I have a date column which I want to be unique once populated, but want the date field to be ignored if it is not populated.
In MySQL the way this is accomplished is to set the date column to "not null" and give it a default value of '0000-00-00' - this allows all other fields in the unique index to be "checked" even if the date column is not populated yet.
This does not work in PosgreSQL because '0000-00-00' is not a valid date, so you cannot store it in a date field (this makes sense to me).
At first glance, leaving the field nullable seemed like an option, but this creates a problem:
=> create table uniq_test(NUMBER bigint not null, date DATE, UNIQUE(number, date));
CREATE TABLE
=> insert into uniq_test(number) values(1);
INSERT 0 1
=> insert into uniq_test(number) values(1);
INSERT 0 1
=> insert into uniq_test(number) values(1);
INSERT 0 1
=> insert into uniq_test(number) values(1);
INSERT 0 1
=> select * from uniq_test;
number | date
--------+------
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
(4 rows)
NULL apparently "isn't equal to itself" and so it does not count towards constraints.
If I add an additional unique constraint only on the number field, it checks only number and not date and so I cannot have two numbers with different dates.
I could select a default date that is a 'valid date' (but outside working scope) to get around this, and could (in fact) get away with that for the current project, but there are actually cases I might be encountering in the next few years where it will not in fact be evident that the date is a non-real date just because it is "a long time ago" or "in the future."
The advantage the '0000-00-00' mechanic had for me was precisely that this date isn't real and therefore indicated a non-populated entry (where 'non-populated' was a valid uniqueness attribute). When I look around for solutions to this on the internet, most of what I find is "just use NULL" and "storing zeros is stupid."
TL;DR
Is there a PostgreSQL best practice for needing to include "not populated" as a possible value in a unique constraint including a date field?
Not clear what you want. This is my guess:
create table uniq_test (number bigint not null, date date);
create unique index i1 on uniq_test (number, date)
where date is not null;
create unique index i2 on uniq_test (number)
where date is null;
There will be an unique constraint for not null dates and another one for null dates effectively turning the (number, date) tuples into distinct values.
Check partial index
It's not a best practice, but you can do it such way:
t=# create table so35(i int, d date);
CREATE TABLE
t=# create unique index i35 on so35(i, coalesce(d,'-infinity'));
CREATE INDEX
t=# insert into so35 (i) select 1;
INSERT 0 1
t=# insert into so35 (i) select 2;
INSERT 0 1
t=# insert into so35 (i) select 2;
ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "i35"
DETAIL: Key (i, (COALESCE(d, '-infinity'::date)))=(2, -infinity) already exists.
STATEMENT: insert into so35 (i) select 2;
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'm looking for a way to update all timestamp members of a column's (time_start) array with a fixed interval value of 'x days'.
Would I need to unnest the array first?
The table in question:
CREATE TABLE public.venue (
id integer NOT NULL,
time_start character varying(25)[]
);
Sample value of time_start (truncated, unordered):
{2019-05-22T04:12:46,2020-03-19T11:07:43,2020-01-08T03:56:40,2019-09-01T20:29:25,2019-09-29T21:38:18,2019-07-21T16:54:37}
Considering an increment of 1 day, a desired output would be:
{2019-05-23T04:12:46,2020-03-20T11:07:43,2020-01-09T03:56:40,2019-09-02T20:29:25,2019-09-30T21:38:18,2019-07-22T16:54:37}
In my table I have the following scheme:
id - integer | date - text | name - text | count - integer
I want just to count some actions.
I want put 1 when date = '30-04-2019' not exist yet.
I want put +1 when is row already exist.
My idea is:
UPDATE "call" SET count = (1 + (SELECT count
FROM "call"
WHERE date = '30-04-2019'))
WHERE date = '30-04-2019'
But it is not working when row doesn't exist.
It is possible without some extra triggers, etc...
You can use a writeable CTE to achieve this. Additionally the UPDATE statement can be simplified to a simple set count = count + 1 there is no need for a sub-select.
with updated as (
update "call"
set count = count + 1
where date = '30-04-2019'
returning id
)
insert into "call" (date, count)
select '30-04-2019', 1
where not exists (select *
form updated);
If the update did not find a row, the where not exists condition will be true and the insert will be executed.
Note that the above is not safe for concurrent execution from multiple transactions. If you want to make this safe, create a unique index on the date column. Then use an INSERT ... ON CONFLICT instead:
insert into "call" (date, count)
values ('30-04-2019', 1)
on conflict (date)
do update
set count = "call".count + 1;
Again: the above requires a unique index (or constraint) on the date column.
Unrelated to the immediate problem, but: storing dates in a text column is a really, really bad idea. You should change your table definition and change the data type for the "date" column to date.
I'm using postgresql 9.0 beta 4.
After inserting a lot of data into a partitioned table, i found a weird thing. When I query the table, i can see an empty row with null-like values in 'not-null' fields.
That weird query result is like below.
689th row is empty. The first 3 fields, (stid, d, ticker), are composing primary key. So they should not be null. The query i used is this.
select * from st_daily2 where stid=267408 order by d
I can even do the group by on this data.
select stid, date_trunc('month', d) ym, count(*) from st_daily2
where stid=267408 group by stid, date_trunc('month', d)
The 'group by' results still has the empty row.
The 1st row is empty.
But if i query where 'stid' or 'd' is null, then it returns nothing.
Is this a bug of postgresql 9b4? Or some data corruption?
EDIT :
I added my table definition.
CREATE TABLE st_daily
(
stid integer NOT NULL,
d date NOT NULL,
ticker character varying(15) NOT NULL,
mp integer NOT NULL,
settlep double precision NOT NULL,
prft integer NOT NULL,
atr20 double precision NOT NULL,
upd timestamp with time zone,
ntrds double precision
)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
CREATE TABLE st_daily2
(
CONSTRAINT st_daily2_pk PRIMARY KEY (stid, d, ticker),
CONSTRAINT st_daily2_strgs_fk FOREIGN KEY (stid)
REFERENCES strgs (stid) MATCH SIMPLE
ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE,
CONSTRAINT st_daily2_ck CHECK (stid >= 200000 AND stid < 300000)
)
INHERITS (st_daily)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
The data in this table is simulation results. Multithreaded multiple simulation engines written in c# insert data into the database using Npgsql.
psql also shows the empty row.
You'd better leave a posting at http://www.postgresql.org/support/submitbug
Some questions:
Could you show use the table
definitions and constraints for the
partions?
How did you load your data?
You get the same result when using
another tool, like psql?
The answer to your problem may very well lie in your first sentence:
I'm using postgresql 9.0 beta 4.
Why would you do that? Upgrade to a stable release. Preferably the latest point-release of the current version.
This is 9.1.4 as of today.
I got to the same point: "what in the heck is that blank value?"
No, it's not a NULL, it's a -infinity.
To filter for such a row use:
WHERE
case when mytestcolumn = '-infinity'::timestamp or
mytestcolumn = 'infinity'::timestamp
then NULL else mytestcolumn end IS NULL
instead of:
WHERE mytestcolumn IS NULL