i am scrubbing my head now for hours to solve thw following situation:
Several Html Forms on a webpage are identified by an id. Users can create forms on the clients side themselves and fill in data. How can I guarantee that the id of the form the user generates is unique and that there doesnt occure any collision in the saving process because the same id was generated by the client of someone else.
The problems/questions:
A random function on the client side could return identical id's on two clients
Looking up the SQL table for free id wouldnt solve the problem
Autoincrement a new id would complicate the whole process because DOM id and SQL id differ so we come to the next point:
A "left join" to combine dom_id and user_id to identify the forms in the database looks like a performance killer because i expect these tables will be huge
The question (formed as simple as i can):
Is there a way that the client can create/fetch a unique id which will be later used as the primary key for a database entry without any collisions? Whats the best practice?
My current solution (bad):
No unique id's at all to identify the forms. Always a combination through a left join to identify the forms generated by the specific user. But what happens if the user says: Delete my account (and my user_id) but leave the data on the server. I would loose the user id and this query qouldn't work anymore...
I am really sorry that i couldn't explain it in another way. But i hope someone understood what i am faced with and could give me at least a hint
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
GUIDs (Globally Unique IDentifiers) might help. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID
For each form the client could generate a new GUID. Theoretically it should be unique.
I just don't show IDs to the user until they've submitted something, at which point they get to see the generated auto-increment id. It keeps things simple. If you however really need it, you could use a sequence table, but it has some caveats which make me advise against it:
CREATE TABLE sequence (id integer default 0, sequencename varchar(32));
Incrementing:
UPDATE sequence
SET id = #generated := id + 1
WHERE sequencename = 'yoursequencename';
Getting:
SELECT #generated;
Related
I hope someone can help me with this:
I have a simple query combining a list of names and basic details with another table containing more specific information. Some names will necessarily appear more than once and arbitrary distinctions like "John Smith 1" and "John Smith 2" are not an option, so I have been using an autonumber to keep the records distinct.
The problem is that my query is creating two records for each name that appears more than once. For example, there are two clients named 'Sophoan', each with a different id number, and the query has picked up each one twice resulting in four records (in total there are 122 records when there should only be 102). 'Unique values' is set to 'yes'.
I've researched as much as I can and am completely stuck. I've tried to tinker with sql but it always comes back with errors, I presume because there are too many fields in the query.
What am I missing? Or is a query the wrong approach and I need to find another way to combine my tables?
Project in detail: I'm building a database for a charity which has two main activities: social work and training. The database is to record their client information and the results of their interactions with clients (issues they asked for help with, results of training workshops etc.). Some clients will cross over between activities which the organisation wants to track, hence all registered clients go into one list and individual tables spin of that to collect data for each specific activity the client takes part in. This query is supposed to be my solution for combining these tables for data entry by the user.
At present I have the following tables:
AllList (master list of client names and basic contact info; 'Social Work Register' and 'Participant Register' join to this table by
'Name')
Social Work Register (list of social work clients with full details
of each case)
Social Work Follow-up Table (used when staff call social work clients
to see how their issue is progressing; the register has too many
columns to hold this as well; joined to Register by 'Client Name')
Participants Register (list of clients for training and details of
which workshops they were attended and why they were absent if they
missed a session)
Individual workshop tables x14 (each workshop includes a test and
these tables records the clients answers and their score for each
individual test; there will be more than 20 of these when the
database is finished; all joined to the 'Participants Register' by
'Participant Name')
Queries:
Participant Overview Query (links the attendance data from the 'Register' with the grading data from each Workshop to present a read-only
overview; this one seems to work perfectly)
Social Work Query (non-functional; intended to link the 'Client
Register' to the 'AllList' for data entry so that when a new client
is registered it creates a new record in both tables, with the
records matched together)
Participant Query (not yet attempted; as above, intended to link the
'Participant Register' to the 'AllList' for data entry)
BUT I realised that queries can't be used for data entry, so this approach seems to be a dead end. I have had some success with using subforms for data entry but I'm not sure if it's the best way.
So, what I'm basically hoping to achieve is a way to input the same data to two tables simultaneously (for new records) and have the resulting records matched together (for new entries to existing records). But it needs to be possible for the same name to appear more than once as a unique record (e.g. three individuals named John Smith).
[N.B. There are more tables that store secondary information but aren't relevant to the issue as they are not and will not be linked to any other tables.]
I realised that queries can't be used for data entry
Actually, non-complex queries are usually editable as long as the table whose data you want to edit remains 'at the core' of the query. Access applies a number of factors to determine if a query is editable or not.
Most of the time, it's fairly easy to figure out why a query has become non-editable.
Ask yourself the question: if I edit that data, how will Access ensure that exactly that data will be updated, without ambiguity?
If your tables have defined primary keys and these are part of your query, and if there are no grouping, calculated fields (fields that use some function to change or test the value of that field), or complex joins, then the query should remain editable.
You can read more about that here:
How to troubleshoot errors that may occur when you update data in Access queries and in Access forms
Dealing with Non-Updateable Microsoft Access Queries and the Use of Temporary Tables.
So, what I'm basically hoping to achieve is a way to input the same data to two tables simultaneously (for new records) and have the resulting records matched together (for new entries to existing records). But it needs to be possible for the same name to appear more than once as a unique record (e.g. three individuals named John Smith).
This remark actually proves that you have design issues in your database.
A basic tenet of Database Design is to remove redundancy as much as possible. One of the reasons is actually to avoid having to update the same data in multiple places.
Another remark: you are using the Client's name as a Natural Key. Frankly, it is not a very good idea. Generally, you want to make sure that what constitutes a Primary key for a table is reliably unique over time.
Using people's names is generally the wrong choice because:
people change name, for instance in many cultures, women change their family name after they get married.
There could also have been a typo when entering the name and now it can be hard to correct it if that data is used as a Foreign Key all in different tables.
as your database grows, you are likely to end up with some people having the same name, creating conflicts, or forcing the user to make changes to that name so it doesn't create a duplicate.
The best way to enforce uniqueness of records in a table is to use the default AutoNumber ID field proposed by Access when you create a new table. This is called a Surrogate key.
It's not mean to be edited, changed or even displayed to the user. It's sole purpose is to allow the primary key of a table to be unique and non-changing over time, so it can reliably be used as a way to reference a record from one table to another (if a table needs to refer to a particular record, it will contain a field that will hold that ID. That field is called a Foreign Key).
The names you have for your tables are not precise enough: think of each table as an Entity holding related data.
The fact that you have a table called AllList means that its purpose isn't that well-thought of; it sounds like a catch-all rather than a carefully crafted entity.
Instead, if this is your list of clients, then simply call it Client. Each record of that table holds the information for a single client (whether to use plural or singular is up to you, just stick to your choice though, being consistent is hugely important).
Instead of using the client's name as a key, create an ID field, an Autonumber, and set it as Primary Key.
Let's also rename the "Social Work Register", which holds the Client's cases, simply as ClientCase. That relationship seems clear from your description of the table but it's not clear in the table name itself (by the way, I know Access allows spaces in table and field names, but it's a really bad idea to use them if you care at least a little bit about the future of your work).
In that, create a ClientID Number field (a Foreign Key) that will hold the related Client's ID in the ClientCase table.
You don't talk about the relationship between a Client and its Cases. This is another area where you must be clear: how many cases can a single Client have?
At most 1 Case ? (0 or 1 Case)
exactly 1 Case?
at least one Case? (1 or more Cases)
any number of Cases? (0 or more Cases)
Knowing this is important for selecting the right type of JOIN in your queries. It's a crucial part of the design assumptions when building your database.
For instance, in the most general case, assuming that a Client can have 0 or more cases, you could have a report that displays the Client's Name and the number of cases related to them like this:
SELECT Client.Name,
Count(ClientCase.ID) AS CountOfCases
FROM Client
LEFT JOIN ClientCase
ON Client.ID = ClienCase.ClientID
GROUP BY Client.Name
You've described your basic design a bit more, but that's not enough. Show us the actual table structures and the SQL of the queries you tried. From the description you give, it's hard to really understand the actual details of the design and to tell you why it fails and how to make it work.
I am a reasonably competent SQL programmer but my skills are still pretty much in the domain of simple INSERT, SELECT, UPDATE statements with an occasional LIKE etc thrown in. What I am currently trying to do is rather more complex. Here is the scenario.
I have three tables.
Table 1, *users* identifies users via a User ID, uid. Users can have one or more sub accounts
Table 2 *accounts* keeps a record of subaccounts for each user with, amongst other things the columns uid and sid where uid is the one defined in the *users* table.
Table 3, *data* is currently storing some data, in a data column that is being associated with a particular subaccount, sid.
The thing I have just realized is that there is no particular reason to block users from using those data across subaccounts. No problem - I can change my data subset search SQL to work with the uid instead. However, given the frequency of such searches, it seems well worth while simply sticking in a uid column in *data*.
To do that I would need to write some smart SQL that would get uid,sid pairs from the *accounts* table and use that information to update the newly created uid column in the data table. This I have to admit is beyond my knowledge of SQL.
I should mention that the system using these data is now in production and has several 100s of users so the option of just acting like they are not there is not available. Not terribly relevant I think but I should mention that uid and sid are alphanumeric strinsg with both columns being indexed.
I would be most grateful to anyone here who might be able to help out with it.
Mysql can do updates based on joins and based on reading of your schema here's what I'd do...
UPDATE accounts a, data d
set d.uid=a.uid
where a.sid=d.sid
and d.uid is NULL
Currently I am having a hard time deciding/weighing the pros/cons of tracking login information for a member website.
Currently
I have two tables, login_i and login_d.
login_i contains the member's id, password, last login datetime, and total count of logins. (member id is primary key and obviously unique so one row per member)
login_d contains a list of all login data in history which tracks each and every time a login occurs. It contains member's id, datetime of login, ip_address of login. This table's primary key is simply an auto-incremented INT field, really purposeless but need a primary and the only unique single field (an index on the otherhand is different but still not concerned).
In many ways I see these tables as being very similar but the benefit of having the latter is to view exactly when a member logged in, how many times, and which IP it came from. All of the information in login_i (last login and count) truthfully exists in login_d but in a more concise form without ever needing to calculate a COUNT(*) on the latter table.
Does anybody have advice on which method is preferred? Two tables will exist regardless but should I keep record of last_login and count in login_i at all if login_d exists?
added thought/question
good comment made below - what about also tracking login attempts based on a username/email/ip? Should this ALSO be stored in a table (a 3rd table I assume).
this is called denormalization.
you ideally would never denormalize.
it is sometimes done anyway to save on computationally expensive results - possibly like your total login count value.
the downside is that you may at some point get into a situation where the value in one table does not match the values in the other table(s). of course you will try your best to keep them properly up to date, but sometimes things happen. In this case, you will possibly generate bugs in application logic if they receive an incorrect value from one of the sources.
In this specific case, a count of logins is probably not that critical to the successful running of the app - so not a big risk - although you will still have the overhead of maintaining the value.
Do you often need last login and count? If Yes, then you should store it in login_i aswell. If it's rarely used then you can take your time process the query in the giant table of all logins instead of storing duplicated data.
I'm working on a RoR projects. I'm migrating a user table. Because the new dbase has a different set up and I want to seperate the login stuff from the personal/settings stuff I'm not importing the dbase; I migrate all attribute separately. I want to keep the old user id's. When I use user=User.new I can do user.id = migratee.user_id and I keep the same user_id. Unfortunately in the old table different users where registered with the same email address (don't ask why). Off course I don't want that so what I do in stead of user=User.new is user=User.find_or_create_by_email(migratee.email). This is going to lead to some problems, I know, since users with same email address will be overwritten. This is a problem I 'll deal with seperately. My problem is that when I do user.id = migratee.user_id after user=User.find_or_create_by_email(migratee.email) the old ID isn't migrated but a new auto-incrementing id is assigned. Anybody know how to avoid that?
Regards,
Rutger
I don't know how your query looks like. If you're doing an INSERT SELECT you can add a HAVING to filter existing email adresses. Otherwise you could do a GROUP BY email do only get one email.
If its a once off I would probably just turn off the auto_increment in your new mysql table id column until you have finished your migrations and then turn it back on or/ create another column called udid in the new database table (and then rename and delete the id col). Probably nicer ways to do it, but its fast and easy.
I am pretty new to this so sorry for my lack of knowledge.
I set up a few tables which I have successfully written to and and accessed via a Perl script using CGI and DBI modules thanks to advice here.
This is a member list for a local band newsletter. Yeah I know, tons of apps out there but, I desire to learn this.
1- I wanted to avoid updating or inserting a row if an piece of my input matches column data in one particular column/field.
When creating the table, in phpmyadmin, I clicked the "U" (unique) on that columns name in structure view.
That seemed to work and no dupes are inserted but, I desire a hard coded Perl solution so, I understand the mechanics of this.
I read up on "insert ignore" / "update ignore" and searched all over but, everything I found seems to not just skip a dupe.
The column is not a key or autoinc just a plain old field with an email address. (mistake?)
2- When I write to the database, I want to do NOTHING if the incoming email address matches one in that field.
I desire the fastest method so I can loop through their existing lists export data, (they cannot figure out the software) with no racing / locking issues or whatever conditions in which I am in obvious ignorance.
Since I am creating this from scratch, 1 and 2 may be in fact partially moot. If so, what would be the best approach?
I would still like an auto increment ID so, I can access via the ID number or loop through with some kind of count++ foreach.
My stone knife approach may be laughable to the gurus here but, I need to start somewhere.
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
With the email address column declared UNIQUE, INSERT IGNORE is exactly what you want for insertion. Sounds like you already know how to do the right thing!
(You could perform the "don't insert if it already exists" functionality in perl, but it's difficult to get right, because you have to wrap the test and update in a transaction. One of the big advantages of a relational database is that it will perform constraint checks like this for you, ensuring data integrity even if your application is buggy.)
For updating, I'm not sure what an "update ignore" would look like. What is in the WHERE clause that is limiting your UPDATE to only affect the 1 desired row? Perhaps that auto_increment primary key you mentioned? If you are wanting to write, for example,
UPDATE members SET firstname='Sue' WHERE member_id = 5;
then I think this "update ignore" functionality you want might just be something like
UPDATE members SET firstname='Sue' WHERE member_id = 5
AND email != 'sue#example.com';
which is an odd thing to do, but that's my best guess for what you might mean :)
Just do the insert, if data would make the unique column not be unique you'll get an SQL error, you should be able to trap this and do whatever is appropriate (e.g. ignore it, log it, alert user ...)