I am using Postgresql 8.3
I have a Database table contaning buy_value and sell_value. I wish to add a DEFAULT function so that on Every Insert, database will calculate the profit according to the buy and sell values and insert that to the related column...
How should I define my alter?
it's not as simple as changing the DEFAULT value... you'll need a trigger before insert. (but its not recomended to store calculated fields on the table, because you risk to break the data integrity)
check this out
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/triggers.html
Good Luck
I can't really think of a good reason to store such computed column in postgres.
In terms of speed of writing and reading - additional I/O will produce performance hit which can very hardly be justified (maybe in most CPU bound systems, but even then for such trivial operation it would not make sense).
Usually storing computed columns is necessary to create an index, however postgres has functional indexes, so you can create an index without having a materialized column and for the rest of the purposes use a view.
drop table foo2 cascade;
create table foo2 (val int, valplus int);
create or replace function fooplusonetrig()
returns trigger as $$
declare
rec record;
begin
raise notice 'here with % %',new.val,new.valplus;
new.valplus := new.val + 1;
return new;
end; $$ language 'plpgsql';
create trigger fooplusonetrig before insert ON foo2 for each row execute procedure fooplusonetrig();
insert into foo2 values (2,1);
select * from foo2;
val | valplus
-----+---------
2 | 3
Related
I have a trigger defined on several tables to fire after all INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE, all using the same trigger function. The trigger function performs an expensive check, but I can speed it up significantly by filtering some of the intermediate steps of that check using either a WHERE machine_serial = NEW.machine_serial or WHERE machine_serial = OLD.machine_serial clause, depending on what type of statement fired the trigger. However, not all the tables actually have a machine_serial column, so I can't perform this filtering when the trigger is fired on one of those tables. I am currently trying to find a good solution to making the decision of whether to filter or not from within the trigger function, and I believe that simply checking whether NEW or OLD has the machine_serial field would be easiest, clearest, and fastest. I can't find any way to do that in the documentation though, but checking whether a RECORD contains a certain field seems like such a basic, commonplace operation for anyone that has to work with RECORDs that I assume that I've just got to be missing it somewhere - I can't imagine that it's just not possible.
For completeness, I'll go over the alternatives I've considered to the hypothetical does-RECORD-have-field check:
I could create two trigger functions, do_expensive_check_with_machine_serial() and do_expensive_check_without_machine_serial(), and use one or the other depending on whether the table has the machine_serial column. But if I or anyone after me needs to alter the logic in either one of these functions, they'll need to remember to alter the logic in the other one, too.
I could stick with the one trigger function I currently have, and figure out whether the firing table has machine_serial by just trying to access NEW.machine_serial or OLD.machine_serial. If that raises an exception, I can catch it and then I'll know the field isn't present. But the manual explicitly suggests avoiding using exception blocks unless absolutely necessary, due to performance impacts.
I could stick with the one trigger function I currently have, and just add a check like this: IF (TG_TABLE_SCHEMA = x AND TG_TABLE_NAME = y) OR (TG_TABLE_SCHEMA = w AND TG_TABLE_NAME = z) OR ...
, and just maintain that list of every table that has a machine_serial column. But then I and anyone that comes after me would need to alter that check in the trigger function any time the trigger is added to a new table, which is less than ideal.
Of course, the above three alternatives would all function, but they all feel like bad design choices to me. Maybe it's because I'm used to the dynamicness offered by Python, but if I used any of these alternatives, I would feel like I'm doing something wrong. And PostgreSQL is pretty good about offering lots of operators on all sorts of data types, so I just can't imagine that something as basic as checking whether a RECORD or ROW-type variable contains a certain field is impossible.
Before I show the solution, I have to say, so this requirement can be signal of some unhappy design. Maybe you try to implement some functionality that should not be implemented in triggers. Triggers are good, but too smart too generic too rich can be very slow and very hard to maintain and fix errors (but as every in life, there are exceptions from rules).
So first - you can look to system catalog:
CREATE FUNCTION public.foo_trg() RETURNS trigger
LANGUAGE plpgsql
AS $$
begin
raise notice 'a exists %', exists(select * from pg_attribute where attrelid = new.tableoid and attname = 'a');
raise notice 'd exists %', exists(select * from pg_attribute where attrelid = new.tableoid and attname = 'd');
return new;
end;
$$;
CREATE TABLE public.foo (
a integer,
b integer
);
CREATE TRIGGER foo_trg_insert
AFTER INSERT ON public.foo
FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE FUNCTION public.foo_trg();
(2022-09-02 06:18:41) postgres=# insert into foo values(1,2);
NOTICE: a exists t
NOTICE: d exists f
INSERT 0 1
Second solution is based on record to jsonb transformations:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.foo_trg()
RETURNS trigger
LANGUAGE plpgsql
AS $$
declare j jsonb;
begin
j := to_jsonb(new);
raise notice 'a exists %', j ? 'a';
raise notice 'd exists %', j ? 'd';
return new;
end;
$$
(2022-09-02 06:24:54) postgres=# insert into foo values(1,2);
NOTICE: a exists t
NOTICE: d exists f
INSERT 0 1
Second solution can be faster, because doesn't requires queries to system catalog. It hits just system catalog cache, but it doesn't work on some legacy PostgreSQL releases.
I'm moving from MySql to Postgres, and I noticed that when you delete rows from MySql, the unique ids for those rows are re-used when you make new ones. With Postgres, if you create rows, and delete them, the unique ids are not used again.
Is there a reason for this behaviour in Postgres? Can I make it act more like MySql in this case?
Sequences have gaps to permit concurrent inserts. Attempting to avoid gaps or to re-use deleted IDs creates horrible performance problems. See the PostgreSQL wiki FAQ.
PostgreSQL SEQUENCEs are used to allocate IDs. These only ever increase, and they're exempt from the usual transaction rollback rules to permit multiple transactions to grab new IDs at the same time. This means that if a transaction rolls back, those IDs are "thrown away"; there's no list of "free" IDs kept, just the current ID counter. Sequences are also usually incremented if the database shuts down uncleanly.
Synthetic keys (IDs) are meaningless anyway. Their order is not significant, their only property of significance is uniqueness. You can't meaningfully measure how "far apart" two IDs are, nor can you meaningfully say if one is greater or less than another. All you can do is say "equal" or "not equal". Anything else is unsafe. You shouldn't care about gaps.
If you need a gapless sequence that re-uses deleted IDs, you can have one, you just have to give up a huge amount of performance for it - in particular, you cannot have any concurrency on INSERTs at all, because you have to scan the table for the lowest free ID, locking the table for write so no other transaction can claim the same ID. Try searching for "postgresql gapless sequence".
The simplest approach is to use a counter table and a function that gets the next ID. Here's a generalized version that uses a counter table to generate consecutive gapless IDs; it doesn't re-use IDs, though.
CREATE TABLE thetable_id_counter ( last_id integer not null );
INSERT INTO thetable_id_counter VALUES (0);
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION get_next_id(countertable regclass, countercolumn text) RETURNS integer AS $$
DECLARE
next_value integer;
BEGIN
EXECUTE format('UPDATE %s SET %I = %I + 1 RETURNING %I', countertable, countercolumn, countercolumn, countercolumn) INTO next_value;
RETURN next_value;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
COMMENT ON get_next_id(countername regclass) IS 'Increment and return value from integer column $2 in table $1';
Usage:
INSERT INTO dummy(id, blah)
VALUES ( get_next_id('thetable_id_counter','last_id'), 42 );
Note that when one open transaction has obtained an ID, all other transactions that try to call get_next_id will block until the 1st transaction commits or rolls back. This is unavoidable and for gapless IDs and is by design.
If you want to store multiple counters for different purposes in a table, just add a parameter to the above function, add a column to the counter table, and add a WHERE clause to the UPDATE that matches the parameter to the added column. That way you can have multiple independently-locked counter rows. Do not just add extra columns for new counters.
This function does not re-use deleted IDs, it just avoids introducing gaps.
To re-use IDs I advise ... not re-using IDs.
If you really must, you can do so by adding an ON INSERT OR UPDATE OR DELETE trigger on the table of interest that adds deleted IDs to a free-list side table, and removes them from the free-list table when they're INSERTed. Treat an UPDATE as a DELETE followed by an INSERT. Now modify the ID generation function above so that it does a SELECT free_id INTO next_value FROM free_ids FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1 and if found, DELETEs that row. IF NOT FOUND gets a new ID from the generator table as normal. Here's an untested extension of the prior function to support re-use:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION get_next_id_reuse(countertable regclass, countercolumn text, freelisttable regclass, freelistcolumn text) RETURNS integer AS $$
DECLARE
next_value integer;
BEGIN
EXECUTE format('SELECT %I FROM %s FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1', freelistcolumn, freelisttable) INTO next_value;
IF next_value IS NOT NULL THEN
EXECUTE format('DELETE FROM %s WHERE %I = %L', freelisttable, freelistcolumn, next_value);
ELSE
EXECUTE format('UPDATE %s SET %I = %I + 1 RETURNING %I', countertable, countercolumn, countercolumn, countercolumn) INTO next_value;
END IF;
RETURN next_value;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
I have a problem I am stuck on for some time now. So I wanted to reach out for a little help.
I have 2 tables which are holding the same data: transactions and transactions2.
I want to write a Trigger that is triggering every time a new row is added to transactions and insert it into transaction2 in PLSQL.
First I simply duplicated the table with
CREATE TABLE transactions2 (SELECT * FROM transactions WHERE 1=1);
I think I found out how to insert
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION copyRow RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$
DECLARE
BEGIN
INSERT INTO transaction2
VALUES transaction;
END;
I think the syntax with this is also wrong, but how do I say, that the Trigger should start as soon as a new Insert into the first table is made?
Can anyone help me with this?
Thanks
Bobby
The correct syntax for an INSERT is INSERT (<column list>) VALUES (<values list>). The INSERT syntax isn't different in a function compared to "outside". So your trigger function should look something like:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION t2t2_f ()
RETURNS TRIGGER
AS
$$
BEGIN
INSERT INTO transactions2
(column_1,
...,
column_n)
VALUES (NEW.column_1,
...,
NEW.column_n);
RETURN NEW;
END;
$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;
Replace the column_is with the actual column names of your table. NEW is a pseudo record with which you can access the values of the new row.
To create the trigger itself use something like:
CREATE TRIGGER t2t2_t
AFTER INSERT
ON transactions
FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE PROCEDURE t2t2_f();
You may want to use another timing, e.g. BEFORE instead of AFTER.
That should give you something to start with. Please consider studying the comprehensive PostgreSQL Manual for further and more detailed information.
I'm writing three triggers in PL/pgSQL. In each case, I have a RECORD variable and want to insert that into a table, delete it from the table, or update it to represent a second RECORD variable.
Adding is easy: INSERT INTO mytable VALUES (NEW.*);
Deleting isn't as easy, there doesn't seem to be a syntax for something like this:
DELETE FROM mytable
WHERE * = OLD.*;
Updating has the same problem. Is there an easy solution, short of generating matching SQL queries that compare each attribute using ideas from this answer?
You can use a trick for delete
create table t(a int, b int);
create table ta(a int, b int);
create function t1_delete()
returns trigger as $$
begin
delete from ta where ta = old;
return null;
end
$$ language plpgsql;
But this trick doesn't work for UPDATE. So fully simple trigger in PL/pgSQL is not possible simply.
You write about a record variable and it is, indeed, not trivial to access individual columns of an anonymous record in plpgsql.
However, in your example, you only use OLD and NEW, which are well known row types, defined by the underlying table. It is trivial to access individual columns in this case.
DELETE FROM mytable
WHERE mytable_id = OLD.mytable_id;
UPDATE mytable_b
SET some_col = NEW.some_other_col
WHERE some_id = NEW.mytable_id;
Etc.
Just be careful not to create endless loops.
In case you just want to "update" columns of the current row, you can simply assign to columns the NEW object in the trigger. You know that, right?
NEW.some_col := 'foo';
Dynamic column names
If you don't know column names beforehand, you can still do this generically with dynamic SQL as detailed in this related answer:
Update multiple columns in a trigger function in plpgsql
I am trying to delete a row from one table and insert it with some additional data into another. I know this can be done in two separate commands, one to delete and another to insert into the new table. However I am trying to combine them and it is not working, this is my query so far:
insert into b (one,two,num) values delete from a where id = 1 returning one, two, 5;
When running that I get the following error:
ERROR: syntax error at or near "delete"
Can anyone point out how to accomplish this, or is there a better way? or is it not possible?
You cannot do this before PostgreSQL 9.1, which is not yet released. And then the syntax would be
WITH foo AS (DELETE FROM a WHERE id = 1 RETURNING one, two, 5)
INSERT INTO b (one, two, num) SELECT * FROM foo;
Before PostgreSQL 9.1 you can create a volatile function like this (untested):
create function move_from_a_to_b(_id integer, _num integer)
returns void language plpgsql volatile as
$$
declare
_one integer;
_two integer;
begin
delete from a where id = _id returning one, two into strict _one, _two;
insert into b (one,two,num) values (_one, _two, _num);
end;
$$
And then just use select move_from_a_to_b(1, 5). A function has the advantage over two statements that it will always run in single transaction — there's no need to explicitly start and commit transaction in client code.
For all version of PostgreSQL, you can create a trigger function for deleting rows from a table and inserting them to another table. But it seems slower than bulk insert that is released in PostgreSQL 9.1. You just need to move the old data into the another table before it gets deleted. This is done with the OLD data type:
CREATE FUNCTION moveDeleted() RETURNS trigger AS $$
BEGIN
INSERT INTO another_table VALUES(OLD.column1, OLD.column2,...);
RETURN OLD;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
CREATE TRIGGER moveDeleted
BEFORE DELETE ON table
FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE PROCEDURE moveDeleted();
As above answer, after PostgreSQL 9.1 you can do this:
WITH tmp AS (DELETE FROM table RETURNING column1, column2, ...)
INSERT INTO another_table (column1, column2, ...) SELECT * FROM tmp;
That syntax you have there isn't valid. 2 statements is the best way to do this. The most intuitive way to do it would be to do the insert first and the delete second.
As "AI W", two statements are certainly the best option for you, but you could also consider writing a trigger for that. Each time something is deleted in your first table, another is filled.