For example, I have a table:
User ID(int) | Card ID(int) | Deck(int)
1841 | 14 | 1
1841 | 14 | 1
it is defined that the int values in deck column would always take on 1 or 2 as a value(1 indicating that it is in the deck). and card ID is not unique for a user(this indicate that a user have 2 card 14) , as shown in the example above. what if i want to remove one card 14 in the deck and the other would remain. what is the proper sql command, i tried UPDATE but it
you can define limit at the end of update query
update [table name] set Deck=2 where User_ID=1841 and Card_id=14 limit 1;
Basically you're missing a way of referencing any single particular row. Depending how critical to the application is need for such reference, it is almost always bad idea to allow such situation. There are many solutions for this, for example
1) Every row usually contains unique OID or ROWID field , which is not displayed with "SELECT * FROM TABLE", but can be used if requested implicitly. Depending on what database engine you use, e.g. with PostgreSQL try
SELECT OID, * FROM TABLE WHERE OID = 'somevalue'
this is usually used if you don't want to enforce UNIQUE on the table, but rather deal with possible mistaken input later if it will unfortunately appear.
2) You can add ID column, for example autoincremental ( refer to DB manual ), and then update it to contain unique IDs
ALTER TABLE table_name ADD column_name column-definition;
3) You can use self incrementing "running total", eg. with MySQL it looks more/less like this:
SET #runtot:=0;
SELECT *, (#runtot := #runtot + 1) AS rt FROM table WHERE rt='somevalue'
(this will do calculation every time so probably will be inefficient )
4) You can use LIMIT as explained in previous answer
5) You can JOIN some another table with unique IDs and possibly update resulting relation, or combine some query to create and use static VIEW
6) You can use SELECT with some dynamically allocated value, for example RAND() or NOW() or similar. It probably won't create unique identifiers across whole table, depending what function you'll use and how you will use it
7) combine two or more above solutions altogether
..and probably many other solutions. Anyway usually there's some "Id" column used with some UNIQUE constraint.
Related
I have a item tax table that records the different tax rates for different counties in our state. Each row has an ID number (1-130). Our front end software always orders the tax options by this number when we want it alphabetical. Most of our rows were added that way but I want to be able to insert rows.
Thus I need to add 1 to every entry after a certain number (e.g. 37-130 need to all increase by one). Unfortunately, this is the primary key. Is it possible to increase this value on all of them easily? Or in a loop? I'll have to do this repeatedly as we're moving about a dozen entries if possible.
UPDATE ItemTax
SET ID = ID + 1
WHERE ID = Last ID number
Treating your question as academic, and not endorsing this as an actual solution, you can do this:
UPDATE ItemTax
SET ID = ID + 1
WHERE ID > 37
Depending upon how you use this id, it might be better to leave original ID column unchanged. E.g.
alter table TaxItem add NewID int null
GO
update TaxItem set NewID =
case
when ID between 37 and 130 then ID + 1
else ID
end
Now you don't have to update foreign key relationships, etc.
You see, as ID usually represents a surrogate key, and should never have its value changed in a good design. So your desire to change it value leads to suspicion that you do not understand your design as well as you should. -- We all start from ignorance, I have bad some very poor decisions in the past.
If this is the only change there will ever be for NewID, you don't even need a physical column, a computed column would serve well. But if this is the first mod of many a physical column is likely a better choice.
You also mention inserting rows. Build in some room to insert rows and change values as needed because you have room to rearrange rows by tweaking values without having to renumber entire blocks of rows just to insert a single row, e.g.
update TaxItem set NewID = ID * 100
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'
Have a small table of 2 columns on MSSQL Server 2005 which contains a lot of information let's say about 1 billion records and it is constantly being written into.
Definition of the table is :
Create table Test(
id int identity(1,1) primary key ,
name varchar(30) )
Te PK is int which I choose it over uniqueidentifier for a number of reasons. The problem comes with the auto increment I want to reorganize the 'id' every time a row is deleted. The objective to this is leaving no gaps. The table is active and a lot of rows are written into it, so dropping a column is not an option also locking the table for a long time.
Quick example of what I want to accomplish:
I have this :
id | name
----+-------
1 | Roy
2 | Boss
5 | Jane
7 | Janet
I want to reorganize it so it will look like this :
id | name
----+-------
1 | Roy
2 | Boss
3 | Jane
4 | Janet
I am aware of DBCC CHECKIDENT (TableName, RESEED, position) but I am not sure it will benefit my case, because my table is big and it will take a lot of time to reposition also if I am not mistaken it will lock the table for a very long time. This table is not used by any other table. But if you like you can submit a suggestion to the same problem having in mind that the table is used by other tables.
EDIT 1 :
The objective is to prove that the rows follow each other in case a row is deleted so I can see it is deleted and reinstate it.I was thinking of adding a third column that will contain a hash value from the row above , and if the row above is deleted I would know that I have a gap and need to restore it ,in that case the order will not matter because I can compare the has codes and see if they match , so I can see which row follows which.But still I wonder is there a more clever and safer way of doing this ?Maybe involve something else rather then hash codes , some other way of proving that the rows follow each other , or that the new row contains parts of the previous row?
EDIT 2 :
I'll try to explain it one more time if I can't well then I don't want to waste anyone's time.
In the perfect case scenario there will be nothing missing from this table , but due to
server errors some data maybe deleted or some of my associates might be wasteful and delete it by fault.
I have logs and can recover that data, but I want to prove that the records are sequenced , that they follow
each other even if there is a server error and some of them are deleted but later on reinstated.
Is there a way to do this ?
Example:
well let's say that 7 is deleted and after that reinstated as 23 , how would you prove that 23 is 7, meaning that 23 came after 6 and before 8 ?
I would suggest not worrying about trying to reseed your Identity column -- let SQL Server maintain it's uniqueness for each row.
Generally this is wanted for presentation logic instead, in which case, you could use the ROW_NUMBER() analytic function:
SELECT Row_Number() Over (Order By Id) NewId,
Id, Name
FROM YourTable
I agree with others that this shouldn't typically be done, but if you absolutely want to do it you can utilize the quirky update to get it done quickly, should be something like this:
DECLARE #prev_id INT = 0
UPDATE Test
SELECT id = CASE WHEN id - #prev_id = 1 THEN id
ELSE #prev_id + 1
END
,#prev_id = id
FROM test
You should read about the limitations of quirky update, primarily the conditions that must be met to ensure consistent output. This is a good article but they annoyingly have you sign in, but you can find other resources: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/68467/
Edit: Actually, in this case I think you could just use:
DECLARE #prev_id INT = 0
UPDATE Test
SELECT id = #prev_id + 1
,#prev_id = id
FROM Test
The way to do it is to not implement your proposed fix.
Leave the identity alone.
If identity 7 is deleted you know it is just after 6 and and just before 8.
If you need them to stay in the same order then simple.
Place unique constraint on name.
Don't delete the record.
Just add a bool column for active.
I'm dealing with two tables which have 2 columns, as listed under.
Table 1: table_snapshot
account_no | balance_due
Table 2: table_ paid
account_no | post_balance | delta_balance
I added a third column to table2 with the following command:
ALTER TABLE table_paid ADD delta_balance number(18);
I'm trying to use the following query, to update the new column ( delta_balance ) with the difference in balances between 1 and 2.
FYI, table_paid is a subset of table_snapshot. i,e., table 2 has only a few accounts present in table 1. I get an error saying : SQL Statement not properly ended. the query i'm using is:
UPDATE table_paid
SET table_paid.delta_balance = table_paid.post_balance - table_snapshot.balance_due
from table_paid, table_snapshot
WHERE table_paid.account_no = table_snapshot.account_no;
Appreciate if someone can correct my query.
Many thanks.
novice.
Oracle doesn't have the UPDATE ... FROM syntax that you're using from MS Sql Server (which, I believe, isn't ANSI anyway). Instead, when you need to do an update on a result set, Oracle has you create the resultset as a kind of inline view, then you update through the view, like so:
UPDATE ( SELECT tp.delta_balance
, tp.post_balance
, ts.balance_due
FROM table_paid tp
JOIN table_snapshot ts
ON tp.account_no = ts.account_no
)
SET delta_balance = post_balance - balance_due;
This is more "correct" than the answers supplied by Babar and palindrom, as their queries will update every row in table_paid, even if there are no corresponding rows in table_snapshot. If there is a 1-1 correspondance, you don't need to worry, but it's safer to do it with the inline view.
It's unclear from your example which table is the parent table, or (as I'm guessing) neither is the parent table and account_no is pointing to the primary key of another table (presumably account, or "table_account" by your naming conventions). In any case, it's clear that there is not a 1-1 correspondence in your table - 15K in one, millions in the other.
This could mean 2 things: either there are many rows in table_snapshot that have no corresponding row in table_paid, or there are many rows in table_snapshot for each row in table_paid. If the latter is true, your query is impossible - you will have multiple updates for each row in table_paid, and the result will be unpredictable; how will you know which of the "post_balance - balance_due" expressions will ultimately determine the value of a given delta_balance?
If you run my query, you will find this out quickly enough - you will get an error message that says, "ORA-01779: cannot modify a column which maps to a non key-preserved table". This error will appear based not on the data in the table (it may be okay), but based on the primary keys you have defined on the two tables. If the join condition you specify doesn't unambiguously result in a 1-1 relationship between the updated table and the rest of the join, based on the defined keys, you will get this error. It's Oracle's way of telling you, "You're about to screw up your data".
In the other answers here, you will only get an error (in that case, ORA-01427: single-row subquery returns more than one row) if you actually have data that would cause a problem; my version is more strict, so it may turn out that you will need to use the other versions.
And, as the others have said, you'll definitely want an index on account_no for the table_snapshot table. One on the table_paid wouldn't hurt either.
Try this
UPDATE table_paid
SET table_paid.delta_balance = table_paid.post_balance -
(SELECT table_snapshot.balance_due from table_snapshot WHERE table_paid.account_no =
table_snapshot.account_no);
UPDATE table_paid
SET table_paid.delta_balance = table_paid.post_balance - ( select balance_due from table_snapshot
WHERE table_paid.account_no = table_snapshot.account_no )
Is it possible to reorder rows in SQL database?
For example; how can I swap the order of 2nd row and 3rd row's values?
The order of the row is important to me since i need to display the value according to the order.
Thanks for all the answers. But 'Order by' won't work for me.
For example, I put a list of bookmarks in database.
I want to display based on the result I get from query. (not in alphabet order). Just when they are inserted.
But user may re-arrange the position of the bookmark (in any way he/she wants). So I can't use 'order by'.
An example is how the bookmark display in the bookmark in firefox. User can switch position easily. How can I mention that in DB?
Thank you.
It sounds like you need another column like "ListOrder". So your table might look like:
BookMark ListOrder
======== =========
d 1
g 2
b 3
f 4
a 5
Then you can "order by" ListOrder.
Select * from MyTable Order By ListOrder
If the user can only move a bookmark one place at a time, you can use integers as the ListOrder, and swap them. For example, if the user wants to move "f" up one row:
Update MyTable
Set ListOrder=ListOrder+1
Where ListOrder=(Select ListOrder-1 From MyTable where BookMark='f')
Update MyTable
Set ListOrder=ListOrder-1
Where BookMark='f'
If the user can move a bookmark up or down many rows at once, then you need to reorder a segment. For example, if the user wants to move "f" to the top of the list, you need to:
if (increment) {
update MyTable
Set ListOrder=ListOrder-1
where ListOrder<=1 -- The New position
and ListOrder >(Select ListOrder from MyTable where BookMark='f')
} else {
update MyTable
Set ListOrder=ListOrder+1
where ListOrder>=1 -- The New position
and ListOrder <(Select ListOrder from MyTable where BookMark='f')
}
update MyTable
Set ListOrder=1 -- The New Position
Where Bookmark='f'
As others have mentioned, it's not a good idea to depend on the physical order of the database table. Relational tables are conceptually more like unordered sets than ordered lists. Assuming a certain physical order may lead to unpredictable results.
Sounds like what you need is a separate column that stores the user's preferred sort order. But you'll still need to do something in your query to display the results in that order.
It is possible to specify the physical order of records in a database by creating a clustered index, but that is not something you'd want to do on an arbitrary user-specified basis. And it may still lead to unexpected results.
Use ORDER BY in your SELECT query. For example, to order by a user's last name, use:
SELECT * FROM User ORDER BY LastName
The order of the rows on the actual database should not matter.
You should use the ORDER BY clause in your queries to order them as you need.
Databases can store the data in any way they want. Using the "order by" clause is the only way to guarantee an ordering of the data. In your bookmark example, you could have an integer field that indicates the ordering, and then update that field as a user moves things around. Then ORDER BY that column to get things in the right order.
A little late to the party, but anyone still looking for an answer to this problem, you need to use the Stern-Brocot technique.
Here's an article explaining the theory behind it
For each item you need to store a numerator and denominator. Then you can also add a computed column which is the division of both. Each time you move an item inbetween 2 others, the item's numerator becomes the sum of both neighboring numerators, and the item's denominator becomes the sum of both neighboring denominators.
These numbers won't skyrocket as fast as with the "averaging" method, where you lose all accuracy after 17 swaps.
I also created a demo where the method is implemented.
I have a solution for this that I have used a few times. I keep an extra field "sort_order" in the table, and update this when reordering. I've used this in cases when I have some sort of containers with items, and the order of the items should be editable inside the container. When reordering, I only update the sort_order for the items in the current container, which means not to many (usually in practice only a few) rows have to be updated.
In short, I do the following:
add a sort_order field to the items table
when inserting a new row, I set sort_order=id
when reordering (needs id of item to move, and id of item to insert after):
select id, sort_order from items where container = ID order by sort_order
split the id and sort_order from rows in two arrays
remove the id of the item to move from the id-list
insert the id of the item to move after the id of the item to insert after
merge the list of ids and the list of sort_order into a two dimensional array, as [[id, sort_order], [id2, sort_order], ...]
run update item set sort_order=SORT_ORDER where id=ID (executemany) with merged list
(If moving item to another container, after updating "container foreign key" move first or last depending on app.)
(If the update involves a large number of items, I do not think this solution is a good approach.)
I have made an example using python and mysql on http://wannapy.blogspot.com/2010/11/reorder-rows-in-sql-database.html (copy and try it) along with some extra explanations.
I guess a simple order by would be what you're looking for?
select my_column from my_table order by my_order_column;
As others have stated use an order by.
Never depend on the order data exists in a physical table, always base it of the data you are working with, be it one or more key fields.
First, let me agree with everyone here that the order in the table shouldn't matter. Use a separate [SortOrder] column that you update and include an Order By clause.
That said, SQL Server databases do allow for a single "clustered index" on a table that will actually force the position in the underlying table storage. Primarily useful if you have a big dataset and always query by something specific.
Add a position column to your table and store as a simple integer.
If you need to support multiple users or lists, your best bet is to create a bookmarks table, an users table and a table to link them.
bookmarks: id,url
users: id,name
users_bookmarks: user_id, bookmark_id, position, date_created
Assuming date_created is populated when inserting rows you can get secondary list ordering based on date.
select bookmark_id from users_bookmarks where user_id = 1 order by position, date_created;
At times like this, I am reminded of a quote from the Matrix: "Do not try and order the database. That's impossible. Instead, only realize the truth... there is no order. Then you will see that it the table that orders itself, it is you who orders the table."
When working with MySQL through a GUI, there is always a decision to make. If you run something like SELECT * FROM users, MySql will always make a decision to order this by some field. Normally, this will be the primary key.
+----------------
| id | name |
-----------------
| 1 | Brian |
| 2 | Carl |
| 3 | Albert |
-----------------
When you add an ORDER BY command to the query, it will make the decision to order by some other field.
For Example Select * From users ORDER BY name would yield:
+----------------
| id | name |
-----------------
| 3 | Albert |
| 1 | Brian |
| 2 | Carl |
-----------------
So to your question, you appear to want to change the default order by which your table displays this information. In order to do that, check to see what your Primary Key field
is. For most practical purposes, having a unique identifying natural number tends to do the trick. MySQL has an AUTO_INCREMENT function for this. When creating the table, it would look something like field_name int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT.
All of this is to say: if you would like to change "the row order", you would need to update this value. However, since the identifier is something that other tables would use to reference your field, this seems a little bit reckless.
