Is there a way to tell nHibernate to remove the duplicate value on a row's column that is uniquely constrained when updating a row with a duplicate value.
For example (OtherId and Animal is compositely unique constrained)
Id | OtherId | Animal
------------
1 | 1 | Dog
2 | 1 | Cat
3 | 1 | Bear
4 | 2 | Dog
Updating Id 3 to Dog, should result in this
Id | OtherId | Animal
1 | 1 | NULL
2 | 1 | Cat
3 | 1 | Dog
4 | 2 | Dog
EDIT:
I was able to solve my problem by creating an unique index in my table
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX [Id_OtherId_Animal_Index]
ON [dbo].[Animals] (OtherId, Animal)
WHERE Animal IS NOT NULL;
This way, I prevent insertion of duplicate (1, Dog) and still allow (2, Dog). This will also allow multiple (1, NULL) to be inserted.
Next, based on Frédéric's suggestion below, I edited my service layer to check BEFORE insertion if it will be a duplicate. If it will, then NULL the animal column of which would be uniquely constrained.
This answer has been outdated by substantial changes in OP question
I am quite sure there is no such feature in NHibernate, or any other ORM.
By the way, what should yield updating Id 3 to Cat after having updated it to Dog?
Id | Animal
1 |
2 |
3 | Cat
If that means that Id 1&2 now have the empty string value, that will be an unique constraint violation too.
If they have the null value, it depends then on the db engine being ANSI null compliant or not (null not considered equal to null). This is not the case of SQL Server, any version I know of, at least for the case of unique indexes. (I have not tested the unique constraint case.)
Anyway, this kind of logic, updating a row resulting in an additional update on some other rows, has to be handled explicitly.
You have many options for that:
Before each assignment to the Animal property, query the db for finding if another one has that name and take appropriate action on that another one. Take care of flushing right after having handling this other one, for ensuring it get handled prior to the actual update of the first one.
Or inject an event or an interceptor in NHibernate for catching any update on any entities, and add there your check for duplicates. Stack Overflow has examples of NHibernate events or interceptors, like this one.
But your case will probably bit a bit tough, since flushing some other changes while already flushing a session will probably cause troubles. You may have to directly tinker with the sql statement with IInterceptor.OnPrepareStatement by example, for injecting your other update first in it.
Or handle that with some trigger in DB.
Or detect a failed flush due to an unique constraint, analyze it and take appropriate action.
The third option is very likely easier and more robust than the others.
I create the following table
CREATE TABLE dogs (
id serial,
name VARCHAR(15),
age integer;
I have the table looking like this
Table "public.birds"
Column | Type | Modifiers
---------+-----------------------+-------------------------------------
id | integer | not null default nextval('birds_id_seq'::regclass)
name | character varying(25) |
age | integer |
I insert two rows
INSERT INTO dogs (name, age)
VALUES ('puffy', 13),
('fluffy', 15);
The table now looks like this
id | name | age
----+--------+-----
1 | puffy | 13
2 | fluffy | 15
(2 rows)
Then I delete the row with id = 2
DELETE FROM dogs WHERE id = 2;
And add another row instead
INSERT INTO dogs (name, age) VALUES('mimi', 20);
The table is
id | name | age
----+-------+-----
1 | puffy | 13
3 | mimi | 20
(2 rows)
My question is why the next number for id in the second row is not 2 but 3? I guess that somewhere underneath something stores the last value in a memory and it doesn't matter that the row with that id was deleted. I know I can insert value for id explicitly if I need to. But I would like to be clear why it happens in this case.
And what functionality or feature is responsible for that? How does it work?
PostgreSQL makes no effort to keep track of deleted sequence IDs. It just uses a counter to get the next ID to generate.
Gaps will also appear if you generate values then ROLLBACK a transaction, the client connection crashes before committing, or the server crashes.
The only property you can rely on from generated IDs is uniqueness. You cannot even rely on them appearing in the table in the same order they're generated, since commit order isn't necessarily the same as ID allocation order.
If you need gapless sequences there are ways to implement them, but they have terrible performance in concurrent write loads. That's why PostgreSQL does things the way it does.
For more info, Google "gapless sequence postgresql" and read the documentation chapter on sequences and the "nextval" function.
I'm designing a db in PostgreSQL that primarily stores info about different people. I'd like to associate a log with each person, consisting of the date and a text entry. Logs can have arbitrary numbers of entries. Here's the ideas I've toyed with:
What I think I want is a log_table like this:
person_id | row_num | row_date | row_text
-----------------------------------------
1 | 1 | 01/01/12 | Blah...
2 | 1 | 01/02/12 | Foo...
1 | 2 | 01/04/12 | Bar...
But I don't know how to get row_num to increment properly; it should default to one more than the largest current row_num for that person_id. In other words, the row_nums for a given person_id should be sequential.
Or I can just have row_num increment regardless of person_id so that every log entry has a distinct row number. But it doesn't seem very satisfying to have person_id 1's log jump from row 1 to row 3, and this could also make errors hard to spot.
My last idea is to include the log directly in the person table, by making a composite type log_entry = (date, text). Then a column log in the person table can store an array:
person_id | name | log
----------------------
1 | Bob | {(01/01/12, Blah...), (01/04/12, Bar...)}
But this seems cumbersome.
So my questions are, a) which solution if any is good design; b) any way to solve the auto-incrementing problem for solution 1? If it matters, this is a small db for personal use; I want good structure but it's highly likely I'll be the only user. Thanks so much for any help!
Why don't you use a timestamp to store the time when the row has been inserted?
That way you don't need the extra row_num column in the table, and you can always "calculate" it on the fly:
SELECT person_id,
row_number() over (partition by person_id order by row_timestamp) as row_num,
row_timestamp,
row_text
FROM log_table
Of course if there are chances that a user generates more than one entry per micro second that you might wind up with log entries with exactly the same timestamp.
But even in a busy system this is quite unlikely (but not impossible).
If you can't (or don't want to to) use a timestamp, you can always use a sequence that increments for all users and then use the row_number() function to generate a gapless row number during retrieval (as shown above, just use an order by on the column populated by the sequence).
(related to Finding the lowest unused unique id in a list and Getting unused unique values on a SQL table)
Suppose I have a table containing on id column and some others (they don't make any difference here):
+-----+-----+
| id |other|
+-----+-----+
The id has numerical increasing value. My goal is to get the lowest unused id and creating that row. So of course for the first time I run it will return 0 and the the row of this row would have been created. After a few executions it will look like this:
+-----+-----+
| id |other|
+-----+-----+
| 0 | ... |
| 1 | ... |
| 2 | ... |
| 3 | ... |
| 4 | ... |
+-----+-----+
Fairly often some of these rows might get deleted. Let's assume the rows with the id's of 1 and 3 are removed. No the table will look like this:
+-----+-----+
| id |other|
+-----+-----+
| 0 | ... |
| 2 | ... |
| 4 | ... |
+-----+-----+
If I now run again the query it would like to get back the id 1 and this row should be created:
| id |other|
+-----+-----+
| 0 | ... |
| 1 | ... |
| 2 | ... |
| 4 | ... |
+-----+-----+
The next times the query runs it should return the id's 3, 5, 6, etc.
What's the most effective way to run those kinds of query as I need to execute them fairly often in a second (it is fair to assume that the the id's are the only purpose of the table)? Is it possible to get the next unused row with one query? Or is it easier and faster by introducing another table which keeps track of the unused id's?
If it is significantly faster it is also possible to get a way to reuse any hole in the table provided that all numbers get reused at some time.
Bonus question: I plan to use SQLite for this kind of storing information as I don't need a database except for storing these id's. Is there any other free (as in speech) server which can do this job significantly faster?
I think I'd create a trigger on delete, and insert the old.id in a separate table.
Then you can select min(id) from that table to get the lowest id.
disclaimer: i don't know what database engine you use, so i don't know if triggers are available to you.
Like Dennis Haarbrink said; a trigger on delete and another on insert :
The trigger on delete would take the deleted id and insert it in a id pool table (only one column id)
The trigger on before insert would check if an id value is provided, otherwise it just query the id pool table (ex: SELECT MIN(id) FROM id_pool_table) and assign it (i.g. deletes it from the id_pool_table)
Normally you'd let the database handle assigning the ids. Is there a particular reason you need to have the id's sequential rather than unique? Can you, instead, timestamp them, and just number them when you display them? Or make a separate column for the sequential id, and renumber them?
Alternatively, you could not delete the rows themselves, but rather, mark them as deleted with a flag in a column, and then re-use the id's of the marked rows by finding the lowest numbered 'deleted' row, and reusing that id.
The database doesn't care if the values are sequential, only that they are unique. The desire to have your id values sequential is purely cosmetic, and if you are exposing this value to users -- it should not be your primary key, nor should there be any referential integrity based on the value because a client could change the format if desired.
The fastest and safest way to deal with the id value generation is to rely on native functionality that gives you a unique integer value (IE: SQLite's autoincrement). Using triggers only adds overhead, using MAX(id) +1 is extremely risky...
Summary
Ideally, use the native unique integer generator (SQLite/MySQL auto_increment, Oracle/PostgreSQL sequences, SQL Server IDENTITY) for the primary key. If you want a value that is always sequential, add an additional column to store that sequential value & maintain it as necessary. MySQL/SQLite/SQL Server unique integer generation only allows one per column - sequences are more flexible.
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;