I am running a python script that inserts a large amount of data into a Postgres database, I use a single query to perform multiple row inserts:
INSERT INTO table (col1,col2) VALUES ('v1','v2'),('v3','v4') ... etc
I was wondering what would happen if it hits a duplicate key for the insert. Will it stop the entire query and throw an exception? Or will it merely ignore the insert of that specific row and move on?
The INSERT will just insert all rows and nothing special will happen, unless you have some kind of constraint disallowing duplicate / overlapping values (PRIMARY KEY, UNIQUE, CHECK or EXCLUDE constraint) - which you did not mention in your question. But that's what you are probably worried about.
Assuming a UNIQUE or PK constraint on (col1,col2), you are dealing with a textbook UPSERT situation. Many related questions and answers to find here.
Generally, if any constraint is violated, an exception is raised which (unless trapped in subtransaction like it's possible in a procedural server-side language like plpgsql) will roll back not only the statement, but the whole transaction.
Without concurrent writes
I.e.: No other transactions will try to write to the same table at the same time.
Exclude rows that are already in the table with WHERE NOT EXISTS ... or any other applicable technique:
Select rows which are not present in other table
And don't forget to remove duplicates within the inserted set as well, which would not be excluded by the semi-anti-join WHERE NOT EXISTS ...
One technique to deal with both at once would be EXCEPT:
INSERT INTO tbl (col1, col2)
VALUES
(text 'v1', text 'v2') -- explicit type cast may be needed in 1st row
, ('v3', 'v4')
, ('v3', 'v4') -- beware of dupes in source
EXCEPT SELECT col1, col2 FROM tbl;
EXCEPT without the key word ALL folds duplicate rows in the source. If you know there are no dupes, or you don't want to fold duplicates silently, use EXCEPT ALL (or one of the other techniques). See:
Using EXCEPT clause in PostgreSQL
Generally, if the target table is big, WHERE NOT EXISTS in combination with DISTINCT on the source will probably be faster:
INSERT INTO tbl (col1, col2)
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT *
FROM (
VALUES
(text 'v1', text'v2')
, ('v3', 'v4')
, ('v3', 'v4') -- dupes in source
) t(c1, c2)
) t
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT FROM tbl
WHERE col1 = t.c1 AND col2 = t.c2
);
If there can be many dupes, it pays to fold them in the source first. Else use one subquery less.
Related:
Select rows which are not present in other table
With concurrent writes
Use the Postgres UPSERT implementation INSERT ... ON CONFLICT ... in Postgres 9.5 or later:
INSERT INTO tbl (col1,col2)
SELECT DISTINCT * -- still can't insert the same row more than once
FROM (
VALUES
(text 'v1', text 'v2')
, ('v3','v4')
, ('v3','v4') -- you still need to fold dupes in source!
) t(c1, c2)
ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING; -- ignores rows with *any* conflict!
Further reading:
How to use RETURNING with ON CONFLICT in PostgreSQL?
How do I insert a row which contains a foreign key?
Documentation:
The manual
The commit page
The Postgres Wiki page
Craig's reference answer for UPSERT problems:
How to UPSERT (MERGE, INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE UPDATE) in PostgreSQL?
Will it stop the entire query and throw an exception? Yes.
To avoid that, you can look on the following SO question here, which describes how to avoid Postgres from throwing an error for multiple inserts when some of the inserted keys already exist on the DB.
You should basically do this:
INSERT INTO DBtable
(id, field1)
SELECT 1, 'value'
WHERE
NOT EXISTS (
SELECT id FROM DBtable WHERE id = 1
);
Related
We have a DB for which we need a "selsert" (not upsert) function.
The function should take a text value and return a id column of existing row (SELECT) or insert the value and return id of new row (INSERT).
There are multiple processes that will need to perform this functionality (selsert)
I have been experimenting with pg_advisory_lock and ON CONFLICT clause for INSERT but am still not sure what approach would work best (even when looking at some of the other answers).
So far I have come up with following
WITH
selected AS (
SELECT id FROM test.body_parts WHERE (lower(trim(part))) = lower(trim('finger')) LIMIT 1
),
inserted AS (
INSERT INTO test.body_parts (part)
SELECT trim('finger')
WHERE NOT EXISTS ( SELECT * FROM selected )
-- ON CONFLICT (lower(trim(part))) DO NOTHING -- not sure if this is needed
RETURNING id
)
SELECT id, 'inserted' FROM inserted
UNION
SELECT id, 'selected' FROM selected
Will above query (within function) insure consistency in high
concurrency write workloads?
Are there any other issues I must consider (locking?, etc, etc)
BTW, I can insure that there are no duplicate values of (part) by creating unique index. That is not an issue. What I am after is that SELECT returns existing value if another process does INSERT (I hope I am explaining this right)
Unique index would have following definition
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX body_parts_part_ux
ON test.body_parts
USING btree
(lower(trim(part)));
I'm trying to insert some rows into my table that have the same unique identifier, but all the other fields are different (the rows represent points on a map, and they just happen to have the same name). The final result I'd like to end up with is to somehow modify the offending rows to have unique identifiers (adding on some incrementing number to the identifier, like "name0", "name1", "name2", etc.) during the insertion command.
I'm aware of Postgres's recent addition of "ON CONFLICT" support, but it's not quite what I'm looking for.
According to the Postgres 9.6 Documentation:
The optional ON CONFLICT clause specifies an alternative action to raising a unique violation or exclusion constraint violation error. For each individual row proposed for insertion, either the insertion proceeds, or ... the alternative conflict_action is taken. ...ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE updates the existing row that conflicts with the row proposed for insertion as its alternative action.
What I would like to do is 1) either modify the offending row or the insertion itself and 2) proceed with the insertion (instead of replacing it with an update, like the ON CONFLICT feature does). Is there an elegant way of accomplishing this? Or am I going to need to write something more complex?
You can do this:
create table my_table
(
name text primary key,
some_column varchar
);
create sequence my_table_seq;
The sequence is used to assign a unique suffix to the new row's PK column.
The "insert on conflict insert modified" behaviour can be done like this:
with data (name, some_column) as (
values ('foo', 'bar')
), inserted as (
insert into my_table
select *
from data
on conflict (name) do nothing
returning *
)
insert into my_table (name, some_column)
select concat(name, '_', nextval('my_table_seq')), some_column
from data
where not exists (select 1 from inserted);
The first time you insert a value into the PK column, the insert (in the CTE "inserted") just proceeds. The final insert won't insert anything because the where not exists () prevents that as the inserted returned one row.
The second time you run this, the first insert won't insert anything, and thus the second (final) insert will.
There is one drawback though: if something was inserted by the "inserted" CTE, the the overall statement will report "0 rows affected" because the final insert is the one "driving" this information.
I have a situation where I very frequently need to get a row from a table with a unique constraint, and if none exists then create it and return.
For example my table might be:
CREATE TABLE names(
id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
name TEXT,
CONSTRAINT names_name_key UNIQUE (name)
);
And it contains:
id | name
1 | bob
2 | alice
Then I'd like to:
INSERT INTO names(name) VALUES ('bob')
ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING RETURNING id;
Or perhaps:
INSERT INTO names(name) VALUES ('bob')
ON CONFLICT (name) DO NOTHING RETURNING id
and have it return bob's id 1. However, RETURNING only returns either inserted or updated rows. So, in the above example, it wouldn't return anything. In order to have it function as desired I would actually need to:
INSERT INTO names(name) VALUES ('bob')
ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT names_name_key DO UPDATE
SET name = 'bob'
RETURNING id;
which seems kind of cumbersome. I guess my questions are:
What is the reasoning for not allowing the (my) desired behaviour?
Is there a more elegant way to do this?
It's the recurring problem of SELECT or INSERT, related to (but different from) an UPSERT. The new UPSERT functionality in Postgres 9.5 is still instrumental.
WITH ins AS (
INSERT INTO names(name)
VALUES ('bob')
ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT names_name_key DO UPDATE
SET name = NULL
WHERE FALSE -- never executed, but locks the row
RETURNING id
)
SELECT id FROM ins
UNION ALL
SELECT id FROM names
WHERE name = 'bob' -- only executed if no INSERT
LIMIT 1;
This way you do not actually write a new row version without need.
I assume you are aware that in Postgres every UPDATE writes a new version of the row due to its MVCC model - even if name is set to the same value as before. This would make the operation more expensive, add to possible concurrency issues / lock contention in certain situations and bloat the table additionally.
However, there is still a tiny corner case for a race condition. Concurrent transactions may have added a conflicting row, which is not yet visible in the same statement. Then INSERT and SELECT come up empty.
Proper solution for single-row UPSERT:
Is SELECT or INSERT in a function prone to race conditions?
General solutions for bulk UPSERT:
How to use RETURNING with ON CONFLICT in PostgreSQL?
Without concurrent write load
If concurrent writes (from a different session) are not possible you don't need to lock the row and can simplify:
WITH ins AS (
INSERT INTO names(name)
VALUES ('bob')
ON CONFLICT ON CONSTRAINT names_name_key DO NOTHING -- no lock needed
RETURNING id
)
SELECT id FROM ins
UNION ALL
SELECT id FROM names
WHERE name = 'bob' -- only executed if no INSERT
LIMIT 1;
There are some similar questions on StackOverflow, but they don't seem to exactly match my case. I am trying to bulk insert into a PostgreSQL table with composite unique constraints. I created a temporary table (temptable) without any constraints, and loaded the data (with possible some duplicate values) in it. So far, so good.
Now, I am trying to transfer the data to the actual table (realtable) with unique index. For this, I used an INSERT statement with a subquery:
INSERT INTO realtable
SELECT * FROM temptable WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 1 FROM realtable WHERE temptable.added_date = realtable.added_date
AND temptable.product_name = realtable.product_name
);
However, I am getting duplicate key errors:
ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "realtable_added_date_product_name_key"
SQL state: 23505
Detail: Key (added_date, product_name)=(20000103, TEST) already exists.
My question is, shouldn't the WHERE NOT EXISTS clause prevent this from happening? How can I fix it?
