I have the following two tables in my Postgres database:
CREATE TABLE User (
Id serial UNIQUE NOT NULL,
Login varchar(80) UNIQUE NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (Id,Login)
);
CREATE TABLE UserData (
Id serial PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES Users (Id),
Password varchar(255) NOT NULL
);
Say, I add a new user with INSERT INTO Users(Id, Login) VALUES(DEFAULT, 'John') and also want to add VALUES(id, 'john1980') in UserData where id is John's new id.
How do I get that id? Running a query for something just freshly created seems superfluous. I have multiple such situations across the database. Maybe my design is flawed in general?
(I'm obviously not storing passwords like that.)
1) Fix your design
CREATE TABLE usr (
usr_id serial PRIMARY KEY,
,login text UNIQUE NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE userdata (
usr_id int PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES usr
,password text NOT NULL
);
Start by reading the manual about identifiers and key words.
user is a reserved word. Never use it as identifier.
Use descriptive identifiers. id is useless.
Avoid mixed case identifiers.
serial is meant for a unique column that can be pk on its own. No need for a multicolumn pk.
The referencing column userdata.usr_id cannot be a serial, too. Use a plain integer.
I am just using text instead of varchar(n), that's optional. More here.
You might consider to merge the two tables into one ...
2) Query to INSERT in both
Key is the RETURNING clause available for INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, to return values from the current row immediately.
Best use in a data-modifying CTE:
WITH ins1 AS (
INSERT INTO usr(login)
VALUES ('John') -- just omit default columns
RETURNING usr_id -- return automatically generated usr_id
)
INSERT INTO userdata (usr_id, password )
SELECT i.usr_id, 'john1980'
FROM ins1 i;
You can consider using a trigger. The Id column of the newly inserted row can be accessed by the name NEW.Id.
References:
CREATE TRIGGER documentation on PostgreSQL Manual
Trigger Procedures
Related
My Postgres database has the following schema where the the user can store multi profile images.
CREATE TABLE users(
id INT GENERATE AS ALWAYS PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR(50)
);
CREATE TABLE images(
id INT GENERATE AS ALWAYS PRIMARY KEY,
url VARCHAR(50)
);
CREATE TABLE user_images(
user_id INT REFERENCES users(id),
image_id INT REFERENCES images(id)
);
How do I ensure that when I insert a user object, I also insert at least one user image?
You cannot do so very easily . . . and I wouldn't encourage you to enforce this. Why? The problem is a "chick and egg" problem. You cannot insert a row into users because there is no image. You cannot insert a row into user_images because there is no user_id.
Although you can handle this situation with transactions or delayed constraint checking, that covers only half the issue -- because you have to prevent deletion of the last image.
Here are two alternative.
First, you can simply add a main_image_id to the users table and insist that it be NOT NULL. Voila! At least one image is required.
Second, you can use a trigger to maintain a count of images in users. Then treat rows with no images as "deleted" so they are never seen.
When you insert a data into a table database can return a id from row which was inserted. So, if id > 0 the row has been inserted. But first, add column id (bigserial, auto increment, unique) to all tables.
INSERT INTO user_images VALUES (...) RETURNING id;
I have two tables that I would like to let them share the same sequence to populate the primary key ID column. However, I also don't want the user to specify or change the value for the ID column.
By using the code below, I can let two tables share the same sequence.
CREATE TABLE T1
(
ID INTEGER DEFAULT SEQ_1.nextval NOT NULL
);
This code will use its own sequence and prevent users from changing or specifying with INSERT:
CREATE TABLE T1
(
ID INTEGER GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY NOT NULL
);
Is there a way that can both world? Something like this:
CREATE TABLE T1
(
ID INTEGER GENERATED ALWAYS AS ( SEQ_1.nextval ) NOT NULL
);
Regarding the use case, as #Sujitmohanty30 asked, the reason that I raised this question:
I'm thinking to implement inheritance in the database, consider this UML diagram (I can't directly post images due to insufficient reputation, and sorry for being lack of imagination).
ANIMAL is abstract and all inheritance is mandatory. This means no instance of ANIMAL should be created. Furthermore, there is an one-to-many relationship between ANIMAL and ZOO_KEEPER.
