i have taken target table as my lookup table using static cache.in source i have duplicate values.
in mapping i ahve used update strategy transformation but not i m not able update data in target table
Example:Initially(i mean after session Load)
source table Lookup table Target table
ID Name ID Name ID Name
1 A 1 A 1 A
2 B 2 B
Now im inserting two more records
3 C
1 E
but its not updating below record
1 E
i am getting below error
One or more values in the INSERT statement, UPDATE statement, or foreign key update caused by a DELETE statement are not valid because the primary key, unique constraint or unique index identified by "1" constrains table "TABLE_NAME" from having duplicate values for the index key.
I know if i use dynamic lookup it will work correctly but in static.
please give the reason ASAP.
Related
Scenario: We have table A (Parent Table) referring to table B (Child Table) and also we have Foreign Key Index for every Foreign Key.
Operation: Now when any user is deleting a row from table A then table B is getting locked even if there are no referring record in child table. Because of this other user cannot do anything on table A anymore since the table is locked.
Understanding: I suppose when there are some child record exists in table B then the selected row should only be locked if the parent record is involved in some transaction and other users can still work on other rows of table A.
Question: How does it work when we have foreign key and foreign key index are created but there are no child record exists. The whole table is still locked? If yes how to get rid of it then?
Note: I am using Oracle 12c.
You should have indexes on all foreign keys, otherwise you'll get TM table locks:
https://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:292016138754
http://www.oaktable.net/content/tm-locking-checking-missing-indexes-foreign-key-constraints
Now when any user is deleting a row from table A then table B is getting locked even if there are no referring record in child table.
If you have index on foreign key in child table, you get only TX row locks in child table. If you foerign key is not indexes, you get TM table lock on whole child table.
I have two instances of the same database, but data is only committed to the "original" one. I need to copy inserted data from certain tables and commit them to the same tables in the second DB automatically. How can I do it?
I've already created synonyms for the tables in the second DB on original and within a specially prepared trigger I tried to use INSERT INTO ... statement with :new. but it is causing the data to not be committed anywhere and I receive Oracle Errors like:
ORA-02291: integrity constraint (PRDBSHADOW.FK_ED_PHY_ENT) violated.
Here is my trigger code
create or replace TRIGGER INS_COPY_DATA
AFTER INSERT ON ORIGDB.TABLE_A
REFERENCING NEW AS NEW OLD AS OLD
FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
insert into COPY_TABLE_A(val1,val2,val3,val4) values (:new.val1, :new.val2, :new.val3, :new.val4);
END;
I think the entry in parent table is missing here. At least the FK ending of constraint is telling me so.
It means you need to insert first all the data into a "parent" table in order to be able to insert records in a "child".
For example the table auto_maker is having 3 rows only: Audi, Peugeot, and Honda.
Another table named "model" has 2 columns "maker" and "model". "maker" is a foreign key referencing to the "auto_maker" table.
It means in the models table are only the records allowed whose "maker" column value exists in "auto_maker" table.
In other words only these are available:
maker model
Audi A4
Peugeot 308
Honda Accord
Of course you can enter every model you wish, but "maker" value has to exist in the auto_maker table.
This is what probably happen - the trigger tries to insert a data in a column which is referencing to a "parent" table and the :new value just doesn't exist.
The following script will let you know what table you need to fill first.
select aic.index_owner, aic.table_name, aic.column_name
from all_constraints uc,
all_ind_columns aic
where aic.INDEX_NAME = uc.r_constraint_name
and uc.table_name = 'TABLE_A'
and uc.constraint_type = 'R';
If the query returns something just create similar triggers on those tables with similar logic you already have
I have two target tables one is target table and the other one is error table. We have Firm and Indiv source tables to be loaded into target table and error table. I am using union to pass Indiv and Firm data into the target table and error table separately which is straight move.
Now, I need to check if Firm.Action= Insert and if record already exists in target table then we are passing record to error table, if firm.action=update and present in target table we are updating else passing to error table. We also have firm.action=delete and firm.action=None then records can be ignored.
