Check Referential Ingerity or Catch Error

Hi all,

Just wondering what would be the normal or more efficient practice to insert/update a record.

1. Check for existence of primary record (using SELECT in stored procedure)
2. Capture error and handling

My problem is that I try to execute an stored procedure from a VB client.. but unable to capture the errors in SP, it just prompts the error and thats it, not responding to my "SELECT @.err = @.@.ERROR" after the insert statement.

so now, I'm thinking of capturing the error on the client (which I am able to do) and handle it from there.. or to make sure that RI is enforced by 'searching' for Pks in the primary tables before executing the INSERT statement in my stored procedure.

Any advise would be appreciated..

CyherusHi all,

Just wondering what would be the normal or more efficient practice to insert/update a record.

1. Check for existence of primary record (using SELECT in stored procedure)
2. Capture error and handling

My problem is that I try to execute an stored procedure from a VB client.. but unable to capture the errors in SP, it just prompts the error and thats it, not responding to my "SELECT @.err = @.@.ERROR" after the insert statement.

so now, I'm thinking of capturing the error on the client (which I am able to do) and handle it from there.. or to make sure that RI is enforced by 'searching' for Pks in the primary tables before executing the INSERT statement in my stored procedure.

Any advise would be appreciated..

Cyherus

Any error above 16 won't be caught. You need to catch those at the client or app level. If you're having these types of RI issues though, you have an app design issue. The PK should already be known by the app when you go to insert foreign key records. On the insert of a new PK, it should either be auto or a true natural key. In this case, there is no chance of error.|||Many thanks.. now things are much clearer..

I'm reading these data from a text file and foreign keys on these records are not checked against the primary tables in my DB, thus the need to handle this.

I dun quite get you when you mention about inserting new PKs, what do you mean by auto or true natural key??

Check last access/update date on each database

I need to check the date of the last update on each database on some
servers.
If the last update is many months ago, I'll need at least stop SQL Services.
How is the best was to do it?
Thanks folks!!!
Carlos Felipe Frana da Fonseca
Hi,
SQL Server will not keep track of these info by itself. Only way is to
verify the modifiedon column in your table. If you do not have modified on
column
then you may need to setup a profiler trace and based on the log you need to
go further.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Carlos Felipe Frana da Fonseca" <carlos@.felipe.com.br> wrote in message
news:%23B0kfB52GHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I need to check the date of the last update on each database on some
>servers.
> If the last update is many months ago, I'll need at least stop SQL
> Services.
> How is the best was to do it?
> Thanks folks!!!
> Carlos Felipe Frana da Fonseca
>
|||Hello,
Alternative way is look into sysprocesses table in each server .
For SPID > 50 look for last_batch . Check the date and time .
Note this will provide database accessed time and not updated time .
You have to look into all user databases for last_batch before
stopping the service .
M A Srinivas
Carlos Felipe Fran=E7a da Fonseca wrote:
> I need to check the date of the last update on each database on some
> servers.
> If the last update is many months ago, I'll need at least stop SQL Servic=
es.
> How is the best was to do it?
>=20
> Thanks folks!!!
>=20
> Carlos Felipe Fran=E7a da Fonseca
sql

Check last access/update date on each database

I need to check the date of the last update on each database on some
servers.
If the last update is many months ago, I'll need at least stop SQL Services.
How is the best was to do it?
Thanks folks!!!
Carlos Felipe Frana da FonsecaHi,
SQL Server will not keep track of these info by itself. Only way is to
verify the modifiedon column in your table. If you do not have modified on
column
then you may need to setup a profiler trace and based on the log you need to
go further.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Carlos Felipe Frana da Fonseca" <carlos@.felipe.com.br> wrote in message
news:%23B0kfB52GHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I need to check the date of the last update on each database on some
>servers.
> If the last update is many months ago, I'll need at least stop SQL
> Services.
> How is the best was to do it?
> Thanks folks!!!
> Carlos Felipe Frana da Fonseca
>|||Hello,
Alternative way is look into sysprocesses table in each server .
For SPID > 50 look for last_batch . Check the date and time .
Note this will provide database accessed time and not updated time .
You have to look into all user databases for last_batch before
stopping the service .
M A Srinivas
Carlos Felipe Fran=E7a da Fonseca wrote:
> I need to check the date of the last update on each database on some
> servers.
> If the last update is many months ago, I'll need at least stop SQL Servic=
es.
> How is the best was to do it?
>=20
> Thanks folks!!!
>=20
> Carlos Felipe Fran=E7a da Fonseca

Check last access/update date on each database

I need to check the date of the last update on each database on some
servers.
If the last update is many months ago, I'll need at least stop SQL Services.
How is the best was to do it?
Thanks folks!!!
Carlos Felipe França da FonsecaHi,
SQL Server will not keep track of these info by itself. Only way is to
verify the modifiedon column in your table. If you do not have modified on
column
then you may need to setup a profiler trace and based on the log you need to
go further.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"Carlos Felipe França da Fonseca" <carlos@.felipe.com.br> wrote in message
news:%23B0kfB52GHA.2196@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I need to check the date of the last update on each database on some
>servers.
> If the last update is many months ago, I'll need at least stop SQL
> Services.
> How is the best was to do it?
> Thanks folks!!!
> Carlos Felipe França da Fonseca
>|||Hello,
Alternative way is look into sysprocesses table in each server .
For SPID > 50 look for last_batch . Check the date and time .
Note this will provide database accessed time and not updated time .
You have to look into all user databases for last_batch before
stopping the service .
M A Srinivas
Carlos Felipe Fran=E7a da Fonseca wrote:
> I need to check the date of the last update on each database on some
> servers.
> If the last update is many months ago, I'll need at least stop SQL Servic=es.
> How is the best was to do it?
> > Thanks folks!!!
> > Carlos Felipe Fran=E7a da Fonseca

Check for Null values in Transact Sql

I am using Visual Web Developer Express 2005 and SQL Server Express 2005.

