I am new to postgresql and have a question about multiple column unique constraint.
I got this error when tried to add rows to the table:
ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "i_rb_on"
DETAIL: Key (a_fk, b_fk)=(296, 16) already exists.
I used this code (short version):
INSERT INTO rb_on (a_fk, b_fk) SELECT a.pk, b.pk FROM A, B WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM rb_on WHERE a_fk=a.pk AND b_fk=b.pk);
i_rb_on is unique constraint / columns (a_fk, b_fk).
It seems that my WHERE NOT EXISTS doesn't provide a protection against the duplicate key error for this kind of unique key.
UPDATE:
INSERT INTO tabA (mark_done, log_time, tabB_fk, tabC_fk)
SELECT FALSE, '2003-09-02 04:05:06', tabB.pk, tabC.pk FROM tabB, tabC, tabD, tabE, tabF
WHERE (tabC.sf_id='SUMMER' AND tabC.sf_status IN(0,1)
AND tabE.inventory_status=0)
AND tabF.tabD_fk=tabD.pk
AND tabD.tabE_fk=tabE.pk
AND tabE.tabB_fk=tabB.pk
AND tabF.tabC_fk=tabC.pk
AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT *
FROM tabA
WHERE tabB_fk=tabB.pk AND tabC_fk=tabC.pk);
In tabA unique index:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX i_tabA
ON tabA
USING btree
(tabB_fk , tabC_fk );
Only one row (of many) must be inserted into the tabA.
Your WHERE NOT EXISTS never provides proper protection against a unique violation. It only seems to most of the time. The WHERE NOT EXISTS can run concurrently with another insert, so the row is still inserted multiple times and all but one of the inserts causes a unique violation.
For that reason it's often better to just run the insert and let the violation happen if the row already exists.
I can't help you with the exact problem described unless you show the data (as SQL CREATE TABLE and INSERTs) and the real query.
BTW, please don't use old style A, B joins. Use A INNER JOIN B ON (...). It makes it easier to tell which join conditions are supposed to apply to which parts of the query, and harder to forget a join condition. You seem to have done that; you're attempting to insert a cartesian product. I suspect it's just an editing mistake in the query.
I added LIMIT 1 to the end: ...WHERE tabB_fk=tabB.pk AND tabC_fk=tabC.pk) LIMIT1 ;
and it did the trick.
I created a function with LIMIT 1 and ...EXCEPTION WHEN unique_violation THEN ... and it also worked.
But when LIMIT 1 and "NOT EXISTS" are used, I think, it is not necessary to use unique_violation error handling.
Related
I am writing an idempotent schema change script for a Postgres 12 database. However I noticed that if I include the IF NOT EXISTS in an ADD COLUMN statement then even if the column already exists it is adding duplicate Indexes for the uniqueness constraint which already exists. Simple example:
-- set up base table
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS test_table
(id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY
);
-- statement intended to be idempotent
ALTER TABLE test_table
ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS name varchar(50) UNIQUE;
Running this script creates a new index test_table_name_key[n] each time it is run. I can't find anything in the Postgres documentation and don't understand why this is allowed to happen? If I break it into two parts eg:
ALTER TABLE test_table
ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS name varchar(50);
ALTER TABLE
ADD CONSTRAINT test_table_name_key UNIQUE (name);
Then the transaction fails because Postgres rejects the creation of a constraint which already exists (which I can then catch in a DO EXCEPTION block). As far as I can tell this is because doing it by this approach I am forced to give the constraint a name. This constrasts with the ALTER COLUMN SET NOT NULL which can be run multiple times without error or side effects as far as I can tell.
Question: why does it add a duplicate unique constraint and are there any problems with having multiple identical indexes on a table column? (I think this is a subtle 'error' and only spotted it by chance so am concerned it may arise in a production situation)
You can create multiple unique constraints on the same column as long as they have different names, simply because there is nothing in the PostgreSQL code that forbids that. Each unique constraint will create a unique index with the same name, because that is how unique constraints are implemented.
