I have a table in db2 which is having a varchar column. I want to insert only lower case string in the column.
Is it possible to change the case to lower whenever an insertion happens in that column. What will be the alter
Query for that if possible ?
I can not make another column which can take reference of my current column and be referenced like ucase(Current_column)
The means to ensure the effect of lower-casing the data that is inserted into a column, i.e. "to change the case to lower whenever an insertion happens in that column", is a TRIGGER.
Presumably much like Why is my “before update” trigger changing unexpected columns?, per having noted in a followup comment to the OP that "I tried making a BEFORE INSERT", a TRIGGER similar to the following apparently was implemented in that attempt?:
CREATE TRIGGER TOLOWER_BI BEFORE INSERT ON USERS
REFERENCING NEW AS N OLD AS O FOR EACH ROW MODE DB2ROW
set N.LoginId= lcase(N.LoginId)
If so, then "the application is not picking the trigger" [also from a followup comment to the OP] must be explained, because a TRIGGER is in effect at the database layer, such that an application has no choice [no picking] with regard to the effects of the trigger being enforced.
Related
I use SQL Server with ASP.NET Core and EF Core. After each record is added, the identity column's value jumps about by 1000 and creates a gap between current row and the last previously added row.
Questions
Is there any way to prevent this?
How to delete those gaps that have been created before?
If I use GUID for key columns to prevent that issue, is there a problem (performance or each other problem)?
Is it way on the server side that with EF Core could handle it (each some way)?
Thank you in advance for your helps...
For the reason for 1000-value gaps, see Aaron Bertrand's answer
It doesn't really make sense to "want" to delete the gaps. The content of an identity column contains no semantic information. It correlates to nothing "in the world" outside the database. The gaps are as meaningless as the values themselves.
I don't see how a uniqueidentifier would "prevent" that issue. A uniqueidentifier may be "meaningfully" sortable (if you use newsequentialid()), but there's no sense in which any particular value is "one more" than a previous value.
You can certainly try to build your own key generating algorithm that does not produce gaps, but you will run into concurrency issues (also mentioned by Mr Bertrand).
workaround trick:
CREATE OR ALTER TRIGGER TGR_Transaction_Identity_Fix
ON [dbo].[TBL_Transaction]
FOR INSERT
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #RESEEDVAL INT
SELECT #RESEEDVAL = MAX(TransactionId) FROM [dbo].[TBL_Transaction]
DBCC CHECKIDENT([TBL_Transaction], RESEED, #RESEEDVAL)
END
this triger will reset identity on each insert
I have a table T that contains an ID set as identity and primary key. I have enabled CDC on the table and then later added an XML field that I didn't care capturing so I did not do anything further (to recreate the capture table and/or migrate old capture data).
I now have a stored procedure that (among other things) updates only the newly created field (no other field) in table T. I notice that instead of recording an update (operation=3 followed by operation=4), CDC records a delete (operation=1) followed by an insert (operation=2) and all fields are the same (of course since none of them was updated)
I actually noticed this because I had the same identity value inserted and/or deleted more than once, which is not possible (unless identity_insert is on, which is not)
Why does CDC record operation=1 instead of 3 and operation=2 instead of 4?
Is this documented anywhere or is it a bug?
The reason you are seeing a Delete/insert pair (Operation number 1/2) as opposed to an update pair (3/4) is because you are updating a "set" of data that ALSO has a unique constraint on your column.
For SQL to make sense of this wihout violating the unique cosntraint, it deletes the row and reinserts it (with the "update").
More information on this. Its not an issue or a defect. its the way SQL works and CDC innocently logs it as it sees it. Remember, CDC is just a subscriber and replicates things as they happen.
If you have a need to see an update you may have to look for the 1/2 "pair" and not ONLY the operation code 3/4.
Some great articles:
Bounded Update is the term used to describe certain types of UPDATE statements from the publisher that will replicate as DELETE/INSERT pairs on the subscriber. We perform a bounded update for every set based update that changes a column that is part of a unique index or constraint. In other words, if an UPDATE statement touches more than one row and modifies a column that is has any UNIQUE constraints, the UPDATE statement is sent to the subscriber as a DELETE/INSERT pair ... read more here
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/238254
I'm currently working on a project involving keeping track of users and their actions with my database (PostgreSQL as the RDMS), and I have run into an issue when trying to perform COUNT(*) on occurrences of each user. What I want is to be able to, efficiently, count the number of times each user appears from every record, and also be able to achieve looking at counts on a particular date range.
So, the problem is how do we achieve counting the total number of times a user appears from the tables contents, and how do we count the total number on a date range.
What I've tried
As you might know, Postgres doesn't support COUNT(*) very well using indices, so we have to consider other ways to reduce the # of records it looks at in order to speed up the query. So my first approach is to create a table to keep track of the number of times a user has a log message associated with them, and on what day (similar to the idea behind a materialized view, but I dont want continually refresh the materialized view with my count query). Here is what I've come up with:
CREATE TABLE users_counts(user varchar(65536), counter int default 0, day date);
CREATE RULE inc_user_date_count
AS ON INSERT TO main_table
DO ALSO UPDATE users_counts SET counter = counter + 1
WHERE user = NEW.user AND day = DATE(NEW.date_);
What this does is every time a new record is inserted into my 'main_table', we update the current users_counts table to increment the records whose date is equal to the new records date, and the user names are the same.
NOTE: the date_ column in 'main_table' is a timestamp so I must cast the new records date_ to be a DATE type.
The problem is, what if the user column value doesn't already exist in my new table 'users_count' for the current day, then nothing is updated.
