So, basically, he's going to have to do more than one update, regardless of how/where he does it, right? I see the point of doing it in a procedure (and agree with it), but it's still 2 updates, nevertheless.
On Nov 4, 11:42 am, "Al Longobardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, > Write a stored procedure that does both updates there. If you need a > specific parameter for each update, no problem. Just add the 2 parameters in > the stored procedure. ie: > > create procedure test_me > ( > [EMAIL PROTECTED] varchar(20), > [EMAIL PROTECTED] varchar(20), > [EMAIL PROTECTED] int, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] int ) > as > Begin > update table1 > set Data1 = @FirstUpdateData > where Id = @Id1 > > update table2 > set Data2 = @SecondUpdateData > Where id = @Id2 > > if @errors <> 0 > Begin > RollBack; > End > Else > Begin > Commit > End > > End > Hope this helps... > Al > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Chuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Are you wanting to restrict/reduce the amount of times you hit the > > database with statements, or you simply want to have one - and only > > one - SQL UPDATE statement update 'n' amount tables at the same time? > > More info is definitely needed. > > > However, I don't believe you can have one Update statement update > > multiple tables at the same time, unless you concatenate multiple > > UPDATE statements together. I heard and read that doing sql > > concatenation is 'the work of the devil,' especially if you adding > > fields from objects such as textboxes. It would be sql injection > > prone. > > > Give more info please. > > > On Nov 3, 11:27 pm, BigJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is it possible to do an update on multiple tables within 1 statement?
