I'm learning SQLite from this webiste: SQLite Tutorial.
I was reading the article they had on the AUTOINCREMENT command.
My question had to do with their explanation of why this feature is useful:
The main purpose of using AUTOINCREMENT attribute is…
To prevent SQLite to reuse value that has not been used or from the previously deleted row.
I'm confused about this explanation as it doesn't explain in detail what the implications of this statement is.
Could someone please give more detail about what happens in the background, if this feature is implemented differently for different platforms or specific packaging of the engine in different packages (npm packages etc.).
Also, more importantly, give examples of use cases where using this feature would be necessary and what would be both the proper and improper ways of using it.
Thanks to all!
To prevent SQLite to reuse value that has not been used or from the
previously deleted row.
AUTOINCREMENT property ensure that newly generated id will be unique that will be not from any already used id in that column or should not be from id that has been deleted. It is mostly used in primary key of table where we need unique property which has not been used so far.
In most of relational database, there is AutoIncrement property but in Oracle, I've seen Sequence which similarly acts AutoIncrement property.
For e.g : if you have 10 rows which has AutoIncrement column called id and has value from 1 to 10. Now, you delete all rows and insert new one, then new row will have id = 11 becase 1 to 10 has already been used. You do not need to specify id value as it automatically fills up new row id value by checking previous inserted value.
This feature is usually being used on the table's primary key (I personally prefer to name it ID), like this:
CREATE TABLE MYTABLE(
ID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT NOT NULL,
...
);
If you are learning SQLite, you should know that the table's primary key absolutely mush be unique for each record in this table.
So if you are inserting a record to the table without AUTOINCREMENT on its primary key, the database will force you to specify ID of each new record.
If there are already some records in your table, you may ask yourself a question like "What ID whould I put in the record to ensure that it will be unique?"
This is what AUTOINCREMENT was created for. If AUTOINCREMENT is set on the table's primary key, you don't longer need to specify it when inserting a record, so you don't longer need to think what ID to put there.
Now how does it work. If AUTOINCREMENT is set on the table's primary key, a special number of added records (let's name it as a variable "added") is being stored along with the table's data in the database. When you issue the INSERT command with this table, its ID will be calculated like
added + 1
And the added variable will be incremented (autoINCREMENT)
Initially, added's value is 0.
For example, as Akash KC already said, if 10 records were added to the table, the next record's ID will be 11.
The detail is that AUTOINCREMENT doesn't mind deletions - if you take an empty table, add 10 records to it, delete one of them with ID 5 (for example) and then add a new one, its ID will be 11 as well.
Related
I want Write ALTER TABLE SQL statement to add a column to the table. The column is classified as NUMBER datatype, NOT NULL attribute, and primary key.
But it shows ORA-01758.
ALTER TABLE INSURANCE
ADD (INS_ID NUMBER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL);
If I select DEFAULT 0, it really solves the problem, but I cannot set up a primary key and INS_ID shows 0, not (null)
Because this table's data is from a excel document, what should I solve it without delete data?
If I must delete data how restore it easily?
Typically you can either:
provide a default value so oracle can fill the column as it creates, satisfying the constraint or
create the column as nullable, fill it with relevant data, then enable the not null restriction/make it the primary key after it has data or
empty the table
1 is not an option for you, because the values will have to be unique if they are to be a primary key. You could consider associating the column with a sequence or making it an identity column though
2 is a likely option for you if an auto generated incrementing number is no good as a PK (for example the key data is already known or calculated)
3 is something you've already said is not an option
Give some thought to the ongoing maintenance requirements - every front end app that writes data into this table will need to be upgraded to understand it has a primary key unless you're using a sequence/identity or similar that provides a unique value for the row. If there will be a lot to update and you dont care to have a PK in a particular form or from some existing value/relationship elsewhere, having an auto number PK can be helpful. If this data needs to relate to existing data that has a key, you need to upgrade front end apps so they can respect the new PK
I found a t-sql question and its answer. It is too confusing. I could use a little help.
The question is:
You develop a database application. You create four tables. Each table stores different categories of products. You create a Primary Key field on each table.
You need to ensure that the following requirements are met:
The fields must use the minimum amount of space.
The fields must be an incrementing series of values.
The values must be unique among the four tables.
What should you do?
A. Create a ROWVERSION column.
B. Create a SEQUENCE object that uses the INTEGER data type.
C. Use the INTEGER data type along with IDENTITY
D. Use the UNIQUEIDENTIFIER data type along with NEWSEQUENTIALID()
E. Create a TIMESTAMP column.
The said answer is D. But, I think the more suitable answer is B. Because sequence will use less space than GUID and it satisfies all the requirements.
D is a wrong answer, because NEWSEQUENTIALID doesn't guarantee "an incrementing series of values" (second requirement).
NEWSEQUENTIALID()
Creates a GUID that is greater than any GUID
previously generated by this function on a specified computer since
Windows was started. After restarting Windows, the GUID can start
again from a lower range, but is still globally unique.
I'd say that B (sequence) is the correct answer. At least, you can use a sequence to fulfil all three requirements, if you don't restart/recycle it manually. I think it is the easiest way to meet all three requirements.
Between the choices provided D B is the correct answer, since it meets all requirements:
ROWVERSION is a bad choice for a primary key, as stated in MSDN:
Every time that a row with a rowversion column is modified or inserted, the incremented database rowversion value is inserted in the rowversion column. This property makes a rowversion column a poor candidate for keys, especially primary keys. Any update made to the row changes the rowversion value and, therefore, changes the key value. If the column is in a primary key, the old key value is no longer valid, and foreign keys referencing the old value are no longer valid.
TIMESTAMP is deprecated, as stated in that same page:
The timestamp syntax is deprecated. This feature will be removed in a future version of Microsoft SQL Server. Avoid using this feature in new development work, and plan to modify applications that currently use this feature.
An IDENTITY column does not guarantee uniqueness, unless all it's values are only ever generated automatically (you can use SET IDENTITY_INSERT to insert values manually), nor does it guarantee uniqueness between tables for any value.
A GUID is practically guaranteed to be unique per system, so if a guid is the primary key for all 4 tables it ensures uniqueness for all tables. the one requirement it doesn't fulfill is storage size - It's storage size is quadruple that of int (16 bytes instead of 4).
A SEQUENCE, when is not declared as recycle, guarantee uniqueness, and has the lowest storage size.
The sequence of numeric values is generated in an ascending or descending order at a defined interval and can be configured to restart (cycle) when exhausted.
However,
I would actually probably choose a different option all together - create a base table with a single identity column and link it with a 1:1 relationship with all other categories. then use an instead of insert trigger for all categories tables that will first insert a record to the base table and then use scope_identity() to get the value and insert it as the primary key for the category table.
This will enforce uniqueness as well as make it possible to use a single foreign key reference between the categories and products.
The issue has been discussed extensively in the past, in general:
http://blog.codinghorror.com/primary-keys-ids-versus-guids/
The constraint #3 is why a SEQUENCE could run into issues as there is a higher risk of collision/lowered number of possible rows in each table.
Assume that I know that updating a primary key is bad.
There are other questions which imply that the inserted and updated table records match by position (the first of one matches the first of the other.) Is this a fact or coincidence?
Is there anything that could join the two tables together when the primary key changes on an update?
There is no match of inserted+deleted virtual table row positions.
And no, you can't match rows
Some options:
there is another unique unchanging (for that update) key to link rows
limit to single row actions.
use a stored procedure with the OUTPUT clause to capture before and after keys
INSTEAD OF trigger with OUTPUT clause (TBH not sure if you can do this)
disallow primary key updates (added after comment)
Each table is allowed to have one identity column. Identity columns are not updateable; they are assigned a value when the records are inserted (or when the column is added), and they can never change. If the primary key is updateable, it must not be an identity column. So, either the table has another column which is an identity column, or you can add one to it. There is no rule that says the identity column has to be the primary key. Then in the trigger, rows in inserted and updated that have the same identity value are the same row, and you can support updating the primary key on multiple rows at a time.
Yes -- create an "old_primary_key" field in the table you're updating, and populate it first.
Nothing you can do to match-up the inserted and deleted psuedo table record keys -- even if you store their data in a log table somewhere.
I guess alternatively, you could create a separate log table that tracked changes to primary keys (old and new). This might be more useful than adding a field to the table you're updating as I suggested right at first, as it would allow you to track more than one change for a given record. Just depends on your situation, I guess.
But that said -- before you do anything, please go find a chalk board and write this 100 times:
I know that updating a primary key is bad.
I know that updating a primary key is bad.
I know that updating a primary key is bad.
I know that updating a primary key is bad.
I know that updating a primary key is bad.
...
:-) (just kidding)
I’m trying to merge a few pairs of SQLite3 databases that have the same tables (and schemas). Some of the tables are pretty simple and just have rows of plain data, but some of the tables have primary keys. Some of the keys are unique like a URL (eg url LONGVARCHAR PRIMARY KEY), and some of them are just simple integer indexes, but NOT set to auto-increment (eg id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY).
I’ve found several topics on merging databases (and I had already manually merged one pair of non-primary-key databases without effort), but am concerned about the ones with keys which may already exist in both.
My question is what happens if a row is inserted to a database where a row with the same key already exists? It should overwrite the row that has that key right? I was hoping that it would append them to the table and update the key, but that only works if the key has a numeric component that is set to auto-increment correct?
Can anyone confirm my suppositions—and if possible, offer a suggestion on the easiest way to append such rows?
Thanks a lot.
You should have no problems if you set the primary key in the destination table to auto increment.
Therefore, when you do you bulk insert command or whatever you are using to insert values into your new table, you simply do not supply input for your primary key field and there will NEVER be a duplicate.
Columns:
ID Name
Just don't provide ID field, ie/
INSERT INTO tableName ("Synetech")
The insert would just add this with the next available ID index in the table.
Good Luck!
If you try to INSERT a duplicate primary key, it will give you an error and not allow the insert. SQLite also supports the 'REPLACE INTO' syntax, which will update on a duplicate primary key.
If you want to append on duplicates, you will have to check whether a field with that key already exists, and if so then change the key to some new value. The correct way to do this likely depends on your application. For integer keys you could just take the max+1, but for the url keys it's not clear what the correct behavior should be.
I am using GUIDs as my primary key for all my other tables, but I have a requirement that needs to have an incrementing number. I tried to create a field in the table with the auto increment but MySql complained that it needed to be the primary key.
My application uses MySql 5, nhibernate as the ORM.
Possible solutions I have thought of are:
change the primary key to the auto-increment field but still have the Id as a GUID so the rest of my app is consistent.
create a composite key with both the GUID and the auto-increment field.
My thoughts at the moment are leaning towards the composite key idea.
EDIT: The Row ID (Primary Key) is the GUID currently. I would like to add an an INT Field that is Auto Incremented so that it is human readable. I just didn't want to move away from current standard in the app of having GUID's as primary-keys.
A GUID value is intended to be unique across tables and even databases so, make the auto_increment column primary index and make a UNIQUE index for the GUID
I would lean the other way.
Why? Because creating a composite key gives the impression to the next guy who comes along that it's OK to have the same GUID in the table twice but with different sequence numbers.
A couple of thoughts:
If your GUID is auntoincremental and unique, why not let it be the actual Primary Key?
On the other hand, you should never take semantical decisions based on programmatic problems: you have a problem with MySQL, not with the design of your DB.
So, a couple of workarounds here:
Creating a trigger that would set the GUID to the proper value once it's inserted. That's a MySQL solution to a MySQL problem, without altering semantics for your schema.
Before inserting, start a transaction (make sure auto commit is set to false), find out the latest GUID, increment and insert with the new value. In other words, auto-increment not automatically :P
GUID's are not intended to be orderable, that's why AUTO_INCREMENT for them does not make sense.
You may, though, use an AUTO_INCREMENT for a second column of a composite primary key in MyISAM tables. You can create a composite key over (GUID, INT) column and make the second column to be AUTO_INCREMENT.
To generate a new GUID, just call UUID() in an INSERT statement or in a trigger.
No, only the primary key can have auto_increment as its value.
If, for some reason, you can't change the identity column to be a primary key, what about manually generating the auto-increment via some kind of SEQUENCE table plus a trigger to query the SEQUENCE table and save the next value to use. Then assign the value to the destination table in the trigger. Same effect. The only question I would have is whether the auto-incremented value is going to make it back thru NHibernate without a re-select of the table.