Therefore, I came up with this idea:
CREATE SEQUENCE ANIMAL_ID_SEQ;
CREATE TABLE HORSE
(
ID INT DEFAULT ANIMAL_ID_SEQ.nextval NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
HEIGHT DECIMAL(3, 2) NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE DOLPHIN
(
ID INT DEFAULT ANIMAL_ID_SEQ.nextval NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
LENGTH DECIMAL(3, 2) NOT NULL
);
CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW LOG ON HORSE WITH ROWID;
CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW LOG ON DOLPHIN WITH ROWID;
CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW ANIMAL
REFRESH FAST ON COMMIT
AS
SELECT 'horse' AS TYPE, ROWID AS RID, ID -- TYPE column is used as a UNION ALL marker
FROM HORSE
UNION ALL
SELECT 'dolphin' AS TYPE, ROWID AS RID, ID
FROM DOLPHIN;
ALTER TABLE ANIMAL
ADD CONSTRAINT ANIMAL_PK PRIMARY KEY (ID);
CREATE TABLE ZOO_KEEPER
(
NAME VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
ANIMAL_ID INT NOT NULL REFERENCES ANIMAL (ID)
);
In this case, the use of the shared sequence is to avoid collision in ANIMAL mview. It uses DEFAULT to get the next ID of the shared sequence. However, using DEFAULT doesn't prevent users from manually INSERTing the ID field or UPDATE the value of it.
You can create a master view/table and generate the sequence in it.
Then copy it as column values into both tables while inserting.
Another option could be inserting into both tables at same time.Use SEQ.NEXTVAL to insert into first table to get a new ID, and then SEQ.CURRVAL to copy same id in the table.
No, you cant have anything like this because ID is independently generated for each of the tables and this can be done only using sequence when you are inserting the data in both the tables at the same time.
You should normalize your data schema: add column animal_type into the table and create composite primary key on both columns
I have 3 table Student,Teacher,User.
Student:
CREATE TABLE Student( id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,name VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL);
INSERT INTO [dbo].[Student]([id],[name]) VALUES(4,'Ram'),(5,'Raman');
Teacher:
CREATE TABLE Teacher( id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,name VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL);
INSERT INTO [dbo].[Student]([id],[name]) VALUES(1,'Raj'),(2,'Rahul');
User:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[User](
id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
user_id INT NOT NULL,
user_type CHAR(1) NOT NULL,
user_name VARCHAR(10) NOT NULL,
user_password VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT FOREIGN KEY (user_id) REFERENCES Student (id),
CONSTRAINT FOREIGN KEY (user_id) REFERENCES Teacher (id) );
Now I try to INSERT in User table with below query
INSERT INTO [dbo].[User] ([id] ,[user_id] ,[user_type],[user_name] ,[user_password]) VALUES (1 ,1,'S','Raj_001','********')
It gives me error for violation of foreign key due to
value of user_id is available in Teacher and not in Student
So my question is: How can I achieve that a value of user_id is present in one of those table and data should be inserted in User table.
Your table structure is flawed. A foreign key tells the database that there is definitely one and only one row on one side of the relationship. You can't have a partial match, it's all or nothing. This is before considering how you would ensure that you don't end up with the same id in both the teacher and student table.
It would be better to have two columns in your user table, one for teacher id and one for student id. In fact going further given the only extra data in both student and teacher tables is their name why not just eliminate both and store the name in the user table?
Another option to consider is that your foreign key is pointed in the wrong direction. Perhaps a better approach is reversing it to ensure each student and teacher is a user rather than that a user is either a student or a teacher.
First of all get rid of those key words from table name like [User],user_id etc.
It really is problematic and irritating.
Secondly why 2 key in [User] table,id, user_id ? It is not require.
I will keep only id or user_id.
Thirdly, knowing the real table structure or even purpose of each table help in better data modeling.
From [User] table what it appear is that id and user_type are composite primary key.
It should be. If this is true then you can't define FK constraint, as user_type is not available in either Teacher table and Student Table.
And what is appear that ,for example first data is inserted in Student or Teacher then data is inserted in User table in same Transaction.
