There is a Java Swing application which uses an Informix database. I have user rights granted for the Swing application (i.e. no source code), and read only access to a mirror of the database.
Sometimes I need to find a database column, which is backing a GUI element (TextBox, TableField, Label...). What would be best approach to find out which database column and table is holding the data shown e.g. in a TextBox?
My general approach is to capture the state of the database. Commit a change using the GUI and then capture the state of the database again. Then I need to examine the difference. I've already tried:
Use the nrows field of systables: Didn't work, because the number in nrows does not seem to be a realtime representation of the row count.
Create a script with SELECT COUNT(*) ... for all tables: didn't work because too many tables (> 5000). Also tried to optimize by removing empty tables, but there are still too many left.
Is there a simple solution that I'm missing?
Please look at the Change Data Capture API and check if this suits your needs
There probably isn't a simple solution.
You probably need to build yourself a map of the database, or a data dictionary for it. It sounds as though you can eliminate many of the tables from consideration since they're empty — at least for a preliminary pass. If you're dealing with information in a text box, the chances are it is some sort of character data; you can analyze which (non-empty) tables which contain longer character strings, and they'd be the primary targets of your searches. If the schema is badly designed with lots of VARCHAR(255) columns even though the columns normally only hold short strings, life is more difficult. Over time, you can begin to classify tables and columns so that you end up knowing where to look for parts of the application.
One problem to beware of: the tabid in informix.systables isn't necessarily as stable as you'd like. Your data dictionary needs to record its own dd_tabid for the table it describes, and can store the last known tabid from informix.systables, but it needs to be ready to find a new tabid value on occasion. You should probably only mark data in your dictionary for logical deletion.
To some extent, this assumes you can create a database in which to record this information. If you can't create an Informix database, you may have to use something else (MySQL, or SQLite, perhaps) to store the data dictionary. Alternatively, go to your DBA team and ask them for the information. Unless you're trying something self-evidently untoward, they're likely to help (but politics can get in the way — I've no idea how collegial your teams are).
I've recently started using Redshift for housing millions of data points with a schema that looks like the following:
create table metrics (
name varchar(100),
value decimal(18,4),
time timestamp
) sortkey (name, timestamp);
(The real schema is a bit more complex, but this will satisfy for my question)
I'm wondering if it makes sense to normalize my metric name (currently varchar(100)) by mapping it to an integer and only storing only the integer. (e.g. {id: 1, name: metric1}). The cardinality for name is ~100. By adding a mapping, it would make the application logic quite a bit more complex since it has many streams of input. Also, querying it ahead of time would require reverse mapping.
In a traditional sql database, this would be an obvious YES, but I'm not certain how Redshift handles this as it's a columnar data store. I think it would be nice to have in general, but I would assume that Redshift would/could do some similar mapping underneath the hood since certain columns in any table have lower cardinality than others.
The answer is no. Redshift makes excellent use of compression and will store very few duplicates of your name field.
However you do need to ensure that you are making good use of Redshift's compression options. This section in the docs should tell you all you need to know: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/t_Compressing_data_on_disk.html
TL;DR: Run ANALYZE COMPRESSION on your table to see what compression Redshift recommends, create a new table using those encodings, and insert your data into that table.
Your best option is to continue to use the varchar data type, as you have here, but apply the "bytedict" compression type. Internally, this is the same as creating a lookup table, but it could actually be faster, since Redshift natively understands a manages it's own table and maps from int->string internally during column decoding.
Here is the bytedict doc reference:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/c_Byte_dictionary_encoding.html
Another option that could give you good performance/storage savings for your use cases is runlength:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/c_Runlength_encoding.html
I've been seeing a lot of commentary (from an NHibernate perspective) about using Guid as opposed to an int (and presumably auto-id in the database), with the conclusion that using auto-identity breaks the UoW pattern.
This post has a short description of the issue, but it doesn't really tell me "why" it breaks the pattern (unless I'm misunderstanding which is likely the case.
Can someone enlighten me?
There are a few major reasons.
Using a Guid gives you the ability to identify a single entity across many databases, including six relational databases with the same schema but different data, a document database, etc. This becomes important any time you have more than one single place where data goes - and that means your case too: you have a dev database and a prod database, right?
Using a Guid gives NHibernate the ability to batch more statements together, perform more database work at the very end of the unit of work / transaction, and reduce the total number of roundtrips to the database, increasing performance as well as conferring other benefits.