I have set up a trigger that fires when an update has been performed on
a specific table. The trigger checks to see if specific columns have
been updated. If they have, then the trigger code is executed. This part
works fine.

I am now trying to find a way to check if null values exist in either
one of two field from the same table. If either field contains a null
value, then I don't want the trigger code to be executed.

How can I check for null values and skip a block of code within my
Transact Sql trigger.

Thanks....

You can use the IS NULL clause to test a column...

|||

Use something like:

if exists (select * from MyTbl where Col1 is null or Col2 is null)

//do not update

else //update

Check for Duplicates Help

I have a table that has an ssn column that is nullable. I want to allow duplicate null values but if someone tries to insert or update th column with a value that is not null I need to check to see if the value already exists and if so generate an error.

Can anyone tell or better yet provide an example of the best way to do this. I'm guessing a trigger but I'm pretty green when it comes to writing efficient triggers.

Thanx in advance!!!You can not use unique index but trigger will be good for your case:

drop table test
go
create table test(ssn varchar(7))
go
alter trigger no_duplicates on test
for insert,update
as
if exists(select ssn from test
where ssn in(select ssn from inserted)
and ssn is not null
group by ssn having count(*)>1)begin
raiserror('duplicates!!!',0,1)
rollback tran
end|||Thanks a bunch snail!!!|||No kidding?

DB2 has something SQL Server doesn't?

UNIQUE WHERE NOT NULL

Nothing like that here?

I'm shocked!|||that's an extension for fat ibm dba's

Check Database Operation

Hi,
I want to check that which operation like Insert, Update or Delete is
performed on the table in a trigger written for all the these opertaions.
Is there is any function from which I can know this?
Thanks.
The only way you can tell in a trigger is the presence or absence of rows in
the inserted and deleted table:
1. No rows in either table - nothing was changed
2. Rows in inserted , none in deleted - Insert
3. Rows in deleted , non in inserted - Delete
4. Rows in both - Update
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Syed Zulfiqar" <zulfiqar_syed@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzu3YIgHEHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I want to check that which operation like Insert, Update or Delete is
> performed on the table in a trigger written for all the these opertaions.
> Is there is any function from which I can know this?
> Thanks.
>

Check Database Operation

Hi,
I want to check that which operation like Insert, Update or Delete is
performed on the table in a trigger written for all the these opertaions.
Is there is any function from which I can know this?
Thanks.The only way you can tell in a trigger is the presence or absence of rows in
the inserted and deleted table:
1. No rows in either table - nothing was changed
2. Rows in inserted , none in deleted - Insert
3. Rows in deleted , non in inserted - Delete
4. Rows in both - Update
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Syed Zulfiqar" <zulfiqar_syed@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzu3YIgHEHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I want to check that which operation like Insert, Update or Delete is
> performed on the table in a trigger written for all the these opertaions.
> Is there is any function from which I can know this?
> Thanks.
>

Check Database Operation

Hi,
I want to check that which operation like Insert, Update or Delete is
performed on the table in a trigger written for all the these opertaions.
Is there is any function from which I can know this?
Thanks.The only way you can tell in a trigger is the presence or absence of rows in
the inserted and deleted table:
1. No rows in either table - nothing was changed
2. Rows in inserted , none in deleted - Insert
3. Rows in deleted , non in inserted - Delete
4. Rows in both - Update
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Syed Zulfiqar" <zulfiqar_syed@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uzu3YIgHEHA.548@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I want to check that which operation like Insert, Update or Delete is
> performed on the table in a trigger written for all the these opertaions.
> Is there is any function from which I can know this?
> Thanks.
>

Check Data Before Update

Hello Everybody!

I have a POLINE table on a SQL Server 2000 DB. Before I update the
record I need to check that either field, STORELOC or WONUM has data
on it. If both fields are NULL I would like to send a message letting
the user know that either fields needs data before they can save the
record. If any of the fields have data then, it is OK to save the
record.

Could you please let me know how to accomplish this? An example will
be really helpful, I can do this in Access but I do not know how to do
it in SQLServer. I was thinking using trigger but there are not really
good examples.

Thanks in Advance!

Martin[posted and mailed, please reply in news]

Martin (martin.wunder@.wsidc.com) writes:
> I have a POLINE table on a SQL Server 2000 DB. Before I update the
> record I need to check that either field, STORELOC or WONUM has data
> on it. If both fields are NULL I would like to send a message letting
> the user know that either fields needs data before they can save the
> record. If any of the fields have data then, it is OK to save the
> record.
> Could you please let me know how to accomplish this? An example will
> be really helpful, I can do this in Access but I do not know how to do
> it in SQLServer. I was thinking using trigger but there are not really
> good examples.

The answer is that you don't do this in SQL Server.

No, get me right. You can certainly have a check for this in SQL Server:

create table POLINE (...
STORELOC some_type not null,
WONUM other_type not null,
...
constraint POLINE_CHK_STORELOC_WONUM
check (STORELOC is not null or WONUM is not
null)

This table constraint will cause SQL Server to flatly accept any rows
where both columns are NULL. If exactly one should be non-NULL the
check should read:

STORELOCK is not null and WONUM is null or
STORELOCK is null and WONUM is not null

However, this does not really meet your requirements, because the
message will not be useful to the user. To this end, you need to
do the check in the client.

There is an important difference between Access and SQL Server. Access
is both database and GUI in one, but SQL Server is only the server
side, and requires a client on the other end. (Which could be Access.)

