Re: sql script

"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns991EF17EC77BCYazorman@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Brian (b.houghtby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
Sorry, Let me start over. I am trying to do a mass change of a bunch of
numbers that a user entered incorrectly. He entered them with a lower
case letter instead of uppercase. The numbers all begin with a 99l and
I want to do a mass replace to change them all to a 99L. The numbers
have a suffix that is not constant like the prefix. Example; 99l555,
99l556, 99l557 and so on.

The name of the table is dbo.item and the column is ima_itemid. Here is
my select statement.

Select * from dbo.item where
ima_itemid like '99l%'

This result gives me a mixture of 99l's and 99L's. So apparently the
user eventually started entering them the correct way, in case that is
an issue having a mixture. It appears that my select statement doesn't
care about case since I get upper and lower, although I used lower in my
select. Hope this clarifies some.

Then this should do it:

UPDATE item
SET ima_itemid = replace(ima_itemid, 'l', 'L')
WHERE ima_itemid COLLATE Latin1_General_BIN LIKE '99l%'

By foring a binary collation, only rows with the incorrect pattern
are selected. This should not trigger an FK constraint violation,
given what you have said about both 99l and 99L being returned.

The suggestion from Andrey to add a constraint to prevent this from
happening again is an excellent idea you should pursue.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

I get this error when I run it.

Msg 547, Level 16, State 0, Line 1
The UPDATE statement conflicted with the REFERENCE constraint
"FK_GL_TransLine_IMA". The conflict occurred in database "iERP80_EAGLE",
table "dbo.GL_TransLine", column 'GLL_ItemID'.
The statement has been terminated.

Strange thing .... If I change the 99l% to 99L% it updates 5 rows, with the
lowercase l, I get the error.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: historical data
    ... In the tables there needs to be a check constraint on a column which is ... The point is that when you query the view, SQL Server will only access ... Please see Books Online for further details. ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
  • Re: sql rules and udt
    ... never disabled, the optimizer can trust the constraint, which can help ... Feel free to vote! ... Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books ... ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
  • Re: sql script
    ... By foring a binary collation, only rows with the incorrect pattern ... This should not trigger an FK constraint violation, ... Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ... Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
  • Re: alter table nocheck constraint still some dependencies
    ... altering labels to length 60 ... NOCHECK CONSTRAINT all" ... This forces SQL Server to re-check the constraints. ... Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
  • Re: Finding the natural key
    ... CONSTRAINT PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ... NULL OR [ScheduleTaskId] IS NOT NULL)) ... Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ... Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)