We have simple case, We have a table with column emailId i.e. unique.....using oracle DB
Question#1
Multiple concurrent user can check if some email id is available or not. Like 2 user that same time check availability of: abc#test.com
session1: select emailid from user_table;
//If not present allow user to complete rest of the process & insert info
session2: select emailid from user_table;
Now both session will get that this email id (abc#test.com) is available & both try to insert, I know one of them will get error upon insertion BUT how we can make sure only 1 user get availability & other get not available upon select ??
Question#2
Also in case both sessions inserted the same value, then first will succeed, is there ways that 2nd session update that row instead of throwing error. Like we have another column for timestamp & want that 2nd session instead of throwing error simple update the timestamp column ?
As this is a rather abstract question, here are only some general guidelines:
To deal with concurrent insert in a table, you need an unique index, and be prepared in your code to deal with ORA-00001 error unique constraint violated. Never rely only on check before insert(unless you have somehow exclusive access to your table -- and even if so ... as of myself, I would add an unique index: doesn't cost much and make me sleep better)
Oracle has a MERGE statement that allows you update or insert based on a condition. This operation is sometimes called an upsert. By using that keywork you should be able to find more informationsSee Oracle: how to UPSERT (update or insert into a table?) for example.
Now for, some thoughts about you specific case (maybe):
The only way for the system to work as you suggested, would be to make some kind of reservation when you check for availability (i.e.: immediately insert the row, instead of just select). And then update the row when the user confirm. But that means: (1) you will have to somehow deal with never-confirmed reservations (2) that doesn't dispense you to have an unique index, and to deal with ORA-00001.
Related
Our application reads a record from an Oracle 'Event' table. When the event record exists we update the 'count' field of that record. If the record doesn't exist we insert it. So we want only 1 record for a particular event in the table.
The problem with this is probably quite predictable: one application thread will read the table, see the event is not there, insert the new event and commit. But before it commits a second thread will also read the table and see the event is not there. And then both threads will insert the event and we end up with 2 records for the same event.
I guess synchronizing access to this particular method in our application will prevent this problem, but what is the best option in Oracle to prevent this? Will MERGE for example always prevent this problem?
Serialising access to the procedure that implements this functionality would be trivial to implement, using DBMS_LOCK to define and take an exclusive lock.
Serialising through SQL based methods is practically impossible, due to the read consistency model.
CREATE TABLE EVENTS (ID NUMBER PRIMARY KEY, COUNTER NUMBER NOT NULL);
MERGE INTO EVENTS
USING (SELECT ID, COUNTER FROM DUAL LEFT JOIN EVENTS ON EVENTS.ID = :EVENT_ID) SRC
ON (EVENTS.ID = SRC.ID)
WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET COUNTER = SRC.COUNTER + 1
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT (ID, COUNTER) VALUES (:EVENT_ID, 1);
Simple SQL securing single record for each ID and consistently increasing the counter no matter what application fires it or number of concurrent thread. You don't need to code anything at all and it's very lightweight as well.
It also doesn't produce any exception related to data consistency so you don't need any special handling.
UPDATE: It actually produces unique violation exception if both threads are inserting. I thought the second merge would switch to update, but it doesn't.
UPDATE: Just tested the same case on SQL Server and when executing in parallel and the record doesn't exist one MERGE inserts and the second updates.
I have one table name as user_count_details. There are total 3 columns in this table.
msisdn=Which uniquely defines row for one specific user
user_count= Which stores the count of user.
last_Txn_id= Which stores the last transfer id of txn which user has performed.
The user_count column of this table user_count_details is gets updated with every transaction performed by the user.
But here the logic of my system is
select sum(user_count ) from user_count_details
will always gives us the 0 and it is considered as the system is in stable state and everything is fine.
Now i want to write trigger which will check first when new request to update user_count come ,will hamper the sum(user_count )=0 or not and if it hampers that msisdn details will be captured in separate update table.
Based on your last comments, check if this works. Replace the other_table_name as per your scenario.
CREATE TRIGGER trgCheck_user_sum
BEFORE INSERT
ON user_count_details FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
IF (select sum(user_count) from user_count_details) > 0 THEN
insert into other_table_name(msisdn) values(new.msisdn)
END IF
END
is there any way to enable counting of rows that trigger modified in SQLite?
I know it is disabled https://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/changes.html and i understand why, but can i enable it somehow?