So in all above scenario, Instead of Trigger is ideal scenario in this condition.
My script is just demo,
Create Proc spStudentInsert
as
set nocount on
set xact_abort on
begin try
begin tran
--bulk insert or single insert ,no problem
insert into Student
insert into [User]
if (##Trancount>0)
commit
end try
begin catch
if (##Trancount>0)
rollback
end catch
CREATE TRIGGER INSTEADOF_TR_I_User ON [user]
INSTEAD OF INSERT
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #Flag BIT = 1
IF NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM Student S
INNER JOIN inserted i ON i.id = S.id
)
SET #Flag = 0
ELSE IF NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM Teacher T
INNER JOIN inserted i ON i.id = T.id
)
AND #Flag = 1
SET #Flag = 0
IF (#Flag = 0)
BEGIN
RAISERROR (
N'Invalid user'
,16
,1
)
RETURN
END
END
In case I am wrong about id, user_type composite PK then you can do other way,
PK of User id is FK in Student table as well as Teacher table.
Also , id are PK in their respective table.
So first you insert in User table then you insert in Student or Teacher table.
So design in this case will be,
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[User](
id INT NOT NULL ,
user_type CHAR(1) NOT NULL,
user_name VARCHAR(10) NOT NULL,
user_password VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_user] PRIMARY KEY (id)
)
INSERT INTO [dbo].[User] ([id] ,[user_type],[user_name] ,[user_password])
VALUES (1 ,1,'S','Ram_001','********')
--drop table [User]
--alter table [user]
-- drop constraint PK_user
CREATE TABLE Student( id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,name VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL);
ALTER TABLE Student
add CONSTRAINT FK_StudentUser FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES [User] (id);
INSERT INTO [dbo].[Student]([id],[name]) VALUES(1,'Ram'),(5,'Raman');
--select * from [Student]
CREATE TABLE Teacher( id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,name VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL);
ALTER TABLE Teacher
add CONSTRAINT FK_TeacherUser FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES [User] (id);
INSERT INTO [dbo].Teacher([id],[name]) VALUES(1,'Raj'),(2,'Rahul');
So what it appear from your question, I will create Instead of Trigger and go with that model.
There are two ways to do this without re-doing your table schema
Create a 4th table that contains the union of ID from Student and Teacher. Presumably, you would insert to that table whenever you insert into Student and Teacher, and then have the constraint act against that table.
Create a custom function based constraint rather than a foreign key which looks up against a union of both the student and teacher tables.
Neither of these are great/clean solutions, and as others have noted, you probably are dealing with the fact that the schema isn't ideal.
Still, if you're just modifying an existing system (and I assume this is a simplified version of what you're actually dealing with), then one of the two solutions I mentioned id easier than redoing the schema.
Your foreign key definition has some logical problems. It forces the user_id to exists in both tables. The solution here is depended on the business needs and real data.
You can create a Person table with 1-1 relation to the student and the Teacher tables and then use the Person.Id column in the foreign key definition. This solution assumes that the students' and teachers' data may change differently.
As another way (which is explained in other answers), If your student and teachers' data is similar, you can combine both tables, and difference data by one added "Type" column.
SO you want to tell the system that your User must be in one of your tables .
it's not possible in databases logic but you can write a script that have a condition (IF exist) then insert you user data
notice : you have to remove your foreign keys .
its a wrong logic !
you are telling your system that your user is a student and a teacher to !
that is absolutely wrong .
I feel like there were some excellent responses in this thread, but I'm going to take a stab at giving you a different direction. I'll try to be clear on why, and try to acknowledge your situation as I do so.
Student/Teacher Data is Often Messy
As someone with experience normalizing data sets in higher education, the issue you've run into resonated with me. Educational users could be in all three categories (Student, Teacher, and User) or just one of them, depending on the how and why the category was linked. Worse, they can enter from multiple directions and end up with multiple unlinked accounts. More mature institutions and tools have protections against this, but I still see user-created databases and ten year old 'it was temporary' solutions that cause me existential pain.
The Main Stumbling Block
Any database with tables that independently define who is a user based on different criteria have a potential point of failure.
