I am currently in the process of implementing an ActiveRecord driver for Yii2 such that I could leverage my progress databases in my Yii application through their recommended APIs. However, because in ActiveRecord requires a primary key to be set in order to function properly (it has to know what fields are the unique identifiers of the record), i'm stuck manually setting these on every model class I create. (The driver can be viewed at https://github.com/ExchangeCore/yii2-progress-driver/tree/10.2.x)
What I'd like to know is if I have overlooked some method or SYSPROGRESS table (or other ODBC function) that might actually have what fields are primary keys. I have some hope for the SYSINDEXES table, but i'm not sure how to properly identify which index is the primary key.
_file._prime-index is the RECID of the _index record that describes the index marked as "primary".
It may, or may not, be unique (that isn't a requirement).
I'm not a SQL guy (nor do I play one on TV) but this 4GL code will find the primary index for the "activity" table (if you have such a table), tell you if it is unique and list the fields that make up the index:
find _file no-lock where _file-name = "activity".
find _index no-lock where recid( _index ) = _file._prime-index no-error.
if available _index then
do:
display _index._unique.
for each _index-field no-lock where _index-field._index-recid = recid( _index ):
find _field no-lock where recid( _field ) = _index-field._field-recid.
display _field-name.
end.
end.
Progress DBs don't have a "primary key" - the closest you can come to a PK is to use a unique index on that table.
If you're looking in the _Index table for a given _File._file-name, you want a record where _Unique is true.
Related
During the creation of tables using mysql on phpmyadmin, I always find an issue when it comes to primary keys and their auto-increments. When I insert lines into my table. The auto_increment works perfectly adding a value of 1 to each primary key on each new line. But when I delete a line for example a line where the primary key is 'id = 4' and I add a new line to the table. The primary key in the new line gets a value of 'id = 5' instead of 'id = 4'. It acts like the old line was never deleted.
Here is an example of the SQL statement:
CREATE TABLE employe(
id INT UNSIGNED PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
name VARCHAR(30) NOT NULL
)
ENGINE = INNODB;
How do I find a solution to this problem ?
Thank you.
I'm pretty sure this is by design. If you had IDs up to 6 in your table and you deleted ID 2, would you want the next input to be an ID of 2? That doesn't seem to follow the ACID properties. Also, if there was a dependence on that data, for example, if it was user data, and the ID determined user IDs, it would invalidate pre-existing information, since if user X was deleted and the same ID was assigned to user Y, that could cause integrity issues in dependent systems.
Also, imagine a table with 50 billion rows. Should the table run an O(n) search for the smallest missing ID every time you're trying to insert a new record? I can see that getting out of hand really quickly.
Some links you might like to read:
Principles of Transaction-Oriented Database Recovery (1983)
How can we re-use the deleted id from any MySQL-DB table?
Why do you care?
Primary keys are internal row identifiers that are not supposed to be sexy or good looking. As long as they are able identify each row uniquely, they serve their purpose.
Now, if you care about its value, then you probably want to expose the primary key value somewhere, and that's a big red flag. If you need an external, visible identifier, you can create a secondary column with any formatting sequence and values you want.
As a side note, the term AUTO_INCREMENT is a bit misleading. It doesn't really mean they increase one by one all the time. It just mean it will try to produce sequential numbers, as long as it is possible. In multi-threaded apps that's usually not possible since batches or numbers are reserved per thread so the row insertion sequence may end actually not following the natural numbering. Row deletions have a similar effect, as well as INSERT with roll backs.
Primary keys are meant to be used for joining tables together and
indexing, they are not meant to be used for human usage. Reordering
primary key columns could orphan data and wreck havoc to your queries.
Tips: Add another column to your table and reorder that column to your will if needed (show that column to your user instead of the primary key).
I have a MySQL database where (most) tables are partitioned on a column TENANT_ID. Each table also has an ID field which uses AUTO_INCREMENT and is therefore unique across all partitions. The database primary key is a combination (ID, TENANT_ID) due to MySQL's requirement to have the partition column part of the primary key.
In my Java code I have mapped only the ID column with the #Id annotation. This was mostly to avoid the many problems around composite keys in Hibernate. The problem I am facing now is that most SQL statements generated by Hibernate only use the ID column. For example, an UPDATE statement generated by Hibernate would read as
UPDATE object SET value = ? WHERE ID = ?
However, since this query excludes any predicate on TENANT_ID, it does not take full advantage of the partitioning and will need to scan every partition until it finds the ID. I would like for the generated query to yield:
UPDATE object SET value = ? WHERE ID = ? AND TENANT_ID = ?