The NOT EXISTS clause only prevents rows from temptable conflicting with existing rows from realtable; it will not prevent multiple rows from temptable from conflicting with each other. This is because the SELECT is calculated once based on the initial state of realtable, not re-calculated after each row is inserted.
One solution would be to use a GROUP BY or DISTINCT ON in the SELECT query, to omit duplicates, e.g.
INSERT INTO realtable
SELECT DISTINCT ON (added_date, product_name) *
FROM temptable WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 1 FROM realtable WHERE temptable.added_date = realtable.added_date
AND temptable.product_name = realtable.product_name
)
ORDER BY ???; -- this ORDER BY will determine which of a set of duplicates is kept by the DISTINCT ON
From my code (Java) I want to ensure that a row exists in the database (DB2) after my code is executed.
My code now does a select and if no result is returned it does an insert. I really don't like this code since it exposes me to concurrency issues when running in a multi-threaded environment.
What I would like to do is to put this logic in DB2 instead of in my Java code.
Does DB2 have an insert-or-update statement? Or anything like it that I can use?
For example:
insertupdate into mytable values ('myid')
Another way of doing it would probably be to always do the insert and catch "SQL-code -803 primary key already exists", but I would like to avoid that if possible.
Yes, DB2 has the MERGE statement, which will do an UPSERT (update or insert).
MERGE INTO target_table USING source_table ON match-condition
{WHEN [NOT] MATCHED
THEN [UPDATE SET ...|DELETE|INSERT VALUES ....|SIGNAL ...]}
[ELSE IGNORE]
See:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v9/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.admin.doc/doc/r0010873.htm
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6NHC/com.ibm.swg.im.dashdb.sql.ref.doc/doc/r0010873.html
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/SQLTips4DB2LUW/entry/merge?lang=en
I found this thread because I really needed a one-liner for DB2 INSERT OR UPDATE.
The following syntax seems to work, without requiring a separate temp table.
It works by using VALUES() to create a table structure . The SELECT * seems surplus IMHO but without it I get syntax errors.
MERGE INTO mytable AS mt USING (
SELECT * FROM TABLE (
VALUES
(123, 'text')
)
) AS vt(id, val) ON (mt.id = vt.id)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET val = vt.val
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT (id, val) VALUES (vt.id, vt.val)
;
if you have to insert more than one row, the VALUES part can be repeated without having to duplicate the rest.
VALUES
(123, 'text'),
(456, 'more')
The result is a single statement that can INSERT OR UPDATE one or many rows presumably as an atomic operation.
This response is to hopefully fully answer the query MrSimpleMind had in use-update-and-insert-in-same-query and to provide a working simple example of the DB2 MERGE statement with a scenario of inserting AND updating in one go (record with ID 2 is updated and record ID 3 inserted).
CREATE TABLE STAGE.TEST_TAB ( ID INTEGER, DATE DATE, STATUS VARCHAR(10) );
COMMIT;
INSERT INTO TEST_TAB VALUES (1, '2013-04-14', NULL), (2, '2013-04-15', NULL); COMMIT;
MERGE INTO TEST_TAB T USING (
SELECT
3 NEW_ID,
CURRENT_DATE NEW_DATE,
'NEW' NEW_STATUS
FROM
SYSIBM.DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT
2 NEW_ID,
NULL NEW_DATE,
'OLD' NEW_STATUS
FROM
SYSIBM.DUAL
) AS S
ON
S.NEW_ID = T.ID
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET
(T.STATUS) = (S.NEW_STATUS)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT
(T.ID, T.DATE, T.STATUS) VALUES (S.NEW_ID, S.NEW_DATE, S.NEW_STATUS);
COMMIT;
Another way is to execute this 2 queries. It's simpler than create a MERGE statement:
update TABLE_NAME set FIELD_NAME=xxxxx where MyID=XXX;
INSERT INTO TABLE_NAME (MyField1,MyField2) values (xxx,xxxxx)
WHERE NOT EXISTS(select 1 from TABLE_NAME where MyId=xxxx);
The first query just updateS the field you need, if the MyId exists.
The second insertS the row into db if MyId does not exist.
The result is that only one of the queries is executed in your db.
I started with hibernate project where hibernate allows you to saveOrUpdate().
I converted that project into JDBC project the problem was with save and update.
I wanted to save and update at the same time using JDBC.
So, I did some research and I came accross ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE :
String sql="Insert into tblstudent (firstName,lastName,gender) values (?,?,?)
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE
firstName= VALUES(firstName),
lastName= VALUES(lastName),
gender= VALUES(gender)";
The issue with the above code was that it updated primary key twice which is true as
per mysql documentation:
The affected rows is just a return code. 1 row means you inserted, 2 means you updated, 0 means nothing happend.
I introduced id and increment it to 1. Now I was incrementing the value of id and not mysql.
String sql="Insert into tblstudent (id,firstName,lastName,gender) values (?,?,?)
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE
id=id+1,
firstName= VALUES(firstName),
lastName= VALUES(lastName),
gender= VALUES(gender)";
The above code worked for me for both insert and update.
Hope it works for you as well.