Given the following simple table structure (SQL Server 2008), I want to be able to maintain uniqueness of my numerical sequence column, but I want to be able to update that value for any given record(s).
CREATE TABLE MYLIST(
ID int NOT NULL IDENTITY(1, 1)
, TITLE varchar(50) NOT NULL
, SEQUENCE int NOT NULL
, CONSTRAINT pk_mylist_id PRIMARY KEY(ID)
, CONSTRAINT uq_mylist_sequence UNIQUE(SEQUENCE)
);
My interface allows me to jumble up the order of the items and I will know prior to doing the update which non-overlapping sequence they should all be in, but how do I perform the update without being confronted with a violation of the unique constraint?
For instance, say I have these records:
ID TITLE SEQUENCE
1 APPLE 1
2 BANANA 2
3 CHERRY 3
And I want to update their sequence numbers to the following:
ID TITLE SEQUENCE
1 APPLE 3
2 BANANA 1
3 CHERRY 2
But really I could be dealing with a couple dozen items. The sequence numbers must not overlap. I've thought about trying to use triggers or temporarily disabling the constraint, but that would seem to create more issues. I am using C# and LINQ-to-SQL, but am open to strictly database solutions.
The obvious way is to write as one batch. Internally, SQL will defer the constraint checks so intermediate uniqueness is irrelevant.
Writing row by row does not make sense and causes the problem you have.
You can change this to write into a temp table, and then "flush" the results at the end, even check uniqueness over the temp table first.
DECLARE #NewSeq TABLE (ID int, NewSeq int)
INSERT #NewSeq (ID, NewSeq) VALUES (1, 3)
INSERT #NewSeq (ID, NewSeq) VALUES (2, 1)
INSERT #NewSeq (ID, NewSeq) VALUES (3, 2)
UPDATE
M
SET
SEQUENCE = NewSeq
FROM
MYLIST M
JOIN
#NewSeq N ON M.ID = N.ID
You could assign them the negative of their correct value, then after all updates have occurred, do a final update where you set SEQUENCE = -SEQUENCE.
It is not very efficient, but since you say you only have a couple dozen items, I doubt the impact would be noticeable. I am also assuming that you can use negative numbers as "magic values" to indicate temporarily mis-assigned values.
If you really have to follow that workflow of inserting without knowing the right order and then having to come back with an update later to set the right order, I'd say your best option is to get rid of the unique constraint because it is causing you more problems than it is worth. Of course, only you know how much that unique constraint is "worth" to your application.
Related
I'm using MySQL's AUTO_INCREMENT field and InnoDB to support transactions. I noticed when I rollback the transaction, the AUTO_INCREMENT field is not rollbacked? I found out that it was designed this way but are there any workarounds to this?
It can't work that way. Consider:
program one, you open a transaction and insert into a table FOO which has an autoinc primary key (arbitrarily, we say it gets 557 for its key value).
Program two starts, it opens a transaction and inserts into table FOO getting 558.
Program two inserts into table BAR which has a column which is a foreign key to FOO. So now the 558 is located in both FOO and BAR.
Program two now commits.
Program three starts and generates a report from table FOO. The 558 record is printed.
After that, program one rolls back.
How does the database reclaim the 557 value? Does it go into FOO and decrement all the other primary keys greater than 557? How does it fix BAR? How does it erase the 558 printed on the report program three output?
Oracle's sequence numbers are also independent of transactions for the same reason.
If you can solve this problem in constant time, I'm sure you can make a lot of money in the database field.
Now, if you have a requirement that your auto increment field never have gaps (for auditing purposes, say). Then you cannot rollback your transactions. Instead you need to have a status flag on your records. On first insert, the record's status is "Incomplete" then you start the transaction, do your work and update the status to "compete" (or whatever you need). Then when you commit, the record is live. If the transaction rollsback, the incomplete record is still there for auditing. This will cause you many other headaches but is one way to deal with audit trails.
Let me point out something very important:
You should never depend on the numeric features of autogenerated keys.
That is, other than comparing them for equality (=) or unequality (<>), you should not do anything else. No relational operators (<, >), no sorting by indexes, etc. If you need to sort by "date added", have a "date added" column.
Treat them as apples and oranges: Does it make sense to ask if an apple is the same as an orange? Yes. Does it make sense to ask if an apple is larger than an orange? No. (Actually, it does, but you get my point.)
If you stick to this rule, gaps in the continuity of autogenerated indexes will not cause problems.
I had a client needed the ID to rollback on a table of invoices, where the order must be consecutive
My solution in MySQL was to remove the AUTO-INCREMENT and pull the latest Id from the table, add one (+1) and then insert it manually.
If the table is named "TableA" and the Auto-increment column is "Id"
INSERT INTO TableA (Id, Col2, Col3, Col4, ...)
VALUES (
(SELECT Id FROM TableA t ORDER BY t.Id DESC LIMIT 1)+1,
Col2_Val, Col3_Val, Col4_Val, ...)
Why do you care if it is rolled back? AUTO_INCREMENT key fields are not supposed to have any meaning so you really shouldn't care what value is used.
If you have information you're trying to preserve, perhaps another non-key column is needed.
I do not know of any way to do that. According to the MySQL Documentation, this is expected behavior and will happen with all innodb_autoinc_lock_mode lock modes. The specific text is:
In all lock modes (0, 1, and 2), if a
transaction that generated
auto-increment values rolls back,
those auto-increment values are
“lost.” Once a value is generated for
an auto-increment column, it cannot be
rolled back, whether or not the
“INSERT-like” statement is completed,
and whether or not the containing
transaction is rolled back. Such lost
values are not reused. Thus, there may
be gaps in the values stored in an
AUTO_INCREMENT column of a table.
If you set auto_increment to 1 after a rollback or deletion, on the next insert, MySQL will see that 1 is already used and will instead get the MAX() value and add 1 to it.
This will ensure that if the row with the last value is deleted (or the insert is rolled back), it will be reused.
To set the auto_increment to 1, do something like this:
ALTER TABLE tbl auto_increment = 1
This is not as efficient as simply continuing on with the next number because MAX() can be expensive, but if you delete/rollback infrequently and are obsessed with reusing the highest value, then this is a realistic approach.
Be aware that this does not prevent gaps from records deleted in the middle or if another insert should occur prior to you setting auto_increment back to 1.
INSERT INTO prueba(id)
VALUES (
(SELECT IFNULL( MAX( id ) , 0 )+1 FROM prueba target))
If the table doesn't contain values or zero rows
add target for error mysql type update FROM on SELECT
If you need to have the ids assigned in numerical order with no gaps, then you can't use an autoincrement column. You'll need to define a standard integer column and use a stored procedure that calculates the next number in the insert sequence and inserts the record within a transaction. If the insert fails, then the next time the procedure is called it will recalculate the next id.
Having said that, it is a bad idea to rely on ids being in some particular order with no gaps. If you need to preserve ordering, you should probably timestamp the row on insert (and potentially on update).
Concrete answer to this specific dilemma (which I also had) is the following:
1) Create a table that holds different counters for different documents (invoices, receipts, RMA's, etc..); Insert a record for each of your documents and add the initial counter to 0.
2) Before creating a new document, do the following (for invoices, for example):
UPDATE document_counters SET counter = LAST_INSERT_ID(counter + 1) where type = 'invoice'
3) Get the last value that you just updated to, like so:
SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID()
or just use your PHP (or whatever) mysql_insert_id() function to get the same thing
4) Insert your new record along with the primary ID that you just got back from the DB. This will override the current auto increment index, and make sure you have no ID gaps between you records.
This whole thing needs to be wrapped inside a transaction, of course. The beauty of this method is that, when you rollback a transaction, your UPDATE statement from Step 2 will be rolled back, and the counter will not change anymore. Other concurrent transactions will block until the first transaction is either committed or rolled back so they will not have access to either the old counter OR a new one, until all other transactions are finished first.
SOLUTION:
Let's use 'tbl_test' as an example table, and suppose the field 'Id' has AUTO_INCREMENT attribute
CREATE TABLE tbl_test (
Id int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT ,
Name varchar(255) NULL ,
PRIMARY KEY (`Id`)
)
;
Let's suppose that table has houndred or thousand rows already inserted and you don't want to use AUTO_INCREMENT anymore; because when you rollback a transaction the field 'Id' is always adding +1 to AUTO_INCREMENT value.
So to avoid that you might make this:
Let's remove AUTO_INCREMENT value from column 'Id' (this won't delete your inserted rows):
ALTER TABLE tbl_test MODIFY COLUMN Id int(11) NOT NULL FIRST;
Finally, we create a BEFORE INSERT Trigger to generate an 'Id' value automatically. But using this way won't affect your Id value even if you rollback any transaction.
CREATE TRIGGER trg_tbl_test_1
BEFORE INSERT ON tbl_test
FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
SET NEW.Id= COALESCE((SELECT MAX(Id) FROM tbl_test),0) + 1;
END;
That's it! You're done!
You're welcome.
$masterConn = mysql_connect("localhost", "root", '');
mysql_select_db("sample", $masterConn);
for($i=1; $i<=10; $i++) {
mysql_query("START TRANSACTION",$masterConn);
$qry_insert = "INSERT INTO `customer` (id, `a`, `b`) VALUES (NULL, '$i', 'a')";
mysql_query($qry_insert,$masterConn);
if($i%2==1) mysql_query("COMMIT",$masterConn);
else mysql_query("ROLLBACK",$masterConn);
mysql_query("ALTER TABLE customer auto_increment = 1",$masterConn);
}
echo "Done";
I have a table with a SERIAL ID as primary key.
As you know the serial id increments itself automatically, and I need this feature in my table.
ID | info
---------
1 | xxx
2 | xxx
3 | xxx
For ordering matters, I want to insert a row between 1 and 2. Thus give to the new row an ID equal to 2, and want the other ID's to automatically increment to 3,4. If I execute such a query I get a duplicate key error.
Is there a way to make it possible, maybe changing the SERIAL ID to some other type?
What you are describing is not what most people would consider an ID, which should be a permanent and arbitrary identifier, for which an auto-increment column is just a convenient way of creating unique values. You couldn't use a value that kept changing as a foreign key, for example, so might well want both columns.
However, the task you've described is easily achieved with just an ordinary Integer column, let's call it "position", since that seems a more logical label for this behaviour.
The algorithm is simple:
Make a space for the new value by shifting all existing elements up one place.
Insert your new element.
In SQL, that would look something like this, to insert at position 42:
UPDATE items SET position=position + 1 WHERE position >= 42;
INSERT INTO items ( position, name ) VALUES ( 42, 'Answer' );
You could wrap this up in an SQL function on the server, and wrap it in a transaction to prevent concurrent inserts messing each other up.
Note that by default, a PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE constraint on the position column may be invalidated during the update, as changes to each row are validated separately. To get around this, you can use a "deferrable constraint"; even in "immediate" mode, this will only be checked at the end of the statement, so the update will not violate it.
CONSTRAINT uq_position UNIQUE (position) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE
Note also that a Serial column doesn't have to be unique, so you could still have the default value be an auto-increment. However, it won't notice you inserting extra values, so you need to reset the sequence after a manual insert:
SELECT setval(
pg_get_serial_sequence('items', 'position'),
( SELECT max(position) FROM items )
);
Here is a live demo putting it all together. (SQLFiddle seems to have a bug which isn't dropping/resetting the sequence, making the id values look rather odd.)
I want to add something to a table (trigger?) so that, for exactly, exactly 1 row per ID has a specific value for a specific column. So that if a statement was run that makes this not the case, an exception would be thrown and the insert would be rolled back.
Let's take this schema.
ID Current Value
1 Y 0
1 N 0
1 N 2
2 Y 2
And the constraint I want is that for each ID, exactly one row has a current of 'Y'.
Therefore, these statements would not be executed and return an appropriate error:
insert into table values (1,'Y',1);
insert into table values (3,'N',2);
update table set current = 'N' where ID = 1;
I have two questions:
Is it a good idea to code this kind of constraint logic into your table, or is that best saved for the applications that manipulate the data? Why?
How can it be done? What kind of tool does oracle provide to create a constraint like this?
It's best if you can specify it in a declarative fashion (rather than procedurally, e.g. using triggers). Especially because triggers, without some kind of locking algorithm, will NOT work anyway due to concurrent sessions trying to insert/update the table at the same time.
In this instance, the simplest solution is a unique, function-based index, e.g.:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX only_one_current ON thetable
(CASE WHEN Current = 'Y' THEN ID END);
The expression is NULL if Current = 'N', and all-NULL rows in an index are not stored, which means that the uniqueness constraint will only apply to rows where Current = 'Y'.
I think what you are looking for is just a unique constraint.
You can add it using below statement so that only unique combination of ID , Current can exist in table.
ALTER TABLE table_name add CONSTRAINT constraint_name UNIQUE (ID,Current);
I have a couple of tables in a SQL 2008 server that I need to generate unique ID's for. I have looked at the "identity" column but the ID's really need to be unique and shared between all the tables.
So if I have say (5) five tables of the flavour "asset infrastructure" and I want to run with a unique ID between them as a combined group, I need some sort of generator that looks at all (5) five tables and issues the next ID which is not duplicated in any of those (5) five tales.
I know this could be done with some sort of stored procedure but I'm not sure how to go about it. Any ideas?
The simplest solution is to set your identity seeds and increment on each table so they never overlap.
Table 1: Seed 1, Increment 5
Table 2: Seed 2, Increment 5
Table 3: Seed 3, Increment 5
Table 4: Seed 4, Increment 5
Table 5: Seed 5, Increment 5
The identity column mod 5 will tell you which table the record is in. You will use up your identity space five times faster so make sure the datatype is big enough.
Why not use a GUID?
You could let them each have an identity that seeds from numbers far enough apart never to collide.
GUIDs would work but they're butt-ugly, and non-sequential if that's significant.
Another common technique is to have a single-column table with an identity that dispenses the next value each time you insert a record. If you need them pulling from a common sequence, it's not unlikely to be useful to have a second column indicating which table it was dispensed to.
You realize there are logical design issues with this, right?
Reading into the design a bit, it sounds like what you really need is a single table called "Asset" with an identity column, and then either:
a) 5 additional tables for the subtypes of assets, each with a foreign key to the primary key on Asset; or
b) 5 views on Asset that each select a subset of the rows and then appear (to users) like the 5 original tables you have now.
If the columns on the tables are all the same, (b) is the better choice; if they're all different, (a) is the better choice. This is a classic DB spin on the supertype / subtype relationship.
Alternately, you could do what you're talking about and recreate the IDENTITY functionality yourself with a stored proc that wraps INSERT access on all 5 tables. Note that you'll have to put a TRANSACTION around it if you want guarantees of uniqueness, and if this is a popular table, that might make it a performance bottleneck. If that's not a concern, a proc like that might take the form:
CREATE PROCEDURE InsertAsset_Table1 (
BEGIN TRANSACTION
-- SELECT MIN INTEGER NOT ALREADY USED IN ANY OF THE FIVE TABLES
-- INSERT INTO Table1 WITH THAT ID
COMMIT TRANSACTION -- or roll back on error, etc.
)
Again, SQL is highly optimized for helping you out if you choose the patterns I mention above, and NOT optimized for this kind of thing (there's overhead with creating the transaction AND you'll be issuing shared locks on all 5 tables while this process is going on). Compare that with using the PK / FK method above, where SQL Server knows exactly how to do it without locks, or the view method, where you're only inserting into 1 table.
I found this when searching on google. I am facing a simillar problem for the first time. I had the idea to have a dedicated ID table specifically to generate the IDs but I was unsure if it was something that was considered OK design. So I just wanted to say THANKS for confirmation.. it looks like it is an adequate sollution although not ideal.
I have a very simple solution. It should be good for cases when the number of tables is small:
create table T1(ID int primary key identity(1,2), rownum varchar(64))
create table T2(ID int primary key identity(2,2), rownum varchar(64))
insert into T1(rownum) values('row 1')
insert into T1(rownum) values('row 2')
insert into T1(rownum) values('row 3')
insert into T2(rownum) values('row 1')
insert into T2(rownum) values('row 2')
insert into T2(rownum) values('row 3')
select * from T1
select * from T2
drop table T1
drop table T2
This is a common problem for example when using a table of people (called PERSON singular please) and each person is categorized, for example Doctors, Patients, Employees, Nurse etc.
It makes a lot of sense to create a table for each of these people that contains thier specific category information like an employees start date and salary and a Nurses qualifications and number.
A Patient for example, may have many nurses and doctors that work on him so a many to many table that links Patient to other people in the PERSON table facilitates this nicely. In this table there should be some description of the realtionship between these people which leads us back to the categories for people.
Since a Doctor and a Patient could create the same Primary Key ID in their own tables, it becomes very useful to have a Globally unique ID or Object ID.
A good way to do this as suggested, is to have a table designated to Auto Increment the primary key. Perform an Insert on that Table first to obtain the OID, then use it for the new PERSON.
I like to go a step further. When things get ugly (some new developer gets got his hands on the database, or even worse, a really old developer, then its very useful to add more meaning to the OID.
Usually this is done programatically, not with the database engine, but if you use a BIG INT for all the Primary Key ID's then you have lots of room to prefix a number with visually identifiable sequence. For example all Doctors ID's could begin with 100, all patients with 110, all Nurses with 120.
To that I would append say a Julian date or a Unix date+time, and finally append the Auto Increment ID.
This would result in numbers like:
110,2455892,00000001
120,2455892,00000002
100,2455892,00000003
since the Julian date 100yrs from now is only 2492087, you can see that 7 digits will adequately store this value.
A BIGINT is 64-bit (8 byte) signed integer with a range of -9.22x10^18 to 9.22x10^18 ( -2^63 to 2^63 -1). Notice the exponant is 18. That's 18 digits you have to work with.
Using this design, you are limited to 100 million OID's, 999 categories of people and dates up to... well past the shelf life of your databse, but I suspect thats good enough for most solutions.
The operations required to created an OID like this are all Multiplication and Division which avoids all the gear grinding of text manipulation.
The disadvantage is that INSERTs require more than a simple TSQL statement, but the advantage is that when you are tracking down errant data or even being clever in your queries, your OID is visually telling you alot more than a random number or worse, an eyesore like GUID.
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)