I have got a table which has an id (primary key with auto increment), uid (key refering to users id for example) and something else which for my question won’t matter.
I want to make, lets call it, different auto-increment keys on id for each uid entry.
So, I will add an entry with uid 10, and the id field for this entry will have a 1 because there were no previous entries with a value of 10 in uid. I will add a new one with uid 4 and its id will be 3 because I there were already two entried with uid 4.
...Very obvious explanation, but I am trying to be as explainative an clear as I can to demonstrate the idea... clearly.
What SQL engine can provide such a functionality natively? (non Microsoft/Oracle based)
If there is none, how could I best replicate it? Triggers perhaps?
Does this functionality have a more suitable name?
In case you know about a non SQL database engine providing such a functioality, name it anyway, I am curious.
Thanks.
MySQL's MyISAM engine can do this. See their manual, in section Using AUTO_INCREMENT:
For MyISAM tables you can specify AUTO_INCREMENT on a secondary column in a multiple-column index. In this case, the generated value for the AUTO_INCREMENT column is calculated as MAX(auto_increment_column) + 1 WHERE prefix=given-prefix. This is useful when you want to put data into ordered groups.
The docs go on after that paragraph, showing an example.
The InnoDB engine in MySQL does not support this feature, which is unfortunate because it's better to use InnoDB in almost all cases.
You can't emulate this behavior using triggers (or any SQL statements limited to transaction scope) without locking tables on INSERT. Consider this sequence of actions:
Mario starts transaction and inserts a new row for user 4.
Bill starts transaction and inserts a new row for user 4.
Mario's session fires a trigger to computes MAX(id)+1 for user 4. You get 3.
Bill's session fires a trigger to compute MAX(id). I get 3.
Bill's session finishes his INSERT and commits.
Mario's session tries to finish his INSERT, but the row with (userid=4, id=3) now exists, so Mario gets a primary key conflict.
In general, you can't control the order of execution of these steps without some kind of synchronization.
The solutions to this are either:
Get an exclusive table lock. Before trying an INSERT, lock the table. This is necessary to prevent concurrent INSERTs from creating a race condition like in the example above. It's necessary to lock the whole table, since you're trying to restrict INSERT there's no specific row to lock (if you were trying to govern access to a given row with UPDATE, you could lock just the specific row). But locking the table causes access to the table to become serial, which limits your throughput.
Do it outside transaction scope. Generate the id number in a way that won't be hidden from two concurrent transactions. By the way, this is what AUTO_INCREMENT does. Two concurrent sessions will each get a unique id value, regardless of their order of execution or order of commit. But tracking the last generated id per userid requires access to the database, or a duplicate data store. For example, a memcached key per userid, which can be incremented atomically.
It's relatively easy to ensure that inserts get unique values. But it's hard to ensure they will get consecutive ordinal values. Also consider:
What happens if you INSERT in a transaction but then roll back? You've allocated id value 3 in that transaction, and then I allocated value 4, so if you roll back and I commit, now there's a gap.
What happens if an INSERT fails because of other constraints on the table (e.g. another column is NOT NULL)? You could get gaps this way too.
If you ever DELETE a row, do you need to renumber all the following rows for the same userid? What does that do to your memcached entries if you use that solution?
SQL Server should allow you to do this. If you can't implement this using a computed column (probably not - there are some restrictions), surely you can implement it in a trigger.
MySQL also would allow you to implement this via triggers.
In a comment you ask the question about efficiency. Unless you are dealing with extreme volumes, storing an 8 byte DATETIME isn't much of an overhead compared to using, for example, a 4 byte INT.
It also massively simplifies your data inserts, as well as being able to cope with records being deleted without creating 'holes' in your sequence.
If you DO need this, be careful with the field names. If you have uid and id in a table, I'd expect id to be unique in that table, and uid to refer to something else. Perhaps, instead, use the field names property_id and amendment_id.
In terms of implementation, there are generally two options.
1). A trigger
Implementations vary, but the logic remains the same. As you don't specify an RDBMS (other than NOT MS/Oracle) the general logic is simple...
Start a transaction (often this is Implicitly already started inside triggers)
Find the MAX(amendment_id) for the property_id being inserted
Update the newly inserted value with MAX(amendment_id) + 1
Commit the transaction
Things to be aware of are...
- multiple records being inserted at the same time
- records being inserted with amendment_id being already populated
- updates altering existing records
2). A Stored Procedure
If you use a stored procedure to control writes to the table, you gain a lot more control.
Implicitly, you know you're only dealing with one record.
You simply don't provide a parameter for DEFAULT fields.
You know what updates / deletes can and can't happen.
You can implement all the business logic you like without hidden triggers
I personally recommend the Stored Procedure route, but triggers do work.
It is important to get your data types right.
What you are describing is a multi-part key. So use a multi-part key. Don't try to encode everything into a magic integer, you will poison the rest of your code.
If a record is identified by (entity_id,version_number) then embrace that description and use it directly instead of mangling the meaning of your keys. You will have to write queries which constrain the version number but that's OK. Databases are good at this sort of thing.
version_number could be a timestamp, as a_horse_with_no_name suggests. This is quite a good idea. There is no meaningful performance disadvantage to using timestamps instead of plain integers. What you gain is meaning, which is more important.
You could maintain a "latest version" table which contains, for each entity_id, only the record with the most-recent version_number. This will be more work for you, so only do it if you really need the performance.
Related
So in this app, we have a user id which is simple auto-increment primary key. Since we do not want to expose this at the client side, we are going to use a simple hash (encryption is not important, only obfuscation).
So when a user is added to the table we do uniqid(). user_id. This will guarantee that the user hash is random enough and always unique.
The question I have is, while inserting the record, we do not know the user id at that point (cannot assume max(user_id) + 1) since there might be inserts getting committed. So we are doing an insert then getting the last_insert_idthen using that for theuser_id`, which adds an additional db query. So is there a better way to do this?
A few things before the actual answer: with latest version of MySQL which uses InnoDB as default storage engine - you always want an integer pk (or the famous auto_increment). Reasons are mostly performance. For more information, you can research on how InnoDB clusters records using PK and why it's so important. With that out of the way, let's consider our options for creating a unique surrogate key.
Option 1
You calculate it yourself, using PHP and information you obtained back from MySQL (the last_insert_id()), then you update the database back.
Pros: easy to understand by even novice programmers, produces short surrogate key.
Cons: extremely bad for concurrent access, you'll probably get clashes, and you never want to use PHP to calculate unique indices required by the database.
You don't want that option
Option 2
Supply the uniqid() to your query, create an AFTER INSERT trigger that will concatenate uniqid() with the auto_increment.
Pros: easy to understand, produces short surrogate key.
Cons: requires you to create the trigger, implements magic that's not visible from the code directly which will definitely confuse a developer that inherits the project at some point - and from experience I would bet that bad things will happen
Option 3
Use universally unique identifiers or UUIDs (also known as GUIDs). Simply supply your query with surrogate_key = UUID() and MySQL does the rest.
Pros: always unique, no magic required, easy to understand.
Cons: none, unless the fact that it occupies 36 chars bothers you.
You want the option 3.
Since we do not want to expose this at the client side
Simply don't.
In a well-designed database, users never need to see a primary-key value. In fact, a user need never know the primary key even exists.
From your question it seems you actually replace your normal auto-increment ID column with a surrogate id (If not skip to the last paragraph).
Try creating a column with another unique surrogate ID and use that on your frontend. And you can keep your normal primary ids for relationships etc.'
Remember one of the basic must rules for primary keys:
The primary key must be compact and contain the fewest possible attributes.
Also integer serials have the advantage of being simple to use and implement. They also, depending on the specific implementation of the serialization method, have the advantage of being quickly derivable, as most databases just store the serial number in a fixed location. Meaning in stead of max(id)+1 the db has it already stored and makes auto-increment fast.
So we are doing an insert then getting the last_insert_id then using
that for theuser_id`, which adds an additional db query.
last_insert_id Isn't actually a query and is a saved variable in your db connection when you performed a insert query.
If you already have a second column for your surrogate ID ignore all the above:
So we are doing an insert then getting the last_insert_id then using
that for theuser_id`, which adds an additional db query. So is there a
better way to do this?
No, you can only retrieve that uniqid by doing a query.
$res = mysql_query('SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID()');
$row = mysql_fetch_array($res);
$lastsurrogateid = $row['surrogate_id'];
Anything else is making it more complicated than necessary.
I decided back when I was coding to have different tables for each type of content. Now I am stuck solving this. Basically my notification system ranks the newest content by its timestamp currently. This is inaccurate however because there is a small chance that someone would submit content at the same time as another person, and incorrect ranking would occur.
Now if I had all my content in a single table, I would simply rank it by an auto-incrementing variable. Is there a way to implement this auto-increment integer across multiple tables (e.g. When something is inserted into table1, id=0, something is inserted into table2, id=1). Or do I have to recode all my stuff into a single table.
NOTE:
The reason I have content in multiple tables is because its organized and it would reduce load stress. I don't really care about the organization anymore, because I can just access the data through a GUI I coded, I'm just wondering about the load stress.
EDIT:
I'm using PHP 5 with MySQL.
Your question, particularly the need for ID spanning over multiple tables, is clearly signalizing that your database design needs change. You should make one table for all content types (as a generalization), with autoincrementing ID. Then, for each particular content type, you can define other table (equivalent of inheritance in OOP) with extra fields, and foreign key pointing to the basic table.
In other words, you need something like inheritance in SQL.
You can create a table with auto increment id just to keep track of ids. Your program would do an insert on that table, get the id, use it as necessary.
Something along the lines of:
function getNextId() {
$res = mysql_query("INSERT INTO seq_table(id) VALUES (NULL)");
$id = mysql_insert_id();
if ($id % 10 == 0) {
mysql_query("DELETE FROM seq_table");
}
return $id;
}
Where seq_table is a table that you've to create just to get the ids. Make it a function so it can be used whenever you need. Every 10 ids generated I delete all generated ids, anyway you don't need them there. I don't delete every time since it would slow down. If another insert happen in the meantime and I delete 11 or more records, it doesn't affect the behaviour of this procedure. It's safe for the purpose it has to reach.
Even if the table is empty new ids will just keep on growing since you've declared id as auto-increment.
UPDATE: I want to clarify why the ID generation is not wrapped in a transaction and why it shouldn't.
If you generate an auto id and you rollback the transaction, the next auto id, will be incremented anyway. Excerpt from a MySQL bug report:
[...] this is not a bug but expected behavior that happens in every RDBMS we know. Generated values are not a part of transaction and they don't care about other statements.
Getting the ID with this procedure is perfectly thread safe. Your logic after the ID is obtained should be wrapped in a transaction, especially if you deal with multiple tables.
Getting a sequence in this way isn't a new concept, for instance, the code of metabase_mysql.php which is a stable DB access library has a method called GetSequenceNextValue() which is quite similar.
In a single table, you could have a field for the content type and clustered index that includes the content type field. This effectively keeps all of one content type in one place on the disc, and another content type in another place, etc. (It's actually organised into pages, but this physical organisation is still true.)
Assuming that each content type has the same fields, this would likely meet your needs and behave similarly to multiple tables. In some cases you may even find that, with appropriate indexes, a single table solution can be faster, more convenient and maintainable, etc. Such as trying to create global unique identifiers across all content types.
If you're unable to merge these back into a single table, you could create a central link table...
CREATE TABLE content_link (
id INT IDENTITY(1,1), -- MS SQL SERVER syntax
content_type INT,
content_id INT -- The id from the real table
)
As you insert into the content tables, also insert into the link table to create your globally unique id.