Still constraints like these are very useful, because they can cover
up for tests that the GUI programmer failed to include, and protect
the integirty of the data.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar@.algonet.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Check Constraint UDF: Update vs. Insert

I am using a check constraint on one of my tables. It appears to me
that the constraint processes an insert AFTER the row is inserted on
an insert, but BEFORE the data is updated on an update. here's my
example:
Table:
CREATE TABLE [test1] (
[test] [int] NOT NULL )
Function:
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.fn_RI_Test (@.test int)
RETURNS INT
AS
BEGIN
declare @.cnt int
select @.cnt = count(*) from test1 where test=@.test
return @.cnt
END
here's my constraint added to the table test1:
alter table test1 add constraint ck_test1 check
(dbo.fn_RI_test([test])=1)
Now, if I insert new rows:
insert into test1 values (1) - works fine
insert into test1 values (2) - works fine
insert into test1 values (1) - error:
Server: Msg 547, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
INSERT statement conflicted with COLUMN CHECK constraint 'ck_test1'.
The conflict occurred in database 'JHRA_Test', table 'test1', column
'test'.
The statement has been terminated.
BUT, if I perform an update:
update test1 set test=1 where test=2
IT WORKS and now there are 2 rows with test=1
Am I crazy? Is there any way for me to know in the function whether
this is an update or an insert? Any other options? BTW, I don't need
to make a single column unique in this manner, my needs are much more
complex. this is just an illustration which demonstrates my issue.
Thanks!rich,
Can you tell us more about your needs?
This is a known behavior with a udf referencing same table in a constraint
and It has been fixed in 2005 version.
AMB
"rich" wrote:

> I am using a check constraint on one of my tables. It appears to me
> that the constraint processes an insert AFTER the row is inserted on
> an insert, but BEFORE the data is updated on an update. here's my
> example:
> Table:
> CREATE TABLE [test1] (
> [test] [int] NOT NULL )
> Function:
> CREATE FUNCTION dbo.fn_RI_Test (@.test int)
> RETURNS INT
> AS
> BEGIN
> declare @.cnt int
> select @.cnt = count(*) from test1 where test=@.test
> return @.cnt
> END
> here's my constraint added to the table test1:
> alter table test1 add constraint ck_test1 check
> (dbo.fn_RI_test([test])=1)
> Now, if I insert new rows:
> insert into test1 values (1) - works fine
> insert into test1 values (2) - works fine
> insert into test1 values (1) - error:
> Server: Msg 547, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> INSERT statement conflicted with COLUMN CHECK constraint 'ck_test1'.
> The conflict occurred in database 'JHRA_Test', table 'test1', column
> 'test'.
> The statement has been terminated.
> BUT, if I perform an update:
> update test1 set test=1 where test=2
> IT WORKS and now there are 2 rows with test=1
> Am I crazy? Is there any way for me to know in the function whether
> this is an update or an insert? Any other options? BTW, I don't need
> to make a single column unique in this manner, my needs are much more
> complex. this is just an illustration which demonstrates my issue.
> Thanks!
>|||Alejandro, thanks for the reply - I was trying to find some resource
to confirm or deny the workings so I appreciate it.
I will share the true source of my problem in case you, or others,
would like to weigh in on the best method.
Basically, all of our data tables have a delete_flag bit field.
At the same time, I am trying to disallow duplicate combination of 3
fields. (sounds like a primary key, huh?)
Each table has an Identity field as the primary key.
I can't create a unique index on the three field combo because I allow
logical deletes using the delete_flag field.
I tried including the delete_flag in a four field index, but then you
can only delete each unique combination once.
I need unlimited logically deleted rows where my three fields are not
necessarily unique,
but only one non-deleted one row for each unique combination.
make sense?
On Feb 22, 3:26 pm, Alejandro Mesa
<AlejandroM...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> rich,
> Can you tell us more about your needs?
> This is a known behavior with a udf referencing same table in a constraint
> and It has been fixed in 2005 version.
> AMB
>
> "rich" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -|||rich wrote:
> Alejandro, thanks for the reply - I was trying to find some resource
> to confirm or deny the workings so I appreciate it.
> I will share the true source of my problem in case you, or others,
> would like to weigh in on the best method.
> Basically, all of our data tables have a delete_flag bit field.
> At the same time, I am trying to disallow duplicate combination of 3
> fields. (sounds like a primary key, huh?)
> Each table has an Identity field as the primary key.
> I can't create a unique index on the three field combo because I allow
> logical deletes using the delete_flag field.
> I tried including the delete_flag in a four field index, but then you
> can only delete each unique combination once.
> I need unlimited logically deleted rows where my three fields are not
> necessarily unique,
> but only one non-deleted one row for each unique combination.
> make sense?
The solution(s) to the problem "unique constraint with multiple NULLs"
also applies to your case, only in your case the delete flag acts as a
NULL.
So for example, something like the script below could be a solution:
ALTER TABLE YourTable
ADD ExtraColumn AS CASE WHEN delete_flag = 1 THEN IdentityColumn END
ALTER TABLE YourTable
ADD CONSTRAINT YourUnique UNIQUE (UniqueColumn, ExtraColumn)
HTH,
Gert-Jan|||Gert-Jan, thanks for the tip!
I get it and it makes sense.
I also just tried a trigger (based on the above "test1" table) and it
works too.
Not sure what I'd rather do - add a new trigger to a bunch of tables
or a column and constraint.
here's the trigger in case anyone is interested:
CREATE TRIGGER dbo.tr_Test
ON [dbo].[test1]
FOR INSERT, UPDATE
AS
declare @.cnt int
BEGIN
select @.cnt=count(*) from test1 where test in (select test from
inserted)
if @.cnt>1 rollback tran --it's always 1 because the newly inserted or
updated row is included in the test1 table
END
Thanks for everyone's help!
On Feb 22, 4:01 pm, Gert-Jan Strik <s...@.toomuchspamalready.nl> wrote:
> rich wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> The solution(s) to the problem "unique constraint with multiple NULLs"
> also applies to your case, only in your case the delete flag acts as a
> NULL.
> So for example, something like the script below could be a solution:
> ALTER TABLE YourTable
> ADD ExtraColumn AS CASE WHEN delete_flag = 1 THEN IdentityColumn END
> ALTER TABLE YourTable
> ADD CONSTRAINT YourUnique UNIQUE (UniqueColumn, ExtraColumn)
> HTH,
> Gert-Jan- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -|||On Feb 22, 2:26 pm, Alejandro Mesa
<AlejandroM...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> This is a known behavior with a udf referencing same table in aconstraint
> and It has been fixed in 2005 version.
> AMB
>
I'm having trouble with this as well. One of our tables stores SSN
which should be unique but may also be null if the SSN isn't available
when entering the person's information. So I put a check constraint on
my column using a UDF that checks to see if any records already exist
with that SSN. I'm getting errors inserting data, because it inserts
the record before the check constraint fires.
This apparently hasn't been fixed in 2005, because that is what
version of SQL server I'm using. and my database is at that
compatibility level.
Is there a way to do this with a check constraint or do I have to use
a trigger?
Thanks.
-- Rayne|||Well, for one thing, using a constraint will avoid unnecessary page
splits, because it will prevent duplicate rows. A trigger will roll back
duplicate rows.
Also, I think that in this case, writing a trigger is more error prone
than defining the extra column and unique constraint.
Of course, the unique index will use slightly more space. But then
again, you also benefit from the fact that there now is a highly
selective index on the natural key.
So in this case, IMO the constraint wins from the trigger hands down...
Gert-Jan
rich wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Gert-Jan, thanks for the tip!
> I get it and it makes sense.
> I also just tried a trigger (based on the above "test1" table) and it
> works too.
> Not sure what I'd rather do - add a new trigger to a bunch of tables
> or a column and constraint.
> here's the trigger in case anyone is interested:
> CREATE TRIGGER dbo.tr_Test
> ON [dbo].[test1]
> FOR INSERT, UPDATE
> AS
> declare @.cnt int
> BEGIN
> select @.cnt=count(*) from test1 where test in (select test from
> inserted)
> if @.cnt>1 rollback tran --it's always 1 because the newly inserted
or
> updated row is included in the test1 table
> END
> Thanks for everyone's help!
> On Feb 22, 4:01 pm, Gert-Jan Strik <s...@.toomuchspamalready.nl> wrote:|||Thanks again Gert-Jan
Rayne, you may or may not have seen the same issue.
You state
"I'm getting errors inserting data, because it inserts
the record before the check constraint fires. "
but it does that in SQL 2000 as well and thus your comparison in the
constraint has to be >1 as opposed to >0.
In other words, you have to assume that the newly inserted row is
included in the result query.
The problem I was having is that the above is NOT TRUE for updates. So
perhaps you could update your constraint and test it for inserts and
updates to see if it works as expected.
On Feb 22, 6:50 pm, Gert-Jan Strik <s...@.toomuchspamalready.nl> wrote:
> Well, for one thing, using a constraint will avoid unnecessary page
> splits, because it will prevent duplicate rows. A trigger will roll back
> duplicate rows.
> Also, I think that in this case, writing a trigger is more error prone
> than defining the extra column and unique constraint.
> Of course, the unique index will use slightly more space. But then
> again, you also benefit from the fact that there now is a highly
> selective index on the natural key.
> So in this case, IMO the constraint wins from the trigger hands down...
> Gert-Jan
>
> rich wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -|||On Feb 23, 9:24 am, "rich" <rwal...@.integratec.biz> wrote:
> Rayne, you may or may not have seen the same issue.
> You state
> "I'm getting errors inserting data, because it inserts
> the record before the check constraint fires. "
> but it does that in SQL 2000 as well and thus your comparison in the
> constraint has to be >1 as opposed to >0.
> In other words, you have to assume that the newly inserted row is
> included in the result query.
I realized this after the fact. My constraint was checking only to see
if a record already existed with that field value...not counting how
many. So when it did the check, of course it existed since it had
inserted the record first.
I created a trigger for insert, update that checks the count instead
of just existance and it's working correctly now.

