I don't know what is the best wording of the question, but I have a table that has 2 columns: ID and NAME.
when I delete a record from the table the related ID field deleted with it and then the sequence spoils.
take this example:
if I deleted row number 2, the sequence of ID column will be: 1,3,4
How to make it: 1,2,3
ID's are meant to be unique for a reason. Consider this scenario:
**Customers**
id value
1 John
2 Jackie
**Accounts**
id customer_id balance
1 1 $500
2 2 $1000
In the case of a relational database, say you were to delete "John" from the database. Now Jackie would take on the customer_id of 1. When Jackie goes in to check here balance, she will now show $500 short.
Granted, you could go through and update all of her other records, but A) this would be a massive pain in the ass. B) It would be very easy to make mistakes, especially in a large database.
Ids (primary keys in this case) are meant to be the rock that holds your relational database together, and you should always be able to rely on that value regardless of the table.
As JohnFx pointed out, should you want a value that shows the order of the user, consider using a built in function when querying.
In SQL Server identity columns are not guaranteed to be sequential. You can use the ROW_NUMBER function to generate a sequential list of ids when you query the data from the database:
SELECT
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY Id) AS SequentialId,
Id As UniqueId,
Name
FROM dbo.Details
If you want sequential numbers don't store them in the database. That is just a maintenance nightmare, and I really can't think of a very good reason you'd even want to bother.
Just generate them dynamically using tSQL's RowNumber function when you query the data.
The whole point of an Identity column is creating a reliable identifier that you can count on pointing to that row in the DB. If you shift them around you undermine the main reason you WANT an ID.
In a real world example, how would you feel if the IRS wanted to change your SSN every week so they could keep the Social Security Numbers sequential after people died off?
Related
I have a database with 1Mil+ rows in it.
This database consists (for the sake of this question) of 2 columns; user_id, and username.
These values are not controlled by my application; I am not always certain that these are the current correct values. All I know is that the user_id is guaranteed to be unique. I get periodic updates which allow me to update my database to ensure I have an "eventually consistent" version of the user_id/username mapping.
I would like to be able to retrieve the latest addition of a certain username; "older" results should be ignored.
I believe there are two possible approaches here:
- indexing: there should be an index of username:row (hashmap?) where username is always the last added username; so gets updated on each row addition, or update.
- Setting username as unique, and doing an on conflict update to set the old row to the empty string, and the new row to the username
From what I've understood about indexing, it sounds like its the faster option (and wont require me checking the unicity of 1Mil rows in my database). I also hear hashmaps are a pain because they require rebuilding, so feel free to give other ideas.
My current implementation does a full search over the entire database, which is beginning to get quite slow at 1Mil+ rows. It currently gets the "last" value of this added string; which I am not even sure is a valid assumption at this point.
Given a sample database:
user_id, username
3 , bob
2 , alice
4 , joe
1 , bob
I would expect a search of `username = bob` to return (1, bob).
I cannot rely on ID ordering to solve this, since there is no linearity to which ID is assigned to which username.
You can do this using:
select distinct on (id) s.*
from sample s
where s.username = 'bob'
order by s.id desc;
For performance, you want an index on sample(username, id).
Alternatively, if you are doing periodic bulk updates, then you can construct a version of the table with unique rows per username:
create table most_recent_sample as
select max(id) as id, username
from sample
group by username;
create index idx_most_recent_sample_username on most_recent_sample(username);
This might take a short amount of time, but you are doing the update anyway.
I have a table where I have these fields:
id(primary key, auto increment)
car registration number
car model
garage id
and 31 fields for each day of the mont for each row.
In these fields I have char of 1 or 2 characters representing car status on that date. I need to make a query to get number of each possibility for that day, field of any day could have values: D, I, R, TA, RZ, BV and LR.
I need to count in each row, amount of each value in that row.
Like how many I , how many D and so on. And this for every row in table.
What best approach would be here? Also maybe there is better way then having field in database table for each day because it makes over 30 fields obviously.
There is a better way. You should structure the data so you have another table, with rows such as:
CarId
Date
Status
Then your query would simply be:
select status, count(*)
from CarStatuses
where date >= #month_start and date < month_end
group by status;
For your data model, this is much harder to deal with. You can do something like this:
select status, count(*)
from ((select status_01 as status
from t
) union all
(select status_02
from t
) union all
. . .
(select status_31
from t
)
) s
group by status;
You seem to have to start with most basic tutorials about relational databases and SQL design. Some classic works like "Martin Gruber - Understanding SQL" may help. Or others. ATM you miss the basics.
Few hints.
Documents that you print for user or receive from user do not represent your internal data structures. They are created/parsed for that very purpose machine-to-human interface. Inside your program should structure the data for easy of storing/processing.
You have to add a "dictionary table" for the statuses.
ID / abbreviation / human-readable description
You may have a "business rule" that from "R" status you can transition to either "D" status or to "BV" status, but not to any other. In other words you better draft the possible status transitions "directed graph". You would keep it in extra columns of that dictionary table or in one more specialized helper table. Dictionary of transitions for the dictionary of possible statuses.