More simply, but even more manually, just hold a single value somewhere in the database. Whenever you need a new id, use that centrally stored value and increment it by one. Be sure to wrap the increment and collection in a single transaction to stop race conditions. (This can be done in a number of ways, depending on your flavor of SQL.)
EDIT
A couple of MySQL example lines of code from the web...
START TRANSACTION;
INSERT INTO foo (auto,text)
VALUES(NULL,'text'); # generate ID by inserting NULL
INSERT INTO foo2 (id,text)
VALUES(LAST_INSERT_ID(),'text'); # use ID in second table
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Personally, I'd actually store the value in a variable, commit the transaction, and then continue with my business logic. This would keep the locks on the tables to a minimum.
You could have a separate ID table, insert into that, and use the newly-inserted ID.
e.g.
CREATE TABLE ids (INT UNSIGNED AUTO INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY, timeadded DATETIME);
In the script:
<?php
$r = mysql_query('INSERT INTO ids (timeadded) VALUES (NOW())');
$id = mysql_insert_id();
mysql_query("INSERT INTO someOtherTable (id, data) VALUES ('$id', '$data)");
Add error checking etc. to taste.
The MySQL manual states:
The ID that was generated is maintained in the server on a
per-connection basis. This means that the value returned by the
function to a given client is the first AUTO_INCREMENT value generated
for most recent statement affecting an AUTO_INCREMENT column by that
client. This value cannot be affected by other clients, even if they
generate AUTO_INCREMENT values of their own. This behavior ensures
that each client can retrieve its own ID without concern for the
activity of other clients, and without the need for locks or
transactions.
(Source) So I don't think concerns about ACID complians are a problem.
What is the purpose of the Secondary key? Say I have a table that logs down all the check-ins (similar to Foursquare), with columns id, user_id, location_id, post, time, and there can be millions of rows, many people have stated to use secondary keys to speed up the process.
Why does this work? And should both user_id and location_id be secondary keys?
I'm using mySQL btw...
Edit: There will be a page that lists/calculates all the check-ins for a particular user, and another page that lists all the users who has checked-in to a particular location
mySQL Query
Type 1
SELECT location_id FROM checkin WHERE user_id = 1234
SELECT user_id FROM checkin WHERE location_id = 4321
Type 2
SELECT COUNT(location_id) as num_users FROM checkin
SELECT COUNT(user_id) as num_checkins FROM checkin
The key (also called index) is for speeding up queries. If you want to see all checkins for a given user, you need a key on user_id field. If you want to see all checking for a given location, you need index on location_id field. You can read more at mysql documentation
I want to comment on your question and your examples.
Let me just suggest strongly to you that since you are using MySQL you make sure that your tables are using the innodb engine type for many reasons you can research on your own.
One important feature of InnoDB is that you have referential integrity. What does that mean? In your checkin table, you have a foreign key of user_id which is the primary key of the user table. With referential integrity, MySQL will not let you insert a row with a user_id that doesn't exist in the user table. Using MyISAM, you can. That alone should be enough to make you want to use the innodb engine.
To your question about keys/indexes, essentially when a table is defined and a key is declared for a column or some combination of columns, mysql will create an index.
Indexes are essential for performance as a table grows with the insert of rows.
All relational databases and Document databases depend on an implementation of BTree indexing. What Btree's are very good for, is finding an item (or not) using a predictable number of lookups. So when people talk about the performance of a relational database the essential building block of that is use of btree indexes, which are created via KEY statements or with alter table or create index statements.
To understand why this is, imagine that your user table was simply a text file, with one line per row, perhaps separated by commas. As you add a row, a new line in the text file gets added at the bottom.
Eventually you get to the point that you have 10,000 lines in the file.
Now you want to find out if you entered a line for one particular person with the last name of Smith. How can you find that out?
Without any sort of sortation of the file, or a separate index, you have but one option and that is to start at the first line in the file and scan through every line in the table looking for a match. Even if you found a Smith, that might not be the only 'Smith' in the table, so you have to read the entire file from top to bottom every time you want do do this search.
Obviously as the table grows the performance of searching gets worse and worse.
In relational database parlance, this is known as a "table scan". The database has to start at the first row and scan through reading every row until it gets to the end.
Without indexes, relational databases still work, but they are highly dependent on IO performance.
With a Btree index, the rows you want to find are found in the index first. The indexes have a pointer directly to the data you want, so the table no longer needs to be scanned, but instead the individual data pages required are read. This is how a database can maintain adequate performance even when there are millions or 10's or 100's of millions of rows.
To really start to gain insight into how mysql works, you need to get familiar with EXPLAIN EXTENDED ... and start looking at the explain plans for queries. Simple ones like those you've provided will have simple plans that show you how many rows are being examined to get a result and whether or not they are using one or more indexes.
For your summary queries, indexes are not helpful because you are doing a COUNT(). The table will need to be scanned when you have no other criteria constraining the search.
I did notice what looks like a mistake in your summary queries. Just based on your labels, I would think that these are the right queries to get what you would want given your column alias names.
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT user_id) as num_users FROM checkin
SELECT COUNT(*) as num_checkins FROM checkin
This is yet another reason to use InnoDB, which when properly configured has a data cache (innodb buffer pool) similar to other rdbms's like oracle and sql server. MyISAM doesn't cache data at all, so if you are repeatedly querying the same sorts of queries that might require a lot of IO, MySQL will have to do all that data reading work over and over, whereas with InnoDB, that data could very well be sitting in cache memory and have the result returned without having to go back and read from storage.
Primary vs Secondary
There really is no such concept internally. A Primary key is special because it allows the database to find one single row. Primary keys must be unique, and to reflect that, the associated Btree index is unique, which simply means that it will not allow you to have 2 keys with the same data to exist in the index.
Whether or not an index is unique is an excellent tool that allows you to maintain the consistency of your database in many other cases. Let's say you have an 'employee' table with the SS_Number column to store social security #. It makes sense to have an index on that column if you want the system to support finding an employee by SS number. Without an index, you will tablescan. But you also want to have that index be unique, so that once an employee with a SS# is inserted, there is no way the database will let you enter a duplicate employee with the same SS#.
But to demystify this for you, when you declare keys these indexes are just being created for you and used automagically in most cases, when you define the tables.
It's when you aren't dealing with keys (primary or foreign) as in the example of usernames, first, last & last names, ss#'s etc., that you need to also be aware of how to create an index because you are searching (using where clause criteria) on one or more columns that aren't keys.
I've got an application in php & mysql where the users writes and reads from a particular table. One of the write modes is in a batch, doing only one query with the multiple values. The table has an ID which auto-increments.
The idea is that for each row in the table that is inserted, a copy is inserted in a separate table, as a history log, including the ID that was generated.
The problem is that multiple users can do this at once, and I need to be sure that the ID loaded is the correct.
Can I be sure that if I do for example:
INSERT INTO table1 VALUES ('','test1'),('','test2')
that the ids generated are sequential?
How can I get the Id's that were just loaded, and be sure that those are the ones that were just loaded?
I've thinked of the LOCK TABLE, but the users shouldn't note this.
Hope I made myself clear...
Building an application that requires generated IDs to be sequential usually means you're taking a wrong approach - what happens when you have to delete a value some day, are you going to re-sequence the entire table? Much better to just let the values fall as they may, using a primary key to prevent duplication.
based on the current implementation of myisam and innodb, yes. however, this is not guaranteed to be so in the future, so i would not rely on it.
Problem: When I use an auto-incrementing primary key in my database, this happens all the time:
I want to store an Order with 10 Items. The ordered Items belong to the Order. So I store the order, ask the database for the last inserted id (which is dangerous when it comes to concurrency, right?), and then store the 10 Items with the foreign key (order_id).
So I always have to do:
INSERT ...
last_inserted_id = db.lastInsertId();
INSERT ...
INSERT ...
INSERT ...
and I believe this prevents me from using transactions in almost all INSERT cases where I need a foreign key.
So... here some solutions, and I don't know if they're really good:
A) Don't use auto_increment keys! Use a key table?
Key Table would have two fields: table_name, next_key. Every time I need a key for a table to insert a new dataset, first I ask for the next_key by accessing a special static KeyGenerator class method. This does a SELECT and an UPDATE, if possible in one transaction (would that work?). Of course I would request that for every affected table. Next, I can INSERT my entire object graph in one transaction without playing ping-pong with the database, before I know the keys already in advance.
B) Using GUUID / UUID algorithm for keys?
These suppose to be really unique worldwide, and they're LARGE. I mean ... L_A_R_G_E. So a big amount of memory would go into these gigantic keys. Indexing will be hard, right? And data retrieval will be a pain for the database - at least I guess - integer keys are much faster to handle. On the other hand, these also provide some security: Visitors can't iterate anymore over all orders or all users or all pictures by just incrementing the id parameter.
C) Stick with auto_incremented keys?
Ok, if then, what about transactions like described in the example above? How can I solve that? Maybe by inserting a Ghost Row first and then doing an transaction with one UPDATE + n INSERTs?
D) What else?
When storing orders, you need transactions to prevent situations where only half your products are added to the database.
Depending on your database and your connector, the value returned by the last-insert-id function might be transaction-independent. For instance, with MySQL, mysql_insert_id returns the identifier for the last query from that particular client (without being affected by what other clients are doing concurrently).
Which database are you using?
Yes, typically inserting a record and then trying to select it again to find the auto-generated key is bad, especially if you are using a naive select max(id) from table query. This is because as soon as two threads are creating records max(id) may not actually return the last id your current thread used.
One way to avoid this is to create a sequence in the database. From your code you select sequence.NextValue then use that value to then execute your inserts (or you can craft a more complex SQL statement that does this selection and the inserts in one go). Sequences are atomic / thread-safe.
In MySQL you can ask for the last inserted id from the execution results which I believe will always give you the correct answer.
Sql Server supports SCOPE_IDENTITY (Transact-SQL) which should take care of your transaction issue and concurrency issue.
I would say stick with auto_increment.
(Assuming you are using MySQL)
"ask the database for the last inserted id (which is dangerous when it comes to concurrency, right?)"
If you use MySQLs last_insert_id() function, you only see what happened in your session. So this is safe. You mention ths:
db.last_insert_id()
I don't know what framework or language it is, but I would assume that uses MySQL's last_insert_id() under the covers (if not, it is a pretty useless database abstraction fromework)
" I believe this prevents me from using transactions in almost all INSERT cases w"
I don't see why. Please explain.
D) Sequence
: may not be available in your DBMS, but if it is, solves your problem elegantly.
For Postgresql, have a look at Sequence Functions
There is no final and general answer to this question.
auto incrementing columns are easy to use when you add new records. To use them as foreign keys within the same transaction, they are not so straight forward. You need database specific commands to get the newly created key. This technology is common for certain databases, for instance sql server.
Sequences seem to be harder to use, because you need to get a key before you insert a row, but at the end its easier to use them as foreign keys. This technology is common for certain databases, for instance oracle.
When you use Hibernate or NHibernate, it is discouraged to use auto incrementing keys, because some optimizations are not possible anymore. Using a hi-lo algorithm which uses an additional table is recommended.
Guids are strong, for instance when sharing data between different databases, systems, disconnected scenarios, import / export etc. In many databases, most of the tables contain only a few hundred records, so memory and performance are not such an issue. When using NHibernate, you get an guid generator which produces sequential guids, because some databases perform better when keys are sequential.