I'm trying to auto-generate ID's for my entity, but it's not generating. Instead, it's starting from 1 when there already exists an entry with id "1" in my DB. Why is it not generating id "9" for my new entity?
Typically when creating a table with GenerationType.IDENTITY on postgres, Hibernate will setup the id column plus a database sequence to manage this id.
By convention the sequence name will be "tablename_id_seq". E.g., for the table ad_group_action there will be a corresponding sequence ad_group_action_id_seq. You can connect to the database to double-check the actual sequence name created.
The sequence just starts from 1 and increments each time a row is inserted by Hibernate.
But if there are pre-existing rows -- or if rows with existing IDs are inserted "manually" into the table -- those rows can conflict with the sequence.
One solution is to simply reset the sequence (from pgAdmin or another database client) to start at a higher number (say 100), using something like:
ALTER SEQUENCE ad_group_action_id_seq RESTART WITH 100;
Now Hibernate will not conflict with the existing rows (assuming their max id is < 100).
Alternatively, when inserting rows manually, omit the id column and let postgres automatically set them. This way the table and the sequence will always be in sync.
Related
Tried this several time, just wanted to know if there is a workaround
You can take advantage of the identity column in this case as follows:
alter table test
add col1 number generated always as identity (start with 1 increment by 1)
Db<>fiddle demo
It will automatically assign the sequence number to the already existing rows and will give number in sequence to new inserts also.
I am trying to implement my SQLDeveloper DB into Oracle APEX. I cannot figure out how to get the PK's in my table to auto-increment starting from a certain value (i.e. 400001). I have tried making triggers and sequences but when I try to add a row using a form in APEX, my PK increments from 40 for some reason.
Here is my APEX form outcome
enter image description here
Here is how it inserts into SQL Developer
enter image description here
Basically, can someone describe to me how I can edit the existing trigger, or create a sequence, that would make application_id of a new entry auto-increment by 1.
Thanks!
Find max application_id:
select max(application_id) From your_Table;
Suppose it is 400010 (as screenshot suggests). Now recreate the sequence (presuming its name is seq_app):
drop sequence seq_app;
create sequence seq_app start with 400011 increment by 1 nocache;
Trigger is most probably OK, as you see values being inserted into the table.
Side note: sequences will be unique, but not necessarily gapless. CACHE (or NOCACHE) might affect that, but - for performance sake, you'd rather let Oracle cache sequence numbers (default is 20) which means that - if you don't use some of those cached numbers, they will be lost. I wouldn't worry, if I were you.
I have an app where I want to save some entities which have some fields. I used liquibase to add some when the application starts. The problem is that when I try to save a new one Hibernate tries to give to it the id 1 but this id already exists in the database. How can I make hibernate aware of liquibase inserts?
It depends what is your ID generation strategy. If you are using a sequence simply set the initial value of the sequence to 10,000. This will allow you to insert up to 10,000 records with Liquibase.
For example if you are using PotgreSQL you can do
ALTER SEQUENCE sequence_name
MINVALUE 10000
START 10000
RESTART 10000;
I have writing API using Spring JPA and Postgresql.
After update statement It's affect the row number of record.
The order of record 2 which updated will going to the last order.
I don't want to change the row number
How can I update without changing the row number?
A database table is an unordered set of tuples (also known as a relation), so you cannot rely on the order of rows returned from a SELECT * FROM tablename.
You need to enforce an ordering with an ORDER BY clause if you need it.
The internal reason why the location of a row changes after an update is that PostgreSQL actually writes a new version of the row, which in this case is appended at the end. But you cannot rely on that either: if there is free space in the middle of the table, the new row version can be added there.
I'm using oracle 11gr2 and for the product table when a new product is inserted I need to assign an autoincrement id going from 1 to 65535. Product could be then be deleted.
When I reach the 65535th, I need to scan the table to find a free hole for assigning new ID.
As I have this requirement oracle sequence could not be used, so I am using a function (tried also a trigger on insert) in order to generate a free id...
The problem is that I could not handle batch insert for example and I have concurrency problems...
How could I solve this ? By using some sort of external Id generator ?
Sounds like an arbitrary design. Is there a good reason for having a 16-bit max product id or for reusing IDs? Both constraints are bad practice.
I doubt any external generator is going to provide anything that Oracle doesn't already provide. I recommend using sequences for batch insert. The problem you have is how to recycle the IDs. Oracle plain sequences don't track the primary key, so you need a solution to find recycled keys first, then fallback to the sequence perhaps.
Product ID Recycling
Batch Inserts - Use sequence for keys the first time you load them. For this small range, set NOCACHE on the sequence to eliminate gaps.
Deletes - When a product is deleted, instead of actually deleting the row, set a DELETED = 'Y' flag on the row.
Inserts - Update the first record available with DELETED flag set, or either select the min ID from product table where DELETED = 'Y'. Update record with new product info (but same ID) and set DELETED = 'N'
This ensures you always recycle before you insert new sequence IDs
If you want to implement the logic in the database, you can create a view (VIEW$PRODUCTS) where DELETED = 'N' and an INSTEAD OF INSERT trigger to do the insert.
In any scenario, when you run out of sequences (or sequence wraps), you are out of luck for batch inserts. I'd reconsider that part of the design if I were you.