Here is my question:
How do I write the rule such that we check if a user exists for the current day, if so increment that counter, otherwise insert new row with user, day, and counter of 1;
I also would like to know if my approach makes sense to do, or is there any ideas I am missing that I just haven't thought about. As my database grows, it is increasingly inefficient to perform counting, so I want to avoid any performance bottlenecks.
EDIT 1: I was able to actually figure this out by creating a separate RULE but I'm not sure if this is correct:
CREATE RULE test_insert AS ON INSERT TO main_table
DO ALSO INSERT INTO users_counts(user, counter, day)
SELECT NEW.user, 1, DATE(NEW.date)
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT user FROM users.log_messages WHERE user = NEW.user_);
Basically, an insert happens if the user doesn't already exist in my CACHED table called user_counts, and the first rule above updates the count.
What I'm unsure of is how do I know when which rule is called first, the update rule or insert.. And there must be a better way, how do I combine the two rules? Can this be done with a function?
It is true that postgresql is notoriously slow when it comes to count(*) queries. However if you do have a where clause that limits the number of entries the query will be much faster. If you are using postgresql 9.2 or newer this query will be just as fast as it's in mysql because of index only scans which was added in 9.2 but it's best to explain analyze your query to make sure.
Does my solution make sense?
Very much so provided that your explain analyze show that index only scans are not being used. Trigger based solutions like the one that you have adapted find wide usage. But as you have realized the problem with the initial state arises (whether to do an update or an insert).
which rule is called first
Multiple rules on the same table and same event type are applied in
alphabetical name order.
from http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/sql-createrule.html
the same applies for triggers. If you want a particular rule to be executed first change it's name so that it comes up higher in the alphabetical order.
how do I combine the two rules?
One solution is to modify your rule to perform an upsert (Look right at the bottom of that page for a sample upsert ). The other is to populate the counter table with initial values. The trick is to create the trigger at the same time to avoid errors. This blog post explains it really well.
While the initial setup will be slow each individual insert will probably be faster. The two opposing factors being the slowness of a WHERE NOT EXISTS query vs the overhead of catching an exception.
Tip: A block containing an EXCEPTION clause is significantly more
expensive to enter and exit than a block without one. Therefore, don't
use EXCEPTION without need.
Source the postgresql documentation page linked above.
I'm having troubles with creating a trigger function in postgresql which should do the following:
I have a table with category(varchar), edit_date(timestamp) and actual(boolean).
I already have a trigger which sets the actual timestamp on UPDATE or INSERT. The column 'actual' should then say TRUE, if this edit_date is the most current one for a category. So when there are two entities from category a, the one with the more recent edit_date should be set to TRUE, while the other one of this category should be set to FALSE.
Thank you so much for your help, I'm pretty stuck on this one.
Best
I'm new to postgreSQL, so would really appreciate any pointers from the community.
I am updating some functionality in the CMS of a pretty old site I've just inherited. Basically, I need the ID of an article before it is inserted into the database. Is there anyway anyway to check the next value that will be used by a sequence before a database session (insert) has begun?
At first I thought I could use SELECT max(id) from tbl_name, however as the id is auto incremented from a sequence and articles are often deleted, it obviously won't return a correct id for the next value in the sequence.
As the article isn't in the database yet, and a database session hasn't started, it seems I can't use the currval() functionality of postgreSQL. Furthermore if I use nextval() it auto increments the sequence before the data is inserted (the insert also auto-incrementing the sequence ending up with the sequence being doubly incremented).
The way I am getting around it at the moment is as follows:
function get_next_id()
{
$SQL = "select nextval('table_id_seq')";
$response = $this->db_query($SQL);
$arr = pg_fetch_array($query_response, NULL, PGSQL_ASSOC);
$id = (empty($arr['nextval'])) ? 'NULL' : intval($arr['nextval']);
$new_id = $id-1;
$SQL = "select setval('table_id_seq', {$new_id})";
$this->db_query($SQL);
return $id;
}
I use SELECT nextval('table_id_seq') to get the next ID in the sequence. As this increments the sequence I then immediately use SELECT setval('table_id_seq',$id) to set the sequence back to it's original value. That way when the user submits the data and the code finally hits the INSERT statement, it auto increments and the ID before the insert and after the insert are identical.
While this works for me, I'm not too hot on postgreSQL and wonder if it could cause any problems down the line, or if their isn't a better method? Is there no way to check the next value of a sequence without auto-incrementing it?
If it helps I'm using postgresql 7.2
Folks - there are reasons to get the ID before inserting a record. For example, I have an application that stores the ID as part of the text that is inserted into another field. There are only two ways to do this.
1) Regardless of the method, get the ID before inserting to include in my INSERT statement
2) INSERT, get the the ID (again, regardless of how (SELECT ... or from INSERT ... RETURNING id;)), update the record's text field that includes the ID
Many of the comments and answers assumed the OP was doing something wrong... which is... wrong. The OP clearly stated "Basically, I need the ID of an article before it is inserted into the database". It should not matter why the OP wants/needs to do this - just answer the question.
My solution opted to get the ID up front; so I do nextval() and setval() as necessary to achieve my needed result.
Disclaimer: Not sure about 7.2 as I have never used that.
Apparently your ID column is defined to get its default value from the sequence (probably because it's defined as serial although I don't know if that was available in 7.x).
If you remove the default but keep the sequence, then you can retrieve the next ID using nextval() before inserting the new row.
Removing the default value for the column will require you to always provide an ID during insert (by retrieving it from the sequence). If you are doing that anyway, then I don't see a problem. If you want to cater for both scenarios, create a before insert trigger (does 7.x have them?) that checks if the ID column has a value, if not retrieve a new value from the sequence otherwise leave it alone.
The real question though is: why do you need the ID before insert. You could simply send the row to the server and then get the generated id by calling curval()
But again: you should really (I mean really) talk to the customer to upgrade to a recent version of Postgres