any binary data). However, this table is
going to grow to millions of records and I'm not sure what the
performance implications of a text column will be, particularly given
that the actual data stored in it will almost always be tiny.

Any thoughts/recommendations/criticism would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
AlexSorry for replying to myself - I forgot to state that I'm using SQL
Server 2000 standard edition.|||WombatDeath@.gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I want my application to audit any data changes (update, insert,
delete) made by the users. Rather than have an audit table mirroring
each user table, I'd prefer to have a generic structure which can log
anything. This is what I've come up with:
>
TABLE: audit_record
*audit_record_id (uniqueidentifier, auto-assign, PK) - unique
idenfiier of the audit record
table_name (varchar) - name of the table where the action (insert/
update/delete) was made
pk_value (varchar) - primary key of the changed record. If the PK
itself has changed, this will store the old value.
user_id (varchar) - user who changed the record
date (datetime) - date/time at which the change was made
action (int) - 0, 1 or 2 (insert, update, delete)
>
TABLE: audit_column
*audit_record_id (uniqueidentifier, composite PK) - FK to
cdb_audit_record table
*column_name (varchar, composite PK) - name of the column with changed
data
new_value (text?) - value after the change
>
So every column which changes has its new value logged individually in
the audit_column table. However, I'm not sure what data type the
new_value column should have. The obvious answer (to me) is text, as
that can handle any necessary data type with the appropriate
conversion (we don't store any binary data). However, this table is
going to grow to millions of records and I'm not sure what the
performance implications of a text column will be, particularly given
that the actual data stored in it will almost always be tiny.
>
Any thoughts/recommendations/criticism would be greatly appreciated.

Do you actually have anything (or any reasonable prospect of having
anything in future) for which NVARCHAR(4000) wouldn't be good enough?

Whatever you do, I strongly recommend keeping tabs on how quickly it
grows, showing that trend information to the client, and (1) narrow it
down to the tables that really need an audit trail and/or (2) come up
with a sane archive-and-purge schedule.|||On Mar 30, 3:42 pm, Ed Murphy <emurph...@.socal.rr.comwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

WombatDe...@.gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I want my application to audit any data changes (update, insert,
delete) made by the users. Rather than have an audit table mirroring
each user table, I'd prefer to have a generic structure which can log
anything. This is what I've come up with:

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

TABLE: audit_record
*audit_record_id (uniqueidentifier, auto-assign, PK) - unique
idenfiier of the audit record
table_name (varchar) - name of the table where the action (insert/
update/delete) was made
pk_value (varchar) - primary key of the changed record. If the PK
itself has changed, this will store the old value.
user_id (varchar) - user who changed the record
date (datetime) - date/time at which the change was made
action (int) - 0, 1 or 2 (insert, update, delete)

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

TABLE: audit_column
*audit_record_id (uniqueidentifier, composite PK) - FK to
cdb_audit_record table
*column_name (varchar, composite PK) - name of the column with changed
data
new_value (text?) - value after the change

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

So every column which changes has its new value logged individually in
the audit_column table. However, I'm not sure what data type the
new_value column should have. The obvious answer (to me) is text, as
that can handle any necessary data type with the appropriate
conversion (we don't store any binary data). However, this table is
going to grow to millions of records and I'm not sure what the
performance implications of a text column will be, particularly given
that the actual data stored in it will almost always be tiny.

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Any thoughts/recommendations/criticism would be greatly appreciated.

>
Do you actually have anything (or any reasonable prospect of having
anything in future) for which NVARCHAR(4000) wouldn't be good enough?
>
Whatever you do, I strongly recommend keeping tabs on how quickly it
grows, showing that trend information to the client, and (1) narrow it
down to the tables that really need an audit trail and/or (2) come up
with a sane archive-and-purge schedule.

Yeah, unfortunately we do have several tables with a column of type
text. These generally don't hold anything close to 4000 chars but
there's nothing actually preventing them from doing so. But...if
there's no tidier option I think I may just truncate to 4000 and be
done with it. We're not auditing to fulfil legal obligations or
anything nasty like that so I don't think it will be a problem.

Your point about maintenance is well taken. I've specified that the
application's auditing must be configurable on an entity-by-entity
basis, and every so often we'll archive away any old data for fast-
changing entities.

Thanks very much for your input!|||(WombatDeath@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I want my application to audit any data changes (update, insert,
delete) made by the users. Rather than have an audit table mirroring
each user table, I'd prefer to have a generic structure which can log
anything. This is what I've come up with:
>
TABLE: audit_record
*audit_record_id (uniqueidentifier, auto-assign, PK) - unique
idenfiier of the audit record
table_name (varchar) - name of the table where the action (insert/
update/delete) was made
pk_value (varchar) - primary key of the changed record. If the PK
itself has changed, this will store the old value.
user_id (varchar) - user who changed the record
date (datetime) - date/time at which the change was made
action (int) - 0, 1 or 2 (insert, update, delete)
>
TABLE: audit_column
*audit_record_id (uniqueidentifier, composite PK) - FK to
cdb_audit_record table
*column_name (varchar, composite PK) - name of the column with changed
data
new_value (text?) - value after the change
>
So every column which changes has its new value logged individually in
the audit_column table. However, I'm not sure what data type the
new_value column should have. The obvious answer (to me) is text, as
that can handle any necessary data type with the appropriate
conversion (we don't store any binary data). However, this table is
going to grow to millions of records and I'm not sure what the
performance implications of a text column will be, particularly given
that the actual data stored in it will almost always be tiny.

That is not going to be fun in SQL 2000. In SQL 2005 you could build a
generic audit solution on the xml data type.

I would recommend that you research the market for audit products. I
know for instance that ApexSQL has a something they call SQLAudit
if memory serves.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||>I want my application to audit any data changes (update, insert, delete) made by the users. Rather than have an audit table mirroring each user table, I'd prefer to have a generic structure which can log anything. <<

Any chance you might post DDL instead of your personal pseudo-code?
And I hope you know that auto-numbering is not a relational key.
Finally, Google "EAV design flaw" for tens of thousands of words on
why this approach stinks. There is no such magical shape shifting
table in RDBMS. Data Versus metadata, etc.? Freshman database
course, 3rd week of the quarter?

While you might like this kludge your accountants and auditors will
not. NEVER keep audit trails on the same database or even the same
hardware as the database.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>Any thoughts/recommendations/criticism would be greatly appreciated. <<

Look at third party tools that follow the law and get a basic dat
modeling book.