Foreign keys was the right direction to be thinking in for this problem. You want these tables to connect and you want them to stay consistent with one another, regardless of which side of the data gets altered. We just need to add a little extra.
One Table To Rule Them All
Before I go further, I want to say that it is possible to get all of the fields you're tracking into a single table, but having multiple tables with distinct purposes is an easy way to protect against changes later.
The foreign key table must inherit the key from another table, but people often say foreign keys can't be primary keys as well. Why?
Foreign keys are not automatically unique keys in the tables they're in. If there can be multiple fields tied to that same key, the table ends up worthless.
We fix that with the Unique constraint. Applied to a foreign key field, Unique essentially makes it act as a primary key would.
Sample Method
Below is an alternative design for what you seemed to be after, creating a master list of IDs that can link across all tables. I tossed in a few minor tracking fields that can be useful for debugging.
/*Create Tables*/
CREATE TABLE ID(
USER_ID int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
USER_CREATED timestamp
);
CREATE TABLE USER(
USER_ID int NOT NULL UNIQUE FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES ID(USER_ID),
USER_LOGIN VARCHAR(10) NOT NULL UNIQUE,
USER_PASSWORD VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
USER_NAME VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE PERMISSIONS(
USER_ID int NOT NULL UNIQUE FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES ID(USER_ID),
STUDENT CHAR(1),
TEACHER CHAR(1)
);
This creates a flag for student and teacher that could both be true or both be false. If you want the code to force them into only one or the other, you can still have the permissions table do a USER_TYPE field instead. I suggest a null or neither value being possible in either case if you plan to use this for any length of time. Best of luck.
I can't insert a value into a primary key and I can't leave it blank. Why?
Here's the sql for creating the table in oracle
CREATE TABLE users(
id numeric(4),
username varchar2(10) NOT NULL,
password varchar2(100) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT users_pk PRIMARY KEY(id)
);
Here's also the sql for inserting the values in the table:
insert into users (username, password) values ('jonaii', MD5('porter'));
Primary keys have to have a value. That's a characteristic of primary keys.
In 12c Oracle finally added auto-generation of synthetic keys, but as you're still using an earlier version you'll need to use an explicit sequence:
create sequence user_id_seq;
There are options for configuring sequences: find out more.
Then
insert into users (id, username, password)
values
(user_id_seq.nextval, 'jonaii', MD5('porter'));
Alternatively you could define a trigger on BEFORE INSERT to handle the sequence assignment.
" However the MD5 doesn't work in oracle"
Hashing algorithms are implemented in two packages, DBMS_CRYPTO, and the older (deprecated) DBMS_OBFUSCATION_TOOLKIT. You may need to get a DBA to grant execute on these packages.
I am trying to create a table with an auto-incrementing primary key in Sqlite3. I am not sure if this is really possible, but I am hoping to only have to designate the other fields.
For example:
CREATE TABLE people (id integer primary key auto increment, first_name varchar(20), last_name varchar(20));
Then, when I add a value, I was hoping to only have to do:
INSERT INTO people
VALUES ("John", "Smith");
Is this even possible?
I am running sqlite3 under cygwin in Windows 7.
You get one for free, called ROWID. This is in every SQLite table whether you ask for it or not.
If you include a column of type INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, that column points at (is an alias for) the automatic ROWID column.
ROWID (by whatever name you call it) is assigned a value whenever you INSERT a row, as you would expect. If you explicitly assign a non-NULL value on INSERT, it will get that specified value instead of the auto-increment. If you explicitly assign a value of NULL on INSERT, it will get the next auto-increment value.
Also, you should try to avoid:
INSERT INTO people VALUES ("John", "Smith");
and use
INSERT INTO people (first_name, last_name) VALUES ("John", "Smith");
instead. The first version is very fragile — if you ever add, move, or delete columns in your table definition the INSERT will either fail or produce incorrect data (with the values in the wrong columns).
Yes, this is possible. According to the SQLite FAQ:
A column declared INTEGER PRIMARY KEY will autoincrement.
As of today — June 2018
Here is what official SQLite documentation has to say on the subject (bold & italic are mine):
The AUTOINCREMENT keyword imposes extra CPU, memory, disk space, and
disk I/O overhead and should be avoided if not strictly needed. It is
usually not needed.