My question is whether or not there is an easy way to do this without having to resort to composite keys in JPA as I know many people discourage their use.
You can use an embedded entity, for instance ObjectPK that encompasses the id and EntityId. than use #EmbeddedId to reference it from the Object entity.
In a program, should we use try catch to check insertion of duplicate values into tables, or should we check if the value is already present in the table and avoid insertion?
This is easy enough to enforce with a UNIQUE constraint on the database side so that's my recommendation. I try to put as much of the data integrity into the database so that I can avoid having bad data (although sometimes unavoidable).
If this is how you already have it you might as well just catch the mysql exception for duplicate value insertion on such a table as doing the check then the insertion is more costly then having the database do one simple lookup (and possibly an insert).
Depends upon whether you are inserting one, or a million, as well as whether the duplicate is the primary key.
If its the primary key, read: http://database-programmer.blogspot.com/2009/06/approaches-to-upsert.html
An UPSERT or ON DUPLICATE KEY... The idea behind an UPSERT is simple.
The client issues an INSERT command. If a row already exists with the
given primary key, then instead of throwing a key violation error, it
takes the non-key values and updates the row.
This is one of those strange (and very unusual) cases where MySQL
actually supports something you will not find in all of the other more
mature databases. So if you are using MySQL, you do not need to do
anything special to make an UPSERT. You just add the term "ON
DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE" to the INSERT statement:
If it's not the primary key, and you are inserting just one row, then you can still make sure this doesn't cause a failure.
For your actual question, I don't really like the idea of using try/catch for program flow, but really, you have to evaluate readability and user experience (in this case performance), and pick what you think is the best of mix of the two.
You can add a UNIQUE constraint to your table.. Something like
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS login
(
loginid SMALLINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
loginname CHAR(20) NOT NULL,
UNIQUE (loginname)
);
This will ensure no two login names are the same.
you can Create a Unique Composite Key
ALTER TABLE `TableName` ADD UNIQUE KEY (KeyOne, KeyTwo, ...);
you just need to create a unique key in your table so that it will not permit to add the same value again.
You should try inserting the value and catch the exception. In a busy system, if you check for the existience of a value it might get inserted between the time you check and the time you insert it.
Let the database do it's job, let the database check for the duplicate entry.
A database is a computerized representation of a set of business rules and a DBMS is used to enforce these business rules as constraints. Neither can verify a proposition in the database is true in the real world. For example, if the model in question is the employees of an enterprise and the Employees table contains two people named 'Jimmy Barnes' DBMS (nor the database) cannot know whether one is a duplicate, whether either are real people, etc. A trusted source is required to determine existence and identity. In the above example, the enterprise's personnel department is responsible for checking public records, perusing references, ensuring the person is not already on the payroll, etc then allocating an unique employee reference number that can be used as a key. This is why we look for industry-standard identifiers with a trusted source: ISBN for books, VIN for cars, ISO 4217 for currencies, ISO 3166 for countries, etc.
I think it is better to check if the value already exists and avoid the insertion. The check for duplicate values can be done in the procedure that saves the data (using exists if your database is an SQL database).
If a duplicate exists you avoid the insertion and can return a value to your app indicating so and then show a message accordingly.
For example, a piece of SQL code could be something like this:
select #ret_val = 0
If exists (select * from employee where last_name = #param_ln and first_name = #param_fn)
select #ret_val = -1
Else
-- your insert statement here
Select #ret_val
Your condition for duplicate values will depend on what you define as a duplicate record. In your application you would use the return value to know if the data was a duplicate. Good luck!
I would like to restrict a column value in a SQL table. For example, the column values can only be "car" or "bike" or "van". My question is how do you achieve this in SQL, and is it a good idea to do this on the DB side or should I let the application restrict the input.
I also have the intention to add or remove more values in the future, for example, "truck".
The type of Databases I am using are SQLite and MySQL.
Add a new table containing these means of transport, and make your column a foreign key to that table. New means of transport can be added to the table in future, and your column definition remains the same.
With this construction, I would definitively choose to regulate this at the DB level, rather than that of the application.
For MySQL, you can use the ENUM data type.
column_name ENUM('small', 'medium', 'large')
See MySQL Reference: The ENUM Type
To add to this, I find it's always better to restrict on the DB side AND on the app side. An Enum plus a Select box and you're covered.
Yes, it is recommended to add check constraints. Check constraints are used to ensure the validity of data in a database and to provide data integrity. If they are used at the database level, applications that use the database will not be able to add invalid data or modify valid data so the data becomes invalid, even if the application itself accepts invalid data.
In SQLite:
create table MyTable
(
name string check(name = "car" or name = "bike" or name = "van")
);
In MySQL:
create table MyTable
(
name ENUM('car', 'bike', 'van')
);
You would use a check constraint. In SQL Server it works like this
ALTER TABLE Vehicles
ADD CONSTRAINT chkVehicleType CHECK (VehicleType in ('car','bike','van'));
I'm not sure if this is ANSI standard but I'm certain that MySQL has a similar construct.
If you want to go with DB-side validation, you can use triggers. See this for SQLite, and this detailed how-to for MySQL.
So the question is really whether you should use Database validation or not. If you have multiple clients -- whether they are different programs, or multiple users (with possibly different versions of the program) -- then going the database route is definitely best. The database is (hopefully) centralized, so you can decouple some of the details of validation. In your particular case, you can verify that the value being inserted into the column is contained in a separate table that simply lists valid values.
On the other hand, if you have little experience with databases, plan to target several different databases, and don't have the time to develop expertise, perhaps simple application level validation is the most expedient choice.
To add some beginner level context to the excellent answer of #NGLN above.
First, one needs to check the foreign key constraint is active, otherwise sqlite won't limit to the input to the column to the reference table:
PRAGMA foreign_key;
...which gives a response of 0 or 1, indicating on or off.
To set the foreign key constraint:
PRAGMA foreign_keys = ON;
This needs to be set to ensure that sqlite3 enforces the constraint.
I found it simplest to just set the primary key of the reference table to be the type. In the OP's example:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS vehicle_types(
vehicle_type text PRIMARY KEY);
Then, one can insert 'car', 'bike' etc into the vehicle_types table (and more in the future) and reference that table in the foreign key constraint in the child table (the table in which the OP wished to reference the type of vehicle):
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS ops_original_table(
col_id integer PRIMARY KEY,
...many other columns...
vehicle_type text NOT NULL,
FOREIGN KEY (vehicle_type) REFERENCES vehicle_types(vehicle_type);
Outwith the scope of the OP's question but also take note that when setting up a foreign key constraint thought should be given to what happens to the column in child table (ops_original_table) if a parent table value (vehicle_types) is deleted or updated. See this page for info
I'm using before and after insert triggers to generate ids (primary key) of the form "ID_NAME-000001" in several tables. At the moment, the value of the hibernate generator class of these pojos is assigned. A random string is assigned to the object to be persisted and when it's inserted by hibernate, the trigger assigns a correct id value.
The problem with this approach is that I'm unable to retrieve the persisted object because the id only exists in the database, not in the object I just saved.
I guess I need to create a custom generator class that could retrieve the id value assigned by the trigger. I've seen an example of this for oracle (https://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=973262) but I haven't been able to create something similar for MySQL. Any ideas?
Thanks,
update:
Seems that this is a common and, yet, not solved problem. I ended up creating a new column to serve as a unique key to use a select generator class.
Hope this won't spark a holy war for whether using surrogate key or not. But it's time to open the conversation here.
Another approach would be just, use the generated key as surrogate key and assign a new field for your trigger assigned id. The surrogate key is the primary key. You have the logically named key (such as the "ID_NAME-000001" in your example). So your database rows will have 2 keys, the primary key is surrogate key (could be UUID, GUID, running number).
Usually this approach is preferable, because it can adapt to new changes better.
Say, you have these row using surrogate key instead of using the generated id as natural key.
Surrogate key:
id: "2FE6E772-CDD7-4ACD-9506-04670D57AA7F", logical_id: "ID_NAME-000001", ...
Natural key:
id: "ID_NAME-000001", ...
When later a new requirement need the logical_id to be editable, auditable (was it changed, who changed it when) or transferable, having the logical_id as primary key will put you in trouble. Usually you cannot change your primary key. It's horribly disadvantage when you already have lots of data in your database and you have to migrate the data because of the new requirement.
With surrogate key solution, it'll be easy, you just need to add
id: "2FE6E772-CDD7-4ACD-9506-04670D57AA7F", logical_id: "ID_NAME-000001", valid: "F", ...
id: "0A33BF97-666A-494C-B37D-A3CE86D0A047", logical_id: "ID_NAME-000001", valid: "T", ...
MySQL doesn't support sequence (IMO autoincrement isn't comparable to sequence). It's different from Oracle/PostgreSQL's sequence. I guess that's the cause why it's difficult to port the solution from Oracle database to MySQL. PostgeSQL does.