Views and Derived Tables

Think of a view as a virtual table. Simply put, a view is a named SELECT statement that dynamically produces a result set that you can further operate on. A view doesn't actually store any data. It acts as a filter to underlying tables in which the data is stored. The SELECT statement that defines the view can be from one or more underlying tables or from other views. To relieve users of the complexity of having to know how to write an outer join properly, we can turn the prior outer-join query into a view:

 CREATE VIEW outer_view AS ( SELECT      'Author'=RTRIM(au_lname) + ', ' + au_fname, 'Title'=title FROM (titleauthor AS TA  FULL OUTER JOIN titles AS T ON (TA.title_id=T.title_id)) RIGHT OUTER JOIN authors AS A ON (A.au_id=TA.au_id) WHERE  A.state <> 'CA' OR A.state IS NULL ) 

Now, instead of formulating the outer join, we can simply query the outer-join view, outer_view . Then we can do a search for author names starting with Ri .

 SELECT * FROM outer_view WHERE Author LIKE 'Ri%' ORDER BY Author 

Here's the output:

 Author            Title --------------    --------------------- Ringer, Albert    Is Anger the Enemy? Ringer, Albert    Life Without Fear Ringer, Anne      The Gourmet Microwave Ringer, Anne      Is Anger the Enemy? 

Notice that the view defines the set of rows that are included, but it doesn't define the rows' ordering. If we want a specific order, we must specify the ORDER BY clause in the SELECT statement on the view rather than on the SELECT statement that defines the view.

A derived table is a fancy name for the result of using another SELECT statement in the FROM clause of a SELECT statement. This fits the relational model nicely, because the result of a SELECT statement should be a table ”so that it's nicely orthogonal and we can subsequently select from it. You can think of a view as a named derived table. A view is named, and its definition is persistent and reusable; a derived table is a completely dynamic, temporal concept. To show the difference, here's an equivalent LIKE 'Ri%' query using a derived table instead of a view:

 SELECT *  FROM      (SELECT      'Author'=RTRIM(au_lname) + ', ' + au_fname, 'Title'=title     FROM (titleauthor AS TA      FULL OUTER JOIN titles AS T ON (TA.title_id=T.title_id))     RIGHT OUTER JOIN authors AS A ON (A.au_id=TA.au_id)      WHERE A.state <> 'CA' OR A.state IS NULL     ) AS T WHERE T.Author LIKE 'Ri%' 

You can insert, update, and delete rows in a view but not in a derived table. Keep in mind that you're always modifying rows in the tables on which a view is based, because the view has no data of its own. Think of it as modifying data through a view rather than modifying data in a view. Some limitations to modifying data through a view exist; although the SQL Server documentation explains them, they bear repeating here with a bit more comment:

Modifications restricted to one base table Data modification statements (INSERT and UPDATE only) are allowed on multiple-table views if the data modification statement affects only one base table. DELETE statements are never allowed on multiple-table views, because you can't use data modification statements on more than one underlying table in a single statement. You can never modify through a view that's based on a UNION.

INSERT statements and NOT NULL columns INSERT statements aren't accepted unless all the NOT NULL columns without defaults in the underlying table or view are included in the view through which you're inserting new rows, and values for those columns are included in the INSERT statement. (SQL Server has no way to supply values for NOT NULL columns in the underlying table or view if no default value has been defined.)

Data restrictions All columns being modified must adhere to all restrictions for the data modification statement as if they were executed directly against the base table. This applies to column nullability, con-straints, identity columns, and columns with rules and/or defaults and base table triggers.

Limitations on INSERT and UPDATE statements INSERT and UPDATE statements can't add or change any column in a view that's a computation, nor can they change a view that includes aggregate functions, built-in functions, UNION, a GROUP BY clause, or DISTINCT.

READTEXT or WRITETEXT You can't use READTEXT or WRITETEXT on text or image columns in views.

Modifications and view criteria By default, data modification statements through views aren't checked to determine whether the rows affected are within the scope of the view. For example, you can issue an INSERT statement for a view that adds a row to the underlying base table, but that doesn't add the row to the view. This behavior occurs because the column values are all valid to the table, so they can be added; however, if the column values don't meet the view's criteria, they aren't represented in the selection for the view. Similarly, you can issue an UPDATE statement that changes a row in a way that the row no longer meets the criteria for the view. If you want all modifications to be checked, use the WITH CHECK OPTION option when creating the view.

