I have a table people with less than 100,000 records and I have taken a backup of this table using the following:
create table people_backup as select * from people
I add some new records to my people table over time, but eventually I want to merge the records from my backup table into people. Unfortunately I cannot simply DROP my table as my new records will be lost!
So I want to update the records in my people table using the records from people_backup, based on their primary key id and I have found 2 ways to do this:
MERGE the tables together
use some sort of fancy correlated update
Great! However, both of these methods use SET and make me specify what columns I want to update. Unfortunately I am lazy and the structure of people may change over time and while my CTAS statement doesn't need to be updated, my update/merge script will need changes, which feels like unnecessary work for me.
Is there a way merge entire rows without having to specify columns? I see here that not specifying columns during an INSERT will direct SQL to insert values by order, can the same methodology be applied here, is this safe?
NB: The structure of the table will not change between backups
Given that your table is small, you could simply
DELETE FROM table t
WHERE EXISTS( SELECT 1
FROM backup b
WHERE t.key = b.key );
INSERT INTO table
SELECT *
FROM backup;
That is slow and not particularly elegant (particularly if most of the data from the backup hasn't changed) but assuming the columns in the two tables match, it does allow you to not list out the columns. Personally, I'd much prefer writing out the column names (presumably those don't change all that often) so that I could do an update.
Related
We have two large tables (Clients and Contacts) which undergo an ETL process every night, being inserted into a single "People" table in the data warehouse. This table is used in many places and cannot be significantly altered without a lot of work.
The source tables are populated by third party software; we used to assume that we could identify the rows that had been updated since last night by using the "UpdateDate" column in each, but more recently identified some rows that were not touched by the ETL, as the "UpdateDate" column was not behaving as we had thought; the software company do not see this as a bug, so we have to live with this fact.
As a result, we now take all source rows, transformed into a temp staging table and then Merge that into the data warehouse, using the Merge to identify any changed values. We have noticed that this process is taking too long on some days and would like to limit the number of rows that the ETL process looks at, as we believe that the reason for the hold-up is the principally the sheer volume of data that is examined and stored on the temp database. We can see no way to look purely at the source data and identify when each row last changed.
Here is a simplified pseudocode of the ETL stored procedure, although what the procedure actually does is not really relevant to the question (included just in case you disagree with me!)
CREATE #TempTable (ClientOrContact BIT NOT NULL, Id INT NOT NULL, [Some_Other_Columns])
INSERT #TempTable
SELECT 1 AS ClientOrContact, C.Id, [SomeColumns] FROM
(SELECT [SomeColumns]
FROM Source_ClientsTable C
JOIN FieldsTable F JOIN [SomeOtherTables])
PIVOT (MAX(F.FieldValue) FOR F.FieldName IN ([SomeFieldNames]));
INSERT #TempTable
SELECT 0 AS ClientOrContact, C.Id, [SomeColumns] FROM
(SELECT [SomeColumns]
FROM Source_ContactsTable C
JOIN FieldsTable F JOIN [SomeOtherTables])
PIVOT (MAX(F.FieldValue) FOR F.FieldName IN ([SomeFieldNames]));
ALTER #TempTable ADD PRIMARY KEY (ClientOrContact, Id);
MERGE Target_PeopleTable AS Tgt
USING (SELECT [SomeColumns] FROM #TempTable JOIN [SomeOtherTables]) AS Src
ON Tgt.ClientOrContact = Src.ClientOrContact AND Tgt.Id = Src.Id
WHEN MATCHED AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT Tgt.* INTERSECT SELECT Src.*)
THEN UPDATE SET ([All_NonKeyTargetColumns] = [All_NonKeySourceColumns])
WHEN NOT MATCHED BY Target THEN INSERT [All_TargetColumns] VALUES [All_SourceColumns]
OUTPUT $Action INTO #Changes;
RETURN COUNT(*) FROM #Changes;
GO
The source tables have about 1.5M rows each, but each day only a relatively small number of rows are inserted or updated (never deleted). There are about 50 columns in each table, of those, about 40 columns can have changed values each night. Most columns are VARCHAR and each table contains an independent incremental primary key column. We can add indexes to the source tables, but not alter them in any other way (They have already been indexed by a predecessor) The source tables and target table are on the same server, but different databases. Edit: The Target Table has a composite primary key on the ClientOrContact and Id columns, matching that shown on the temp table in the script above.