Check Constraint UDF: Update vs. Insert

I am using a check constraint on one of my tables. It appears to me
that the constraint processes an insert AFTER the row is inserted on
an insert, but BEFORE the data is updated on an update. here's my
example:
Table:
CREATE TABLE [test1] (
[test] [int] NOT NULL )
Function:
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.fn_RI_Test (@.test int)
RETURNS INT
AS
BEGIN
declare @.cnt int
select @.cnt = count(*) from test1 where test=@.test
return @.cnt
END
here's my constraint added to the table test1:
alter table test1 add constraint ck_test1 check
(dbo.fn_RI_test([test])=1)
Now, if I insert new rows:
insert into test1 values (1) - works fine
insert into test1 values (2) - works fine
insert into test1 values (1) - error:
Server: Msg 547, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
INSERT statement conflicted with COLUMN CHECK constraint 'ck_test1'.
The conflict occurred in database 'JHRA_Test', table 'test1', column
'test'.
The statement has been terminated.
BUT, if I perform an update:
update test1 set test=1 where test=2
IT WORKS and now there are 2 rows with test=1
Am I crazy? Is there any way for me to know in the function whether
this is an update or an insert? Any other options? BTW, I don't need
to make a single column unique in this manner, my needs are much more
complex. this is just an illustration which demonstrates my issue.
Thanks!
rich,
Can you tell us more about your needs?
This is a known behavior with a udf referencing same table in a constraint
and It has been fixed in 2005 version.
AMB
"rich" wrote:

> I am using a check constraint on one of my tables. It appears to me
> that the constraint processes an insert AFTER the row is inserted on
> an insert, but BEFORE the data is updated on an update. here's my
> example:
> Table:
> CREATE TABLE [test1] (
> [test] [int] NOT NULL )
> Function:
> CREATE FUNCTION dbo.fn_RI_Test (@.test int)
> RETURNS INT
> AS
> BEGIN
> declare @.cnt int
> select @.cnt = count(*) from test1 where test=@.test
> return @.cnt
> END
> here's my constraint added to the table test1:
> alter table test1 add constraint ck_test1 check
> (dbo.fn_RI_test([test])=1)
> Now, if I insert new rows:
> insert into test1 values (1) - works fine
> insert into test1 values (2) - works fine
> insert into test1 values (1) - error:
> Server: Msg 547, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> INSERT statement conflicted with COLUMN CHECK constraint 'ck_test1'.
> The conflict occurred in database 'JHRA_Test', table 'test1', column
> 'test'.
> The statement has been terminated.
> BUT, if I perform an update:
> update test1 set test=1 where test=2
> IT WORKS and now there are 2 rows with test=1
> Am I crazy? Is there any way for me to know in the function whether
> this is an update or an insert? Any other options? BTW, I don't need
> to make a single column unique in this manner, my needs are much more
> complex. this is just an illustration which demonstrates my issue.
> Thanks!
>
|||Alejandro, thanks for the reply - I was trying to find some resource
to confirm or deny the workings so I appreciate it.
I will share the true source of my problem in case you, or others,
would like to weigh in on the best method.
Basically, all of our data tables have a delete_flag bit field.
At the same time, I am trying to disallow duplicate combination of 3
fields. (sounds like a primary key, huh?)
Each table has an Identity field as the primary key.
I can't create a unique index on the three field combo because I allow
logical deletes using the delete_flag field.
I tried including the delete_flag in a four field index, but then you
can only delete each unique combination once.
I need unlimited logically deleted rows where my three fields are not
necessarily unique,
but only one non-deleted one row for each unique combination.
make sense?
On Feb 22, 3:26 pm, Alejandro Mesa
<AlejandroM...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> rich,
> Can you tell us more about your needs?
> This is a known behavior with a udf referencing same table in a constraint
> and It has been fixed in 2005 version.
> AMB
>
> "rich" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
|||Gert-Jan, thanks for the tip!
I get it and it makes sense.
I also just tried a trigger (based on the above "test1" table) and it
works too.
Not sure what I'd rather do - add a new trigger to a bunch of tables
or a column and constraint.
here's the trigger in case anyone is interested:
CREATE TRIGGER dbo.tr_Test
ON [dbo].[test1]
FOR INSERT, UPDATE
AS
declare @.cnt int
BEGIN
select @.cnt=count(*) from test1 where test in (select test from
inserted)
if @.cnt>1 rollback tran --it's always 1 because the newly inserted or
updated row is included in the test1 table
END
Thanks for everyone's help!
On Feb 22, 4:01 pm, Gert-Jan Strik <s...@.toomuchspamalready.nl> wrote:
> rich wrote:
>
>
>
> The solution(s) to the problem "unique constraint with multiple NULLs"
> also applies to your case, only in your case the delete flag acts as a
> NULL.
> So for example, something like the script below could be a solution:
> ALTER TABLE YourTable
> ADD ExtraColumn AS CASE WHEN delete_flag = 1 THEN IdentityColumn END
> ALTER TABLE YourTable
> ADD CONSTRAINT YourUnique UNIQUE (UniqueColumn, ExtraColumn)
> HTH,
> Gert-Jan- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
|||On Feb 22, 2:26 pm, Alejandro Mesa
<AlejandroM...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> This is a known behavior with a udf referencing same table in aconstraint
> and It has been fixed in 2005 version.
> AMB
>
I'm having trouble with this as well. One of our tables stores SSN
which should be unique but may also be null if the SSN isn't available
when entering the person's information. So I put a check constraint on
my column using a UDF that checks to see if any records already exist
with that SSN. I'm getting errors inserting data, because it inserts
the record before the check constraint fires.
This apparently hasn't been fixed in 2005, because that is what
version of SQL server I'm using. and my database is at that
compatibility level.
Is there a way to do this with a check constraint or do I have to use
a trigger?
Thanks.
-- Rayne
|||Thanks again Gert-Jan
Rayne, you may or may not have seen the same issue.
You state
"I'm getting errors inserting data, because it inserts
the record before the check constraint fires. "
but it does that in SQL 2000 as well and thus your comparison in the
constraint has to be >1 as opposed to >0.
In other words, you have to assume that the newly inserted row is
included in the result query.
The problem I was having is that the above is NOT TRUE for updates. So
perhaps you could update your constraint and test it for inserts and
updates to see if it works as expected.
On Feb 22, 6:50 pm, Gert-Jan Strik <s...@.toomuchspamalready.nl> wrote:
> Well, for one thing, using a constraint will avoid unnecessary page
> splits, because it will prevent duplicate rows. A trigger will roll back
> duplicate rows.
> Also, I think that in this case, writing a trigger is more error prone
> than defining the extra column and unique constraint.
> Of course, the unique index will use slightly more space. But then
> again, you also benefit from the fact that there now is a highly
> selective index on the natural key.
> So in this case, IMO the constraint wins from the trigger hands down...
> Gert-Jan
>
> rich wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
|||On Feb 23, 9:24 am, "rich" <rwal...@.integratec.biz> wrote:
> Rayne, you may or may not have seen the same issue.
> You state
> "I'm getting errors inserting data, because it inserts
> the record before the check constraint fires. "
> but it does that in SQL 2000 as well and thus your comparison in the
> constraint has to be >1 as opposed to >0.
> In other words, you have to assume that the newly inserted row is
> included in the result query.
I realized this after the fact. My constraint was checking only to see
if a record already existed with that field value...not counting how
many. So when it did the check, of course it existed since it had
inserted the record first.
I created a trigger for insert, update that checks the count instead
of just existance and it's working correctly now.

Check Constraint UDF: Update vs. Insert

I am using a check constraint on one of my tables. It appears to me
that the constraint processes an insert AFTER the row is inserted on
an insert, but BEFORE the data is updated on an update. here's my
example:
Table:
CREATE TABLE [test1] (
[test] [int] NOT NULL )
Function:
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.fn_RI_Test (@.test int)
RETURNS INT
AS
BEGIN
declare @.cnt int
select @.cnt = count(*) from test1 where test=@.test
return @.cnt
END
here's my constraint added to the table test1:
alter table test1 add constraint ck_test1 check
(dbo.fn_RI_test([test])=1)
Now, if I insert new rows:
insert into test1 values (1) - works fine
insert into test1 values (2) - works fine
insert into test1 values (1) - error:
Server: Msg 547, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
INSERT statement conflicted with COLUMN CHECK constraint 'ck_test1'.
The conflict occurred in database 'JHRA_Test', table 'test1', column
'test'.
The statement has been terminated.
BUT, if I perform an update:
update test1 set test=1 where test=2
IT WORKS and now there are 2 rows with test=1
Am I crazy? Is there any way for me to know in the function whether
this is an update or an insert? Any other options? BTW, I don't need
to make a single column unique in this manner, my needs are much more
complex. this is just an illustration which demonstrates my issue.
Thanks!rich,
Can you tell us more about your needs?
This is a known behavior with a udf referencing same table in a constraint
and It has been fixed in 2005 version.
AMB
"rich" wrote:
> I am using a check constraint on one of my tables. It appears to me
> that the constraint processes an insert AFTER the row is inserted on
> an insert, but BEFORE the data is updated on an update. here's my
> example:
> Table:
> CREATE TABLE [test1] (
> [test] [int] NOT NULL )
> Function:
> CREATE FUNCTION dbo.fn_RI_Test (@.test int)
> RETURNS INT
> AS
> BEGIN
> declare @.cnt int
> select @.cnt = count(*) from test1 where test=@.test
> return @.cnt
> END
> here's my constraint added to the table test1:
> alter table test1 add constraint ck_test1 check
> (dbo.fn_RI_test([test])=1)
> Now, if I insert new rows:
> insert into test1 values (1) - works fine
> insert into test1 values (2) - works fine
> insert into test1 values (1) - error:
> Server: Msg 547, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> INSERT statement conflicted with COLUMN CHECK constraint 'ck_test1'.
> The conflict occurred in database 'JHRA_Test', table 'test1', column
> 'test'.
> The statement has been terminated.
> BUT, if I perform an update:
> update test1 set test=1 where test=2
> IT WORKS and now there are 2 rows with test=1
> Am I crazy? Is there any way for me to know in the function whether
> this is an update or an insert? Any other options? BTW, I don't need
> to make a single column unique in this manner, my needs are much more
> complex. this is just an illustration which demonstrates my issue.
> Thanks!
>|||Alejandro, thanks for the reply - I was trying to find some resource
to confirm or deny the workings so I appreciate it.
I will share the true source of my problem in case you, or others,
would like to weigh in on the best method.
Basically, all of our data tables have a delete_flag bit field.
At the same time, I am trying to disallow duplicate combination of 3
fields. (sounds like a primary key, huh?)
Each table has an Identity field as the primary key.
I can't create a unique index on the three field combo because I allow
logical deletes using the delete_flag field.
I tried including the delete_flag in a four field index, but then you
can only delete each unique combination once.
I need unlimited logically deleted rows where my three fields are not
necessarily unique,
but only one non-deleted one row for each unique combination.
make sense?
On Feb 22, 3:26 pm, Alejandro Mesa
<AlejandroM...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> rich,
> Can you tell us more about your needs?
> This is a known behavior with a udf referencing same table in a constraint
> and It has been fixed in 2005 version.
> AMB
>
> "rich" wrote:
> > I am using a check constraint on one of my tables. It appears to me
> > that the constraint processes an insert AFTER the row is inserted on
> > an insert, but BEFORE the data is updated on an update. here's my
> > example:
> > Table:
> > CREATE TABLE [test1] (
> > [test] [int] NOT NULL )
> > Function:
> > CREATE FUNCTION dbo.fn_RI_Test (@.test int)
> > RETURNS INT
> > AS
> > BEGIN
> > declare @.cnt int
> > select @.cnt = count(*) from test1 where test=@.test
> > return @.cnt
> > END
> > here's my constraint added to the table test1:
> > alter table test1 add constraint ck_test1 check
> > (dbo.fn_RI_test([test])=1)
> > Now, if I insert new rows:
> > insert into test1 values (1) - works fine
> > insert into test1 values (2) - works fine
> > insert into test1 values (1) - error:
> > Server: Msg 547, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
> > INSERT statement conflicted with COLUMN CHECK constraint 'ck_test1'.
> > The conflict occurred in database 'JHRA_Test', table 'test1', column
> > 'test'.
> > The statement has been terminated.
> > BUT, if I perform an update:
> > update test1 set test=1 where test=2
> > IT WORKS and now there are 2 rows with test=1
> > Am I crazy? Is there any way for me to know in the function whether
> > this is an update or an insert? Any other options? BTW, I don't need
> > to make a single column unique in this manner, my needs are much more
> > complex. this is just an illustration which demonstrates my issue.
> > Thanks!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -|||rich wrote:
> Alejandro, thanks for the reply - I was trying to find some resource
> to confirm or deny the workings so I appreciate it.
> I will share the true source of my problem in case you, or others,
> would like to weigh in on the best method.
> Basically, all of our data tables have a delete_flag bit field.
> At the same time, I am trying to disallow duplicate combination of 3
> fields. (sounds like a primary key, huh?)
> Each table has an Identity field as the primary key.
> I can't create a unique index on the three field combo because I allow
> logical deletes using the delete_flag field.
> I tried including the delete_flag in a four field index, but then you
> can only delete each unique combination once.
> I need unlimited logically deleted rows where my three fields are not
> necessarily unique,
> but only one non-deleted one row for each unique combination.
> make sense?
The solution(s) to the problem "unique constraint with multiple NULLs"
also applies to your case, only in your case the delete flag acts as a
NULL.
So for example, something like the script below could be a solution:
ALTER TABLE YourTable
ADD ExtraColumn AS CASE WHEN delete_flag = 1 THEN IdentityColumn END
ALTER TABLE YourTable
ADD CONSTRAINT YourUnique UNIQUE (UniqueColumn, ExtraColumn)
HTH,
Gert-Jan|||Gert-Jan, thanks for the tip!
I get it and it makes sense.
I also just tried a trigger (based on the above "test1" table) and it
works too.
Not sure what I'd rather do - add a new trigger to a bunch of tables
or a column and constraint.
here's the trigger in case anyone is interested:
CREATE TRIGGER dbo.tr_Test
ON [dbo].[test1]
FOR INSERT, UPDATE
AS
declare @.cnt int
BEGIN
select @.cnt=count(*) from test1 where test in (select test from
inserted)
if @.cnt>1 rollback tran --it's always 1 because the newly inserted or
updated row is included in the test1 table
END
Thanks for everyone's help!
On Feb 22, 4:01 pm, Gert-Jan Strik <s...@.toomuchspamalready.nl> wrote:
> rich wrote:
> > Alejandro, thanks for the reply - I was trying to find some resource
> > to confirm or deny the workings so I appreciate it.
> > I will share the true source of my problem in case you, or others,
> > would like to weigh in on the best method.
> > Basically, all of our data tables have a delete_flag bit field.
> > At the same time, I am trying to disallow duplicate combination of 3
> > fields. (sounds like a primary key, huh?)
> > Each table has an Identity field as the primary key.
> > I can't create a unique index on the three field combo because I allow
> > logical deletes using the delete_flag field.
> > I tried including the delete_flag in a four field index, but then you
> > can only delete each unique combination once.
> > I need unlimited logically deleted rows where my three fields are not
