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.
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.
I've really been scratching my head over this and don't know how to ask the question well enough to find an answer on Google or StackOverflow etc.
There is a very old system used at work - I don't have access to the server side so can't view its tables, but I do know its an SQL database and have done enough experimenting with the API to see what adding to each table does, and I'm questioning how it allocates primary keys;
It has a lot of tables, each with a primary key as expected, but the primary key on any/all of its tables seems to be allocated so that there is absolutely no duplication of primary keys anywhere in the system.
e.g.
add row to table 1 get pk = 1
add row to table 2 get pk = 2
add row to table 1 again, get pk = 3
add row to table 10 and get pk = 4
Is this method some sort of old database technique?
What could be the purpose of doing this?
There are more funny nuances that I won't get into detail of, e.g. a certain range of pk's being allocated for certain tables but I just wanted to see if anyone recognises the main principle here and if there's a point to it, or if it's just bad / weird design
A primary key only needs to be unique within a single table. There is no such thing as a primary key across multiple tables.
This might be useful under some circumstances. For instance, this would allow all entities to be represented in a single table. This can be handy for "generic" information, such as adding comments to the entities.
More prosaically, I have seen this in older Oracle databases. Oracle did not have any automated mechanism for generating ids, so this required using a sequence. As a matter of convenience, laziness, or design, multiple tables might use the same sequence -- resulting in the behavior that you see.
In our DB (on SQL Server 2005) we have a "Customers" table, whose primary key is Client Code, a surrogate, bigint IDENTITY(1,1) key; the table is referenced by a number of other tables in our DB thru a foreign key.
A new CR implementation we are estimating would require us to change ID column type to varchar, Client Code generation algorithm being shifted from a simple numeric progression to a strict 2-char representation, with codes ranging from 01 to 99, then progressing like this:
1A -> 2A -> ... -> 9A -> 1B -> ... 9Z
I'm fairly new to database design, but I smell some serious problems here. First of all, what about this client code generation algorithm? What if I need a Client Code to go beyond 9Z code limit?
The I have some question: would this change be feasible, the table being already filled with a fair amount of data, and referenced by multiple entities? If so, how would you approach this problem, and how would you implement Client Code generation?
I would leave the primary key as it is and would create another key (unique) on the client code generated.
I would do that anyway. It's always better to have a short number primary key instead of long char keys.
In some situation you might prefer a GUID (for replication purposes) but a number int/bigint is alway preferable.
You can read more here and here.
My biggest concern with what you are proposing is that you will be limited to 360 primary records. That seems like a small number.
Performing the change is a multi-step operation. You need to create the new field in the core table and all its related tables.
To do an in-place update, you need to generate the code in the core table. Then you need to update all the related tables to have the code based on the old id. Then you need to add the foreign key constraint to all the related tables. Then you need to remove the old key field from all the related tables.
We only did that in our development server. When we upgraded the live databases, we created a new database for each and copied the data over using a python script that queried the old database and inserted into the new database. I now update that script for every software upgrade so the core engine stays the same, but I can specify different tables or data modifications. I get the bonus of having a complete backup of the original database if something unexpected happens when upgrading production.
One strong argument in favor of a non-identity/guid code is that you want a human readable/memorable code and you need to be able to move records between two systems.
Performance is not necessarily a concern in SQL Server 2005 and 2008. We recently went through a change where we moved from int ids everywhere to 7 or 8 character "friendly" record codes. We expected to see some kind of performance hit, but we in fact saw a performance improvement.
We also found that we needed a way to quickly generate a code. Our codes have two parts, a 3 character alpha prefix and a 4 or 5 digit suffix. Once we had a large number of codes (15000-20000) we were finding it to slow to parse the code into prefix and suffix and find the lowest unused code (it took several seconds). Because of this, we also store the prefix and the suffix separately (in the primary key table) so that we can quickly find the next available lowest code with a particular prefix. The cached prefix and suffix made the search almost fee.
We allow changing of the codes and they changed values propagate by cascade update rules on the foreign key relationship. We keep an identity key on the core code table to simplify the update of the code.
We don't use an ORM, so I don't know what specific things to be aware of with that. We also have on the order of 60,000 primary keys in our biggest instance, but have hundreds of tables related and tables with millions of related values to the code table.
One big advantage that we got was, in many cases, we did not need to do a join to perform operations. Everywhere in the software the user references things by friendly code. We don't have to do a lookup of the int ID (or a join) to perform certain operations.
The new code generation algorithm isn't worth thinking about. You can write a program to generate all possible codes in just a few lines of code. Put them in a table, and you're practically done. You just need to write a function to return the smallest one not yet used. Here's a Ruby program that will give you all the possible codes.
# test.rb -- generate a peculiar sequence of two-character codes.
i = 1
('A'..'Z').each do |c|
(1..9).each do |n|
printf("'%d%s', %d\n", n, c, i)
i += 1
end
end
The program will create a CSV file that you should be able to import easily into a table. You need two columns to control the sort order. The new values don't naturally sort the way your requirements specify.
I'd be more concerned about the range than the algorithm. If you're right about the requirement, you're limited to 234 client codes. If you're wrong, and the range extends from "1A" to "ZZ", you're limited to less than a thousand.
To implement this requirement in an existing table, you need to follow a careful procedure. I'd try it several times in a test environment before trying it on a production table. (This is just a sketch. There are a lot of details.)
Create and populate a two-column table to map
existing bigints to the new CHAR(2).
Create new CHAR(2) columns in all the
tables that need them.
Update all the new CHAR(2) columns.
Create new NOT NULL UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY constraints and new FOREIGN KEY constraints on the new CHAR(2) columns.
Rewrite user interface code (?) to target the new columns. (Might not be necessary if you rename the new CHAR(2) and old BIGINT columns.)
Set a target date to drop the old BIGINT columns and constraints.
And so on.
Not really addressing whether this is a good idea or not, but you can change your foreign keys to cascade the updates. What will happen once you're done doing that is that when you update the primary key in the parent table, the corresponding key in the child table will be updated accordingly.
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
I have a fairly huge database with a master table with a single column GUID (custom GUID like algorithm) as primary key and 8 child tables that have foreign key relationships with this GUID column. All the tables have approximately 3-8 million records. None of these tables have any BLOB/CLOB/TEXT or any other fancy data types just normal numbers, varchars, dates, and timestamps (about 15-45 columns in each table). No partitions or other indexes other than the primary and foreign keys.
Now, the custom GUID algorithm has changed and though there are no collisions I would like to migrate all the old data to use GUIDs generated using the new algorithm. No other columns need to be changed. Number one priority is data integrity and performance is secondary.
Some of the possible solutions that I could think of were (as you will probably notice they all revolve around one idea only)
add new column ngu_id and populate with new gu_id; disable constraints; update child tables with ngu_id as gu_id; renaname ngu_id->gu_id; re-enable constraints
read one master record and its dependent child records from child tables; insert into the same table with new gu_id; remove all records with old gu_ids
drop constraints; add a trigger to the master table such that all the child tables are updated; start updating old gu_id's with new new gu_ids; re-enable constraints
add a trigger to the master table such that all the child tables are updated; start updating old gu_id's with new new gu_ids
create new column ngu_ids on all master and child tables; create foreign key constraints on ngu_id columns; add update trigger to the master table to cascade values to child tables; insert new gu_id values into ngu_id column; remove old foreign key constraints based on gu_id; remove gu_id column and rename ngu_id to gu_id; recreate constraints if necessary;
use on update cascade if available?
My questions are:
Is there a better way? (Can't burrow my head in the sand, gotta do this)
What is the most suitable way to do this? (I've to do this in Oracle, SQL server and mysql4 so, vendor-specific hacks are welcome)
What are the typical points of failure for such an exercise and how to minimize them?
If you are with me so far, thank you and hope you can help :)
Your ideas should work. the first is probably the way I would use. Some cautions and things to think about when doing this:
Do not do this unless you have a current backup.
I would leave both values in the main table. That way if you ever have to figure out from some old paperwork which record you need to access, you can do it.
Take the database down for maintenance while you do this and put it in single user mode. The very last thing you need while doing something like this is a user attempting to make changes while you are in midstream. Of course, the first action once in single user mode is the above-mentioned backup. You probably should schedule the downtime for some time when the usage is lightest.
Test on dev first! This should also give you an idea as to how long you will need to close production for. Also, you can try several methods to see which is the fastest.
Be sure to communicate in advance to users that the database will be going down at the scheduled time for maintenance and when they can expect to have it be available again. Make sure the timing is ok. It really makes people mad when they plan to stay late to run the quarterly reports and the database is not available and they didn't know it.
There are a fairly large number of records, you might want to run the updates of the child tables in batches (one reason not to use cascading updates). This can be faster than trying to update 5 million records with one update. However, don't try to update one record at a time or you will still be here next year doing this task.
Drop indexes on the GUID field in all the tables and recreate after you are done. This should improve the performance of the change.
Create a new table with the old and the new pk values in it. Place unique constraints on both columns to ensure you haven't broken anything so far.
Disable constraints.
Run an updates against all the tables to modify the old value to the new value.
Enable the PK, then enable the FK's.
It's difficult to say what the "best" or "most suitable" approach is as you have not described what you are looking for in a solution. For example, do the tables need to be available for query while you are migrating to new IDs? Do they need to be available for concurrent modification? Is it important to complete the migration as fast as possible? Is it important to minimize the space used for migration?
Having said that, I would prefer #1 over your other ideas, assuming they all met your requirements.
Anything that involves a trigger to update the child tables seems error-prone and over complicated and likely will not perform as well as #1.
Is it safe to assume that new IDs will never collide with old IDs? If not, solutions based on updating the IDs one at a time will have to worry about collisions -- this will get messy in a hurry.
Have you considered using CREATE TABLE AS SELECT (CTAS) to populate new tables with the new IDs? You'll be making a copy of your existing tables and this will require additional space, however it is likely to be faster than updating the existing tables in place. The idea is: (i) use CTAS to create new tables with new IDs in place of the old, (ii) create indexes and constraints as appropriate on the new tables, (iii) drop the old tables, (iv) rename the new tables to the old names.
In fact, it depend on your RDBMS.
Using Oracle, the simpliest choice is to make all of the foreign key constraints "deferred" (check on commit), perform updates in a single transaction, then commit.