So, my question is this - please could you suggest any general possible strategies that might be useful to limit the number of rows we look at or copy across each night? If we only touched the rows that we needed to each night, we would be touching less than 1% of the data we do at the moment...
Before you try the following suggestion, just one thing to check is that the Target_PeopleTable has an index or primary key on the id column. It probably does but without schema information to verify I am making no assumptions and this might speed up the merge stage.
As you've identified if you could somehow limit the records in TempTable to just the changed rows then this could offer a performance win for the actual MERGE statement (depending on how expensive determining just the changed rows is).
As a general strategy I would consider some kind of checksum to try and identify the changed records only. The T-SQL Checksum function could be used to calculate a check sum across the required columns by specifying the columns as a comma separated list to that function or there are actual column types available for this such as Binary_Checksum.
Since you cannot change the source schema you would have to maintain a list of record ids and associated checksums in your target database so that you can readily compare the source checksums to the target checksums from the last run in order to identify a difference.
You can then only insert into the Temp table where there is a checksum difference between the target and source or the id does not exist in the target db.
This might just be moving the performance problem to the temp insert part but I think it's worth a try.
Have you considered triggers? I avoid them like the plague, but they really are the solution to some problems.
Put an INSERT/UPDATE [/DELETE?] trigger on your two source tables. Program it such that when rows are added or updated, the trigger will log the IDs of these rows in a (you'll have to create this) audit table, where that table would contain the ID, the type of change (update or insert – and delete, if you have to worry about those) and when the change was made. When you run ETL, join this list of “to be merged” items with the source tables. When you’re done, delete the table and it’s reset for the next run. (Use the “added on” datetime column to make sure you don’t delete rows that may have been added while you were running ETL.)
There’s lots of details behind proper use and implementation, but overall this idea should do what you need.
I am planning for an incremental load into warehouse (especially for updates of source tables in RDBMS).
Capturing the updated rows in staging tables from RDBMS based the updates datetime. But how do I determine which column of a particular row needs to be updated in the target warehouse tables?
Or do I just delete a particular row in the warehouse table (based on the primary key of the row in staging table) and insert the new updated row?
Which is the best way to implement the incremental load between the RDBMS and Warehouse using PL/SQL and SQL coding?
In my opinion, the easiest way to accomplish this is as follows:
Create a stage table identical to your host table. When you do your incremental/net-change load, load all changed records into this table (based on whatever your "last updated" field is)
Delete the records from your actual table based on the primary key. For example, if your primary key is customer, part, the query might look like this:
delete from main_table m
where exists (
select null
from stage_table s
where
m.customer = s.customer and
m.part = s.part
);
Insert the records from the stage to the main table.
You could also do an update existing records / insert new records, but either way that's two steps. The advantage of the method I listed is that it will work even if your tables have partitions and the newly updated data violates one of the original partition rules, whereas an update would not accomplish that. Also, the syntax is much simpler as your update would have to list every single field, whereas the delete from / insert into allows you list only the primary key fields.
Oracle also has a merge clause that will update if it exists or insert if it does not. I honestly don't know how that would be impacted if you had partitions.
One major caveat. If your updates include deletes -- records that need to be deleted from the main table, none of these will resolve that and you will need some other way to handle that. It may not be necessary, depending on your circumstances, but it's something to consider.
I have a live production table which has more than 1 million records. Now i don't need to tamper anything on this table and would like to create another table which fetches all records from this live production table. I would schedule a job which can take entries from my main table and inserts them to my new table. But i don't want all the records daily; i just need the records added on a daily basis in the production table to get added in my new table.
Please suggest a faster and efficient approach.
You could do this with an INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE trigger to send the INSERTED/UPDATED/DELETED row to the new table, however this feels like reinventing the wheel on the most basic level.
You could just use asynchronous replication rather than hand-rolling it all yourself, this is probably safer, more sustainable and scalable. You could add as many tables as you like to the replicated source.
Copying one million records from an existing table to a new table should not take very long -- and might even be faster than figuring out what records to copy. You could do something like:
truncate table copytable;
insert into copytable
select *
from productiontable;
Note that you should explicitly list the columns when doing the insert.