In SQLite, a column with type INTEGER PRIMARY KEY is an alias for the
ROWID (except in WITHOUT ROWID tables) which is always a 64-bit signed
integer.
On an INSERT, if the ROWID or INTEGER PRIMARY KEY column is not
explicitly given a value, then it will be filled automatically with an
unused integer, usually one more than the largest ROWID currently in
use. This is true regardless of whether or not the AUTOINCREMENT
keyword is used.
If the AUTOINCREMENT keyword appears after INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, that
changes the automatic ROWID assignment algorithm to prevent the reuse
of ROWIDs over the lifetime of the database. In other words, the
purpose of AUTOINCREMENT is to prevent the reuse of ROWIDs from
previously deleted rows.
SQLite AUTOINCREMENT is a keyword used for auto incrementing a value of a field in the table. We can auto increment a field value by using AUTOINCREMENT keyword when creating a table with specific column name to auto incrementing it.
The keyword AUTOINCREMENT can be used with INTEGER field only.
Syntax:
The basic usage of AUTOINCREMENT keyword is as follows:
CREATE TABLE table_name(
column1 INTEGER AUTOINCREMENT,
column2 datatype,
column3 datatype,
.....
columnN datatype,
);
For Example See Below:
Consider COMPANY table to be created as follows:
sqlite> CREATE TABLE TB_COMPANY_INFO(
ID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
NAME TEXT NOT NULL,
AGE INT NOT NULL,
ADDRESS CHAR(50),
SALARY REAL
);
Now, insert following records into table TB_COMPANY_INFO:
INSERT INTO TB_COMPANY_INFO (NAME,AGE,ADDRESS,SALARY)
VALUES ( 'MANOJ KUMAR', 40, 'Meerut,UP,INDIA', 200000.00 );
Now Select the record
SELECT *FROM TB_COMPANY_INFO
ID NAME AGE ADDRESS SALARY
1 Manoj Kumar 40 Meerut,UP,INDIA 200000.00
Have you read this? How do I create an AUTOINCREMENT field.
INSERT INTO people
VALUES (NULL, "John", "Smith");
Always insert NULL as the id.
One should not specify AUTOINCREMENT keyword near PRIMARY KEY.
Example of creating autoincrement primary key and inserting:
$ sqlite3 ex1
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS room(room_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, name VARCHAR(25) NOT NULL, home_id VARCHAR(25) NOT NULL);
INSERT INTO room(name, home_id) VALUES ('test', 'home id test');
INSERT INTO room(name, home_id) VALUES ('test 2', 'home id test 2');
SELECT * FROM room;
will give:
1|test|home id test
2|test 2|home id test 2
Beside rowid, you can define your own auto increment field but it is not recommended. It is always be better solution when we use rowid that is automatically increased.
The AUTOINCREMENT keyword imposes extra CPU, memory, disk space, and
disk I/O overhead and should be avoided if not strictly needed. It is
usually not needed.
Read here for detailed information.
What you do is correct, but the correct syntax for 'auto increment' should be without space:
CREATE TABLE people (id integer primary key autoincrement, first_name string, last_name string);
(Please also note that I changed your varchars to strings. That's because SQLite internally transforms a varchar into a string, so why bother?)
then your insert should be, in SQL language as standard as possible:
INSERT INTO people(id, first_name, last_name) VALUES (null, 'john', 'doe');
while it is true that if you omit id it will automatically incremented and assigned, I personally prefer not to rely on automatic mechanisms which could change in the future.
A note on autoincrement: although, as many pointed out, it is not recommended by SQLite people, I do not like the automatic reuse of ids of deleted records if autoincrement is not used. In other words, I like that the id of a deleted record will never, ever appear again.
HTH
I know this answer is a bit late. My purpose for this answer is for everyone's reference should they encounter this type of challenge with SQLite now or in the future and they're having a hard time with it.
Now, looking back at your query, it should be something like this.
CREATE TABLE people (id integer primary key autoincrement, first_name varchar(20), last_name varchar(20));
It works on my end. Like so,
Just in case you are working with SQLite, I suggest for you to check out DB Browser for SQLite. Works on different platforms as well.