We have a table called tblINUser, which has many records and occupies a vast amount of space. In an attempt to reduce the amount of used space, we create a table called tblINUserSortByFilter which contains all the possible text values of this field and we create a foreign key in tblINUser that numerically references this value. We have several databases, because this database is sharded, so it would be great to sort the values similarly accross databases. This was the first attempt:
CREATE TABLE MC.tblINUserSortByFilterType(
pkINUserSortByFilterTypeID SMALLINT(6) PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
SortByFilter varchar(45) COLLATE utf8mb4_unicode_ci NOT NULL DEFAULT 'first',
INDEX(SortByFilter)
);
INSERT INTO MC.tblINUserSortByFilterType(SortByFilter)
SELECT DISTINCT SortByFilter
FROM MC.tblINUser
ORDER BY SortByFilter = 'first';
ALTER TABLE MC.tblINUser
ADD COLUMN fkINUserSortByFilterTypeID SMALLINT(6) DEFAULT 1,
ADD INDEX (fkINUserSortByFilterTypeID);
UPDATE MC.tblINUser INUser
JOIN MC.tblINUserSortByFilterType INUserSortByFilterType
ON INUser.SortByFilter = INUserSortByFilterType.SortByFilter
SET INUser.fkINUserSortByFilterTypeID = INUserSortByFilterType.pkINUserSortByFilterTypeID;
ALTER TABLE MC.tblINUser
DROP COLUMN SortByFilter;
You may argue, correctly that the sort has the only criteria, which is ORDER BY SortByFilter = 'first' and a clause of ORDER BY SortByFilter = 'first', SortByFilter would be an obvious improvement. This would be a correct criticism, yet, even though we may have a chaotic behavior starting from the second record, it would be reasonable to expect that the very first inserted record would be first, yet, unfortunately, this is not the case. Running select * from MC.tblINUserSortByFilterType; yields
+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| pkINUserSortByFilterTypeID | SortByFilter |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| 5 | first |
| 4 | first-ASC |
| 3 | last |
| 1 | none |
| 2 | StatTeacher.IsActive DESC |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+
as we can see, not even this expectation is met, since first has an id of 5. An improvement is achieved by changing the inserts to
INSERT INTO MC.tblINUserSortByFilterType(SortByFilter)
SELECT DISTINCT SortByFilter
FROM MC.tblINUser
WHERE SortByFilter = 'first';
INSERT INTO MC.tblINUserSortByFilterType(SortByFilter)
SELECT DISTINCT SortByFilter
FROM MC.tblINUser
WHERE SortByFilter <> 'first';
and then the result of the same selection we get this result:
+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| pkINUserSortByFilterTypeID | SortByFilter |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| 1 | first |
| 3 | first-ASC |
| 4 | last |
| 2 | none |
| 5 | StatTeacher.IsActive DESC |
+----------------------------+----------------------------+
5 rows in set (0.00 sec)
as we can see, first is correctly receiving a value of 1. Yet, it seems that if we run the same inserts over different copies of the database, the order of subsequent rows might be unreliable. So, how could we ensure that the records would be inserted in the exact order that the following query yields?
SELECT DISTINCT SortByFilter
FROM MC.tblINUser
WHERE SortByFilter = 'first', SortByFilter;
I know that we can solve this by
using a cursor for the insert
looping the records received
inserting them individually
But that would have as many insert statements as the number of records the above query yields. Is there a way to achieve the same with a single command?
it would be reasonable to expect that the very first inserted record would be first
I don't think so. You used ORDER BY SortByFilter = 'first' which returns 0 for all values except 'first', followed by 1 for 'first'. The value 1 sorts after the value 0, so the entry 'first' ends up being last. The other values end up sorting more or less randomly.
Demo:
mysql> create table mytable (SortByFilter varchar(64));
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.02 sec)
mysql> insert into mytable values ('first'), ('first-ASC'),
('last'), ('none'), ('StatTeacher.IsActive DESC');
Query OK, 5 rows affected (0.01 sec)
Records: 5 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0
mysql> select SortByFilter='first', SortByFilter from mytable
order by SortByFilter = 'first';
+----------------------+---------------------------+
| SortByFilter='first' | SortByFilter |
+----------------------+---------------------------+
| 0 | first-ASC |
| 0 | last |
| 0 | none |
| 0 | StatTeacher.IsActive DESC |
| 1 | first |
+----------------------+---------------------------+
I suggest do not rely on automatic sorting. Be specific about the sort order of every value. Here's one way to do it:
mysql> select field(SortByFilter, 'first', 'first-ASC',
'none', 'StatTeacher.IsActive DESC', 'last') AS SortOrder,
SortByFilter
from mytable order by SortOrder;
+-----------+---------------------------+
| SortOrder | SortByFilter |
+-----------+---------------------------+
| 1 | first |
| 2 | first-ASC |
| 3 | none |
| 4 | StatTeacher.IsActive DESC |
| 5 | last |
+-----------+---------------------------+
To get the rows in a particular order, you must use an ORDER BY. That is straightforward to do if the object of the ORDER BY is a string and you want alphabetical order, or it is numeric and you want it in numeric order. Ditto for the reverse by using DESC.
For for some abnormal ordering, here is one trick:
ORDER BY FIND_IN_SET(my_column, "first,second,third,fourth")
Another:
ORDER BY my_column != 'first', my_column
That will list 'first' first, then do the rest in alphabetic order. (I am assuming my_column is a VARCHAR.)
ORDER BY my_column = 'last', my_column
Note that a boolean expression evaluates to 0 (for false) or 1 (for true); I am then depending on the sort order of 0 and 1.
Related
SELECT time
FROM posts
ORDER BY time ASC;
This will order my posts for me in a list. I would like to reorder the table itself making sure that there are no missing table ids. Thus, if I delete column 2, I can reorder so that row 3 will become row 2.
How can I do this? Reorder a table by its date column so there is always an increment of 1, no non-existing rows.
Disclaimer: I don't really know why you would need to do it, but if you do, here is just one of many ways, fairly independent of the engine or the server version.
Setup:
CREATE TABLE t (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`time` time DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB;
INSERT INTO t (`time`) VALUES ('13:00:00'),('08:00:00'),('02:00:00');
DELETE FROM t WHERE id = 2;
Initial condition:
SELECT * FROM t ORDER BY `time`;
+----+----------+
| id | time |
+----+----------+
| 3 | 02:00:00 |
| 1 | 13:00:00 |
+----+----------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Action:
CREATE TRIGGER tr AFTER UPDATE ON t FOR EACH ROW SET #id:=#id+1;
ALTER TABLE t ADD COLUMN new_id INT NOT NULL AFTER id;
SET #id=1;
UPDATE t SET new_id=#id ORDER BY time;
DROP TRIGGER tr;
Result:
SELECT * FROM t ORDER BY `time`;
+----+--------+----------+
| id | new_id | time |
+----+--------+----------+
| 3 | 1 | 02:00:00 |
| 1 | 2 | 13:00:00 |
+----+--------+----------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Cleanup:
Further you can do whatever is more suitable for your case (whatever is faster and less blocking, depending on other conditions). You can update the existing id column and then drop the extra one:
UPDATE t SET id=new_id;
ALTER TABLE t DROP new_id;
SELECT * FROM t ORDER BY `time`;
+----+----------+
| id | time |
+----+----------+
| 1 | 02:00:00 |
| 2 | 13:00:00 |
+----+----------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Or you can drop the existing id column and promote new_id to the primary key.
Comments:
A natural variation of the same approach would be to wrap it into a stored procedure. It's basically the same, but requires a bit more text. The benefit of it is that you could keep the procedure for the next time you need it.
Assuming you have a unique index on id, a temporary column new_id is needed in a general case, because if you start updating id directly, you can get a unique key violation. It shouldn't happen if your id is already ordered properly, and you are only removing gaps.
Can someone explain this... before I have myself committed? The first result set should have two results, same as the second, no?
mysql> SELECT * FROM kuru_footwear_2.customer_address_entity_varchar
-> WHERE attribute_id=31 AND entity_id=324134;
+----------+----------------+--------------+-----------+-------+
| value_id | entity_type_id | attribute_id | entity_id | value |
+----------+----------------+--------------+-----------+-------+
| 885263 | 2 | 31 | 324134 | NULL |
+----------+----------------+--------------+-----------+-------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> SELECT * FROM kuru_footwear_2.customer_address_entity_varchar
-> WHERE value_id=885263 OR value_id=950181;
+----------+----------------+--------------+-----------+-------+
| value_id | entity_type_id | attribute_id | entity_id | value |
+----------+----------------+--------------+-----------+-------+
| 885263 | 2 | 31 | 324134 | NULL |
| 950181 | 2 | 31 | 324134 | NULL |
+----------+----------------+--------------+-----------+-------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
attribute_id is a SMALLINT(5)
entity_id is a INT(10)
The problem is that you have a unique index on (entity_id,attribute_id). The query optimizer notices this when you write a query whose WHERE clause is covered by the index, and only returns 1 row since the uniqueness of the index implies that there's at most one matching row.
I'm not sure how you can have those duplicates in the first place, it seems like there's something corrupted in the table. Adding a unique index to a table will normally remove any duplicates. In fact, this is often suggested as a way to get rid of duplicates in a table, see How do I delete all the duplicate records in a MySQL table without temp tables.
In the first statement's selection (the 'WHERE' clause), you are using AND; in the second statement, you are using OR. This boils down to the definition of these logical operators. MySQL's official documentation doesn't say much about these other than that AND and OR are their own natural logical operators. If this is confusing, you may want to read up on basic Boolean Algebra.
This question already has answers here:
Fetching RAND() rows without ORDER BY RAND() in just one query
(3 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
How can I get random posts without scanning the whole database.
As I know if you use MySQL ORDER BY RAND() it will scan the whole database.
If there is any other way to do this without scanning the whole database.
A tiny modification of #squeamish ossifrage solution using primary key values - assumming that there is a primary key in a table with numeric values:
SELECT *
FROM delete_me
WHERE id >= Round( Rand() *
( SELECT Max( id ) FROM test ))
LIMIT 1
For table containing more than 50.000 rows the query runs in a 100 miliseconds:
mysql> SELECT id, table_schema, table_name
FROM delete_me
WHERE id >= Round( Rand() *
( SELECT Max( id ) FROM delete_me ))
LIMIT 1;
+-----+--------------------+------------+
| id | table_schema | table_name |
+-----+--------------------+------------+
| 173 | information_schema | PLUGINS |
+-----+--------------------+------------+
1 row in set (0.01 sec)
A lot of people seem to be convinced that ORDER BY RAND() is somehow able to produce results without scanning the whole table.
Well it isn't. In fact, it's liable to be slower than ordering by column values, because MySQL has to call the RAND() function for each row.
To demonstrate, I made a simple table of half a million MD5 hashes:
mysql> select count(*) from delete_me;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
| 500000 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> explain delete_me;
+-------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| id | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| txt | text | NO | | NULL | |
+-------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
2 rows in set (0.12 sec)
mysql> select * from delete_me limit 4;
+----+----------------------------------+
| id | txt |
+----+----------------------------------+
| 1 | 9b912c03d87991b71955a6cd4f81a299 |
| 2 | f1b7ddeb1c1a14265a620b8f2366a22e |
| 3 | 067b39538b767e2382e557386cba37d9 |
| 4 | 1a27619c1d2bb8fa583813fdd948e94c |
+----+----------------------------------+
4 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Using ORDER BY RAND() to choose a random row from this table takes my computer 1.95 seconds.
mysql> select * from delete_me order by rand() limit 1;
+--------+----------------------------------+
| id | txt |
+--------+----------------------------------+
| 446149 | b5f82dd78a171abe6f7bcd024bf662e8 |
+--------+----------------------------------+
1 row in set (1.95 sec)
But ordering the text fields in ascending order takes just 0.8 seconds.
mysql> select * from delete_me order by txt asc limit 1;
+-------+----------------------------------+
| id | txt |
+-------+----------------------------------+
| 88583 | 00001e65c830f5b662ae710f11ae369f |
+-------+----------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.80 sec)
Since the id values in this table are numbered sequentially starting from 1, I can choose a random row much more quickly like this:
mysql> select * from delete_me where id=floor(1+rand()*500000) limit 1;
+-------+----------------------------------+
| id | txt |
+-------+----------------------------------+
| 37600 | 3b8aaaf88af68ca0c6eccff7e61e897a |
+-------+----------------------------------+
1 row in set (0.02 sec)
But in the general case, I would suggest using the method proposed by Mike in the page linked to by #deceze.
My suggestion for this kind of requirement is to use an MD5 hash.
Add a field to your DB table, CHAR(32), and create and index for it.
Populate it for every record with an MD5 hash of anything (maybe the value from the ID column or just any old random number, doesn't matter too much as long as each record is different)
Now you can query the table like so:
SELECT * FROM myTable WHERE md5Col > MD5(NOW()) LIMIT 1
This will give you a single random record without having to scan the whole table. The table has a random sort order thanks to the MD5 values. MD5 is great for this because it's quick and randomly distributed.
Caveats:
If the MD5 from your SELECT query results in a hash that is larger than the last record in your table, you might get no records from the query. If that happens, you can always re-query it with a new hash.
Having a fixed MD5 hash on each record means that the records are in a fixed order. This isn't really an issue if you're only ever fetching a single record at a time, but if you're using it to fetch groups of records, it may be noticable. You can of course correct this if you want by rehashing records as you load them.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
How can I remove duplicate rows?
Remove duplicates using only a MySQL query?
I have a large table with ~14M entries. The table type is MyISAM ans not InnoDB.
Unfortunately, I have some duplicate entries in this table that I found with the following request :
SELECT device_serial, temp, tstamp, COUNT(*) c FROM up_logs GROUP BY device_serial, temp, tstamp HAVING c > 1
To avoid these duplicates in the future, I want to convert my current index to a unique constraint using SQL request :
ALTER TABLE up_logs DROP INDEX UK_UP_LOGS_TSTAMP_DEVICE_SERIAL,
ALTER TABLE up_logs ADD INDEX UK_UP_LOGS_TSTAMP_DEVICE_SERIAL ( `tstamp` , `device_serial` )
But before that, I need to clean up my duplicates!
My question is : How can I keep only one entry of my duplicated entries? Keep in mind that my table contain 14M entries, so I would like avoid loops if it is possible.
Any comments are welcome!
Creating a new unique key on the over columns you need to have as uniques will automatically clean the table of any duplicates.
ALTER IGNORE TABLE `table_name`
ADD UNIQUE KEY `key_name`(`column_1`,`column_2`);
The IGNORE part does not allow the script to terminate after the first error occurs. And the default behavior is to delete the duplicates.
Since MySQL allows Subqueries in update/delete statements, but not if they refer to the table you want to update, I´d create a copy of the original table first. Then:
DELETE FROM original_table
WHERE id NOT IN(
SELECT id FROM copy_table
GROUP BY column1, column2, ...
);
But I could imagine that copying a table with 14M entries takes some time... selecting the items to keep when copying might make it faster:
INSERT INTO copy_table
SELECT * FROM original_table
GROUP BY column1, column2, ...;
and then
DELETE FROM original_table
WHERE id IN(
SELECT id FROM copy_table
);
It was some time since I used MySQL and SQL in general last time, so I´m quite sure that there is something with better performance - but this should work ;)
This is how you can delete duplicate rows... I'll write you my example and you'll need to apply to your code. I have Actors table with ID and I want to delete the rows with repeated first_name
mysql> select actor_id, first_name from actor_2;
+----------+-------------+
| actor_id | first_name |
+----------+-------------+
| 1 | PENELOPE |
| 2 | NICK |
| 3 | ED |
....
| 199 | JULIA |
| 200 | THORA |
+----------+-------------+
200 rows in set (0.00 sec)
-Now I use a Variable called #a to get the ID if the next row have the same first_name(repeated, null if it's not).
mysql> select if(first_name=#a,actor_id,null) as first_names,#a:=first_name from actor_2 order by first_name;
+---------------+----------------+
| first_names | #a:=first_name |
+---------------+----------------+
| NULL | ADAM |
| 71 | ADAM |
| NULL | AL |
| NULL | ALAN |
| NULL | ALBERT |
| 125 | ALBERT |
| NULL | ALEC |
| NULL | ANGELA |
| 144 | ANGELA |
...
| NULL | WILL |
| NULL | WILLIAM |
| NULL | WOODY |
| 28 | WOODY |
| NULL | ZERO |
+---------------+----------------+
200 rows in set (0.00 sec)
-Now we can get only duplicates ID:
mysql> select first_names from (select if(first_name=#a,actor_id,null) as first_names,#a:=first_name from actor_2 order by first_name) as t1;
+-------------+
| first_names |
+-------------+
| NULL |
| 71 |
| NULL |
...
| 28 |
| NULL |
+-------------+
200 rows in set (0.00 sec)
-the Final Step, Lets DELETE!
mysql> delete from actor_2 where actor_id in (select first_names from (select if(first_name=#a,actor_id,null) as first_names,#a:=first_name from actor_2 order by first_name) as t1);
Query OK, 72 rows affected (0.01 sec)
-Now lets check our table:
mysql> select count(*) from actor_2 group by first_name;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
| 1 |
| 1 |
| 1 |
...
| 1 |
+----------+
128 rows in set (0.00 sec)
it works, if you have any question write me back
Greetings,
How would one go about performing two UPDATE statements in one query, for example:
UPDATE albums SET isFeatured = '0' WHERE isFeatured = '1'
combined with
UPDATE albums SET isFeatured = '1' WHERE id = '$id'
Basically, when a new album is featured, the previously featured album is switched back to normal and the newly featured one is set to active.
Thanks!
Try this:
UPDATE albums SET isFeatured = IF(id!='$id', '0','1')
When you have to do this sort of thing it is an indicator that your data model is wrong and could do with some fixing.
So, I'd recommend to add a seperate table featured_albums (FK: int id_album) and use that to determine if the album is featured.
Your update becomes
DELETE FROM featured_album; INSERT INTO featured_album SET id_album = $id;
When selecting join the tables
SELECT album.id,
album.name,
( id_album IS NOT NULL ) AS isfeatured
FROM album
LEFT JOIN featured_album ON id_album = album.id
As requested to expand on the above basically I'm suggesting adding a table that will contain a row indicating the currently selected album. This is a 1 to 1 relationship, i.e. one record in the album table has one related record in the feature_albums table. See Types of Relationship.
You remove the isFeatured field from the album table and add a new table.
CREATE TABLE `featured_album` (
`id_album` INTEGER NOT NULL,
FOREIGN KEY (id_album) REFERENCES `album` (`id`)
);
The DELETE FROM .. INSERT INTO line sets the featured album by creating an entry in the table.
The SELECT statement with the LEFT JOIN will pull in the records from the album table and join those that match from the featured_album table, in our case only one record will match so as there is one field in the featured_album table it will return NULL for all records except the featured album.
So if we did
SELECT album.id, album.name, featured_album.id_album as isFeatured0
FROM album
LEFT JOIN featured_album ON id_album = album.id
We'd get something like the following:
+----+----------------+------------+
| id | name | isFeatured |
+----+----------------+------------+
| 1 | Rumours | NULL |
| 2 | Snowblind | NULL |
| 3 | Telegraph road | 3 |
+----+----------------+------------+
i.e. a NULL for isFeatured or an ID.
By adding the ( id_album IS NOT NULL ) AS isfeatured and using the first query we get
+----+----------------+------------+
| id | name | isfeatured |
+----+----------------+------------+
| 1 | Rumours | 0 |
| 2 | Snowblind | 0 |
| 3 | Telegraph road | 1 |
+----+----------------+------------+
i.e. 0/1 for isfeatured which makes things more readable, although if you're processing the results in PHP it won't make a difference to your code.
You can use CASE WHEN statement and remember to set original value where necessary (ELSE clause below) and order CASE conditions as required (in statement below isFeatured will be 0 if row having requested id also has isFeatured = 1, to change it swap WHEN clauses).
UPDATE albums
SET isFeatured = CASE
WHEN isFeatured = '1' THEN '0'
WHEN id = '$id' THEN '1'
ELSE isFeatured
END
You just can't. You can only select one group of records that should be updated and can then only perform one operation on all of them. It's not possible to do
UPDATE x SET col1 = 1 WHERE col1 = 0 AND col1 = 0 WHERE col1 = 1;
Be careful when using functions to work around this, as they need to be evaluated for every row and this can become really expensive.
MySQL is unable to use the index when it is inside an if function:
You need an index on the function which is not possible in MySQL.
see also: How does one create an index on the date part of DATETIME field in MySql
I am using the employee test database http://dev.mysql.com/doc/employee/en/employee.html
mysql> describe employees;
+------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| emp_no | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| birth_date | date | NO | | NULL | |
| first_name | varchar(14) | NO | | NULL | |
| last_name | varchar(16) | NO | | NULL | |
| gender | enum('M','F') | NO | | NULL | |
| hire_date | date | NO | | NULL | |
+------------+---------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
6 rows in set (0.01 sec)
mysql> select count(*) from employees;
+----------+
| count(*) |
+----------+
| 300024 |
+----------+
1 row in set (0.37 sec)
Set all genders to male so it mimics the question.
mysql> update employees set gender = 'M';
Query OK, 1 row affected (9.11 sec)
Rows matched: 300024 Changed: 1 Warnings: 0
mysql> select emp_no, gender from employees order by emp_no limit 2;
+--------+--------+
| emp_no | gender |
+--------+--------+
| 10001 | M |
| 10002 | M |
+--------+--------+
2 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Set one employee to female.
(Notice it uses the index and is almost instant.)
mysql> update employees set gender = 'F' where emp_no = 10001;
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.14 sec)
Rows matched: 1 Changed: 1 Warnings: 0
Now we use the suggested answer. (Notice it does not use the index and touches every row.)
mysql> update employees set gender = if(emp_no=10002, 'F', 'M');
Query OK, 2 rows affected (10.67 sec)
Rows matched: 300024 Changed: 2 Warnings: 0
Will an index help?
> mysql> create index employees_gender_idx on employees(gender);
Query OK, 300024 rows affected (21.61 sec)
Records: 300024 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0
> mysql> update employees set gender = if(emp_no=10001, 'F', 'M');
Query OK, 2 rows affected (9.02 sec)
Rows matched: 300024 Changed: 2 Warnings: 0
Nope.
It was also said that MySQL is only going to look at the rows that need to be changed.
mysql> update employees set gender = 'M';
Query OK, 1 row affected (8.78 sec)
Rows matched: 300024 Changed: 1 Warnings: 0
Guess not. What if use a WHERE clause?
mysql> update employees set gender = 'M' where gender ='F';
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.03 sec)
Rows matched: 0 Changed: 0 Warnings: 0
Gee that fast, now it used the index.
Mysql has no idea what the IF function will return and must do a full table scan. Notice that WHERE really does mean where and SET really does mean set. You can't expect the DB to just arrange all your clauses to get good performance.
The correct solution is to issue two updates (which if use indexes will be almost instant.)
Notice, it was said elsewhere that MySQL will magically know only update the rows it needs to change.
Adding an alternate method to the excellent answer provided by
#too where instead of CASE IF statement is used -
UPDATE album
-> SET isFeatured = IF (
-> isFeatured = '1', '0', IF (
-> id = '$id', '1', isFeatured
-> ));
I don't think you can, or at least not in a neat or practical way.
If you're wanting to do one call from php/whatever then you can seperate them with semicolons thus:
UPDATE albums SET isFeatured = '0' WHERE isFeatured = '1';UPDATE albums SET isFeatured = '1' WHERE id = '$id';