> > necessarily unique,
> > but only one non-deleted one row for each unique combination.
> > make sense?
> The solution(s) to the problem "unique constraint with multiple NULLs"
> also applies to your case, only in your case the delete flag acts as a
> NULL.
> So for example, something like the script below could be a solution:
> ALTER TABLE YourTable
> ADD ExtraColumn AS CASE WHEN delete_flag = 1 THEN IdentityColumn END
> ALTER TABLE YourTable
> ADD CONSTRAINT YourUnique UNIQUE (UniqueColumn, ExtraColumn)
> HTH,
> Gert-Jan- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -|||On Feb 22, 2:26 pm, Alejandro Mesa
<AlejandroM...@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> This is a known behavior with a udf referencing same table in aconstraint
> and It has been fixed in 2005 version.
> AMB
>
I'm having trouble with this as well. One of our tables stores SSN
which should be unique but may also be null if the SSN isn't available
when entering the person's information. So I put a check constraint on
my column using a UDF that checks to see if any records already exist
with that SSN. I'm getting errors inserting data, because it inserts
the record before the check constraint fires.
This apparently hasn't been fixed in 2005, because that is what
version of SQL server I'm using. and my database is at that
compatibility level.
Is there a way to do this with a check constraint or do I have to use
a trigger?
Thanks.
-- Rayne|||Well, for one thing, using a constraint will avoid unnecessary page
splits, because it will prevent duplicate rows. A trigger will roll back
duplicate rows.
Also, I think that in this case, writing a trigger is more error prone
than defining the extra column and unique constraint.
Of course, the unique index will use slightly more space. But then
again, you also benefit from the fact that there now is a highly
selective index on the natural key.
So in this case, IMO the constraint wins from the trigger hands down...
Gert-Jan
rich wrote:
> Gert-Jan, thanks for the tip!
> I get it and it makes sense.
> I also just tried a trigger (based on the above "test1" table) and it
> works too.
> Not sure what I'd rather do - add a new trigger to a bunch of tables
> or a column and constraint.
> here's the trigger in case anyone is interested:
> CREATE TRIGGER dbo.tr_Test
> ON [dbo].[test1]
> FOR INSERT, UPDATE
> AS
> declare @.cnt int
> BEGIN
> select @.cnt=count(*) from test1 where test in (select test from
> inserted)
> if @.cnt>1 rollback tran --it's always 1 because the newly inserted or
> updated row is included in the test1 table
> END
> Thanks for everyone's help!
> On Feb 22, 4:01 pm, Gert-Jan Strik <s...@.toomuchspamalready.nl> wrote:
> > rich wrote:
> >
> > > Alejandro, thanks for the reply - I was trying to find some resource
> > > to confirm or deny the workings so I appreciate it.
> >
> > > I will share the true source of my problem in case you, or others,
> > > would like to weigh in on the best method.
> >
> > > Basically, all of our data tables have a delete_flag bit field.
> > > At the same time, I am trying to disallow duplicate combination of 3
> > > fields. (sounds like a primary key, huh?)
> > > Each table has an Identity field as the primary key.
> > > I can't create a unique index on the three field combo because I allow
> > > logical deletes using the delete_flag field.
> > > I tried including the delete_flag in a four field index, but then you
> > > can only delete each unique combination once.
> >
> > > I need unlimited logically deleted rows where my three fields are not
> > > necessarily unique,
> > > but only one non-deleted one row for each unique combination.
> >
> > > make sense?
> >
> > The solution(s) to the problem "unique constraint with multiple NULLs"
> > also applies to your case, only in your case the delete flag acts as a
> > NULL.
> >
> > So for example, something like the script below could be a solution:
> >
> > ALTER TABLE YourTable
> > ADD ExtraColumn AS CASE WHEN delete_flag = 1 THEN IdentityColumn END
> >
> > ALTER TABLE YourTable
> > ADD CONSTRAINT YourUnique UNIQUE (UniqueColumn, ExtraColumn)
> >
> > HTH,
> > Gert-Jan- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -|||Thanks again Gert-Jan
Rayne, you may or may not have seen the same issue.
You state
"I'm getting errors inserting data, because it inserts
the record before the check constraint fires. "
but it does that in SQL 2000 as well and thus your comparison in the
constraint has to be >1 as opposed to >0.
In other words, you have to assume that the newly inserted row is
included in the result query.
The problem I was having is that the above is NOT TRUE for updates. So
perhaps you could update your constraint and test it for inserts and
updates to see if it works as expected.
On Feb 22, 6:50 pm, Gert-Jan Strik <s...@.toomuchspamalready.nl> wrote:
> Well, for one thing, using a constraint will avoid unnecessary page
> splits, because it will prevent duplicate rows. A trigger will roll back
> duplicate rows.
> Also, I think that in this case, writing a trigger is more error prone
> than defining the extra column and unique constraint.
> Of course, the unique index will use slightly more space. But then
> again, you also benefit from the fact that there now is a highly
> selective index on the natural key.
> So in this case, IMO the constraint wins from the trigger hands down...
> Gert-Jan
>
> rich wrote:
> > Gert-Jan, thanks for the tip!
> > I get it and it makes sense.
> > I also just tried a trigger (based on the above "test1" table) and it
> > works too.
> > Not sure what I'd rather do - add a new trigger to a bunch of tables
> > or a column and constraint.
> > here's the trigger in case anyone is interested:
> > CREATE TRIGGER dbo.tr_Test
> > ON [dbo].[test1]
> > FOR INSERT, UPDATE
> > AS
> > declare @.cnt int
> > BEGIN
> > select @.cnt=count(*) from test1 where test in (select test from
> > inserted)
> > if @.cnt>1 rollback tran --it's always 1 because the newly inserted or
> > updated row is included in the test1 table
> > END
> > Thanks for everyone's help!
> > On Feb 22, 4:01 pm, Gert-Jan Strik <s...@.toomuchspamalready.nl> wrote:
> > > rich wrote:
> > > > Alejandro, thanks for the reply - I was trying to find some resource
> > > > to confirm or deny the workings so I appreciate it.
> > > > I will share the true source of my problem in case you, or others,
> > > > would like to weigh in on the best method.
> > > > Basically, all of our data tables have a delete_flag bit field.
> > > > At the same time, I am trying to disallow duplicate combination of 3
> > > > fields. (sounds like a primary key, huh?)
> > > > Each table has an Identity field as the primary key.
> > > > I can't create a unique index on the three field combo because I allow
> > > > logical deletes using the delete_flag field.
> > > > I tried including the delete_flag in a four field index, but then you
> > > > can only delete each unique combination once.
> > > > I need unlimited logically deleted rows where my three fields are not
> > > > necessarily unique,
> > > > but only one non-deleted one row for each unique combination.
> > > > make sense?
> > > The solution(s) to the problem "unique constraint with multiple NULLs"
> > > also applies to your case, only in your case the delete flag acts as a
> > > NULL.
> > > So for example, something like the script below could be a solution:
> > > ALTER TABLE YourTable
> > > ADD ExtraColumn AS CASE WHEN delete_flag = 1 THEN IdentityColumn END
> > > ALTER TABLE YourTable
> > > ADD CONSTRAINT YourUnique UNIQUE (UniqueColumn, ExtraColumn)
> > > HTH,
> > > Gert-Jan- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -|||On Feb 23, 9:24 am, "rich" <rwal...@.integratec.biz> wrote:
> Rayne, you may or may not have seen the same issue.
> You state
> "I'm getting errors inserting data, because it inserts
> the record before the check constraint fires. "
> but it does that in SQL 2000 as well and thus your comparison in the
> constraint has to be >1 as opposed to >0.
> In other words, you have to assume that the newly inserted row is
> included in the result query.
I realized this after the fact. My constraint was checking only to see
if a record already existed with that field value...not counting how
many. So when it did the check, of course it existed since it had
inserted the record first.
I created a trigger for insert, update that checks the count instead
of just existance and it's working correctly now.

