I currently have a database setup within an html page and my requirement is to update a single row within the application.
I could refresh the database with "fresh" data, but that would require too much time.
I had a look at
dbSports().update("aName", object.aname);
However it seems to update all the records in my database instead of just one. Are there any answers to this particular issue?
The Documentation on the matter is missing a major chunk of information, but is covered in a presentation done by the author of the library (http://www.slideshare.net/typicaljoe/better-data-management-using-taffydb-1357773) [Slide 30]
The querying object needs to be pointing to the object you want to update and editing happening from there. i.e.
var obj = dbObject({
Id : value.id
}).update(function() {
this.aName = object.aname;
return this;
});
Where the object in the query points to the ID of the row and the update function then points to it aswell and the callback updates the value that the application needs to update
you first have to find the matching record, then update it
yourDB({"ID":recordID}).update({
"col1":val1,
"col2":val2,
"col3":val3
});
Related
my code:
DB::transaction(function () {
$foo = Foo::whereId(1)->lockForUpdate()->with('bars')->first();
// dump foo & bars
// update foo's columns
// update bars' columns
});
and I run this code at the same time twice, first time it can update correctly, but the second time when I query the foo, foo's columns is correct, but the bars are still old(in database it's correct), why is it and how to solve it?
Since you are using lockForUpdate() and want to use the new data after you update, you need to re-hydrate the model using refresh()
The refresh method will re-hydrate the existing model using fresh data from the database. In addition, all of its loaded relationships will be refreshed as well:
https://laravel.com/docs/9.x/eloquent#refreshing-models
There is a great answer by NoOorZ24 # Laravel lockforupdate (Pessimistic Locking) explaining how the lock for transaction works to further clarify.
My problem is simple and straight forward. I want to edit multiple records and save them in database. For editing a single record, I have used following statement in JpaRepository
DatabaseEntity findByAbcId(Integer abcId);
Here, I am trying to fetch a record from Mysql database table DatabaseEntity with respect to its column named abcId which is a foreign key of another table named ABC.
In my service class, I get this record, set its attributes and simply save it back in database like:
//Getting an existing record from database:
//Giving hardcoded value just for understanding
DatabaseEntity databaseEntity = databaseEntityRepository.findByAbcId(106);
//Setting edited fields into Model object. Except for its own id and abcId(foreign key)
databaseEntity.setCol1(value);
databaseEntity.setCol2(value);
databaseEntity.setCol3(value);
databaseEntityRepository.save(databaseEntity);
The above code will get a record and save its edited version into the database.
Now lets take a similar scenario but this time, the database is retrieving multiple records. from the database. Suppose multiple records are present against abcId column in my table. The changes in my code will be:
//Storing the result in the list as there are multiple records stored against 106
List<DatabaseEntity> databaseEntity = databaseEntityRepository.findByAbcId(106);
//What should I code here?
Now I am confused how to set values in multiple fields in a single go from spring boot. The values that I need to edit are also in another list and I tried iterating over both lists and change the database records accordingly but my approach is not a good one
//List of those records which I have edited
if(newRecordsList != null) {
//Using atomic Integer because only that can be changed within lambda expression
AtomicInteger outerLoopCounter = new AtomicInteger(0);
List<DatabaseEntity> databaseEntity = databaseEntityRepository.findByAbcId(Abc.getId());
databaseEntity.forEach(obj -> {
AtomicInteger innerLoopCounter = new AtomicInteger(0);
newRecordsList.forEach(newRecordsListObj -> {
//condition so that first record is updated according to the updated first record and other changes are updated accordingly.
if(outerLoopCounter.get() == innerLoopCounter.get()) {
obj.setName(newRecordsListObj.getName());
obj.setCondition(newRecordsListObj.getCondition());
obj.setValue(newRecordsListObj.getValue());
databaseEntityRepository.save(obj);
}
innerLoopCounter.incrementAndGet();
});
outerLoopCounter.incrementAndGet();
});
}
I know this is a very bad approach and I want to update my logic. So please help me to update these multiple records inside database.
