Note: I'm new to databases and PHP
I have an order column that is set to auto increment and unique.
In my PHP script, I am using AJAX to get new data but the problem with that is, is that the order skips numbers and is substantially higher thus forcing me to manually update the numbers when the data is inserted. In this case I would end up changing 782 to 38.
$SQL = "INSERT IGNORE INTO `read`(`title`,`url`) VALUES\n ".implode( "\n,",array_reverse( $sql_values ) );
How can I get it to increment +1?
The default auto_increment behavior in MySQL 5.1 and later will "lose" auto-increment values if the INSERT fails. That is, it increments by 1 each time, but doesn't undo an increment if the INSERT fails. It's uncommon to lose ~750 values but not impossible (I consulted for a site that was skipping 1500 for every INSERT that succeeded).
You can change innodb_autoinc_lock_mode=0 to use MySQL 5.0 behavior and avoid losing values in some cases. See http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/innodb-auto-increment-handling.html for more details.
Another thing to check is the value of the auto_increment_increment config variable. It's 1 by default, but you may have changed this. Again, very uncommon to set it to something higher than 1 or 2, but possible.
I agree with other commenters, autoinc columns are intended to be unique, but not necessarily consecutive. You probably shouldn't worry about it so much unless you're advancing the autoinc value so rapidly that you could run out of the range of an INT (this has happened to me).
How exactly did you fix it skipping 1500 for ever insert?
The cause of the INSERT failing was that there was another column with a UNIQUE constraint on it, and the INSERT was trying to insert duplicate values in that column. Read the manual page I linked to for details on why this matters.
The fix was to do a SELECT first to check for existence of the value before attempting to INSERT it. This goes against common wisdom, which is to just try the INSERT and handle any duplicate key exception. But in this case, the side-effect of the failed INSERT caused an auto-inc value to be lost. Doing a SELECT first eliminated almost all such exceptions.
But you also have to handle a possible exception, even if you SELECT first. You still have a race condition.
You're right! innodb_autoinc_lock_mode=0 worked like a charm.
In your case, I would want to know why so many inserts are failing. I suspect that like many SQL developers, you aren't checking for success status after you do your INSERTs in your AJAX handler, so you never know that so many of them are failing.
They're probably still failing, you just aren't losing auto-inc id's as a side effect. You should really diagnose why so many fails occur. You could be either generating incomplete data, or running many more transactions than necessary.
After you change 782 in 38 you can reset the autoincrement with ALTER TABLE mytable AUTO_INCREMENT = 39. This way you continue at 39.
However, you should check why your gap is so high and change your design accordingly. Changing the autoincement should not be "default" behaviour.
I know the question has been answered already.. But if you have deleted rows in the table before, mysql will remember the used ID/Number because typically your Auto increment is Unique.. So therefore will not create duplicate increments.. To reindex and increment from the current max ID/integer you could perform:
ALTER TABLE TableName AUTO_INCREMENT=(SELECT max(order) + 1 FROM tablename)
auto increment doesn't care, if you delete some rows - everytime you insert a row, the value is incremented.
If you want a numbering without gaps, don't use auto increment and do it by yourself. You could use something like this to achive this for inserting
INSERT INTO tablename SET
`order` = (SELECT max(`order`) + 1 FROM (SELECT * from tablename) t),
...
and if you delete a row, you have to rearange the order column manually
Related
I am having a strange issue with MySQL Query, i am having a table with the fields
slno,mobileno , contractor with slno as primary key and auto
increment sequence 1
, while test say uptil 100 records the count and the autoincrement values are same ,
so i truncated the table to reset the autoincrement and inserted a huge excel file with around 40k data via php, then issued select query which yields
the max of slno is 40000 as expected but the count shows 39920
, I am just amused and tried to find over google , may be my lack of keyword search ability prevented me from finding result, so i am posting in here, for ref added screen shot, Any ideas and clarifications. Thanks
EDIT:
min slno is 1
EDIT :
A related question with solution to find gap in auto number in mysql has been asked and solved here.
