How do I retrieve a multi-column PK in MySQL?
For example I have my primary key setup as
PRIMARY KEY (donor_id,country_id)
Now if I want to get the primary key value without concatenating those 2 fields in a select query, how do I do that? I want to use this in a view (or better yet, directly in phpmaker).
It's not clear what you mean by "without concatenating". A simple
SELECT donor_id, country_id FROM table WHERE ...;
will retrieve the records; you don't need to apply a CONCATENATE() function or anything like that. This is the Right Way to select two records from a table; the fact that they both happen to be declared part of the primary key changes nothing.
No special way is needed to get the records from table that has a multi-column PK in MySQL. Things might be different if you are using an ORM. An ORM may or may have special or different syntax/features for working with tables with multi-column PK.
Related
I want to remove an index in a table whose access in php never uses the indexed column. Index takes up extra space and I am trying to trim it. It's a table of phone numbers. A phone number is linked to a user profile's id. So it has 3 columns. id (index), number and person. I was wondering if removing the index will affect the queries that use number or person in the where clause. My gut feeling is that it shouldn't but I am afraid computer science doesn't work on gut feelings. The data is accessed via joins. For example...
SELECT *
FROM people ... LEFT JOIN
phoneNumbers
ON people.id = phoneNumbers.person
Edit: Apparently no one seems to be able to answer the question in the title.
In the case you show, only the person column would benefit from an index.
Indexes help in basically four cases:
Row restriction, that is finding the rows by value instead of examining every row in the table.
Joining is a subset of row restriction, i.e. each distinct value in the first table looks up matching rows in the second table. Indexing a column that is referenced in the ON clause is done in the same way you would index a column referenced in the WHERE clause.
Sorting, to retrieve rows in index order instead of having to sort the result set as an additional step.
Distinct and Group By, to scan each distinct value in an index.
Covering index, that is when the query needs only the columns that are found in the index.
In the case of InnoDB, every table is treated as an index-organized table based on its primary key, and we should take advantage of this because primary key lookups are very efficient. So if you can redefine a primary key on your phoneNumbers.person column (in part), that would be best.
I think it is a good idea for all tables to have explicit primary keys and an index necessarily comes with these. For instance, it becomes difficult to delete rows in the table, if unwanted duplicates were to appear.
In general, indexes are used for where clauses, on clauses, and order by. If you have an id column, then foreign key references to the table should be using that column, and not the other two columns. The index might also be used for a select count(*) from table query, but I'm not 100% sure if MySQL does this.
If removing an index on a column makes that big a difference, then you should be investigating other ways to make your database more efficient. One method would be using partitioning to store different parts of the database in different files.
If the id column is an auto-incrementing integer, you have already indexed the table in the most efficient way possible. Removing it will make MySQL treat (number, person) as the table's primary key, which will cause less efficient look-ups.
Additionally, any index you create in the future will contain two columns, the first being the indexed field in the desired order, the second being the table's primary key. If you remove the id column and later decide to index the table on person, then your index will be larger than the table itself: each row would be: | person | (number, person) |.
Given that you're querying on this relationship, the person column should be indexed, and leaving the id column in place will ensure that the person index is as small and as quick as possible.
The column "id" seems useless. If I've understood you correctly, I'd
drop the "id" column,
add a primary key constraint on {person, number}, and
a foreign key reference from "person" to people.id.
I'm assuming each person can have more than one phone number.
Creating a primary key constraint has a side-effect that you might not want. It creates an internal index on the key columns.
thanks in advance for any help.
I have a question about foreign keys. I understand the concept of having the data from one table inserted into another for reference. But my question is, how does it get there?
Currently I have two tables and two forms. One form inserts data into table A, the other form inserts into B. Then I use a function to get the id from the last insert into A and insert it into B. Is this the proper way to do this or am I missing something?
There are two possibilities :
You know the primary key before the insertion in table A => Then your technique isn't the right one, since you're retrieving something you already added.
You don't know it (Example: auto-incremented id's) => Then your technique is the right one, and I don't think there is any other better way to achieve what you are asking for.
Note that what I called the primary key is the primary key of the row in table A, and a foreign key for rows in table B.
Short answer, I don't believe you aren't missing anything. There are many ways to accomplish what you are after, but your explanation is probably the most used and straightforward.
Another way is to use a trigger on table A to populate table B after insert (this only works if you do not need any additional user input, like form input to insert into table B).
As you cannot insert two ids at a time, yes it was an proper way.
First inserting the record on primary table, which we knows it.
Secondly, you that last insert id using the mysqli_insert_id() function
Now insert data on foreign table using this primary key.
I refer to the code posted here:
http://codeslayer2010.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/developer-journal-2012-03-30-building-a-php-database-connection-class-from-scratch-singleton-activerecord/
This is all well and good for tables that have a single primary key. But what about tables that have two primary keys such as a composite table? How will the design pattern in the above link account for that? For as you can see, the load function in table.class.php only takes in a single id.
The only thing I can think of for a class representing a composite table is to extend the table class and override the load function, replacing it with one that takes in two ids. But however this seems messy and I was wondering if there was a neater way to accommodate the occurrence of composite tables.
Your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
I would recommend to extend the structure of the table to have another column, which is the primary key. And set your current two columns to a combined unique key, so you can still be sure that the data is unique, but call it with one single value as primary key.
I would like write a php script that merges several databases, and I would like to be sure of how to go around it before I start anything.
I have 4 databases which have the same structure and almost same data. I want to merge them without any duplicate entry while preserving (or re-linking) the foreign keys.
For example there is a db1.product table which is almost the same as db2.products so I think I would have to use LIKE comparison on name and description columns to be sure that I only insert new rows. But then, when merging the orders table I have to make sure that the productID still indicates the right product.
So I thought of 2 solutions :
Either I use for each table insert into db1.x as select * from db2.x and then make new links and check for duplicate using triggers.
Either I delete duplicate entries and update new foreign keys (after having dropped constraints) and then insert row into the main database.
Just heard of MySQL Data Compare and Toad for mySQL, could they help me to merge tables ?
Could someone indicate to me what should be the right solution ?
sorry for my english and thank you !
First thing is how are you determining whether products are the same? You mentioned LIKE comparison on name and description. You need to establish a rule what says that product is one and the same in your db1, db2 and so on.
However, let's assume that product's name and description are the attributes that define it.
ALTER TABLE products ADD UNIQUE('name', 'description');
Run this on all of your databases.
After you've done that, select one of the databases you wish to import into and run the following query:
INSERT IGNORE INTO db1.products SELECT * FROM db2.products;
Repeat for the remaining databases.
Naturally, this all fails if you can't determine how you're going to compare the products.
Note: never use reserved words for your column names such as word "name".
Firstly, good luck with this - sounds like a tricky job.
Secondly, I wouldn't do this with PHP - I'd write SQL to do the work, assuming this is a one-off migration task and not a recurring task.
As an approach, I would do the following.
Create a database with the schema you want - it sounds like each of your 4 databases have small variations in the schema. Just create the schema for now, don't worry about the data.
Create a "working" database, with the same schema, but with columns for "old" primary keys. For instance:
table ORDER
order_id int primary key auto increment
old_order_id int not null
...other columns...
table ORDER_LINE
order_line_id int primary key auto increment
old_order_line_id int not null
order_id int foreign key
...other columns...
Table by table, Insert into your working database from your first source database. Let the primary keys auto_increment, but put the original primary key into the "old_" column.
For instance:
insert into workingdb.orders
select null, order_id, ....other columns...
from db1.orders
Where you have a foreign key, populate it by finding the record in the old_ column.
For instance:
insert into workingdb.order_line
select null, ol.order_line_id, o.order_id
from db1.order_line ol,
workingdb.order
where ol.order_id = o.old_order_id
Rinse and repeat for the other databases.
Finally, copy the data from your working database into the "proper" database. This is optional - it may help to retain the old IDs for lookups etc.
For example, I'm doing the next action:
SELECT COUNT(id)
FROM users
WHERE unique_name = 'Wiliam'
// if Wiliam don't exists then...
INSERT INTO users
SET unique_name = 'Wiliam'
The question is, I'm doing the SELECT COUNT(id) check every time I insert a new user, despite of using an unique key or not, so... if "unique_name" has an UNIQUE key it will be better for performance than using a normal key?
What you mean is a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on the column which will be updated. Reads will be faster, Inserts will be just a bit slower. It will still be faster than your code checking first and then inserting the value though. Just let mysql do its thing and return an error to you if the value is not unique.
You didn't say what this is for, which would help. If its part of an authentication system, then why doesn't your query include the user's password as well? If it's not, a unique indexed column used to store names isn't going to work very well in a real-world system unless you are OK with having just 1 and only Wiliam in your system. (Was that supposed to be William?)
And if that name field is really unique you do not need to use COUNT(ID) in your query. If 'unique_name' is truly unique you either get an id number returned from your query or you get nothing.
You'd want something like this:
SELECT id FROM users WHERE unique_name = 'Wiliam'
No record return, no Wiliam.
An index (unique or non-unique -- I don't know what you're after here) on unique_name will improve the performance.
Your use of 'unique key' isn't very logical so I suspect you are getting confused about the nomenclature of keys, indexes, their relationships, and the purposes for them.
KEYS in a database are used to create and identify relationships between sets of data. This is what makes the 'relational' possible in a relational database.
Keys come in 2 flavors: Primary and foreign.
PRIMARY KEYS identify each row in a table. The value or values that comprise the key must be unique.
Primary keys can be made from a single column or made of several columns (in which case it is called a composite key) that together uniquely identifies the row. Again the important thing here is uniqueness.
I use MySql's auto-increment integer data type for my primary keys.
FOREIGN KEYS identify which rows in a table have a relationship with other rows in other tables. A foreign key of a record in one table is the primary key of the related record in the other table. A foreign key is not unique -- in many-to-many relationships there are by definition multiple records with the same foreign key. They should however be indexed.
INDEXES are used by the database as a sort of short-hand method to quickly look up values, as opposed to scanning the entire table or column for a match. Think of the index in the back of a book. Much easier to find something using a book's index than by flipping through the pages looking for it.
You may also want to index a non-key column for better performance when searching on that column. What column do you use frequently in a WHERE clause? Probably should index it then.
UNIQUE INDEX is an index where all the values in it must be distinct. A column with a unique index will not let you insert a duplicate value, because it would violate the unique constraint. Primary keys are unique indexes. But unique indexes do not have to be primary keys, or even a key.
Hope that helps.
[edited for brevity]
Having a unique constraint is a good thing because it prevents insertion of duplicated entries in case your program is buggy (are you missing a "for update" clause in your select statement?) or in case someone inserts data not using your application.
You should, however, not depend on it in your application for normal operation. Lets assume unique_name is an input field a user can specify. Your application should check whether the name is unique. If it is, insert it. If it was not, tell the user.
It is a bad idea to just try the insert in all cases and see if it was successful: It will create errors in the database server logs that makes it more difficult to find real errors. And it will render your current transaction useless, which may be an issue depending on the situation