in sql, in any given table, in a column named "name", wih data type as text
if there are ten entries, suppose an entry in the column is "rohit". i want to show all the entries in the name column after rohit. and i do not know the row id or id. can it be done??
select * from your_table where name > 'rohit'
but in general you should not treat text columns like that.
a database is more than a collection of tables.
think about how to organize your data, what defines a datarow.
maybe, beside their name, there is another thing how you would classify such a row? some things like "shall be displayed?" "is modified" "is active"?
so if you had a second column, say display of type int and your table looked like
CREATE TABLE MYDATA
NAME TEXT,
DISPLAY INT NOT NULL DEFAULT(1);
you could flag every row with 1 or 0 whether it should be displayed or not and then your query could look like
SELECT * FROM MYDATA WHERE DISPLAY=1 ORDER BY NAME
to get your list of values.
it's not much of a difference with ten rows, you don't even need indexes here, but if you build something bigger, say 10,000+ rows, you'd be surprised how slow that would become!
in general, TEXT columns are good to select and display, but should be avoided as a WHERE condition as much as you can. Use describing columns, preferrably int fields which can be indexed with extreme high efficiency and an application doesn't get slower even if the record size goes over 100k.
You can use "default" keyword for it.
CREATE TABLE Persons (
ID int NOT NULL,
name varchar(255) DEFAULT 'rohit'
);
I would like to have an sqlite table that maps names into unique IDs. I can create this table in the following way:
CREATE TABLE name_to_id (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT, name TEXT)
With a select statement I can get the row containing a needed name and get from this row the corresponding ID.
The problem appears if I try to get ID for a name that is not yet in the table. The expected behavior in this case is that the new name will be added and its newly generated ID will be returned. I have two possible solutions/implementations of that.
The first solution is trivial:
We check if name is in the table.
If not we insert a row with the name.
We select the row with the name and read the needed ID from that row.
I do not like this solution because it can happen that the first process checks if the name in the table, it sees that the name is not there, meanwhile another process adds the name to the table and then the first process tries to add the same name.
The second solution seems to be better:
For any name we use insert if not exist.
We select from the table the row containing the name and get its ID.
Is the second solution optimal or there are better solutions?
The normal way to avoid duplicate entries in a table is to create an unique constraint. The database will then check for you if the record is already there and fail if so. That should be the best in terms of reliability and performance.
Next, the SQLite FAQ suggests to use the function last_insert_rowid() to fetch the ID instead of running a second query. This is actually the first question of the FAQ at all ;)
In pseudocode, the first solution looks like this:
cursor = db.execute("SELECT id FROM name_to_id WHERE name = ?", name)
if cursor.has_some_row:
id = cursor["id"]
else:
db.execute("INSERT INTO name_to_id(name) VALUES(?)", name)
id = db.last_insert_rowid
and the second like this:
db.execute("INSERT OR IGNORE INTO name_to_id(name) VALUES(?)", name)
cursor = db.execute("SELECT id FROM name_to_id WHERE name = ?", name)
id = cursor["id"]
The first solution requires a transaction around both commands, but this would be a good idea for the second solution, too, to avoid the overhead of multiple implicit transactions.
The second solution requires a unique constaint on name, but this would be a good idea for the first solution, too, for correctness and to speed up the name lookups.
Both solution use two SQL statements, and have similar speed.
(The second searches the row two times, but that data is cached.)
So there isn't anything obvious that makes one better that the other.
I have a huge existing Order Management Application.
Now, in the main ORDER Table, i am adding a new column: IS_HISTORICAL. If its value is: TRUE, means the Order is Historical now, and should not show up in application.
Now, i have to modify many SQL Queries in my existing application so that they select only those orders whose IS_HISTORICAL is 'FALSE' - i.e add following in WHERE clause:
AND IS_HISTORICAL='FALSE'
Question: *Is there a easier way - so that i do not have to modify so many application queries (to hide away historical orders)?
Essentially all ORDERS marked as IS_HISTORICAL='TRUE' should become invisible/un-available for read/updates!!*
Note: Right now the table sizes are not very huge, but ultimately i intend to partition the table by IS_HISTORICAL true/false.
