Transaction Processing - Using SQL Server 2000

This is a follow-up question to http://www.experts-exchange.com/Microsoft/Development/MS-SQL-Server/Q_23480417.html

I have tried to wrap everything into a transaction, however, when it gets to the point of
  SELECT * INTO table1 FROM (SELCT * FROM table1 UNION ALL SELECT * FROM table3) A
which actually should read:
  SELECT * INTO table1 FROM (SELECT * FROM table2 UNION ALL SELECT * FROM table3) A

I get an error:
  Invalid object name 'dbo.table2'.

table2 is the original table1, which was renamed at the start of the transaction. Any ideas how I can fix this?
 
LVL 15
dbbishopAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Webinar] Streamline your web hosting managementRegister Today

x
 
elimesikaConnect With a Mentor Commented:
HI

try the following , this does the same without using sp_rename , I don't think that sp_rename works inside a transaction, I think that it will update the system tables only after the commit

DROP TABLE table2
SELECT * INTO table2 FROM (SELECT * FROM table1)
DROP TABLE table1
TRUNCATE TABLE 'table3'
BULK INSERT table3 FROM ...
DELETE table3 ...
UPDATE table3 ...
SELECT * INTO table1 FROM (SELECT * FROM table2 UNION ALL SELECT * FROM table3) A

Open in new window

0
 
dbbishopAuthor Commented:
I may have to go to that if sp_rename will not work inside the transaction. That is what the original code had, but I was hoping to do away with it (while doing everything inside a transaction, which is not currently being done) because the initial table has 5,000,000+ rows and just grows larger every week, because we keep adding to it (this is basically an ETL process and the tables only get updated via the BULK INSERT). Besides, sp_rename adds hardly anything to the transaction log. I may do the rename outside the main transaction. If it fails, I can just not continue processing.
0
 
elimesikaCommented:
HI again

unfortunately , SQL server 2000 does not support commit of nested transactions, if that was supported , you was able to solve that in two inner transaction that are contained in outer transaction.
0
Receive 1:1 tech help

Solve your biggest tech problems alongside global tech experts with 1:1 help.

 
dbbishopAuthor Commented:
I am aware of that. I mean I can start one transaction for the rename (or actually, just check the error code after doing it) and if it successd, commit, then start another transaction for the other code. If the rename fails, I haven't lost a thing really. I still have the original table and no data has been processed.
0
 
elimesikaCommented:
Yes , SQL server ignores inner transaction commit .....
0
 
dbbishopAuthor Commented:
Yes, I know. I am talking about two transactions. If the first one produces an error, I will roll it back and not do the second one. If it suceeds, I'll commit it then begin a second transaction. I am not talking about nesting transactions, as I know only the final commit does anything.
0
 
dbbishopAuthor Commented:
I went with this. Although I got it to work by making it two transactions, I realized that if the second transaction errored, I would have to add logic to rename the tables back to their original names, otherwise, they would not exist. Takes longer, but a bit easier.
0
All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.