This can be a valid use case: for example, if the index is bloated, you could create a new constraint and then drop the old one.
But normally, it is useless and does harm, because each index will make data modifications on the table slower.
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.
I have a question I know this was posted many times but I didn't find an answer to my problem. The problem is that I have a table and a column "id" I want it to be unique number just as normal. This type of column is serial and the next value after each insert is coming from a sequence so everything seems to be all right but it still sometimes shows this error. I don't know why. In the documentation, it says the sequence is foolproof and always works. If I add a UNIQUE constraint to that column will it help? I worked before many times on Postres but this error is showing for me for the first time. I did everything as normal and I never had this problem before. Can you help me to find the answer that can be used in the future for all tables that will be created? Let's say we have something easy like this:
CREATE TABLE comments
(
id serial NOT NULL,
some_column text NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT id_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id)
)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
ALTER TABLE interesting.comments OWNER TO postgres;
If i add:
ALTER TABLE comments ADD CONSTRAINT id_id_key UNIQUE(id)
Will if be enough or is there some other thing that should be done?
This article explains that your sequence might be out of sync and that you have to manually bring it back in sync.
An excerpt from the article in case the URL changes:
If you get this message when trying to insert data into a PostgreSQL
database:
ERROR: duplicate key violates unique constraint
That likely means that the primary key sequence in the table you're
working with has somehow become out of sync, likely because of a mass
import process (or something along those lines). Call it a "bug by
design", but it seems that you have to manually reset the a primary
key index after restoring from a dump file. At any rate, to see if
your values are out of sync, run these two commands:
SELECT MAX(the_primary_key) FROM the_table;
SELECT nextval('the_primary_key_sequence');
If the first value is higher than the second value, your sequence is
out of sync. Back up your PG database (just in case), then run this command:
SELECT setval('the_primary_key_sequence', (SELECT MAX(the_primary_key) FROM the_table)+1);
That will set the sequence to the next available value that's higher
than any existing primary key in the sequence.
Intro
I also encountered this problem and the solution proposed by #adamo was basically the right solution. However, I had to invest a lot of time in the details, which is why I am now writing a new answer in order to save this time for others.
Case
My case was as follows: There was a table that was filled with data using an app. Now a new entry had to be inserted manually via SQL. After that the sequence was out of sync and no more records could be inserted via the app.
Solution
As mentioned in the answer from #adamo, the sequence must be synchronized manually. For this purpose the name of the sequence is needed. For Postgres, the name of the sequence can be determined with the command PG_GET_SERIAL_SEQUENCE. Most examples use lower case table names. In my case the tables were created by an ORM middleware (like Hibernate or Entity Framework Core etc.) and their names all started with a capital letter.
In an e-mail from 2004 (link) I got the right hint.
(Let's assume for all examples, that Foo is the table's name and Foo_id the related column.)
Command to get the sequence name:
SELECT PG_GET_SERIAL_SEQUENCE('"Foo"', 'Foo_id');
So, the table name must be in double quotes, surrounded by single quotes.
1. Validate, that the sequence is out-of-sync
SELECT CURRVAL(PG_GET_SERIAL_SEQUENCE('"Foo"', 'Foo_id')) AS "Current Value", MAX("Foo_id") AS "Max Value" FROM "Foo";
When the Current Value is less than Max Value, your sequence is out-of-sync.
2. Correction
SELECT SETVAL((SELECT PG_GET_SERIAL_SEQUENCE('"Foo"', 'Foo_id')), (SELECT (MAX("Foo_id") + 1) FROM "Foo"), FALSE);
Replace the table_name to your actual name of the table.
Gives the current last id for the table. Note it that for next step.
SELECT MAX(id) FROM table_name;
Get the next id sequence according to postgresql. Make sure this id is higher than the current max id we get from step 1
SELECT nextVal('"table_name_id_seq"');
if it's not higher than then use this step 3 to update the next sequence.