If you for example went: UPDATE table Set id = 1 where id = 2;, this would initially fail, since the id fields would end up being both an identical value and fail the PrimaryKey check (which insists on both uniqueness and having a value set). You could Juggle this by running three update statements in a row:
UPDATE users Set id = 100000000 where id = 1;
UPDATE users Set id = 1 where id = 2;
UPDATE users Set id = 2 where id = 100000000;
This would result in the rows for this table looking like:
+----------------
| id | name |
-----------------
| 1 | Carl |
| 2 | Brian |
| 3 | Albert |
----------------+
Which technically would work to reorder this table, but this is in a bubble. MySQL being a relational database means that any table which was depending on that data to be consistent will now be pointed to the wrong data. For example, I have a table which stores birthdays, referencing the initial user table. It's structure might look like this:
+----------------------------+
| id | user_id | birthdate |
+----------------------------+
| 1 | 1 | 1993-01-01 |
| 1 | 2 | 1980-02-03 |
| 1 | 3 | 1955-01-01 |
+----------------------------+
By switching the ID's on the user table, you MUST update the user_id value on the birthdays table. Of course MySQL comes prepared for this: enter "Foreign Key Constraints". As long as you configured all of your foreign key constraints to Cascade Updates, you wouldn't need to manually change the reference to every value you changed.
These queries would all be a lot of manual work and potentially weaken your data's integrity. If you have fields you would like to rank and reorder regularly, the answer posed by Mike Lewis on this question with the "table order" would be a more sensible answer (and if that is the case, then his is the best solution and just disregard this answer).
In response to your post here, the answer you may be looking for is:
To order chronologically, add a DateAdded or similar column with a datetime or smalldatetime datatype.
On all methods that insert into the database, make sure you insert CURRENT_TIMESTAMP in the DateAdded column.
On methods that query the database, add ORDER BY DateAdded at the end of the query string.
NEVER rely on the physical position in the database system. It may work MOST of the time but definitely not ALL of the time.
The question lacks any detail that would let anyone give you correct answer. Clearly you could read the records into memory and then update them. But this is bad on so many different levels.
The issue is like this. Depending on the schema that is actually implemented there is logic to the way that the records are physically written to disk. Sometimes they are written in order of insert and other times they are inserted with space between blocks (see extents).
So changing the physical order is not likely without swapping column data; and this has a deep effect on the various indices. You are left having to change the logical order.
As I read your update... I'm left to understand that you may have multiple users and each user is to have bookmarks that they want ordered. Looks like you need a second table that acts as an intersection between the user and the bookmark. Then all you need is an inner join and an order by.
But there is not enough information to offer a complete solution.
Here is a stored procedure script to increment or decrement (one at a time) in MySQL.
Note, MySQL doesn't allow you to select in the same query you're updating so the above answers don't work.
I have also set it to return an error if there is no item above / below if you're incrementing / decrementing, respectively.
DELIMITER $$
CREATE PROCEDURE `spReorderSequenceItems` (
IN _SequenceItemId INT,
IN _SequenceId INT,
IN IncrementUp TINYINT,
OUT Error VARCHAR(255)
)
BEGIN
DECLARE CurrentPosition INT;
SELECT Position INTO CurrentPosition
FROM tblSequenceItems
WHERE SequenceItemId = _SequenceItemId;
IF IncrementUp = 1 THEN
IF (
SELECT Position
FROM tblSequenceItems
WHERE Position = CurrentPosition + 1 AND SequenceId = _SequenceId
) THEN
UPDATE tblSequenceItems
SET Position = Position - 1
WHERE Position = CurrentPosition + 1 AND SequenceId = _SequenceId;
UPDATE tblSequenceItems
SET Position = Position + 1
WHERE SequenceItemId = _SequenceItemId;
ELSE
SELECT 'No Item Above' AS _Error INTO Error;
END IF;
ELSE
IF (
SELECT Position
FROM tblSequenceItems
WHERE Position = CurrentPosition - 1 AND SequenceId = _SequenceId
) THEN
UPDATE tblSequenceItems
SET Position = Position + 1
WHERE Position = CurrentPosition - 1 AND SequenceId = _SequenceId;
UPDATE tblSequenceItems
SET Position = Position - 1
WHERE SequenceItemId = _SequenceItemId;
ELSE
SELECT 'No Item Below' AS _Error INTO Error;
END IF;
END IF;
END
$$
DELIMITER ;
Call it with
CALL spReorderSequenceItems(1, 1, 1, #Error);
SELECT #Error;