Multiple Inserts in the Same Stored Procedure

Hey,
I have a project that I have been working on and I need to insert a
record into multiple tables and I if any one of the inserts fails I
need to rollback all of the previous inserts that were done. To
illustrate, I have ten tables that need to have a record inserted into
them and if it errors out on table six, then I want to rollback the
previous five inserts. I'd appreciate any advice I can get. Thanks.bradley.d.walker@.gmail.com wrote:
> Hey,
> I have a project that I have been working on and I need to insert a
> record into multiple tables and I if any one of the inserts fails I
> need to rollback all of the previous inserts that were done. To
> illustrate, I have ten tables that need to have a record inserted into
> them and if it errors out on table six, then I want to rollback the
> previous five inserts. I'd appreciate any advice I can get. Thanks.
>
BEGIN TRANSACTION
INSERT Table1 .....
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN
END
INSERT Table2 .....
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN
END
INSERT Table3 .....
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN
END
INSERT Table4 .....
IF @.@.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION
RETURN
END
...
...
...
...
...
...
COMMIT TRANSACTION|||With SQL 2000 -SQL 2005 is a bit 'simplier' in manifestation - but the idea
is the same.
BEGIN TRANSACTION
INSERT INTO into table1 (ColList) VALUES (ValList)
IF @.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK
RETURN
END
INSERT INTO into table2 (ColList) VALUES (ValList)
IF @.ERROR <> 0
BEGIN
ROLLBACK
RETURN
END
{etc.}
COMMIT TRANSACTION
RETURN
There are variations to the idea, using GOTO to the end of the sproc and ROL
LBACK from there.
--
Arnie Rowland, YACE*
"To be successful, your heart must accompany your knowledge."
*Yet Another certification Exam
<bradley.d.walker@.gmail.com> wrote in message news:1151077294.100001.43410@.g10g2000cwb.goog
legroups.com...
> Hey,
>
> I have a project that I have been working on and I need to insert a
> record into multiple tables and I if any one of the inserts fails I
> need to rollback all of the previous inserts that were done. To
> illustrate, I have ten tables that need to have a record inserted into
> them and if it errors out on table six, then I want to rollback the
> previous five inserts. I'd appreciate any advice I can get. Thanks.
>|||To add to the other responses, consider adding SET XACT_ABORT ON to the
beginning of your proc. This will ensure a transaction rollback occurs in
the case of a client-initiated attention event (e.g. query timeout or
cancel).
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
<bradley.d.walker@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151077294.100001.43410@.g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hey,
> I have a project that I have been working on and I need to insert a
> record into multiple tables and I if any one of the inserts fails I
> need to rollback all of the previous inserts that were done. To
> illustrate, I have ten tables that need to have a record inserted into
> them and if it errors out on table six, then I want to rollback the
> previous five inserts. I'd appreciate any advice I can get. Thanks.
>|||>> I have a project that I have been working on and I need to insert a record [si
c] into multiple tables and I if any one of the inserts fails Ineed to rollb
ack all of the previous inserts that were done. <<
Easy enough; set up a series of INSERT INTO's in a single transaction,
trap each insertion's error and do a ROLLBACK and return if you have a
failure. Do not commit until the end of the whole thing.
The scope of transactions in T-SQL is independent of the block
structure of the language. Think of a "transaction guy" with a bucket
of data looking at a house. The house pumps data into his bucket. He
does not care what is happening inside; he is waiting to see a COMMIT
or ROLLBACK flag come out of the window of the house. At that point,
he either throws the data out or throws it in the database.
But a better question why do you want to store the same data in
multiple tables? The major reason we moved from files to RDBMS was to
get rid of redundancy -- the mantra is "one fact, one time, one way,
one place!" and not "Let's make ten copies and try to keep them all the
same!" Instead of making ten copies of a mag tape with the same data,
we use VIEWs, CTE, and derived tables in SQL.
You did know that a row is not a record in your posting or understand
transactions, makes me wonder if your schema is messed up because you
are mimicing files.|||Dan Guzman (guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net) writes:
> To add to the other responses, consider adding SET XACT_ABORT ON to the
> beginning of your proc. This will ensure a transaction rollback occurs in
> the case of a client-initiated attention event (e.g. query timeout or
> cancel).
Very interesting! I did not know about this. This can be a quick fix
for applications that suffers from unhandled query timeouts.
Why did you not tell me this before? :-)
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|||> Very interesting! I did not know about this. This can be a quick fix
> for applications that suffers from unhandled query timeouts.
We did exactly that recently for one of our ADO middle-tier database
application with persistent db connections. All transactions were done in
stored procedure code (no nested procs) and the application performed no
explicit transaction handling and no special database exception handling.
Database errors were logged but the app moved on, oblivious to the
ramifications.
Everything was fine until a nightly job was accidentally run during the day
and that caused blocking and subsequent command timeouts. Because the app
performed no connection cleanup after the exception, a transaction that was
in progress remained open after the timeout. All subsequent work done on a
problem connection was done in the context the open transaction and was
never committed!
In addition to adding XACT_ABORT ON quick fix, I asked the developers to
close and re-open persistent connections following any type of database
exception.

