Brand new to SQL and SQLite here. I'm trying to create a function in R studio that takes in an argument from the command line and queries an SQL database to see if the record exists in one specific column, displaying a message to the user whether the record was found or not (I have a table within this database, lets call it my_table, that has 2 columns, we'll name them column_1 and column_2. column_1 has ID numbers and column_2 has names that are associated with those ID numbers, and there are a total of about 700 rows).
So far I have something that looks like this:
my_function() <- function(CL_record) { db <- dbConnect(SQLite(), dbname = "mysql.db") dbGetQuery(db, sql("SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE column_2 == #CL_record")) }
But this is obviously not the right way to go about it and I keep getting errors thrown regarding invalid (NULL) left side of assignment.
Any help here would be much appreciated.
I recommend using parameterized queries, something like:
my_function <- function(CL_record) {
db <- dbConnect(SQLite(), dbname = "mysql.db")
on.exit(dbDisconnect(db), add = TRUE)
dbGetQuery(db, "SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE column_2 = ?",
params = list(CL_record))
}
The params= argument does not need to be a list(.), it works just fine here as params=CL_record, but if you have two or more, and especially if they are of different classes (strings vs numbers), then you really should list them.
You'll see many suggestions, or even howtos/tutorials that suggest using paste or similar for adding parameters to the query. There are at least two reasons for not using paste or sprintf:
Whether malicious or inadvertent (e.g., typos), sql injection is something that should be actively avoided. Even if your code is not public-facing, accidents happen.
Most (all?) DBMSes have query optimization/compiling. When it receives a query it has not seen before, it parses and attempts to optimize the query; when it sees a repeat query, it can re-use the previous optimization, saving time. When you paste or sprintf an argument into a query, each query is different from the previous, so it is overall less efficient. When using bound parameters, the query itself does not change (just its parameters), so we can take advantage of the compiling/optimization.
Related
I have a problem where the fix is to exchange what gets filtered first, but I'm not sure if that is even possible and not knowledgeable enough how it works.
To give an example:
Here is a table
When you filter this using the ff query:
select * from pcparts where Parts = 'Monitor' and id = 255322 and Brand = 'Asus'
by logic this will be correct as the Asus component with a character in its ID will be filtered and will prevent an ORA-01722 error.
But to my experience this is inconsistent.
I tried using the same filtering in two different DB connections, the first one didn't get the error (as expected) but other one got an ORA-01722 error.
Checking the explain plan the difference in the two DB's is the ff:
I was thinking if its possible to make sure that the Parts got filtered first before the ID but I'm unable to find anything when i was searching, is this even possible, if not, what is a fix for this issue without relying on using TO_CHAR
I assume you want to (sort of) fix a buggy program without changing the source code.
According to your image, you are using "Filter Predicates", this normally means Oracle isn't using index (though I don't know what displays execution plans this way).
If you have an index on PARTS, Oracle will probably use this index.
create index myindex on mytable (parts);
If Oracle thinks this index is inefficient, it may still use full table scan. You may try to 'fake' Oracle into thinking this an efficient index by lying about the number of distinct values (the more distinct values, the more efficient)
exec dbms_stats.set_index_stats(ownname => 'myname', indname => 'myindex', numdist => 100000000)
Note: This WILL impact performance of other querys using this table
"Fix" is rather simple: take control over what you're doing.
It is evident that ID column's datatype is VARCHAR2. Therefore, don't make Oracle guess, instruct it what to do.
No : select * from pcparts where Parts = 'Monitor' and id = 255322 and Brand = 'Asus'
Yes: select * from pcparts where Parts = 'Monitor' and id = '255322' and Brand = 'Asus'
--------
VARCHAR2 column's value enclosed into single quotes
I have a sqlite query that I'm looking into parameterization to avoid bad sql injection things on the internet...
So things like:
Select * From myTable Where id = $id
are fine if I have $id defined somewhere and pass that as a parameter to my db calls.
paramters.$id = 150;
db.all(myQuery, parameters, function (err, rows) {
results = rows;
});
I wonder if I need to go out of my way to also parameterize things that are sorted and paginated (both are inputs that users can give)...
