What is the best way to run N independent column updates in PostgreSQL? What is the best way to do it in the SQL spec? - sql

Question

I'm looking for a more efficient way to run many columns updates on the same table like this:
UPDATE TABLE table
SET col = regexp_replace( col, 'foo', 'bar' )
WHERE regexp_match( col, 'foo' );
Such that foo, and bar, will be a combination of 40 different regex-replaces. I doubt even 25% of the dataset needs to be updated at all, but what I'm wanting to know is it is possible to cleanly achieve the following in SQL.
A single pass update
A single match of the regex, triggers a single replace
Not running all possible regexp_replaces if only one matches
Not updating all columns if only one needs the update
Not updating a row if no column has changed
I'm also curious, I know in MySQL (bear with me)
UPDATE foo SET bar = 'baz'
Has an implicit WHERE bar != 'baz' clause
However, in PostgreSQL I know this doesn't exist: I think I could at least answer one of my questions if I knew how to skip a single row's update if the target columns weren't updated.
Something like
UPDATE TABLE table
SET col = *temp_var* = regexp_replace( col, 'foo', 'bar' )
WHERE col != *temp_var*

Answer 1

Do it in code. Open up a cursor, then: grab a row, run it through the 40 regular expressions, and if it changed, save it back. Repeat until the cursor doesn't give you any more rows.
Whether you do it that way or come up with the magical SQL expression, it's still going to be a row scan of the entire table, but the code will be much simpler.
Experimental Results
In response to criticism, I ran an experiment. I inserted 10,000 lines from a documentation file into a table with a serial primary key and a varchar column. Then I tested two ways to do the update. Method 1:
in a transaction:
opened up a cursor (select for update)
while reading 100 rows from the cursor returns any rows:
for each row:
for each regular expression:
do the gsub on the text column
update the row
This takes 1.16 seconds with a locally connected database.
Then the "big replace," a single mega-regex update:
update foo set t =
regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(regexp_replace(t,
E'\bcommit\b', E'COMMIT'),
E'\b9acf10762b5f3d3b1b33ea07792a936a25e45010\b',
E'9ACF10762B5F3D3B1B33EA07792A936A25E45010'),
E'\bAuthor:\b', E'AUTHOR:'),
E'\bCarl\b', E'CARL'), E'\bWorth\b',
E'WORTH'), E'\b\b',
E''), E'\bDate:\b',
E'DATE:'), E'\bMon\b', E'MON'),
E'\bOct\b', E'OCT'), E'\b26\b',
E'26'), E'\b04:53:13\b', E'04:53:13'),
E'\b2009\b', E'2009'), E'\b-0700\b',
E'-0700'), E'\bUpdate\b', E'UPDATE'),
E'\bversion\b', E'VERSION'),
E'\bto\b', E'TO'), E'\b2.9.1\b',
E'2.9.1'), E'\bcommit\b', E'COMMIT'),
E'\b61c89e56f361fa860f18985137d6bf53f48c16ac\b',
E'61C89E56F361FA860F18985137D6BF53F48C16AC'),
E'\bAuthor:\b', E'AUTHOR:'),
E'\bCarl\b', E'CARL'), E'\bWorth\b',
E'WORTH'), E'\b\b',
E''), E'\bDate:\b',
E'DATE:'), E'\bMon\b', E'MON'),
E'\bOct\b', E'OCT'), E'\b26\b',
E'26'), E'\b04:51:58\b', E'04:51:58'),
E'\b2009\b', E'2009'), E'\b-0700\b',
E'-0700'), E'\bNEWS:\b', E'NEWS:'),
E'\bAdd\b', E'ADD'), E'\bnotes\b',
E'NOTES'), E'\bfor\b', E'FOR'),
E'\bthe\b', E'THE'), E'\b2.9.1\b',
E'2.9.1'), E'\brelease.\b',
E'RELEASE.'), E'\bThanks\b',
E'THANKS'), E'\bto\b', E'TO'),
E'\beveryone\b', E'EVERYONE'),
E'\bfor\b', E'FOR')
The mega-regex update takes 0.94 seconds to update.
At 0.94 seconds compared to 1.16, it's true that the mega-regex update is faster, running in 81% of the time of doing it in code. It is not, however a lot faster. And ye Gods, look at that update statement. Do you want to write that, or try to figure out what went wrong when Postgres complains that you dropped a parenthesis somewhere?
Code
The code used was:
def stupid_regex_replace
sql = Select.new
sql.select('id')
sql.select('t')
sql.for_update
sql.from(TABLE_NAME)
Cursor.new('foo', sql, {}, #db) do |cursor|
until (rows = cursor.fetch(100)).empty?
for row in rows
for regex, replacement in regexes
row['t'] = row['t'].gsub(regex, replacement)
end
end
sql = Update.new(TABLE_NAME, #db)
sql.set('t', row['t'])
sql.where(['id = %s', row['id']])
sql.exec
end
end
end
I generated the regular expressions dynamically by taking words from the file; for each word "foo", its regular expression was "\bfoo\b" and its replacement string was "FOO" (the word uppercased). I used words from the file to make sure that replacements did happen. I made the test program spit out the regex's so you can see them. Each pair is a regex and the corresponding replacement string:
[[/\bcommit\b/, "COMMIT"],
[/\b9acf10762b5f3d3b1b33ea07792a936a25e45010\b/,
"9ACF10762B5F3D3B1B33EA07792A936A25E45010"],
[/\bAuthor:\b/, "AUTHOR:"],
[/\bCarl\b/, "CARL"],
[/\bWorth\b/, "WORTH"],
[/\b<cworth#cworth.org>\b/, "<CWORTH#CWORTH.ORG>"],
[/\bDate:\b/, "DATE:"],
[/\bMon\b/, "MON"],
[/\bOct\b/, "OCT"],
[/\b26\b/, "26"],
[/\b04:53:13\b/, "04:53:13"],
[/\b2009\b/, "2009"],
[/\b-0700\b/, "-0700"],
[/\bUpdate\b/, "UPDATE"],
[/\bversion\b/, "VERSION"],
[/\bto\b/, "TO"],
[/\b2.9.1\b/, "2.9.1"],
[/\bcommit\b/, "COMMIT"],
[/\b61c89e56f361fa860f18985137d6bf53f48c16ac\b/,
"61C89E56F361FA860F18985137D6BF53F48C16AC"],
[/\bAuthor:\b/, "AUTHOR:"],
[/\bCarl\b/, "CARL"],
[/\bWorth\b/, "WORTH"],
[/\b<cworth#cworth.org>\b/, "<CWORTH#CWORTH.ORG>"],
[/\bDate:\b/, "DATE:"],
[/\bMon\b/, "MON"],
[/\bOct\b/, "OCT"],
[/\b26\b/, "26"],
[/\b04:51:58\b/, "04:51:58"],
[/\b2009\b/, "2009"],
[/\b-0700\b/, "-0700"],
[/\bNEWS:\b/, "NEWS:"],
[/\bAdd\b/, "ADD"],
[/\bnotes\b/, "NOTES"],
[/\bfor\b/, "FOR"],
[/\bthe\b/, "THE"],
[/\b2.9.1\b/, "2.9.1"],
[/\brelease.\b/, "RELEASE."],
[/\bThanks\b/, "THANKS"],
[/\bto\b/, "TO"],
[/\beveryone\b/, "EVERYONE"],
[/\bfor\b/, "FOR"]]
If this were a hand-generated list of regex's, and not automatically generated, my question is still appropriate: Which would you rather have to create or maintain?

Answer 2

For the skip update, look at suppress_redundant_updates - see http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/functions-trigger.html.
This is not necessarily a win - but it might well be in your case.
Or perhaps you can just add that implicit check as an explicit one?