Hi,
I would like to know details about the table name starts with prefix
in sql server 2000.
Actually i'm working on existing code.
The existing code insert a record into a table, but the table name in
the code and table name in database are different
Table name in database : tbl_mmm_ox
In coding they are using table name as mmm only, the records are
properly inserted into mmm table
is it possible?
The sample code is like that(using ado object)
oCmd.CommandText = "INSERT INTO mmm (no,name) values (1,"mm")"
The above code is perfectly working and inserting record into
tbl_mmm_ox.
Could anybody explain how is it possible?
whether we can leave the prefix(tbl) and suffix(ox) and sql server
take care of this?


Thanks & Regards,
Mani

Mani,

Someone probably created a view called mmm that points to the tbl_mmm_ox
physical table.

-- Bill

<plmanikandan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Sounds like a View

--

Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Advertise your IT vacancies for free at - http://www.ITjobfeed.com



<plmanikandan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

On Mar 21, 7:45 pm, "Jack Vamvas" <DEL_TO_RE... (AT) del (DOT) com> wrote:
Thanks friends.It's view only.find that view after posting this
message.
Is it wise to use a view to insert the record.
Is there any performance issue may come due to this view.
I would like to know the opinion on this?

Thanks & Regards,
Mani

what would be the goal of inserting via the VIEW rather than inserting into
the underlying tables?
it depends on the complexity and who your users are?

--

Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Advertise your IT vacancies for free at - http://www.ITjobfeed.com



<plmanikandan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:52:37 -0000, "Jack Vamvas"
<DEL_TO_REPLY (AT) del (DOT) com> wrote:

I rather suspect the reason for the views in this particular case was
to be able to avoid the silly tbl prefix and _ox suffix without
breaking something else.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

On 21 Mar 2007 13:26:33 -0700, plmanikandan (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

(snip)
Hi Mani,

A common reason to do this is if the table holds more columns than the
view. For instance audit columns, that are filled with a DEFAULT
constraint and that should not be overwritten by the INSERT statement.

Probably not, but it depends on how the view is defined, if it's updated
through a trigger and if so, how the trigger is written.

--
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP
My SQL Server blog: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/hugo_kornelis

Hi

Well you can set up partitioned Views when the view is the Union of many
tables. The tables can then be stored on multiple physical drives. and the
partioning takes care of putting the data in the right table based on the
partioning column.

-Dick Christoph


<plmanikandan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote