I have a table of user-uploaded objects. Each user can have an arbitrary number of objects. I want each object to have a sequential identifier, like so:
USERNAME OBJECTNAME OBJID
Kerin cat 1
Kerin dog 2
Narcolepsy pie_tins 1
Kerin mouse 3
I'd like for OBJID to be a sequence, but tracking the sequence number individually per USERNAME field. I can sort of accomplish this by first querying the DB and SELECTing the highest OBJID and then incrementing that value by one and using it in my INSERT, and that's probably fine because it'd be difficult for a user to run two uploads at once, but the query overhead and the feeling that I'm doing it wrong makes me want to find a better way.
If you don't need them to be sequential then you could probably get away with adding a PK of type serial (or bigserial) to the table. The numbers would still be unique per-username but it would be dead simple to implement and you wouldn't have the ugliness of UUIDs.
You could create one sequence per username through manual CREATE SEQUENCE calls. Then, you could add a BEFORE INSERT trigger to set the objid by figuring out which sequence to use and then calling nextval on it. If your usernames are limited to the usual /[a-z][a-z0-9]*/ pattern, then you could build the sequence names as something like "seq_objid_username" and the trigger would be able to figure out which sequence to use quite easily; the per-username sequences could be created by an INSERT trigger on your user table. This approach will work and it will be safe because it relies on PostgreSQL's existing transaction-safe sequence system.
Related
I’m working with identifiers in a rather unusual format: every single ID has the same prefix and the prefix consists of as many as 25 characters. The only thing that is unique is the last part of the ID string and it has a variable length of up to ten characters:
ID
----------------------------------
lorem:ipsum:dolor:sit:amet:12345
lorem:ipsum:dolor:sit:amet:abcd123
lorem:ipsum:dolor:sit:amet:efg1
I’m looking for advice on the best strategy around indexing and matching this kind of ID string in PostgreSQL.
One approach I have considered is basically cutting these long prefixes out and only storing the unique suffix in the table column.
Another option that comes to mind is only indexing the suffix:
CREATE INDEX ON books (substring(book_id FROM 26));
I don’t think this is the best idea though as you would need to remember to always strip out the prefix when querying the table. If you forgot to do it and had a WHERE book_id = '<full ID here>' filter, the index would basically be ignored by the planner.
Most times I always create an integer type ID for my tables if even I have one unique string type of field. Recommendation for you is a good idea, I must view all your queries in DB. If you are recently using substring(book_id FROM 26) after the where statement, this is the best way to create expression index (function-based index). Basically, you need to check table joining conditions, which fields are used in the joining processes, and which fields are used after WHERE statements in your queries. After then you can prepare the best plan for creating indexes. If on the process of table joining you are using last part unique characters on the ID field then this is the best way to extract unique last characters and store this in additional fields or create expression index using the function for extracting unique characters.
In Postgresql (and Sybase ADS), I am making my own trigger-based multimaster replication across both platforms which must dynamically handle various composite keys and sometimes no PK on certain tables. To make it easiest, I am trying to auto generate the INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE where the user can choose which columns they want to copy over by listing column names in a cell separated by semicolon.
-"SELECT Address, city, us_state, zipcode FROM public.place;" would be a table that needs to replicate.
-The Metatable for Publication/Subscriptions would have a cell containing 'Address;city;us_state;zipcode'.
-I am using Insert/update/delete triggers to capture new row data and want to use the columns to dynamically make a statement like
"insert into place (Address,city,us_state,zipcode) VALUES (NEW.Address,NEW.city,NEW.us_state,NEW.zipcode);" which can be read and executed on the desination via script. I will do the same action for UPDATE and DELETE, using OLD prefix in the UPDATE and DELETE generated statements where needed.
I am not looking for someone to do a bunch of work, but to give an idea of any functions, logic and statements involved. Thank you for any ideas or advice.
You can split a String and create an Array using the regexp_split_to_array function.
Probably something like: regexp_split_to_array(metacolumn, ';')
More info about string functions: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/functions-string.html
I would like to replace some of the sequences I use for id's in my postgresql db with my own custom made id generator. The generator would produce a random number with a checkdigit at the end. So this:
SELECT nextval('customers')
would be replaced by something like this:
SELECT get_new_rand_id('customer')
The function would then return a numerical value such as: [1-9][0-9]{9} where the last digit is a checksum.
The concerns I have is:
How do I make the thing atomic
How do I avoid returning the same id twice (this would be caught by trying to insert it into a column with unique constraint but then its to late to I think)
Is this a good idea at all?
Note1: I do not want to use uuid since it is to be communicated with customers and 10 digits is far simpler to communicate than the 36 character uuid.
Note2: The function would rarely be called with SELECT get_new_rand_id() but would be assigned as default value on the id-column instead of nextval().
EDIT: Ok, good discussusion below! Here are some explanation for why:
So why would I over-comlicate things this way? The purpouse is to hide the primary key from the customers.
I give each new customer a unique
customerId (generated serial number in
the db). Since I communicate that
number with the customer it is a
fairly simple task for my competitors
to monitor my business (there are
other numbers such as invoice nr and
order nr that have the same
properties). It is this monitoring I
would like to make a little bit
harder (note: not impossible but
harder).
Why the check digit?
Before there was any talk of hiding the serial nr I added a checkdigit to ordernr since there were klumbsy fingers at some points in the production, and my thought was that this would be a good practice to keep in the future.
After reading the discussion I can certainly see that my approach is not the best way to solve my problem, but I have no other good idea of how to solve it, so please help me out here.
Should I add an extra column where I put the id I expose to the customer and keep the serial as primary key?
How can I generate the id to expose in a sane and efficient way?
Is the checkdigit necessary?
For generating unique and random-looking identifiers from a serial, using ciphers might be a good idea. Since their output is bijective (there is a one-to-one mapping between input and output values) -- you will not have any collisions, unlike hashes. Which means your identifiers don't have to be as long as hashes.
Most cryptographic ciphers work on 64-bit or larger blocks, but the PostgreSQL wiki has an example PL/pgSQL procedure for a "non-cryptographic" cipher function that works on (32-bit) int type. Disclaimer: I have not tried using this function myself.
To use it for your primary keys, run the CREATE FUNCTION call from the wiki page, and then on your empty tables do:
ALTER TABLE foo ALTER COLUMN foo_id SET DEFAULT pseudo_encrypt(nextval('foo_foo_id_seq')::int);
And voila!
pg=> insert into foo (foo_id) values(default);
pg=> insert into foo (foo_id) values(default);
pg=> insert into foo (foo_id) values(default);
pg=> select * from foo;
foo_id
------------
1241588087
1500453386
1755259484
(4 rows)
I added my comment to your question and then realized that I should have explained myself better... My apologies.
You could have a second key - not the primary key - that is visible to the user. That key could use the primary as the seed for the hash function you describe and be the one that you use to do lookups. That key would be generated by a trigger after insert (which is much simpler than trying to ensure atomicity of the operation) and
That is the key that you share with your clients, never the PK. I know there is debate (albeit, I can't understand why) if PKs are to be invisible to the user applications or not. The modern database design practices, and my personal experience, all seem to suggest that PKs should NOT be visible to users. They tend to attach meaning to them and, over time, that is a very bad thing - regardless if they have a check digit in the key or not.
Your joins will still be done using the PK. This other generated key is just supposed to be used for client lookups. They are the face, the PK is the guts.
Hope that helps.
Edit: FWIW, there is little to be said about "right" or "wrong" in database design. Sometimes it boils down to a choice. I think the choice you face will be better served by leaving the PK alone and creating a secondary key - just that.
I think you are way over-complicating this. Why not let the database do what it does best and let it take care of atomicity and ensuring that the same id is not used twice? Why not use a postgresql SERIAL type and get an autogenerated surrogate primary key, just like an integer IDENTITY column in SQL Server or DB2? Use that on the column instead. Plus it will be faster than your user-defined function.
I concur regarding hiding this surrogate primary key and using an exposed secondary key (with a unique constraint on it) to lookup clients in your interface.
Are you using a sequence because you need a unique identifier across several tables? This is usually an indication that you need to rethink your table design, and those several tables should perhaps be combined into one, with an autogenerated surrogate primary key.
Also see here
How you generate the random and unique ids is a useful question - but you seem to be making a counter productive assumption about when to generate them!
My point is that you do not need to generate these id's at the time of creating your rows, because they are essentially independent of the data being inserted.
What I do is pre-generate random id's for future use, that way I can take my own sweet time and absolutely guarantee they are unique, and there's no processing to be done at the time of the insert.
For example I have an orders table with order_id in it. This id is generated on the fly when the user enters the order, incrementally 1,2,3 etc forever. The user does not need to see this internal id.
Then I have another table - random_ids with (order_id, random_id). I have a routine that runs every night which pre-loads this table with enough rows to more than cover the orders that might be inserted in the next 24 hours. (If I ever get 10000 orders in one day I'll have a problem - but that would be a good problem to have!)
This approach guarantees uniqueness and takes any processing load away from the insert transaction and into the batch routine, where it does not affect the user.
Your best bet would probably be some form of hash function, and then a checksum added to the end.
If you're not using this too often (you do not have a new customer every second, do you?) then it is feasible to just get a random number and then try to insert the record. Just be prepared to retry inserting with another number when it fails with unique constraint violation.
I'd use numbers 1000000 to 999999 (900000 possible numbers of the same length) and check digit using UPC or ISBN 10 algorithm. 2 check digits would be better though as they'll eliminate 99% of human errors instead of 9%.
I have several counters in an application I am building, as am trying to get them to be dynamically created by the application as required.
For a simplistic example, if someone types a word into a script it should return the number of times that word has been entered previously. Here is an example of sql that may be executed if they typed the word example.
CREATE SEQUENCE IF NOT EXISTS example START WITH 1;
SELECT nextval('example')
This would return 1 the first time it ran, 2 the second time, etc.
The problem is when 2 people click the button at the same time.
First, please note that a lot more is happening in my application than just these statements, so the chances of them overlapping is much more significant than it would be if this was all that was happening.
1> BEGIN;
2> BEGIN;
1> CREATE SEQUENCE IF NOT EXISTS example START WITH 1;
2> CREATE SEQUENCE IF NOT EXISTS example START WITH 1; -- is blocked by previous statement
1> SELECT nextval('example') -- returns 1 to user.
1> COMMIT; -- unblocks second connection
2> ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint
"pg_type_typname_nsp_index"
DETAIL: Key (typname, typnamespace)=(example, 109649) already exists.
I was under the impression that by using "IF NOT EXISTS", the statement should just be a no-op if it does exist, but it seems to have this race condition where that is not the case. I say race condition because if these two are not executed at the same time, it works as one would expect.
I have noticed that IF NOT EXISTS is fairly new to postgres, so maybe they haven't worked out all of the kinks yet?
EDIT:
The main reason we were considering doing things this way was to avoid excess locking. The thought being that if two people were to increment at the same time, using a sequence would mean that neither user should have to wait for the other (except, as in this example, for the initial creation of that sequence)
Sequences are part of the database schema. If you find yourself modifying the schema dynamically based on the data stored in the database, you are probably doing something wrong. This is especially true for sequences, which have special properties e.g. regarding their behavior with respect to transactions. Specifically, if you increment a sequence (with the help of nextval) in the middle of a transaction and then you rollback that transaction, the value of the sequence will not be rolled back. So most likely, this kind of behavior is something that you don't want with your data. In your example, imagine that a user tries to add word. This results in the corresponding sequence being incremented. Now imagine that the transaction does not complete for reason (e.g. maybe the computer crashes) and it gets rolled back. You would end up with the word not being added to the database but with the sequence being incremented.
For the particular example that you mentioned, there is an easy solution; create an ordinary table to store all the "sequences". Something like that would do it:
CREATE TABLE word_frequency (
word text NOT NULL UNIQUE,
frequency integer NOT NULL
);
Now I understand that this is just an example, but if this approach doesn't work for your actual use case, let us know and we can adjust it to your needs.
Edit: Here's how you the above solution works. If a new word is added, run the following query ("UPSERT" syntax in postgres 9.5+ only):
INSERT INTO word_frequency(word,frequency)
VALUES ('foo',1)
ON CONFLICT (word)
DO UPDATE
SET frequency = word_frequency.frequency + excluded.frequency
RETURNING frequency;
This query will insert a new word in word_frequency with frequency 1, or if the word exists already it will increment the existing frequency by 1. Now what happens if two transaction try to do that at the same time? Consider the following scenario:
client 1 client 2
-------- --------
BEGIN
BEGIN
UPSERT ('foo',1)
UPSERT ('foo',1) <====
COMMIT
COMMIT
What will happen is that as soon as client 2 tries increment the frequency for foo (marked with the arrow above), that operation will block because the row was modified by a different transaction. When client 1 commits, client 2 will get unblocked and continue without any errors. This is exactly how we wanted it to work. Also note, that postgresql will use row-level locking to implement this behavior, so other insertions will not be blocked.
EDIT: The main reason we were considering doing things this way was to
avoid excess locking. The thought being that if two people were to
increment at the same time, using a sequence would mean that neither
user should have to wait for the other (except, as in this example,
for the initial creation of that sequence)
It sounds like you're optimizing for a problem that likely does not exist. Sure, if you have 100,000 simultaneous users that are only inserting rows (since a sequence will only be used then normally) there is the possibility of some contention with the sequence but realistically there will be other bottle necks long before the sequence gets in the way.
I'd advise you to first prove that the sequence is an issue. With a proper database design (which dynamic DDL is not) the sequence will not be the bottle neck.
As a reference, DDL is not transaction safe in most databases.
Earlier we were using 'GENERATED ALWAYS' for generating the values for a primary key. But now it is suggested that we should, instead of using 'GENERATED ALWAYS' , use sequence for populating the value of primary key. What do you think can be the reason of this change? It this just a matter of choice?
Earlier Code:
CREATE TABLE SCH.TAB1
(TAB_P INTEGER NOT NULL GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY (START WITH 1, INCREMENT BY 1, NO CACHE),
.
.
);
Now it is
CREATE TABLE SCH.TAB1
(TAB_P INTEGER ),
.
.
);
now while inserting, generate the value for TAB_P via sequence.
I tend to use identity columns more than sequences, but I'll compare the two for you.
Sequences can generate numbers for any purpose, while an identity column is strictly attached to a column in a table.
Since a sequence is an independent object, it can generate numbers for multiple tables (or anything else), and is not affected when any table is dropped. When a table with a identity column is dropped, there is no memory of what value was last assigned by that identity column.
A table can have only one identity column, so if you want to want to record multiple sequential numbers into different columns in the same table, sequence objects can handle that.
The most common requirement for a sequential number generator in a database is to assign a technical key to a row, which is handled well by an identity column. For more complicated number generation needs, a sequence object offers more flexibility.
This might probably be to handle ids in case there are lots of deletes on the table.
For eg: In case of identity, if your ids are
1
2
3
Now if you delete record 3, your table will have
1
2
And then if your insert a new record, the ids will be
1
2
4
As opposed to this, if you are not using an identity column and are generating the id using code, then after delete for the new insert you can calculate id as max(id) + 1, so the ids will be in order
1
2
3
I can't think of any other reason, why an identity column should not be used.
Heres something I found on the publib site:
Comparing IDENTITY columns and sequences
While there are similarities between IDENTITY columns and sequences, there are also differences. The characteristics of each can be used when designing your database and applications.
An identity column has the following characteristics:
An identity column can be defined as
part of a table only when the table
is created. Once a table is created,
you cannot alter it to add an
identity column. (However, existing
identity column characteristics might
be altered.)
An identity column
automatically generates values for a
single table.
When an identity
column is defined as GENERATED
ALWAYS, the values used are always
generated by the database manager.
Applications are not allowed to
provide their own values during the
modification of the contents of the
table.
A sequence object has the following characteristics:
A sequence object is a database
object that is not tied to any one
table.
A sequence object generates
sequential values that can be used in
any SQL or XQuery statement.
Since a sequence object can be used
by any application, there are two
expressions used to control the
retrieval of the next value in the
specified sequence and the value
generated previous to the statement
being executed. The PREVIOUS VALUE
expression returns the most recently
generated value for the specified
sequence for a previous statement
within the current session. The NEXT
VALUE expression returns the next
value for the specified sequence. The
use of these expressions allows the
same value to be used across several
SQL and XQuery statements within
several tables.
While these are not all of the characteristics of these two items, these characteristics will assist you in determining which to use depending on your database design and the applications using the database.
I don't know why anyone would EVER use an identity column rather than a sequence.
Sequences accomplish the same thing and are far more straight forward. Identity columns are much more of a pain especially when you want to do unloads and loads of the data to other environments. I not going to go into all the differences as that information can be found in the manuals but I can tell you that the DBA's have to almost always get involved anytime a user wants to migrate data from one environment to another when a table with an identity is involved because it can get confusing for the users. We have no issues when a sequence is used. We allow the users to update any schema objects so they can alter their sequences if they need to.