SELECT setval('"table_name_id_seq"', (SELECT MAX(id) FROM table_name)+1);
The primary key is already protecting you from inserting duplicate values, as you're experiencing when you get that error. Adding another unique constraint isn't necessary to do that.
The "duplicate key" error is telling you that the work was not done because it would produce a duplicate key, not that it discovered a duplicate key already commited to the table.
For future searchs, use ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING.
Referrence - https://www.calazan.com/how-to-reset-the-primary-key-sequence-in-postgresql-with-django/
I had the same problem try this:
python manage.py sqlsequencereset table_name
Eg:
python manage.py sqlsequencereset auth
you need to run this in production settings(if you have)
and you need Postgres installed to run this on the server
From http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/datatype.html
Note: Prior to PostgreSQL 7.3, serial implied UNIQUE. This is no longer automatic. If you wish a serial column to be in a unique constraint or a primary key, it must now be specified, same as with any other data type.
In my case carate table script is:
CREATE TABLE public."Survey_symptom_binds"
(
id integer NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('"Survey_symptom_binds_id_seq"'::regclass),
survey_id integer,
"order" smallint,
symptom_id integer,
CONSTRAINT "Survey_symptom_binds_pkey" PRIMARY KEY (id)
)
SO:
SELECT nextval('"Survey_symptom_binds_id_seq"'::regclass),
MAX(id)
FROM public."Survey_symptom_binds";
SELECT nextval('"Survey_symptom_binds_id_seq"'::regclass) less than MAX(id) !!!
Try to fix the proble:
SELECT setval('"Survey_symptom_binds_id_seq"', (SELECT MAX(id) FROM public."Survey_symptom_binds")+1);
Good Luck every one!
I had the same problem. It was because of the type of my relations. I had a table property which related to both states and cities. So, at first I had a relation from property to states as OneToOne, and the same for cities. And I had the same error "duplicate key violates unique constraint". That means that: I can only have one property related to one state and city. But that doesnt make sense, because a city can have multiple properties. So the problem is the relation. The relation should be ManyToOne. Many properties to One city
Table name started with a capital letter if tables were created by an ORM middleware (like Hibernate or Entity Framework Core etc.)
SELECT setval('"Table_name_Id_seq"', (SELECT MAX("Id") FROM "Table_name") + 1)
WHERE
NOT EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT CURRVAL(PG_GET_SERIAL_SEQUENCE('"Table_name"', 'Id')) AS seq, MAX("Id") AS max_id
FROM "Table_name") AS seq_table
WHERE seq > max_id
)
try that CLI
it's just a suggestion to enhance the adamo code (thanks a lot adamo)
SELECT setval('tableName_columnName_seq', (SELECT MAX(columnName) FROM tableName));
For programatically solution at Django. Based on Paolo Melchiorre's answer, I wrote a chunk as a function to be called before any .save()
from django.db import connection
def setSqlCursor(db_table):
sql = """SELECT pg_catalog.setval(pg_get_serial_sequence('"""+db_table+"""', 'id'), MAX(id)) FROM """+db_table+""";"""
with connection.cursor() as cursor:
cursor.execute(sql)
I have similar problem but I solved it by removing all the foreign key in my Postgresql
I'm trying to insert data into a table which has a foreign key constraint. If there is a constraint violation in a row that I'm inserting, I want to chuck that data away.
The issue is that postgres returns an error every time I violate the constraint. Is it possible for me to have some statement in my insert statement like 'ON FOREIGN KEY CONSTRAINT DO NOTHING'?
EDIT:
This is the query that I'm trying to do, where info is a dict:
cursor.execute("INSERT INTO event (case_number_id, date, \
session, location, event_type, worker, result) VALUES \
(%(id_number)s, %(date)s, %(session)s, \
%(location)s, %(event_type)s, %(worker)s, %(result)s) ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING", info)
It errors out when there is a foreign key violation
If you're only inserting a single row at a time, you can create a savepoint before the insert and rollback to it when the insert fails (or release it when the insert succeeds).