> Why did you not tell me this before? :-)
I got the idea to try XACT_ABORT ON after perusing your error handling
articles. Somehow, I got it in my mind that this technique was covered
there ;-)
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@.sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns97ED135AF6FCYazorman@.127.0.0.1...
> Dan Guzman (guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net) writes:
> Very interesting! I did not know about this. This can be a quick fix
> for applications that suffers from unhandled query timeouts.
> Why did you not tell me this before? :-)
>
> --
> 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|||Dan Guzman (guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net) writes:
> Everything was fine until a nightly job was accidentally run during the
> day and that caused blocking and subsequent command timeouts. Because
> the app performed no connection cleanup after the exception, a
> transaction that was in progress remained open after the timeout. All
> subsequent work done on a problem connection was done in the context the
> open transaction and was never committed!
A really fine mess! Yes, we have experienced this in our application as
well, although that's many years behind us now. I wonder how much the
default timeout of 30 seconds have cost enterprises over the worldin
money and misery.

> In addition to adding XACT_ABORT ON quick fix, I asked the developers to
> close and re-open persistent connections following any type of database
> exception.
While better than nothing, it's not optimal, unless you already have
turned off connection pooling. Of course, if you close and reconnect
directly, and get back the same physical connection directly, everything
will be cleaned up on the spot. But if the pool gives you a different
connection, it could take 60 seconds before the rollback occurs, when
the API actually closes the connection.

> I got the idea to try XACT_ABORT ON after perusing your error handling
> articles. Somehow, I got it in my mind that this technique was covered
> there ;-)
In that case, I don't know that I write in my articles myself. But I
will have to add it!
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