You can also readily add new records -- assuming you have some form of id on the production table, such as an id assigned by a sequence. Then you can do:
insert into copytable
select *
from productiontable p
where p.id > (select max(id) from copytable);
So there's this table of just about 40,000 rows I am looking to update. Colleague said it's best to incrementally update the table instead of complete delete and load.
So I've tried hashing out the design and logic of a script to do this, but my inexperience is getting to me. I just don't know what's efficient and unneeded to incrementally update a table.
Currently, the warehouse looks like this: data comes from source into a table (let's call this T1) in Teradata. Then it's sent into another table (let's call this T2) in Teradata with some added fields such as timestamp. Lastly, a view is built on that last table for security reasons.
So with that laid out, I was thinking of creating a temp/volatile table with data from T1. This would have all the data up to the time the script is run with new records. Then, go through the entire table seeing if the ID (primary index) already exists in T2, and if not, add it to another temp table. Then somehow combine the second temp table with T2 and override T2 and build a view on top of that.
Does this make any sense?
There's also the possibility of records being updated. So they would already exist in T2, but have updated data in a new version of T1. I think comparing the values of all the columns from T1 to T2 would be highly inefficient, but can't think of another way to do this
A 40,000 row delete and insert should be pretty painless for any modern database. Ditto for updates.
The real reason for doing and incremental delete/update/insert is so you can log the changes and timestamp rows in the permanent table with the date/time of nsertion and/or last update. The usual technique goes something like this:
remove rows from the permanent table that don't exist in the temp table
update rows that exist in both tables
insert rows that exist in the temp table, but don't exist in the permanent table.
Looking at the Teradata docs, that would be something like this (no warranties about this being syntactically correct, since I don't have a Teradata instance to play with):
delete permanent p
where not exists ( select *
from temp t
where t.id = p.id
)
update p
from permanent p ,
temp t
set ...
where t.id = p.id
insert permanent
select ...
from temp t
where not exists ( select *
from permanent p
where p.id = t.id
)
One might note that the deletes might get a little hairy if there are dependent foreign key constraints involved.
One might also note that on the update, the where clause might get a tad...complicated if you want to check for actual changes to column values: not much point in updating a row if nothing has changed.
There's a Teradata MERGE command that you might find useful, check this post:
https://forums.teradata.com/forum/database/merge-syntax-simple-version
merge into merge_tmp as t using (select 1 as a,'stf' as b,'uuj' as c) as s
on t.a = s.a
when matched then update set c = s.c
when not matched then insert values (s.a,s.b,s.c);
If you need to match on more columns simple put an and in the on statement.
Edit: If you want to use MERGE you might also need to use a delete statement like the one in nicholas' post.
I have a very large database I would like to split up into tables. I would like to make it so when I run a distinct, it will make a table for every distinct name. The name of the table will be the data in one of the fields.
EX:
A --------- Data 1
A --------- Data 2
B --------- Data 3
B --------- Data 4
would result in 2 tables, 1 named A and another named B. Then the entire row of data would be copied into that field.
select distinct [name] from [maintable]
-make table for each name
-select [name] from [maintable]
-copy into table name
-drop row from [maintable]
Any help would be great!
I would advise you against this.
One solution is to create indexes, so you can access the data quickly. If you have only a handful of names, though, this might not be particularly effective because the index values would have select almost all records.
Another solution is something called partitioning. The exact mechanism differs from database to database, but the underlying idea is the same. Different portions of the table (as defined by name in your case) would be stored in different places. When a query is looking only for values for a particular name, only that data gets read.
Generally, it is bad design to have multiple tables with exactly the same data columns. Here are some reasons:
Adding a column, changing a type, or adding an index has to be done times instead of one time.
It is very hard to enforce a primary key constraint on a column across the tables -- you lose the primary key.
Queries that touch more than one name become much more complicated.
Insertions and updates are more complex, because you have to first identify the right table. This often results in overuse of dynamic SQL for otherwise basic operations.
Although there may be some simplifications (security comes to mind), most databases have other mechanisms that are superior to splitting the data into separate tables.
what you want is
CREATE TABLE new_table
AS (SELECT .... //the data that you want in this table);