I have one database(MYSQL) with more than 5000 tables of same type as shown below(having 5 to 60 entries each) and using PHP for all actions. Now I think another possibility to change this database and make only one table and add all entries inside this(then there will be 1.5 million entries inside one table). The queries mostly performed is INSERT, CREATE TABLE, UPDATE, Search table and retrieve all values(in json format) and some time DELETE.
Now if I change the database to second type having only one table then the required actions is INSERT, UPDATE, Search all relative values for specific cityname and some time DELETE entry. I am confused that which is the best optimal method for this. Please suggest me some help to optimize this database.
table1: id | name | nameinoanotherlang | min | max | model | date
1 | abcd | gdyugdedu | 214.2| 212.22| 3212 |2015-04-28
.....(5 to 60 entry)
table2: id | name | nameinanotherlang | min | max | model | date
1 | abcd | gdyugdedu | 214.2| 212.22| 3212 |2015-04-28
.....(5 to 60 entry)
table..... (more than 5000 tables)
another method:
only one table:
id | cityname | name | nameinanotherlang | min | max | model | date
......(then it will be 1.5 million entry)
Related
I have two tables where some same kind of information kept. One table has approved information and other one contains pending(waiting for approval) data. I fetch data from both table and display in a same view. So user will see data from both the tables. User can delete those records. But when deleting I've a trouble with finding out which table I should delete.
Assume, table1(Approved info), table2(Pending info)
table1
id | name | description | creator |
-----------------------------------
10 | test1 | N/A | 100 |
11 | test2 | N/A | 100 |
12 | test3 | N/A | 101 |
13 | test4 | N/A | 200 |
table2
id | name | description | creator |
-----------------------------------
10 | test1 | N/A | 105 |
11 | test2 | N/A | 103 |
12 | test3 | N/A | 106 |
13 | test4 | N/A | 202 |
table1 has a record with id of 10; and table2 has a record with id of 10 in that table. Id is the primary key of both tables. Both record will show to user. Let's say user wants to delete the record related to id 12 came from table2. So I want to delete that record from table2. But how can I figure out which table to delete that record. Because I can't use id to figure out the table. I have tried using some kind of data attribute attached with
data coming from table2 to differentiate them. But anyone can change them by inspecting it. So what is the proper way for solve this issue?
On any case, on any system, makes sense to have two to tables with same columns. That should be one of the firsts rules of database design. What's more, you discovered yourself how hard is to maintain a design like that. I see this on legacy systems developed with zero love to the code. In the future this will turn into a snowball. You should change it as soon as possible.
status column
The status of and entity or resource, is classic requirement, usually implemented with one little column which called : status, flag, mode, etc. In your case, it could have these values (#BhaumikPandhi comment):
pending/approved/rejected
id | name | description | creator | status |
--------------------------------------------
10 | test1 | N/A | 100 | pending|
If you are worried to the database optimization, you could use a tinyint with these equivalence in your documentation:
1 = pending
2 = approved
3 = rejected
status table
You could keep your first table called record
id | name | description | creator |
And create another one called record_status with 2 columns, in which record_id is a FK of record table
record_id | status |
Anyway, the status column is the most easy a classic approach to your requirement.
Say if I wanted to add the functionality of logging user actions within a web application. My table schema would look similar to the following:
tbl_history:
+----+---------+--+-----------+
| id | user_id | | action_id |
+----+---------+--+-----------+
| 1 | 1 | | 1 |
| 1 | 1 | | 2 |
| 1 | 2 | | 2 |
+----+---------+--+-----------+
A user can generate many actions so I will need to paginate this history. In order to do this I will need to figure out the total amount of rows for the user then calculate how many pages of data there should be.
Which would method be the most efficient if I were to have hundreds of users generating thousands of rows of data each day?
A)
Using the MYSQL's COUNT() function to query the amount of rows of data in the tbl_history table for a particular user.
B)
Having another table which would keep a count of history for the user within the tbl_history table.
+---------+--+---------------+
| user_id | | history_count |
+---------+--+---------------+
| 1 | | 2 |
| 2 | | 1 |
+---------+--+---------------+
This will allow me to instantly get the total count of rows with a simple query in less than 1ms.
The tradeoff is that I will need to perform more queries updating the count for each user and also again on page load.
Which method is more efficient to use? Or is there any other better method? Any technical explanation would be great.
Thanks in advance.
I'm displaying a record set using Datatables pulling records from two tables.
Table A
sno | item_id | start_date | end_date | created_on |
===========================================================
10523563 | 2 | 2013-10-24 | 2013-10-27 | 2013-01-22 |
10535677 | 25 | 2013-11-18 | 2013-11-29 | 2013-01-22 |
10587723 | 11 | 2013-05-04 | 2013-05-24 | 2013-01-22 |
10598734 | 5 | 2013-06-14 | 2013-06-22 | 2013-01-22 |
Table B
id | item_name |
=====================================
2 | Timesheet testing |
25 | Vigour |
11 | Fabwash |
5 | Cruise |
Now since the number of records returned is going to turn into a big number in near future, I want the processing to be done serverside. I've successfully managed to achieve that but it came at a cost. I'm running into a problem while dealing with filters.
From the figure above, (1) is the column whose value will be in int (item_id), but using some small modifications inside the while loop of the mysql resource, I'm displaying the corresponding string using Table B.
Now if I use the filter (2), it is working fine since those values come from Table A
The Problem
When I try to filter from the field (3), if I enter a string value such as fab it says no record found. But if I enter an int such as 11 I get a single row which contains Fabwash as the item name.
So while filtering I'm required to use the direct value used in Table A and not its corresponding string value stored in Table B. I hope the point that I'm putting across is understandable because it is hard to explain it in words.
I'm clueless on how to solve the issue.
I want to insert into the cart table
**orderId** | cartId | cartDate | cartStatus
____________________________________________
1 | 1 | 20120102 | complete
2 | 2 | 20120102 | complete
3 | 3 | 20120102 | complete
4 | 4 | 20120102 | complete
using the auto increment value orderId from the order table
**orderId** | orderStatus | secret | sauce
____________________________________________
1 | 7 | 020200202 | bbq
2 | 6 | 020200202 | bbq
3 | 6 | 020200202 | t
4 | 4 | 020200202 | m
INSERT INTO ordertable VALUES(null,7,020200202,bbq)
but then using the orderId (which will now be 5)
INSERT INTO carttable VALUES(orderId,20120102,complete)
However,
this insert must be done as the same query. If I use mysql_last_id (php) there is an opportunity for someone else to insert into the database before my cart insert is executed. Or the connection might timeout. The database is MyISAM (and I can not change this, 3rd party solution).
Thank you,
J
I think your concern about using mysql_last_id is unfounded - it will return the last id for the current connection, not the last id globally across all connections.
So unless you have multiple threads sharing the same database connection or you perform another identity insert on the same connection before calling mysql_last_id, you should have nothing to worry about.
ETA: You could do this by sending multiple queries at once, like this:
INSERT INTO ordertable VALUES(null,7,020200202,bbq);
INSERT INTO carttable VALUES(LAST_INSERT_ID(),20120102,complete);
But if you are using mysql_query it usually won't let you send multiple queries in the same call (mostly as a security measure to try to prevent SQL injection).
I wish to update one table in my database, the data is from a php POST. (It is a page where multiple edits on rows can take place at once, then it processes them all at once after) and i want it so for each "row" or "loop", it builds a single query that can update all the rows at once.
What i want to do, is in the query, select data from two other tables.
E.g
Posted data:
- Task = "Check current Sponsors"
- User Assigned = "Dan"
- Start Meeting = "Mar 1st"
- Meetings Required = 2
And for User Assigned, i want it to basically do this query:
SELECT id FROM team WHERE fullname LIKE 'Dan'
And for the start meeting, i want it to do this query:
SELECT id FROM meetings WHERE starttime='".strtotime("Mar
1st")."'
-- strtotime() makes a unix timestamp from a string.
but i want it to do that for each "task" that gets submitted. (It is queued up via javascript and it sends them all into the same post request)
Anyone have any ideas on how to do this?
Thanks in advance
Table Structures:
Tasks:
id | startmid | length | task | uid | completed
1 | 2 | 1 | Check Sponsors | 1 | 0
Meetings: (Joined by startmid)
id | maintask | starttime | endtime
1 | Sponsors | 1330007400 | 1330012800
Team: (Joined by uid)
id | fullname | position | class | hidden
1 | Team | All Members | black | 0
2 | Dan S | Team Manager | green | 0
you can use the following construct:
UPDATE mytable( col1, col2 )
SELECT col1_val, col2_val
FROM someothertables
WHERE cond1 = cond1;