I am coding a messaging system and I don't want to have short IDs shown, is there any way that MySQL can generate a UID which is unique as UID suggests?
I need to know how I can do this with ONLY MySQL, no PHP, JavaScript or anything else, just MySQL, if not possible, fine, I just want to make sure.
Sorry, I should have made it more clear when I say UID I just mean "Unique ID" but I need it in a multidigit number only, e.g. 914888629, 3890692140
MySQL has a function for that. Try:
SELECT UUID();
If you don't want globally unique IDs, just a unique ID (a different number each time you call it), then you can create a table with only an integer auto_increment non-null column and issue the following two queries:
INSERT INTO tbl1 SET col1 = NULL;
SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID();
To start the number at something other than 1, for example, to start at 10 digits, set it like this:
ALTER TABLE tbl1 AUTO_INCREMENT = 1000000000
Related
I have an existing sql table with 3 columns and 100+ entries/rows. There is an id column with autoincrement.
Now, I want to add 10 new rows at the beginning of the table with id from 1 to 10. But I cannot lose any existing row. So, how do I do it?
One idea that just came to my mind is perhaps I can increase the existing id by adding 10, like 1+10 becomes 11, 25+10 becomes 35, and then I can add rows at the beginning. What will be the script for this IF this is possible?
All you need to do for this is to set the auto_increment for that table to whatever number you need to create space for the new records you want to insert.
For example, if you inserted rows with id's 1-100, you might:
Check the next auto_increment value by running:
select auto_increment as val from information_schema.tables where table_schema='myschema' and table_name='mytable';
Let's assume that value would be 101 (the value that would be used if you inserted a new row). You can "advance" the auto_increment value by running:
alter table myschema.mytable auto_increment = 111;
If you insert a new row like this:
insert into mytable (not_the_id_column) values ('test');
It will get the "next" id of 111. But if you specify id values manually, you are ok in this case as long as you use any value less than 111, so you could insert your desired records like this:
insert into mytable (id, not_the_id_column) values (101, 'test101');
insert into mytable (id, not_the_id_column) values (102, 'test102');
... -- more inserts as needed
Now, you still must take proper precautions when updating PK values, or any value that has dependencies on it (Foreign Key or otherwise), but it is completely legitimate to forcibly advance and/or backfill the id values, as long as the resulting auto_increment value doesn't duplicate one that's already in the table.
I agree with juergen d's comment that you should not do this, but I realize there are situations where this kind of thing must be done.
SELECT MAX(id)-MIN(id)+1 INTO #x FROM theTable;
UPDATE theTable SET id = id + #x;
SELECT MIN(id) INTO #x FROM theTable;
UPDATE theTable SET id = 10 + id - #x;
If the id is the primary key, value collisions within an update can cause MySQL to reject the update. (Hence the pair of updates to avoid such a possibility.)
Edit: Factoring N.B.'s strong objection into this, it would also probably be good to verify the table's next auto-increment value is not going to collide with the updated records after the update is completed. I don't have an appropriate database on hand to verify whether UPDATE statements affect it; and even if they do affect it, you may end up wanting to reduce it so as to not create an unnecessary gap (gaps should ideally not be a problem, but if they are or you are just mildly OCD, it is worth looking into).
Say a table T with a PRIMARY KEY id, I set it to AUTO INCREMENT.
I need to get the newly INSERTED id value for other operation, however, since it's the only PRIMARY KEY and AUTO INCREMENT, I don't how to do it.
Another SELECT with all other values in WHERE is valid in theory, but it's too slow.
Any better ideas?
Should you be checking LAST_INSERT_ID() like
select LAST_INSERT_ID();
Does this not work?
select max(id) from T;
This will produce the last id without functions
SELECT id FROM t ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1
By the way .. You should get the id after your insert statement from any MySQL api
It obviously depends on what database engine you use.
If , like I suppose, We are speaking about MSSQL, a good practise is to return last id generated in the current transaction (or session). You could see this post for more info.
Anyway, you could calculate the max id, but whitout warranties if someone instert new row in the while.
All rows in MySQL tables are being inserted like this:
1
2
3
Is there any way how to insert new row at a top of table so that table looks like this?
3
2
1
Yes, yes, I know "order by" but let me explain the problem. I have a dating website and users can search profiles by sex, age, city, etc. There are more than 20 search criteria and it's not possible to create indexes for each possible combination. So, if I use "order by", the search usually ends with "using temporary, using filesort" and this causes a very high server load. If I remove "order by" oldest profiles are shown as first and users have to go to the last page to see the new profiles. That's very bad because first pages of search results always look the same and users have a feeling that there are no new profiles. That's why I asked this question. If it's not possible to insert last row at top of table, can you suggest anything else?
The order in which the results are returned when there's no ORDER BY clause depends on the RDBM. In the case of MySQL, or at least most engines, if you don't explicitly specify the order it will be ascending, from oldest to new entries. Where the row is located "physically" doesn't matter. I'm not sure if all mysql engines work that way though. I.e., in PostgreSQL the "default" order shows the most recently updated rows first. This might be the way some of the MySQL engines work too.
Anyway, the point is - if you want the results ordered - always specify sort order, don't just depend on something default that seems to work. In you case you want something trivial - you want the users in descending order, so just use:
SELECT * FROM users ORDER BY id DESC
I think you just need to make sure that if you always need to show the latest data first, all of your indexes need to specify the date/time field first, and all of your queries order by that field first.
If ORDER BY is slowing everything down then you need to optimise your queries or your database structure, i would say.
Maybe if you add the id 'by hand', and give it a negative value, but i (and probably nobody) would recommend you to do that:
Regular insert, e.g.
insert into t values (...);
Update with set, e.g.
update t set id = -id where id = last_insert_id();
Normally you specify a auto_incrementing primary key.
However, you can just specify the primary key like so:
CREATE TABLE table1 (
id signed integer primary key default 1, <<-- no auto_increment, but has a default value
other fields .....
Now add a BEFORE INSERT trigger that changes the primary key.
DELIMITER $$
CREATE TRIGGER ai_table1_each BEFORE INSERT ON table1 FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
DECLARE new_id INTEGER;
SELECT COALESCE(MIN(id), 0) -1 INTO new_id FROM table1;
SET NEW.id = new_id;
END $$
DELIMITER ;
Now your id will start at -1 and run down from there.
The insert trigger will make sure no concurrency problems occur.
I know that a lot of time has passed since the above question was asked. But I have something to add to the comments:
I'm using MySQL version: 5.7.18-0ubuntu0.16.04.1
When no ORDER BY clause is used with SELECT it is noticeable that records are displayed, regardless of the order in which they are added, in the table's Prime Key sequence.
I've got a mysql table where each row has its own sequence number in a "sequence" column. However, when a row gets deleted, it leaves a gap. So...
1
2
3
4
...becomes...
1
2
4
Is there a neat way to "reset" the sequencing, so it becomes consecutive again in one SQL query?
Incidentally, I'm sure there is a technical term for this process. Anyone?
UPDATED: The "sequence" column is not a primary key. It is only used for determining the order that records are displayed within the app.
If the field is your primary key...
...then, as stated elsewhere on this question, you shouldn't be changing IDs. The IDs are already unique and you neither need nor want to re-use them.
Now, that said...
Otherwise...
It's quite possible that you have a different field (that is, as well as the PK) for some application-defined ordering. As long as this ordering isn't inherent in some other field (e.g. if it's user-defined), then there is nothing wrong with this.
You could recreate the table using a (temporary) auto_increment field and then remove the auto_increment afterwards.
I'd be tempted to UPDATE in ascending order and apply an incrementing variable.
SET #i = 0;
UPDATE `table`
SET `myOrderCol` = #i:=#i+1
ORDER BY `myOrderCol` ASC;
(Query not tested.)
It does seem quite wasteful to do this every time you delete items, but unfortunately with this manual ordering approach there's not a whole lot you can do about that if you want to maintain the integrity of the column.
You could possibly reduce the load, such that after deleting the entry with myOrderCol equal to, say, 5:
SET #i = 5;
UPDATE `table`
SET `myOrderCol` = #i:=#i+1
WHERE `myOrderCol` > 5
ORDER BY `myOrderCol` ASC;
(Query not tested.)
This will "shuffle" all the following values down by one.
I'd say don't bother. Reassigning sequential values is a relatively expensive operation and if the column value is for ordering purpose only there is no good reason to do that. The only concern you might have is if for example your column is UNSIGNED INT and you suspect that in the lifetime of your application you might have more than 4,294,967,296 rows (including deleted rows) and go out of range, even if that is your concern you can do the reassigning as a one time task 10 years later when that happens.
This is a question that often I read here and in other forums. As already written by zerkms this is a false problem. Moreover if your table is related with other ones you'll lose relations.
Just for learning purpose a simple way is to store your data in a temporary table, truncate the original one (this reset auto_increment) and than repopulate it.
Silly example:
create table seq (
id int not null auto_increment primary key,
col char(1)
) engine = myisam;
insert into seq (col) values ('a'),('b'),('c'),('d');
delete from seq where id = 3;
create temporary table tmp select col from seq order by id;
truncate seq;
insert into seq (col) select * from tmp;
but it's totally useless. ;)
If this is your PK then you shouldn't change it. PKs should be (mostly) unchanging columns. If you were to change them then not only would you need to change it in that table but also in any foreign keys where is exists.
If you do need a sequential sequence then ask yourself why. In a table there is no inherent or guaranteed order (even in the PK, although it may turn out that way because of how most RDBMSs store and retrieve the data). That's why we have the ORDER BY clause in SQL. If you want to be able to generate sequential numbers based on something else (time added into the database, etc.) then consider generating that either in your query or with your front end.
Assuming that this is an ID field, you can do this when you insert:
INSERT INTO yourTable (ID)
SELECT MIN(ID)
FROM yourTable
WHERE ID > 1
As others have mentioned I don't recommend doing this. It will hold a table lock while the next ID is evaluated.
I want to add 100 entry to users table numbers field, random characters length is 10, all entry should be unique as well. How can i achieve this using MYSQL query code ?
Or do i need to use PHP ?
Help me with code snippets please. Thanks.
in mysql u can do like :
insert into table ( SUBSTRING(MD5(RAND()) FROM 1 FOR 10) , field2 , field3) , ( SUBSTRING(MD5(RAND()) FROM 1 FOR 10) , field2 , field3) , .........
..............
in php see this 2 links :
Short unique id in php
What is the best way to generate a random key within PHP?
That may create duplicates and it's too long. This is 10 char long:
UPDATE users SET numbers = SUBSTRING(MD5(RAND()) FROM 1 FOR 10)
However, you could still get duplicate values.
So you could put a unique restraint on your column. Then try the update. If there are duplicates, you will get an error. Then just try again. You only have 100 entries, so it's probably fine.
Is this for passwords?
If so, I'd recommend encrypting the value. Of course you then have the problem of not knowing what the value is. So you could create a temporary table, insert the random values in there. Then encrypt the values as they are inserted from the temp table into the real table. You can then use the temp table for reference (giving the users their passwords, etc). Hope that helps.
UPDATE TABLE users SET number_field = MD5(RAND());
You can't generate an unique random number. Over time, the randomness will generate a number already stored. You need to make a "quasi-random" number, meaning that it's a number based on another data, but it just looks random. You can use the primary key on the table as the base number to generate the "fake-random" number
INSERT INTO myTable(primaryKey,quasiRandom)
SELECT IFNULL(MAX(primaryKey),0)+1, CAST(CONCAT(IFNULL(MAX(primaryKey),0)+1,CHAR(FLOOR(RAND()*26)+65),FLOOR(100+RAND()*(500-100)))
AS CHAR(10)) AS quasiRandom FROM myTable