I have a PostgreSQL 12 database with a largely hierarchical design. The tables are related something along these lines: study -> group -> subject -> sample -> assay -> measurements. One study can have several groups, which in turn can have several subjects and so on.
CREATE TABLE studies(study INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, is_secret BOOLEAN);
CREATE TABLE groups("group" INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, study INTEGER REFERENCES studies(study) ON DELETE CASCADE, is_secret BOOLEAN;
CREATE TABLE subjects(subject INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, group INTEGER REFERENCES groups("group") ON DELETE CASCADE, is_secret BOOLEAN;
...
Now I would like to set is_secret for a given study in the studies table and let is cascade to all dependent entries. Exactly the same as with ON DELETE CASCADE, but setting this column value instead. Is there a way to do that? Thanks!
EDIT: I forgot an important piece of evidence. This has to be done without explicitly stating the relationships between tables. It should "follow the primary keys". Also, it should be possible to trigger also when is_secret is already TRUE in studies (to update when there is new data).
EDIT2: It should be possible to set this property not only for studies, but also for individual groups, subjects and so on (and let is cascade). It's the general mimic-on-*-cascade behavior that I'm after. Maybe one could do a delete, somehow get the affected rows, rollback and then set is_secret for those rows?
The best solution is to stay normalized and not store is_secret on each dependent object.
Rather, store it only in studies, and whenever you want to know if a dependent table is secret, you join it with its study. Such joins will be executed as efficient nested loop joins and won't slow you down considerably.
If you need that last little bit of query performance so badly that you need to denormalize in the way you suggested, define a trigger on studies that modifies all dependent objects. In that case, you will trade query performance for data modification performance.
Related
I have a table of values which I want to manage with my application ...
let's say this is the table
CREATE TABLE student (
id_student int4 NOT NULL GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY,
id_teacher int2
student_name varchar(255),
age int2
CONSTRAINT provider_pk PRIMARY KEY (id_student)
);
In the application, each teacher can see the list of all his/her students .. and they can edit or add new students
I am trying to figure out how to UPSERT data in the table in PostgreSQL ... what I am doing now is for each teacher (after the manipulation in the app) they are allowed to edit on FE only in JS (without the necessity of saving each change individually)... so after the edit, they click SAVE button and that's the time I need to store the changes and new records in the DB ...
what I do now, is I delete all records for that particular teacher and store the new object/array they created (by editing, adding, .. whatever) - so it's easy and I don't have to check for changes and new records ... the drawbacks is a brutal waste of the sequence for ID_STUDENT (autogenerated on the DB side) and of course a huge overhead on indexes while inserting (=rebuilding) considering there will be a lot of teachers saving a lot of their students .. that might cause some perf issues ... not to mention the fragmenting (HWM) so I would have to VACUUM regularly on this table
In Oracle, I could easily use MERGE INTO (which is fantastic for this use case) but the MERGE is not in the PostgreSQL :(
the only thing I know about is the INSERT ON CONFLICT UPDATE ... but the problem is, how am I supposed to apply this on GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY key? I do not provide this sequence (on top of that I don't even know the latest number) and therefore I cannot trigger the ON CONFLICT (id_student) ....
is there any nice way out of this sh*t ? Or DELETE / INSERT is really the way to go?
You shouldn't be too worried about the data churn – after all, an UPDATE also writes a new version of the row, so it wouldn't be that much different. And the sequence is no problem, because you used bigint for the primary key, right (anything else would have been a mistake)?
If you want to use INSERT ... ON CONFLICT in combination with an auto-generated sequence, you need some way beside the primary key to identify a row, that is, you need a UNIQUE constraint that you can use with ON CONFLICT. If there is no candidate for such a constraint, how can you identify the records for the teacher?
The database is ingesting data from a stream, and all the rows needed to satisfy a foreign key constraint may be late or never arrive.
This can likely be accomplished by using another datastore, one without foreign key constraints, and then when all the needed data is available, read into the database which has fk constraints. However, this adds complexity and I'd like to avoid it.
We're working on a solution that creates "placeholder" rows to point the foreign key to. When the real data comes in, the placeholder is replaced with real values. Again, this adds complexity, but it's the best solution we've found so far.
How do people typically solve this problem?
Edit: Some sample data which might help explain the problem:
Let's say we have these tables:
CREATE TABLE order (
id INTEGER NOT NULL,
order_number,
PRIMARY KEY (id),
UNIQUE (order_number)
);
CREATE TABLE line_item (
id INTEGER NOT NULL,
order_number INTEGER REFERENCES order(order_number),
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
If I insert an order first, not a problem! But let's say I try:
INSERT INTO line_item (order_number) values (123) before order 123 was inserted. This will fail the fk constraint of course. But this might be the order I get the data, since it's reading from a stream that is collecting this data from multiple sources.
