In some cases I have to copy values from one column to another and set the first to NULL. This SQL-Statement works as expected:
UPDATE lessons SET order_id_old = order_id, order_id = NULL WHERE id = 1
But I'm not sure if this is a right way to do it so. Or should I better use 2 queries for this purpose?
UPDATE lessons SET order_id_old = order_id WHERE id = 1;
UPDATE lessons SET order_id = NULL WHERE id = 1;
I would definitely go with second approach. Here's what the documentation says:
Single-table UPDATE assignments are generally evaluated from left to
right. For multiple-table updates, there is no guarantee that
assignments are carried out in any particular order.
In your case, it's fine at the moment as there is only one table. However, in future, if someone modifies this statement and adds a new table/join (assuming it'll work fine as it did with one table) it will stop working/give inconsistent results.
So, for the readability/maintainability purpose, go ahead with second approach. (Also, I would recommend wrapping both the update statements into a transaction to preserve atomicity)
From the documentation:
If you access a column from the table to be updated in an expression, UPDATE uses the current value of the column. For example, the following statement sets col1 to one more than its current value:
UPDATE t1 SET col1 = col1 + 1;
The second assignment in the following statement sets col2 to the current (updated) col1 value, not the original col1 value. The result is that col1 and col2 have the same value. This behavior differs from standard SQL.
UPDATE t1 SET col1 = col1 + 1, col2 = col1;
Single-table UPDATE assignments are generally evaluated from left to right. For multiple-table updates, there is no guarantee that assignments are carried out in any particular order.
In your case, it should be fine to use the single statement.
Related
I have a following query (self-explanatory):
update t
set scans = scans + 1,
is_active = if(count = scans, 0, is_active)
where id = 123
Finally scans get updated and actually equals to count but is_active still stays 1.
I want whenever scans = count to deactivate entry.
That's what should be happening, according to the MySQL documentation:
If you access a column from the table to be updated in an expression, UPDATE uses the current value of the column. For example, the following statement sets col1 to one more than its current value:
UPDATE t1 SET col1 = col1 + 1;
The second assignment in the following statement sets col2 to the current (updated) col1 value, not the original col1 value. The result is that col1 and col2 have the same value. This behavior differs from standard SQL.
UPDATE t1 SET col1 = col1 + 1, col2 = col1;
Single-table UPDATE assignments are generally evaluated from left to right. For multiple-table updates, there is no guarantee that assignments are carried out in any particular order.
So say I have the following statement:
UPDATE time_tracking_table
SET `end` = NOW(), `duration` = TIME_TO_SEC(TIMEDIFF(`end`,`start`))
WHERE `end` > NOW()
What I am trying to achieve is the following (using 10pm as an example for NOW()): "find all rows where end is later then 10pm, then update end for that row and set it to 10pm, then calculate the difference between the start of that row and it's new value (10pm) as the duration".
I have been testing the above query for a few days and it seems to work. My question is:
a) Is it reliable (or is there some sort of race condition involved here considering the simultaneous update of end and use of end in the where and timediff) and...
b) Even if it does work, is there perhaps a better way to achieve this?
Many thanks in advance for your time and expertise!
From the MySQL docs on UPDATE...
The second assignment in the following statement sets col2 to the
current (updated) col1 value, not the original col1 value. The result
is that col1 and col2 have the same value. This behavior differs from
standard SQL.
UPDATE t1 SET col1 = col1 + 1, col2 = col1;
In DB2, I need to do a SELECT FROM UPDATE, to put an update + select in a single transaction.
But I need to make sure to update only one record per transaction.
Familiar with the LIMIT clause from MySQL's UPDATE option
places a limit on the number of rows that can be updated
I looked for something similar in DB2's UPDATE reference but without success.
How can something similar be achieved in DB2?
Edit: In my scenario, I have to deliver 1000 coupon codes upon request. I just need to select (any)one that has not been given yet.
The question uses some ambiguous terminology that makes it unclear what needs to be accomplished. Fortunately, DB2 offers robust support for a variety of SQL patterns.
To limit the number of rows that are modified by an UPDATE:
UPDATE
( SELECT t.column1 FROM someschema.sometable t WHERE ... FETCH FIRST ROW ONLY
)
SET column1 = 'newvalue';
The UPDATE statement never sees the base table, just the expression that filters it, so you can control which rows are updated.
To INSERT a limited number of new rows:
INSERT INTO mktg.offeredcoupons( cust_id, coupon_id, offered_on, expires_on )
SELECT c.cust_id, 1234, CURRENT TIMESTAMP, CURRENT TIMESTAMP + 30 DAYS
FROM mktg.customers c
LEFT OUTER JOIN mktg.offered_coupons o
ON o.cust_id = c.cust_id
WHERE ....
AND o.cust_id IS NULL
FETCH FIRST 1000 ROWS ONLY;
This is how DB2 supports SELECT from an UPDATE, INSERT, or DELETE statement:
SELECT column1 FROM NEW TABLE (
UPDATE ( SELECT column1 FROM someschema.sometable
WHERE ... FETCH FIRST ROW ONLY
)
SET column1 = 'newvalue'
) AS x;
The SELECT will return data from only the modified rows.
You have two options. As noted by A Horse With No Name, you can use the primary key of the table to ensure that one row is updated at a time.
The alternative, if you're using a programming language and have control over cursors, is to use a cursor with the 'FOR UPDATE' option (though that may be probably optional; IIRC, cursors are 'FOR UPDATE' by default when the underlying SELECT means it can be), and then use an UPDATE statement with the WHERE CURRENT OF <cursor-name> in the UPDATE statement. This will update the one row currently addressed by the cursor. The details of the syntax vary with the language you're using, but the raw SQL looks like:
DECLARE CURSOR cursor_name FOR
SELECT *
FROM SomeTable
WHERE PKCol1 = ? AND PKCol2 = ?
FOR UPDATE;
UPDATE SomeTable
SET ...
WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name;
If you can't write DECLARE in your host language, you have to do manual bashing to find the equivalent mechanism.
How can I edit the latest row in the database. I only know it's the last one. I don't know its id.
I don't know which language you are working with, in PHP's mySQL functions you can use
mysql_insert_id()
there are similar function in every other mySQL client library I know of.
Also, there is a native mySQL function!
LAST_INSERT_ID() (with no argument)
returns the first automatically
generated value that was set for an
AUTO_INCREMENT column by the most
recently executed INSERT statement to
affect such a column. For example,
after inserting a row that generates
an AUTO_INCREMENT value, you can get
the value like this:
mysql> SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID();
-> 195
Of course, a primary key with AUTO_INCREMENT is required for these functions to work.
For a table with an auto_increment id field:
UPDATE tbl SET col1 = 'val1' WHERE id = MAX(id);
If it's a row that has been inserted in your script (the same script from which you want to update it) and there is an auto_increment column on your table, you can get that auto_increment value, using functions such as those, for PHP :
mysql_insert_id
mysqli_insert_id
PDO::lastInsertId
There should be an equivalent for probably any language you can possibly be using for your application.
If your are trying to do an update from another script than the one in which you did the insert, and still have an auto_increment column, the best way will probably be to update the row that has the biggest value for that column :
update your_table
set your_column = ...
where id = max(id)
Or, in two steps (not sure it'll work in one) :
select max(id) as id from your_table
update your_table set your_column = ... where id = [what you got with thr first query]
You can also use UPDATE table SET ... WHERE id=LAST_INSERT_ID() (supposing the last insert was on the table you want to query).
I would not use TWO steps to find the last insert ID simply because a new record could be added in the mean time.
Depending on your version, you should be able to call $handle->last_id(); or $handle->{mysql_insertid};
Chris
I want to do all these update in one statement.
update table set ts=ts_1 where id=1
update table set ts=ts_2 where id=2
...
update table set ts=ts_n where id=n
Is it?
Use this:
UPDATE `table` SET `ts`=CONCAT('ts_', `id`);
Yes you can but that would require a table (if only virtual/temporary), where you's store the id + ts value pairs, and then run an UPDATE with the FROM syntax.
Assuming tmpList is a table with an id and a ts_value column, filled with the pairs of id value, ts value you wish to apply.
UPDATE table, tmpList
SET table.ts = tmpList.ts_value
WHERE table.id = tmpList.id
-- AND table.id IN (1, 2, 3, .. n)
-- above "AND" is only needed if somehow you wish to limit it, i.e
-- if tmpTbl has more idsthan you wish to update
A possibly table-less (but similar) approach would involve a CASE statement, as in:
UPDATE table
SET ts = CASE id
WHEN 1 THEN 'ts_1'
WHEN 2 THEN 'ts_2'
-- ..
WHEN n THEN 'ts_n'
END
WHERE id in (1, 2, ... n) -- here this is necessary I believe
Well, without knowing what data, I'm not sure whether the answer is yes or no.
It certainly is possible to update multiple rows at once:
update table table1 set field1='value' where field2='bar'
This will update every row in table2 whose field2 value is 'bar'.
update table1 set field1='value' where field2 in (1, 2, 3, 4)
This will update every row in the table whose field2 value is 1, 2, 3 or 4.
update table1 set field1='value' where field2 > 5
This will update every row in the table whose field2 value is greater than 5.
update table1 set field1=concat('value', id)
This will update every row in the table, setting the field1 value to 'value' plus the value of that row's id field.
You could do it with a case statement, but it wouldn't be pretty:
UPDATE table
SET ts = CASE id WHEN 1 THEN ts_1 WHEN 2 THEN ts_2 ... WHEN n THEN ts_n END
I think that you should expand the context of the problem. Why do you want/need all the updates to be done in one statement? What benefit does that give you? Perhaps there's another way to get that benefit.
Presumably you are interacting with sql via some code, so certainly you can simply make sure that the three updates all happen atomically by creating a function that performs all three of the updates.
e.g. pseudocode:
function update_all_three(val){
// all the updates in one function
}
The difference between a single function update and some kind of update that performs multiple updates at once is probably not a very useful distinction.
generate the statements:
select concat('update table set ts = ts_', id, ' where id = ', id, '; ')
from table
or generate the case conditions, then connect it to your update statement:
select concat('when ', id, ' then ts_', id) from table
You can use INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE. See this quesion: Multiple Updates in MySQL
ts_1, ts_2, ts_3, etc. are different fields on the same table? There's no way to do that with a single statement.