Multiple Cascade Paths - Fails on SQL Server 2000

This is an old issue, which I chose to ignore, since it was for a temporary
app with a handful of users (famous last words, I know).
The "multiple foreign keys" post today got me thinking about it, and I
figured it is worth looking for a solution.
I will post DDL at the end, but the theory is the main point here, so I hope
my description will suffice.
Please forgive the camel case naming convention, and the silly tbl prefixes.
I do not like it either, but it is a standard in our department.
tblParameter has two FK constraints.
One references tblReport.strReportID
One references tblLookupProcedures.strLookupProcedure
Both tblReport and tblLookupProcedures have a FK reference to
tblDatabaseConnections.strConnectionName
Ideally, all of these constraints have ON UPDATE CASCADE, but the second
constraint on tblParameter will error out with this message:
****
Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK_tblParameter_tblLookupProcedures' on
table 'tblParameter' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify ON
DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY
constraints.
****
I believe the error is caused because updates to the PK in
tblDatabaseConnections triggers updates to the FK in two tables, each of
which are referenced by tblParameter. Now the references are not on the
same columns, but SQL Server seems to think this could lead to circular
references.
The questions are:
1. Is this against RD theory, or is it just a quirk of SQL Server?
2. Is there a setting that will allow this?
3. What is the usual workaround? A trigger is the only thing that I could
think of.
Here is the DDL, scaled down to demonstrate the issue.
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tblDatabaseConnections] (
[strConnectionName] [varchar] (10) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL ,
[strDatabase] [varchar] (50) NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tblLookupProcedures] (
[strLookupProcedure] [varchar] (50) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL ,
[strProcedureDescription] [varchar] (100) NOT NULL ,
[strConnectionName] [varchar] (10) NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tblReport] (
[strReportID] [varchar] (10) PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL ,
[strReportDescr] [varchar] (50) NULL ,
[strConnectionName] [varchar] (10) NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tblParameter] (
[strReportID] [varchar] (10) NOT NULL ,
[strParamID] [varchar] (20) NOT NULL ,
[strLookupProcedure] [varchar] (50) NOT NULL
PRIMARY KEY ([strReportID],[strParamID])
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tblLookupProcedures] ADD
CONSTRAINT [FK_tblLookupProcedures_tblDatabaseConne
ctions] FOREIGN KEY
([strConnectionName]
) REFERENCES [dbo].[tblDatabaseConnections] ([strConnectionName]
) ON UPDATE CASCADE
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tblReport] ADD
CONSTRAINT [FK_tblReport_tblDatabaseConnections] FOREIGN KEY
([strConnectionName]
) REFERENCES [dbo].[tblDatabaseConnections] ([strConnectionName]
) ON UPDATE CASCADE
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tblParameter] ADD
CONSTRAINT [FK_tblParameter_tblReport] FOREIGN KEY
([strReportID]
) REFERENCES [dbo].[tblReport] ([strReportID]
) ON UPDATE CASCADE
GO
--This constraint fails due to a perceived cyclical reference
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tblParameter] ADD CONSTRAINT
[FK_tblParameter_tblLookupProcedures] FOREIGN KEY
([strLookupProcedure]
) REFERENCES [dbo]. [tblLookupProcedures]([strLookupProcedur
e]
) on update cascade
GO
-- if we remove on update cascade, the constraint gets created
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[tblParameter] ADD CONSTRAINT
[FK_tblParameter_tblLookupProcedures_NOC
ASCADE] FOREIGN KEY
([strLookupProcedure]
) REFERENCES [dbo]. [tblLookupProcedures]([strLookupProcedur
e]
)
GO
drop table [dbo].[tblParameter];
drop table [dbo].[tblReport];
drop table [dbo].[tblLookupProcedures];
drop table [dbo].[tblDatabaseConnections];I sketched it all out on some scrap paper. I think the real issue is that th
e
row that would get deleted on tblParameter depends upon which path the
cascade took down the tree. I can see how deleting a value of
strConnectionName from tblDatabaseConnections could result in different
rows being deleted in tblParameter through the cascade depending on the path
,
because the foreign keys in tblParameter point to different columns in
tblLookupProcedures and tblReport. (I hope that made sense).
Another thing is that SQL will determine if any constraints would be
violated by the cascading action, and rollback any transactions that
initiated the cascade. What if one path violated some constraint on
tblParameter, but the other path didn't?
Just thinking out loud.
"Jim Underwood" wrote:

> This is an old issue, which I chose to ignore, since it was for a temporar
y
> app with a handful of users (famous last words, I know).
>|||Interesting points, but I am using cascade update, not cascade delete, so
the updates would not filter down through the levels, they would stop at the
first table, since different columns are affected.
Just for chuckles I tried adding
ON DELETE NO ACTION
to the constraints but the results were the same.
"Mark Williams" <MarkWilliams@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5C7F6B3D-DC1B-4F64-9F4A-16EE6F66D51C@.microsoft.com...
> I sketched it all out on some scrap paper. I think the real issue is that
the
> row that would get deleted on tblParameter depends upon which path the
> cascade took down the tree. I can see how deleting a value of
> strConnectionName from tblDatabaseConnections could result in different
> rows being deleted in tblParameter through the cascade depending on the
path,
> because the foreign keys in tblParameter point to different columns in
> tblLookupProcedures and tblReport. (I hope that made sense).
> Another thing is that SQL will determine if any constraints would be
> violated by the cascading action, and rollback any transactions that
> initiated the cascade. What if one path violated some constraint on
> tblParameter, but the other path didn't?
> Just thinking out loud.
>
> --
> "Jim Underwood" wrote:
>
temporary
>|||As far as relational set theory goes, an update is really just a delete /
insert pair. (There's no 'updated' virtual table you can use inside a
trigger).
"Jim Underwood" wrote:

> Interesting points, but I am using cascade update, not cascade delete, so
> the updates would not filter down through the levels, they would stop at t
he
> first table, since different columns are affected.
> Just for chuckles I tried adding
> ON DELETE NO ACTION
> to the constraints but the results were the same.
> "Mark Williams" <MarkWilliams@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5C7F6B3D-DC1B-4F64-9F4A-16EE6F66D51C@.microsoft.com...
> the
> path,
> temporary
>
>|||Ahhhh...
Now that makes sense.
"Mark Williams" <MarkWilliams@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6F31E2E5-9B2F-4EF3-8D53-2B44F6403D0B@.microsoft.com...
> As far as relational set theory goes, an update is really just a delete /
> insert pair. (There's no 'updated' virtual table you can use inside a
> trigger).
> "Jim Underwood" wrote:
>
so
the
message
that
different
the|||Jim,
I have had discussions about this (in one of these newsgroups) when it
was introduced in SQL Server 2000. SQL Server really takes a very
simplistic view. It acts as if each table only has one column when it
determines if there is a potential circular reference. This is really
silly if you ask me, because it means there is hardly any real life
application that makes it worth your while to use it.
AFAIK there is not setting around this. You must avoid this supposed
circular reference. One way of doing that is to define the 'offending'
foreign key constraint as not cascading. But obviously that does not
achieve the desired cascading.
Of course triggers are always an options, but than means disabling the
foreign key constraint. So it is always a compromise...
By the way: has any of this changed in SQL Server 2005?
Gert-Jan
Jim Underwood wrote:
> This is an old issue, which I chose to ignore, since it was for a temporar
y
> app with a handful of users (famous last words, I know).
> The "multiple foreign keys" post today got me thinking about it, and I
> figured it is worth looking for a solution.
> I will post DDL at the end, but the theory is the main point here, so I ho
pe
> my description will suffice.
> Please forgive the camel case naming convention, and the silly tbl prefixe
s.
> I do not like it either, but it is a standard in our department.
> tblParameter has two FK constraints.
> One references tblReport.strReportID
> One references tblLookupProcedures.strLookupProcedure
> Both tblReport and tblLookupProcedures have a FK reference to
> tblDatabaseConnections.strConnectionName
> Ideally, all of these constraints have ON UPDATE CASCADE, but the second
> constraint on tblParameter will error out with this message:
> ****
> Introducing FOREIGN KEY constraint 'FK_tblParameter_tblLookupProcedures' o
n
> table 'tblParameter' may cause cycles or multiple cascade paths. Specify O
N
> DELETE NO ACTION or ON UPDATE NO ACTION, or modify other FOREIGN KEY
> constraints.
> ****
> I believe the error is caused because updates to the PK in
> tblDatabaseConnections triggers updates to the FK in two tables, each of
> which are referenced by tblParameter. Now the references are not on the
> same columns, but SQL Server seems to think this could lead to circular
> references.
> The questions are:
> 1. Is this against RD theory, or is it just a quirk of SQL Server?
> 2. Is there a setting that will allow this?
> 3. What is the usual workaround? A trigger is the only thing that I could
> think of.
>
[snip]|||DB2 had this problem in a very early version. If you had cascade
chains like A-->B, B-->C and A-->C, the final values in C would be
whoever got there last to overwrite the value. Today DB2 has a pretty
good cycle detector and allows some things that it did not before.
The relational rule is that all possible cascade paths must leave the
DB in the same state when they finish and that state has to be validate
under all the constraints.
This is hard to implement in theory -- remember graph theory? So real
products give up at some point, using a combination of a graph and
constraints. SQL Server happens to quit very early :)|||Thanks for the response. I don't have a 2005 environment to test in, so I
am not sure if the issue is the same or not.
"Gert-Jan Strik" <sorry@.toomuchspamalready.nl> wrote in message
news:446A3C9E.BE700DFF@.toomuchspamalready.nl...
> Jim,
> I have had discussions about this (in one of these newsgroups) when it
> was introduced in SQL Server 2000. SQL Server really takes a very
> simplistic view. It acts as if each table only has one column when it
> determines if there is a potential circular reference. This is really
> silly if you ask me, because it means there is hardly any real life
> application that makes it worth your while to use it.
> AFAIK there is not setting around this. You must avoid this supposed
> circular reference. One way of doing that is to define the 'offending'
> foreign key constraint as not cascading. But obviously that does not
> achieve the desired cascading.
> Of course triggers are always an options, but than means disabling the
> foreign key constraint. So it is always a compromise...
> By the way: has any of this changed in SQL Server 2005?
> Gert-Jan
>
> Jim Underwood wrote:
temporary
hope
prefixes.
second
on
ON
could
> [snip]|||Thanks. At least I know that my logical model is ok, I just need to change
the implementation a bit.
"--CELKO--" <jcelko212@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1147828111.648849.30010@.u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> DB2 had this problem in a very early version. If you had cascade
> chains like A-->B, B-->C and A-->C, the final values in C would be
> whoever got there last to overwrite the value. Today DB2 has a pretty
> good cycle detector and allows some things that it did not before.
> The relational rule is that all possible cascade paths must leave the
> DB in the same state when they finish and that state has to be validate
> under all the constraints.
> This is hard to implement in theory -- remember graph theory? So real
> products give up at some point, using a combination of a graph and
> constraints. SQL Server happens to quit very early :)
>