Also, to address #philpxy's question, I didn't really find much on this. One thing that was mentioned was deferred constraints. This is a mechanism that waits to do the fk constraints at the end of a transaction. I don't think it's possible to do that in my case however, since these insert statements will be run at random times whenever the data is received.
You have a business workflow problem, because line items of individual orders are coming in before the orders themselves have come in. One workaround, perhaps not ideal, would be to create a before insert trigger which checks, for every incoming insert to the line_item table, whether that order already exists in the order table. If not, then it will first insert the order record before trying the insert on line_item.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION "public"."fn_insert_order" () RETURNS trigger AS $$
BEGIN
INSERT INTO "order" (order_number)
SELECT NEW.order_number
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM "order" WHERE order_number = NEW.order_number);
RETURN NEW;
END
$$
LANGUAGE 'plpgsql'
# trigger
CREATE TRIGGER "trigger_insert_order"
BEFORE INSERT ON line_item FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE PROCEDURE fn_insert_order()
Note: I am assuming that the id column of the order table in fact is auto increment, in which case Postgres would automatically assign a value to it when inserting as above. Most likely, this is what you want, as having two id columns which both need to be manually assigned does not make much sense.
You could accomplish that with a BEFORE INSERT trigger on line_item.
In that trigger you query order if a matching item exists, and if not, you insert a dummy row.
That will allow the INSERT to succeed, at the cost of some performance.
To insert rows into order, use
INSERT INTO order ...
ON CONFLICT ON (order_number) DO UPDATE SET
id = EXCLUDED.id;
Updating a primary key is problematic and may lead to conflicts. One way you could get around that is if you use negative ids for artificially generated orders (assuming that the real ids are positive). If you have any references to that primary key, you'd have to define the constraint with ON UPDATE CASCADE.
Can I do row-specific update / delete operations in a DB2 table Via SQL, in a NON QUNIQUE Primary Key Context?
The Table is a PHYSICAL FILE on the NATIVE SYSTEM of the AS/400.
It was, like many other Files, created without the unique definition, which leads DB2 to the conclusion, that The Table, or PF has no qunique Key.
And that's my problem. I can't override the structure of the table to insert a unique ID ROW, because, I would have to recompile ALL my correlating Programs on the AS/400, which is a serious issue, much things would not work anymore, "perhaps". Of course, I can do that refactoring for one table, but our system has thousands of those native FILES, some well done with Unique Key, some without Unique definition...
Well, I work most of the time with db2 and sql on that old files. And all files which have a UNIQUE Key are no problem for me to do those important update / delete operations.
Is there some way to get an additional column to every select with a very unique row id, respective row number. And in addition, what is much more important, how can I update this RowNumber.
I did some research and meanwhile I assume, that there is no chance to do exact alterations or deletes, when there is no unique key present. What I would wish would be some additional ID-ROW which is always been sent with the table, which I can Refer to when I do my update / delete operations. Perhaps my thinking here has an fallacy as non Unique Key Tables are purposed to be edited in other ways.
Try the RRN function.
SELECT RRN(EMPLOYEE), LASTNAME
FROM EMPLOYEE
WHERE ...;
UPDATE EMPLOYEE
SET ...
WHERE RRN(EMPLOYEE) = ...;
I have a "services" table for detailing services that we provide. Among the data that needs recording are several small one-to-many relationships (all with a foreign key constraint to the service_id) such as:
service_owners -- user_ids responsible for delivery of service
service_tags -- e.g. IT, Records Management, Finance
customer_categories -- ENUM value
provider_categories -- ENUM value
software_used -- self-explanatory
The problem I have is that I want to keep a history of updates to a service, for which I'm using an update trigger on the table, that performs an insert into a history table matching the original columns. However, if a normalized approach to the above data is used, with separate tables and foreign keys for each one-to-many relationship, any update on these tables will not be recognised in the history of the service.
Does anyone have any suggestions? It seems like I need to store child keys in the service table to maintain the integrity of the service history. Is a delimited text field a valid approach here or, as I am using postgreSQL, perhaps arrays are also a valid option? These feel somewhat dirty though!
Thanks.
If your table is:
create table T (
ix int identity primary key,
val nvarchar(50)
)
And your history table is:
create table THistory (
ix int identity primary key,
val nvarchar(50),
updateType char(1), -- C=Create, U=Update or D=Delete
updateTime datetime,
updateUsername sysname
)
Then you just need to put an update trigger on all tables of interest. You can then find out what the state of any/all of the tables were at any point in history, to determine what the relationships were at that time.
