[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming

@@identity ,Scope_identity() fails

Ramesh Subramaniyan

3/16/2007 7:25:00 AM

hi all ,
SELECT SCOPE_IDENTITY()
SELECT @@IDENTITY

IDENT_CURRENT('Table_Name')

some times SCOPE_IDENTITY(), @@IDENTITY fails to retrieve the
last inserted value , same time IDENT_CURRENT('Table_Name') retrieve the
last inserted value , in my local server(express edition) SCOPE_IDENTITY(),
@@IDENTITY is working , but it is not working in enter prise server ?
13 Answers

Ramesh Subramaniyan

3/16/2007 8:35:00 AM

0


sometimes working and some times it is not working can any one tell what
time this functions is not working fine ?


"Ramesh Subramaniyan" wrote:

> hi all ,
> SELECT SCOPE_IDENTITY()
> SELECT @@IDENTITY
>
> IDENT_CURRENT('Table_Name')
>
> some times SCOPE_IDENTITY(), @@IDENTITY fails to retrieve the
> last inserted value , same time IDENT_CURRENT('Table_Name') retrieve the
> last inserted value , in my local server(express edition) SCOPE_IDENTITY(),
> @@IDENTITY is working , but it is not working in enter prise server ?

masri999

3/16/2007 8:53:00 AM

0

On Mar 16, 1:35 pm, Ramesh Subramaniyan
<RameshSubramani...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> sometimes working and some times it is not working can any one tell what
> time this functions is not working fine ?
>
>
>
> "Ramesh Subramaniyan" wrote:
> > hi all ,
> > SELECT SCOPE_IDENTITY()
> > SELECT @@IDENTITY
>
> > IDENT_CURRENT('Table_Name')
>
> > some times SCOPE_IDENTITY(), @@IDENTITY fails to retrieve the
> > last inserted value , same time IDENT_CURRENT('Table_Name') retrieve the
> > last inserted value , in my local server(express edition) SCOPE_IDENTITY(),
> > @@IDENTITY is working , but it is not working in enter prise server ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Interesting. But like to know are you executing these statements
immediately after inserting the data . Are you using dynamic SQL to
insert ? Can you reproduce this with an example

The Trucker

6/19/2008 5:01:00 PM

0

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:17:52 -0700, forbisgaryg wrote:

> On Jun 18, 1:40?pm, "Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org>
> wrote:
>> "Sal Video" <svi...@access.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ide6k.3585$cW3.565@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> > You repugs are going to really hate when the constitution is restored this
>> > coming January.
>> > ===============
>>
>> What Restoration? You mean Liberals Declaring that foreign Terrorists are
>> now US Citizens?
>
> You know, I've seen this argument before. The part I don't understand
> is how one declares so called "illegal combatants" terrorists when
> they
> have not engaged in acts of terror. Even so, where in the Bill of
> Rights
> does the word "citizen" appear? The Bill of Rights applies to people
> in
> relationship to the US Government and is not limited to citizens.

I think the word "persons" is employed.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice....

Richard Eich

6/19/2008 8:14:00 PM

0

"Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org> wrote:
> "Sal Video" <svi...@access.com> wrote in message
>
> > You repugs are going to really hate when the constitution is restored this
> > coming January.
> > ===============
>
> What Restoration? You mean Liberals Declaring that foreign Terrorists are
> now US Citizens?

LMAO. Do you have any idea how stupid you look, writing baloney like
this?

All that has been restored is the right of a person being detained by
our Government to REQUEST that the justification for his detainment
be REVIEWED by a court of law. That's all.

After all, we do declare in our Declaration of Independence that "all
men" have inalienable rights, one of them being Liberty unless we can
SHOW CAUSE for taking it away from a person.

That's what it means to be a Constitution-loving American, bub. Deal
with it.

We have provably detained, tortured, and then released (after years
of confinement) persons from Gitmo who we could not show were really
terrorists or enemy combatants. That's with the heavy bias in favor
of the government in terms of evidence that can be submitted
(heresay, evidence obtained from torture, secret evidence that the
accused cannot even rebut, etc.).

Constitution- and freedom-loving Americans cannot let the Government
act that way. Our recourse is through our elected representatives,
and that's where we're taking the issue.