There are specific cases in which auto-incremented values can be lost. One example is if you roll back an insertion. As per the doco:
"Lost" auto-increment values and sequence gaps
In all lock modes (0, 1, and 2), if a transaction that generated auto-increment values rolls back, those auto-increment values are "lost". Once a value is generated for an auto-increment column, it cannot be rolled back, whether or not the "INSERT-like" statement is completed, and whether or not the containing transaction is rolled back. Such lost values are not reused. Thus, there may be gaps in the values stored in an AUTO_INCREMENT column of a table.
In that case, although the insert is backed out, the auto-increment may not be. That would certainly allow for the possibility that your bulk insertion from Excel is occasionally failing and retrying, with the subsequent retry working. It really depends on how your insertion process works.
In any case, assuming those values will always be contiguous is actually a bad assumption to make.
This is because, even if insertions were guaranteed to be contiguous, it's possible to delete rows which would result in gaps appearing. You can certainly fix this each time you delete (or bulk insert for that matter) but the workload is high - you basically have to find gaps and then "move" higher entries into those gaps.
This movement is likely to be non-trivial as it's most likely that there will be other tables holding key look-ups to that column, and each of those will need to be changed as well.
So the best use case for an auto-increment field is simply to provide a unique identifier for the row where no other one exists and not to be necessarily contiguous.
Let's say I have dynamic numbers with unique id's to them.
I'd like to insert them into database. But if I already have that certain ID (UNIQUE) I need to add to the value that already exists.
I've already tried using "ON KEY UPDATE" ,but it's not really working out. And selecting the old data so we could add to it and then updating it ,is not efficient.
Is there any query that could do that?
Incrementing your value in your application does not guarantee you'll always have accurate results in your database because of concurrency issues. For instance, if two web requests need to increment the number with the same ID, depending on when the computer switches the processes on the CPU, you could have the requests overwriting each other.
Instead do an update similar to:
UPDATE `table` SET `number` = `number` + 1 WHERE `ID` = YOUR_ID
Check the return value from the statement. An update should return the number of rows affected, so if the value is 1, you can move on happy to know that you were as efficient as possible. On the other hand, if your return value is 0, then you'll have to run a subsequent insert statement to add your new ID/Value.
This is also the safest way to ensure concurrency.
Hope this helps and good luck!
Did something different. Instead of updating the old values ,I'm inserting new data and leaving old one ,but using certain uniques so I wouldn't have duplicates. And now to display that data I use a simple select query with sum property and then grouping it by an id. Works great ,just don't know if it's the most efficient way of doing it.
I have a table that looks like (irrelevant columns subtracted):
PRIMARY KEY(AUTO-INCREMENT,INT),
CLIENTID(INT),
CLIENTENTRYID(INT),
COUNT1(INT),
COUNT2(INT)
Now, the CLIENTID and CLIENTENTRYID is a unique combined index serving as a duplication prevention.
I use PHP post input to the server. My query looks like:
$stmt = $sql->prepare('INSERT INTO table (COUNT1,COUNT2,CLIENTID,CLIENTENTRYID) VALUES (?,?,?,?) ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE COUNT1=VALUES(COUNT1),COUNT2=VALUES(COUNT2)');
$stmt->bind_param("iiii",$value,$value,$clientid,$cliententryid);
The SQL object has auto commit enabled. The "value" variable is reused as the value in COUNT1 and COUNT2 should ALWAYS be the same.
Okay - that works fine, most of the time, but randomly, and I cannot figure out why, it will post 0 in COUNT2 - for an entirely different row.
Any ideas how that might occur? I can't see a pattern (it doesn't happen after a failed attempt, which is why the unique index exists, so that a new attempt will not cause duplicates). It seems to be completely random.
Is there something I've misunderstood about ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE? The VERY weird thing is that it updates A DIFFERENT row incorrectly - not the one you insert.
I realize other factors might affect this, but now I'm trying to rule out my SQL logic as a source of error.
Aside from the PRIMARY KEY on the auto_increment column, there is only ONE UNIQUE key defined the table, and that's defined on (CLIENTID,CLIENTENTRYID), right?
And there are no triggers defined on the table, right?
And you are (obviously) using a prepared statement with bind placeholders.
It doesn't really matter if those two columns (CLIENTID and CLIENTENTRYID) are defined as NOT NULL or not; MySQL will allow multiple rows with NULL values; that doesn't violated the "uniqueness" enforced by a UNIQUE constraint. (This the same as how Oracle treats "uniqueness" of NULL values, but it is different from how SQL Server enforces it.)
I just don't see any way that the statement you show, that is:
INSERT INTO `mytable` (COUNT1,COUNT2,CLIENTID,CLIENTENTRYID) VALUES (?,?,?,?)
ON DUPLICATE KEY
UPDATE COUNT1 = VALUES(COUNT1)
, COUNT2 = VALUES(COUNT2)
... theres no way that Would cause some other row in the table to be updated.
Either the insert action succeeds, or it throws a "duplicate key" exception. If the "duplicate key" exception is thrown, the statement catches that, and performs the UPDATE action.
Given that (CLIENTID,CLIENTENTRYID) is the only unique key on the table (apart from the auto_increment column, not referenced by this statement), the update action will be equivalent to this statement:
UPDATE `mytable`
SET COUNT1 = ?
, COUNT2 = ?
WHERE CLIENTID = ?
AND CLIENTENTRYID = ?
... using the values supplied in the VALUES clause of the INSERT statement.
Bottom line, there isn't an issue in anything OP showed us. The logic is sound. There is something else going on, apart from this SQL statement.
OP code shows as using scalars (and not array elements) as arguments in the bind_param call, so that whole messiness of passing by reference shouldn't be an issue.
There's not an issue with the SQL statement OP has shown, based on everything OP told us and shown us. The issue reported has to be something other than the SQL statement.
Looking at the MySQL doc, it says that given an insert statement
INSERT INTO table (a,b,c) VALUES (1,2,3) ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE c=c+1;
if column a and b are unique, the insert is equivalent to an update statement with a WHERE clause containing an OR instead of an AND:
UPDATE table SET c=c+1 WHERE a=1 OR b=2 LIMIT 1;
And to quote from the documentation,
If a=1 OR b=2 matches several rows, only one row is updated. In
general, you should try to avoid using an ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE
clause on tables with multiple unique indexes.
Hope this helps.
UPDATE:
As per further discussion, OP will consider re-visiting existing database design. OP also has another table with similar multiple unique index spec, but without the same problem by utilizing INSERT IGNORE.
I found the answer.
As everyone here correctly suggested, this was something else. For some completely bizarre reason, the button I used to open the "add new entry" somehow POST'ed to set arrived = 0 on a selected object in a table view that has nothing to do with the button.
This must have been a UI linking somewhere in my Storyboard.
I'm sorry I wasted so much of your time guys. At least I learned a little more about SQL and indexes.
i think problem is with your are using values in UPDATE COUNT1=VALUES(COUNT1),COUNT2=VALUES(COUNT2) try to use like this
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE COUNT1 = $v1,COUNT2 = $v2;
In my database (MySQL) I have a table (MyISAM) containing a field called number. Each value of this field is either 0 or a positive number. The non zero values must be unique. And the last thing is that the value of the field is being generated in my php code according to value of another field (called isNew) in this table. The code folows.
$maxNumber = $db->selectField('select max(number)+1 m from confirmed where isNew = ?', array($isNew), 'm');
$db->query('update confirmed set number = ? where dataid = ?', array($maxNumber, $id));
The first line of code select the maximum value of the number field and increments it. The second line updates the record by setting it freshly generated number.
This code is being used concurrently by hundreds of clients so I noticed that sometimes duplicates of the number field occur. As I understand this is happening when two clients read value of the number field almost simultaneously and this fact leads to the duplicate.
I have read about the SELECT ... FOR UPDATE statement but I'm not quite sure it is applicable in my case.
So the question is should I just append FOR UPDATE to my SELECT statement? Or create a stored procedure to do the job? Or maybe completely change the way the numbers are being generated?
This is definitely possible to do. MyISAM doesn't offer transaction locking so forget about stuff like FOR UPDATE. There's definitely room for a race condition between the two statements in your example code. The way you've implemented it, this one is like the talking burro. It's amazing it works at all, not that it works badly! :-)
I don't understand what you're doing with this SQL:
select max(number)+1 m from confirmed where isNew = ?
Are the values of number unique throughout the table, or only within sets where isNew has a certain value? Would it work if the values of number were unique throughout the table? That would be easier to create, debug, and maintain.
You need a multi-connection-safe way of getting a number.
You could try this SQL. It will do the setting of the max number in one statement.
UPDATE confirmed
SET number = (SELECT 1+ MAX(number) FROM confirmed WHERE isNew = ?)
WHERE dataid = ?
This will perform badly. Without a compound index on (isNew, number), and without both those columns declared NOT NULL it will perform very very badly.
If you can use numbers that are unique throughout the table I suggest you create for yourself a sequence setup, which will return a unique number each time you use it. You need to use a series of consecutive SQL statements to do that. Here's how it goes.
First, when you create your tables create yourself a table to use called sequence (or whatever name you like). This is a one-column table.
CREATE TABLE sequence (
sequence_id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
PRIMARY KEY (`sequence_id`)
) AUTO_INCREMENT = 990000
This will make the sequence table start issuing numbers at 990,000.
Second, when you need a unique number in your application, do the following things.
INSERT INTO sequence () VALUES ();
DELETE FROM sequence WHERE sequence_id < LAST_INSERT_ID();
UPDATE confirmed
SET number = LAST_INSERT_ID()
WHERE dataid = ?
What's going on here? The MySQL function LAST_INSERT_ID() returns the value of the most recent autoincrement-generated ID number. Because you inserted a row into that sequence table, it gives you back that generated ID number. The DELETE FROM command keeps that table from snarfing up disk space; we don't care about old ID numbers.
LAST_INSERT_ID() is connection-safe. If software on different connections to your database uses it, they all get their own values.
If you need to know the last inserted ID number, you can issue this SQL:
SELECT LAST_INSERT_ID() AS sequence_id
and you'll get it returned.
If you were using Oracle or PostgreSQL, instead of MySQL, you'd find they provide SEQUENCE objects that basically do this.
Here's the answer to another similar question.
Fastest way to generate 11,000,000 unique ids
I have a form from which i am inserting data into mysql works fine.But when i delete some data from mysql, and inserted values into database again the autoincrement value is starting from the previous row value.
ForExample:
If i have 1,2,3,4,5 as id's in mydatabse and if i delete 4 and 5 id's from database
and started inserting next data from PHP. then the id's are coming from 6.... But i need to get id as 4 .can any one give suggestions.Thanks in advance.
I'm afraid MySQL does not allow you to "reset" AUTO_INCREMENT fields like that. If you need that behavior, you have to stop using AUTO_INCREMENT and generate your IDs manually.
Auto increment does not (and cannot) guarantee an unbroken sequence.
You can implement this yourself as "SELECT MAX(ID) + 1 FROM MYTABLE;"
But be warned: You will take a slight but noticeable performance hit.
If you are running updates concurrently you risk deadlocks
(again if you are running updates concurrently) you will risk having two inserts with the same key.
You can also implement this by running your own counter in a separate table. You must have program logic to decrement this correctly on a deletion, and, again you will get a performance hot and risk of deadlock as the "counter" will become an object of contention.
You should not play with AUTO_INCREMENT value in a production environment let MySQL take care of its value for you.
If you need to know how many row you have you can use
SELECT COUNT(id) FROM tbl;
Anyway if you really want to change its value the syntax is :
ALTER TABLE tbl AUTO_INCREMENT=101;