i have a system made with MySQL DB and Other system made with PostgreSQL. I want to create an trigger in postgres that insert rows in MySQL, but i don't know how do this, is it posible?
The reason is that i need to syncronize the users of both databases without knowing when the user is created.
You'd have to use mysql_fdw for that.
But I think that it would be a seriously bad idea to do that — if the MySQL database goes down, the trigger will throw an error, and the transaction is undone. Basically, you cannot modify the table any more. Moreover, the latency of the PostgreSQL-MySQL round trip would be added to each transaction.
I think you would be better of with some sort of log table in PostgreSQL where you store the changes. An asynchronous worker can read the changes and apply them on MySQL.
One more thought: You are not considering replicating database users, right? Because you cannot have triggers on system tables.
Related
I have a very specific problem that requires multiple MYSQL DB instances, and I need to "sync" all data from each DB/table into one DB/table.
Basically, [tableA.db1, tableB.db2, tableC.db3] into [TableAll.db4].
Some of the DB instances are on the same machine, and some are on a separate machine.
About 80,000 rows are added to a table per day, and there are 3 tables(DB).
So, about 240,000 would be "synced" to a single table per day.
I've just been using Event Schedule to copy the data from each DB into the "All-For-One" DB every hour.
However, I've been wondering lately if that's the best solution.
I considered using Trigger, but I've been told it puts heavy burden on DB.
Using statement trigger may be better, but it depends too much on how the statement is formed.
Then I heard about Federated (in Oracle term, "DBLink"),
and I thought I could use it to link each table and create a VIEW table on those tables.
But I don't know much about databases, so I don't really know the implication of each method.
So, my question is..
Considering the "All-For-One" DB only needs to be Read-Only,
which method would be better, performance and resource wise, in order to copy data from multiple databases into one database regularly?
Thanks!
I would like to get a notification when in certain mysql (or mariadb) tables (innodb) updates,inserts or deletes happen.
I need to track these changes from another process as soon as possible,
I was thinking maybe I could subscribe to the mysql binary log?
Can somebody explain how this can be done?
Is there for example a log read API that mysql offers?
Does the game change when I use a Galera cluster?
You may use mysqlbinlog with --stop-never option to get all insert, update, and delete statements (mysqlbinlog documentation).
You may use the C++ library MySQL Replication Listener that is based on the binlog api.
I don't know if this will help you, but I like to use a separate table to track the changes. If I have a table called "site_visitors", I'll create another table called "site_visitors_log" that is immediately written to with the information I need (IP addresses, timestamp, etc.) right after data is inserted into "site_visitors". Very convenient.
TRIGGER is your friend here. From MySQL-Doc:
A trigger is defined to activate when a statement inserts,
updates, or deletes rows in the associated table
See MySQL-Doc here, there are some examples, too.
my question is about a database history or transaction log table which is currently updated by mysql procedure. The procedure is called by mysql trigger every time when we keep a history of an appropriate table in during insert, update or delete actions. As far as we have lots of tables for each of them we need to create a separate trigger e.g. for "accounts table" we need to create "accounts_insert, accounts_update and accounts_delete" triggers.
The problem is every time when we alter "accounts table" we have to modify appropriate triggers as well.
Is there any way to avoid that manual work? Would it be better to implement it in application layer/code?
There are no 'global' triggers if that's what you're thinking about.
Application side logging is one possible solution. You'll want to do this within transactions whenever possible.
Other possible approaches:
Create a script that will update your triggers for you. Can be fairly easy, if your triggers are generally similar to each other. Using information_schema database can be helpful here.
Parse general query log (careful, enabling this log can have large negative impact on server's performance)
If I'm working on a development server and have updates to the database structure for some of our releases, what is the best way to update the structure on the production server?
Currently we create a new production database containing the structure only, do a SQL dump of the data on the 'old' production database, then run a SQL query to insert the data into the new database.
I know there is an easier way to do these updates, right?
Thanks in advance.
We don't run anything on prod without a script and that script must be in source control. Additionally we have to write a rollback script in case the initial script goes bad and we have to back it out. And when we move to prod configuration management does a differential compare between prod and dev to see if we have missed anything in the production script (any differences have to be traceable to development we are not yet ready to move to prod and documented). A product like Red-gate's SQL compare can do this. Our process is very formalized so that we can maintain a certification required by our larger clients.
If you have large tables even alter table can be slow, but it's still generally more efficient in total time than making a copy of the table with a new name and structure, copying the data to that table, renaming the old table, then naming the new table the name of the orginal table, then deleting the old table.
However, there are times when that is a preferable process as the total down time apparent to the user in this case is the time it takes to rename two tables, so this is good for tables where the data only is filled from the backend not the application (if the application can update the tables, it is a dangerous practice to do this as you may lose changes made while the tables were in transition). A lot of what process to use depends on the nature of the change you are making. Some changes should be done in a maintenance window where the users are not allowed to access the database. For instance if you are adding a new field with a default value to a table with 100,000,000 records, you are liable to lock up the users from using the table while the update happens. It is better to do this in single user mode during off hours (and when the users are told in advance the database will not be available). Other changes only take milliseconds and can happen easily while users are logged in.
Look at alter table to change the schema
It might not be easier than your method but it means less copying of the database
This is actually quite a deep question. If the only changes you've made are to add some columns then ALTER TABLE is probably sufficient. But if you're renaming or deleting columns then ALTER statements may break various foreign key constraints. In addition, sometimes you need to make changes both to the database and the data, which is pretty much unscriptable.
Most likely the best way to automate this would be to write a simple script for each deployment (along with a script to roll back!) which is basically what some systems like Rails will do for you I believe. Some scripts might be simply ALTER statements, some might temporarily disable foreign-key checking and triggers etc, some might run some update statements as well. And some might be dumping the db and rebuilding it. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution here, sorry :)
Use the ALTER TABLE command: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/alter-table.html
I'm being given a data source weekly that I'm going to parse and put into a database. The data will not change much from week to week, but I should be updating the database on a regular basis. Besides this weekly update, the data is static.
For now rebuilding the entire database isn't a problem, but eventually this database will be live and people could be querying the database while I'm rebuilding it. The amount of data isn't small (couple hundred megabytes), so it won't load that instantaneously, and personally I want a bit more of a foolproof system than "I hope no one queries while the database is in disarray."
I've thought of a few different ways of solving this problem, and was wondering what the best method would be. Here's my ideas so far:
Instead of replacing entire tables, query for the difference between my current database and what I want to place in the database. This seems like it could be an unnecessary amount of work, though.
Creating dummy data tables, then doing a table rename (or having the server code point towards the new data tables).
Just telling users that the site is going through maintenance and put the system offline for a few minutes. (This is not preferable for obvious reasons, but if it's far and away the best answer I'm willing to accept that.)
Thoughts?
I can't speak for MySQL, but PostgreSQL has transactional DDL. This is a wonderful feature, and means that your second option, loading new data into a dummy table and then executing a table rename, should work great. If you want to replace the table foo with foo_new, you only have to load the new data into foo_new and run a script to do the rename. This script should execute in its own transaction, so if something about the rename goes bad, both foo and foo_new will be left untouched when it rolls back.
The main problem with that approach is that it can get a little messy to handle foreign keys from other tables that key on foo. But at least you're guaranteed that your data will remain consistent.
A better approach in the long term, I think, is just to perform the updates on the data directly (your first option). Once again, you can stick all the updating in a single transaction, so you're guaranteed all-or-nothing semantics. Even better would be online updates, just updating the data directly as new information becomes available. This may not be an option for you if you need the results of someone else's batch job, but if you can do it, it's the best option.
BEGIN;
DELETE FROM TABLE;
INSERT INTO TABLE;
COMMIT;
Users will see the changeover instantly when you hit commit. Any queries started before the commit will run on the old data, anything afterwards will run on the new data. The database will actually clear the old table once the last user is done with it. Because everything is "static" (you're the only one who ever changes it, and only once a week), you don't have to worry about any lock issues or timeouts. For MySQL, this depends on InnoDB. PostgreSQL does it, and SQL Server calls it "snapshotting," and I can't remember the details off the top of my head since I rarely use the thing.
If you Google "transaction isolation" + the name of whatever database you're using, you'll find appropriate information.
We solved this problem by using PostgreSQL's table inheritance/constraints mechanism.
You create a trigger that auto-creates sub-tables partitioned based on a date field.
This article was the source I used.
Which database server are you using? SQL 2005 and above provides a locking method called "Snapshot". It allows you to open a transaction, do all of your updates, and then commit, all while users of the database continue to view the pre-transaction data. Normally, your transaction would lock your tables and block their queries, but snapshot locking would be perfect in your case.
More info here: http://blogs.msdn.com/craigfr/archive/2007/05/16/serializable-vs-snapshot-isolation-level.aspx
But it requires SQL Server, so if you're using something else....
Several database systems (since you didn't specify yours, I'll keep this general) do offer the SQL:2003 Standard statement called MERGE which will basically allow you to
insert new rows into a target table from a source which don't exist there yet
update existing rows in the target table based on new values from the source
optionally even delete rows from the target that don't show up in the import table anymore
SQL Server 2008 is the first Microsoft offering to have this statement - check out more here, here or here.
Other database system probably will have similar implementations - it's a SQL:2003 Standard statement after all.
Marc
Use different table names(mytable_[yyyy]_[wk]) and a view for providing you with a constant name(mytable). Once a new table is completely imported update your view so that it uses that table.