I want to make partition by last symbol in column.
For example
create table check_part (
id int,
inn text)
partition by list (right(inn, 1))
(partition inn_1 values ('1'),
partition inn_2 values ('2'),
default partition other
)
;
But construction right(inn, 1) is not supported. What right way to make such type of partitioning?
I tried construction right(inn, 1), but it doesn't work.
Related
I have a table cusers with a primary key:
primary key(uid, lid, cnt)
And I try to insert some values into the table:
insert into cusers (uid, lid, cnt, dyn, ts)
values
(A, B, C, (
select C - cnt
from cusers
where uid = A and lid = B
order by ts desc
limit 1
), now())
on conflict do nothing
Quite often (with the possibility of 98%) a row cannot be inserted to cusers because it violates the primary key constraint, so hard select queries do not need to be executed at all. But as I can see PostgreSQL first counts the select query as a result of dyn column and only then rejects row because of uid, lid, cnt violation.
What is the best way to insert rows quickly in such situation?
Another explanation
I have a system where one row depends on another. Here is an example:
(x, x, 2, 2, <timestamp>)
(x, x, 5, 3, <timestamp>)
Two columns contain an absolute value (2 and 5) and relative value (2, 5 - 2). Each time I insert new row it should:
avoid same rows (see primary key constraint)
if new row differs, it should count a difference and put it into the dyn column (so I take the last inserted row for the user according to the timestamp and subtract values).
Another solution I've found is to use returning uid, lid, ts for inserts and get user ids which were really inserted - this is how I know they have differences from existing rows. Then I update inserted values:
update cusers
set dyn = (
select max(cnt) - min(cnt)
from (
select cnt
from cusers
where uid = A and lid = B
order by ts desc
limit 2) Table
)
where uid = A and lid = B and ts = TS
But it is not a fast approach either, as it seeks all over the ts column to find the two last inserted rows for each user. I need a fast insert query as I insert millions of rows at a time (but I do not write duplicates).
What the solution can be? May be I need a new index for this? Thanks in advance.
I have the following table
CREATE TABLE T2
( ID_T2 integer NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
FK_T1 integer, <--- foreign key to T1(Table1)
FK_DATE date, <--- foreign key to T1(Table1)
T2_DATE date, <--- user input field
T2_MAX_DIFF COMPUTED BY ( (SELECT DATEDIFF (day, MAX(T2_DATE), CURRENT_DATE) FROM T2 GROUP BY FK_T1) )
);
I want T2_MAX_DIFF to display the number of days since last input across all similar entries with a common FK_T1.
It does work, but if another FK_T1 values is added to the table, I'm getting an error about "multiple rows in singleton select".
I'm assuming that I need some sort of WHERE FK_T1 = FK_T1 of corresponding row. Is it possible to add this? I'm using Firebird 3.0.7 with flamerobin.
The error "multiple rows in singleton select" means that a query that should provide a single scalar value produced multiple rows. And that is not unexpected for a query with GROUP BY FK_T1, as it will produce a row per FK_T1 value.
To fix this, you need to use a correlated sub-query by doing the following:
Alias the table in the subquery to disambiguate it from the table itself
Add a where clause, making sure to use the aliased table (e.g. src, and src.FK_T1), and explicitly reference the table itself for the other side of the comparison (e.g. T2.FK_T1)
(optional) remove the GROUP BY clause because it is not necessary given the WHERE clause. However, leaving the GROUP BY in place may uncover certain types of errors.
The resulting subquery then becomes:
(SELECT DATEDIFF (day, MAX(src.T2_DATE), CURRENT_DATE)
FROM T2 src
WHERE src.FK_T1 = T2.FK_T1
GROUP BY src.FK_T1)
Notice the alias src for the table referenced in the subquery, the use of src.FK_T1 in the condition, and the explicit use of the table in T2.FK_T1 to reference the column of the current row of the table itself. If you'd use src.FK_T1 = FK_T1, it would compare with the FK_T1 column of src (as if you'd used src.FK_T1 = src.FK_T2), so that would always be true.
CREATE TABLE T2
( ID_T2 integer NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
FK_T1 integer,
FK_DATE date,
T2_DATE date,
T2_MAX_DIFF COMPUTED BY ( (
SELECT DATEDIFF (day, MAX(src.T2_DATE), CURRENT_DATE)
FROM T2 src
WHERE src.FK_T1 = T2.FK_T1
GROUP BY src.FK_T1) )
);
I am looking at the PostgreSQL official documentation page on Table Partitioning for my version of postgres.
I would like to create table partitions over three columns, and I wish to use declarative partition with BY LIST method to do that.
However, I cannot seem to find a good example on how to deal with more columns, and BY LIST specifically.
In the aforementioned docs I only read:
You may decide to use multiple columns in the partition key for range
partitioning, if desired. (...) For example, consider a table range
partitioned using columns lastname and firstname (in that order) as
the partition key.
It seems that declarative partition on multiple columns is only for BY RANGE or is that not right?
However, if it is not, I found an answer on SO that tells me how to deal with BY LIST and one column. But in my case I have three columns.