Comment:
Random Guids do not create poor indexes - natively, they create poor clustered indexes. There are two solutions.
Use a partially sequential Guid. With NHibernate, this means using the guid.comb id generator rather than the guid id generator. guid.comb is partially sequential for good performance, but retains a very high degree of randomness.
Have your Guid primary key be a nonclustered index, and put a clustered index on another auto-incrementing column. You may decide to map this column, in which case you lose the benefit of better batching and fewer roundtrips, but you regain all the benefits of short numbers that fit easily in a URL. Or you may decide not to map this column and have it remain completely within the database, in which case you gain better performance for Guids as primary keys as well as better performance for NHibernate doing fewer roundtrips.
My take would be that the key breaking factor is that getting the auto-incremented value requires an actual write to the database, which nHibernate would have deferred or possibly never performed.
Using identity and in a parent-child scenario the database has round trip the database to get the ID of a parent so that it can associate the child correctly. This means that the parent has to be committed at this time. Should there be a problem with the child you would then need to delete the parent in order to exit the UoW correctly.
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.
I inherited a database built with the idea that composite keys are much more ideal than using a unique object ID field and that when building a database, a single unique ID should never be used as a primary key. Because I was building a Rails front-end for this database, I ran into difficulties getting it to conform to the Rails conventions (though it was possible using custom views and a few additional gems to handle composite keys).
The reasoning behind this specific schema design from the person who wrote it had to do with how the database handles ID fields in a non-efficient manner and when it's building indexes, tree sorts are flawed. This explanation lacked any depth and I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept (I'm familiar with using composite keys, but not 100% of the time).
Can anyone offer opinions or add any greater depth to this topic?
Most of the commonly used engines (MS SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, MySQL, etc.) would not experience noticeable issues using a surrogate key system. Some may even experience a performance boost from the use of a surrogate, but performance issues are highly platform-specific.
In general terms, the natural key (and by extension, composite key) verses surrogate key debate has a long history with no likely “right answer” in sight.
The arguments for natural keys (singular or composite) usually include some the following:
1) They are already available in the data model. Most entities being modeled already include one or more attributes or combinations of attributes that meet the needs of a key for the purposes of creating relations. Adding an additional attribute to each table incorporates an unnecessary redundancy.
2) They eliminate the need for certain joins. For example, if you have customers with customer codes, and invoices with invoice numbers (both of which are "natural" keys), and you want to retrieve all the invoice numbers for a specific customer code, you can simply use "SELECT InvoiceNumber FROM Invoice WHERE CustomerCode = 'XYZ123'". In the classic surrogate key approach, the SQL would look something like this: "SELECT Invoice.InvoiceNumber FROM Invoice INNER JOIN Customer ON Invoice.CustomerID = Customer.CustomerID WHERE Customer.CustomerCode = 'XYZ123'".
3) They contribute to a more universally-applicable approach to data modeling. With natural keys, the same design can be used largely unchanged between different SQL engines. Many surrogate key approaches use specific SQL engine techniques for key generation, thus requiring more specialization of the data model to implement on different platforms.
Arguments for surrogate keys tend to revolve around issues that are SQL engine specific:
1) They enable easier changes to attributes when business requirements/rules change. This is because they allow the data attributes to be isolated to a single table. This is primarily an issue for SQL engines that do not efficiently implement standard SQL constructs such as DOMAINs. When an attribute is defined by a DOMAIN statement, changes to the attribute can be performed schema-wide using an ALTER DOMAIN statement. Different SQL engines have different performance characteristics for altering a domain, and some SQL engines do not implement DOMAINS at all, so data modelers compensate for these situations by adding surrogate keys to improve the ability to make changes to attributes.
2) They enable easier implementations of concurrency than natural keys. In the natural key case, if two users are concurrently working with the same information set, such as a customer row, and one of the users modifies the natural key value, then an update by the second user will fail because the customer code they are updating no longer exists in the database. In the surrogate key case, the update will process successfully because immutable ID values are used to identify the rows in the database, not mutable customer codes. However, it is not always desirable to allow the second update – if the customer code changed it is possible that the second user should not be allowed to proceed with their change because the actual “identity” of the row has changed – the second user may be updating the wrong row. Neither surrogate keys nor natural keys, by themselves, address this issue. Comprehensive concurrency solutions have to be addressed outside of the implementation of the key.