For Postgres 9.5 or later, you can use INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING which does what it says. You can also write ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE SET column = value..., which will automagically convert your insert into an update of the row you are conflicting with (this functionality is sometimes called "upsert").
This does not work because OP is dealing with a foreign key constraint rather than a unique constraint. In that case, you can most easily use the savepoint method I described earlier, but for multiple rows it may prove tedious. If you need to insert multiple rows at once, it should be reasonably performant to split them into multiple insert statements, provided you are not working in autocommit mode, all inserts occur in one transaction, and you are not inserting a very large number of rows.
Sometimes, you really do need multiple inserts in a single statement, because the round-trip overhead of talking to your database plus the cost of having savepoints on every insert is simply too high. In this case, there are a number of imperfect approaches. Probably the least bad is to build a nested query which selects your data and joins it against the other table, something like this:
INSERT INTO table_A (column_A, column_B, column_C)
SELECT A_rows.*
FROM VALUES (...) AS A_rows(column_A, column_B, column_C)
JOIN table_B ON A_rows.column_B = table_B.column_B;
I have a question I know this was posted many times but I didn't find an answer to my problem. The problem is that I have a table and a column "id" I want it to be unique number just as normal. This type of column is serial and the next value after each insert is coming from a sequence so everything seems to be all right but it still sometimes shows this error. I don't know why. In the documentation, it says the sequence is foolproof and always works. If I add a UNIQUE constraint to that column will it help? I worked before many times on Postres but this error is showing for me for the first time. I did everything as normal and I never had this problem before. Can you help me to find the answer that can be used in the future for all tables that will be created? Let's say we have something easy like this:
CREATE TABLE comments
(
id serial NOT NULL,
some_column text NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT id_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id)
)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
ALTER TABLE interesting.comments OWNER TO postgres;
If i add:
ALTER TABLE comments ADD CONSTRAINT id_id_key UNIQUE(id)
Will if be enough or is there some other thing that should be done?
This article explains that your sequence might be out of sync and that you have to manually bring it back in sync.
An excerpt from the article in case the URL changes:
If you get this message when trying to insert data into a PostgreSQL
database:
ERROR: duplicate key violates unique constraint
That likely means that the primary key sequence in the table you're
working with has somehow become out of sync, likely because of a mass
import process (or something along those lines). Call it a "bug by
design", but it seems that you have to manually reset the a primary
key index after restoring from a dump file. At any rate, to see if
your values are out of sync, run these two commands:
SELECT MAX(the_primary_key) FROM the_table;
SELECT nextval('the_primary_key_sequence');
If the first value is higher than the second value, your sequence is
out of sync. Back up your PG database (just in case), then run this command:
SELECT setval('the_primary_key_sequence', (SELECT MAX(the_primary_key) FROM the_table)+1);
That will set the sequence to the next available value that's higher
than any existing primary key in the sequence.
Intro
I also encountered this problem and the solution proposed by #adamo was basically the right solution. However, I had to invest a lot of time in the details, which is why I am now writing a new answer in order to save this time for others.
Case
My case was as follows: There was a table that was filled with data using an app. Now a new entry had to be inserted manually via SQL. After that the sequence was out of sync and no more records could be inserted via the app.
Solution
As mentioned in the answer from #adamo, the sequence must be synchronized manually. For this purpose the name of the sequence is needed. For Postgres, the name of the sequence can be determined with the command PG_GET_SERIAL_SEQUENCE. Most examples use lower case table names. In my case the tables were created by an ORM middleware (like Hibernate or Entity Framework Core etc.) and their names all started with a capital letter.
In an e-mail from 2004 (link) I got the right hint.
(Let's assume for all examples, that Foo is the table's name and Foo_id the related column.)
Command to get the sequence name:
SELECT PG_GET_SERIAL_SEQUENCE('"Foo"', 'Foo_id');
So, the table name must be in double quotes, surrounded by single quotes.