CREATE TABLE Users_data (
Id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
Deleted BOOLEAN DEFAULT (0),
Name STRING
);
CREATE VIEW Users AS
SELECT Id, Name
FROM Users_data
WHERE Deleted = 0;
CREATE TRIGGER UsersDelete2UsersData
INSTEAD OF DELETE
ON Users
FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
UPDATE Users_data SET Deleted = 1 WHERE Id = OLD.Id;
END;
-- etc for insert & update
then delete from Users where Name like 'foo' /* doesnt even need 'Id = 1' */; works fine, but numbers of modified rows is, as documentation say, always zero.
(I cant modify my DAL to automatically add "where Deleted = 0", so backup plan is to have table Users_deleted and 'on delete' trigger on Users table without any view, but then i have to keep tracking FKs (for example, what to do when someone delete from FK table) and so on...)
Edit: Returned number is used for checking on database concurrency.
Edit2: To be more clear: As i say, I can not modify my DAL (Entity Framework 6), so the preferred answer should operate as follow pseudo code: int affectedRow = query("delete from Users where Name like 'foo';").Execute();
Its all about SQLite "trigger on view" behavior.
Use sqlite3_total_changes() instead:
This function returns the total number of rows inserted, modified or deleted by all INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE statements completed since the database connection was opened, including those executed as part of trigger programs.
Its imposible in sqlite3 (in 2015).
Basically I was looking for instead of trigger on view (as in question) with return function, which is not supported in sqlite.
By the way, postgresql (and i believe some others full db servers) can do it.
I am using Oracle
What is difference when we create ID using max(id)+1 and using sequance.nexval,where to use and when?
Like:
insert into student (id,name) values (select max(id)+1 from student, 'abc');
and
insert into student (id,name) values (SQ_STUDENT.nextval, 'abc');
SQ_STUDENT.nextval sometime gives error that duplicate record...
please help me on this doubt
With the select max(id) + 1 approach, two sessions inserting simultaneously will see the same current max ID from the table, and both insert the same new ID value. The only way to use this safely is to lock the table before starting the transaction, which is painful and serialises the transactions. (And as Stijn points out, values can be reused if the highest record is deleted). Basically, never use this approach. (There may very occasionally be a compelling reason to do so, but I'm not sure I've ever seen one).
The sequence guarantees that the two sessions will get different values, and no serialisation is needed. It will perform better and be safer, easier to code and easier to maintain.
The only way you can get duplicate errors using the sequence is if records already exist in the table with IDs above the sequence value, or if something is still inserting records without using the sequence. So if you had an existing table with manually entered IDs, say 1 to 10, and you created a sequence with a default start-with value of 1, the first insert using the sequence would try to insert an ID of 1 - which already exists. After trying that 10 times the sequence would give you 11, which would work. If you then used the max-ID approach to do the next insert that would use 12, but the sequence would still be on 11 and would also give you 12 next time you called nextval.
The sequence and table are not related. The sequence is not automatically updated if a manually-generated ID value is inserted into the table, so the two approaches don't mix. (Among other things, the same sequence can be used to generate IDs for multiple tables, as mentioned in the docs).
If you're changing from a manual approach to a sequence approach, you need to make sure the sequence is created with a start-with value that is higher than all existing IDs in the table, and that everything that does an insert uses the sequence only in the future.
Using a sequence works if you intend to have multiple users. Using a max does not.
If you do a max(id) + 1 and you allow multiple users, then multiple sessions that are both operating at the same time will regularly see the same max and, thus, will generate the same new key. Assuming you've configured your constraints correctly, that will generate an error that you'll have to handle. You'll handle it by retrying the INSERT which may fail again and again if other sessions block you before your session retries but that's a lot of extra code for every INSERT operation.
It will also serialize your code. If I insert a new row in my session and go off to lunch before I remember to commit (or my client application crashes before I can commit), every other user will be prevented from inserting a new row until I get back and commit or the DBA kills my session, forcing a reboot.
To add to the other answers, a couple of issues.
Your max(id)+1 syntax will also fail if there are no rows in the table already, so use:
Coalesce(Max(id),0) + 1
There's nothing wrong with this technique if you only have a single process that inserts into the table, as might be the case with a data warehouse load, and if max(id) is fast (which it probably is).
It also avoids the need for code to synchronise values between tables and sequences if you are moving restoring data to a test system, for example.
You can extend this method to multirow insert by using:
Coalesce(max(id),0) + rownum
I expect that might serialise a parallel insert, though.
Some techniques don't work well with these methods. They rely of course on being able to issue the select statement, so SQL*Loader might be ruled out. However SQL*Loader has support for this technique in general through the SEQUENCE parameter of the column specification: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e22490/ldr_field_list.htm#i1008234
Assuming MAX(ID) is actually fast enough, wouldn't it be possible to:
First get MAX(ID)+1
Then get NEXTVAL
Compare those two and increase sequence in case NEXTVAL is smaller then MAX(ID)+1
Use NEXTVAL in INSERT statement
In that case I would have a fully stable procedure and manual inserts would also be allowed without worrying about updating the sequence
I have a - for me unknown - issue and I don't know what's the logic/cause behind it. When I try to insert a record in a table I get a DB2 error saying:
[SQL0803] Duplicate key value specified: A unique index or unique constraint *N in *N
exists over one or more columns of table TABLEXXX in SCHEMAYYY. The operation cannot
be performed because one or more values would have produced a duplicate key in
the unique index or constraint.
Which is a quite clear message to me. But actually there would be no duplicate key if I inserted my new record seeing what records are already in there. When I do a SELECT COUNT(*) from SCHEMAYYY.TABLEXXX and then try to insert the record it works flawlessly.
How can it be that when performing the SELECT COUNT(*) I can suddenly insert the records? Is there some sort of index associated with it which might give issues because it is out of sync? I didn't design the data model, so I don't have deep knowledge of the system yet.
The original DB2 SQL is:
-- Generate SQL
-- Version: V6R1M0 080215
-- Generated on: 19/12/12 10:28:39
-- Relational Database: S656C89D
-- Standards Option: DB2 for i
CREATE TABLE TZVDB.PRODUCTCOSTS (
ID INTEGER GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY (
START WITH 1 INCREMENT BY 1
MINVALUE 1 MAXVALUE 2147483647
NO CYCLE NO ORDER
CACHE 20 )
,
PRODUCT_ID INTEGER DEFAULT NULL ,
STARTPRICE DECIMAL(7, 2) DEFAULT NULL ,
FROMDATE TIMESTAMP DEFAULT NULL ,
TILLDATE TIMESTAMP DEFAULT NULL ,
CONSTRAINT TZVDB.PRODUCTCOSTS_PK PRIMARY KEY( ID ) ) ;
ALTER TABLE TZVDB.PRODUCTCOSTS
ADD CONSTRAINT TZVDB.PRODCSTS_PRDCT_FK
FOREIGN KEY( PRODUCT_ID )
REFERENCES TZVDB.PRODUCT ( ID )
ON DELETE RESTRICT
ON UPDATE NO ACTION;
I'd like to see the statements...but since this question is a year old...I won't old my breath.
I'm thinking the problem may be the
GENERATED BY DEFAULT
And instead of passing NULL for the identity column, you're accidentally passing zero or some other duplicate value the first time around.
Either always pass NULL, pass a non-duplicate value or switch to GENERATED ALWAYS
Look at preceding messages in the joblog for specifics as to what caused this. I don't understand how the INSERT can suddenly work after the COUNT(*). Please let us know what you find.
Since it shows *N (ie n/a) as the name of the index or constraing, this suggests to me that is is not a standard DB2 object, and therefore may be a "logical file" [LF] defined with DDS rather than SQL, with a key structure different than what you were doing your COUNT(*) on.
Your shop may have better tools do view keys on dependent files, but the method below will work anywhere.
If your table might not be the actual "physical file", check this using Display File Description, DSPFD TZVDB.PRODUCTCOSTS, in a 5250 ("green screen") session.
Use the Display Database Relations command, DSPDBR TZVDB.PRODUCTCOSTS, to find what files are defined over your table. You can then DSPFD on each of these files to see the definition of the index key. Also check there that each of these indexes is maintained *IMMED, rather than *REBUILD or *DELAY. (A wild longshot guess as to a remotely possible cause of your strange anomaly.)
You will find the DB2 for i message finder here in the IBM i 7.1 Information Center or other releases
Is it a paging issue? we seem to get -0803 on inserts occasionally when a row is being held for update and it locks a page that probably contains the index that is needed for the insert? This is only a guess but it appears to me that is what is happening.
I know it is an old topic, but this is what Google shown me on the first place.
I had the same issue yesterday, causing me a lot of headache. I did the same as above, checked the table definitions, keys, existing items...
Then I found out the problem was with my INSERT statement. It was trying to insert to identical records at once, but as the constraint prevented the commit, I could not find anything in the database.
Advice: review your INSERT statement carefully! :)