For the most part, these restrictions are logical and understandable, except for WITH CHECK OPTION. For instance, if you use a view that defines some select criteria and allows the rows produced by the view to be modified, you must use WITH CHECK OPTION or you might experience the bizarre results of inserting a row that you can never see or updating rows in such a way that they disappear from the view.

Here's an example:

 CREATE VIEW CA_authors AS ( SELECT * FROM authors WHERE state='CA' ) GO BEGIN TRAN -- So we can roll back this nonsense SELECT * FROM CA_authors -- (returns 15 rows) UPDATE CA_authors SET state='IL' SELECT * FROM CA_authors -- (returns 0 rows) ROLLBACK TRAN 

Should we be able to update rows in a way that causes them to disappear from the view or add rows and never see them again? It's a matter of opinion. But because the SQL Server behavior is as ANSI SQL specifies, and such disappearing rows are as specified, you should consider always using WITH CHECK OPTION if a view is to be updated and the criteria are such that WITH CHECK OPTION might be violated.

If we rewrite the view, as follows


when we attempt to update the state column to IL , the command fails and we get this error message:

 Msg 550, Level 16, State 2 The attempted insert or update failed because the target view either  specifies WITH CHECK OPTION or spans a view which specifies WITH CHECK  OPTION and one or more rows resulting from the operation did not qualify  under the CHECK OPTION constraint. Command has been aborted. 

Views also have an often overlooked ability to use a system function in the view definition, making it dynamic for the connection. For example, suppose that we keep a personnel table that has a column called sqldb_name , which is the person's login name to SQL Server. The function SUSER_NAME ( server_user_id ) returns the login name for the current connection. We can create a view using the SUSER_NAME system function to limit that user to only his or her specific row in the table:

 CREATE VIEW My_personnel AS ( SELECT * FROM personnel WHERE sqldb_name = SUSER_NAME()  ) WITH CHECK OPTION 

SQL Server provides system functions that return the application name, database username (which might be different from the server login name), and workstation name, and these functions can be used in similar ways. You can see from the previous example that a view can also be important in dealing with security. For details on the system functions, see the SQL Server documentation.

Altering Views

SQL Server 7 allows you to alter the definition of a view. The syntax is almost identical to the syntax for creating the view initially:

 ALTER VIEW  view_name  [  (   column  [  ,  ...  n  ]  )  ] [WITH ENCRYPTION] AS  select_statement  [WITH CHECK OPTION] 

The big difference is that view_name must already exist, and the definition specified replaces whatever definition the view had before ALTER VIEW was executed. You might wonder why this is a useful command, since the entire definition must be reentered in the ALTER VIEW. Why don't we just drop the view and recreate it? The benefit comes from the fact that the view's object_id won't change, meaning all the internal references to this view remain intact. If other views reference this one, they'll be unaffected. If stored procedures access this view, they won't need to be recompiled. If you've assigned permissions on this view to various users and roles, dropping the view would lose all permission information. Altering the view keeps the permissions intact.

There is one gotcha when dealing with permissions on views, if the permissions have been assigned on individual columns. Internally, SQL Server keeps track of permissions by the column ID number. If you alter a view and change the order of the columns, the permissions might no longer be what you expect. Suppose you've created a view on the authors table to select the authors' names and phone numbers. You want all users to be able to see the authors' names, but you want the phone numbers to be unavailable.

 CREATE VIEW authorlist (first, last, phone) AS SELECT au_lname, au_fname, phone  FROM authors GO GRANT SELECT ON authorlist (first, last) TO PUBLIC GO 

All users in the pubs database can now execute this command:

 SELECT first, last FROM authorlist 

We now alter the view to put the phone number column in the first position:

 ALTER VIEW authorlist (phone, first, last) AS SELECT phone, au_lname, au_fname  FROM authors 

Because the permissions have been granted on the first two columns, users will get an error message when they run this same query:

 Server: Msg 230, Level 14, State 1 SELECT permission denied on column 'last' of object 'authorlist',  database 'pubs', owner 'dbo'. 

However, all users can now select the values in the phone column, which we were trying to keep hidden.

Inside Microsoft SQL Server 7.0
Inside Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 (Mps)
ISBN: 0735605173
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 1999
Pages: 144 © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: