I created a table, master-domain. This table should only have 3 records.
How can I limit mysql database to only allow NO MORE than that number of records?
Is there a specific sql command to acomplish this?
This is my current SQL:
CREATE TABLE `mydatabase`.`master-domain`
(
`domain` VARCHAR( 50 ) NOT NULL COMMENT 'Domain Name',
PRIMARY KEY ( `domain` )
)
PS. I have godaddy and it includes phpMyAdmin, in addition to MySQL databases.
You can make a table's primary key a field of type ENUM. For example:
CREATE TABLE test (
id enum('1','2') NOT NULL,
domain varchar(50) NOT NULL,
primary key (id));
When you update it you have to explicitly set the ID to "", "1", or "2".* It can't be null and there can only be one record with each ID. The domain is still stored in the domain field, so hopefully whatever external system is querying this database won't have any problems getting the results it wants.
If you want to replicate the current restriction that domain names have to be unique, you could also add unique key (domain).
* note that the empty string is allowed (and not the same as NULL) because enum is actually a type of string. So you'd specify two permitted ID values in order to have three total.
Alternately: What are you trying to achieve / prevent here? Is there some automated process that might add records to the table? Are you trying to make sure that you don't accidentally do it, or that someone who hijacks your account can't do it?
If the process that might insert records is running on your user, you could put your three records into the table and then take away INSERT privileges from yourself. You'd still be able to alter the existing records but you wouldn't be able to add any more unless you explicitly re-granted the ability.
You can have a look here at the MAX_ROWS parameter. However, I believe this is normally used to make the table size larger than the disk size and I don't think you would get the restriction you are looking for using it. Alternatively, you could just select the top 3 rows.
I would question the point of using a database to only store 3 rows - it seems a total waste.
I think there is no such inbuilt functionality provided by MySQL. One solution is that you can create trigger.
CREATE TRIGGER your_trigger_name
BEFORE INSERT ON master-domain
FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
DECLARE cnt INT;
SELECT count(*) INTO cnt FROM master-domain;
IF cnt = 10 THEN
SIGNAL SQLSTATE '45000' SET MESSAGE_TEXT = 'You can store only 3 records.';
END IF;
END;
Try above trigger on your table. Hope this will help you.
Related
I am trying to build an API and one of the endpoints will return a random row from my database. In the database I have a table in which I want a "views" column to be updated every time I run a SELECT query on a row.
My table looks something like this:
CREATE TABLE `movies` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`title` varchar(256) NOT NULL,
`description` text,
`views` int(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
);
The row is selected by ordering the table with rand() and then limiting the result by 1, like so:
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY rand() LIMIT 1;
Is something like this below possible?
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY rand() LIMIT 1
UPDATE table SET views = +1 WHERE (selected row?);
I'm new to SQL queries, so I don't know if this is the best way or even possible at all. Should I run a new query after this one has completed that updates the value instead?
Usually, every table has a Primary Key, i.e. a unique ID of every single row. Since you have a result of your SELECT query and it's only 1 row, you always can make a consequent update query like UPDATE table SET views = views + 1 WHERE id = <returned_record_id>. Here we assume that the column id is a Primary Key column. This pair of queries need to be issued by the application code. If you want to achieve SELECT + UPDATE functionality as a single SQL statement, consider using stored procedures.
While the aforementioned approach is technically possible, it might have a few performance problems. First of, ORDER BY rand() often has a poor performance. Also, having an update on each select could have bad performance implications.
No what you want is not possible .as, select and update commands can not be used togethor in a single transaction.
You can do it seperately
You need to create a procedure for this in your database like:
CREATE PROCEDURE `procedure_name`()
BEGIN
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY rand() LIMIT 1 ;
UPDATE table SET views = +1 WHERE (selected row?) ;
END
and then call it
call procedure_name();
You can check only as there are many ways to write a procedure.
Thanks
Unfortunately, what you want to do is not possible, at least not without a lot of work. SQL in general -- and MySQL in particular -- offer a capability called triggers.
Triggers allow you to do take actions when something happens in the database. For instance, if you want to check that values are correct, you can write an insert/update trigger to check the values and reject improper ones. Or, if you want to stash deleted records into an audit table, a trigger is the way to go.
What you are describing could be implemented using a trigger on a "select". Such a beast does not exist.
What are your options? Well, the simplest is to do this in your application. When a movie is selected, then you can update views. Of course, that only increments the views where you have the code.
You can move this code into a stored procedure. This simplifies the application code. It just has to "know" to use the stored procedure. But, there is no enforcement mechanism.
You can make this more enforceable by using permissions. Basically, don't allow access to the underlying table except through the stored procedure. This is closest to what you want.
I have searched everything I could ) Truly. But I can't find the correct way to add new columns only after checking if the column doesn't exist. I am writing a program in C.
Here is what I am doing, and I can't find my mistake in syntax. I will be very grateful for your help! I get an error You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use
//create buffer to store the query
char buff[1024];
//store query in the buffer
snprintf(buff, sizeof buff, "IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT * FROM information_schema.COLUMNS WHERE COLUMN_NAME = '%i' AND TABLE_NAME = '%s' AND TABLE_SCHEMA = '%s') THEN ALTER TABLE `%s`.`%s` ADD COLUMN `%i` INT; END IF;", value1, table, database, database, table, value1);
EDIT
I am editing the post to show what I am trying to achieve.
Using nested if statement in the main function, I have created the database and the table, and have populated the table with column names; my code is designed in a way that all functions are interrelated: only if connection is established, the program calls "create database" function; only if database is created, the program calls "create table" function; only if the table is created and initially only two columns are added (id and Names), the program calls the function to alter table in order to add other columns.
I do so because I need a for loop to loop those additional column names, which were created previously by my previous C program.
So the table should look like this:
id name 1988 1977 1966 1955
1 name1 value value value value
2 name2 value value value value
3 name3 value value value value
Each time the program is called, each function checks if database exists, then it is not created from scratch, if table exists, it is not created, and now I am stumbled on how to check of columns exist, because if they do, I get an error and the program can't move on.
To add a column you can do it like this
snprintf(
buff,
sizeof buff,
"ALTER TABLE `%s`.`%s` ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS `%s` `%s`",
database,
table,
column_name,
column_type
);
Note that in your format string there is a %i that doesn't look right.
After giving you the answer, because this is what you asked for, I want to say that adding a column in code like that looks like a bad sign. SQL databases are pretty static in their structure, you should never need to add or remove columns from it. If you have to, then there is a problem either in the database design or the way you are handling it.
According to the comments below you need something like this
CREATE TABLE `names` (
`name` VARCHAR(128) PRIMARY KEY
) ENGINE = InnoDB;
CREATE TABLE `entries` (
`name` VARCHAR(128) NOT NULL,
`year` INTEGER NOT NULL,
-- Or the required type (FLOAT perhaps?)
`value` INTEGER NOT NULL,
-- All names MUST come from the `names` table
CONSTRAINT `name_fk` FOREIGN KEY (`name`) REFERENCES `names` (`name`),
-- Allow only one entry per `name`/`year`
CONSTRAINT `entry_pk` PRIMARY KEY (`name`, `year`)
) ENGINE = InnoDB;
And then you can insert each name in the names table, and one entry per year in the entries table, you can have the combinations you want and you can query all years for a given name
SELECT * FROM `entries` WHERE `name` = ?
Creating a database schema dynamically is wrong, it's just against the whole idea of a schema, a database has a schema so you can write queries an rely on them working, the language is called Structured Query Language for a reason.
I've got a bit of a stupid question. The thing is my program has to have the function to delete data from my database. Yay, not really the problem. But how can I delete data without the danger that others can see, that there has been something deleted.
User Table:
U_ID U_NAME
1 Chris
2 Peter
OTHER TABLE
ID TIMESTAMP FK_U_D
1 2012-12-01 1
2 2012-12-02 1
Sooooo the ID's are AUTO_INCREMENT, so if I delete one of them there's a gap. Furthermore, the timestamp is also bigger than the row before, so ascending.
I want to let the data with ID 1 disappear from the user's profile (U_ID 1).
If I delete it, there is a gap. If I just change the FK_U_ID to 2 (Peter) it's obvious, because when I insert data, there are 20 or 30 data rows with the same U_ID...so it's obvious that there has been a modification.
If I set the FK_U_ID NULL --> same sh** like when I change it to another U_ID.
Is there any solution to get this work? I know that if nobody but me has access to the database, it's just no problem. But just in case, if somebody controls my program it should not be obvious that there has been modifications.
So here we go.
For the ID gaps issue you can use GUIDs as #SLaks suggests, but then you can't use the native RDBMS auto_increment which means you have to create the GUID and insert it along with the rest of the record data upon creation. Of course, you don't really need the ID to be globally unique, you could just store a random string of 20 characters or something, but then you have to do a DB read to see if that ID is taken and repeat (recursively) that process until you find an unused ID... could be quite taxing.
It's not at all clear why you would want to "hide" evidence that a delete was performed. That sounds like a really bad idea. I'm not a fan of promulgating misinformation.
Two of the characteristics of an ideal primary key are:
- anonymous (be void of any useful information, doesn't matter what it's set to)
- immutable (once assigned, it will never be changed.)
But, if we set that whole discussion aside...
I can answer a slightly different question (an answer you might find helpful to your particular situation)
The only way to eliminate a "gap" in the values in a column with an AUTO_INCREMENT would be to change the column values from their current values to a contiguous sequence of new values. If there are any foreign keys that reference that column, the values in those columns would need to be updated as well, to preserve the relationship. That will likely leave the current auto_increment value of the table higher than the largest value of the id column, so I'd want to reset that as well, to avoid a "gap" on the next insert.
(I have done re-sequencing of auto_increment values in development and test environments, to "cleanup" lookup tables, and to move the id values of some tables to ranges that are distinct from ranges in other tables... that let's me test SQL to make sure the SQL join predicates aren't inadvertently referencing the wrong table, and returning rows that look correct by accident... those are some reasons I've done reassignment if auto_increment values)
Note that the database can "automagically" update foreign key values (for InnnoDB tables) when you change the primary key value, as long as the foreign key constraint is defined with ON UPDATE CASCADE, and FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS is not disabled.
If there are no foreign keys to deal with, and assuming that all of the current values of id are positive integers, then I've been able to do something like this: (with appropriate backups in place, so I can recover if things don't work right)
UPDATE mytable t
JOIN (
SELECT s.id AS old_id
, #i := #i + 1 AS new_id
FROM mytable s
CROSS
JOIN (SELECT #i := 0) i
ORDER BY s.id
) c
ON t.id = c.old_id
SET t.id = c.new_id
WHERE t.id <> c.new_id
To reset the table AUTO_INCREMENT back down to the largest id value in the table:
ALTER TABLE mytable AUTO_INCREMENT = 1;
Typically, I will create a table and populate it from that query in the inline view (aliased as c) above. I can then use that table to update both foreign key columns and the primary key column, first disabling the FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS and then re-enabling it. (In a concurrent environment, where other processes might be inserting/updating/deleting rows from one of the tables, I would of course first obtain an exclusive lock on all of the tables to be updated.)
Taking up again, the discussion I set aside earlier... this type of "administrative" function can be useful in a test environment, when setting up test cases. But it is NOT a function that is ever performed in a production environment, with live data.
I have a "tasks" table with a priority column, which has a unique constraint.
I'm trying to swap the priority value of two rows, but I keep violating the constraint. I saw this statement somewhere in a similar situation, but it wasn't with MySQL.
UPDATE tasks
SET priority =
CASE
WHEN priority=2 THEN 3
WHEN priority=3 THEN 2
END
WHERE priority IN (2,3);
This will lead to the error:
Error Code: 1062. Duplicate entry '3' for key 'priority_UNIQUE'
Is it possible to accomplish this in MySQL without using bogus values and multiple queries?
EDIT:
Here's the table structure:
CREATE TABLE `tasks` (
`id` int(11) NOT NULL,
`name` varchar(200) DEFAULT NULL,
`priority` varchar(45) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
UNIQUE KEY `priority_UNIQUE` (`priority`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8
Is it possible to accomplish this in MySQL without using bogus values and multiple queries?
No. (none that I can think of).
The problem is how MySQL processes updates. MySQL (in difference with other DBMS that implement UPDATE properly), processes updates in a broken manner. It enforces checking of UNIQUE (and other) constraints after every single row update and not - as it should be doing - after the whole UPDATE statement completes. That's why you don't have this issue with (most) other DBMS.
For some updates (like increasing all or some ids, id=id+1), this can be solved by using - another non-standard feature - an ORDER BY in the update.
For swapping the values from two rows, that trick can't help. You'll have to use NULL or a bogus value (that doesn't exist but is allowed in your column) and 2 or 3 statements.
You could also temporarily remove the unique constraint but I don't think that's a good idea really.
So, if the unique column is a signed integer and there are no negative values, you can use 2 statements wrapped up in a transaction:
START TRANSACTION ;
UPDATE tasks
SET priority =
CASE
WHEN priority = 2 THEN -3
WHEN priority = 3 THEN -2
END
WHERE priority IN (2,3) ;
UPDATE tasks
SET priority = - priority
WHERE priority IN (-2,-3) ;
COMMIT ;
I bumped into the same issue. Had tried every possible single-statement query using CASE WHEN and TRANSACTION - no luck whatsoever. I came up with three alternative solutions. You need to decide which one makes more sense for your situation.
In my case, I'm processing a reorganized collection (array) of small objects returned from the front-end, new order is unpredictable (this is not a swap-two-items deal), and, on top of everything, change of order (usually made in English version) must propagate to 15 other languages.
1st method: Completely DELETE existing records and repopulate entire collection using the new data. Obviously this can work only if you're receiving from the front-end everything that you need to restore what you just deleted.
2st method: This solution is similar to using bogus values. In my situation, my reordered collection also includes original item position before it moved. Also, I had to preserve original index value in some way while UPDATEs are running. The trick was to manipulate bit-15 of the index column which is UNSIGNED SMALLINT in my case. If you have (signed) INT/SMALLINT data type you can just invert the value of the index instead of bitwise operations.
First UPDATE must run only once per call. This query raises 15th bit of the current index fields (I have unsigned smallint). Previous 14 bits still reflect original index value which is never going to come close to 32K range.
UPDATE *table* SET `index`=(`index` | 32768) WHERE *condition*;
Then iterate your collection extracting original and new index values, and UPDATE each record individually.
foreach( ... ) {
UPDATE *table* SET `index`=$newIndex WHERE *same_condition* AND `index`=($originalIndex | 32768);
}
This last UPDATE must also run only once per call. This query clears 15th bit of the index fields effectively restoring original index value for records where it hasn't changed, if any.
UPDATE *table* SET `index`=(`index` & 32767) WHERE *same_condition* AND `index` > 32767;
Third method would be to move relevant records into temporary table that doesn't have a primary key, UPDATE all indexes, then move all records back to first table.
Bogus value option:
Okay, so my query is similar and I've found a way to update in "one" query. My id column is PRIMARY and position is part of a UNIQUE group. This is my original query that doesn't work for swapping:
INSERT INTO `table` (`id`, `position`)
VALUES (1, 2), (2, 1)
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE `position` = VALUES(`position`);
.. but position is an unsigned integer and it's never 0, so I changed the query to the following:
INSERT INTO `table` (`id`, `position`)
VALUES (2, 0), (1, 2), (2, 1)
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE `position` = VALUES(`position`);
.. and now it works! Apparently, MYSQL processes the values groups in order.
Perhaps this would work for you (not tested and I know almost nothing about MYSQL):
UPDATE tasks
SET priority =
CASE
WHEN priority=3 THEN 0
WHEN priority=2 THEN 3
WHEN priority=0 THEN 2
END
WHERE priority IN (2,3,0);
Good luck.
Had a similar problem.
I wanted to swap 2 id's that were unique AND was a FK from an other table.
The fastest solution for me to swap two unique entries was:
Create a ghost entry in my FK table.
Go back to my table where I want to switch the id's.
Turned of the FK Check SET FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=0;
Set my first(A) id to the ghost(X) fk (free's A)
Set my second (B) id to A (free's B)
Set A to B (free's X)
Delete ghost record and turn checks back on. SET FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=1;
Not sure if this would violate the constraints, but I have been trying to do something similar and eventually came up with this query by combining a few of the answers I found:
UPDATE tasks as T1,tasks as T2 SET T1.priority=T2.priority,T2.priority=T1.priority WHERE (T1.task_id,T2.task_id)=($T1_id, $T2_id)
The column I was swapping did not use a unique, so I am unsure if this will help...
you can achieve swapping your values with your above mentioned update statement, with a slight change in your key indexes.
CREATE TABLE `tasks` ( `id` int(11) NOT NULL, `name` varchar(200) DEFAULT NULL, `priority` varchar(45) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`,`priority`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
This will have a primary key index as a combination of id and priority. you cna then swap values.
UPDATE tasks
SET priority =
CASE
WHEN priority=2 THEN 3
WHEN priority=3 THEN 2
END
WHERE priority IN (2,3);
I dont see any need of user variables or temp variables here.
Hope this solves your issue :)
Scenario: WAMP server, InnoDB Table, auto-increment Unique ID field [INT(10)], 100+ concurrent SQL requests. VB.Net should also be used if needed.
My database has an auto-increment field wich is used to generate a unique ticket/protocol number for each new information stored (service order).
The issue is that this number must be reseted each year. I.e. it starts at 000001/12 on 01/01/2012 00:00:00 up to maximum 999999/12 and then at 01/01/2013 00:00:00 it must start over again to 000001/13.
Obviously it should easly acomplished using some type of algorithm, but, I'm trying to find a more efficient way to do that. Consider:
It must (?) use auto-increment since the database has some concurrency (+100).
Each ticket must be unique. So 000001 on 2012 is not equal to 000001 on 2013.
It must be automatic. (no human interaction needed to make the reset, or whatever)
It should be reasonably efficient. (a watch program should check the database daily (?) but it seems not the best solution since it will 'fail' 364 times to have success only once).
The 'best' approach I could think of is to store the ticket number using year, such as:
12000001 - 12999999 (it never should reach the 999.999, anyway)
and then an watch program should set the auto increment field to 13000000 at 01/01/2013.
Any Suggestions?
PS: Thanks for reading... ;)
So, for futher reference I've adopted the following sollution:
I do create n tables on the database (one for each year) with only one auto-increment field wich is responsible to generate the each year unique id.
So, new inserts are done into the corresponding table considering the event date. After that the algorithm takes the last_inseted_id() an store that value into the main table using the format 000001/12. (ticket/year)
That because each year must have it's own counter since an 2012 event would be inserted even when the current date is already 2013.
That way events should be retroactive, no reset is needed and it's simple to implement.
Sample code for insertion:
$eventdate="2012-11-30";
$eventyear="2012";
$sql = "INSERT INTO tbl$eventyear VALUES (NULL)";
mysql_query ($sql);
$sql = "LAST_INSERT_ID()";
$row = mysql_fetch_assoc(mysql_query($sql));
$eventID = $row(0)
$sql = "INSERT INTO tblMain VALUES ('$eventID/$eventYear', ... ";
mysql_query($sql)
MongoDB uses something very similar to this that encodes the date, process id and host that generated an id along with some random entropy to create UUIDs. Not something that fulfills your requirement of monotonic increase, but something interesting to look at for some ideas on approach.
If I were implementing it, I would create a simple ID broker server that would perform the logic processing on date and create a unique slug for the id like you described. As long as you know how it's constructed, you have native MySql equivalents to get your sorting/grouping working, and the representation serializes gracefully this will work. Something with a UTC datestring and then a monotonic serial appended as a string.
Twitter had some interesting insights into custom index design here as they implemented their custom ID server Snowflake.
The idea of a broker endpoint that generates UUIDs that are not just simple integers, but also contain some business logic is becoming more and more widespread.
You can set up a combined PRIMARY KEY for both of the two columns ID and YEAR; this way you would only have one ID per year.
MySQL:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `ticket` (
`id` INT(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`year` YEAR NOT NULL DEFAULT '2012',
`data` TEXT NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
PRIMARY KEY (`id`, `year`)
)
ENGINE = InnoDB DEFAULT CHARACTER SET = utf8 COLLATE = utf8_unicode_ci
UPDATE: (to the comment from #Paulo Bueno)
How to reset the auto-increment-value could be found in the MySQL documentation: mysql> ALTER TABLE ticket AUTO_INCREMENT = 1;.
If you also increase the default value of the year-column when resetting the auto-increment-value, you 'll have a continuous two-column primary key.
But I think you still need some sort of trigger-program to execute the reset. Maybe a yearly cron-job, which is launching a batch-script to do so on each first of January.
UPDATE 2:
OK, I've tested that right now and one can not set the auto-increment-value to a number lower than any existing ID in that specific column. My mistake – I thought it would work on combined primary keys…
INSERT INTO `ticket` (`id`, `year`, `data`) VALUES
(NULL , '2012', 'dtg htg het'),
-- some more rows in 2012
);
-- this works of course
ALTER TABLE `ticket` CHANGE `year` `year` YEAR( 4 ) NOT NULL DEFAULT '2013';
-- this does not reset the auto-increment
ALTER TABLE `ticket` AUTO_INCREMENT = 1;
INSERT INTO `ticket` (`id`, `year`, `data`) VALUES
(NULL , '2013', 'sadfadf asdf a'),
-- some more rows in 2013
);
-- this will result in continously counted ID's
UPDATE 3:
The MySQL-documentation page has a working example, which uses grouped primary keys on MyISAM table. They are using a table similar to the one above, but with reversed column-order, because one must not have auto-increment as first column. It seems this works only using MyISAM instead of InnoDB. If MyISAM still fits your needs, you don't need to reset the ID, but merely increase the year and still have a result as the one you've questioned for.
See: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/example-auto-increment.html (second example, after "For MyISAM and BDB tables you can specify AUTO_INCREMENT on a secondary column in a multiple-column index.")