Your paper blank combines in the same row both totals and per-day detailisation. That is easy for human to look upon, but for computer that in a sense violates single responsibility principle. Row should either be responsible for primary record or for derived total calculation. You better have two tables - one for primary day by day records and another for per-month total summing up.
Bonus point would be that when you would change values in the primary data table you may ask server to automatically recalculate the corresponding month totals. Read about SQL triggers.
Also your triggers may check if the new state properly transits from the previous day state, as described in the "business rules". They would also maybe have to check there is not gaps between day. If there is a record for "march 03" and there is inserted a new the record for "march 05" then a record for "march 04" should exists, or the server would prohibit adding such a row. Well, maybe not, that is dependent upon you business processes. The general idea is that server should reject storing any data that is not valid and server can know it.
you per-date and per-month tables should have proper UNIQUE CONSTRAINTs prohibiting entering duplicate rows. It also means the former should have DATE-type column and the latter should either have month and year INTEGER-type columns or have a DATE-type column with the day part in it always being "1" - you would want a CHECK CONSTRAINT for it.
If your company has some registry of cars (and probably it does, it is not looking like those car were driven in by random one-time customers driving by) you have to introduce a dictionary table of cars. Integer ID (PK), registration plate, engine factory number, vagon factory number, colour and whatever else.
The per-month totals table would not have many columns per every status. It would instead have a special row for every status! The structure would probably be like that: Month / Year / ID of car in the registry / ID of status in the dictionary / count. All columns would be integer type (some may be SmallInt or BigInt, but that is minor nuancing). All the columns together (without count column) should constitute a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT or even better a "compound" Primary Key. Adding a special dedicated PK column here in the totaling table seems redundant to me.
Consequently, your per-day and per-month tables would not have literal (textual and immediate) data for status and car id. Instead they would have integer IDs referencing proper records in the corresponding cars dictionary and status dictionary tables. That you would code as FOREIGN KEY.
Remember the rule of thumb: it is easy to add/delete a row to any table but quite hard to add/delete a column.
With design like yours, column-oriented, what would happen if next year the boss would introduce some more statuses? you would have to redesign the table, the program in many points and so on.
With the rows-oriented design you would just have to add one row in the statuses dictionary and maybe few rows to transition rules dictionary, and the rest works without any change.
That way you would not
I am hopping on a project that sits on top of a Sql Server 2008 DB with what seems like an inefficient schema to me. However, I'm not an expert at anything SQL, so I am seeking for guidance.
In general, the schema has tables like this:
ID | A | B
ID is a unique identifier
A contains text, such as animal names. There's very little variety; maybe 3-4 different values in thousands of rows. This could vary with time, but still a small set.
B is one of two options, but stored as text. The set is finite.
My questions are as follows:
Should I create another table for names contained in A, with an ID and a value, and set the ID as the primary key? Or should I just put an index on that column in my table? Right now, to get a list of A's, it does "select distinct(a) from table" which seems inefficient to me.
The table has a multitude of columns for properties of A. It could be like: Color, Age, Weight, etc. I would think that this is better suited in a separate table with: ID, AnimalID, Property, Value. Each property is unique to the animal, so I'm not sure how this schema could enforce this (the current schema implies this as it's a column, so you can only have one value for each property).
Right now the DB is easily readable by a human, but its size is growing fast and I feel like the design is inefficient. There currently is not index at all anywhere. As I said I'm not a pro, but will read more on the subject. The goal is to have a fast system. Thanks for your advice!
This sounds like a database that might represent a veterinary clinic.
If the table you describe represents the various patients (animals) that come to the clinic, then having properties specific to them are probably best on the primary table. But, as you say column "A" contains a species name, it might be worthwhile to link that to a secondary table to save on the redundancy of storing those names:
For example:
Patients
--------
ID Name SpeciesID Color DOB Weight
1 Spot 1 Black/White 2008-01-01 20
Species
-------
ID Species
1 Cocker Spaniel
If your main table should be instead grouped by customer or owner, then you may want to add an Animals table and link it:
Customers
---------
ID Name
1 John Q. Sample
Animals
-------
ID CustomerID SpeciesID Name Color DOB Weight
1 1 1 Spot Black/White 2008-01-01 20
...
As for your original column B, consider converting it to a boolean (BIT) if you only need to store two states. Barring that, consider CHAR to store a fixed number of characters.
Like most things, it depends.
By having the animal names directly in the table, it makes your reporting queries more efficient by removing the need for many joins.
Going with something like 3rd normal form (having an ID/Name table for the animals) makes you database smaller, but requires more joins for reporting.
Either way, make sure to add some indexes.
I have a database table with many columns and there is no specified primary key. There isn't a list of super keys either. Besides iteratively trying all candidate keys/columns, is there a way for me, using SQL, to try and figure our whether a subset of keys can make a unique identifier for my table?
For example, a table may have 4 columns first name, last name, address and zip and the data I see is:
John, Smith, 1 main st, 00001
Mary, Smith, 1 main st, 00001
Mary, Smith, 2 sub st, 00002
In this case, I'll need first, last and zip as my unique key.
