Inserting data from one table(triplestore) to another(property table) - sql

I have a to transfer RDF data from a triplestore to property tables. Example of a triple store and a property table is given below.
triplestore
Subject Property Object
Sub1 prop1 hello
Sub2 prop1 hello1
Sub3 prop1 hello2
Sub1 prop2 world
Sub2 prop2 world1
Sub3 prop2 world2
Sub4 prop3 random
Property Table 1
Subject prop1 prop2
Sub1 hello world
Sub2 hello1 world1
Sub3 hello2 world2
Property Table 2
Subject prop3
Sub4 random
This is a very simplified version of the dataset I am using. There are around a million records in the triplestore table. More than one property tables have to be created depending upon the various groupings of the various properties and objects. I have identified and created the various property tables? The properties that make a property table are chosen in such a way that a subject is fully contained by a single property table?
The problem that I am facing is the insertion of data from the triplestore to the property tables. Is there a way that data for a particular subject can be inserted into a row of property table in a single insert statement.If it cant be done in a single query what is the most efficient way to do so.
I am using python to create a dump of SQL queries which I latter run on a postgres server.

This is easy if you have a known, fixed set of properties. If you do not have a known set of fixed properties you have to generate dynamic SQL, either from your app, from PL/PgSQL or using the crosstab function from the tablefunc extension.
For fixed property sets you can self-join:
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!12/391b7/6
SELECT p1."Subject", p1."Object" AS "prop1", p2."Object" AS "prop2"
FROM triplestore p1
INNER JOIN triplestore p2 ON (p1."Subject" = p2."Subject")
WHERE p1."Property" = 'prop1'
AND p2."Property" = 'prop2'
ORDER BY p1."Subject";
SELECT p1."Subject", p1."Object" AS "prop1"
FROM triplestore p1
WHERE p1."Property" = 'prop3'
ORDER BY p1."Subject";
To turn these into INSERTs simply use INSERT ... SELECT eg:
INSERT INTO "Property Table 1"
SELECT p1."Subject", p1."Object" AS "prop1"
FROM triplestore p1
WHERE p1."Property" = 'prop3'
ORDER BY p1."Subject";

Generally speaking what you try to do smells a bit of EAV (Entity Attribute Value) Pattern - which is widely considered an antipattern. In addition i think i don't really understand what you are trying to achieve therefor sorry if my answer doesn't suit your needs
If your problem is storing data of previously unknown format under a certain key - in your example this seem to be subject - i would suggest using the postgres contrib hstore extension. Using this would allow you to create a table like
create table foo (
id serial not null primary key,
subject character varying not null,
properties hstore
);
in which the properties field is essentially what Ruby for instance calls a "Hash". You can insert key/value pairs into this store (from your above example for instance 'prop1=>hello' and select it with equivalent syntax.
Inserting is fairly straight forward:
insert into foo (subject, properties) values ('Sub1', 'prop1=>Hello'::hstore);
Advantage over using other methods is that hstore supports btree, gin and gist indexes (all of which under certain preconditions). In your case - doing mostly direct matches searching for a certain value in a property even btree works since it support the equality operator for hstore.

Related

How can I create a calculate column in the creation of table in POSTGRESQL, for example in sql server LineTotal AS Price * Quantity [duplicate]

