I am creating a web application that will store all user information in one database using permissions, roles, and FKs to restrict data access. One of the tables in this application tracks work orders created by each user (i.e. the work order table has an FK to the user table).
I am wanting to ensure that each user has their own uninterrupted sequence of 'work order IDs' that are assigned when the work order is scheduled. That is, if user 1 creates his first work order, it will assign it #1, however, if user 2 creates his fifth work order, it will assign it #5.
The work order table has a UUID primary key, so each record is distinguishable, and the user FK has a not-null constraint.
Based on my research so far, it seems like Postgres Sequences would likely be my best answer. I would need to create a sequence for each user, and incorporate it into a trigger to stamp the work order record with the next appropriate ID. However, this seems like it would be very performance intensive, and creating a new sequence for every user would have its own set of challenges.
A second approach could be to create a second table that tracks each user's latest sequence, query it, increment it, and update both the work order table and the number tracking table. However, in this scenario, I think it would be susceptible to race conditions if two users were to convert records at exactly the same time.
I'm unsure what the best way to solve the problem would be. Is there another way that would provide better performance?
Sequences won't work for you, because they are not transactional by design: if an insert with a generated number fails, that number is consumed even after a ROLLBACK.
You should create a second table
CREATE TABLE counters (
user_id bigint PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES users ON DELETE CASCADE,
work_order_id bigint NOT NULL DEFAULT 0
);
Then you get the next number with
UPDATE counters
SET work_order_id = work_order_id + 1
RETURNING work_order_id;
That is atomic and safe from race conditions. Just make sure you run that update and the insert in the same database transaction, then they will either both succeed or both fail and be undone.
This will serialize inserts into the work orders table per user, but gap-less sequences are always a performance problem.
Related
In some database project, I have a users table which somehow has a computed value avg_service_rating. And there is another table called services with all the services associated to the user and the ratings for that service. Is there a computationally-lite way which I can maintain the avg_service_rating rating without updating it every time an INSERT is done on the services table? Perhaps like a generate column but with a function call instead? Any direct advice or link to resources will be greatly appreciated as well!
CREATE TABLE users (
username VARCHAR PRIMARY KEY,
avg_service_ratings NUMERIC -- is it possible to store some function call for this column?,
...
);
CREATE TABLE service (
username VARCHAR NOT NULL REFERENCE users (username);
service_date DATE NOT NULL,
rating INTEGER,
PRIMARY KEY (username, service_date),
);
If the values should be consistent, a generated column won't fit the bill, since it is only recomputed if the row itself is modified.
I see two solutions:
have a trigger on the services table that updates the users table whenever a rating is added or modified. That slows down data modifications, but not your queries.
Turn users into a view. The original users table would be renamed, and it loses the avg_service_rating column, which is computed on the fly by the view.
To make the illusion perfect, create an INSTEAD OF INSERT OR UPDATE OR DELETE trigger on the view that modifies the underlying table. Then your application does not need to be changed.
With this solution you pay a certain price both on SELECT and on data modifications, but the latter price will be lower, since you don't have to modify two tables (and users might receive fewer modifications than services). An added advantage is that you avoid data duplication.
A generated column would only be useful if the source data is in the same table row.
Otherwise your options are a view (where you could call a function or calculate the value via a subquery), or an AFTER UPDATE OR INSERT trigger on the service table, which updates users.avg_service_ratings. With a trigger, if you get a lot of updates on the service table you'd need to consider possible concurrency issues, but it would mean the figure doesn't need to be calculated every time a row in the users table is accessed.
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) = ...;
My Razor 3 web app is creating multiple rows for the same foreign key Id, when multiple input comes in for the same Id, and I would like help on how to avoid this.
The SQL Server table stores data about records in another table (it's ratings users have given about certain things, where there is also a table of users and a table of rate-able things, so the ratings table has a foreign key id for user, a foreign key id for the thing rated, and a value for the rating). When no rating has been given, there is no row for that user id & thing id.
When a user rates a thing, the code calls the server, which checks to see if that user has rated that thing before, and if so, it updates the row, but if not, it creates a new row:
// Get the member's rating for the thing, or create it.
Member_Thing_Rating memPref = (from mip in _myEntities.Member_Thing_Rating
where mip.thingID == thingId
where mip.MemberID == memberId
select mip).FirstOrDefault();
if (memPref == null)
{
memPref = new Member_Thing_Rating();
memPref.MemberID = memberId;
memPref.thingID = thingId;
_myEntities.Member_Thing_Rating.AddObject(memPref);
}
Which works fine EXCEPT when the user sends two ratings for the same thing very quickly (which happens rather often), which results in the server creating two rows, because apparently it is multi-threaded and neither thread sees an existing row, so they both create a new one.
