I want to trigger an Update on multiple sql tables without creating a loop.
Lets say I have 2 tables:
Table: User_Names
---------------
|Name | Clark |
|Gen | Male |
|id | 1 |
---------------
Table: User_Ages
---------------
|Age | 34|
|Gen | Male |
|id | 1 |
---------------
The id's are unique and refer to the same person.I want to update the columnGen in User_Names, my trigger should update it in the other Table. I also want this to happen when I change it in User_Ages Table, But if both update eachother im creating a loop on the Update trigger in mysql. How do I prevent this loop? The point here is creating a SQL Trigger.
I'm not going to address your original question given the nature of your example. This is a normalization issue much more than trigger issue.
In this case you should normalize your data and only store it in one place. Example above also suggests that you have slight misunderstanding on how to use rows and columns.
Given the example, better layout would probably be:
Table: User_names
+----+---------+------+
| id | Name | gen |
+----+---------+------+
| 1 | Clark | Male |
+----+---------+------+
Table: User_Ages
+----+------+
| id | age |
+----+------+
| 1 | 34 |
+----+------+
When you want to retrieve both values, you'd just link them in your query, e.g.
SELECT user_names.id,name,gen,age FROM User_names JOIN User_Ages USING (id);
Would give you:
+----+---------+------+-----+
| id | Name | gen | age |
+----+---------+------+-----+
| 1 | Clark | Male | 34 |
+----+---------+------+-----+
Coming back to your original question: In situation like that I'd question the original design. If it is really called for, then I'd pick one table that acts as a master and propagates the changes to other table. E.g. define the trigger on User_names table and use it to populate User_Ages table as well.
Related
Let's assume I have two types of users in my system.
Those who can program and those who cannot.
I need to save both types of users in the same table.
The users who can program have lots properties different to those who can't, defined in another table.
What's either advantages of the following solutions and are there any better solutions?
Solution 1
One table containing a column with the correspondig property.
Table `users`:
----------------------------
| id | name | can_program |
----------------------------
| 1 | Karl | 1 |
| 2 | Ally | 0 |
| 3 | Blake | 1 |
----------------------------
Solution 2
Two tables related to each other via primary key and foreign key.
One of the tables containing the users and the other table only containing the id of those who can program.
Table users:
--------------
| id | name |
--------------
| 1 | Karl |
| 2 | Ally |
| 3 | Blake |
--------------
Table can_program:
---------------------
| id | can_program |
---------------------
| 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 |
---------------------
You have a 1-1 relationship between a user and the property that allows him to program. I would recommend storing this information as an additional column in table users. Creating an additional table will basically results in an additional storage structure with a 1-1 relationship to the original table.
Why not just have some kind of programmer_profiles table that the users table has a one-to-many relationship with?
If there's an associated record in programmer_profiles then they can program, otherwise it's presumed they can't.
This is more flexible since you can add in other x_profiles tables that provide different properties even if some of these have the same names.
I have a table with a column for agent names and a column for each of the skills those agents could possibly have. Each skill the agent is assigned shows a 1 in the field under that skill.
Columns look like this:
+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| Name | 'Skill1' | 'Skill2' | 'Skill3' |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| John | 1 | | 1 |
| Sam | 1 | 1 | |
| Roberta | 1 | | 1 |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+
I would like to make a query that returns a list of all agent names that have a 1 for each particular skill. The query would return something like this:
+-----------+
| Skill 1 |
+-----------+
| John |
| Sam |
| Roberta |
+-----------+
Additionally I would like to be able to query a single name and retrieve all skills that agent has (all rows the Name column has a 1 in) like this:
+-----------+
| John |
+-----------+
| Skill 1 |
| Skill 3 |
+-----------+
I've done this in Excel using an index but I'm new to Access and not sure how to complete this task.
Thanks in advance.
One of the reasons that you are finding this task difficult is because your database is not normalised and so due to the way that your database is structured, you are working against MS Access, not with it.
Consequently, whilst a solution is still possible with the current data, the resulting queries will be painful to construct and will either be full of multiple messy iif statements, or several union queries performing the same operations over & over again, one for each 'skill'.
Then, if you every wish to add another Skill to the database, all of your queries have to be rewritten!
Whereas, if your database was normalised (as Gustav has suggested in the comments), the task would be a simple one-liner; and what's more, if you add a new skill later on, your queries will automatically output the results as if the skill had always been there.