Does PostgreSQL support computed / calculated columns, like MS SQL Server? I can't find anything in the docs, but as this feature is included in many other DBMSs I thought I might be missing something.
Eg: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191250.aspx
Postgres 12 or newer
STORED generated columns are introduced with Postgres 12 - as defined in the SQL standard and implemented by some RDBMS including DB2, MySQL, and Oracle. Or the similar "computed columns" of SQL Server.
Trivial example:
CREATE TABLE tbl (
int1 int
, int2 int
, product bigint GENERATED ALWAYS AS (int1 * int2) STORED
);
fiddle
VIRTUAL generated columns may come with one of the next iterations. (Not in Postgres 15, yet).
Related:
Attribute notation for function call gives error
Postgres 11 or older
Up to Postgres 11 "generated columns" are not supported.
You can emulate VIRTUAL generated columns with a function using attribute notation (tbl.col) that looks and works much like a virtual generated column. That's a bit of a syntax oddity which exists in Postgres for historic reasons and happens to fit the case. This related answer has code examples:
Store common query as column?
The expression (looking like a column) is not included in a SELECT * FROM tbl, though. You always have to list it explicitly.
Can also be supported with a matching expression index - provided the function is IMMUTABLE. Like:
CREATE FUNCTION col(tbl) ... AS ... -- your computed expression here
CREATE INDEX ON tbl(col(tbl));
Alternatives
Alternatively, you can implement similar functionality with a VIEW, optionally coupled with expression indexes. Then SELECT * can include the generated column.
"Persisted" (STORED) computed columns can be implemented with triggers in a functionally equivalent way.
Materialized views are a related concept, implemented since Postgres 9.3.
In earlier versions one can manage MVs manually.
YES you can!! The solution should be easy, safe, and performant...
I'm new to postgresql, but it seems you can create computed columns by using an expression index, paired with a view (the view is optional, but makes makes life a bit easier).
Suppose my computation is md5(some_string_field), then I create the index as:
CREATE INDEX some_string_field_md5_index ON some_table(MD5(some_string_field));
Now, any queries that act on MD5(some_string_field) will use the index rather than computing it from scratch. For example:
SELECT MAX(some_field) FROM some_table GROUP BY MD5(some_string_field);
You can check this with explain.
However at this point you are relying on users of the table knowing exactly how to construct the column. To make life easier, you can create a VIEW onto an augmented version of the original table, adding in the computed value as a new column:
CREATE VIEW some_table_augmented AS
SELECT *, MD5(some_string_field) as some_string_field_md5 from some_table;
Now any queries using some_table_augmented will be able to use some_string_field_md5 without worrying about how it works..they just get good performance. The view doesn't copy any data from the original table, so it is good memory-wise as well as performance-wise. Note however that you can't update/insert into a view, only into the source table, but if you really want, I believe you can redirect inserts and updates to the source table using rules (I could be wrong on that last point as I've never tried it myself).
Edit: it seems if the query involves competing indices, the planner engine may sometimes not use the expression-index at all. The choice seems to be data dependant.
One way to do this is with a trigger!
CREATE TABLE computed(
one SERIAL,
two INT NOT NULL
);
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION computed_two_trg()
RETURNS trigger
LANGUAGE plpgsql
SECURITY DEFINER
AS $BODY$
BEGIN
NEW.two = NEW.one * 2;
RETURN NEW;
END
$BODY$;
CREATE TRIGGER computed_500
BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE
ON computed
FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE PROCEDURE computed_two_trg();
The trigger is fired before the row is updated or inserted. It changes the field that we want to compute of NEW record and then it returns that record.
PostgreSQL 12 supports generated columns:
PostgreSQL 12 Beta 1 Released!
Generated Columns
PostgreSQL 12 allows the creation of generated columns that compute their values with an expression using the contents of other columns. This feature provides stored generated columns, which are computed on inserts and updates and are saved on disk. Virtual generated columns, which are computed only when a column is read as part of a query, are not implemented yet.
Generated Columns
A generated column is a special column that is always computed from other columns. Thus, it is for columns what a view is for tables.
CREATE TABLE people (
...,
height_cm numeric,
height_in numeric GENERATED ALWAYS AS (height_cm * 2.54) STORED
);
db<>fiddle demo
Well, not sure if this is what You mean but Posgres normally support "dummy" ETL syntax.
I created one empty column in table and then needed to fill it by calculated records depending on values in row.
UPDATE table01
SET column03 = column01*column02; /*e.g. for multiplication of 2 values*/
It is so dummy I suspect it is not what You are looking for.
Obviously it is not dynamic, you run it once. But no obstacle to get it into trigger.
Example on creating an empty virtual column
,(SELECT *
From (values (''))
A("virtual_col"))
Example on creating two virtual columns with values
SELECT *
From (values (45,'Completed')
, (1,'In Progress')
, (1,'Waiting')
, (1,'Loading')
) A("Count","Status")
order by "Count" desc
I have a code that works and use the term calculated, I'm not on postgresSQL pure tho we run on PADB
here is how it's used
create table some_table as
select category,
txn_type,
indiv_id,
accum_trip_flag,
max(first_true_origin) as true_origin,
max(first_true_dest ) as true_destination,
max(id) as id,
count(id) as tkts_cnt,
(case when calculated tkts_cnt=1 then 1 else 0 end) as one_way
from some_rando_table
group by 1,2,3,4 ;
A lightweight solution with Check constraint:
CREATE TABLE example (
discriminator INTEGER DEFAULT 0 NOT NULL CHECK (discriminator = 0)
);

Postgres ATOMIC stored procedure INSERT INTO . . . SELECT with one parameter and one set of rows from a table