3) They perform better than natural keys. Performance is most directly affected by the SQL engine. The same database schema implemented on the same hardware using different SQL engines will often have dramatically different performance characteristics, due to the SQL engines data storage and retrieval mechanisms. Some SQL engines closely approximate flat-file systems, where data is actually stored redundantly when the same attribute, such as a Customer Code, appears in multiple places in the database schema. This redundant storage by the SQL engine can cause performance issues when changes need to be made to the data or schema. Other SQL engines provide a better separation between the data model and the storage/retrieval system, allowing for quicker changes of data and schema.
4) Surrogate keys function better with certain data access libraries and GUI frameworks. Due to the homogeneous nature of most surrogate key designs (example: all relational keys are integers), data access libraries, ORMs, and GUI frameworks can work with the information without needing special knowledge of the data. Natural keys, due to their heterogeneous nature (different data types, size etc.), do not work as well with automated or semi-automated toolkits and libraries. For specialized scenarios, such as embedded SQL databases, designing the database with a specific toolkit in mind may be acceptable. In other scenarios, databases are enterprise information resources, accessed concurrently by multiple platforms, applications, report systems, and devices, and therefore do not function as well when designed with a focus on any particular library or framework. In addition, databases designed to work with specific toolkits become a liability when the next great toolkit is introduced.
I tend to fall on the side of natural keys (obviously), but I am not fanatical about it. Due to the environment I work in, where any given database I help design may be used by a variety of applications, I use natural keys for the majority of the data modeling, and rarely introduce surrogates. However, I don’t go out of my way to try to re-implement existing databases that use surrogates. Surrogate-key systems work just fine – no need to change something that is already functioning well.
There are some excellent resources discussing the merits of each approach:
http://www.google.com/search?q=natural+key+surrogate+key
http://www.agiledata.org/essays/keys.html
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/bi/201806814
I've been developing database applications for 15 years and I have yet to come across a case where a non-surrogate key was a better choice than a surrogate key.
I'm not saying that such a case does not exist, I'm just saying when you factor in the practical issues of actually developing an application that accesses the database, usually the benefits of a surrogate key start to overwhelm the theoretical purity of non-surrogate keys.
the primary key should be constant and meaningless; non-surrogate keys usually fail one or both requirements, eventually
if the key is not constant, you have a future update issue that can get quite complicated
if the key is not meaningless, then it is more likely to change, i.e. not be constant; see above
take a simple, common example: a table of Inventory items. It may be tempting to make the item number (sku number, barcode, part code, or whatever) the primary key, but then a year later all the item numbers change and you're left with a very messy update-the-whole-database problem...
EDIT: there's an additional issue that is more practical than philosophical. In many cases you're going to find a particular row somehow, then later update it or find it again (or both). With composite keys there is more data to keep track of and more contraints in the WHERE clause for the re-find or update (or delete). It is also possible that one of the key segments may have changed in the meantime!. With a surrogate key, there is always only one value to retain (the surrogate ID) and by definition it cannot change, which simplifies the situation significantly.
It sounds like the person who created the database is on the natural keys side of the great natural keys vs. surrogate keys debate.
I've never heard of any problems with btrees on ID fields, but I also haven't studied it in any great depth...
I fall on the surrogate key side: You have less repetition when using a surrogate key, because you're only repeating a single value in the other tables. Since humans rarely join tables by hand, we don't care if it's a number or not. Also, since there's only one fixed-size column to look up in the index, it's safe to assume surrogates have a faster lookup time by primary key as well.
Using 'unique (object) ID' fields simplifies joins, but you should aim to have the other (possibly composite) key still unique -- do NOT relax the not-null constraints and DO maintain the unique constraint.
If the DBMS can't handle unique integers effectively, it has big problems. However, using both a 'unique (object) ID' and the other key does use more space (for the indexes) than just the other key, and has two indexes to update on each insert operation. So it isn't a freebie -- but as long as you maintain the original key, too, then you'll be OK. If you eliminate the other key, you are breaking the design of your system; all hell will break loose eventually (and you might or might not spot that hell broke loose).
I basically am a member of the surrogate key team, and even if I appreciate and understand arguments such as the ones presented here by JeremyDWill, I am still looking for the case where "natural" key is better than surrogate ...
Other posts dealing with this issue usually refer to relational database theory and database performance. Another interesting argument, always forgotten in this case, is related to table normalisation and code productivity:
each time I create a table, shall I
lose time
identifying its primary key and its
physical characteristics (type,
size)
remembering these characteristics
each time I want to refer to it in
my code?
explaining my PK choice to other
developers in the team?
