I believe an UPDATE FROM
with a JOIN
will help:
MS SQL
UPDATE
Sales_Import
SET
Sales_Import.AccountNumber = RAN.AccountNumber
FROM
Sales_Import SI
INNER JOIN
RetrieveAccountNumber RAN
ON
SI.LeadID = RAN.LeadID;
MySQL and MariaDB
UPDATE
Sales_Import SI,
RetrieveAccountNumber RAN
SET
SI.AccountNumber = RAN.AccountNumber
WHERE
SI.LeadID = RAN.LeadID;
You can parameterize each value, so something like:
string[] tags = new string[] { "ruby", "rails", "scruffy", "rubyonrails" };
string cmdText = "SELECT * FROM Tags WHERE Name IN ({0})";
string[] paramNames = tags.Select(
(s, i) => "@tag" + i.ToString()
).ToArray();
string inClause = string.Join(", ", paramNames);
using (SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(string.Format(cmdText, inClause))) {
for(int i = 0; i < paramNames.Length; i++) {
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue(paramNames[i], tags[i]);
}
}
Which will give you:
cmd.CommandText = "SELECT * FROM Tags WHERE Name IN (@tag0, @tag1, @tag2, @tag3)"
cmd.Parameters["@tag0"] = "ruby"
cmd.Parameters["@tag1"] = "rails"
cmd.Parameters["@tag2"] = "scruffy"
cmd.Parameters["@tag3"] = "rubyonrails"
No, this is not open to SQL injection. The only injected text into CommandText is not based on user input. It's solely based on the hardcoded "@tag" prefix, and the index of an array. The index will always be an integer, is not user generated, and is safe.
The user inputted values are still stuffed into parameters, so there is no vulnerability there.
Edit:
Injection concerns aside, take care to note that constructing the command text to accomodate a variable number of parameters (as above) impede's SQL server's ability to take advantage of cached queries. The net result is that you almost certainly lose the value of using parameters in the first place (as opposed to merely inserting the predicate strings into the SQL itself).
Not that cached query plans aren't valuable, but IMO this query isn't nearly complicated enough to see much benefit from it. While the compilation costs may approach (or even exceed) the execution costs, you're still talking milliseconds.
If you have enough RAM, I'd expect SQL Server would probably cache a plan for the common counts of parameters as well. I suppose you could always add five parameters, and let the unspecified tags be NULL - the query plan should be the same, but it seems pretty ugly to me and I'm not sure that it'd worth the micro-optimization (although, on Stack Overflow - it may very well be worth it).
Also, SQL Server 7 and later will auto-parameterize queries, so using parameters isn't really necessary from a performance standpoint - it is, however, critical from a security standpoint - especially with user inputted data like this.
Best Answer
Q: What is happening here?
A: Conceptually, we select all rows from
table1
and for each row we attempt to find a row intable2
with the same value for thename
column. If there is no such row, we just leave thetable2
portion of our result empty for that row. Then we constrain our selection by picking only those rows in the result where the matching row does not exist. Finally, We ignore all fields from our result except for thename
column (the one we are sure that exists, fromtable1
).While it may not be the most performant method possible in all cases, it should work in basically every database engine ever that attempts to implement ANSI 92 SQL