I read somewhere that 99% of time you don't need to use a cursor.
But I can't think of any other way beside using a cursor in this following situation.
Select t.flag
From Dual t;
Let's say this return 4 rows of either 'Y' or 'N'. I want the procedure to trigger something if it finds 'Y'. I usually declare a cursor and loop until %NOTFOUND. Please tell me if there is a better way.
Also, if you have any idea, when is the best time to use a cursor?
EDIT: Instead of inserting the flags, what if I want to do "If 'Y' then trigger something"?
Your case definitely falls into the 99%.
You can easily do the conditional insert using insert into ... select.... It's just a matter or making a select that returns the result that you want to insert.
If you want to insert one record for each 'Y' then use a query with where flag = 'Y'. If you only want to insert a single record depending on whether there are at least one 'Y', then you can add distinct to the query.
A cursor is useful when you make something more complicated. I for example use a cursor when need to insert or update records in one table, and also for each record insert or update one or more records into several other tables.
Something like this:
INSERT INTO TBL_FLAG (col)
SELECT ID FROM Dual where flag = 'Y'
You will usually see a performance gain when using set based instead of procedural operations because most modern DBMS are setup to perform set based operations. You can read more here.
well the example doesnt quite make sense..
but you can always write an insert as select statement instead of what i think you are describing
Cursors are best to use when an column value form one table will be used repeatedly in multiple queries on different tables.
Suppose the values of id_test column are fetched from MY_TEST_TBL using a cursor CUR_TEST. Now this id_test column is a foreign key in MY_TEST_TBL. If we want to use id_test to insert or update any rows in table A_TBL,B_TBL and C_TBL, then in this case it's best to use cursors instead of using complex queries.
Hope this might help to understand the purpose of cursors
Related
Friend, I have question about cascade trigger.
I have 2 tables, table data that has 3 attributes (id_data, sum, and id_tool), and table tool that has 3 attributes (id_tool, name, sum_total). table data and tool are joined using id_tool.
I want create trigger for update info sum_total. So , if I inserting on table data, sum_total on table tool where tool.id_tool = data.id_tool will updating too.
I create this trigger, but error ora-04090.
create or replace trigger aft_ins_tool
after insert on data
for each row
declare
v_stok number;
v_jum number;
begin
select sum into v_jum
from data
where id_data= :new.id_data;
select sum_total into v_stok
from tool
where id_tool=
(select id_tool
from data
where id_data= :new.id_data);
if inserting then
v_stok := v_stok + v_jum;
update tool
set sum_total=v_stok
where id_tool=
(select id_tool
from data
where id_data= :new.id_data);
end if;
end;
/
please give me opinion.
Thanks.
The ora-04090 indicates that you already have an AFTER INSERT ... FOR EACH ROW trigger on that table. Oracle doesn't like that, because the order in which the triggers fire is unpredictable, which may lead to unpredictable results, and Oracle really doesn't like those.
So, your first step is to merge the two sets of code into a single trigger. Then the real fun begins.
Presumably there is only one row in data matching the current value of id_data (if not your data model is rally messed up and there's no hope for your situation). Anyway, that means the current row already gives you access to the values of :new.sum and :new.id_tool. So you don't need those queries on the data table: removing those selects will remove the possibility of "mutating table" errors.
As a general observation, maintaining aggregate or summary tables like this is generally a bad idea. Usually it is better just to query the information when it is needed. If you really have huge volumes of data then you should use a materialized view to maintain the summary, rather than hand-rolling something.
Is there any way to make oracle checks other records of a table by a constraint?
Let's take an example:
I've got a table called ENI_TRASC_VOCI_PWR_FATT and I want that every record having tvp_regione not null has a similar record having tvp_regione = null.
For similar record I need to check it has the same value on the TVP_CODICE_ASSOGGETAMEN colum.
The only method I can think of is to use a fast commit on refresh materialised view, defined with a query something like:
select
tvp_codice_assoggetamen,
count(*) rows_per_tca,
count(tvp_regione) tvp_regione_per_tca
from
eni_trasc_voci_pwr_fatt
group by
tvp_codice_assoggetamen
/
Place regular check constraints on the MV table, such that tvp_regione_per_tca = 1 if rows_per_tca = 2 (your requirement is not quite clear to me).
That is generally the only safe way of implementing such a multi-row constraint in Oracle, short of locking the table for changes before modifying it and using code to check.
According to Oracle docs :
Conditions of check constraints cannot contain the following
constructs:
Subqueries and scalar subquery expressions
So You'll probably have to use a trigger instead:
create or replace trigger trg
before insert or update on ENI_TRASC_VOCI_PWR_FATT
for each row
begin
-- do whatever queries you need - I didn't understand what you want
if <some condition> then
raise_application_error(-20000,'no good');
end if;
end;
But be carefull ! a trigger is not like a constraint - think what will happen if two users update the table and so on ....
We are trying to copy the current row of a table to mirror table by using a trigger before delete / update. Below is the working query
BEFORE UPDATE OR DELETE
ON CurrentTable FOR EACH ROW
BEGIN
INSERT INTO MirrorTable
( EMPFIRSTNAME,
EMPLASTNAME,
CELLNO,
SALARY
)
VALUES
( :old.EMPFIRSTNAME,
:old.EMPLASTNAME,
:old.CELLNO,
:old.SALARY
);
END;
But the problem is we have more than 50 coulmns in the current table and dont want to mention all those column names. Is there a way to select all coulmns like
:old.*
SELECT * INTO MirrorTable FROM CurrentTable
Any suggestions would be helpful.
Thanks,
Realistically, no. You'll need to list all the columns.
You could, of course, dynamically generate the trigger code pulling the column names from DBA_TAB_COLUMNS. But that is going to be dramatically more work than simply typing in 50 column names.
If your table happens to be an object table, :new would be an instance of that object so you could insert that. But it would be rather rare to have an object table.
If your 'current' and 'mirror' tables have EXACTLY the same structure you may be able to use something like
INSERT INTO MirrorTable
SELECT *
FROM CurrentTable
WHERE CurrentTable.primary_key_column = :old.primary_key_column
Honestly, I think that this is a poor choice and wouldn't do it, but it's a more-or-less free world and you're free (more or less :-) to make your own choices.
Share and enjoy.
For what it's worth, I've been writing the same stuff and used this to generate the code:
SQL> set pagesize 0
SQL> select ':old.'||COLUMN_NAME||',' from all_tab_columns where table_name='BIGTABLE' and owner='BOB';
:old.COL1,
:old.COL2,
:old.COL3,
:old.COL4,
:old.COL5,
...
If you feed all columns, no need to mention them twice (and you may use NULL for empty columns):
INSERT INTO bigtable VALUES (
:old.COL1,
:old.COL2,
:old.COL3,
:old.COL4,
:old.COL5,
NULL,
NULL);
people writing tables with that many columns should have no desserts ;-)
I've just found the following code:
select max(id) from TABLE_NAME ...
... do some stuff ...
insert into TABLE_NAME (id, ... )
VALUES (max(id) + 1, ...)
I can create a sequence for the PK, but there's a bunch of existing code (classic asp, existing asp.net apps that aren't part of this project) that's not going to use it.
Should I just ignore it, or is there a way to fix it without going into the existing code?
I'm thinking that the best option is just to do:
insert into TABLE_NAME (id, ... )
VALUES (select max(id) + 1, ...)
Options?
You can create a trigger on the table that overwrites the value for ID with a value that you fetch from a sequence.
That way you can still use the other existing code and have no problems with concurrent inserts.
If you cannot change the other software and they still do the select max(id)+1 insert that is most unfortunate. What you then can do is:
For your own insert use a sequence and populate the ID field with -1*(sequence value).
This way the insert will not interfere with the existing programs, but also not conflict with the existing programs.
(of do the insert without a value for id and use a trigger to populate the ID with the negative value of a sequence).
As others have said, you can override the max value in a database trigger using a sequence. However, that could cause problems if any of the application code uses that value like this:
select max(id) from TABLE_NAME ...
... do some stuff ...
insert into TABLE_NAME (id, ... )
VALUES (max(id) + 1, ...)
insert into CHILD_TABLE (parent_id, ...)
VALUES (max(id) + 1, ...)
Use a seqeunce in a before insert row trigger. select max(id) + 1 doesn't work in a multi concerrency environment.
This quickly turns in to a discussion of application architecture, especially when the question boils down to "what should I do?"
Primary keys in Oracle really need to come from sequences and since you're dealing with complex insert logic (parent/child inserts, at least) in your application code, you should go into the existing code, as you say (since triggers probably won't help you).
On one extreme you could take away direct SQL access from applications and make them call services so the insert/update/delete code can be centralized. Or you could rewrite your code using some sort of MVC architecture. I'm assuming both are overkill for your situation.
Is the id column at least set to be a true primary key so there's a constraint that will keep duplicates from occurring? If not, start there.
Once the primary key is in place, or if it already is, it's only a matter of time until inserts start to fail; you'll know when they start to fail, right? If not, get on the error-logging.
Now fix the application code. While you're in there, you should at least write and call helper code so your database interactions are in as few places as possible. Then provide some leadership to the other developers and make sure they use the helper code too.
Big question: does anybody rely on the value of the PK? If not I would recommend using a trigger, fetching the id from a sequence and setting it. The inserts wouldn't specify and id at all.
I am not sure but the
insert into TABLE_NAME (id, ... )
VALUES (select max(id) + 1, ...)
might cause problems when to sessions reach that code. It might be that oracle reads the table (calculating max(id)) and then trys to get the lock on the PK for insertion. If that is the case two concurrent session might try to use the same id, causing an exception in the second session.
You could add some logging to the trigger, to check if inserts get processed that already have an ID set. So you know you have still to hunt down some place where the old code is used.
It can be done by fetching the max value in a variable and then just insert it in the table like
Declare
v_max int;
select max(id) into v_max from table;
insert into table values((v_max+rownum),val1,val2....,valn);
commit;
This will create a sequence in a single as well as Bulk inserts.
The program that I am currently assigned to has a requirement that I copy the contents of a table to a backup table, prior to the real processing.
During code review, a coworker pointed out that
INSERT INTO BACKUP_TABLE
SELECT *
FROM PRIMARY_TABLE
is unduly risky, as it is possible for the tables to have different columns, and different column orders.
I am also under the constraint to not create/delete/rename tables. ~Sigh~
The columns in the table are expected to change, so simply hard-coding the column names is not really the solution I am looking for.
I am looking for ideas on a reasonable non-risky way to get this job done.
Does the backup table stay around? Does it keep the data permanently, or is it just a copy of the current values?
Too bad about not being able to create/delete/rename/copy. Otherwise, if it's short term, just used in case something goes wrong, then you could drop it at the start of processing and do something like
create table backup_table as select * from primary_table;
Your best option may be to make the select explicit, as
insert into backup_table (<list of columns>) select <list of columns> from primary_table;
You could generate that by building a SQL string from the data dictionary, then doing execute immediate. But you'll still be at risk if the backup_table doesn't contain all the important columns from the primary_table.
Might just want to make it explicit, and raise a major error if backup_table doesn't exist, or any of the columns in primary_table aren't in backup_table.
How often do you change the structure of your tables? Your method should work just fine provided the structure doesn't change. Personally I think your DBAs should give you a mechanism for dropping the backup table and recreating it, such as a stored procedure. We had something similar at my last job for truncating certain tables, since truncating is frequently much faster than DELETE FROM TABLE;.
Is there a reason that you can't just list out the columns in the tables? So
INSERT INTO backup_table( col1, col2, col3, ... colN )
SELECT col1, col2, col3, ..., colN
FROM primary_table
Of course, this requires that you revisit the code when you change the definition of one of the tables to determine if you need to make code changes, but that's generally a small price to pay for insulating yourself from differences in column order, differences in column names, and irrelevent differences in table definitions.
If I had this situation, I would retrieve the column definitions for the two tables right at the beginning of the problem. Then, if they were identical, I would proceed with the simple:
INSERT INTO BACKUP_TABLE
SELECT *
FROM PRIMARY_TABLE
If they were different, I would only proceed if there were no critical columns missing from the backup table. In this case I would use this form for the backup copy:
INSERT INTO BACKUP_TABLE (<list of columns>)
SELECT <list of columns>
FROM PRIMARY_TABLE
But I'd also worry about what would happen if I simply stopped the program with an error, so I might even have a backup plan where I would use the second form for the columns that are in both tables, and also dump a text file with the PK and any columns that are missing from the backup. Also log an error even though it appears that the program completed normally. That way, you could recover the data if the worst happened.
Really, this is a symptom of bad processes somewhere which should be addressed, but defensive programming can help to make it someone else's problem, not yours. If they don't notice the log error message which tells them about the text dump with the missing columns, then its not your fault.
But, if you don't code defensively, and the worst happens, it will be partly your fault.
You could try something like:
CREATE TABLE secondary_table AS SELECT * FROM primary_table;
Not sure if that automatically copies data. If not:
CREATE TABLE secondary_table AS SELECT * FROM primary_table LIMIT 1;
INSERT INTO secondary_table SELECT * FROM primary_table;
Edit:
Sorry, didn't read your post completely: especially the constraints part. I'm afraid I don't know how. My guess would be using a procedure that first describes both tables and compares them, before creating a lengthy insert / select query.
Still, if you're using a backup-table, I think it's pretty important it matches the original one exactly.