My idea would be to do something like the following (I am pretty sure it's wrong):
CREATE TABLE my_partitioned_table (
col1 type CONSTRAINT col1_constraint CHECK (col1 = 1 or col1 = 0),
col2 type CONSTRAINT col2_constraint CHECK (col2 = 'A' or col2 = 'B'),
col3 type,
col4 type) PARTITION BY LIST (col1, col2);
CREATE TABLE part_1a PARTITION OF my_partitioned_table
FOR VALUES IN (1, 'A');
CREATE TABLE part_1b PARTITION OF my_partitioned_tabel
FOR VALUES IN (1, 'B');
...
I would need a correct implemenation as the combination of possible partitions in my case is quite a lot.
That is true, you cannot use list partitioning with more than one partitioning key. You also cannot bent range partitioning to do what you want.
But you could use a composite type to get what you want:
CREATE TYPE part_type AS (a integer, b text);
CREATE TABLE partme (p part_type, val text) PARTITION BY LIST (p);
CREATE TABLE partme_1_B PARTITION OF partme FOR VALUES IN (ROW(1, 'B'));
INSERT INTO partme VALUES (ROW(1, 'B'), 'x');
INSERT INTO partme VALUES (ROW(1, 'C'), 'x');
ERROR: no partition of relation "partme" found for row
DETAIL: Partition key of the failing row contains (p) = ((1,C)).
SELECT (p).a, (p).b, val FROM partme;
a | b | val
---+---+-----
1 | B | x
(1 row)
But perhaps the best way to go is to use subpartitioning: partition the original table by the first column and the partitions by the second column.
My table has the below sample data:
DECLARE #FHTable table (PK_ID int,FK_ID int,P_ID int, T_ID int, A_day int,A_hour TIME,D_day int,D_hour time)
INSERT INTO #FHtable VALUES (129,194,252,1005322,NULL,NULL,1,'02:30:00.0000000')
INSERT INTO #FHtable VALUES (130,194,311,1000891,3,'04:30:00.0000000',null,null)
INSERT INTO #FHtable VALUES (131,194,311,1000129,NULL,NULL,4,'03:30:00.0000000')
INSERT INTO #FHtable VALUES (132,194,252,1000025,6,'03:00:00.0000000',null,null)
SELECT * FROM #FHtable
My final result Should be of the below table:
DECLARE #FinalResultTable TABLE (FK_ID int,P_IDFrom int,P_IDTO INT, T_IDFrom int,T_IDTo INT, A_day int,A_hour TIME,D_day int,D_hour time)
INSERT INTO #FinalResultTable VALUES (194,252,311,1005322,1000891,3,'04:30:00.0000000',1,'02:30:00.0000000')
INSERT INTO #FinalResultTable VALUES (194,311,252,1000129,1000025,6,'03:00:00.0000000',4,'03:30:00.0000000')
select * from #FinalResultTable
The logic is there will be 4 rows for each FK_ID. The first and the second row is a source to destination and the 3rd and 4th row is again a source to destination.
Can you please help
As I pointed out in the comments, it's not very clear what is the logic that joins each arrival with the corresponding departure.
What it's clear to me it's that your title is wrong: you are not talking about converting rows to columns. Instead, you are just grouping 2 by 2 the rows of the table. So, you have 2 approaches, using a GROUP BY or just using a JOIN, it depends on what is exactly your logic.
Here is an example:
select A.FK_ID,
A.PK_ID as P_IDFrom, B.PK_ID as P_IDTO,
A.T_ID as T_IDFrom int, B.T_ID as T_IDTo,
B.A_day, B.A_hour,
A.D_day, A.D_hour
from #FHTable A
join #FHTable B on B.PK_ID+1=A.PK_ID
where A.A_day is null
(this assumes that an arrivals's PK is always +1 w.r.t. its departure).
When using a Table Value Constructor (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd776382(v=sql.100).aspx) to insert multiple rows, is the order of any identity column populated guaranteed to match the rows in the TVC?
E.g.
CREATE TABLE A (a int identity(1, 1), b int)
INSERT INTO A(b) VALUES (1), (2)
Are the values of a guaranteed by the engine to be assigned in the same order as b, i.e. in this case so they match a=1, b=1 and a=2, b=2.
Piggybacking on my comment above, and knowing that the behavior of an insert / select+order by will guarantee generation of identity order (#4: from this blog)
You can use the table value constructor in the following fashion to accomplish your goal (not sure if this satisfies your other constraints) assuming you wanted your identity generation to be based on category id.
insert into thetable(CategoryId, CategoryName)
select *
from
(values
(101, 'Bikes'),
(103, 'Clothes'),
(102, 'Accessories')
) AS Category(CategoryID, CategoryName)
order by CategoryId
It depends as long as your inserting the records in one shot . For example after inserting if you delete the record where a=2 and then again re insert the value b=2 ,then identity column's value will be the max(a)+1
To demonstrate
DECLARE #Sample TABLE
(a int identity(1, 1), b int)
Insert into #Sample values (1),(2)
a b
1 1
2 2
Delete from #Sample where a=2
Insert into #Sample values (2)
Select * from #Sample
a b
1 1
3 2