In mysql, how do I get the primary key used for an insert operation, when it is autoincrementing.
Basically, i want the new autoincremented value to be returned when the statement completes.
Thanks!
Your clarification comment says that you're interested in making sure that LAST_INSERT_ID() doesn't give the wrong result if another concurrent INSERT happens. Rest assured that it is safe to use LAST_INSERT_ID() regardless of other concurrent activity. LAST_INSERT_ID() returns only the most recent ID generated during the current session.
You can try it yourself:
Open two shell windows, run mysql
client in each and connect to
database.
Shell 1: INSERT into a table with an
AUTO_INCREMENT key.
Shell 1: SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID(),
see result.
Shell 2: INSERT into the same table.
Shell 2: SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID(),
see result different from shell 1.
Shell 1: SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID()
again, see a repeat of earlier
result.
If you think about it, this is the only way that makes sense. All databases that support auto-incrementing key mechanisms must act this way. If the result depends on a race condition with other clients possibly INSERTing concurrently, then there would be no dependable way to get the last inserted ID value in your current session.
MySQL's LAST_INSERT_ID()
The MySQL Docs describe the function: LAST_INSERT_ID()
[select max(primary_key_column_name) from table_name]
Ahhh not nessecarily. I am not an MySQL guy but there are specific way to get the last inserted id for the last completed action that are a little more robust than this. What if an insert has happened between you writing to the table and querying it? I know about because it stung me many moons ago (so yeah it does happen).
If all else fails read the manual: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/getting-unique-id.html
Related
This may not be a real world issue but is more like a learning topic.
Using PHP, MySQL and PDO, I know all about auto_increment and lastInsertId(). Consider that the primary key has no auto_incerment attribute and we have to use something like SELECT MAX(id) FROM table in order to retrieve last id, increment it manually and then INSERT INTO table (id) VALUES (:lastIdPlusOne). Wrap whole code in beginTransaction and commit.
Is this approach safe? If user A and B at the same time load this script what will happens at the end? both transaction will be failed? Or both will be successful (for instance, if the last id was 10, A will insert 11 and B will insert 12)?
Note that since I am a PHP & MySQL developer, therefor I am more interested in MySQL behavior in this case.
If both got the same max, then the one that inserts first will succeed, and other(s) will fail.
To overcome this issue without using using auto_increment fields, you may use a trigger before insert that does the job (new.id=max) i.e. same logic, but in a trigger, so the DB server is the one who controls it.
Not sure though if this is 100% safe in a master-master replication environment in case of a server failure.
This is #eggyal comment, that I quote here:
You must ensure that you use a locking read to fetch the MAX() in the first (select) query; it will then block until the transaction is committed. However, this is very poor design and should not be used in a production system.
I'm looking for a standard SQL "UPSERT" statement. A one call for insert and update if exists.
I'm looking for a working, efficient and cross platform call.
I've seen MERGE, UPSERT, REPLACE, INSERT .. ON DUPLICATE UPDATE but no statement meets the needs.
BTW I use MYSQL and HSQLDB for unitests. I understand that HSQLDB is limited and may not cover what I need, but I couldn't find a standard way even without it.
A statement that only MYSQL and HSQLDB will also be enough for now.
I've been looking around for a while and couldn't get an answer.
My table:
CREATE TABLE MY_TABLE (
MY_KEY varchar(50) NOT NULL ,
MY_VALUE varchar(50) DEFAULT NULL,
TIME_STAMP bigint NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (MY_KEY)
);
Any idea?
The only solution that is supported by both MySQL and HSQLDB is to query the rows you intend to replace, and conditionally either INSERT or UPDATE. This means you have to write more application code to compensate for the differences between RDBMS implementations.
START TRANSACTION.
SELECT ... FOR UPDATE.
If the SELECT finds rows, then UPDATE.
Else, INSERT.
COMMIT.
MySQL doesn't support the ANSI SQL MERGE statement. It supports REPLACE and INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE. See my answer to "INSERT IGNORE" vs "INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE" for more on that.
Re comments: Yes, another approach is to just try the INSERT and see if it succeeds. Otherwise, do an UPDATE. If you attempt the INSERT and it hits a duplicate key, it'll generate an error, which turns into an exception in some client interfaces. The disadvantage of doing this in MySQL is that it generates a new auto-increment ID even if the INSERT fails. So you end up with gaps. I know gaps in auto-increment sequence are not ordinarily something to worry about, but I helped a customer last year who had gaps of 1000-1500 in between successful inserts because of this effect, and the result was that they exhausted the range of an INT in their primary key.
As #baraky says, one could instead attempt the UPDATE first, and if that affects zero rows, then do the INSERT instead. My comment on this strategy is that UPDATEing zero rows is not an exception -- you'll have to check for "number of rows affected" after the UPDATE to know whether it "succeeded" or not.
But querying the number of rows affected returns you to the original problem: you have to use different queries in MySQL versus HSQLDB.
HSQLDB:
CALL DIAGNOSTICS(ROW_COUNT);
MySQL:
SELECT ROW_COUNT();
The syntax for doing an upsert in a single command varies by RDBMS.
MySQLINSERT…ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE
HSQLDBMERGE
PostgresINSERT…ON CONFLICT…
See Wikipedia for more.
If you want a cross platform solution, then you'll need to use multiple commands. First check for the existing row, then conditionally insert or update as appropriate.
I am recently in the process of moving from oracle to mysql and would like some advice if how i am implementing something similar to sequences in mysql is a good way.
Essentially how i am currently going to implement it is by having a separate table in mysql for each sequence in oracle and have a single column which represents the last_number and increment this column when ever i insert a new row, that's one way another way i could go about doing it is by creating a single table with several rows representing each sequence and increment each row separately whenever i do an insert.
Another simpler way of doing it i could just do a select max()+1 on the relevant column when inserting data.
I'm basically thinking of switching to the select max()+1 option as it seems simpler to implement, but i would like to get some advice on what you think would be the best way of doing it out of these options, and if there is any pitfalls that i am currently not aware of when using select max()+1.
Also the reason im am not using auto_increment and the function last_insert_id() is i want to follow the ansi standard.
Thanks.
First of all: The max()+1 version is NOT guaranteed to give you a sequence, if you use transactions in a high isolation level.
The way we typically use sequences (if we can't avoid them) is to create a table with an AUTO_INCREMENT value, INSERT INTO it, SELECT last_insert_id(), DELETE FROM table WHERE field<$LASTINSERTID. This is ofcourse done in a stored procedure.
There is a read consistency problem, in that two sessions both running ...
insert into ... select max(..)+1 from ...
... at the same time both see the same value of max(...), hence they both try to insert the same new value.
You have the same problem with your table of maxima method, and you have to use a locking mechanism to avoid multiple session reading the same value. This leads to a concurrency problem where inserts to the table are serialised.
I am currently working on a big web project using ASP and MySQL.
When inserting into multiple tables I've been using last_update_ID(), but after some research I've found that that SQL statement isn't safe.
So. the problem:
I use two different computers, with different internet connections.
Both computers are logged onto the system I am currently building. I have made a page that prints the connection_id(), and last_update_id.
If I update any table with one of the computers the other one also gets that last_update_ID.
Both computers have the same connection_ID.
What can I do to get around this?
I don't want to (if it's not necessary) do a select statement after the first INSERT; to search for the row that I inserted, to get the correct ID of that row.
It's not my server I am using so I can't make any large changes of the database.
I guess that this problem occurs because the webpages use the same loginName & password to connect to the database, is that true?
Is there any other alternative to get the last update ID? that is totally safe..
I close every connection at the end of the asp page. but that doesn't change the connection_ID.
The connection ID is the for a few minutes even thou I open up different web pages on the server.
I believe the LAST_INSERT_ID() is correct for the current session. So each session receives it's own correct value. Either I don't understand your question or you think you have a problem but you don't.
I am not aware of any LAST_UPDATE_ID() function, on an update you can easily retrieve the updated rows by SELECTing them with the same WHERE clause (before the update)?
reference: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/getting-unique-id.html
For LAST_INSERT_ID(), the most
recently generated ID is maintained in
the server on a per-connection basis.
It is not changed by another client.
It is not even changed if you update
another AUTO_INCREMENT column with a
nonmagic value (that is, a value that
is not NULL and not 0). Using
LAST_INSERT_ID() and AUTO_INCREMENT
columns simultaneously from multiple
clients is perfectly valid. Each
client will receive the last inserted
ID for the last statement that
client executed.
If you want to retrieve the LAST_INSERT_ID from an INSERT query with an ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE clause, you can also use the LAST_INSERT_ID() function to retrieve the value of the AUTO_INCREMENT column that was updated:
reference: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/insert-on-duplicate.html
If a table contains an AUTO_INCREMENT
column and INSERT ... UPDATE inserts a
row, the LAST_INSERT_ID() function
returns the AUTO_INCREMENT value. If
the statement updates a row instead,
LAST_INSERT_ID() is not meaningful.
However, you can work around this by
using LAST_INSERT_ID(expr). Suppose
that id is the AUTO_INCREMENT column.
To make LAST_INSERT_ID() meaningful
for updates, insert rows as follows:
INSERT INTO table (a,b,c) VALUES (1,2,3)
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE id=LAST_INSERT_ID(id), c=3;
Your server appears to have connection pooling turned on. What this means is that the database connection is held open after a script finishes, and the next script that comes along uses it, and thus can see any variables that were set on that connection, including LAST_INSERT_ID().
What can't happen is two script instances sharing a connection at the same time. Thus, if your server is busy enough to need to run two script instances at exactly the same time, it will simply create a second database connection, with its own separate LAST_INSERT_ID() variable, and won't interfere with the first.
In short, as long as the INSERT and the LAST_INSER_ID() request happen within the same script (and you don't somehow close the database connection between them), they're completely safe, as your script has exclusive use of that connection.
If you got 100 000 users, is MySQL executing one SQL query at the time?
Because in my PHP code I check if a certain row exists; if it doesn't it creates one. If it does, it just updates the row counter.
It crossed my mind that perhaps 100 users are checking if the row exists at the same time, and when it doesn't they all create one row each.
If MySQL is handling them sequentially I know that it won't be an issue, then one user will check if it exists, if not, create it. The other user will check if it exists, and since that's the case, it just updates the counter.
But if they all check if it exists at the same time and let's say it doesn't, then they all create one row and the whole table structure will fail.
Would be great if someone could shed some light on this topic.
Use a UNIQUE constraint or, if viable, make the primary key one of your data items and the SQL server will prevent duplicate rows from being created. You can even use the "ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE ..." syntax to specify the alternate operation if the row already exists.
From your comments, it sounds like you could use the user_id as your primary key, in which case, you'd be able to use something like this:
INSERT INTO usercounts (user_id,usercount)
VALUES (id-goes-here,1)
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE usercount=usercount+1;
If you put the check and insert into a transaction then you can avoid this problem. This way, the check and create will be run as one one query and there shouldn't be any confusion