So... how can I avoid this?
I assume I can somehow (?) tell SQL Server to make a constraint that combos of memberID and thingID should be unique in this table, and then it would be SQL Server's job to auto-magically resolve the insertions and hopefully use the latest value.
or
I imagine I could somehow (?) tell this routine to lock the DB or become single-threaded so that one completes adding a row before the next call to the same routine is allowed to execute.
I just don't know the syntax or UI/SQL steps to do either, despite a bit of looking. I think I prefer the thread lock solution, because I am more programmer than DB person, so I prefer my complexity in the code.
Thanks for any help!
You could easily add a unique constraint to your SQL Server table to make sure you never get duplicates on your (memberID, thingID) columns:
ALTER TABLE dbo.YourTableNameHere
ADD CONSTRAINT UQ_MemberID_ThingID UNIQUE(MemberID, ThingID)
Now, if your second connection tries to insert a row with values for (MemberID, ThingID) that are already in the table, the INSERT will fail, you'll get an exception which you can handle and e.g. get new values for one or both of those ID's.
I need to migrate a DDL from Postgres to DB2, but I need that it works the same as in Postgres. There is a table that generates values from a sequence, but the values can also be explicitly given.
Postgres
create sequence hist_id_seq;
create table benchmarksql.history (
hist_id integer not null default nextval('hist_id_seq') primary key,
h_c_id integer,
h_c_d_id integer,
h_c_w_id integer,
h_d_id integer,
h_w_id integer,
h_date timestamp,
h_amount decimal(6,2),
h_data varchar(24)
);
(Look at the sequence call in the hist_id column to define the value of the primary key)
The business logic inserts into the table by explicitly providing an ID, and in other cases, it leaves the database to choose the number.
If I change this in DB2 to a GENERATED ALWAYS it will throw errors because there are some provided values. On the other side, if I create the table with GENERATED BY DEFAULT, DB2 will throw an error when trying to insert with the same value (SQL0803N), because the "internal sequence" does not take into account the already inserted values, and it does not retry with a next value.
And, I do not want to restart the sequence each time a provided ID was inserted.
This is the problem in BenchmarkSQL when trying to port it to DB2: https://sourceforge.net/projects/benchmarksql/ (File sqlTableCreates)
How can I implement the same database logic in DB2 as it does in Postgres (and apparently in Oracle)?
You're operating under a misconception: that sources external to the db get to dictate its internal keys. Ideally/conceptually, autogenerated ids will never need to be seen outside of the db, as conceptually there should be unique natural keys for export or reporting. Still, there are times when applications will need to manage some ids, often when setting up related entities (eg, JPA seems to want to work this way).
However, if you add an id value that you generated from a different source, the db won't be able to manage it. How could it? It's not efficient - for one thing, attempting to do so would do one of the following
Be unsafe in the face of multiple clients (attempt to add duplicate keys)
Serialize access to the table (for a potentially slow query, too)
(This usually shows up when people attempt something like: SELECT MAX(id) + 1, which would require locking the entire table for thread safety, likely including statements that don't even touch that column. If you try to find any "first-unused" id - trying to fill gaps - this gets more complicated and problematic)
Neither is ideal, so it's best to not have the problem in the first place. This is usually done by having id columns be autogenerated, but (as pointed out earlier) there are situations where we may need to know what the id will be before we insert the row into the table. Fortunately, there's a standard SQL object for this, SEQUENCE. This provides a db-managed, thread-safe, fast way to get ids. It appears that in PostgreSQL you can use sequences in the DEFAULT clause for a column, but DB2 doesn't allow it. If you don't want to specify an id every time (it should be autogenerated some of the time), you'll need another way; this is the perfect time to use a BEFORE INSERT trigger;
CREATE TRIGGER Add_Generated_Id NO CASCADE BEFORE INSERT ON benchmarksql.history
NEW AS Incoming_Entity
FOR EACH ROW
WHEN Incoming_Entity.id IS NULL
SET id = NEXTVAL FOR hist_id_seq
(something like this - not tested. You didn't specify where in the project this would belong)
So, if you then add a row with something like:
INSERT INTO benchmarksql.history (hist_id, h_data) VALUES(null, 'a')
or
INSERT INTO benchmarksql.history (h_data) VALUES('a')
an id will be generated and attached automatically. Note that ALL ids added to the table must come from the given sequence (as #mustaccio pointed out, this appears to be true even in PostgreSQL), or any UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on the column will start throwing duplicate-key errors. So any time your application needs an id before inserting a row in the table, you'll need some form of
SELECT NEXT VALUE FOR hist_id_seq
FROM sysibm.sysdummy1
... and that's it, pretty much. This is completely thread and concurrency safe, will not maintain/require long-term locks, nor require serialized access to the table.
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