I am trying to write a stored procedure to let a dev assign new user identities to a specified group when they don't already have one (i.e. insert a parameter and the output of a select statement into a joining table) without hand-writing every pair of foreign keys as values to do so. I know how I'd do it in T-SQL/SQL Server but I'm working with a preexisting/unfamiliar Postgres database. I would strongly prefer to keep my stored procedures as LANGUAGE SQL/BEGIN ATOMIC and this + online examples being simplified and/or using constants has made it difficult for me to get my bearings.
Apologies in advance for length, this is me trying to articulate why I do not believe this question is a duplicate based on what I've been able to find searching on my own but I may have overcorrected.
Schema (abstracted from the most identifying parts; these are not the original table names and I am not in a position to change what anything is called; I am also leaving out indexing for simplicity's sake) is like:
create table IF NOT EXISTS user_identities (
id BIGINT GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
[more columns not relevant to this query)
)
create table IF NOT EXISTS user_groups (
id BIGINT GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
name TEXT NOT NULL
)
create table IF NOT EXISTS group_identities (
user_id BIGINT REFERENCES user_identities(id) ON DELETE RESTRICT NOT NULL,
group_id BIGINT REFERENCES user_groups(id) ON DELETE RESTRICT NOT NULL
)
Expected dev behavior:
Add all predetermined identities intended to belong to a group in a single batch
Add identifying information for the new group (it is going to take a lot of convincing to bring the people involved around to using nested stored procedures for this if I ever can)
Bring the joining table up to date accordingly (what I've been asked to streamline).
If this were SQL Server I would do (error handling omitted for time and putting aside whether EXCEPT or NOT IN would be best for now, please)
create OR alter proc add_identities_to_group
#group_name varchar(50) NULL
as BEGIN
declare #use_group_id int
if #group_name is NULL
set #use_group_id = (select Top 1 id from user_groups where id not in (select group_id from group_identities) order by id asc)
ELSE set #use_group_id = (select id from user_groups where name = #group_name)
insert into group_identities (user_id, group_id)
select #use_group_id, id from user_identities
where id not in (select user_id from group_identities)
END
GO
Obviously this is not going to fly in Postgres; part of why I want to stick with atomic stored procedures is staying in "neutral" SQL, both to be closer to my comfort zone and because I don't know what other languages the database is currently set up for, but my existing education has played kind of fast and loose with differentiating what was T-SQL specific at any point.
I am aware that this is not going to run for a wide variety of reasons because I'm still trying to internalize the syntax, but the bad/conceptual draft I have written so that I have anything to stare at is:
create OR replace procedure add_identities_to_groups(
group_name text default NULL ) language SQL
BEGIN ATOMIC
declare use_group_id integer
if group_name is NULL
set use_group_id = (select Top 1 id from user_groups
where id not in (select user_id from group_identities)
order by id asc)
ELSE set use_group_id = (select id from user_groups where name = group_name) ;
insert into group_identities (group_id, user_id)
select use_group_id, id from user_identities
where id not in (select user_id from group_identities)
END ;
GO ;
Issues:
Have not found either answers for how to do this with the combination of a single variable and a column with BEGIN ATOMIC or hard confirmation that it wouldn't work (e.g. can atomic stored procedures just not accept parameters? I cannot find an answer to this on my own). (This is part of why existing answers that I can find here and elsewhere haven't been clarifying for me.)
~~Don't know how to compensate for Postgres's not differentiating variables and parameters from column names at all. (This is why examples using a hardcoded constant haven't helped, and they make up virtually all of what I can find off StackOverflow itself.)~~ Not a problem if Postgres will handle that intelligently within the atomic block but that's one of the things I hadn't been able to confirm on my own.
Google results for "vanilla" SQL unpredictably saturated with SQL Server anyway, while my lack of familiarity with Postgres is not doing me any favors but I don't know anyone personally who has more experience than I do.
because I don't know what other languages the database is currently set up for
All supported Postgres versions always include PL/pgSQL.
If you want to use procedural elements like variables or conditional statements like IF you need PL/pgSQL. So your procedure has to be defined with language plpgsql - that removes the possibility to use the ANSI standard BEGIN ATOMIC syntax.
Don't know how to compensate for Postgres's not differentiating variables and parameters from column names at all.
You don't. Most people simply using naming conventions to do that. In my environment we use p_ for parameters and l_ for "local" variables. Use whatever you prefer.
Quote from the manual
By default, PL/pgSQL will report an error if a name in an SQL statement could refer to either a variable or a table column. You can fix such a problem by renaming the variable or column, or by qualifying the ambiguous reference, or by telling PL/pgSQL which interpretation to prefer.
The simplest solution is to rename the variable or column. A common coding rule is to use a different naming convention for PL/pgSQL variables than you use for column names. For example, if you consistently name function variables v_something while none of your column names start with v_, no conflicts will occur.
As documented in the manual the body for a procedure written in PL/pgSQL (or any other language that is not SQL) must be provided as a string. This is typically done using dollar quoting to make writing the source easier.
As documented in the manual, if you want to store the result of a single row query in a variable, use select ... into from ....
As documented in the manual an IF statement needs a THEN
As documented in the manual there is no TOP clause in Postgres (or standard SQL). Use limit or the standard compliant fetch first 1 rows only instead.
To avoid a clash between names of variables and column names, most people use some kind of prefix for parameters and variables. This also helps to identify them in the code.
In Postgres it's usually faster to use NOT EXISTS instead of NOT IN.
In Postgres statements are terminated with ;. GO isn't a SQL command in SQL Server either - it's a client side thing supported by SSMS. To my knowledge, there is no SQL tool that works with Postgres that supports the GO "batch terminator" the same way SSMS does.
So a direct translation of your T-SQL code to PL/pgSQL could look like this:
create or replace procedure add_identities_to_groups(p_group_name text default NULL)
language plpgsql
as
$$ --<< start of PL/pgSQL code
declare --<< start a block for all variables
l_use_group_id integer;
begin --<< start the actual code
if p_group_name is NULL THEN --<< then required
select id
into l_use_group_id
from user_groups ug
where not exists (select * from group_identities gi where gi.id = ug.user_id)
order by ug.id asc
limit 1;
ELSE
select id
into l_use_group_id
from user_groups
where name = p_group_name;
end if;
insert into group_identities (group_id, user_id)
select l_use_group_id, id
from user_identities ui
where not exists (select * from group_identities gi where gi.user_id = ui.id);
END;
$$
;

SqlQuery and SqlFieldsQuery

it looks that SqlQuery only supports sql that starts with select *? Doesn't it support other sql that only select some columns like
select id, name from person and maps the columns to the corresponding POJO?
If I use SqlFieldQuery to run sql, the result is a QueryCursor of List(each List contains one record of the result). But if the sql starts with select *, the this list's contents would be different with field query like:
select id,name,age from person
For the select *, each List is constructed with 3 parts:
the first elment is the key of the cache
the second element is the pojo object that contains the data
the tailing element are the values for each column.
Why was it so designed? If I don't know what the sql that SqlFieldsQuery runs , then I need additional effort to figure out what the List contains.
SqlQuery returns key and value objects, while SqlFieldsQuery allows to select specific fields. Which one to use depends on your use case.
Currently select * indeed includes predefined _key and _val fields, and this will be improved in the future. However, generally it's a good practice to list fields you want to fetch when running SQL queries (this is true for any SQL database, not only Ignite). This way your code will be protected from unexpected behavior in case schema is changed, for example.

Using string values inside "IN" in Informix

In database table in Informix I have columns like this:
Table name is MYTABLE
key 1234
value 'POCO','LOCD',MACD'
Now I want to use this in a query like this
select * from table where symbol in (select value from MYTABLE where key='1234');
But this query is not working as value is stored as char and
output of select value from MYTABLE where key='1234' would be something like
"'POCO','LOCD',MACD'"
Is there a way to make this work. I want to achieve this in a single query.
Please suggest a better approach.
You cannot interpolate values like that. The database optimiser cannot be expected to know that value is going to return a string that looks like a list, which is to be interpreted in a list context.
Since you ask for a better approach…
That design breaks numerous fundamental rules about how databases should be structured. At a minimum, the 'value' column should be a COLLECTION data type, so that its role as a list of values is properly articulated. Personally I would create a standard, relational bridging table:
MYTABLE
key col1 col2
1234 .. ..
MYVALUE
key value
1234 POCO
1234 LOCD
1234 MACD
This is not the easy way out suggested by others, but it is the right answer.

PostgreSQL - best way to return an array of key-value pairs

I'm trying to select a number of fields, one of which needs to be an array with each element of the array containing two values. Each array item needs to contain a name (character varying) and an ID (numeric). I know how to return an array of single values (using the ARRAY keyword) but I'm unsure of how to return an array of an object which in itself contains two values.
The query is something like
SELECT
t.field1,
t.field2,
ARRAY(--with each element containing two values i.e. {'TheName', 1 })
FROM MyTable t
I read that one way to do this is by selecting the values into a type and then creating an array of that type. Problem is, the rest of the function is already returning a type (which means I would then have nested types - is that OK? If so, how would you read this data back in application code - i.e. with a .Net data provider like NPGSQL?)
Any help is much appreciated.
ARRAYs can only hold elements of the same type
Your example displays a text and an integer value (no single quotes around 1). It is generally impossible to mix types in an array. To get those values into an array you have to create a composite type and then form an ARRAY of that composite type like you already mentioned yourself.
Alternatively you can use the data types json in Postgres 9.2+, jsonb in Postgres 9.4+ or hstore for key-value pairs.
Of course, you can cast the integer to text, and work with a two-dimensional text array. Consider the two syntax variants for a array input in the demo below and consult the manual on array input.
There is a limitation to overcome. If you try to aggregate an ARRAY (build from key and value) into a two-dimensional array, the aggregate function array_agg() or the ARRAY constructor error out:
ERROR: could not find array type for data type text[]
There are ways around it, though.
Aggregate key-value pairs into a 2-dimensional array
PostgreSQL 9.1 with standard_conforming_strings= on:
CREATE TEMP TABLE tbl(
id int
,txt text
,txtarr text[]
);
The column txtarr is just there to demonstrate syntax variants in the INSERT command. The third row is spiked with meta-characters:
INSERT INTO tbl VALUES
(1, 'foo', '{{1,foo1},{2,bar1},{3,baz1}}')
,(2, 'bar', ARRAY[['1','foo2'],['2','bar2'],['3','baz2']])
,(3, '}b",a{r''', '{{1,foo3},{2,bar3},{3,baz3}}'); -- txt has meta-characters
SELECT * FROM tbl;
Simple case: aggregate two integer (I use the same twice) into a two-dimensional int array:
Update: Better with custom aggregate function
With the polymorphic type anyarray it works for all base types:
CREATE AGGREGATE array_agg_mult (anyarray) (
SFUNC = array_cat
,STYPE = anyarray
,INITCOND = '{}'
);
Call:
SELECT array_agg_mult(ARRAY[ARRAY[id,id]]) AS x -- for int
,array_agg_mult(ARRAY[ARRAY[id::text,txt]]) AS y -- or text
FROM tbl;
Note the additional ARRAY[] layer to make it a multidimensional array.
Update for Postgres 9.5+
Postgres now ships a variant of array_agg() accepting array input and you can replace my custom function from above with this:
The manual:
array_agg(expression)
...
input arrays concatenated into array of one
higher dimension (inputs must all have same dimensionality, and cannot
be empty or NULL)
I suspect that without having more knowledge of your application I'm not going to be able to get you all the way to the result you need. But we can get pretty far. For starters, there is the ROW function:
# SELECT 'foo', ROW(3, 'Bob');
?column? | row
----------+---------
foo | (3,Bob)
(1 row)
So that right there lets you bundle a whole row into a cell. You could also make things more explicit by making a type for it:
# CREATE TYPE person(id INTEGER, name VARCHAR);
CREATE TYPE
# SELECT now(), row(3, 'Bob')::person;
now | row
-------------------------------+---------
2012-02-03 10:46:13.279512-07 | (3,Bob)
(1 row)
Incidentally, whenever you make a table, PostgreSQL makes a type of the same name, so if you already have a table like this you also have a type. For example:
# DROP TYPE person;
DROP TYPE
# CREATE TABLE people (id SERIAL, name VARCHAR);
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "people_id_seq" for serial column "people.id"
CREATE TABLE
# SELECT 'foo', row(3, 'Bob')::people;
?column? | row
----------+---------
foo | (3,Bob)
(1 row)
See in the third query there I used people just like a type.
Now this is not likely to be as much help as you'd think for two reasons:
I can't find any convenient syntax for pulling data out of the nested row.
I may be missing something, but I just don't see many people using this syntax. The only example I see in the documentation is a function taking a row value as an argument and doing something with it. I don't see an example of pulling the row out of the cell and querying against parts of it. It seems like you can package the data up this way, but it's hard to deconstruct after that. You'll wind up having to make a lot of stored procedures.
Your language's PostgreSQL driver may not be able to handle row-valued data nested in a row.
I can't speak for NPGSQL, but since this is a very PostgreSQL-specific feature you're not going to find support for it in libraries that support other databases. For example, Hibernate isn't going to be able to handle fetching an object stored as a cell value in a row. I'm not even sure the JDBC would be able to give Hibernate the information usefully, so the problem could go quite deep.
So, what you're doing here is feasible provided you can live without a lot of the niceties. I would recommend against pursuing it though, because it's going to be an uphill battle the whole way, unless I'm really misinformed.
A simple way without hstore
SELECT
jsonb_agg(to_jsonb (t))
FROM (
SELECT
unnest(ARRAY ['foo', 'bar', 'baz']) AS table_name
) t
>>> [{"table_name": "foo"}, {"table_name": "bar"}, {"table_name": "baz"}]