I am attempting to reverse engineer a Database that is in Oracle. I have been able to find the main keys and the referential integrity rules that correspond to the Foreign Keys but cannot locate where the modality/cardinality rules are stored.
Any help regarding to which table to look in or a sample query would be greatly appreciated.
What do you mean by modality / cardinality rules?
FK relationships are always 1:N as far as Oracle is concerned. I guess one could enforce a 1:1 by having two FK relationships on the same fields but in opposite directions.
The only other 'rule' concerning cardinality are unique keys, but I think you already have those. If not, this might help:
http://www.eveandersson.com/writing/data-model-reverse-engineering#constraints
Depending on the setup of the database you also might find heuristics about the cardinality of values in columns:
select * from user_tab_col_statistics
Especially the value 'NUM_DISTINCT' might be of some value.
If you are looking for more information in the data dictionary, I recommend this select for starters
select * from dict
where lower(comments|| '#' || table_name) like '%whatareyoulookingfor%'
I think you will have to check for referring columns being nullable:
SELECT column_name, nullable
FROM user_tab_cols
WHERE table_name = '<TABLE_NAME>'
and for unique indices on referring columns:
SELECT idx.index_name, col.column_name
FROM user_indexes idx
JOIN user_ind_columns col ON ( col.index_name = idx.index_name )
WHERE idx.uniqueness = 'UNIQUE'
AND idx.table_name = '<TABLE_NAME>'
Related
I have an oracle table. Table's DDL is (not have the primary key)
create table CLIENT_ACCOUNT
(
CLIENT_ID VARCHAR2(18) default ' ' not null,
ACCOUNT_ID VARCHAR2(18) default ' ' not null,
......
)
create unique index UK_ACCOUNT
on CLIENT_ACCOUNT (CLIENT_ID, ACCOUNT_ID)
Then, the data's scale is very huge, maybe 100M records. I want to traverse this whole table's data with batch.
Now, I use the table's index to batch traverse. But I have some oracle grammar problems.
# I want to use this SQL, but grammar error.
# try to use b-tree's index to locate start position, but not work
select * from CLIENT_ACCOUNT
WHERE (CLIENT_ID, ACCOUNT_ID) > (1,2)
AND ROWNUM < 1000
ORDER BY CLIENT_ID, ACCOUNT_ID
Has the fastest way to batch touch table data?
Wild guess:
select * from CLIENT_ACCOUNT
WHERE CLIENT_ID > '1'
and ACCOUNT_ID > '2'
AND ROWNUM < 1000;
It would at least compile, although whether it correctly implements your business logic is a different matter. Note that I have cast your filter criteria to strings. This is because your columns have a string datatype and you are defaulting them to spaces, so there's a high probability those columns contain non-numeric values.
If this doesn't solve your problem, please edit your question with more details; sample input data and expected output is always helpful in these situations.
Your data model seems odd.
Your columns are defined as varchar2. So why is your criteria numeric?
Also, why do you default the key columns to space? It would be better to leave unpopulated values as null. (To be clear, NULL is not a good thing in an indexed column, it's just better than a space.)
I have a field as PopUp LOV and as source a shared component with the corresponding code.
`SELECT u.Lastname || ', ' || u.Firstname AS displayed, i.IUUID
from INTERNAL_SUPERVISORS i
left outer join USERS u on i.UUID=u.UUID
union
SELECT u2.Lastname || ', ' || u2.Firstname AS displayed, p.PRID
FROM PROFESSOR p
left outer join USERS u2 on p.UUID=u2.UUID `
This is my column mapping in the LoV:
I want it to be possible to select a person from the one or from another table and give different IDs as return value depending on the selection.
With this implementation it is possible to see and select persons from both tables but when I save the form, I cannot see the User from the professor table but can only see the person from the other table.
Is it because of the return value in the column mapping?
If so is it possible to select two possible return values?
I cannot see the User from the professor table
I'd say that it depends on how you're looking at it. If data in a table (you use to store values selected from that LoV) corresponds to two tables, then - when reviewing data - you have to join it to both other tables - internal_supervisors and professor.
Usually, when designing data model, we use foreign keys to maintain referential integrity. As you allow both iuuid and prid to be stored, then it means that you have to check both of those tables while retrieving data.
Wanted to optimize a query with the minus that it takes too much time ... if they can give thanked help.
I have two tables A and B,
Table A: ID, value
Table B: ID
I want all of Table A records that are not in Table B. Showing the value.
For it was something like:
Select ID, value
FROM A
WHERE value> 70
MINUS
Select ID
FROM B;
Only this query is taking too long ... any tips how best this simple query?
Thank you for attention
Are ID and Value indexed?
The performance of Minus and Not Exists depend:
It really depends on a bunch of factors.
A MINUS will do a full table scan on both tables unless there is some
criteria in the where clause of both queries that allows an index
range scan. A MINUS also requires that both queries have the same
number of columns, and that each column has the same data type as the
corresponding column in the other query (or one convertible to the
same type). A MINUS will return all rows from the first query where
there is not an exact match column for column with the second query. A
MINUS also requires an implicit sort of both queries
NOT EXISTS will read the sub-query once for each row in the outer
query. If the correlation field (you are running a correlated
sub-query?) is an indexed field, then only an index scan is done.
The choice of which construct to use depends on the type of data you
want to return, and also the relative sizes of the two tables/queries.
If the outer table is small relative to the inner one, and the inner
table is indexed (preferrable a unique index but not required) on the
correlation field, then NOT EXISTS will probably be faster since the
index lookup will be pretty fast, and only executed a relatively few
times. If both tables a roughly the same size, then MINUS might be
faster, particularly if you can live with only seeing fields that you
are comparing on.
Minus operator versus 'not exists' for faster SQL query - Oracle Community Forums
You could use NOT EXISTS like so:
SELECT a.ID, a.Value
From a
where a.value > 70
and not exists(
Select b.ID
From B
Where b.ID = a.ID)
EDIT: I've produced some dummy data and two datasets for testing to prove the performance increases of indexing. Note: I did this in MySQL since I don't have Oracle on my Macbook.
Table A has 2600 records with 2 columns: ID, val.
ID is an autoincrement integer
Val varchar(255)
Table b has one column, but more records than Table A. Autoincrement (in gaps of 3)
You can reproduce this if you wish: Pastebin - SQL Dummy Data
Here is the query I will be using:
select a.id, a.val from tablea a
where length(a.val) > 3
and not exists(
select b.id from tableb b where b.id = a.id
);
Without Indexes, the runtime is 986ms with 1685 rows.
Now we add the indexes:
ALTER TABLE `tablea` ADD INDEX `id` (`id`);
ALTER TABLE `tableb` ADD INDEX `id` (`id`);
With Indexes, the runtime is 14ms with 1685 rows. That's 1.42% the time it took without indexes!
I have a table in oracle db which has a unique index composed of two columns (id and valid_from). The column valid_from is of type timestamps with time zone.
When I query the SYS.USER_IND_COLUMNS to see which columns my table is using as unique index, I can not see the name of the valid_from column but instead I see smth like SYS_NC00027$.
Is there any possibility that I can display the name valid_from rather than SYS_NC00027$. ?
Apparently Oracle creates a function based index for timestamp with time zone columns.
The definition of them can be found in the view ALL_IND_EXPRESSIONS
Something like this should get you started:
select ic.index_name,
ic.column_name,
ie.column_expression
from all_ind_columns ic
left join all_ind_expressions ie
on ie.index_owner = ic.index_owner
and ie.index_name = ic.index_name
and ie.column_position = ic.column_position
where ic.table_name = 'FOO';
Unfortunately column_expression is a (deprecated) LONG column and cannot easily be used in a coalesce() or nvl() function.
Use the below to verify the col info.
select column_name,virtual_column,hidden_column,data_default from user_tab_cols where table_name='EMP';
I have a hierarchical table on Oracle pl/sql. something like:
create table hierarchical (
id integer primary key,
parent_id references hierarchical ,
name varchar(100));
I need to create a procedure to alter that table so I get a new field that tells, for each node, if it has any children or not.
Is it possible to do the alter and the update in one single procedure?
Any code samples would be much appreciated.
Thanks
You can not do the ALTER TABLE (DDL) and the UPDATE (DML) in a single step.
You will have to do the ALTER TABLE, followed by the UPDATE.
BEGIN
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'ALTER TABLE hierarchical ADD child_count INTEGER';
--
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE '
UPDATE hierarchical h
SET child_count = ( SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM hierarchical h2
WHERE h2.parent_id = h.id )';
END;
Think twice before doing this though. You can easily find out now if an id has any childs with a query.
This one would give you the child-count of all top-nodes for example:
SELECT h.id, h.name, COUNT(childs.id) child_count
FROM hierarchical h
LEFT JOIN hierarchical childs ON ( childs.parent_id = h.id )
WHERE h.parent_id IS NULL
GROUP BY h.id, h.name
Adding an extra column with redundant data will make changing your data more difficult, as you will always have to update the parent too, when adding/removing childs.
If you just need to know whether children exist, the following query can do it without the loop or the denormalized column.
select h.*, connect_by_isleaf as No_children_exist
from hierarchical h
start with parent_id is null
connect by prior id = parent_id;
CONNECT_BY_LEAF returns 0 if the row has children, 1 if it does not.
I think you could probably get the exact number of children through a clever use of analytic functions and the LEVEL pseudo-column, but I'm not sure.