If you're only going to use the historical data for analysis then I prefer Florin's solution as the amount of data you need to look at for each query remains smaller. It makes the analysis queries more difficult as you need to UNION ALL but everything else will run "quicker" (it may not be noticable).
If some applications/users require access to the historical data the better solution would be to rename your table and create a view on top of it with the query that you need.
The problem with re-writing all your queries is that you're going to forget one or get one incorrect, either now or in the future. A view removes that problem for you as the query is static, every time you query the view the additional conditions you require are automatically added.
Something like:
rename orders to order_history;
create or replace view orders as
select *
from order_history
where is_historical = 'FALSE';
Two further points.
I wouldn't bother with TRUE / FALSE, if the table gets large it's a lot of additional data to scan. Create your column as a VARCHAR2(1) and use T / F or Y / N, they are as immediately obvious but are smaller. Alternatively use a NUMBER(1,0) and 1 / 0.
Don't forget to put a constraint on your table so that the IS_HISTORICAL column can only have the values you've chosen.
If you're only ever going to have the two values then you may want to consider a CHECK CONSTRAINT:
alter table order_history
add constraint chk_order_history_historical
check ( is_historical in ('T','F') );
Otherwise, maybe you should do this anyway, use a FOREIGN KEY CONSTRAINT. Define an extra table, ORDER_HISTORY_TYPES
create table order_history_types (
id varchar2(1)
, description varchar2(4000)
, constraint pk_order_history_types primary key (id)
);
Fill it with your values and then add the foreign key:
alter table order_history
add constraint fk_order_history_historical
foreign key (is_historical)
references order_history_types (id)
You could look into using Virtual Private Database/row-level security. This can be used to automatically add the is_historical = 'FALSE' predicate when certain conditions are met (e.g. you're connected as the application user).
If the user only need nonhistorical records, an option is to create an ORDER_HIST table and move there the historical records. (delete and insert)
If some users/applications need both type of records then the partition aproach is the best.
I have a table, and there is no column which stores a field of when the record/row was added. How can I get the latest entry into this table? There would be two cases in this:
Loop through entire table and get the largest ID, if a numeric ID is being used as the identifier. But this would be very inefficient for a large table.
If a random string is being used as the identifier (which is probably very, very bad practise), then this would require more thinking (I personally have no idea other than my first point above).
If I have one field in each row of my table which is numeric, and I want to add it up to get a total (so row 1 has a field which is 3, row 2 has a field which is 7, I want to add all these up and return the total), how would this be done?
Thanks
1) If the id is incremental, "select max(id) as latest from mytable". If a random string was used, there should still be an incremental numeric primary key in addition. Add it. There is no reason not to have one, and databases are optimized to use such a primary key for relations.
2) "select sum(mynumfield) as total from mytable"
for the last thing use a SUM()
SELECT SUM(OrderPrice) AS OrderTotal FROM Orders
assuming they are all in the same column.
Your first question is a bit unclear, but if you want to know when a row was inserted (or updated), then the only way is to record the time when the insert/update occurs. Typically, you use a DEFAULT constraint for inserts and a trigger for updates.
If you want to know the maximum value (which may not necessarily be the last inserted row) then use MAX, as others have said:
SELECT MAX(SomeColumn) FROM dbo.SomeTable
If the column is indexed, MSSQL does not need to read the whole table to answer this query.
For the second question, just do this:
SELECT SUM(SomeColumn) FROM dbo.SomeTable
You might want to look into some SQL books and tutorials to pick up the basic syntax.
What's the best way to store a linked list in a MySQL database so that inserts are simple (i.e. you don't have to re-index a bunch of stuff every time) and such that the list can easily be pulled out in order?
Using Adrian's solution, but instead of incrementing by 1, increment by 10 or even 100. Then insertions can be calculated at half of the difference of what you're inserting between without having to update everything below the insertion. Pick a number large enough to handle your average number of insertions - if its too small then you'll have to fall back to updating all rows with a higher position during an insertion.
create a table with two self referencing columns PreviousID and NextID. If the item is the first thing in the list PreviousID will be null, if it is the last, NextID will be null. The SQL will look something like this:
create table tblDummy
{
PKColumn int not null,
PreviousID int null,
DataColumn1 varchar(50) not null,
DataColumn2 varchar(50) not null,
DataColumn3 varchar(50) not null,
DataColumn4 varchar(50) not null,
DataColumn5 varchar(50) not null,
DataColumn6 varchar(50) not null,
DataColumn7 varchar(50) not null,
NextID int null
}
Store an integer column in your table called 'position'. Record a 0 for the first item in your list, a 1 for the second item, etc. Index that column in your database, and when you want to pull your values out, sort by that column.
alter table linked_list add column position integer not null default 0;
alter table linked_list add index position_index (position);
select * from linked_list order by position;
To insert a value at index 3, modify the positions of rows 3 and above, and then insert:
update linked_list set position = position + 1 where position >= 3;
insert into linked_list (my_value, position) values ("new value", 3);
A linked list can be stored using recursive pointers in the table. This is very much the same hierarchies are stored in Sql and this is using the recursive association pattern.
You can learn more about it here (Wayback Machine link).
I hope this helps.
The simplest option would be creating a table with a row per list item, a column for the item position, and columns for other data in the item. Then you can use ORDER BY on the position column to retrieve in the desired order.
create table linked_list
( list_id integer not null
, position integer not null
, data varchar(100) not null
);
alter table linked_list add primary key ( list_id, position );
To manipulate the list just update the position and then insert/delete records as needed. So to insert an item into list 1 at index 3:
begin transaction;
update linked_list set position = position + 1 where position >= 3 and list_id = 1;
insert into linked_list (list_id, position, data)
values (1, 3, "some data");
commit;
Since operations on the list can require multiple commands (eg an insert will require an INSERT and an UPDATE), ensure you always perform the commands within a transaction.
A variation of this simple option is to have position incrementing by some factor for each item, say 100, so that when you perform an INSERT you don't always need to renumber the position of the following elements. However, this requires a little more effort to work out when to increment the following elements, so you lose simplicity but gain performance if you will have many inserts.
Depending on your requirements other options might appeal, such as:
If you want to perform lots of manipulations on the list and not many retrievals you may prefer to have an ID column pointing to the next item in the list, instead of using a position column. Then you need to iterative logic in the retrieval of the list in order to get the items in order. This can be relatively easily implemented in a stored proc.
If you have many lists, a quick way to serialise and deserialise your list to text/binary, and you only ever want to store and retrieve the entire list, then store the entire list as a single value in a single column. Probably not what you're asking for here though.
This is something I've been trying to figure out for a while myself. The best way I've found so far is to create a single table for the linked list using the following format (this is pseudo code):
LinkedList(
key1,
information,
key2
)
key1 is the starting point. Key2 is a foreign key linking to itself in the next column. So your columns will link something link something like this
col1
key1 = 0,
information= 'hello'
key2 = 1
Key1 is primary key of col1. key2 is a foreign key leading to the key1 of col2
col2
key1 = 1,
information= 'wassup'
key2 = null
key2 from col2 is set to null because it doesn't point to anything
When you first enter a column in for the table, you'll need to make sure key2 is set to null or you'll get an error. After you enter the second column, you can go back and set key2 of the first column to the primary key of the second column.
This makes the best method to enter many entries at a time, then go back and set the foreign keys accordingly (or build a GUI that just does that for you)
Here's some actual code I've prepared (all actual code worked on MSSQL. You may want to do some research for the version of SQL you are using!):
createtable.sql
create table linkedlist00 (
key1 int primary key not null identity(1,1),
info varchar(10),
key2 int
)
register_foreign_key.sql
alter table dbo.linkedlist00
add foreign key (key2) references dbo.linkedlist00(key1)
*I put them into two seperate files, because it has to be done in two steps. MSSQL won't let you do it in one step, because the table doesn't exist yet for the foreign key to reference.
Linked List is especially powerful in one-to-many relationships. So if you've ever wanted to make an array of foreign keys? Well this is one way to do it! You can make a primary table that points to the first column in the linked-list table, and then instead of the "information" field, you can use a foreign key to the desired information table.
Example:
Let's say you have a Bureaucracy that keeps forms.
Let's say they have a table called file cabinet
FileCabinet(
Cabinet ID (pk)
Files ID (fk)
)
each column contains a primary key for the cabinet and a foreign key for the files. These files could be tax forms, health insurance papers, field trip permissions slips etc
Files(
Files ID (pk)
File ID (fk)
Next File ID (fk)
)
this serves as a container for the Files
File(
File ID (pk)
Information on the file
)
this is the specific file
There may be better ways to do this and there are, depending on your specific needs. The example just illustrates possible usage.
There are a few approaches I can think of right off, each with differing levels of complexity and flexibility. I'm assuming your goal is to preserve an order in retrieval, rather than requiring storage as an actual linked list.
The simplest method would be to assign an ordinal value to each record in the table (e.g. 1, 2, 3, ...). Then, when you retrieve the records, specify an order-by on the ordinal column to get them back in order.
This approach also allows you to retrieve the records without regard to membership in a list, but allows for membership in only one list, and may require an additional "list id" column to indicate to which list the record belongs.
An slightly more elaborate, but also more flexible approach would be to store information about membership in a list or lists in a separate table. The table would need 3 columns: The list id, the ordinal value, and a foreign key pointer to the data record. Under this approach, the underlying data knows nothing about its membership in lists, and can easily be included in multiple lists.
This post is old but still going to give my .02$. Updating every record in a table or record set sounds crazy to solve ordering. the amount of indexing also crazy, but it sounds like most have accepted it.
Crazy solution i came up with to reduce updates and indexing is to create two tables (and in most use cases you don's sort all records in just one table anyway). Table A to hold the records of the list being sorted and table B to group and hold a record of the order as a string. the order string represents an array that can be used to order the selected records either on the web server or browser layer of a webpage application.
Create Table A{
Id int primary key identity(1,1),
Data varchar(10) not null
B_Id int
}
Create Table B{
Id int primary key Identity(1,1),
GroupName varchat(10) not null,
Order varchar(max) null
}
The format of the order sting should be id, position and some separator to split() your string by. in the case of jQuery UI the .sortable('serialize') function outputs an order string for you that is POST friendly that includes the id and position of each record in the list.
The real magic is the way you choose to reorder the selected list using the saved ordering string. this will depend on the application you are building. here is an example again from jQuery to reorder the list of items: http://ovisdevelopment.com/oramincite/?p=155
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/46238/linked-list-in-sql-and-trees suggests a trick of using floating-point position column for fast inserts and ordering.
It also mentions specialized SQL Server 2014 hierarchyid feature.
I think its much simpler adding a created column of Datetime type and a position column of int, so now you can have duplicate positions, at the select statement use the order by position, created desc option and your list will be fetched in order.
Increment the SERIAL 'index' by 100, but manually add intermediate values with an 'index' equal to Prev+Next / 2. If you ever saturate the 100 rows, reorder the index back to 100s.
This should maintain sequence with primary index.
A list can be stored by having a column contain the offset (list index position) -- an insert in the middle is then incrementing all above the new parent and then doing an insert.
You could implement it like a double ended queue (deque) to support fast push/pop/delete(if oridnal is known) and retrieval you would have two data structures. One with the actual data and another with the number of elements added over the history of the key. Tradeoff: This method would be slower for any insert into the middle of the linked list O(n).
create table queue (
primary_key,
queue_key
ordinal,
data
)
You would have an index on queue_key+ordinal
You would also have another table which stores the number of rows EVER added to the queue...
create table queue_addcount (
primary_key,
add_count
)
When pushing a new item to either end of the queue (left or right) you would always increment the add_count.
If you push to the back you could set the ordinal...
ordinal = add_count + 1
If you push to the front you could set the ordinal...
ordinal = -(add_count + 1)
update
add_count = add_count + 1
This way you can delete anywhere in the queue/list and it would still return in order and you could also continue to push new items maintaining the order.
You could optionally rewrite the ordinal to avoid overflow if a lot of deletes have occurred.
You could also have an index on the ordinal to support fast ordered retrieval of the list.
If you want to support inserts into the middle you would need to find the ordinal which it needs to be insert at then insert with that ordinal. Then increment every ordinal by one following that insertion point. Also, increment the add_count as usual. If the ordinal is negative you could decrement all of the earlier ordinals to do fewer updates. This would be O(n)