I have a rule for a table which simply checks if the new entry matches a name and intersects with that matching existing row using st_intersects from postgis library.
It seems that only a part are NOT inserted, but most get through this rule. I checked some entries manually after the insert and can confirm the rule should have blocked that insert.
Is something wrong with my RULE?
Table has 3 columns. id serial, name varchar(200) and way geometry(Linestring,4326)
And my RULE is as follows (excerpt from \d names)
blockduplicate AS
ON INSERT TO nameslist
WHERE (EXISTS ( SELECT 1
FROM nameslist
WHERE nameslist.name::text = new.name::text AND st_intersects(nameslist.way, new.way) = true)) DO INSTEAD NOTHING
This table simply takes a line having a name, and whenever another entry comes in with the same name and intersecting with another existing entry having the same name, it should be blocked. So I have only one entry with this name in the area represented by the geometry field way. After the insert I see plenty of duplicates (name matches and st_intersects returns true when checking way field). Why is my rule not blocking the insert?
Update: Is it because I do multiple inserts in one query. I actually insert 12000 entries in one shot with the query INSERT INTO (a,b,c) VALUES (...),(...),(...),...
Does PostgreSQL call the RULE for each value? I need to do multiple inserts otherwise it would take months to finish my inserts.
Ok, usually you are going to find triggers are cleaner than rules. Triggers are fired on each insert. Rules are macros which rewrite your SQL. There is a time and place for the use of rules but they are certainly an advanced area.
Let's look at what happens with your insert. Suppose you:
INSERT INTO nameslist
SELECT * FROM nameslist_import;
Your rule will actually rewrite the query into something like:
INSERT INTO nameslist
SELECT * FROM nameslist_import WHERE not (expression modelled on your rule);
Usually it is cleaner here to just write this into your query rather than using a rule to rewrite your query for you. This allows you to tune exactly what you want to do in each query. If you want to prevent such data from overlapping, look at exclude constraints if they are applicable or triggers.
Hope this helps.
Related
I have to produce a dynamically generated T-SQL script that inserts records into various tables. I've done a bunch of searching and testing but can't seem to find the path I'm looking for.
I know that the following is valid SQL:
INSERT INTO [MyTable] ( [Col1], [Col2], [Col3] )
SELECT N'Val1', N'Val2', N'Val3';
But, is it at all possible to write something akin to this:
INSERT INTO [MyTable]
SELECT [Col1] = N'Val1', [Col2] = N'Val2', [Col3] = N'Val3';
By having the columns in the select statement, I'm able to do it all at once vs writing 2 separate lines. Obviously my idea doesn't work, I'm trying to figure out whether something similar is possible or I need to stick with the first one.
Much appreciated.
Best practice for insert statements is to specify the columns list in the insert clause, and for very good reasons:
It's far more readable. You know exactly what value goes into what column.
You don't have to provide values to nullable \ default valued columns.
You're not bound to the order of the columns in the table.
In case a column is added to the table, your insert statement might not break (It will if the newly added column is not nullable and doesn't have a default value).
In some cases, SQL Server demands you specify the columns list explicitly, like when identity_insert is set to on.
And in any case, the column names or aliases in the select clause of the insert...select statement does not have any effect as to what target columns the value column should go to. values are directed to target based only on their location in the statement.
I have three different values in my database that represent a null: an actual null, an empty string, and a string {x:Null}. This value appears across multiple columns.
{x:Null} is normalized on the web front-end, so all these values look exactly the same although they end up ordered differently in a sort. How can I write a query that will take these values and make them actual nulls across every column and every table?
Bonus points if you can tell me how to make sure these other empty values are always inserted as nulls going forward. (Disclaimer: I have no power to grant any actual bonus points. ;)
You can query the information_schema to get a list of all tables and columns with a string type.
SELECT table_name, column_name
FROM information_schema.columns
WHERE data_type IN ('text', 'character', 'character varying')
NOTE double check first what values data_type has, I'm not sure if it will be character or char or what.
Then I would write a small program to update each column in each table. Here it is sketched out in Perl.
while( my($table, $column) = $sth->fetch ) {
my $q_table = $dbh->quote($table);
my $q_column = $dbh->quote($column);
$dbh->do(q[
UPDATE `$q_table`
SET `$q_column` = NULL
WHERE `$q_column` = '{x:Null}'
OR `$q_column` = ''
]);
}
Be sure to SQL escape $table and $column as in my sample.
Going forward, you'll have to set CONSTRAINTS on each and every column. You can use the information_schema.columns to do this as well. Something like
ALTER TABLE `$q_table` ADD CHECK(`$q_column` NOT IN ('{x:Null}', ''))
You could use a trigger to change the values to NULL, but I don't like data stores that silently change basic data for application purposes.
For new columns and tables, you'll have to remember to add that constraint. Same caveats about data_type apply.
However, it's probably a bad idea to say that no column can ever be an empty string. You might want to be bit more selective.
Another thing to note: NULL is a funny thing, its not true and its not false. You might be better off deciding that an empty string is the thing to set empty values to.
I don't think this approach is maintainable. It's scribbling an application rule all over the data layer. What if you have some data that doesn't follow that rule? And it will have to be continuously maintained for any new data schema added. Perhaps instead you should put this at your ORM layer. Or write a few stored procedures to take care of this.
Using the information_schema.columns table, write a procedural language routine which iterates through all applicable tables and columns, executing an update... set *column* = NULL...where column in ('','{x:Null}'). for each eligible column.
As for inserting these values as NULL going forward, you would have to set triggers on your tables to intercept these values and replace them with NULL.
I don't think there is any query that would do this thing for every table and every column. In principle, what you want to do is
UPDATE table SET column=NULL WHERE column='' OR column='{x:Null}';
You could try selecting data from the pg_attribute and pg_class columns to get the names of the tables and names of the columns and then generating automatically the queries. Be sure to select only those columns that contain textual data.
What if somebody has entered a genuine string '{x:Null}'? You would then change it into NULL.
However, you have done a real mistake by letting the situation to be as bad as it's currently. You should always normalize data before putting it into a database.
Using Postgres 9.3:
I am attempting to automatically populate a table when an insert is performed on another table. This seems like a good use for rules, but after adding the rule to the first table, I am no longer able to perform inserts into the second table using the writable CTE. Here is an example:
CREATE TABLE foo (
id INT PRIMARY KEY
);
CREATE TABLE bar (
id INT PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES foo
);
CREATE RULE insertFoo AS ON INSERT TO foo DO INSERT INTO bar VALUES (NEW.id);
WITH a AS (SELECT * FROM (VALUES (1), (2)) b)
INSERT INTO foo SELECT * FROM a
When this is run, I get the error
"ERROR: WITH cannot be used in a query that is rewritten by rules
into multiple queries".
I have searched for that error string, but am only able to find links to the source code. I know that I can perform the above using row-level triggers instead, but it seems like I should be able to do this at the statement level. Why can I not use the writable CTE, when queries like this can (in this case) be easily re-written as:
INSERT INTO foo SELECT * FROM (VALUES (1), (2)) a
Does anyone know of another way that would accomplish what I am attempting to do other than 1) using rules, which prevents the use of "with" queries, or 2) using row-level triggers? Thanks,
TL;DR: use triggers, not rules.
Generally speaking, prefer triggers over rules, unless rules are absolutely necessary. (Which, in practice, they never are.)
Using rules introduces heaps of problems which will needlessly complicate your life down the road. You've run into one here. Another (major) one is, for instance, that the number of affected rows will correspond to that of the very last query -- if you're relying on FOUND somewhere and your query is incorrectly reporting that no rows were affected by a query, you'll be in for painful bugs.
Moreover, there's occasional talk of deprecating Postgres rules outright:
http://postgresql.nabble.com/Deprecating-RULES-td5727689.html
As the other answer I definitely recommend using INSTEAD OF triggers before RULEs.
However if for some reason you don't want to change existing VIEW RULEs and still want use WITH you can do so by wrapping the VIEW in a stored procedure:
create function insert_foo(int) returns void as $$
insert into foo values ($1)
$$ language sql;
WITH a AS (SELECT * FROM (VALUES (1), (2)) b)
SELECT insert_foo(a.column1) from a;
This could be useful when using some legacy db through some system that wraps statements with CTEs.
I have a table BigTable and a table LittleTable. I want to move a copy of some records from BigTable into LittleTable and then (for these records) set BigTable.ExportedFlag to T (indicating that a copy of the record has been moved to little table).
Is there any way to do this in one statement?
I know I can do a transaction to:
moves the records from big table based on a where clause
updates big table setting exported to T based on this same where clause.
I've also looked into a MERGE statement, which does not seem quite right, because I don't want to change values in little table, just move records to little table.
I've looked into an OUTPUT clause after the update statement but can't find a useful example. I don't understand why Pinal Dave is using Inserted.ID, Inserted.TEXTVal, Deleted.ID, Deleted.TEXTVal instead of Updated.TextVal. Is the update considered an insertion or deletion?
I found this post TSQL: UPDATE with INSERT INTO SELECT FROM saying "AFAIK, you cannot update two different tables with a single sql statement."
Is there a clean single statement to do this? I am looking for a correct, maintainable SQL statement. Do I have to wrap two statements in a single transaction?
You can use the OUTPUT clause as long as LittleTable meets the requirements to be the target of an OUTPUT ... INTO
UPDATE BigTable
SET ExportedFlag = 'T'
OUTPUT inserted.Col1, inserted.Col2 INTO LittleTable(Col1,Col2)
WHERE <some_criteria>
It makes no difference if you use INSERTED or DELETED. The only column it will be different for is the one you are updating (deleted.ExportedFlag has the before value and inserted.ExportedFlag will be T)
Some SQL servers have a feature where INSERT is skipped if it would violate a primary/unique key constraint. For instance, MySQL has INSERT IGNORE.
What's the best way to emulate INSERT IGNORE and ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE with PostgreSQL?
With PostgreSQL 9.5, this is now native functionality (like MySQL has had for several years):
INSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE ("UPSERT")
9.5 brings support for "UPSERT" operations.
INSERT is extended to accept an ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE/IGNORE clause. This clause specifies an alternative action to take in the event of a would-be duplicate violation.
...
Further example of new syntax:
INSERT INTO user_logins (username, logins)
VALUES ('Naomi',1),('James',1)
ON CONFLICT (username)
DO UPDATE SET logins = user_logins.logins + EXCLUDED.logins;
Edit: in case you missed warren's answer, PG9.5 now has this natively; time to upgrade!
Building on Bill Karwin's answer, to spell out what a rule based approach would look like (transferring from another schema in the same DB, and with a multi-column primary key):
CREATE RULE "my_table_on_duplicate_ignore" AS ON INSERT TO "my_table"
WHERE EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM my_table
WHERE (pk_col_1, pk_col_2)=(NEW.pk_col_1, NEW.pk_col_2))
DO INSTEAD NOTHING;
INSERT INTO my_table SELECT * FROM another_schema.my_table WHERE some_cond;
DROP RULE "my_table_on_duplicate_ignore" ON "my_table";
Note: The rule applies to all INSERT operations until the rule is dropped, so not quite ad hoc.
For those of you that have Postgres 9.5 or higher, the new ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING syntax should work:
INSERT INTO target_table (field_one, field_two, field_three )
SELECT field_one, field_two, field_three
FROM source_table
ON CONFLICT (field_one) DO NOTHING;
For those of us who have an earlier version, this right join will work instead:
INSERT INTO target_table (field_one, field_two, field_three )
SELECT source_table.field_one, source_table.field_two, source_table.field_three
FROM source_table
LEFT JOIN target_table ON source_table.field_one = target_table.field_one
WHERE target_table.field_one IS NULL;
Try to do an UPDATE. If it doesn't modify any row that means it didn't exist, so do an insert. Obviously, you do this inside a transaction.
You can of course wrap this in a function if you don't want to put the extra code on the client side. You also need a loop for the very rare race condition in that thinking.
There's an example of this in the documentation: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/plpgsql-control-structures.html, example 40-2 right at the bottom.
That's usually the easiest way. You can do some magic with rules, but it's likely going to be a lot messier. I'd recommend the wrap-in-function approach over that any day.
This works for single row, or few row, values. If you're dealing with large amounts of rows for example from a subquery, you're best of splitting it into two queries, one for INSERT and one for UPDATE (as an appropriate join/subselect of course - no need to write your main filter twice)
To get the insert ignore logic you can do something like below. I found simply inserting from a select statement of literal values worked best, then you can mask out the duplicate keys with a NOT EXISTS clause. To get the update on duplicate logic I suspect a pl/pgsql loop would be necessary.
INSERT INTO manager.vin_manufacturer
(SELECT * FROM( VALUES
('935',' Citroën Brazil','Citroën'),
('ABC', 'Toyota', 'Toyota'),
('ZOM',' OM','OM')
) as tmp (vin_manufacturer_id, manufacturer_desc, make_desc)
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
--ignore anything that has already been inserted
SELECT 1 FROM manager.vin_manufacturer m where m.vin_manufacturer_id = tmp.vin_manufacturer_id)
)
INSERT INTO mytable(col1,col2)
SELECT 'val1','val2'
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM mytable WHERE col1='val1')
As #hanmari mentioned in his comment. when inserting into a postgres tables, the on conflict (..) do nothing is the best code to use for not inserting duplicate data.:
query = "INSERT INTO db_table_name(column_name)
VALUES(%s) ON CONFLICT (column_name) DO NOTHING;"
The ON CONFLICT line of code will allow the insert statement to still insert rows of data. The query and values code is an example of inserted date from a Excel into a postgres db table.
I have constraints added to a postgres table I use to make sure the ID field is unique. Instead of running a delete on rows of data that is the same, I add a line of sql code that renumbers the ID column starting at 1.
Example:
q = 'ALTER id_column serial RESTART WITH 1'
If my data has an ID field, I do not use this as the primary ID/serial ID, I create a ID column and I set it to serial.
I hope this information is helpful to everyone.
*I have no college degree in software development/coding. Everything I know in coding, I study on my own.
Looks like PostgreSQL supports a schema object called a rule.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/rules-update.html
You could create a rule ON INSERT for a given table, making it do NOTHING if a row exists with the given primary key value, or else making it do an UPDATE instead of the INSERT if a row exists with the given primary key value.
I haven't tried this myself, so I can't speak from experience or offer an example.
This solution avoids using rules:
BEGIN
INSERT INTO tableA (unique_column,c2,c3) VALUES (1,2,3);
EXCEPTION
WHEN unique_violation THEN
UPDATE tableA SET c2 = 2, c3 = 3 WHERE unique_column = 1;
END;
but it has a performance drawback (see PostgreSQL.org):
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.
On bulk, you can always delete the row before the insert. A deletion of a row that doesn't exist doesn't cause an error, so its safely skipped.
For data import scripts, to replace "IF NOT EXISTS", in a way, there's a slightly awkward formulation that nevertheless works:
DO
$do$
BEGIN
PERFORM id
FROM whatever_table;
IF NOT FOUND THEN
-- INSERT stuff
END IF;
END
$do$;