giving error message according to Sql data
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
In this case the unique key violation is a known condition
Which the database will check anyway; so why check it twice or more? You're just slowing things down needlessly. Especially considering that the internal check by the database is likely to be the quickest.
Not slowing it down. If you can't account for it otherwise, such as not applying an unique index on a field that may not be unique, then certainly the processing can, and should, be done at the database. If the key already exists return something like false not just let the exception be thrown.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
-
Your problem is not how to deal with the error, the problem is what is the CAUSE of the error. There is no excuse for primary key violation and it is up to the developer to make sure the exception cannot arise in the normal flow of the program.
erdinc27 wrote:
if the user tries to add an existing data it gives error like that
I suspect you are inserting instead of updating a record.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
There is no excuse for primary key violation
You're right in that - but the OP didn't have a primary key violation he had a unique constraint violation - which is legitimate. For example, I am adding new products each of which has a unique id (maybe a GUID or an integer) which will be the primary key. But the product also requires a human-readable Code - which is also required to be unique. At some point the user needs to type in the code for a new product - you can check the DB at this point, and tell them to go ahead. Meanwhile another user can try to use the same code, pass the 'does it exist' test, and attempt a commit. Whoever gets there first will be fine, the 2nd person's commit will fail.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
There is no excuse for primary key violation
You're right in that - but the OP didn't have a primary key violation he had a unique constraint violation - which is legitimate. For example, I am adding new products each of which has a unique id (maybe a GUID or an integer) which will be the primary key. But the product also requires a human-readable Code - which is also required to be unique. At some point the user needs to type in the code for a new product - you can check the DB at this point, and tell them to go ahead. Meanwhile another user can try to use the same code, pass the 'does it exist' test, and attempt a commit. Whoever gets there first will be fine, the 2nd person's commit will fail.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
he had a unique constraint violation
Ok I missed that mainly b/c I make no distinction between the 2 constraints, if that scenario existed then I would still do a select on the code field before inserting and feed the result back to the user. In the case of your new product I would return the record/info on the product entered by the first commit. I admit there is a potential for a conflict on a really high volume system but I have yet to meet such a system.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Not slowing it down. If you can't account for it otherwise, such as not applying an unique index on a field that may not be unique, then certainly the processing can, and should, be done at the database. If the key already exists return something like false not just let the exception be thrown.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Not slowing it down.
Yes, slowing it down. <Whoops, I hit post prematurely> GUI.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? BL.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? API.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? DAL.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? SP.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? DB.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? How many times are you going to check the same darn thing when no problem exists? A duplicate key is an exceptional situation, whether you can test it or not. Consider database round-trips to be very expensive. </Whoops, I hit post prematurely>
Mark Nischalke wrote:
If the key already exists return something like false
How do I know
falsemeans duplicate rather than timeout or a referential integrity violation? -
I believe Mark's argument is that, given that the described error condition is a likely occurrence, then the OP should code to detect and handle the condition directly, rather than rely on the exception mechanism (which is expensive).
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
the described error condition is a likely occurrence
No, it never happens; I've certainly never seen one outside of unit testing -- of exception handling.
-
I have always been taught and follow the principle that conditions that can be tested for are not exceptions and you shouldn't use exception handling for them. Certainly there are cases you can't test for or don't expect to happen. In this particular case the unique key violation is expected and can be tested for.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
Mark Nischalke wrote:
conditions that can be tested for
Do you check your car's battery charge, tire pressure, tread depth, lug nut torque, etc. every time you leave the house? Do you check your fly before leaving the men's room? Do you wear a belt and suspenders? Just being able to perform a test, doesn't make it worthwhile.
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Not slowing it down.
Yes, slowing it down. <Whoops, I hit post prematurely> GUI.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? BL.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? API.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? DAL.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? SP.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? DB.DoesTheKeyAlreadyExist? How many times are you going to check the same darn thing when no problem exists? A duplicate key is an exceptional situation, whether you can test it or not. Consider database round-trips to be very expensive. </Whoops, I hit post prematurely>
Mark Nischalke wrote:
If the key already exists return something like false
How do I know
falsemeans duplicate rather than timeout or a referential integrity violation?Please, give me some credit. :rolleyes: Of course I would not architect such a contrived situation as you have outlined. Neither would I expect false to mean everything. As I, and others, have been saying here, handle the known conditions but be prepared for other cases.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
-
Gary Wheeler wrote:
the described error condition is a likely occurrence
No, it never happens; I've certainly never seen one outside of unit testing -- of exception handling.
Exactly the point. The application should be designed and coded so that it is an exceptional situation when it occurs. When responding to OP the first option given was to allow the exception to occur, which, IMO, is not correct, it should have been emphasized to correct the problem before it occurs or take other mitigating actions before just accepting the exception.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
conditions that can be tested for
Do you check your car's battery charge, tire pressure, tread depth, lug nut torque, etc. every time you leave the house? Do you check your fly before leaving the men's room? Do you wear a belt and suspenders? Just being able to perform a test, doesn't make it worthwhile.
If I expected my nuts to be loose I certainly would check my fly.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
he had a unique constraint violation
Ok I missed that mainly b/c I make no distinction between the 2 constraints, if that scenario existed then I would still do a select on the code field before inserting and feed the result back to the user. In the case of your new product I would return the record/info on the product entered by the first commit. I admit there is a potential for a conflict on a really high volume system but I have yet to meet such a system.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
I admit there is a potential for a conflict on a really high volume system but I have yet to meet such a system.
Welcome to my world! Imagine, if you will, something like a public facing web site that requires registration using a user name (rather than an email address which reduces but doesn't eliminate the problem).
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
I admit there is a potential for a conflict on a really high volume system but I have yet to meet such a system.
Welcome to my world! Imagine, if you will, something like a public facing web site that requires registration using a user name (rather than an email address which reduces but doesn't eliminate the problem).
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
I can just about see the latency issue getting into it there, I would think even that would need to be a fairly high volume system. Have you ever tracked the number of constraint violations? I think I'll stick to my corporate systems and stay hidden behind the firewall thank you!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Catch it and interpret it -- which database engine?
hey guys thanks for all your replies i use MsSql 2008 express..and i tried something like that
try
{
dr[j] = xnl.Item(i).ChildNodes[j].InnerText;
}
catch(SqlException ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("This Record is already exist");
}but still on the screen it shows the same error which is shown in Sql screen and sometimes it gives error like object reference not set to an instance of an object in that line dr[j] = xnl.Item(i).ChildNodes[j].InnerText; what is wrong here.i read a Xml file over website and put it in a datatable is it because it cannot connect that site ?
modified on Thursday, December 9, 2010 4:20 AM
-
hey guys..i added a Unique constraint to a column in my sql table and if the user tries to add an existing data it gives error like that "Violation of UNIQUE KEY constraint 'ukc_cekilis_no'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'dbo.NumaraBilgileri'." it is ok..but i want to show an error message like that in my program..how i can check if the data already exist
I think exception try..catch.. can only save you from this trouble. Just use
TryandCatchSqlException. And check the detail inSqlException,If it Contains word 'UNIQUE' then you'll get sure that the exception is regarding UNIQUE Key Constrain and further more you can notify to users with a formatted message. That's not a big deal.Regards, Hiren. Microsoft Dynamics CRM My Recent Article: - Way to know which control have raised PostBack[^]
-
I think exception try..catch.. can only save you from this trouble. Just use
TryandCatchSqlException. And check the detail inSqlException,If it Contains word 'UNIQUE' then you'll get sure that the exception is regarding UNIQUE Key Constrain and further more you can notify to users with a formatted message. That's not a big deal.Regards, Hiren. Microsoft Dynamics CRM My Recent Article: - Way to know which control have raised PostBack[^]
Hiren Solanki wrote:
,If it Contains word 'UNIQUE'
And what do you do when you deploy it onto a localised version of SQL Server, say the Japanese version?
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
If a known condition can be tested for without relying on an exception, it's a best course of action.
Well, I wouldn't say that's always true. Imagine if TryParse didn't exist. Would you rather Try/Catch a Parse or re-implement a version of parse that returns a bool if the string is invalid? Given the complexity of number formats (e.g., scientific notation), I would just do a Try/Catch. I guess this can be generalized as: If a known condition is exceptionally complex to test for, then just use exception handling to test if it's valid. Here's another example. I built a tool that allows the user to enter a regular expression to match against some data. Rather than validate that the regular expression is valid, I just used Try/Catch to catch exceptions thrown by invalid exceptions. I mean I COULD first check if the regular expression is valid, but it would be exceedingly complex and a waste of time when the test for validity already exists in the form of exception handling.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
Imagine if TryParse didn't exist.
It didn't at one point. I said if it could be tested for. Obviously, you can't test for every possible failure in a Parse method. It's not practical since there are just too many possibilities. But, you can test for a single known condition, like a duplicate key.
A guide to posting questions on CodeProject[^]
Dave Kreskowiak -
Fair enough. Regardless, this is a good discussion.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Regardless, this is a good discussion.
Oh yes, in fact I wish we had more of these in the Lounge :-)
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
hey guys thanks for all your replies i use MsSql 2008 express..and i tried something like that
try
{
dr[j] = xnl.Item(i).ChildNodes[j].InnerText;
}
catch(SqlException ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("This Record is already exist");
}but still on the screen it shows the same error which is shown in Sql screen and sometimes it gives error like object reference not set to an instance of an object in that line dr[j] = xnl.Item(i).ChildNodes[j].InnerText; what is wrong here.i read a Xml file over website and put it in a datatable is it because it cannot connect that site ?
modified on Thursday, December 9, 2010 4:20 AM
In this case, I'd suspect that xml.Item(i) doesn't have any child nodes, so attempting to do anything with it would cause a problem.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads