I have a table that I am trying to insert multiple records into using a select statement.
The ID field is an INT and not autoincremented but I do need to increment in in the INSERT.
The table belongs to a third party product we use for our ERP so I cannot change the property of the ID.
The insert is supposed to create a record in the EXT01100 table for each line item on a particular sales order.
Here is the code I am using:
INSERT INTO EXT01100 (Extender_Record_ID, Extender_Window_ID, Extender_Key_Values_1 , Extender_Key_Values_2, Extender_Key_Values_3)
SELECT (SELECT MAX(EXTENDER_RECORD_ID) + 1 FROM EXT01100), 'ECO_FEE_DIGIT', SOL.LNITMSEQ, SOL.SOPNUMBE, SOL.SOPTYPE
FROM SOP10200 SOL WITH(NOLOCK)
WHERE SOL.SOPTYPE = #InTYPE AND SOL.SOPNUMBE = #INNUMBE AND SOL.LNITMSEQ <> 0
This works on a single line order, but multiple line orders will produce a Primary Key duplicate error so I don't think I can use (SELECT MAX(EXTENDER_RECORD_ID) + 1 FROM EXT01100) in this case.
This is in SQL server.
Any help is greatly appreciated!
You can use row_number to ensure each row has a unique ID, and you need to take an exclusive lock on your main sequence table, and you need to remove your nolock.
INSERT INTO EXT01100 (Extender_Record_ID, Extender_Window_ID, Extender_Key_Values_1 , Extender_Key_Values_2, Extender_Key_Values_3)
SELECT (SELECT MAX(EXTENDER_RECORD_ID) FROM EXT01100 WITH (TABLOCKX)) + ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY SOL.LNITMSEQ)
, 'ECO_FEE_DIGIT', SOL.LNITMSEQ, SOL.SOPNUMBE, SOL.SOPTYPE
FROM SOP10200 SOL
WHERE SOL.SOPTYPE = #InTYPE AND SOL.SOPNUMBE = #INNUMBE AND SOL.LNITMSEQ <> 0;
Seconding a recommendation from the comments above, we use Sequences in our production system with no problem. Here's how it looks:
create sequence SQ_Extender_Record_ID
minvalue 1
start with 1
cache 100;
INSERT INTO EXT01100 (Extender_Record_ID, Extender_Window_ID, Extender_Key_Values_1 , Extender_Key_Values_2, Extender_Key_Values_3)
SELECT (next value for SQ_Extender_Record_ID), 'ECO_FEE_DIGIT', SOL.LNITMSEQ, SOL.SOPNUMBE, SOL.SOPTYPE
FROM SOP10200 SOL
WHERE SOL.SOPTYPE = #InTYPE AND SOL.SOPNUMBE = #INNUMBE AND SOL.LNITMSEQ <> 0
Obviously, adjust the min/start values as appropriate for your situation.
If you want, you could add a default constraint to the table/column with this:
alter table EXT01100 add constraint DF_EXT01100__Extender_Record_ID
default (next value for SQ_Extender_Record_ID)
for Extender_Record_ID
You mention that this is in a database whose schema you don't control, so that may not be an option; I mention it for the sake of completeness.
Related
I want to input a new row in a table with the following design
CREATE TABLE DMZ
(
DDM date NOT NULL,
NDM int NOT NULL,
PR int NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT PK_DMZ PRIMARY KEY(NDM)
);
PR can only be 1, or 2, which I defined as a constraint.(1 if this document is for income, and 2 if this document is a consumption. DM is a document number (actually Id in my case).
ALTER TABLE DMZ
ADD CONSTRAINT PR CHECK (PR IN (1,2));
I filled it with some handwritten data
INSERT INTO DMZ VALUES('2014.01.04', 20, 1);
INSERT INTO DMZ VALUES('2014.01.04', 21, 1);
INSERT INTO DMZ VALUES('2014.01.04', 22, 2);
There are two rows, where PR = 1, and only one where PR = 2. I want to write a script to INSERT a new row like this
INSERT INTO DMZ(DDM, PR) VALUES(GETDATE(), X)
Where X, I want to have something like "count rows where PR = 1 and rows where PR = 2, and if there more rows where PR = 1, use PR = 2 in newly inserted row, and if there are more rows where PR = 2, use PR = 1.
P.S.: That is a recreation of my deleted answer, hope now it's clear. To those who asked, why am I doing such a nonsence - it is a part of a list of tasks I HAVE to perform. I tried to do it, but I don't know how to perform this part with PR.
EDIT: I managed to write what I needed, but I am getting the following error ""Cannot perform an aggregate function on an expression containing an aggregate or a subquery."
INSERT INTO DMZ(ddm, pr)
SELECT COUNT(CASE WHEN (COUNT(CASE WHEN PR = 1 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END)> COUNT(CASE WHEN PR = 2 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END)) THEN 1 ELSE 2 END) AS pr, GETDATE() as ddm
FROM DMZ
Try doing a INSERT SELECT statement with a CASE statement to check your PR counts using SUM and CASE in a subquery:
INSERT INTO DMZ (a.DDM, a.NDM, a.PR)
SELECT GETDATE() AS DOM,
a.NDM AS NDM,
CASE WHEN a.PR_1_Count > a.PR_2_Count
THEN 2
ELSE 1
END AS PR
FROM (SELECT
MAX(NDM) + 1 AS NDM,
SUM(CASE WHEN PR = 1 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS PR_1_Count,
SUM(CASE WHEN PR = 2 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS PR_2_Count
FROM DMZ) a
Fiddle here.
Note: If you want an actual count to be inserted, remove your CONSTRAINT for the PR check and change the CASE statement from THEN 2 to THEN PR_2_Count and THEN 1 to THEN PR_1_Count.
Also, I've hardcoded a NDM column value in my demo because you're column is set to NOT NULL, I assume you'll handle that.
Update: Per your comment below, I've updated the syntax to include MAX(NDM) + 1. I would, however, suggest adding a new NDM IDENTITY column to replace your current NDM column so that it will generate your PK for you vs. generating the value yourself (see the attached Fiddle for an example of this). Read more about IDENTITY columns here and how to do it here.
Identity columns can be used for generating key values. The identity
property on a column guarantees the following:
Each new value is generated based on the current seed & increment.
Each new value for a particular transaction is different from other
concurrent transactions on the table.
The identity property on a column does not guarantee the following:
Uniqueness of the value - Uniqueness must be enforced by using a
PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE constraint or UNIQUE index.
I have two tables a stage table and a target table. I want my target table to hold valid CustomerScore values. Currently, we insert into staging and load to our target table. We do not want to load invalid values(-8.0000). However, if there is a customerNumber with a valid value in our target table we would like to decommission numbers by giving it a customerScore of (-8.0000). This should be the only time this value makes it into the target table, so a record for that CustomerNumber has to already be in the target for this to update that record currently in the target table. My create statement is below
CREATE TABLE stg.CustomerAppreciation (
CustomerId INT identity(1, 1)
,CustomerNumber VARCHAR(50)
,CustomerScore DECIMAL(5, 4)
);
CREATE TABLE ods.CustomerAppreciation (
CustomerId INT identity(1, 1)
,CustomerNumber VARCHAR(50)
,CustomerScore DECIMAL(5, 4)
);
Currently, my target table has two records, each value below belongs to my create table fields.
1 123 0.8468
2 143 1.0342
Now say we want to decommission CustomerID = 2 because there is a record been inserted into staging as
3 143 -8.0000
The target table should now be updated on this CustomerNumber. Making my target table look like:
1 123 0.8468
2 143 -8.0000
This should be the only time we allow -8.0000 into the table when a CustomerNumber already exists. If a customerNumber does not exists in the target table and for some reason -8.0000 is seen in staging it should not be allowed in. How would I write an update query that updates a record in my target table only if that scenario exists and prevents -8.0000 from coming in if it does not exist?
Assuming the staging table only contains one row per customer number (if not, group it to show the highest customer Id), you can use a merge to perform this function. Without checking exact syntax, something like this:
MERGE ods.CustomerAppreciation AS Target
USING (SELECT * FROM stg.CustomerAppreciation WHERE CustomerScore >= 0) AS Source ON Target.CustomerNumber = Source.CustomerNumber
WHEN MATCHED
-- choose your match criteria here
--AND Source.CustomerId > Target.CustomerId
AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT Target.* INTERSECT SELECT Source.*)
THEN UPDATE
SET Target.CustomerScore = Source.CustomerScore;
Not sure if I fully understand the specifics but here is some syntax that should help to at least get you started ...
BEGIN;
MERGE ods.CustomerAppreciation AS X
USING (SELECT CustomerNumber,CustomerScore FROM stg.CustomerAppreciation) AS Y (CustomerNumber,CustomerScore)
ON (X.CustomerNumber = Y.CustomerNumber)
WHEN MATCHED /*AND Y.CustomerNumber = '-8.0000'*/ THEN
UPDATE SET CustomerScore = Y.CustomerScore
WHEN NOT MATCHED BY X /*AND Y.CustomerNumber = '-8.0000'*/ THEN
INSERT (CustomerNumber,CustomerScore)
VALUES (Y.CustomerNumber,Y.CustomerScore)
OUTPUT $action, inserted.* INTO #MyTempTable;
END;
I was trying to delete a record from my stock table if the update in the same table results in quantity 0 using two CTEs.
The upserts are working, but the delete is not generating the result I was expecting. the quantity in stock table is changing to zero but the record is not being deleted.
Table structure:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS stock_location (
stock_location_id SERIAL
, site_code VARCHAR(10) NOT NULL
, location_code VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL
, status CHAR(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'A'
, CONSTRAINT pk_stock_location PRIMARY KEY (stock_location_id)
, CONSTRAINT ui_stock_location__keys UNIQUE (site_code, location_code)
);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS stock (
stock_id SERIAL
, stock_location_id INT NOT NULL
, item_code VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL
, quantity FLOAT NOT NULL
, CONSTRAINT pk_stock PRIMARY KEY (stock_id)
, CONSTRAINT ui_stock__keys UNIQUE (stock_location_id, item_code)
, CONSTRAINT fk_stock__stock_location FOREIGN KEY (stock_location_id)
REFERENCES stock_location (stock_location_id)
ON DELETE CASCADE ON UPDATE CASCADE
);
This is how the statement looks like:
WITH stock_location_upsert AS (
INSERT INTO stock_location (
site_code
, location_code
, status
) VALUES (
inSiteCode
, inLocationCode
, inStatus
)
ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT ui_stock_location__keys
DO UPDATE SET
status = inStatus
RETURNING stock_location_id
)
, stock_upsert AS (
INSERT INTO stock (
stock_location_id
, item_code
, quantity
)
SELECT
slo.stock_location_id
, inItemCode
, inQuantity
FROM stock_location_upsert slo
ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT ui_stock__keys
DO UPDATE SET
quantity = stock.quantity + inQuantity
RETURNING stock_id, quantity
)
DELETE FROM stock stk
USING stock_upsert stk2
WHERE stk.stock_id = stk2.stock_id
AND stk.quantity = 0;
Does anyone know what's going on?
This is an example of what I'm trying to do:
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS test1;
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS test1 (
id serial
, code VARCHAR(10) NOT NULL
, description VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL
, quantity INT NOT NULL
, CONSTRAINT pk_test1 PRIMARY KEY (id)
, CONSTRAINT ui_test1 UNIQUE (code)
);
-- UPSERT
WITH test1_upsert AS (
INSERT INTO test1 (
code, description, quantity
) VALUES (
'01', 'DESC 01', 1
)
ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT ui_test1
DO UPDATE SET
description = 'DESC 02'
, quantity = 0
RETURNING test1.id, test1.quantity
)
DELETE FROM test1
USING test1_upsert
WHERE test1.id = test1_upsert.id
AND test1_upsert.quantity = 0;
The second time the UPSERT command runs, it should delete the record from test1 once the quantity will be updated to zero.
Makes sense?
Here, DELETE is working in the way it was designed to work. The answer is actually pretty straightforward and documented. I've experienced the same behaviour years ago.
The reason your delete is not actually removing the data is because your where condition doesn't match with what's stored inside the table as far as what the delete statement sees.
All sub-statements within CTE (Common Table Expression) are executed with the same snapshot of data, so they can't see other statement effect on target table. In this case, when you run UPDATE and then DELETE, the DELETE statement sees the same data that UPDATE did, and doesn't see the updated data that UPDATE statement modified.
How can you work around that? You need to separate UPDATE & DELETE into two independent statements.
In case you need to pass the information about what to delete you could for example (1) create a temporary table and insert the data primary key that has been updated so that you can join to that in your latter query (DELETE based on data that was UPDATEd). (2) You could achieve the same result by simply adding a column within the updated table and changing its value to mark updated rows or (3) however you like it to get the job done. You should get the feeling of what needs to be done by above examples.
Quoting the manual to support my findings:
7.8.2. Data-Modifying Statements in WITH
The sub-statements in WITH are executed concurrently with each other
and with the main query. Therefore, when using data-modifying
statements in WITH, the order in which the specified updates actually
happen is unpredictable. All the statements are executed with the same
snapshot (see Chapter 13), so they cannot “see” one another's effects
on the target tables.
(...)
This also applies to deleting a row that was already updated in the same statement: only the update is performed
Adding to the helpful explanation above... Whenever possible it is absolutely best to break out modifying procedures into their own statements.
However, when the CTE has multiple modifying procedures that reference the same subquery and temporary tables are unideal (such as in stored procedures) then you just need a good solution.
In that case if you'd like a simple trick about how to go about ensuring a bit of order, consider this example:
WITH
to_insert AS
(
SELECT
*
FROM new_values
)
, first AS
(
DELETE FROM some_table
WHERE
id in (SELECT id FROM to_insert)
RETURNING *
)
INSERT INTO some_other_table
SELECT * FROM new_values
WHERE
exists (SELECT count(*) FROM first)
;
The trick here is the exists (SELECT count(*) FROM first) part which must be executed first before the insert can happen. This is a way (which I wouldn't consider too hacky) to enforce an order while keeping everything within one CTE.
But this is just the concept - there are more optimal ways of doing the same thing for a given context.
Database: Oracle
I want to insert data from table 1 to table 2 but the catch is, primary key of table 2 is the combination of first 4 letters and last 4 numbers of the primary key of table 1.
For example:
Table 1 - primary key : abcd12349887/abcd22339887/abcder019987
In this case even if the primary key of table 1 is different, but when I extract the 1st 4 and last 4 chars, the output will be same abcd9887
So, when I use select to insert data, I get error of duplicate PK in table 2.
What I want is if the data of the PK is already present then don't add that record.
Here's my complete stored procedure:
INSERT INTO CPIPRODUCTFAMILIE
(productfamilieid, rapport, mesh, mesh_uitbreiding, productlabelid)
(SELECT DISTINCT (CONCAT(SUBSTR(p.productnummer,1,4),SUBSTR(p.productnummer,8,4)))
productnummer,
ps.rapport, ps.mesh, ps.mesh_uitbreiding, ps.productlabelid
FROM productspecificatie ps, productgroep pg,
product p left join cpiproductfamilie cpf
on (CONCAT(SUBSTR(p.productnummer,1,4),SUBSTR(p.productnummer,8,4))) = cpf.productfamilieid
WHERE p.productnummer = ps.productnummer
AND p.productgroepid = pg.productgroepid
AND cpf.productfamilieid IS NULL
AND pg.productietype = 'P'
**AND p.ROWID IN (SELECT MAX(ROWID) FROM product
GROUP BY (CONCAT(SUBSTR(productnummer,1,4),SUBSTR(productnummer,8,4))))**
AND (CONCAT(SUBSTR(p.productnummer,1,2),SUBSTR(p.productnummer,8,4))) not in
(select productfamilieid from cpiproductfamilie));
The highlighted section seems to be wrong, and because of this the data is not picking up.
Please help
Try using this.
p.productnummer IN (SELECT MAX(productnummer) FROM product
GROUP BY (CONCAT(SUBSTR(productnummer,1,4),SUBSTR(productnummer,8,4))))
I am trying to assign ID numbers to records that are being inserted into an SQL Server 2005 database table. Since these records can be deleted, I would like these records to be assigned the first available ID in the table. For example, if I have the table below, I would like the next record to be entered at ID 4 as it is the first available.
| ID | Data |
| 1 | ... |
| 2 | ... |
| 3 | ... |
| 5 | ... |
The way that I would prefer this to be done is to build up a list of available ID's via an SQL query. From there, I can do all the checks within the code of my application.
So, in summary, I would like an SQL query that retrieves all available ID's between 1 and 99999 from a specific table column.
First build a table of all N IDs.
declare #allPossibleIds table (id integer)
declare #currentId integer
select #currentId = 1
while #currentId < 1000000
begin
insert into #allPossibleIds
select #currentId
select #currentId = #currentId+1
end
Then, left join that table to your real table. You can select MIN if you want, or you could limit your allPossibleIDs to be less than the max table id
select a.id
from #allPossibleIds a
left outer join YourTable t
on a.id = t.Id
where t.id is null
Don't go for identity,
Let me give you an easy option while i work on a proper one.
Store int from 1-999999 in a table say Insert_sequence.
try to write an Sp for insertion,
You can easly identify the min value that is present in your Insert_sequence and not in
your main table, store this value in a variable and insert the row with ID from variable..
Regards
Ashutosh Arya
You could also loop through the keys. And when you hit an empty one Select it and exit Loop.
DECLARE #intStart INT, #loop bit
SET #intStart = 1
SET #loop = 1
WHILE (#loop = 1)
BEGIN
IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT [Key] FROM [Table] Where [Key] = #intStart)
BEGIN
SELECT #intStart as 'FreeKey'
SET #loop = 0
END
SET #intStart = #intStart + 1
END
GO
From there you can use the key as you please. Setting a #intStop to limit the loop field would be no problem.
Why do you need a table from 1..999999 all information you need is in your source table. Here is a query which give you minimal ID to insert in gaps.
It works for all combinations:
(2,3,4,5) - > 1
(1,2,3,5) - > 4
(1,2,3,4) - > 5
SQLFiddle demo
select min(t1.id)+1 from
(
select id from t
union
select 0
)
t1
left join t as t2 on t1.id=t2.id-1
where t2.id is null
Many people use an auto-incrementing integer or long value for the Primary Key of their tables, and it is often called ID or MyEntityID or something similar. This column, since it's just an auto-incrementing integer, often has nothing to do with the data being stored itself.
These types of "primary keys" are called surrogate keys. They have no meaning. Many people like these types of IDs to be sequential because it is "aesthetically pleasing", but this is a waste of time and resources. The database could care less about which IDs are being used and which are not.
I would highly suggest you forget trying to do this and just leave the ID column auto-increment. You should also create an index on your table that is made up of those (subset of) columns that can uniquely identify each record in the table (and even consider using this index as your primary key index). In rare cases where you would need to use all columns to accomplish that, that is where an auto-incrementing primary key ID is extremely useful—because it may not be performant to create an index over all columns in the table. Even so, the database engine could care less about this ID (e.g. which ones are in use, are not in use, etc.).
Also consider that an integer-based ID has a maximum total of 4.2 BILLION IDs. It is quite unlikely that you'll exhaust the supply of integer-based IDs in any short amount of time, which further bolsters the argument for why this sort of thing is a waste of time and resources.