Earlier today I asked this question which arose from A- My poor planning and B- My complete disregard for the practice of normalizing databases. I spent the last 8 hours reading about normalizing databases and the finer points of JOIN and worked my way through the SQLZoo.com tutorials.
I am enlightened. I understand the purpose of database normalization and how it can suit me. Except that I'm not entirely sure how to execute that vision from a procedural standpoint.
Here's my old vision: 1 table called "files" that held, let's say, a file id and a file url and appropos grade levels for that file.
New vision!: 1 table for "files", 1 table for "grades", and a junction table to mediate.
But that's not my problem. This is a really basic Q that I'm sure has an obvious answer- When I create a record in "files", it gets assigned the incremented primary key automatically (file_id). However, from now on I'm going to need to write that file_id to the other tables as well. Because I don't assign that id manually, how do I know what it is?
If I upload text.doc and it gets file_id 123, how do I know it got 123 in order to write it to "grades" and the junction table? I can't do a max(file_id) because if you have concurrent users, you might nab a different id. I just don't know how to get the file_id value without having manually assigned it.
You may want to use LAST_INSERT_ID() as in the following example:
START TRANSACTION;
INSERT INTO files (file_id, url) VALUES (NULL, 'text.doc');
INSERT INTO grades (file_id, grade) VALUES (LAST_INSERT_ID(), 'some-grade');
COMMIT;
The transaction ensures that the operation remains atomic: This guarantees that either both inserts complete successfully or none at all. This is optional, but it is recommended in order to maintain the integrity of the data.
For LAST_INSERT_ID(), the most
recently generated ID is maintained in
the server on a per-connection basis.
It is not changed by another client.
It is not even changed if you update
another AUTO_INCREMENT column with a
nonmagic value (that is, a value that
is not NULL and not 0).
Using
LAST_INSERT_ID() and AUTO_INCREMENT
columns simultaneously from multiple
clients is perfectly valid. Each
client will receive the last inserted
ID for the last statement that client
executed.
Source and further reading:
MySQL Reference: How to Get the Unique ID for the Last Inserted Row
MySQL Reference: START TRANSACTION, COMMIT, and ROLLBACK Syntax
In PHP to get the automatically generated ID of a MySQL record, use mysqli->insert_id property of your mysqli object.
How are you going to find the entry tomorrow, after your program has forgotten the value of last_insert_id()?
Using a surrogate key is fine, but your table still represents an entity, and you should be able to answer the question: what measurable properties define this particular entity? The set of these properties are the natural key of your table, and even if you use surrogate keys, such a natural key should always exist and you should use it to retrieve information from the table. Use the surrogate key to enforce referential integrity, for indexing purpuses and to make joins easier on the eye. But don't let them escape from the database
Related
In my design, I have many tables which use FKs. The issue is because certain records will be deleted and re-added at various points of time as they are linked to specific project files, the references will be always be inaccurate if I rely on the traditional auto-incrementing ID (because each time they are re-added they will be given a new ID).
I previously asked a question (Sqlite - composite PK with two auto-incrementing values) as to whether I can create a composite auto-incrementing ID however it appears to not be possible as answered by the question I was linked.
The only automatic value I can think of that'll always be unique and never repeated is a full date value, down to the second - however the idea of using a date for the tables' IDs feels like bad design. So, if I instead place a full date field in every table and use these as the FK reference, am I looking at any potential issues down the line? And am I correct in thinking it would be more efficient to store it as integer rather than a text value?
Thanks for the help
Update
To clarify, I am not looking asking in regards to Primary Keys. The PK will be standard auto-incrementing ID. I am asking in regards to basing hundreds of FKs on dates.
Thank you for the replies below, the difficulty i'm having is I can't find a similar model to learn from. The end result is i'd like the application to use project files (like Word has their docx files) to import data into the database. Once a new project is loaded, the previous project's records are cleared but their data is preserved in the project file (the application's custom file format / a txt file) so they can be added once again. The FKs will all be project-based so they will only be referencing records that exist at the time in the database. For example, as it's a world-building application, let's say a user adds a subject type that would be relevant to any project (e.g. mathematics), due to the form it's entered on in the application, the record is given a_type number of 1, meaning it’s something that persists regardless of the project loaded. Another subject type however may be Demonology which only applies to the specific project loaded (e.g. a fantasy world). A school_subject junction table needs both of these in the same table to reference as the FK. So let’s say Demonology is the second record in the subjects type table, it has an auto-increment value of 2 - thus the junction table records 2 as it’s FK value. The issue is, before this project is re-opened again, the user may have added 10 more subject types that are universal and persist, thus next time the project’s subject type records and school_subject records are added back, Demonology is now given the ID of 11. However, the school_subject junction table is re-recreated with the same record having 2 as its value. This is why I’d like a FK which will always remain the same. I don’t want all projects to be present in the database, because I want users to be able to backup and duplicate individual projects as well know that even if the application is deleted, they can re-download and re-open their project files.
This is a bit long for a comment.
Something seems wrong with your design. When you delete a row in a table, there should be no foreign key references to that key. The entity is gone. Does not exist (as far as the database is concerned). Under most circumstances, you will get an error if you try to delete a row in one table where another row refers to that row using a foreign key reference.
When you insert a row into a table, the database becomes aware of that entity. There should not be references to it.
Hence, you have an unusual situation. It sounds like you have primary keys that represent something in the real world -- such as a social security number or vehicle identification number. If that is the case, you might want this id to be the primary key of the table.
Another option is soft deletion. Once one of these rows is inserted in the table, it cannot be deleted. However, you can set a flag that says that it is deleted. Then, foreign key references can stay to the "soft" deleted row.
Imagine two tables that implemented like the following description:
The first table rows numbers created by database system administration automatically.
The second table rows numbers created manually by the programmer in a sequential order.
The main question is what are the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches?
One distinct advantage of having the database manage auto-numbering over manually creating them is that the database implementation is thread safe - and manually creating them is usually (99.9% of the cases) is not (It's hard to do it correctly).
On the other hand, the database implementation does not guarantee sequential numbering - there can be gaps in the numbers.
Given these two facts, an auto-increment column should be used only as a surrogate key, when the values of this column does not have any business meaning - but they are simple used as a simple row identifier.
Please note that when using a surrogate key, it's best to also enforce uniqueness of a natural key - otherwise you might get rows where all the data is duplicated except the surrogate key.
When the database automatically create numbers, you habe less work.
Think about a sign up system, you have fields like name, email, password and so one:
1.) the number is generated by the database, so you can just insert the data into the table.
2.) if this is not the case you have to get the last number, so before the insert into you have to get the last id so instead a insert into you have a select + insert into.
Another reason is, what happened when you delete a row in your table?
Maybe in a forum, you want to delete the account but not all of his posts, so you can work with a workaround and when a post has a user_id not given you know this is/was a deleted or banned account - if you give a new user the number from a deleted user you will come in trouble.
My question is probably very specific to Postgres, probably not.
A program which I cannot modify has access to Postgress via npgsql and a simple select command, all I know.
I also have access via npgsql. The table is defined as:
-- Table: public.n_data
-- DROP TABLE public.n_data;
CREATE TABLE public.n_data
(
u_id integer,
p_id integer NOT NULL,
data text,
CONSTRAINT nc PRIMARY KEY (p_id)
)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
ALTER TABLE public.n_data
OWNER TO postgres;
(If that info is useful anyway)
I access one single big column, read from it and write back to it.
This all works fine so far.
The Question is: how does Postgres handles it if we write at the same time.
Any Problems there?
And if Postgres does not handle that automatically, how about when I read the data, process it and in the meantime data changes, and I write back that data after I processed it---> lost data.
Its a bit tricky to test for data integrity, since this datablock is huge, and corruptions are hard to find.
I do it with c# if that means anything.
Locking (in most1) relational databases (including Postgres) is always on row level, never on column level (it's columns and rows in a relational database not "cells", "fields" or "records")
If two transactions modify the same row, the second one will have to wait until the first one commits or rolls back.
If two transactions modify different rows then they can do that without any problems as long as they don't modify columns that are part of a unique constraint or primary key to the same value.
Read access to data is never blocked in Postgres by regular DML statements. So yes while one transaction modifies data, another one will see the old data until the first transaction commits the changes ("read consistency").
To handle lost updates you can either use the serializable isolation level or make all transactions follow the pattern that they first need to obtain a lock on the row (select ... for update) and hold that until they are finished. Search for "pessimistic locking" to get more details about this pattern.
Another option is to include a "modified" timestamp in your table. When a process reads the data it also reads the modification timestamp. When it sends back the new changes it includes a where modified_at = <value obtained when reading> - if the data has changed the condition will not hold true and nothing will be updated and you need to restart your transaction. Search for "optimistic locking" to find more details about this pattern.
1 some DBMS do page locking and some escalate many row level locks to a table lock. Neither is the case in Postgres
I am writing a program that recovers structured data as individual records from a (damaged) file and collects the results into a sqlite database.
The program is invoked several times with slightly different recovery parameters. That leads to recovering often the same, but sometimes different data from the file.
Now, every time I run my program with different parameters, it's supposed to add just the newly (different) found items to the same database.
That means that I need a fast way to tell if each recovered record is already present in the DB or not, in order to add them only if they're not existing in the DB yet.
I understand that for each record I want to add, I could first do a SELECT for all columns to see if there is already a matching record in the DB, and only add the new one if no same is found.
But since I'm adding 10000s of records, doing a SELECT for each of these records feels pretty inefficient (slow) to me.
I wonder if there's a smarter way to handle this? I.e, is there a way I can tell sqlite that I do not want duplicate entries, and so it automatically detects and rejects them? I know about the UNIQUE modifier, but that's not it because it applies to single columns only, doesn't it? I'd need to be able to say that the combination of COL1+COL2+COL3 must be unique. Is there a way to do that?
Note: I never want to update any existing records. I only want to collect a set of different records.
Bonus part - performance
In a classic programming language, I'd use a key-value dictionary where the key is the sum of all a record's values. Similarly, I could calculate a Hash code for each added record and look that hash code up first. If there's no match, then the record is surely not in the DB yet; If there is a match I'd still have to search the DB for any duplicates. That'd surely be faster already, but I still wonder if sqlite can make this more efficient.
Try:
sqlite> create table foo (
...> a int,
...> b int,
...> unique(a, b)
...> );
sqlite>
sqlite> insert into foo values(1, 2);
sqlite> insert into foo values(2, 1);
sqlite> insert into foo values(1, 2);
Error: columns a, b are not unique
sqlite>
You could use UNIQUE column constraint or to declare a multiple columns unique constraint you can use UNIQUE () ON CONFLICT :
CREATE TABLE name ( id int , UNIQUE (col_name1 type , col_name2 type) ON CONFLICT IGNORE )
SQLite has two ways of expressing uniqueness constraints: PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE. Both of them create an index and so the lookup happens through the created index.
If you do not want to use an SQL approach (as mentioned in other answers) you can do a select for all your data when the program starts, store the data in a dictionary and work with the dictionary do decide which records to insert to your DB.
The benefit of this approach is the single select is much faster than many small selects.
The disadvantage is that it won't work well if you don't have enough memory to store your data in.
I've inherited a (Microsoft?) SQL database that wasn't very pristine in its original state. There are still some very strange things in it that I'm trying to fix - one of them is inconsistent ID entries.
In the accounts table, each entry has a number called accountID, which is referenced in several other tables (notes, equipment, etc. ). The problem is that the numbers (for some random reason) - range from about -100000 to +2000000 when there are about only 7000 entries.
Is there any good way to re-number them while changing corresponding numbers in the other tables? At my disposal I also have ColdFusion, so any thing that works with SQL and/or that I'll accept.
For surrogate keys, they are meant to be meaningless, so unless you actually had a database integrity issue (like there were no foreign key contraints properly defined) or your identity was approaching the maximum for its datatype, I would leave them alone and go after some other low hanging fruit that would have more impact.
In this instance, it sounds like "why" is a better question than "how". The OP notes that there is a strange problem that needs to be fixed but doesn't say why it is a problem. Is it causing problems? What positive impact would changing these numbers have? Unless you originally programmed the system and understand precisely why the number is in its current state, you are taking quite a risky making changes like this.
I would talk to an accountant (or at least your financial people) before messing in anyway with the numbers in the accounts tables if this is a financial app. The Table of accounts is very critical to how finances are reported. These IDs may have meaning you don't understand. No one puts in a negative id unless they had a reason. I would under no circumstances change that unless I understood why it was negative to begin with. You could truly screw up your tax reporting or some other thing by making an uneeded change.
You could probably disable the foreign key relationships (if you're able to take it offline temporarily) and then update the primary keys using a script. I've used this update script before to change values, and you could pretty easily wrap this code in a cursor to go through the key values in question, one by one, and update the arbitrary value to an incrementing value you're keeping track of.
Check out the script here: http://vyaskn.tripod.com/sql_server_search_and_replace.htm
If you just have a list of tables that use the primary key, you could set up a series of UPDATE statements that run inside your cursor, and then you wouldn't need to use this script (which can be a little slow).
It's worth asking, though, why these values appear out of wack. Does this database have values added and deleted constantly? Are the primary key values really arbitrary, or do they just appear to be, but they really have meaning? Though I'm all for consolidating, you'd have to ensure that there's no purpose to those values.
With ColdFusion this shouldn't be a herculean task, but it will be messy and you'll have to be careful. One method you could use would be to script the database and then generate a brand new, blank table schema. Set the accountID as an identity field in the new database.
Then, using ColdFusion, write a query that will pull all of the old account data and insert them into the new database one by one. For each row, let the new database assign a new ID. After each insert, pull the new ID (using either ##IDENTITY or MAX(accountID)) and store the new ID and the old ID together in a temporary table so you know which old IDs belong to which new IDs.
Next, repeat the process with each of the child tables. For each old ID, pull its child entries and re-insert them into the new database using the new IDs. If the primary keys on the child tables are fine, you can insert them as-is or let the server assign new ones if they don't matter.
Assigning new IDs in place by disabling relationships temporarily may work, but you might also run into conflicts if one of the entries is assigned an ID that is already being used by the old data which could cause conflicts.
Create a new column in the accounts table for your new ID, and new column in each of your related tables to reference the new ID column.
ALTER TABLE accounts
ADD new_accountID int IDENTITY
ALTER TABLE notes
ADD new_accountID int
ALTER TABLE equipment
ADD new_accountID int
Then you can map the new_accountID column on each of your referencing tables to the accounts table.
UPDATE notes
SET new_accountID = accounts.new_accountID
FROM accounts
INNER JOIN notes ON (notes.accountID = accounts.accountID)
UPDATE equipment
SET new_accountID = accounts.new_accountID
FROM accounts
INNER JOIN equipment ON (equipment.accountID = accounts.accountID)
At this point, each table has both accountID with the old keys, and new_accountID with the new keys. From here it should be pretty straightforward.
Break all of the foreign keys on accountID.
On each table, UPDATE [table] SET accountID = new_accountID.
Re-add the foreign keys for accountID.
Drop new_accountID from all of the tables, as it's no longer needed.