Charts don't update when using dropdown parameters

I have recently upgraded from RS2000 to RS2005. The reports seem to have
converted without any errors. In the report designer, everything works fine.
When deploying to the server the reports don't update properly.
Details:
The reports have two components (a table and a chart) - both are based on
the same query. There are three parameters in a report. One is a dropdown
box that includes a list of products based on a subquery. The other two
parameters are textboxes that provide start and end months for the reporting
period. When changing either of the month parameters, the table and chart
updates with proper data. When changing the product (dropdown box), the
table information updates, but the chart does not (it still includes the
title and data from the previous update when a month was changed; or it
includes the results of the first query if a month was not changed).
Has anyone experienced anything like this? Is there a fix?Hello Piell,
I tested on my side and do not reproduce this issue.
Also, I did not find any related issue in our internal database.
I would like to know if this issue appeared on all reports?
If you apply SP1 on your SSRS 2005, does this issue persist?
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/managednewsgroups/default.aspx#notif
ications.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/support/default.aspx.
==================================================(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)|||Wei,
We have the same problem on all reports and we have even deleted the chart
and re-created it and get the same results. I will be checking with the
admins later today to find out if SP1 has been applied. If it hasn't, we
will have them update it.
Thanks.|||Wei,
We have installed SQL 2005 SP1 and still have the same problem. Would the
available hot fix help
http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/e/8/6e85f7ab-9f6c-4f3c-8f89-da0f78e026dc/rs2005-kb918222-x86-enu.exe|||We installed hot fix and charts still don't update when dropdown parameter
changes.|||Hello piell,
I would like to suggest you to check your IE security setting and try to
set the security level to low.
If this issue still persist, would you please send a sample report to me so
that I could try to reproduce this issue on my side.
To reach me, please remove the ONLINE in my email address.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Hi ,
How is everything going? Please feel free to let me know if you need any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
==================================================
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
==================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.