I'd avoid using arrays in any database whenever possible.
I don't like updates for the exact reason you are saying here...you lose information as it's over written. My answer is quite simple...don't update. Not sure if you're at a point where this can be implemented...but if you can I'd recommend using the main table itself to store historical (no need for a second set of history tables).
Add a column to your main header table called 'active'. This can be a character or a bit (0 is off and 1 is on). Then it's a bit of trigger magic...when an update is preformed, you insert a row into the table identical to the record being over-written with a status of '0' (or inactive) and then update the existing row (this process keeps the ID column on the active record the same, the newly inserted record is the inactive one with a new ID).
This way no data is ever lost (admittedly you are storing quite a few rows...) and the history can easily be viewed with a select where active = 0.
The pain here is if you are working on something already implemented...every existing query that hits this table will need to be updated to include a check for the active column. Makes this solution very easy to implement if you are designing a new system, but a pain if it's a long standing application. Unfortunately existing reports will include both off and on records (without throwing an error) until you can modify the where clause
In which situations you should use inherited tables? I tried to use them very briefly and inheritance didn't seem like in OOP world.
I thought it worked like this:
Table users has all fields required for all user levels. Tables like moderators, admins, bloggers, etc but fields are not checked from parent. For example users has email field and inherited bloggers has it now too but it's not unique for both users and bloggers at the same time. ie. same as I add email field to both tables.
The only usage I could think of is fields that are usually used, like row_is_deleted, created_at, modified_at. Is this the only usage for inherited tables?
There are some major reasons for using table inheritance in postgres.
Let's say, we have some tables needed for statistics, which are created and filled each month:
statistics
- statistics_2010_04 (inherits statistics)
- statistics_2010_05 (inherits statistics)
In this sample, we have 2.000.000 rows in each table. Each table has a CHECK constraint to make sure only data for the matching month gets stored in it.
So what makes the inheritance a cool feature - why is it cool to split the data?
PERFORMANCE: When selecting data, we SELECT * FROM statistics WHERE date BETWEEN x and Y, and Postgres only uses the tables, where it makes sense. Eg. SELECT * FROM statistics WHERE date BETWEEN '2010-04-01' AND '2010-04-15' only scans the table statistics_2010_04, all other tables won't get touched - fast!
Index size: We have no big fat table with a big fat index on column date. We have small tables per month, with small indexes - faster reads.
Maintenance: We can run vacuum full, reindex, cluster on each month table without locking all other data
For the correct use of table inheritance as a performance booster, look at the postgresql manual.
You need to set CHECK constraints on each table to tell the database, on which key your data gets split (partitioned).
I make heavy use of table inheritance, especially when it comes to storing log data grouped by month. Hint: If you store data, which will never change (log data), create or indexes with CREATE INDEX ON () WITH(fillfactor=100); This means no space for updates will be reserved in the index - index is smaller on disk.
UPDATE:
fillfactor default is 100, from http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-createtable.html:
The fillfactor for a table is a percentage between 10 and 100. 100 (complete packing) is the default
"Table inheritance" means something different than "class inheritance" and they serve different purposes.
Postgres is all about data definitions. Sometimes really complex data definitions. OOP (in the common Java-colored sense of things) is about subordinating behaviors to data definitions in a single atomic structure. The purpose and meaning of the word "inheritance" is significantly different here.
In OOP land I might define (being very loose with syntax and semantics here):
import life
class Animal(life.Autonomous):
metabolism = biofunc(alive=True)
def die(self):
self.metabolism = False
class Mammal(Animal):
hair_color = color(foo=bar)
def gray(self, mate):
self.hair_color = age_effect('hair', self.age)
class Human(Mammal):
alcoholic = vice_boolean(baz=balls)
The tables for this might look like:
CREATE TABLE animal
(name varchar(20) PRIMARY KEY,
metabolism boolean NOT NULL);
CREATE TABLE mammal
(hair_color varchar(20) REFERENCES hair_color(code) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (name))
INHERITS (animal);
CREATE TABLE human
(alcoholic boolean NOT NULL,
FOREIGN KEY (hair_color) REFERENCES hair_color(code),
PRIMARY KEY (name))
INHERITS (mammal);
But where are the behaviors? They don't fit anywhere. This is not the purpose of "objects" as they are discussed in the database world, because databases are concerned with data, not procedural code. You could write functions in the database to do calculations for you (often a very good idea, but not really something that fits this case) but functions are not the same thing as methods -- methods as understood in the form of OOP you are talking about are deliberately less flexible.