Your data has a many-to-many relationship: an agent may have many skills, and a skill may be known by many agents.
As such, the most appropriate way to represent this relationship is using a junction table.
Hence, you would have a table of Agents such as:
tblAgents
+-----+-----------+----------+------------+
| ID | FirstName | LastName | DOB |
+-----+-----------+----------+------------+
| 1 | John | Smith | 1970-01-01 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
+-----+-----------+----------+------------+
This would only contain information unique to each agent, i.e. minimising the repeated information between records in the table.
You would then have a table of possible Skills, such as:
tblSkills
+-----+---------+---------------------+
| ID | Name | Description |
+-----+---------+---------------------+
| 1 | Skill 1 | Skill 1 Description |
| 2 | Skill 2 | Skill 2 Description |
| ... | ... | ... |
+-----+---------+---------------------+
Finally, you would have a junction table linking Agents to Skills, e.g.:
tblAgentSkills
+----+----------+----------+
| ID | Agent_ID | Skill_ID |
+----+----------+----------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | 3 | 2 |
+----+----------+----------+
Now, say you want to find out which agents have Skill 1, the query is simple:
select Agent_ID from tblAgentSkills where Skill_ID = 1
What if you want to find out the skills known by an agent? Equally as simple:
select Skill_ID from tblAgentSkills where Agent_ID = 1
Of course, these queries will merely return the ID fields as present in the junction table - but since the ID uniquely identifies a record in the tblAgents or tblSkills tables, such ID is all you need to retrieve any other required information:
select
tblAgents.FirstName,
tblAgents.LastName
from
tblAgentSkills inner join tblAgents on
tblAgentSkills.AgentID = tblAgents.ID
where
tblAgentSkills.Skill_ID = 1
To get all agents with skill1, open the query designer and create the following query:
this will generate the following sql
SELECT Skills.AgentName
FROM Skills
WHERE (((Skills.Skill1)=1));
If you adjust the names you can also paste this query into the sql pane of the designer to get the query you want.
To get all the skills an agent has I chose a parameterized query. Open the query designer and create a new query:
When you run this query it will ask you for the name of the agent. Make sure to type the agent name exactly. Here is the resulting sql:
SELECT Skills.AgentName, Skills.Skill1, Skills.Skill2, Skills.Skill3
FROM Skills
WHERE (((Skills.AgentName)=[Agent]));
If you continue working with this query I would improve the table design by breaking your table into a skills table, agents table, skills&agents table. Then link the skills and agents tables to the skills&agents table in a many to many relationship. The query to get all an agents skills would then look like this in the designer:
I have the following query that is working correctly but I don't understand why. I am changing the balance column for each row..How does it know which row to update for a particular customer.
UPDATE phppos_customers SET balance =
IFNULL((SELECT SUM(transaction_amount)
FROM `phppos_store_accounts`
WHERE deleted = 0 and customer_id = phppos_customers.person_id), 0);
For the sake of example, lets say you have the following two tables
[Users]
+---------+----------+
| user_id | username |
+---------+----------+
| 1 | patrick |
| 2 | chris |
+---------+----------+
[Names]
+---------+------------+-----------+
| user_id | first_name | last_name |
+---------+------------+-----------+
| 1 | Patrick | Stewart |
| 2 | Chris | Angel |
+---------+------------+-----------+
If you had a update query like the one in your original post, you would want to tell it how to align the two tables. If you had the clause WHERE Users.user_id = Names.user_id, you are effectively telling SQL to view the data as if both tables were aligned side by side, using the user_id in both tables to determine where they match up. This would mean the first_name and last_name in the [Names] table for user_id 1 will be what is used when updating the row in the [Users] table that is user_id 1. It is essentially viewing the data merged together, like this:
[Users] and [Names] tables aligned by the user_id columns
+---------+----------+---------+------------+-----------+
| user_id | username | user_id | first_name | last_name |
+---------+----------+---------+------------+-----------+
| 1 | patrick | 1 | Patrick | Stewart |
| 2 | chris | 2 | Chris | Angel |
+---------+----------+---------+------------+-----------+
So when SQL is doing the updating, it updates each row with the corresponding data from the other table, using this aligning to know which data to use for each rows update.
The process of aligning/merging data from multiple tables is called joining in SQL, here is some more information that illustrates how it works if you are interested.
A previous DBA managed a non relational table with 2.4M entries, all with unique ID's. However, there are duplicate records with different data in each record for example:
+---------+---------+--------------+----------------------+-------------+
| id | Name | Address | Phone | Email | LastVisited |
+---------+---------+--------------+---------+------------+-------------+
| 1 | bob | 12 Some Road | 02456 | | |
| 2 | bobby | | 02456 | bob#domain | |
| 3 | bob | 12 Some Rd | 02456 | | 2010-07-13 |
| 4 | sir bob | | 02456 | | |
| 5 | bob | 12SomeRoad | 02456 | | |
| 6 | mr bob | | 02456 | | |
| 7 | robert | | 02456 | | |
+---------+---------+--------------+---------+------------+-------------+
This isnt the exact table - the real table has 32 columns - this is just to illustrate
I know how to identify the duplicates, in this case i'm using the phone number. I've extracted the duplicates into a seperate table - there's 730k entires in total.
What would be the most efficient way of merging these records (and flagging the un-needed records for deletion)?
I've looked at using UPDATE with INNER JOIN's, but there are several WHERE clauses needed, because i want to update the first record with data from subsequent records, where that subsequent record has additional data the former record does not.
I've looked at third party software such as Fuzzy Dups, but i'd like a pure MySQL option if possible
The end goal then is that i'd be left with something like:
+---------+---------+--------------+----------------------+-------------+
| id | Name | Address | Phone | Email | LastVisited |
+---------+---------+--------------+---------+------------+-------------+
| 1 | bob | 12 Some Road | 02456 | bob#domain | 2010-07-13 |
+---------+---------+--------------+---------+------------+-------------+
Should i be looking at looping in a stored procedure / function or is there some real easy thing i've missed?
U have to create a PROCEDURE, but before that
create ur own temp_table like :
Insert into temp_table(column1, column2,....) values (select column1, column2... from myTable GROUP BY phoneNumber)
U have to create the above mentioned physical table so that u can run a cursor on it.
create PROCEDURE myPROC
{
create a cursor on temp::
fetch the phoneNumber and id of the current row from the temp_table to the local variable(L_id, L_phoneNum).
And here too u need to create a new similar_tempTable which will contain the values as
Insert into similar_tempTable(column1, column2,....) values (Select column1, column2,.... from myTable where phoneNumber=L_phoneNumber)
The next step is to extract the values of each column u want from similar_tempTable and update into the the row of myTable where id=L_id and delete the rest duplicate rows from myTable.
And one more thing, truncate the similar_tempTable after every iteration of the cursor...
Hope this will help u...
Imagine the following (very bad) table design in MSSQL2008R2:
Table "Posts":
| Id (PK, int) | DatasourceId (PK, int) | QuotedPostIds (nvarchar(255)) | [...]
| 1 | 1 | | [...]
| 2 | 1 | 1 | [...]
| 2 | 2 | 1 | [...]
[...]
| 102322 | 2 | 123;45345;4356;76757 | [...]
So, the column QuotedPostIds contains a semicolon-separated list of self-referencing PostIds (Kids, don't do that at home!). Since this design is ugly as a hell, I'd like to extract the values from the QuotedPostIds table to a new n:m relationship table like this:
Desired new table "QuotedPosts":
| QuotingPostId (int) | QuotedPostId (int) | DatasourceId (int) |
| 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 |
[...]
| 102322 | 123 | 2 |
| 102322 | 45345 | 2 |
| 102322 | 4356 | 2 |
| 102322 | 76757 | 2 |
The primary key for this table could either be a combination of QuotingPostId, QuotedPostId and DatasourceID or an additional artificial key generated by the database.
It is worth noticing that the current Posts table contains about 6,300,000 rows but only about 285,000 of those have a value set in the QuotedPostIds column. Therefore, it might be a good idea to pre-filter those rows. In any case, I'd like to perform the normalization using internal MSSQL functionality only, if possible.
I already read other posts regarding this topic which mostly dealt with split functions but neither could I find out how exactly to create the new table and also copying the appropriate value from the Datasource column, nor how to filter the rows to touch accordingly.
Thank you!
€dit: I thought it through and finally solved the problem using an external C# program instead of internal MSSQL functionality. Since it seems that it could have been done using Mikael Eriksson's suggestion, I will mark his post as an answer.
From comments you say you have a string split function that you you don't know how to use with a table.
The answer is to use cross apply something like this.
select P.Id,
S.Value
from Posts as P
cross apply dbo.Split(';', P.QuotedPostIds) as S