John, Smith, 1 main st, 00001
John, Smith, 1 main st, 00001
In this case, there is no unique key.
Please don't comment on my table construction and/or normalization of databases, I'm just trying to find a practical answer. Thanks.
This is my question: Besides iteratively trying all candidate keys/columns, is there a way for me, using SQL, to try and figure our whether a subset of keys can make a unique identifier for my table?
Looking for a subset of unique values in this case seems so specific to the particular data set. What if you arrive at a subset today and find you can't insert a new row tomorrow?
Use an artificial key, like an auto-incrementing integer.
In short: no, there's no way to do this in T-SQL really.
My advice: just add a ID INT IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY column to the table. It's guaranteed to be unique, it will be filled automagically when you create it, it's fast and easy, no messy "is this really unique or are there any combinations of rows that violate the uniqueness" questions......
Just do it - it's the easiest way to go!!
You cannot find if a combination "can" make a primary key. You can find if one WILL make a good primary key for an existing set of data.
To find if a set of fields is candidate or not, you can count the distinct of those fields (using group-by with rollup) and compare that with count (*)
There is a much faster method.
Enterprise dbms have had it for many years but MS SQL Server 2005 (useable in 2008) and later provided the HashBytes() function. Convert the columns to CHAR() (VARCHAR on MS), concatenate them; then hash them; then compare the hashes. You can compare the two tables in a single SELECT command. IIRC max 8000 characters per row.
(If you use this answer, please undo and redo your Answer choice.)
if you are comparing two databases, then you can see if any duplicate rows exist in the source db with structures like this:
select a,b,c,d
from mytable
having count(*) > 1
group by a,b,c,d
include all columns.
then use all columns as the 'row key' to see if it exists in the target system
there are update anomalies in this schema:
you cannot a person without knowing his address
better approach is to separate to three tables, one for persons and one for PersonAddress
> perons: id,firstname, lastname
> address: id,address:
> personaddress: personid, addressid
You cannot find if a combination "can" make a primary key.
I actually disagree with this, I think it is possible to write a query that will SELECT all possible permutations of columns from the table and combine each permutation into a single unique value (the simplest, crudest way is to CAST them all to VARCHAR and connect them with a spacer character - a better way would be some kind of hash function).
With a single pass you would then have set of columns like P1, P12, P123, P2, P23, P3 etc (in case of three columns). Then you can do a query with COUNT(*) vs COUNT(DISTINCT) for each permutation column and you will see which permutations are unique.
Using dynamic SQL you could probably make it so that it would work on any table, although I don't know about the column limit for SQL Server.
SQL Server 2008 Database Question.
I have 2 tables, for arguments sake called Customers and Users where a single Customer can have 1 to n Users. The Customers table generates a CustomerId which is a seeded identity with a +1 increment on it. What I'm after in the Users table is a compound key comprising the CustomerId and a sequence number such that in all cases, the first user has a sequence of 1 and subsequent users are added at x+1.
So the table looks like this...
CustomerId (PK, FK)
UserId (PK)
Name
...and if for example, Customer 485 had three customers the data would look like...
CustomerId | UserId | Name
----------
485 | 1 | John
485 | 2 | Mark
485 | 3 | Luke
I appreciate that I can manually add the 1,2,3,...,n entry for UserId however I would like to get this to happen automatically on row insert in SQL, so that in the example shown I could effectively insert rows with the CustomerId and the Name with SQL Server protecting the Identity etc. Is there a way to do this through the database design itself - when I set UserId as an identity it runs 1 to infinity across all customers which isn't what I am looking for - have I got a setting wrong somewhere, or is this not an option?
Hope that makes sense - thanks for your help
I can think of no automatic way to do this without implementing a custom Stored Procedure that inserted the rows and checked to increment the Id appropriately, althouh others with more knowledge may have a better idea.
However, this smells to me of naturalising a surrogate key - which is not always a good idea.
More info here:
http://www.agiledata.org/essays/keys.html
That's not really an option with a regular identity column, but you could set up an insert trigger to auto populate the user id though.
The naive way to do this would be to have the trigger select the max user id from the users table for the customer id on the inserted record, then add one to that. However, you'll run into concurrency problems there if more than one person is creating a user record at the same time.
A better solution would be to have a NextUserID column on the customers table. In your trigger you would:
Start a transaction.
Increment the NextUserID for the customer (locking the row).
Select the updated next user id.
use that for the new User record.
commit the transaction.
This should ensure that simultaneous additions of users don't result in the same user id being used more than once.
All that said, I would recommend that you just don't do it. It's more trouble than it's worth and just smells like a bad idea to begin with.
So you want a generated user_id field that increments within the confines of a customer_id.
I can't think of one database where that concept exists.
You could implement it with a trigger. But my question is: WHY?
Surrogate keys are supposed to not have any kind of meaning. Why would you try to make a key that, simultaneously, is the surrogate and implies order?
My suggestions:
Create a date_created field, defaulting to getDate(). That will allow you to know the order (time based) in which each user_id was created.
Create an ordinal field - which can be updated by a trigger, to support that order.
Hope that helps.