We are using a partitioning scheme that uses a date field in the table to determine the partition that should be used i.e. table foo with child foo_y2016m01.
This works for our simpler tables, but we are researching how to approach some of our more complex table relations to do the same style of partitioning, such as foo having a date field and bar storing the row id of the associated record in foo. The bar table does not have a date field of its own, but we still want to partition the table such that child tables would follow the same format (bar_y2016m01).
Is it possible to format the check constraint on bar such that it can use the date field from foo?
The answer is: Possibly.
You can use an expression in check constraint so you can write a function that will check the other table for you. However it will be only triggered during instert/update on the table so the data might loose integrity and you'll have to use a foreign key or add a trigger to table bar to keep foo correct.
Related
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
I'm new to PostgreSQL.
I was wondering, how do I make a column a drop down list.
So i've got a table called Student. There's a column in there called "student_type", which means whether the student is a part time student, full time student or is sandwich course student.
So I want to make "student_type" a drop down list with 3 choices: "part time" student, "full time" and "sandwich".
How do I do this?
(I'm using pgAdmin to create the databse, by the way.)
A drop-down is a client side thing and should be dealt with accordingly. But as far as a relational database is involved there should exist a student_type relation with the id and type columns which you would query like this:
select st.id, st.type
from student_type st
inner join student s on s.type_id = st.id
group by st.id, st.type
order by st.type
The inner join is to make sure you don't show an option that does not exist in the student table and would therefore produce an empty result if chosen. In the client side the id should be the option value and the type the option text.
If there is no student_type relation as a consequence of bad db design or if you are only allowed to query a denormalized view, you can still use the student relation:
select distinct student_type
from student
order by student_type
In this case the student_type will be both the option value and the option text.
I think You use MS Access before. It is not possible to create such a drop-down list using pgAdmin, but it is possible to limit acceptable values in field "student_type" in a few different ways. Still, this will not be a drop-down or Combobox filed.
eg:
You can use a table with a dictionary and then use a foreign key,
You can use the constraint to check the inserted value
You can use a domain (the field is in the type of Your domain, and the domain is based on
proper constraint)
You can use trigger (before insert or update)
etc.
To put this a different way, Postgres is a database, not a user-interface
library. It doesn't have dropdown lists, text boxes, labels and all that. It is not directly usable by a human that way.
What PG can do is provide a stable source for data used by such widgets. Each widget library has its own rules for how to bind (that is, connect) to a data source. Some let you directly connect the visual component, in this case, the dropdown widget, to a database, or better, a database cursor.
With Postgres, you can create a cursor, which is an in-memory window into the result of a SELECT query of some kind, that your widget or favorite programming language binds to. In your example, the cursor or widget binding would be to the result of a "SELECT student_type FROM student_type" query.
As an aside, the values for "student_type" should not be stored only in
"student". You should have a normalized table structure, which here would give you a "student_type" table that holds the three choices, one per row. (There
are other ways to do this.) The values you specified would be the primary key column. (Alternatively, you'd have those values in a UNIQUE column with a
surrogate key as the primary key, but that's probably overkilling for a simple
lookup table.) The "student.student_type" column would then be a foreign key
into the "student_type.student_type" column.
Oh helloes!
I have two tables, first one (let's call it NameTable) is preset with a set of values (id, name) and the second one (ListTable) is empty but with same columns.
The question is: How can I insert into ListTable a value that comes from NameTable? So that if I change one name in the NameTable then automagically the values in ListTable are updated aswell.
Is there INSERT for this or does the tables has to be created in some special manner?
Tried browsing the manual but without success :(
The suggestion for using INSERT...SELECT is the best method for moving between tables in the same database.
However, there's another way to deal with the auto-update requirement.
It sounds like these are your criteria:
Table A is defined with columns (x,y)
(x,y) is unique
Table B is also defined with columns (x,y)
Table A is a superset of Table B
Table B is to be loaded with data from Table A and needs to remain in sync with UPDATEs on Table A.
This is a job for a FOREIGN KEY with the option ON UPDATE CASCADE:
ALTER TABLE B ADD FOREIGN KEY (x,y) REFERENCES A (x,y) ON UPDATE CASCADE;
Now, not only will it auto-update Table B when Table A is updated, table B is protected against containing (x,y) pairs that do not exist in Table A. If you want records to auto-delete from Table B when deleted from Table A, add "ON UPDATE DELETE."
Hmmm... I'm a bit confused about exactly what you want to do or why, but here are a couple of pointers towards things you might want to take a look at: table inheritance, triggers and rules.
Table inheritance in postgresql allows a table to share the data of a another table. So, if you add a row to the base table, it won't show up in the inherited table, but if you add a row to the inherited table, it will now show up in both tables and updates in either place will reflect it in both tables.
Triggers allow you to setup code that will be run when insert, update or delete operations happen on a table. This would allow you to add the behavior you describe manually.
Rules allow you to setup a rule that will replace a matching query with an alternative query when a specific condition is met.
If you describe your problem further as in why you want this behavior, it might be easier to suggest the right way to go about things :-)
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.
I have a view, one of he column is timetaken type integer i want to change it as numeric.For this I used below syntax
ALTER VIEW view_timesheets ALTER COLUMN timetaken type numeric;
When I run this I got the exception as
"view_timesheets" is not a table, composite type, or foreign table
Please explain how to alter column type.Thank You
It is not possible. You will have to recreate the view by providing its complete definition. Also note that you cannot even CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW when you change the types of the columns. If you have views that depend on the view that changes you will have to DROP / CREATE them also.
In my company we use the strategy where everything that is recreatable in a database (like views, functions, etc.) is stored in a bunch of large SQL files which we execute everytime anything changes in the underlying table structures, so we don't have to care for dependant views.
The view part in these files is basically like:
DROP VIEW IF EXISTS vw_a CASCADE;
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW vw_a AS
...;
DROP VIEW IF EXISTS vw_b_depending_on_a CASCADE;
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW vw_b_depending_on_a AS
...;
Of course the second CASCADE as well as the OR REPLACE seems useless, but they maek it possible to copy&paste changed definitions easily into a running dev database without much thinking.
I have also faced a similar problem while converting the column type of view.
I used the CAST() operator to convert the type from Integer to Varchar(5).
I had a column named age which is of type Integer in my table. So the view query created using that table was also having the type as Integer. So I used the CAST() operator in my view query to change the column type.
CASE
WHEN vhcl_insp_dtls.age = 0 THEN CAST('NEW' AS VARCHAR(5))
ELSE CAST(vhcl_insp_dtls.age AS VARCHAR(5))
END AS age,
So In this way, you can modify your view query without dropping it.