1. Validate, that the sequence is out-of-sync
SELECT CURRVAL(PG_GET_SERIAL_SEQUENCE('"Foo"', 'Foo_id')) AS "Current Value", MAX("Foo_id") AS "Max Value" FROM "Foo";
When the Current Value is less than Max Value, your sequence is out-of-sync.
2. Correction
SELECT SETVAL((SELECT PG_GET_SERIAL_SEQUENCE('"Foo"', 'Foo_id')), (SELECT (MAX("Foo_id") + 1) FROM "Foo"), FALSE);
Replace the table_name to your actual name of the table.
Gives the current last id for the table. Note it that for next step.
SELECT MAX(id) FROM table_name;
Get the next id sequence according to postgresql. Make sure this id is higher than the current max id we get from step 1
SELECT nextVal('"table_name_id_seq"');
if it's not higher than then use this step 3 to update the next sequence.
SELECT setval('"table_name_id_seq"', (SELECT MAX(id) FROM table_name)+1);
The primary key is already protecting you from inserting duplicate values, as you're experiencing when you get that error. Adding another unique constraint isn't necessary to do that.
The "duplicate key" error is telling you that the work was not done because it would produce a duplicate key, not that it discovered a duplicate key already commited to the table.
For future searchs, use ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING.
Referrence - https://www.calazan.com/how-to-reset-the-primary-key-sequence-in-postgresql-with-django/
I had the same problem try this:
python manage.py sqlsequencereset table_name
Eg:
python manage.py sqlsequencereset auth
you need to run this in production settings(if you have)
and you need Postgres installed to run this on the server
From http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/datatype.html
Note: Prior to PostgreSQL 7.3, serial implied UNIQUE. This is no longer automatic. If you wish a serial column to be in a unique constraint or a primary key, it must now be specified, same as with any other data type.
In my case carate table script is:
CREATE TABLE public."Survey_symptom_binds"
(
id integer NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('"Survey_symptom_binds_id_seq"'::regclass),
survey_id integer,
"order" smallint,
symptom_id integer,
CONSTRAINT "Survey_symptom_binds_pkey" PRIMARY KEY (id)
)
SO:
SELECT nextval('"Survey_symptom_binds_id_seq"'::regclass),
MAX(id)
FROM public."Survey_symptom_binds";
SELECT nextval('"Survey_symptom_binds_id_seq"'::regclass) less than MAX(id) !!!
Try to fix the proble:
SELECT setval('"Survey_symptom_binds_id_seq"', (SELECT MAX(id) FROM public."Survey_symptom_binds")+1);
Good Luck every one!
I had the same problem. It was because of the type of my relations. I had a table property which related to both states and cities. So, at first I had a relation from property to states as OneToOne, and the same for cities. And I had the same error "duplicate key violates unique constraint". That means that: I can only have one property related to one state and city. But that doesnt make sense, because a city can have multiple properties. So the problem is the relation. The relation should be ManyToOne. Many properties to One city
Table name started with a capital letter if tables were created by an ORM middleware (like Hibernate or Entity Framework Core etc.)
SELECT setval('"Table_name_Id_seq"', (SELECT MAX("Id") FROM "Table_name") + 1)
WHERE
NOT EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT CURRVAL(PG_GET_SERIAL_SEQUENCE('"Table_name"', 'Id')) AS seq, MAX("Id") AS max_id
FROM "Table_name") AS seq_table
WHERE seq > max_id
)
try that CLI
it's just a suggestion to enhance the adamo code (thanks a lot adamo)
SELECT setval('tableName_columnName_seq', (SELECT MAX(columnName) FROM tableName));
For programatically solution at Django. Based on Paolo Melchiorre's answer, I wrote a chunk as a function to be called before any .save()
from django.db import connection
def setSqlCursor(db_table):
sql = """SELECT pg_catalog.setval(pg_get_serial_sequence('"""+db_table+"""', 'id'), MAX(id)) FROM """+db_table+""";"""
with connection.cursor() as cursor:
cursor.execute(sql)
I have similar problem but I solved it by removing all the foreign key in my Postgresql