--
"Three things that politicians hide behind: The flag, the Bible, and
children." George Carlin, "Life is Worth Losing"

Enviromentally Whacko

6/19/2008 8:31:00 PM

0


"Richard Eich" <richard.eich@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.22c488182184584798b145@news.verizon.net...
> "Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org> wrote:
>> "Sal Video" <svi...@access.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > You repugs are going to really hate when the constitution is restored
>> > this
>> > coming January.
>> > ===============
>>
>> What Restoration? You mean Liberals Declaring that foreign Terrorists are
>> now US Citizens?
>
> LMAO. Do you have any idea how stupid you look, writing baloney like
> this?
>
> All that has been restored is the right of a person being detained by
> our Government to REQUEST that the justification for his detainment
> be REVIEWED by a court of law. That's all.
>================

Which has never been done in time of war in any of Americas 240 years .
Thomas Jefferson never said African Pirates captured after attacking US
ships , should be brought back to Boston for trial and given US citizens
constitutional rights, you fucking terrorist ass banger.

Richard Eich

6/19/2008 8:54:00 PM

0

"Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org> wrote...
>
> "Richard Eich" <richard.eich@domain.invalid> wrote in message
> > "Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org> wrote:
> >> "Sal Video" <svi...@access.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > You repugs are going to really hate when the constitution is restored
> >> > this
> >> > coming January.
> >> > ===============
> >>
> >> What Restoration? You mean Liberals Declaring that foreign Terrorists are
> >> now US Citizens?
> >
> > LMAO. Do you have any idea how stupid you look, writing baloney like
> > this?
> >
> > All that has been restored is the right of a person being detained by
> > our Government to REQUEST that the justification for his detainment
> > be REVIEWED by a court of law. That's all.
>
> Which has never been done in time of war in any of Americas 240 years .

"This is an entirely different kind of war than we have ever fought
before." G.W. Bush, referring to the "War on Terror".

But since you mention it, most recently the Genova Convention set the
standard for the treatment of war prisoners. Bush put the kabosh on
that one, though. If he hadn't done that, this wouldn't have come up
in the first place.

> Thomas Jefferson never said African Pirates captured after attacking US
> ships , should be brought back to Boston for trial and given US citizens
> constitutional rights

....and nor will suspected terrorists and enemy combatants be tried in
US courts or given citizen rights, either.

Try to get your brain around a few very simple ideas:

1) Innocent until shown guilty.

2) We HAVE to show that we have a reason for detaining a person. Any
person.

3) A detained person can REQUEST a REVIEW of the reasons they are
being held.

Please explain how you think this translates into trial in US courts
and citizen constitutional rights? It clearly does not.

Your problem is that you're against the ruling before you even have a
vague understanding of it. You're no different than a jihadist.

--
"Three things that politicians hide behind: The flag, the Bible, and
children." George Carlin, "Life is Worth Losing"

George Grapman

6/19/2008 9:05:00 PM

0

Richard Eich wrote:
> "Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org> wrote...
>> "Richard Eich" <richard.eich@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>>> "Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org> wrote:
>>>> "Sal Video" <svi...@access.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> You repugs are going to really hate when the constitution is restored
>>>>> this
>>>>> coming January.
>>>>> ===============
>>>> What Restoration? You mean Liberals Declaring that foreign Terrorists are
>>>> now US Citizens?
>>> LMAO. Do you have any idea how stupid you look, writing baloney like
>>> this?
>>>
>>> All that has been restored is the right of a person being detained by
>>> our Government to REQUEST that the justification for his detainment
>>> be REVIEWED by a court of law. That's all.
>> Which has never been done in time of war in any of Americas 240 years .
>
> "This is an entirely different kind of war than we have ever fought
> before." G.W. Bush, referring to the "War on Terror".
>
> But since you mention it, most recently the Genova Convention set the
> standard for the treatment of war prisoners. Bush put the kabosh on
> that one, though. If he hadn't done that, this wouldn't have come up
> in the first place.
>
>> Thomas Jefferson never said African Pirates captured after attacking US
>> ships , should be brought back to Boston for trial and given US citizens
>> constitutional rights
>
> ...and nor will suspected terrorists and enemy combatants be tried in
> US courts or given citizen rights, either.
>
> Try to get your brain around a few very simple ideas:
>
> 1) Innocent until shown guilty.
>
> 2) We HAVE to show that we have a reason for detaining a person. Any
> person.
>
> 3) A detained person can REQUEST a REVIEW of the reasons they are
> being held.
>
> Please explain how you think this translates into trial in US courts
> and citizen constitutional rights? It clearly does not.
>
> Your problem is that you're against the ruling before you even have a
> vague understanding of it. You're no different than a jihadist.
>
Want to see babs run? Ask her what "enviromentally" means or why she
needs so many names.

