Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 12»»

CONTAINED DATABASE OR NOT ... Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:01 AM


Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:49 AM
Points: 23, Visits: 567
In a POC project I was looking into the SQL Server 2012 feature of partially contained databases.

To my surprise I encountered an error where I didn't expect one.

The code hereafter is a simplified test-case.

Server Collation = Latin1_General_CI_AS
Collation on database test is the same.

Running the code when database test has CONTAINMENT = PARTIAL gives an error (see below)
Running the code when database test has CONTAINMENT = NONE doesn't give any error.

So it seems that there is some change in collation behavior depending on the CONTAINMENT type ...

USE [master]
GO

ALTER DATABASE [test] SET CONTAINMENT = PARTIAL WITH NO_WAIT -- WILL RESULT IN ERROR
-- ALTER DATABASE [test] SET CONTAINMENT = NONE WITH NO_WAIT -- WILL WORK
GO

USE [test]
GO

DROP TABLE TEST_CASE
GO

CREATE TABLE TEST_CASE
( name varchar(10) NOT NULL
, CONSTRAINT PK_LOG_FILTER_PK PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (name)
)
GO

;
MERGE INTO TEST_CASE Target
USING (
SELECT 'case' AS name
) Source
ON ( Target.name = Source.name )
WHEN NOT MATCHED BY TARGET THEN INSERT ( name ) VALUES ( Source.name )
WHEN NOt MATCHED BY SOURCE THEN DELETE
OUTPUT $action
, CASE
WHEN $action = 'INSERT' THEN 'ADDED'
WHEN $action = 'DELETE' THEN 'REMOVED'
END ACTION
, inserted.name
, deleted.name
;



Msg 468, Level 16, State 9, Line 12
Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "Latin1_General_CI_AS" and "Latin1_General_100_CI_AS_KS_WS_SC" in the equal to operation.


Can anyone give me a satisfactory explanation ...


"Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if both are frozen." -- Edward V. Berard, "Life-Cycle Approaches"
Post #1381503
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:17 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:35 AM
Points: 178, Visits: 547
Hi,
The only thing I can think of is replacing:
ON	( Target.name = Source.name )

with

ON	( Target.name COLLATE Latin1_General_CI_AS = Source.name COLLATE Latin1_General_CI_AS )

Hope this helps.




For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, read Jeff Moden's suggestions.

"Million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten." ― Terry Pratchett, Mort
Post #1384003
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:28 AM


Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:49 AM
Points: 23, Visits: 567
D.Post (11/13/2012)
Hi,
The only thing I can think of is replacing:
ON	( Target.name = Source.name )

with

ON	( Target.name COLLATE Latin1_General_CI_AS = Source.name COLLATE Latin1_General_CI_AS )

Hope this helps.


Yes, and no

First: I'm aware of the COLLATE clause to overcome differences in collating stuff.

Second: the error isn't on the JOIN condition, but on the CASE-part where I check the $action field.
So the COLLATE clause should go there.


CASE
WHEN $action = 'INSERT' THEN 'ADDED'
WHEN $action = 'DELETE' THEN 'REMOVED'
END ACTION


BUT: the question was rather why there is a difference in behavior between a PARTIALLY CONTAINED database and a NON-PARTIALLY CONTAINED database.
As far as I'm concerned: this is a bug

I've got SQL Server Days coming up, and I'm going to relate this issue to some of the speakers.


"Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if both are frozen." -- Edward V. Berard, "Life-Cycle Approaches"
Post #1384008
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:26 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:35 AM
Points: 178, Visits: 547
Your code works for me on both
2008 (10.50.1600) Enterprise
2012 (10.0.2100) Evaluation

Both results are the same.
$action	ACTION	name	name
INSERT ADDED case NULL

I can reproduce your error by forcing an incorrect collation:
CASE
WHEN $action COLLATE Latin1_General_CI_AS = 'INSERT' COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_Cp437_BIN THEN 'ADDED'
WHEN $action = 'DELETE' THEN 'REMOVED'
END ACTION

Msg 468, Level 16, State 9, Line 12
Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "SQL_Latin1_General_CP437_BIN" and "Latin1_General_CI_AS" in the equal to operation.




For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, read Jeff Moden's suggestions.

"Million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten." ― Terry Pratchett, Mort
Post #1384053
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:47 AM


Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:49 AM
Points: 23, Visits: 567
Really appreciate you looking in/at this issue.

The fact that you can reproduce the error by adding the COLLATE-clause is "as designed" in SQL Server.

Forget the SQL 2008 track for now.
The code is working in a SQL 2008 environment.

The code also works in a SQL 2012 environment only when the database wherein you work has CONTAINMENT TYPE NONE

Did you have a try with the code against a database with CONTAINMENT TYPE PARTIAL ?

