How do I start a trigger so that this allows nobody to be able to rent a movie if their unpaid balance exceeds 50 dollars?
What you have here is a cross-row table constraint - i.e. you can't just put a single Oracle CONSTRAINT on a column, as these can only look at data within a single row at a time.
Oracle has support for only two cross-row constraint types - uniqueness (e.g. primary keys and unique constraints) and referential integrity (foreign keys).
In your case, you'll have to hand-code the constraint yourself - and with that comes the responsibility to ensure that the constraint is not violated in the presence of multiple sessions, each of which cannot see data inserted/updated by other concurrent sessions (at least, until they commit).
A simplistic approach is to add a trigger that issues a query to count how many records conflict with the new record; but this won't work because the trigger cannot see rows that have been inserted/updated by other sessions but not committed yet; so the trigger will sometimes allow members to rent 6 videos, as long as (for example) they get two cashiers to enter the data in separate terminals.
One way to get around this problem is to put some element of serialization in - e.g. the trigger would first request a lock on the member record (e.g. with a SELECT FOR UPDATE) before it's allowed to check the rentals; that way, if a 2nd session tries to insert rentals, it will wait until the first session does a commit or rollback.
Another way around this problem is to use an aggregating Materialized View, which would be based on a query that is designed to find any rows that fail the test; the expectation is that the MV will be empty, and you put a table constraint on the MV such that if a row was ever to appear in the MV, the constraint would be violated. The effect of this is that any statement that tries to insert rows that violate the constraint will cause a constraint violation when the MV is refreshed.
Writing the query for this based on your design is left as an exercise for the reader :)
If you want to restrict something about your table data then you should have a look at Constraints and not Triggers.
Constraints are ensuring some conditions about your table data. Like your example.
Triggers are fired when some action (i.e. INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE) took place and you can do some work then as a reaction to this action.
Related
I recently received a case which my client came across the ORA-00001: unique constraint violated error. This happened when a program tried to truncate two tables and then insert data into them.
From the error-log file, the truncate step was completed,
delete from INTERNET_GROUP
delete from INTERNET_ITEM
BUT right after this, the insertion to the Internet_group table triggered the ORA-00001 error. I am wondering if there is any database settings related to this error? I never used Oracle and am wondering if Oracle puts a lock on a row with SELECT statement, in which case the row is locked and not deleted somehow? Any help is appreciated.
Please know that there is a difference between truncate and delete. You say you truncated the table, but you mention "delete from" . That is entirely different.
If you're sure you want to empty the tables, try replacing with
truncate table internet_group reuse storage;
Mind you that a commit is not necessary with the truncate statement as this is considered a DDL (data definition language) statement and not a DML (Data modification language) statement like updates and deletes.
Also, there is no row locking on selects. But changes are only applied and visible for other sessions in the database when commit-ed.
I guess that is wat happened; you deleted the records but did not execute a commit (yet) and subsequently inserted new records.
edit:
I now realize you're probably inserting multiple records....
The other option might be, that the data itself causes a violation. Can you please provide the constraints on the table? There must be a primary key or unique constraint. You might want to hold that against your dataset.
I need to update the some tables in my application from some other warehouse tables which would be updating weekly or biweekly. I should update my tables based on those. And these are having foreign keys in another tables. So I cannot just truncate the table and reinsert the whole data every time. So I have to take the delta and update accordingly based on few primary key columns which doesn't change. Need some inputs on how to implement this approach.
My approach:
Check the last updated time of those tables, views.
If it is most recent then compare each row based on the primary key in my table and warehouse table.
update each column if it is different.
Do nothing if there is no change in columns.
insert if there is a new record.
My Question:
How do I implement this? Writing a PL/SQL code is it a good and efficient way? as the expected number of records are around 800K.
Please provide any sample code or links.
I would go for Pl/Sql and bulk collect forall method. You can use minus in your cursor in order to reduce data size and calculating difference.
You can check this site for more information about bulk collect, forall and engines: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/issue-archive/2012/12-sep/o52plsql-1709862.html
There are many parts to your question above and I will answer as best I can:
While it is possible to disable referencing foreign keys, truncate the table, repopulate the table with the updated data then reenable the foreign keys, given your requirements described above I don't believe truncating the table each time to be optimal
Yes, in principle PL/SQL is a good way to achieve what you are wanting to
achieve as this is too complex to deal with in native SQL and PL/SQL is an efficient alternative
Conceptually, the approach I would take is something like as follows:
Initial set up:
create a sequence called activity_seq
Add an "activity_id" column of type number to your source tables with a unique constraint
Add a trigger to the source table/s setting activity_id = activity_seq.nextval for each insert / update of a table row
create some kind of master table to hold the "last processed activity id" value
Then bi/weekly:
retrieve the value of "last processed activity id" from the master
table
select all rows in the source table/s having activity_id value > "last processed activity id" value
iterate through the selected source rows and update the target if a match is found based on whatever your match criterion is, or if
no match is found then insert a new row into the target (I assume
there is no delete as you do not mention it)
on completion, update the master table "last processed activity id" to the greatest value of activity_id for the source rows
processed in step 3 above.
(please note that, depending on your environment and the number of rows processed, the above process may need to be split and repeated over a number of transactions)
I hope this proves helpful
We have a table TRANSMISSIONS(ID, NAME) which behaves funny in the following ways:
The statement to add a foreign key in another table referencing TRANSMISSIONS.ID won't finish
The statement to add a column to TRANSMISSIONS won't finish
The statement to disable/drop a unique constraint won't finish
The statement to disable/drop a trigger won't finish
TRANSMISSION's primary key is ID, there is also a unique constraint on NAME - therefore there are indexes on ID and NAME. We also have a trigger which creates values for column ID using a sequence, so that INSERT statements do not need to provide a value for ID.
Besides TRANSMISSIONS, there are two more tables behaving like this. For other tables, the above-mentioned statements work fine.
The database is used in an application with Hibernate and due to an incorrect JPA configuration we produced high values for ID during a time. Note that we use the trigger only for "manual" INSERT statements and that Hibernate produces ID values itself, also using the sequence.
The first thought was that the problems were due to the high IDs but we have the problems also with tables that never had such high IDs.
Anyways we suspected that the indexes might be fragmented somehow and called ALTER INDEX TRANSMISSIONS_PK SHRINK SPACE COMPACT, which ran through but showed no effect.
Also, we wanted to call ALTER TABLE TRANSMISSIONS SHRINK SPACE COMPACT which didn't work because we needed to call first ALTER TABLE TRANSMISSIONS ENABLE ROW MOVEMENT which never finished.
We have another instance of the database which does not behave in such a funny way. So we think it might be that in the course of running the application the database got somehow into an inconsistent state.
Does someone have any suggestions what might have gone out of control/into an inconsitent state?
More hints:
There are no locks present on any objects in the database (according to information in v$lock and v$locked_object)
We tried all these statements in SQL Developer and also using SQLPlus (command-line tool).
I have come into a bump at my current company where they have an account and a member. For some reason or another both are stored in separate tables.
Right now a member and an account can be registered. That's fine, except the users of both member and an account can have the same username. This is of course as you all know just wrong. Especially since they use the username to login to the same system except with different functionality levels.
Right now we are doing a check at the application level, and we're just wondering if it's possible to get the database to enforce two columns to be unique, say like a union of the two tables.
Can't set them up as primary or foreign key at the moment but that's for future anyway. Right now looking for a quick fix. In the future I will probably merge databases and get all members added on as new rows in the account table and add a boolean for IsMember.
In general, I agree with the consensus opinion that it's better to fix the design than to kluge a fix using triggers. However, a properly implemented trigger-based solution is still probably better than your current situation.
If you're going to use triggers, the right way to do it is to:
Create a new table that will contain nothing but usernames, with a primary key enforcing uniqueness (this may, in fact, be a good candidate for an indes-organized table).
Create before-insert triggers on both existing tables that add the new username to the new table. If the new username already exists, an error will be thrown, preventing the insert of both rows. Of course, the application will need to be able to handle this error gracefully (presumably it already can, for scenarios in which the new username already exists in the table it's being added to).
The wrong way to do this would be to make the trigger select from the other table, in order to verify uniqueness.
You can add a trigger that enforces your requirement.
The recommended triggers tend to be really brittle with concurrent transaction.
What you can do (AFAIK) is to create a materialized view containing the union of the column in question and put a unique constraint on that column.
Make sure you do some performance tests though.
As you use a soft delete pattern.
A trigger could be used (on each table) as a temporary measure.
By inserting a disabled record in the the other table, you will get a failure if the other record already exists
Remember this will not enforce the rule on existing data, only records that are inserted will be checked
Something like this:
-- Insert into the accounts table too
CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER tr_member_chk
BEFORE INSERT ON members
FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
INSERT INTO account (name, id, etc, isenabled) VALUES(:new.name, :new.id, :new.etc, 0);
END;
-- Insert into the members table too
CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER tr_account_chk
BEFORE INSERT ON accounts
FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
INSERT INTO members (name, id, etc,isenabled) VALUES(:new.name, :new.id, :new.etc,0);
END;
We have a web application (Grails) which we are going to sell licenses for based on the number of users. There is a table in the database (Oracle 10g) which holds users. Customers will host their own copy of the software and database. Can someone suggest strategies for limiting the number of records which are allowed to exist in the user table in a way which can't reasonably be subverted by the customer? Thanks.
You should at least consider avoiding all technical means here and instead insisting that your customer sign an SLSA with an audit provision, and then audit here and there.
All these technical means introduce risks of failure, ranging from flat-out crashes to mysterious performance problems. The more stealthy and devious, the more stealthy and devious the bugs.
It will depend on your definition of "reasonably". If they're hosting the database, they'll always be able to allow more rows.
The simplest possible solution would be an AFTER STATEMENT trigger that counted the number of rows and threw an exception if too many rows had been inserted. They could, of course, drop or disable that trigger. On the other hand, your application could also query the data dictionary to verify that the trigger was present and enabled.
You could make it more difficult for them to remove the trigger by creating a DDL trigger that looked for statements that affected this trigger or the table in question and disallowed them. That would require that the attacker find and remove that trigger as well before they could remove the trigger on the table.
You could deliver a database job (DBMS_SCHEDULER or DBMS_JOB) that periodically ran, looked for the statement and DDL triggers and re-created them if they were missing. The attacker could figure out that there was a database job that was recreating the objects and remove that job, then remove the DDL trigger, then remove the statement trigger. In this job, you could potentially send a notification back to you (via email or http or something else) alerting you to the issue though that may be tricky from a networking standpoint-- your customer's firewall may not allow outbound HTTP requests from the database server back to your servers.
If you have a license key that is being checked, you can embed the number of users allowed in that license key and bounce that against the number of rows in the table during the login table.
If the customer doesn't have access to modify the table definition, you could use a simple set of constraints on the table:
CREATE TABLE user_table
(id NUMBER PRIMARY KEY
,name VARCHAR2(100) NOT NULL
,rn NUMBER NOT NULL
,CONSTRAINT rn_check CHECK (rn = TRUNC(rn) AND rn BETWEEN 1 AND 30)
,CONSTRAINT rn_uk UNIQUE (rn)
);
Now, the column rn must take an integer value between 1 and 30, and duplicates are not allowed: thus, a maximum of 30 rows may be added.