You can check presence of record int table using lookup transformation, after that in expression transformation you can evaluate your conditions.
For example,
IIF(Firm.Action= 'Insert' and is_record_in_lookup = 1, 'Error', ... )
Requirement : I have one huge table (say haivng lacs records) with duplicate entries for when we combine three columns value together. My requirement is to populate second different table having unique records (removing duplicates from first table).
For this requirement as we have to do bulk inserts in second table, I came across MERGE feature of oracle 10g, which is more optimize way for bulk insert. But when I tried this I am getting integrity constraint error for composite primary key(three cols that I mentioned above).
MERGE INTO 2ndTable e
USING firstTable h
ON (e.firstCol = h.firstCol and e.2ndCol = h.2ndCol and e.3rdCol = h.3rdCol)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT VALUES (h.firstCol, h.2ndCol, h.3rdCol);
composite primary key for 2nd Table : e.firstCol, e.2ndCol, e.3rdCol
Please let me know your thought for this error OR the best way we can handle this bulk inserts removing duplicate records.
I have a parent table containing the following columns:
- PARENT_ID: UUID
- EVENT_DATE: TIMESTAMP
- DATA_COLUMN1: VARCHAR2(255)
- DATA_COLUMN2: VARCHAR2(255)
The table is range partitioned by EVENT_DATE. Data is only retained for a month and the last partition is dropped on a daily basis.
Following my understanding, using a global index for PK would result in sub-standard performance when dropping a partition. This means that the PK of this table has to be based on both PARENT_ID + EVENT_DATE in order to create a local index.
I have a second table that is the child of the first (via one-to-many relationship). It has the following columns:
- CHILD_ID: UUID
- PARENT_ID: UUID - FK into parent table
- DATA_COLUMN3: VARCHAR2(255)
- DATA_COLUMN4: VARCHAR2(255)
To partition the child table, I decided to use reference partitioning. One of its big advantages: it removes the need to duplicate the partition key in the child table. However, based on my reasoning, the only way to achieve this is through global indexes. Here is my train of thought:
For the unique index of the parent table to be local, the PK must include the partition key, e.g. EVENT_DATE.
A foreign key constrain cannot reference only part of the PK. Thus the child table must include both PARENT_ID and EVENT_DATE columns.
What's more, I also read that "When using reference partitioning, most child table indexes
should be defined as global, unless there is a compelling reason
for a given index to be defined as local." (http://www.nocoug.org/download/2010-05/Zitelli-Reference_Partitioning_NoCOUG.pdf).
Am I missing something or is there no way to use reference partitioning without having global indexes or duplicating data?
An explanation on how reference partitioning works with local/global indexes will be much appreciated!
You understand correctly. if you want to create a reference partition you need to define a valid FK. in your case - both parent_id and event_id needs to be present in the child table.
Ref partitions are for cases when you want to partition a table according to a column not in the PK those not in the child table. this is not your case - you can apply range partition on both tables and gain max pruning.
The event_date in the child table is not redundant - it's required by the model - you need data_columns 3/4 in the child table for each instance of parent_id + event_date.
Regarding the local indexes on a child table in a ref partitioned table - my logic say exactly the opposite. if i have a ref partition i'm aiming at max pruning which means that i want as less partitions as possible to be accessed in each query. in this case i would want local indexes and not global.
You said "using a global index for PK would result in sub-standard performance when dropping a partition". when you drop a partition from the table all global indexes will be invalidated and you will have to rebuild them. this is the only performance impact regarding DDL changes. PK on a partitioned table must be global so you don't have a choice here any way.
Though above answer has been answered but on you thought: 'A foreign key constrain cannot reference only part of the PK. Thus the child table must include both PARENT_ID and EVENT_DATE columns.'
I believe FK can refer to part of PK if your attribute has been defined with Unique constraint & I see that possible in your example.
Example:
Table A ( orderid, orderdate, custid)
PF -> OrderID, OrderDate
Table B(OrderID, ItemID)
In table B, orderID can be FK if OrderID is defined as Unique in Table A.
I hope this helps.