There is one more thing to point out about inheritance as a schematic device: As of Postgres 9.2 there is no way to reference a foreign key constraint across all of the partitions/table family members at once. You can write checks to do this or get around it another way, but its not a built-in feature (it comes down to issues with complex indexing, really, and nobody has written the bits necessary to make that automatic). Instead of using table inheritance for this purpose, often a better match in the database for object inheritance is to make schematic extensions to tables. Something like this:
CREATE TABLE animal
(name varchar(20) PRIMARY KEY,
ilk varchar(20) REFERENCES animal_ilk NOT NULL,
metabolism boolean NOT NULL);
CREATE TABLE mammal
(animal varchar(20) REFERENCES animal PRIMARY KEY,
ilk varchar(20) REFERENCES mammal_ilk NOT NULL,
hair_color varchar(20) REFERENCES hair_color(code) NOT NULL);
CREATE TABLE human
(mammal varchar(20) REFERENCES mammal PRIMARY KEY,
alcoholic boolean NOT NULL);
Now we have a canonical reference for the instance of the animal that we can reliably use as a foreign key reference, and we have an "ilk" column that references a table of xxx_ilk definitions which points to the "next" table of extended data (or indicates there is none if the ilk is the generic type itself). Writing table functions, views, etc. against this sort of schema is so easy that most ORM frameworks do exactly this sort of thing in the background when you resort to OOP-style class inheritance to create families of object types.
Inheritance can be used in an OOP paradigm as long as you do not need to create foreign keys on the parent table. By example, if you have an abstract class vehicle stored in a vehicle table and a table car that inherits from it, all cars will be visible in the vehicle table but a foreign key from a driver table on the vehicle table won't match theses records.
Inheritance can be also used as a partitionning tool. This is especially usefull when you have tables meant to be growing forever (log tables etc).
Main use of inheritance is for partitioning, but sometimes it's useful in other situations. In my database there are many tables differing only in a foreign key. My "abstract class" table "image" contains an "ID" (primary key for it must be in every table) and PostGIS 2.0 raster. Inherited tables such as "site_map" or "artifact_drawing" have a foreign key column ("site_name" text column for "site_map", "artifact_id" integer column for the "artifact_drawing" table etc.) and primary and foreign key constraints; the rest is inherited from the the "image" table. I suspect I might have to add a "description" column to all the image tables in the future, so this might save me quite a lot of work without making real issues (well, the database might run little slower).
EDIT: another good use: with two-table handling of unregistered users, other RDBMSs have problems with handling the two tables, but in PostgreSQL it is easy - just add ONLY when you are not interrested in data in the inherited "unregistered user" table.
The only experience I have with inherited tables is in partitioning. It works fine, but it's not the most sophisticated and easy to use part of PostgreSQL.
Last week we were looking the same OOP issue, but we had too many problems with Hibernate - we didn't like our setup, so we didn't use inheritance in PostgreSQL.
I use inheritance when I have more than 1 on 1 relationships between tables.
Example: suppose you want to store object map locations with attributes x, y, rotation, scale.
Now suppose you have several different kinds of objects to display on the map and each object has its own map location parameters, and map parameters are never reused.
In these cases table inheritance would be quite useful to avoid having to maintain unnormalised tables or having to create location id’s and cross referencing it to other tables.
I tried some operations on it, I will not point out if is there any actual use case for database inheritance, but I will give you some detail for making your decision. Here is an example of PostgresQL: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/tutorial-inheritance.html
You can try below SQL script.
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS cities (
name text,
population real,
elevation int -- (in ft)
);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS capitals (
state char(2) UNIQUE NOT NULL
) INHERITS (cities);
ALTER TABLE cities
ADD test_id varchar(255); -- Both table would contains test col
DROP TABLE cities; -- Cannot drop because capitals depends on it
ALTER TABLE cities
ADD CONSTRAINT fk_test FOREIGN KEY (test_id) REFERENCES sometable (id);
As you can see my comments, let me summarize:
When you add/delete/update fields -> the inheritance table would also be affected.
Cannot drop the parent table.
Foreign keys would not be inherited.
From my perspective, in growing applications, we cannot easily predict the changes in the future, for me I would avoid applying this to early database developing.
When features are stable as well and we want to create some database model which much likely the same as the existing one, we can consider that use case.
Use it as little as possible. And that usually means never, it boiling down to a way of creating structures that violate the relational model, for instance by breaking the information principle and by creating bags instead of relations.
Instead, use table partitioning combined with proper relational modelling, including further normal forms.