I tried to do something like:
var sorter = JSON.parse(value);
parameters.$sortMethod = sorter.method;
parameters.$sortOrder = sorter.order;
sort_filter += 'ORDER BY $sortMethod $sortOrder';
No dice though. I'm guessing sqlite3 just doesn't let you parameterize things that are in ORDER, LIMIT and OFFSET. I thought there was something really sneaky maybe folks out there could do by ending a sqlite statement prematurely in the order and then creating a new malicious statement, but maybe SQLITE3 only lets you exercise one statement at a time (http://www.qtcentre.org/threads/54748-Execute-multiple-sql-command-in-SQLITE3)
Should I not worry about parameterizing things in order limit and offset? For reference, I'm running this on node.js with this sqlite library: https://github.com/mapbox/node-sqlite3
Thanks much in advance!
SQLite (and any other database) allows you to parameterize expressions, that is, any numbers, strings, blobs, or NULL values that appear in a statement.
This includes the values in the LIMIT/OFFSET clauses.
Anything else cannot be parameterized.
This would be table and column names, operators, or any other keyword (like SELECT, ORDER BY, or ASC).
If you need to change any parts of your SQL statements that are not expressions, you have to create the statement on the fly.
(There is no danger of SQL injection as long as your code constructs the statement by itself, not using any unchecked user data.)
I saw a query run in a log file on an application. and it contained a query like:
SELECT ID FROM CUST_ATTR49 WHERE 1=0
what is the use of such a query that is bound to return nothing?
A query like this can be used to ping the database. The clause:
WHERE 1=0
Ensures that non data is sent back, so no CPU charge, no Network traffic or other resource consumption.
A query like that can test for:
server availability
CUST_ATTR49 table existence
ID column existence
Keeping a connection alive
Cause a trigger to fire without changing any rows (with the where clause, but not in a select query)
manage many OR conditions in dynamic queries (e.g WHERE 1=0 OR <condition>)
This may be also used to extract the table schema from a table without extracting any data inside that table. As Andrea Colleoni said those will be the other benefits of using this.
A usecase I can think of: you have a filter form where you don't want to have any search results. If you specify some filter, they get added to the where clause.
Or it's usually used if you have to create a sql query by hand. E.g. you don't want to check whether the where clause is empty or not..and you can just add stuff like this:
where := "WHERE 0=1"
if X then where := where + " OR ... "
if Y then where := where + " OR ... "
(if you connect the clauses with OR you need 0=1, if you have AND you have 1=1)
As an answer - but also as further clarification to what #AndreaColleoni already mentioned:
manage many OR conditions in dynamic queries (e.g WHERE 1=0 OR <condition>)
Purpose as an on/off switch
I am using this as a switch (on/off) statement for portions of my Query.
If I were to use
WHERE 1=1
AND (0=? OR first_name = ?)
AND (0=? OR last_name = ?)
Then I can use the first bind variable (?) to turn on or off the first_name search criterium. , and the third bind variable (?) to turn on or off the last_name criterium.
I have also added a literal 1=1 just for esthetics so the text of the query aligns nicely.
For just those two criteria, it does not appear that helpful, as one might thing it is just easier to do the same by dynamically building your WHERE condition by either putting only first_name or last_name, or both, or none. So your code will have to dynamically build 4 versions of the same query. Imagine what would happen if you have 10 different criteria to consider, then how many combinations of the same query will you have to manage then?
Compile Time Optimization
I also might add that adding in the 0=? as a bind variable switch will not work very well if all your criteria are indexed. The run time optimizer that will select appropriate indexes and execution plans, might just not see the cost benefit of using the index in those slightly more complex predicates. Hence I usally advice, to inject the 0 / 1 explicitly into your query (string concatenating it in in your sql, or doing some search/replace). Doing so will give the compiler the chance to optimize out redundant statements, and give the Runtime Executer a much simpler query to look at.
(0=1 OR cond = ?) --> (cond = ?)
(0=0 OR cond = ?) --> Always True (ignore predicate)
In the second statement above the compiler knows that it never has to even consider the second part of the condition (cond = ?), and it will simply remove the entire predicate. If it were a bind variable, the compiler could never have accomplished this.
Because you are simply, and forcedly, injecting a 0/1, there is zero chance of SQL injections.
In my SQL's, as one approach, I typically place my sql injection points as ${literal_name}, and I then simply search/replace using a regex any ${...} occurrence with the appropriate literal, before I even let the compiler have a stab at it. This basically leads to a query stored as follows:
WHERE 1=1
AND (0=${cond1_enabled} OR cond1 = ?)
AND (0=${cond2_enabled} OR cond2 = ?)
Looks good, easily understood, the compiler handles it well, and the Runtime Cost Based Optimizer understands it better and will have a higher likelihood of selecting the right index.
I take special care in what I inject. Prime way for passing variables is and remains bind variables for all the obvious reasons.
This is very good in metadata fetching and makes thing generic.
Many DBs have optimizer so they will not actually execute it but its still a valid SQL statement and should execute on all DBs.
This will not fetch any result, but you know column names are valid, data types etc. If it does not execute you know something is wrong with DB(not up etc.)
So many generic programs execute this dummy statement for testing and fetching metadata.
Some systems use scripts and can dynamically set selected records to be hidden from a full list; so a false condition needs to be passed to the SQL. For example, three records out of 500 may be marked as Privacy for medical reasons and should not be visible to everyone. A dynamic query will control the 500 records are visible to those in HR, while 497 are visible to managers. A value would be passed to the SQL clause that is conditionally set, i.e. ' WHERE 1=1 ' or ' WHERE 1=0 ', depending who is logged into the system.
quoted from Greg
If the list of conditions is not known at compile time and is instead
built at run time, you don't have to worry about whether you have one
or more than one condition. You can generate them all like:
and
and concatenate them all together. With the 1=1 at the start, the
initial and has something to associate with.
I've never seen this used for any kind of injection protection, as you
say it doesn't seem like it would help much. I have seen it used as an
implementation convenience. The SQL query engine will end up ignoring
the 1=1 so it should have no performance impact.
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <conditions> in a SQL clause?
If the user intends to only append records, then the fastest method is open the recordset without returning any existing records.
It can be useful when only table metadata is desired in an application. For example, if you are writing a JDBC application and want to get the column display size of columns in the table.
Pasting a code snippet here
String query = "SELECT * from <Table_name> where 1=0";
PreparedStatement stmt = connection.prepareStatement(query);
ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery();
ResultSetMetaData rsMD = rs.getMetaData();
int columnCount = rsMD.getColumnCount();
for(int i=0;i<columnCount;i++) {
System.out.println("Column display size is: " + rsMD.getColumnDisplaySize(i+1));
}
Here having a query like "select * from table" can cause performance issues if you are dealing with huge data because it will try to fetch all the records from the table. Instead if you provide a query like "select * from table where 1=0" then it will fetch only table metadata and not the records so it will be efficient.
Per user milso in another thread, another purpose for "WHERE 1=0":
CREATE TABLE New_table_name as select * FROM Old_table_name WHERE 1 =
2;
this will create a new table with same schema as old table. (Very
handy if you want to load some data for compares)
An example of using a where condition of 1=0 is found in the Northwind 2007 database. On the main page the New Customer Order and New Purchase Order command buttons use embedded macros with the Where Condition set to 1=0. This opens the form with a filter that forces the sub-form to display only records related to the parent form. This can be verified by opening either of those forms from the tree without using the macro. When opened this way all records are displayed by the sub-form.
In ActiveRecord ORM, part of RubyOnRails:
Post.where(category_id: []).to_sql
# => SELECT * FROM posts WHERE 1=0
This is presumably because the following is invalid (at least in Postgres):
select id FROM bookings WHERE office_id IN ()
It seems like, that someone is trying to hack your database. It looks like someone tried mysql injection. You can read more about it here: Mysql Injection
Browsing through the more dubious parts of the web, I happened to come across this particular SQL injection:
http://server/path/page.php?id=1+union+select+0,1,concat_ws(user(),0x3a,database(),0x3a,version()),3,4,5,6--
My knowledge of SQL - which I thought was half decent - seems very limiting as I read this.
Since I develop extensively for the web, I was curious to see what this code actually does and more importantly how it works.
It replaces an improperly written parametrized query like this:
$sql = '
SELECT *
FROM products
WHERE id = ' . $_GET['id'];
with this query:
SELECT *
FROM products
WHERE id = 1
UNION ALL
select 0,1,concat_ws(user(),0x3A,database(),0x3A,version()),3,4,5,6
, which gives you information about the database name, version and username connected.
The injection result relies on some assumptions about the underlying query syntax.
What is being assumed here is that there is a query somewhere in the code which will take the "id" parameter and substitute it directly into the query, without bothering to sanitize it.
It's assuming a naive query syntax of something like:
select * from records where id = {id param}
What this does is result in a substituted query (in your above example) of:
select * from records where id = 1 union select 0, 1 , concat_ws(user(),0x3a,database(),0x3a,version()), 3, 4, 5, 6 --
Now, what this does that is useful is that it manages to grab not only the record that the program was interested in, but also it UNIONs it with a bogus dataset that tells the attacker (these values appear separated by colons in the third column):
the username with which we are
connected to the database
the name of the database
the version of the db software
You could get the same information by simply running:
select concat_ws(user(),0x3a,database(),0x3a,version())
Directly at a sql prompt, and you'll get something like:
joe:production_db:mysql v. whatever
Additionally, since UNION does an implicit sort, and the first column in the bogus data set starts with a 0, chances are pretty good that your bogus result will be at the top of the list. This is important because the program is probably only using the first result, or there is an additional little bit of SQL in the basic expression I gave you above that limits the result set to one record.
The reason that there is the above noise (e.g. the select 0,1,...etc) is that in order for this to work, the statement you are calling the UNION with must have the same number of columns as the first result set. As a consequence, the above injection attack only works if the corresponding record table has 7 columns. Otherwise you'll get a syntax error and this attack won't really give you what you want. The double dashes (--) are just to make sure anything that might happen afterwords in the substitution is ignored, and I get the results I want. The 0x3a garbage is just saying "separate my values by colons".
Now, what makes this query useful as an attack vector is that it is easily re-written by hand if the table has more or less than 7 columns.
For example if the above query didn't work, and the table in question has 5 columns, after some experimentation I would hit upon the following query url to use as an injection vector:
http://server/path/page.php?id=1+union+select+0,1,concat_ws(user(),0x3a,database(),0x3a,version()),3,4--
The number of columns the attacker is guessing is probably based on an educated look at the page. For example if you're looking at a page listing all the Doodads in a store, and it looks like:
Name | Type | Manufacturer
Doodad Foo Shiny Shiny Co.
Doodad Bar Flat Simple Doodads, Inc.
It's a pretty good guess that the table you're looking at has 4 columns (remember there's most likely a primary key hiding somewhere if we're searching by an 'id' parameter).
Sorry for the wall of text, but hopefully that answers your question.
this code adds an additional union query to the select statement that is being executed on page.php. The injector has determined that the original query has 6 fields, thus the selection of the numeric values (column counts must match with a union). the concat_ws just makes one field with the values for the database user , the database, and the version, separated by colons.
It seems to retrieve the user used to connect to the database, the database adress and port, the version of it. And it will be put by the error message.
Ok I need to build a query based on some user input to filter the results.
The query basically goes something like this:
SELECT * FROM my_table ORDER BY ordering_fld;
There are four text boxes in which users can choose to filter the data, meaning I'd have to dynamically build a "WHERE" clause into it for the first filter used and then "AND" clauses for each subsequent filter entered.
Because I'm too lazy to do this, I've just made every filter an "AND" clause and put a "WHERE 1" clause in the query by default.
So now I have:
SELECT * FROM my_table WHERE 1 {AND filters} ORDER BY ordering_fld;
So my question is, have I done something that will adversely affect the performance of my query or buggered anything else up in any way I should be remotely worried about?
MySQL will optimize your 1 away.
I just ran this query on my test database:
EXPLAIN EXTENDED
SELECT *
FROM t_source
WHERE 1 AND id < 100
and it gave me the following description:
select `test`.`t_source`.`id` AS `id`,`test`.`t_source`.`value` AS `value`,`test`.`t_source`.`val` AS `val`,`test`.`t_source`.`nid` AS `nid` from `test`.`t_source` where (`test`.`t_source`.`id` < 100)
As you can see, no 1 at all.
The documentation on WHERE clause optimization in MySQL mentions this:
Constant folding:
(a<b AND b=c) AND a=5
-> b>5 AND b=c AND a=5
Constant condition removal (needed because of constant folding):
(B>=5 AND B=5) OR (B=6 AND 5=5) OR (B=7 AND 5=6)
-> B=5 OR B=6
Note 5 = 5 and 5 = 6 parts in the example above.
You can EXPLAIN your query:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/explain.html
and see if it does anything differently, which I doubt. I would use 1=1, just so it is more clear.
You might want to add LIMIT 1000 or something, when no parameters are used and the table gets large, will you really want to return everything?
WHERE 1 is a constant, deterministic expression which will be "optimized out" by any decent DB engine.
If there is a good way in your chosen language to avoid building SQL yourself, use that instead. I like Python and Django, and the Django ORM makes it very easy to filter results based on user input.
If you are committed to building the SQL yourself, be sure to sanitize user inputs against SQL injection, and try to encapsulate SQL building in a separate module from your filter logic.
Also, query performance should not be your concern until it becomes a problem, which it probably won't until you have thousands or millions of rows. And when it does come time to optimize, adding a few indexes on columns used for WHERE and JOIN goes a long way.
TO improve performance, use column indexes on fields listen in "WHERE"
Standard SQL Injection Disclaimers here...
One thing you could do, to avoid SQL injection since you know it's only four parameters is use a stored procedure where you pass values for the fields or NULL. I am not sure of mySQL stored proc syntax, but the query would boil down to
SELECT *
FROM my_table
WHERE Field1 = ISNULL(#Field1, Field1)
AND Field2 = ISNULL(#Field2, Field2)
...
ORDRE BY ordering_fld
We've been doing something similiar not too long ago and there're a few things that we observed:
Setting up the indexes on the columns we were (possibly) filtering, improved performance
The WHERE 1 part can be left out completely if the filters're not used. (not sure if it applies to your case) Doesn't make a difference, but 'feels' right.
SQL injection shouldn't be forgotten
Also, if you 'only' have 4 filters, you could build up a stored procedure and pass in null values and check for them. (just like n8wrl suggested in the meantime)
That will work - some considerations:
About dynamically built SQL in general, some databases (Oracle at least) will cache execution plans for queries, so if you end up running the same query many times it won't have to completely start over from scratch. If you use dynamically built SQL, you are creating a different query each time so to the database it will look like 100 different queries instead of 100 runs of the same query.
You'd probably just need to measure the performance to find out if it works well enough for you.
Do you need all the columns? Explicitly specifying them is probably better than using * anyways because:
You can visually see what columns are being returned
If you add or remove columns to the table later, they won't change your interface
Not bad, i didn't know this snippet to get rid of the 'is it the first filter 3' question.
Tho you should be ashamed of your code ( ^^ ), it doesn't do anything to performance as any DB Engine will optimize it.
The only reason I've used WHERE 1 = 1 is for dynamic SQL; it's a hack to make appending WHERE clauses easier by using AND .... It is not something I would include in my SQL otherwise - it does nothing to affect the query overall because it always evaluates as being true and does not hit the table(s) involved so there aren't any index lookups or table scans based on it.
I can't speak to how MySQL handles optional criteria, but I know that using the following:
WHERE (#param IS NULL OR t.column = #param)
...is the typical way of handling optional parameters. COALESCE and ISNULL are not ideal because the query is still utilizing indexes (or worse, table scans) based on a sentinel value. The example I provided won't hit the table unless a value has been provided.
That said, my experience with Oracle (9i, 10g) has shown that it doesn't handle [ WHERE (#param IS NULL OR t.column = #param) ] very well. I saw a huge performance gain by converting the SQL to be dynamic, and used CONTEXT variables to determine what to add. My impression of SQL Server 2005 is that these are handled better.
I have usually done something like this:
for(int i=0; i<numConditions; i++) {
sql += (i == 0 ? "WHERE " : "AND ");
sql += dbFieldNames[i] + " = " + safeVariableValues[i];
}
Makes the generated query a little cleaner.
One alternative i sometimes use is to build the where clause an an array and then join them together:
my #wherefields;
foreach $c (#conditionfields) {
push #wherefields, "$c = ?",
}
my $sql = "select * from table";
if(#wherefields) { $sql.=" WHERE " . join (" AND ", #wherefields); }
The above is written in perl, but most languages have some kind of join funciton.