Solved

SQL Server - Update order by limit

Posted on 2015-02-20
8
240 Views
Last Modified: 2015-03-05
Hi Experts,

With SQL Server, how does one do something like this?

Update tasks set Status=1 WHERE Status=0 ORDER BY otherColumn LIMIT 1

I've seen this done as a with statement with a select- but this doesn't seem to lock the row - and I need to lock the row...

Thanks,
Mike
0
Comment
Question by:thready
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
8 Comments
 
LVL 20

Accepted Solution

by:
Russ Suter earned 334 total points
ID: 40621818
The ORDER BY clause is not valid with an update statement. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
0
 
LVL 13

Expert Comment

by:LIONKING
ID: 40621823
I'm not familiar with the LIMIT, so I can't help you unless you explain a little further what you're trying to do.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:thready
ID: 40621834
I have various machines competing to mark N rows in tasks as reserved (as well as their machine name).  I'm trying to avoid collisions because various machines will periodically try to do this...  I guess I need an embedded select statement... but if I do it this way- will I get deadlock errors?
0
Major Incident Management Communications

Major incidents and IT service outages cost companies millions. Often the solution to minimizing damage is automated communication. Find out more in our Major Incident Management Communications infographic.

 
LVL 20

Assisted Solution

by:Russ Suter
Russ Suter earned 334 total points
ID: 40621851
I'd be more worried about concurrency errors than deadlock errors. What is your record locking model? Optimistic, pessimistic, other?
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:thready
ID: 40621873
it's LockReadOnly...  I don't know anything about this, can you explain?
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:thready
ID: 40621886
I read the docs- I get it- but since it's LockReadonly, I think my problem is with deadlock, not concurrency, right?
0
 
LVL 32

Assisted Solution

by:Daniel Wilson
Daniel Wilson earned 166 total points
ID: 40622227
That syntax is really close to what MySQL supports, but MS SQL Server doesn't.  If your WITH clause gets it for you, good.

Otherwise you may need a stored procedure.

create procedure SetStatus
AS
Begin
 declare @ID int
 Set @ID = (Select top 1 ID from tasks where Status = 0 ORDER BY otherColumn)
 Update tasks set Status=1 WHERE ID=@ID
END

Open in new window


The procedure makes it a transaction which, I think, will take care of your concurrency issues.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Closing Comment

by:thready
ID: 40648442
Thanks everyone
0

Featured Post

Free Tool: Site Down Detector

Helpful to verify reports of your own downtime, or to double check a downed website you are trying to access.

One of a set of tools we are providing to everyone as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

International Data Corporation (IDC) prognosticates that before the current the year gets over disbursing on IT framework products to be sent in cloud environs will be $37.1B.
Ever wondered why sometimes your SQL Server is slow or unresponsive with connections spiking up but by the time you go in, all is well? The following article will show you how to install and configure a SQL job that will send you email alerts includ…
Via a live example, show how to extract insert data into a SQL Server database table using the Import/Export option and Bulk Insert.
Viewers will learn how to use the INSERT statement to insert data into their tables. It will also introduce the NULL statement, to show them what happens when no value is giving for any given column.

710 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question