I have a table with three fields: Id, location, sortorder.
Id location sortorder
-- -------- ---------
1 a 1
2 b 2
3 c 3
4 d 4
I want to the user to be able to amend the sort order on the items in the table. I'm using EF to write to the database, is there any way of amending the sort order on the table without having to loads of calls to the database.
If I move an item to the top of the list from the bottom I would need to update all the rows that were underneath that new row, to move them down the order. If possible I would like to avoid n updates to the database, and just do it in the least number possible.
Is this possible?
I believe Gert's suggestion of using floats for sort order is probably the best one to go with. Drupal uses weights of menu items for the same purpose but inserts at increments of 100 or 1000 so you can go between things. I think that it also can run a cron job to respace the ordering so you don't run out of numbers in a more efficiently stored data type but that sounds like a holdover from my BASIC days in middle school where you had to do that with line numbers.
Also, I would wager that it isn't actually as awful as running n updates because it's instead doing one update that affects n rows. Yes, at the end of the day it does have to change n rows but that's on the DB side so there are tons of efficiencies that can be implemented to speed it up.
Let's say we have a time consuming query described below :
(SELECT ...
FROM ...) AS FOO
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT ...
FROM ...) AS BAR
ON FOO.BarID = BAR.ID
Let's suppose that
(SELECT ...
FROM ...) AS FOO
Returns many rows (let's say 10 M). Every single row has to be joined with data in BAR.
Now let's say we insert the result of
SELECT ...
FROM ...) AS BAR
In a table, and add the ad hoc index(es) to it.
My question :
How would the performance of the "JOIN" with a live query differ from the performance of the "JOIN" to a table containing the result of the previous live query, to which ad hoc indexes would have been added ?
Another way to put it :
If a JOIN is slow, would there be any gain in actually storing and indexing the table to which we JOIN to ?
The answer is 'Maybe'.
It depends on the statistics of the data in question. The only way you'll find out for sure is to actually load the first query into a temp table, stick a relevant index on it, then run the second part of the query.
I can tell you if speed is what you want, if it's possible for you load the results of your first query permanently into a table then of course your query is going to be quicker.
If you want it to be even faster, depending on which DBMS you are using you could consider creating an index which crosses both tables - if you're using SQL Server they're called 'Indexed Views' or you can also look up 'Reified indexes' for other systems.
Finally, if you want the ultimate in speed, consider denormalising your data and eliminating the join that is occurring on the fly - basically you move the pre-processing (the join) offline at the cost of storage space and data consistency (your live table will be a little behind depending on how frequently you run your updates).
I hope this helps.
I am trying to create a left join with an insert. There are two tables table.a table.b, the id value (which is auto increment) in table.b is used as a foreign key in table.a. Because of a broken process, I need to insert into both tables in one pass (I am creating an work around to process using a batch query). But I need the auto incremented value to be passed as well. Is this even possible. I have seen several answers that come close.
Is there a way I can query the database to return only the elements that have happened successively (in time) according to a set variable?
Specifically, I need to find out how many times the user has won a game in a row. The games are stored in the database with an attribute win_loss (1 is win, 0 is loss).
I would like to see if the user has won 3 games in a row. Is there a way to do this in the database?
If not, what would it look like in the application?
I apologize ahead of time if this is confusing. Please ask questions and I will try to clear it up. I'm using Ruby on Rails.
I would take different approach. I would add a column consecutive_wins into your User model (negative numbers could represent consecutive losses if you need that as well).
EDIT: if you really need to query it...
Two queries:
select the newest victory and newest loose for given user (could be done in one query, in SQL SELECT max(created_at) AS newest, win_loss FROM games GROUP BY win_loss (I can't recall how to do grouping functions in Rails right now but you should get the idea)
and then, regarding the result of query (1):
if both newest win and newest lose are found, count the games with condition that created_at > newest_win AND created_at > newest_lose
if only newest win or lose found, user was always wining or always loosing, just count the number of his games
in other case there were no games
I recommend adding the column to user model, it will be better when you need to display the whole table of gamers and their consecutive wins/loses.
In my present Rails application, I am resolving scheduling conflicts by sorting the models by the "created_at" field. However, I realized that when inserting multiple models from a form that allows this, all of the created_at times are exactly the same!
This is more a question of best programming practices: Can your application rely on your ID column in your database to increment greater and greater with each INSERT to get their order of creation? To put it another way, can I sort a group of rows I pull out of my database by their ID column and be assured this is an accurate sort based on creation order? And is this a good practice in my application?
The generated identification numbers will be unique.
Regardless of whether you use Sequences, like in PostgreSQL and Oracle or if you use another mechanism like auto-increment of MySQL.
However, Sequences are most often acquired in bulks of, for example 20 numbers.
So with PostgreSQL you can not determine which field was inserted first. There might even be gaps in the id's of inserted records.
Therefore you shouldn't use a generated id field for a task like that in order to not rely on database implementation details.
Generating a created or updated field during command execution is much better for sorting by creation-, or update-time later on.
For example:
INSERT INTO A (data, created) VALUES (smething, DATE())
UPDATE A SET data=something, updated=DATE()
That depends on your database vendor.
MySQL I believe absolutely orders auto increment keys. SQL Server I don't know for sure that it does or not but I believe that it does.
Where you'll run into problems is with databases that don't support this functionality, most notably Oracle that uses sequences, which are roughly but not absolutely ordered.
An alternative might be to go for created time and then ID.
I believe the answer to your question is yes...if I read between the lines, I think you are concerned that the system may re-use ID's numbers that are 'missing' in the sequence, and therefore if you had used 1,2,3,5,6,7 as ID numbers, in all the implementations I know of, the next ID number will always be 8 (or possibly higher), but I don't know of any DB that would try and figure out that record Id #4 is missing, so attempt to re-use that ID number.
Though I am most familiar with SQL Server, I don't know why any vendor who try and fill the gaps in a sequence - think of the overhead of keeping that list of unused ID's, as opposed to just always keeping track of the last I number used, and adding 1.
I'd say you could safely rely on the next ID assigned number always being higher than the last - not just unique.
Yes the id will be unique and no, you can not and should not rely on it for sorting - it is there to guarantee row uniqueness only. The best approach is, as emktas indicated, to use a separate "updated" or "created" field for just this information.
For setting the creation time, you can just use a default value like this
CREATE TABLE foo (
id INTEGER UNSIGNED AUTO_INCREMENT NOT NULL;
created TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW();
updated TIMESTAMP;
PRIMARY KEY(id);
) engine=InnoDB; ## whatever :P
Now, that takes care of creation time. with update time I would suggest an AFTER UPDATE trigger like this one (of course you can do it in a separate query, but the trigger, in my opinion, is a better solution - more transparent):
DELIMITER $$
CREATE TRIGGER foo_a_upd AFTER UPDATE ON foo
FOR EACH ROW BEGIN
SET NEW.updated = NOW();
END;
$$
DELIMITER ;
And that should do it.
EDIT:
Woe is me. Foolishly I've not specified, that this is for mysql, there might be some differences in the function names (namely, 'NOW') and other subtle itty-bitty.
One caveat to EJB's answer:
SQL does not give any guarantee of ordering if you don't specify an order by column. E.g. if you delete some early rows, then insert 'em, the new ones may end up living in the same place in the db the old ones did (albeit with new IDs), and that's what it may use as its default sort.
FWIW, I typically use order by ID as an effective version of order by created_at. It's cheaper in that it doesn't require adding an index to a datetime field (which is bigger and therefore slower than a simple integer primary key index), guaranteed to be different, and I don't really care if a few rows that were added at about the same time sort in some slightly different order.
This is probably DB engine depended. I would check how your DB implements sequences and if there are no documented problems then I would decide to rely on ID.
E.g. Postgresql sequence is OK unless you play with the sequence cache parameters.
There is a possibility that other programmer will manually create or copy records from different DB with wrong ID column. However I would simplify the problem. Do not bother with low probability cases where someone will manually destroy data integrity. You cannot protect against everything.
My advice is to rely on sequence generated IDs and move your project forward.
In theory yes the highest id number is the last created. Remember though that databases do have the ability to temporaily turn off the insert of the autogenerated value , insert some records manaully and then turn it back on. These inserts are no typically used on a production system but can happen occasionally when moving a large chunk of data from another system.