I also installed Service Pack I for SQL 2012, but the error still occurs



"Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if both are frozen." -- Edward V. Berard, "Life-Cycle Approaches"
Post #1384058
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:04 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:23 AM
Points: 7,098, Visits: 12,605
marc.snoeys (11/13/2012)
D.Post (11/13/2012)

[quote]
CASE
WHEN $action = 'INSERT' THEN 'ADDED'
WHEN $action = 'DELETE' THEN 'REMOVED'
END ACTION


BUT: the question was rather why there is a difference in behavior between a PARTIALLY CONTAINED database and a NON-PARTIALLY CONTAINED database.

Here is one possible explanation as to what is going on:

In the contained database scenario $action is actually collated using the catalog default, i.e. Latin1_General_100_CI_AS_WS_KS_SC, per the table under the section Contained Databases in this article. Try adding COLLATE DATABASE_DEFAULT to collate $action in the CASE expression.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community. --Plato
Post #1384073
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:08 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:35 AM
Points: 178, Visits: 547
With containment type partial I also get the error.

Can workaround with:
WHEN $action COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS = 'DELETE' THEN 'REMOVED'

I found these articles which might be of help :
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/hh534404.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff929080.aspx




For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, read Jeff Moden's suggestions.

"Million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten." ― Terry Pratchett, Mort
Post #1384075
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:42 AM


Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:49 AM
Points: 23, Visits: 567
opc.three (11/13/2012)

Here is one possible explanation as to what is going on:

In the contained database scenario $action is actually collated using the catalog default, i.e. Latin1_General_100_CI_AS_WS_KS_SC, per the table under the section Contained Databases in this article. Try adding COLLATE DATABASE_DEFAULT to collate $action in the CASE expression.


It strikes me as very odd that changing the containment type of a database results in different behavior in code: in this case the $action field.
But this is just a personal opinion (however a few colleagues do agree)

I did a kind of an extension to this test-case:

- Database [test] in CONTAINMENT TYPE=NONE
- Create a stored procedure with the MERGE-statement above.
- Try to change the CONTAINMENT TYPE=PARTIAL

That resulted in following error, which is basically the same as in the first test-case.

Msg 468, Level 16, State 9, Procedure sp_TEST_CASE, Line 19
Cannot resolve the collation conflict between "Latin1_General_CI_AS" and "Latin1_General_100_CI_AS_KS_WS_SC" in the equal to operation.
Msg 12813, Level 16, State 2, Line 2
Errors were encountered in the procedure 'dbo.sp_TEST_CASE' during compilation of the object. Either the containment option of the database 'test' was changed, or this object was present in model db and the user tried to create a new contained database.
Msg 12836, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
ALTER DATABASE statement failed. The containment option of the database 'test' could not be altered because compilation errors were encountered during validation of SQL modules. See previous errors.
Msg 5069, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
ALTER DATABASE statement failed.

Apparently there is a view where one can query for possible problems when changing to a CONTAINED database: SYS.DM_DB_UNCONTAINED_ENTITIES

But a query on this view does not show this particular stored procedure.

All in all: I guess I'm forced to use the COLLATE-clause ...



"Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if both are frozen." -- Edward V. Berard, "Life-Cycle Approaches"
Post #1384512
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:23 PM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:23 AM
Points: 7,098, Visits: 12,605
marc.snoeys (11/14/2012)
Apparently there is a view where one can query for possible problems when changing to a CONTAINED database: SYS.DM_DB_UNCONTAINED_ENTITIES

But a query on this view does not show this particular stored procedure.

I am not surprised. I would not expect the proc to be returned.

All in all: I guess I'm forced to use the COLLATE-clause ...

I think that is the correct move. Here is code that will be portable between both contained as well as non-contained databases regardless of which collation you are using in the database:

WHEN $action COLLATE DATABASE_DEFAULT = 'DELETE' THEN 'REMOVED'



__________________________________________________________________________________________________
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community. --Plato
Post #1384939
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2012 3:40 AM


Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:49 AM
Points: 23, Visits: 567
A further update ...

I had a talk with Bob Beachemin about this issue ( and a few others stuff as well ).

He had a look at it and his conclusions were:


In fact, using any collation at random with the collate clause works, as long as you HAVE the collate clause

WHEN $action collate Albanian_BIN = 'INSERT'     THEN 'ADDED' 
WHEN $action collate Albanian_BIN = 'DELETE' THEN 'REMOVED'




So you can, as far as I’m concerned, report it as a contained database problem (the fact that you MUST do the collation sounds like a bug) AND/OR a documentation problem (there is no classification of $action anywhere in BOL). The behavior likely has to do with the rules for comparison predicates when collate clause is not specified, and the fact the $action is probably special cased somewhere in the (SQL Server) code.


So I decided to report it on CONNECT



"Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if both are frozen." -- Edward V. Berard, "Life-Cycle Approaches"
Post #1389618
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse