I have a database table and one of the fields (not the primary key) is having a unique index on it. Now I want to swap values under this column for two rows. How could this be done? Two hacks I know are:
Delete both rows and re-insert them.
Update rows with some other value
and swap and then update to actual value.
But I don't want to go for these as they do not seem to be the appropriate solution to the problem.
Could anyone help me out?
The magic word is DEFERRABLE here:
DROP TABLE ztable CASCADE;
CREATE TABLE ztable
( id integer NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
, payload varchar
);
INSERT INTO ztable(id,payload) VALUES (1,'one' ), (2,'two' ), (3,'three' );
SELECT * FROM ztable;
-- This works, because there is no constraint
UPDATE ztable t1
SET payload=t2.payload
FROM ztable t2
WHERE t1.id IN (2,3)
AND t2.id IN (2,3)
AND t1.id <> t2.id
;
SELECT * FROM ztable;
ALTER TABLE ztable ADD CONSTRAINT OMG_WTF UNIQUE (payload)
DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED
;
-- This should also work, because the constraint
-- is deferred until "commit time"
UPDATE ztable t1
SET payload=t2.payload
FROM ztable t2
WHERE t1.id IN (2,3)
AND t2.id IN (2,3)
AND t1.id <> t2.id
;
SELECT * FROM ztable;
RESULT:
DROP TABLE
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "ztable_pkey" for table "ztable"
CREATE TABLE
INSERT 0 3
id | payload
----+---------
1 | one
2 | two
3 | three
(3 rows)
UPDATE 2
id | payload
----+---------
1 | one
2 | three
3 | two
(3 rows)
NOTICE: ALTER TABLE / ADD UNIQUE will create implicit index "omg_wtf" for table "ztable"
ALTER TABLE
UPDATE 2
id | payload
----+---------
1 | one
2 | two
3 | three
(3 rows)
I think you should go for solution 2. There is no 'swap' function in any SQL variant I know of.
If you need to do this regularly, I suggest solution 1, depending on how other parts of the software are using this data. You can have locking issues if you're not careful.
But in short: there is no other solution than the ones you provided.
Further to Andy Irving's answer
this worked for me (on SQL Server 2005) in a similar situation
where I have a composite key and I need to swap a field which is part of the unique constraint.
key: pID, LNUM
rec1: 10, 0
rec2: 10, 1
rec3: 10, 2
and I need to swap LNUM so that the result is
key: pID, LNUM
rec1: 10, 1
rec2: 10, 2
rec3: 10, 0
the SQL needed:
UPDATE DOCDATA
SET LNUM = CASE LNUM
WHEN 0 THEN 1
WHEN 1 THEN 2
WHEN 2 THEN 0
END
WHERE (pID = 10)
AND (LNUM IN (0, 1, 2))
There is another approach that works with SQL Server: use a temp table join to it in your UPDATE statement.
The problem is caused by having two rows with the same value at the same time, but if you update both rows at once (to their new, unique values), there is no constraint violation.
Pseudo-code:
-- setup initial data values:
insert into data_table(id, name) values(1, 'A')
insert into data_table(id, name) values(2, 'B')
-- create temp table that matches live table
select top 0 * into #tmp_data_table from data_table
-- insert records to be swapped
insert into #tmp_data_table(id, name) values(1, 'B')
insert into #tmp_data_table(id, name) values(2, 'A')
-- update both rows at once! No index violations!
update data_table set name = #tmp_data_table.name
from data_table join #tmp_data_table on (data_table.id = #tmp_data_table.id)
Thanks to Rich H for this technique.
- Mark
Assuming you know the PK of the two rows you want to update... This works in SQL Server, can't speak for other products. SQL is (supposed to be) atomic at the statement level:
CREATE TABLE testing
(
cola int NOT NULL,
colb CHAR(1) NOT NULL
);
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX UIX_testing_a ON testing(colb);
INSERT INTO testing VALUES (1, 'b');
INSERT INTO testing VALUES (2, 'a');
SELECT * FROM testing;
UPDATE testing
SET colb = CASE cola WHEN 1 THEN 'a'
WHEN 2 THEN 'b'
END
WHERE cola IN (1,2);
SELECT * FROM testing;
so you will go from:
cola colb
------------
1 b
2 a
to:
cola colb
------------
1 a
2 b
I also think that #2 is the best bet, though I would be sure to wrap it in a transaction in case something goes wrong mid-update.
An alternative (since you asked) to updating the Unique Index values with different values would be to update all of the other values in the rows to that of the other row. Doing this means that you could leave the Unique Index values alone, and in the end, you end up with the data that you want. Be careful though, in case some other table references this table in a Foreign Key relationship, that all of the relationships in the DB remain intact.
I have the same problem. Here's my proposed approach in PostgreSQL. In my case, my unique index is a sequence value, defining an explicit user-order on my rows. The user will shuffle rows around in a web-app, then submit the changes.
I'm planning to add a "before" trigger. In that trigger, whenever my unique index value is updated, I will look to see if any other row already holds my new value. If so, I will give them my old value, and effectively steal the value off them.
I'm hoping that PostgreSQL will allow me to do this shuffle in the before trigger.
I'll post back and let you know my mileage.
In SQL Server, the MERGE statement can update rows that would normally break a UNIQUE KEY/INDEX. (Just tested this because I was curious.)
However, you'd have to use a temp table/variable to supply MERGE w/ the necessary rows.
For Oracle there is an option, DEFERRED, but you have to add it to your constraint.
SET CONSTRAINT emp_no_fk_par DEFERRED;
To defer ALL constraints that are deferrable during the entire session, you can use the ALTER SESSION SET constraints=DEFERRED statement.
Source
I usually think of a value that absolutely no index in my table could have. Usually - for unique column values - it's really easy. For example, for values of column 'position' (information about the order of several elements) it's 0.
Then you can copy value A to a variable, update it with value B and then set value B from your variable. Two queries, I know no better solution though.
Oracle has deferred integrity checking which solves exactly this, but it is not available in either SQL Server or MySQL.
1) switch the ids for name
id student
1 Abbot
2 Doris
3 Emerson
4 Green
5 Jeames
For the sample input, the output is:
id student
1 Doris
2 Abbot
3 Green
4 Emerson
5 Jeames
"in case n number of rows how will manage......"
Related
How to have a Unique Constraint in Oracle-DB with two columns so that a duplicate must not occur in one or the other.
Assume this table
|id | A | B |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 | 4 |
I that a new row is not allowed to have in column "A" a value that duplicate a value from column "A" or "B".
In the example above: I am allowed to add 5 to column "A" but not 1, 2, 3, or 4.
My idea was to do something like:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX crossTest ON test (
SELECT t.A AS x FROM test t
UNION ALL
SELECT t.B AS x FROM test t
)
but it does not work because Oracle does not accept this syntax.
The two classic approaches:
have two unique constraints CREATE UNIQUE INDEX uidxA ON test A and CREATE UNIQUE INDEX uidxB ON test B does not work because then I could add 2 and 4 to column "A"
have a unique constraint of two columns CREATE UNIQUE INDEX uidxB ON test (A, B) because this check only existing pairs.
(Bonus question: it should be allowed that "A" and "B" of the same row can be equals)
SQL scripts for the example
CREATE TABLE test (id NUMBER (10) NOT NULL, a VARCHAR2(12), b VARCHAR2(12));
INSERT INTO test (id,a,b) VALUES(1, '1', '2');
INSERT INTO test (id,a,b) VALUES(2, '3', '4');
INSERT INTO test (id,a,b) VALUES(3, '4', 'x'); -> should fail
INSERT INTO test (id,a,b) VALUES(3, '5', 'x'); -> should work
#Tejash's answer gave me an idea to avoid locking or serialization. You can create an auxiliary table duet_index to produce the extended data set with all rows. Then a simple trigger will do the trick, including your bonus question.
For example:
create table duet_index (
n number,
constraint unique uq1 (n)
);
And then the trigger:
create or replace trigger test_trg
before insert on test
for each row
begin
insert into duet_index (n) values (:new.a);
if (:new.a <> :new.b) then
insert into duet_index (n) values (:new.b);
end if;
end;
Please consider I'm not proficient at writing Oracle triggers. The syntax can be wrong, but the idea should fly.
I've been working with Oracle for decades now and I don't recall having such a requirement. It makes me nervous about your data model.
What you want to do cannot be done with a single index. Trigger-based approaches are going to have trouble working correctly in all multi-user cases. A materialized-view approach seems promising.
My suggestion is to create a materialized view that refreshes on commit and that contains a concatenation (UNION ALL) of the column A and column B values.
Here is what I mean (see comments in code for more details):
create table test1 ( id number not null primary key, a number, b number );
insert into test1 values ( 1, 1, 2);
insert into test1 values ( 2, 3, 4);
commit;
-- Create a snapshot to allow us to create a REFRESH FAST ON COMMIT snapshot...
create snapshot log on test1 with primary key, rowid;
-- And create that snapshot... this will be updated when any changes to TEST1 are committed
create materialized view test1_concat
refresh fast on commit
as
select t1.rowid row_id, 1 as marker, t1.a concatenation from test1 t1
union all
select t2.rowid row_id, 2 as marker, t2.b concatenation from test1 t2
-- this next bit allows a = b in single rows (i.e., bonus question)
where t2.a != t2.b;
-- Now, enforce the constraint on our snapshot to prevent cross-column duplicates
create unique index test1_concat_u1 on test1_concat ( concatenation );
-- Test #1 -- column a may equal column b without error (bonus!)
insert into test1 values ( 3, 5, 5);
commit;
-- Test #2 uniqueness enforced
insert into test1 values ( 4, 6, 1);
-- (no error at this point)
commit;
> ORA-12008: error in materialized view refresh path ORA-00001: unique
> constraint (APPS.TEST1_CONCAT_U1) violated
Drawbacks
There is a scalability issue here. Oracle will synchronize on the commit. Every working solution to your problem will have this drawback, I believe
You do not get an error until the transaction tries to commit, at which point it is impossible to correct and recover the transaction. I believe you cannot solve this drawback in any solution without making drawback #1 much worse (i.e., without much more extensive and longer-lasting locks on your table).
I suggest fixing our data model, so the values are in rows rather than columns:
CREATE TABLE test (
id NUMBER (10) NOT NULL,
type varchar2(1) check (type in ('A', 'B'),
value varchar2(12),
unique (value),
unique (id, type)
);
The unique constraint is then easy.
Not possible using INDEX or CONSTRAINT. You need a trigger, something like this:
CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER TEST_TRG
BEFORE INSERT ON TEST
FOR EACH ROW
DECLARE
CNT NUMBER := 0;
BEGIN
SELECT COUNT(1) INTO CNT from TEST
WHERE A = :NEW.A OR B = :NEW.A OR A = :NEW.B OR B = :NEW.B;
IF CNT > 0 THEN
raise_application_error(-20111,'This value is not allowed');
END IF;
END;
I am currently facing an issue in our old database(postgres 9.4) table which contains some duplicate rows. I want to ensure that no more duplicate rows should be generated.
But I also want to keep the duplicate rows that already has been generated. Due to which I could not apply unique constraint on those columns(multiple column).
I have created a trigger which would check the row if already exists and raise exception accordingly. But it is also failing when concurrent transactions are in processing.
Example :
TAB1
col1 | col2 | col3 |
------------------------------------
1 | A | B | --
2 | A | B | -- already present duplicates for column col2 and col3(allowed)
3 | C | D |
INSERT INTO TAB1 VALUES(4 , 'A' , 'B') ; -- This insert statement will not be allowed.
Note: I cannot use on conflict due to older version of database.
Presumably, you don't want new rows to duplicate historical rows. If so, you can do this but it requires modifying the table and adding a new column.
alter table t add duplicate_seq int default 1;
Then update this column to identify existing duplicates:
update t
set duplicate_seq = seqnum
from (select t.*, row_number() over (partition by col order by col) as seqnum
from t
) tt
where t.<primary key> = tt.<primary key>;
Now, create a unique index or constraint:
alter table t add constraint unq_t_col_seq on t(col, duplicate_seq);
When you insert rows, do not provide a value for duplicate_seq. The default is 1. That will conflict with any existing values -- or with duplicates entered more recently. Historical duplicates will be allowed.
You can try to create a partial index to have the unique constraint only for a subset of the table rows:
For example:
create unique index on t(x) where (d > '2020-01-01');
insert into A (id,Name)
select ti.id,ti .Name
from A ti
where ti.id >= 1 AND ti.id<=3
id is the primary key but not autogenerated. When I run the query I get an error
Violation of PRIMARY KEY constraint 'XPKA'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'dbo.A'
tabel A
id Name
1 A
2 B
3 C
and I want to insert
id Name
4 A
5 B
6 C
Every row must have a different value for the Primary Key column. You are inserting the records from A back into itself, thus you are attempting to create a new row using a Primary Key value that is already being used. This leads to the error message that you see.
If you must insert records in this fashion, then you need to include a strategy for including unique values in the PK Column. If you cannot use an autoincrement rule (the normal method), then your logic needs to enforce this requirement, otherwise you will continue to see errors like this.
You are selecting from table A and inserting straight back in to it. This means that the ID values you insert will certainly already be there.
The message says that ID col has a PrimaryKey on it and requires the values in the column to be unique. It won't let you perform the action for this reason.
To fix your query based on your stated requirement, change the script to:
insert into A (id,Name)
select ti.id + 3,ti .Name
from A ti
where ti.id >= 1 AND ti.id<=3
You need to adjust the ID of the rows you are inserting. In your example to produce keys 4, 5, 6:
insert into A (id,Name)
select ti.id + 3 as NewKey,ti.Name
from A ti
where ti.id >= 1 AND ti.id<=3
But in reality you need to pick a value that will keep your new keys separate from any possible old key, maybe:
insert into A (id,Name)
select ti.id + 100000 as NewKey,ti.Name
from A ti
where ti.id >= 1 AND ti.id<=3
As Yaakov Ellis has said...
Every row must have a different value for the Primary Key column.
And as you have a WHERE clause which constricts your rows to 3 in total EVER
Those with the unique Id's 1, 2 and 3
So if you want to replace those rather then tring to INSERT them where they already exist and generating your error.
Maybe you could UPDATE them instead?
And that will resolve your issue.
UPDATE
After your addition of extra code...
You should set your UNIQUE Key Identifier to the ID Number and not the ABC field name (whatever you have called it)
Given a table like this, where x and y have a unique constraint.
id,x,y
1, 1,1
2, 1,2
3, 2,3
4, 3,5
..
I want to increase the value x and y in a set of rows by a fixed amount with the UPDATE statement. Suppose I'm increasing them both by 1, it seems UPDATE follows id order and gives me an error after updating the row with 1 2, since it collides with the next row, 2 3, which hasn't been updated to 3, 4 yet.
Googling around, I can't find a way to force UPDATE to use an order. To do it in reverse would be enough for my application. I am also sure the set is consistent after the whole update.
Any solutions? Some way to force an order into the update, or any way to make it postpone the constraint check until it's finished?
This is meant for a Django application, and it's meant to be compatible with all supported databases. I know some databases have atomic transactions and this problem won't happen, some have features to avoid this problem, but I need a strictly standard SQL solution.
For PostgreSQL you can define the primary key constraint as "deferrable" and then it would be only evaluated at commit time.
In PostgreSQL this would look like this:
postgres=>create table foo (
postgres(> id integer not null,
postgres(> x integer,
postgres(> y integer
postgres(>);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=>alter table foo add constraint pk_foo primary key (id) deferrable initially deferred;
ALTER TABLE
postgres=> insert into foo (id, x,y) values (1,1,1), (2,1,1), (3,1,1);
INSERT 0 3
postgres=> commit;
COMMIT
postgres=> update foo set id = id + 1;
UPDATE 3
postgres=> commit;
COMMIT
postgres=> select * from foo;
id | x | y
----+---+---
2 | 1 | 1
3 | 1 | 1
4 | 1 | 1
(3 rows)
postgres=>
For Oracle this is not necessary as it will evaluate the UPDATE statement as a single atomic operation, so that works out of the box there.
For the sake of reference, MS SQL Server will not present a problem with this either. UPDATE is a single atomic operation.
ALTER TABLE [table_name]
ADD CONSTRAINT unique_constraint
UNIQUE(x)
ALTER TABLE [table_name]
ADD CONSTRAINT unique_constraint2
UNIQUE(y)
update [table_name]
set x = x+1,
y = y+1
Should pose no problem at all.
How can I achieve an insert query on 2 tables that will insert the primary key set from one table as a foreign key into the second table.
Here's a quick example of what I'm trying to do, but I'd like this to be one query, perhaps a join.
INSERT INTO Table1 (col1, col2) VALUES ( val1, val2 )
INSERT INTO Table2 (foreign_key_column) VALUES (parimary_key_from_table1_insert)
I'd like this to be one join query.
I've made some attempts but I can't get this to work correctly.
This is not possible to do with a single query.
The record in the PK table needs to be inserted before the new PK is known and can be used in the FK table, so at least two queries are required (though normally 3, as you need to retrieve the new PK value for use).
The exact syntax depends on the database being used, which you have not specified.
If you need this set of inserts to be atomic, use transactions.
Despite what others have answered, this absolutely is possible, although it takes 2 queries made consecutively with the same connection (to maintain the session state).
Here's the mysql solution (with executable test code below):
INSERT INTO Table1 (col1, col2) VALUES ( val1, val2 );
INSERT INTO Table2 (foreign_key_column) VALUES (LAST_INSERT_ID());
Note: These should be executed using a single connection.
Here's the test code:
create table tab1 (id int auto_increment primary key, note text);
create table tab2 (id int auto_increment primary key, tab2_id int references tab1, note text);
insert into tab1 values (null, 'row 1');
insert into tab2 values (null, LAST_INSERT_ID(), 'row 1');
select * from tab1;
select * from tab2;
mysql> select * from tab1;
+----+-------+
| id | note |
+----+-------+
| 1 | row 1 |
+----+-------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> select * from tab2;
+----+---------+-------+
| id | tab2_id | note |
+----+---------+-------+
| 1 | 1 | row 1 |
+----+---------+-------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
From your example, if the tuple (col1, col2) can be considered unique, then you could do:
INSERT INTO table1 (col1, col2) VALUES (val1, val2);
INSERT INTO table2 (foreign_key_column) VALUES (SELECT id FROM Table1 WHERE col1 = val1 AND col2 = val2);
There may be a few ways to accomplish this. Probably the most straight forward is to use a stored procedure that accepts as input all the values you need for both tables, then inserts to the first, retrieves the PK, and inserts to the second.
If your DB supports it, you can also tell the first INSERT to return a value:
INSERT INTO table1 ... RETURNING primary_key;
This at least saves the SELECT step that would otherwise be necessary. If you go with a stored procedure approach, you'll probably want to incorporate this into that stored procedure.
It could also possibly be done with a combination of views and triggers--if supported by your DB. This is probably far messier than it's worth, though. I believe this could be done in PostgreSQL, but I'd still advise against it. You'll need a view that contains all of the columns represented by both table1 and table2, then you need an ON INSERT DO INSTEAD trigger with three parts--the first part inserts to the new table, the second part retrieves the PK from the first table and updates the NEW result, and the third inserts to the second table. (Note: This view doesn't even have to reference the two literal tables, and would never be used for queries--it only has to contain columns with names/data types that match the real tables)
Of course all of these methods are just complicated ways of getting around the fact that you can't really do what you want with a single command.