Trying to reply to the first one she posted a link that never had
that made up word. The latter upsets her so much that not only does she
never answer it she always deletes it from her replies.

George Grapman

6/19/2008 9:08:00 PM

0

Enviromentally Whacko wrote:


Poor babs. She makes up yet another user name and because it has a
word with more than one syllable she misspells it. Even after that is
noted she does not correct it. Hard to change your settings with a
bottle in one hand and everything on your monitor looking blurred.

Enviromentally Whacko

6/20/2008 12:27:00 AM

0


"Richard Eich" <richard.eich@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.22c49158e03251a298b146@news.verizon.net...
> "Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org> wrote...
>>
>> "Richard Eich" <richard.eich@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>> > "Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org> wrote:
>> >> "Sal Video" <svi...@access.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > You repugs are going to really hate when the constitution is
>> >> > restored
>> >> > this
>> >> > coming January.
>> >> > ===============
>> >>
>> >> What Restoration? You mean Liberals Declaring that foreign Terrorists
>> >> are
>> >> now US Citizens?
>> >
>> > LMAO. Do you have any idea how stupid you look, writing baloney like
>> > this?
>> >
>> > All that has been restored is the right of a person being detained by
>> > our Government to REQUEST that the justification for his detainment
>> > be REVIEWED by a court of law. That's all.
>>
>> Which has never been done in time of war in any of Americas 240 years .
>
> "This is an entirely different kind of war than we have ever fought
> before." G.W. Bush, referring to the "War on Terror".
>
> But since you mention it, most recently the Genova Convention
==============

Terrorists are not Uniformed, state sponsored military soldiers working
under the rules of War , which is what the Geneva convention stipulates .
That why they are called Terrorists you stupid fuck.

Enviromentally Whacko

6/20/2008 12:28:00 AM

0


"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:PRz6k.11267$mh5.2771@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Richard Eich wrote:
>> "Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org> wrote...
>>> "Richard Eich" <richard.eich@domain.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> "Enviromentally Whacko" <whacko @Democrap.org> wrote:
>>>>> "Sal Video" <svi...@access.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> You repugs are going to really hate when the constitution is restored
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> coming January.
>>>>>> ===============
>>>>> What Restoration? You mean Liberals Declaring that foreign Terrorists
>>>>> are
>>>>> now US Citizens?
>>>> LMAO. Do you have any idea how stupid you look, writing baloney like
>>>> this?
>>>>
>>>> All that has been restored is the right of a person being detained by
>>>> our Government to REQUEST that the justification for his detainment
>>>> be REVIEWED by a court of law. That's all.
>>> Which has never been done in time of war in any of Americas 240 years .
>>
>> "This is an entirely different kind of war than we have ever fought
>> before." G.W. Bush, referring to the "War on Terror".
>>
>> But since you mention it, most recently the Genova Convention set the
>> standard for the treatment of war prisoners. Bush put the kabosh on that
>> one, though. If he hadn't done that, this wouldn't have come up in the
>> first place.
>>
>>> Thomas Jefferson never said African Pirates captured after attacking US
>>> ships , should be brought back to Boston for trial and given US citizens
>>> constitutional rights
>>
>> ...and nor will suspected terrorists and enemy combatants be tried in US
>> courts or given citizen rights, either.
>>
>> Try to get your brain around a few very simple ideas:
>>
>> 1) Innocent until shown guilty.
>>
>> 2) We HAVE to show that we have a reason for detaining a person. Any
>> person.
>>
>> 3) A detained person can REQUEST a REVIEW of the reasons they are being
>> held.
>>
>> Please explain how you think this translates into trial in US courts and
>> citizen constitutional rights? It clearly does not.
>>
>> Your problem is that you're against the ruling before you even have a
>> vague understanding of it. You're no different than a jihadist.
>>
> Want to see babs run? Ask her what "enviromentally" means or why she
> needs so many names.
>
>===========

Wanna see Georgianne scream ? Post an answer that she wont address.

http://stephenleahy.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/international-enviro-standards-needed-for...
\