Thanks in advance
I'm working on a project where users could upload excel files into a MySQL database. Those files are the main source of our data as they come directly from the contractors working with the company. They contain a large number of rows (23000 on average for each file) and 100 columns for each row!
The problem I am facing currently is that the same file could be changed by someone (either the contractor or the company) and when re-uploading it, my system should detect changes, update the actual data, and save the action (The fact that the cell went from a value to another value :: oldValue -> newValue) so we can go back and run a versions comparison (e.g 3 re-uploads === 3 versions). (oldValue Version1 VS newValue Version5)
I developed a tiny mechanism for saving the changes => I have a table to save Imports data (each time a user import a file a new row will be inserted in this table) and another table for saving the actual changes
Versioning data
I save the id of the row that have some changes, as well as the id and the table where the actual data was modified (Uploading a file results in a insertion in multiple tables, so whenever a change occurs, I need to know in which table that happened). I also save the new value and the old value which is gonna help me with restoring the "archives data".
To restore a version : SELECT * FROM 'Archive' WHERE idImport = ${versionNumber}
To restore a version for one row : SELECT * FROM 'Archive' WHERE idImport = ${versionNumber} and rowId = ${rowId}
To restore all version for one row : SELECT * FROM 'Archive' WHERE rowId = ${rowId}
To restore version for one table : SELECT * FROM 'Archine' WHERE tableName = ${table}
Etc.
Now with this structure, I'm struggling to restore a version or to run a comparaison between two versions, which makes think that I've came up with a wrong approach since it makes it hard to do the job! I am trying to know if anyone had done this before or what a good approach would look like?
Cases when things get really messy :
The rows that have changed in a version might not have changed in the other version (I am working on a time machine to search in other versions when this happens)
The rows have changed in both versions but not the same fields. (Say we have a user table, the data of the user with id 15 have changed in 2nd and 5th upload, great! Now for the second version only the name was changed, but for the fifth version his address was changed! When comparing these two versions, we will run into a problem constrcuting our data array. name went from "some"-> NULL (Name was never null. No name changes in 5th version) and address went from NULL -> "some' is which obviously wrong).
My actual approach (php)
<?php
//Join records sets and Compare them
foreach ($firstRecord as $frecord) {
//Retrieve first record fields that have changed
$fFields = $frecord->fieldName;
//Check if the same record have changed in the second version as well
$sId = array_search($frecord->idRecord, $secondRecord);
if($sId) {
$srecord = $secondRecord[$sId];
//Retrieve straversee fields that have changed
$sFields = $srecord->fieldName;
//Compare the two records fields
foreach ($fFields as $fField) {
$sfId = array_search($fField, $sFields);
//The same field for the same record was changed in both version (perfect case)
if($sfId) {
$sField = $sFields[$sfId];
$deltaRow[$fField]["oldValue"] = $frecord->deltaValue;
$deltaRow[$fField]["newValue"] = $srecord->deltaValue;
//Delete the checked field from the second version traversee to avoid re-checking
unset($sField[$sfId]);
}
//The changed field in V1 was not found in V2 -> Lookup for a value
else {
$deltaRow[$fField]["oldValue"] = $frecord->deltaValue;
$deltaRow[$fField]["newValue"] = $this->valueLookUp();
}
}
$dataArray[] = $deltaRow;
//Delete the checked record from the second version set to avoid re-checking
unset($secondRecord[$srecord]);
}
I don't know how to deal with that, as I said I m working on a value lookup algorithm so when no data found in a version I will try to find it in the versions between theses two so I can construct my data array. I would be very happy if anyone could give some hints, ideas, improvements so I can go futher with that.
Thank you!
Is there a way to store database modifications with a versioning feature (for eventual versions comparaison [sic!])?
What constitutes versioning depends on the database itself and how you make use of it.
As far as a relational database is concerned (e.g. MariaDB), this boils down to the so called Normal Form which is in numbers.
On Database Normalization: 5th Normal Form and Beyond you can find the following guidance:
Beyond 5th normal form you enter the heady realms of domain key normal form, a kind of theoretical ideal. Its practical use to a database designer os [sic!] similar to that of infinity to a bookkeeper - i.e. it exists in theory but is not going to be used in practice. Even the most demanding owner is not going to expect that of the bookkeeper!
One strategy to step into these realms is to reach the 5th normal form first (do this just in theory, by going through all the normal forms, and study database normalization).
Additionally you can construe versioning outside and additional to the database itself, e.g. by creating your own versioning system. Reading about what you can do with normalization will help you to find better ways to decide on how to structure and handle the database data for your versioning needs.
However, as written it depends on what you want and need. So no straight forward "code" answer can be given to such a general question.
I have a view ObjectDisplay that is composed of two relevant tables: Object and State. State represents the state of an Object, and the view pulls some of the details from the most recent State for each Object.
On the page that is displaying this information, a user can enter some comments, which creates a new State. After creating the new State, I immediately pull the Object from ObjectDisplay and send it back to be dropped into a partial view and replace the Object in the grid on the page.
// Add new State.
db.States.Add(new State()
{
ObjectId = objectId,
Comments = comments,
UserName = username
});
// Save the changes (executes all of the above).
db.SaveChanges();
// Return the new Object information.
return db.Objects.Single(c => c.ObjectId == objectId);
According to my db trace, the Single call occurs about 70 ms after the SaveChanges call, and it occurs on the same SPID.
Now for the issue: The database defaults the value of RecordDate in State to GETUTCDATE() - I don't provide the date myself. What I'm seeing is that the Object returned has the State's RecordDate of the old State and the Comments of the new State information of the old State. I am seeing that the Object returned has the old State's information. When I refresh the page, all the correct information is there, but the wrong information is returned in the initial call from the database/EF.
So.. what could be wrong? Could the view not be updating quickly enough? Could something be going on with EF? I don't really know where to start looking.
If you've previously loaded the same Object entity in the same DbContext, EF will return the cached instance with the stale values, and ignore the values returned from SQL.
The simplest solution is to reload the entity before returning it:
var result = db.Objects.Single(c => c.ObjectId == objectId);
db.Entry(result).Reload();
return result;
This is indeed odd. In SQL Server views are not persisted by default and therefore show changes in the underlying data right away. You can create a clustered index on a view with effectively persists the query, but in that case the data is updated synchronously, so you should see the change right away.
If you are working with snapshot isolation level your changes might not be visible to other SPIDs right away, but as you are on the same SPID and do not use snapshot isolation, this cant be the culprit either.
The only thing left at this point is the application layer. Are you actually using the result of the Single call higher up in the call stack or does that get lost somewhere. I assume that a refresh of the page uses a different code path, which would explain why it is working there.
I ran into an interesting problem while using DLINQ. When I instantiate an entity, calling .SubmitChanges() on the DataContext will insert a new row into the database - without having ever called .Insert[All]OnSubmit(...).
//Code sample:
Data.NetServices _netServices = new Data.NetServices(_connString);
Data.ProductOption[] test = new Data.ProductOption[]
{
new Data.ProductOption
{
Name="TEST1",
//Notice the assignment here
ProductOptionCategory=_netServices.ProductOptionCategory.First(poc => poc.Name == "laminate")
}
};
_netServices.SubmitChanges();
Running the code above will insert a new row in the database. I noticed this effect while writing an app to parse an XML file and populate some tables. I noticed there were 1000+ inserts when I was only expecting around 50 or so - then I finally isolated this behavior.
How can I prevent these objects from being persisted implicitly?
Thanks,
-Charles
Think of the relationship as having two sides. When you set one side of the relationship the other side needs to be updated so in the case above as well as setting the ProductOptionCategory it is effectively adding the new object to the ProductOptions relationship on the laminate ProductOptionCategory side.
The work-around is as you have already discovered and to set the underlying foreign key instead so LINQ to SQL will not track the objects in the usual way and require implicit indication it should persist the object.
Of course the best solution for performance would be to determine from the source data which objects you don't want to add and never create the instance in the first place.