I want to swap columns within Visual Fox Pro 9 in table_1 before inserting its rows into table_2 so as to avoid data losses caused by datatype variations. I tried these two options based on other solutions on stackoverflow, but I get syntax error messages for both command inputs. The name field is of datatype = character(5)and it needs to be after the subdir field.
ALTER table "f:\csp" modify COLUMN name character(5) after subdir
ALTER table "f:\csp" change COLUMN name name character(5) after subdir
I attempted these commands based on solutions here:
How to move columns in a MySQL table?
You never need to change the column order, and you never should rely on column order to do something.
For inserting into another table from this one you could simply select the columns in the order you desired (and their column names do not even need to be the same in the case of "insert ... select ... "). ie:
insert into table_2 (subdir, name) ;
select subdir, name from table_1
Another way is to use the xBase commands like:
select table_2
append from table_1
In the case of latter, VFP would do the match on column names.
All in all, relying on column ordering is dangerous. If you really want to do that, then you can still do, in a number of ways. One of them is to select all data into a temp table, recreate the table in the order you want and fill back from temp (might not be as easy as it sounds if there are existing dependencies such as referential integrity - also you need to recreate the indexes).
Related
In Apache Hive, I'm trying to copy specific rows from one table to a second table that's identical apart from an additional string column (which I'm calling "report-type") at the end of the second table. Both tables are partitioned by a string field called 'dt' which has a date e.g. "2022-08-04". When I try and copy a row from table 1 to table 2, the data is inserted into table 2 with report-type and dt swapped, because the partition column seems to be forcibly listed last.
E.g. INSERT INTO table2 SELECT *, 'some_report_type' FROM table1 WHERE <some criteria>;
gives all the data in table2 in the correct columns apart from report-type is e.g. "2022-08-04" and dt is e.g. "2022-08-04"
Is there any way around this?
Two solutions I can see are recreate the table without the partitioning (ideally want to avoid) and just have dt as a regular non-partition column, or alternatively specify each of the columns in a column list in the query, but not sure if this would force "dt" to not be the last column, and the main issue with that is I have 830 columns to specify individually.
Thanks
So I need to figure out how to insert into a table, from another table, with a where clause that requires me to access the table that I am inserting into. I tried an alias from the table I am inserting into, but I quickly found out that you cannot do that. Basically, what I want to check is that the values that I am inserting into the table match a particular field within the table that I am inserting into. Here is what I've tried:
INSERT INTO "USER"."TABLE1" AS A1
SELECT *
FROM "USER"."TABLE2" AS A2
WHERE A2."HIERARCHYLEVEL" = 2
AND A2."PARENT" = A1."INSTANCE"
Obviously, this was to no avail. I've tried a couple other queries, but they didn't me anywhere, either. Any help would be much appreciated.
EDIT:
I would like to add rows to this table, not add columns to the table. The two tables are of the exact same structure -- in fact, I extracted the data already in table1 from table2. What I have in table1 currently is a bunch of records who have NO PARENT, but an instance. What I want to add is all the records who have a parent in table2 that are equal to the instance in table 1.
Currently there is no way to join on a table when inserting. The solution with the subselect where you select from the table, is the correct.
Aliasing the table you want to change is only possible with UPDATE, UPSERT and MERGE. For these operations it makes sense, as you need to match a column and then decide if you need to update it or insert something instead. In your example the line from table1 that you match is not relevant, as you don't want to change it, so from the statement point of view it is not really relevant that the table you use in your subselect is the same that the one you insert into.
As alternative, I can suggest you following solution, which is equivalent with yours:
INSERT INTO "user"."table1"
SELECT
A1."ROOT",
A1."INSTANCE",
A1."PARENT",
A1."HIERARCHYLEVEL"
FROM "user"."table2" AS A1
WHERE A1."INSTANCE" in (select "PARENT" from "user"."table1")
AND A2."HIERARCHYLEVEL" = 2
This gave me the answer I was looking for, although I am sure there is an easier -- or more efficient -- way to do it.
INSERT INTO "user"."table1"
SELECT
A1."ROOT",
A1."INSTANCE",
A1."PARENT",
A1."HIERARCHYLEVEL"
FROM "user"."table2" AS A1,
"user"."table1" AS A2
WHERE A1."INSTANCE" = A2."PARENT"
AND A2."HIERARCHYLEVEL" = 2
I have a table with 32 Million rows and 31 columns in PostgreSQL 9.2.10. I am altering the table by adding columns with updated values.
For example, if the initial table is:
id initial_color
-- -------------
1 blue
2 red
3 yellow
I am modifying the table so that the result is:
id initial_color modified_color
-- ------------- --------------
1 blue blue_green
2 red red_orange
3 yellow yellow_brown
I have code that will read the initial_color column and update the value.
Given that my table has 32 million rows and that I have to apply this procedure on five of the 31 columns, what is the most efficient way to do this? My present choices are:
Copy the column and update the rows in the new column
Create an empty column and insert new values
I could do either option with one column at a time or with all five at once. The columns types are either character varying or character.
The columns types are either character varying or character.
Don't use character, that's a misunderstanding. varchar is ok, but I would suggest just text for arbitrary character data.
Any downsides of using data type "text" for storing strings?
Given that my table has 32 million rows and that I have to apply this
procedure on five of the 31 columns, what is the most efficient way to do this?
If you don't have objects (views, foreign keys, functions) depending on the existing table, the most efficient way is create a new table. Something like this ( details depend on the details of your installation):
BEGIN;
LOCK TABLE tbl_org IN SHARE MODE; -- to prevent concurrent writes
CREATE TABLE tbl_new (LIKE tbl_org INCLUDING STORAGE INCLUDING COMMENTS);
ALTER tbl_new ADD COLUMN modified_color text
, ADD COLUMN modified_something text;
-- , etc
INSERT INTO tbl_new (<all columns in order here>)
SELECT <all columns in order here>
, myfunction(initial_color) AS modified_color -- etc
FROM tbl_org;
-- ORDER BY tbl_id; -- optionally order rows while being at it.
-- Add constraints and indexes like in the original table here
DROP tbl_org;
ALTER tbl_new RENAME TO tbl_org;
COMMIT;
If you have depending objects, you need to do more.
Either was, be sure to add all five at once. If you update each in a separate query you write another row version each time due to the MVCC model of Postgres.
Related cases with more details, links and explanation:
Updating database rows without locking the table in PostgreSQL 9.2
Best way to populate a new column in a large table?
Optimizing bulk update performance in PostgreSQL
While creating a new table you might also order columns in an optimized fashion:
Calculating and saving space in PostgreSQL
Maybe I'm misreading the question, but as far as I know, you have 2 possibilities for creating a table with the extra columns:
CREATE TABLE
This would create a new table and filling could be done using
CREATE TABLE .. AS SELECT.. for filling with creation or
using a separate INSERT...SELECT... later on
Both variants are not what you seem to want to do, as you stated solution without listing all the fields.
Also this would require all data (plus the new fields) to be copied.
ALTER TABLE...ADD ...
This creates the new columns. As I'm not aware of any possibility to reference existing column values, you will need an additional UPDATE ..SET... for filling in values.
So, I' not seeing any way to realize a procedure that follows your choice 1.
Nevertheless, copying the (column) data just to overwrite them in a second step would be suboptimal in any case. Altering a table adding new columns is doing minimal I/O. From this, even if there would be a possibility to execute your choice 1, following choice 2 promises better performance by factors.
Thus, do 2 statements one ALTER TABLE adding all your new columns in on go and then an UPDATE providing the new values for these columns will achieve what you want.
create new column (modified colour), it will have a value of NULL or blank on all records,
run an update statement, assuming your table name is 'Table'.
update table
set modified_color = 'blue_green'
where initial_color = 'blue'
if I am correct this can also work like this
update table set modified_color = 'blue_green' where initial_color = 'blue';
update table set modified_color = 'red_orange' where initial_color = 'red';
update table set modified_color = 'yellow_brown' where initial_color = 'yellow';
once you have done this you can do another update (assuming you have another column that I will call modified_color1)
update table set 'modified_color1'= 'modified_color'
Is there any way to copy all column values from one table to another except the Identity column, without mentioning all the rest of the column names?
I have a table with 63 columns. I created a temporary table with -
SELECT * INTO #TmpWide FROM WideTable WHERE 1 = 0
Now I want to copy some data from WideTable to #TmpWide. I need all the columns of WideTable except the Identity Id column, because I want the copied data to have their own sequential Id's in #TmpWide from 1 to onward. Is it possible without mentioning the (63-1) column names?
You could try dropping the column after the table is created:
SELECT * INTO #TmpWide FROM WideTable WHERE 1=0
ALTER TABLE #TmpWide DROP COLUMN [Id]
This does feel a little ugly or hack-y, but it should do the trick.
There isn't a way to do that, but also it is a bad idea to use * in a situation like this. If WideTable changes you will be forced to change the stored procedures that SELECT * from it. I wrote hundreds of stored procs like this and all it did was create nightmares I'm still dealing with today. Good luck.
I want to change the order of column e.g. name is first column of my table and there are 10 other columns in table I want to insert a new column in 2nd position after name column.
How is this possible?
1 - It's not possible without rebuilding the table, as Martin rightly points out.
2 - It's a good practice anyways to specify what fields you want and in what order in your SELECT statements as n8wrl points out.
3 - If you really really need a fixed order on your fields, could create a view that selects the fields you want in the order you want.
Like the rows in the table, there is no meaning to the order of the columns. In fact, it is best to specify the order you want the columns in your select statements rather than using select *, so you can 'insert' new columns wherever you want just by writing your SELECT statements accordingly.
Its possible to change the order. In some instances it really matters. have a personal experience.
Anyway..this query works fine.
ALTER TABLE user MODIFY Name VARCHAR(150) AFTER address;
You can achieve this by following these steps:
remove all foreign keys and primary key of the original table.
rename the original table.
using CTAS, create the original table in the order you want.
drop the old table.
apply all constraints back to the original table.