My answer is no to all of these questions:
I have no time to lose trying to
identify "the best Primary Key" when
dealing with a list of persons.
I do not want to remember that the
Primary Key of my "computer" table
is a 64 characters long string (does
Windows accepts that many characters
for a computer name?).
I don't want to explain my choice to
other developers, where one of them
will finally say "Yeah man, but
consider that you have to manage
computers over different domains?
Does this 64 characters string allow
you to store the domain name + the
computer name?".
So I've been working for the last five years with a very basic rule: each table (let's call it 'myTable') has its first field called 'id_MyTable' which is of uniqueIdentifier type. Even if this table supports a "many-to-many" relation, such as a 'ComputerUser' table, where the combination of 'id_Computer' and 'id_User' forms a very acceptable Primary Key, I prefer to create this 'id_ComputerUser' field being a uniqueIdentifier, just to stick to the rule.
The major advantage is that you don't have to care animore about the use of Primary Key and/or Foreign Key within your code. Once you have the table name, you know the PK name and type. Once you know which links are implemented in your data model, you'll know the name of available foreign keys in the table.
I am not sure that my rule is the best one. But it is a very efficient one!
A practical approach to developing a new architecture is one that utilizes surrogate keys for tables that will contain thousands of multi-column highly unique records and composite keys for short descriptionary tables. I usually find that the colleges dictate the use of surrogate keys while the real world programmers prefer composite keys. You really need to apply the right type of primary key to the table - not just one way or the other.
using natural keys makes a nightmare using any automatic ORM as persistence layer. Also, foreign keys on multiple column tend to overlap one another and this will give further problem when navigating and updating the relationship in a OO way.
Still you could transform the natural key in an unique constrain and add an auto generated id; this doesn't remove the problem with the foreign keys, though, those will have to be changed by hand; hopefully multiple columns and overlapping constraints will be a minority of all the relationship, so you could concentrate on refactoring where it matter most.
natural pk have their motivation and usages scenario and are not a bad thing(tm), they just tend to not get along well with ORM.
my feeling is that as any other concepts, natural keys and table normalization should be used when sensible and not as blind design constraints
I'm going to be short and sweet here: Composite primary keys are not good these days. Add in surrogate arbitrary keys if you can and maintain the current key schemes via unique constraints. ORM is happy, you're happy, original programmer not-so-happy but unless he's your boss then he can just deal with it.
Composite keys can be good - they may affect performance - but they are not the only answer, in much the same way that a unique (surrogate) key isn't the only answer.
What concerns me is the vagueness in the reasoning for choosing composite keys. More often than not vagueness about anything technical indicates a lack of understanding - maybe following someone else's guidelines, in a book or article....
There is nothing wrong with a single unique ID - infact if you've got an application connected to a database server and you can choose which database you're using it will all be good, and you can pretty much do anything with your keys and not really suffer too badly.
There has been, and will be, a lot written about this, because there is no single answer. There are methods and approaches that need to be applied carefully in a skilled manner.
I've had lots of problems with ID's being provided automatically by the database - and I avoid them wherever possible, but still use them occasionally.
... how the database handles ID fields in a non-efficient manner and when it's building indexes, tree sorts are flawed ...
This was almost certainly nonsense, but may have related to the issue of index block contention when assigning incrementing numbers to a PK at a high rate from different sessions. If so then the REVERSE KEY index is there to help, albeit at the expense of a larger index size due to a change in block-split algorithm. http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14220/schema.htm#sthref998
Go synthetic, particularly if it aids more rapid development with your toolset.
I am not a experienced one but still i m in favor of Using primary key as id here is the explanation using an example..
The format of external data may change over time. For example, you might think that the ISBN of a book would make a good primary key in a table of books. After all, ISBNs are unique. But as this particular book is being written, the publishing industry in the United States is gearing up for a major change as additional digits are added to all ISBNs.
If we’d used the ISBN as the primary key in a table of books, we’d have to update each row to reflect this change. But then we’d have another problem. There’ll be other tables in the database that reference rows in the books table via the primary key. We can’t change the key in the books table unless we first go through and update all of these references. And that will involve dropping foreign key constraints, updating tables, updating the books table, and finally reestablishing the constraints. All in all, this is something of a pain.
The problems go away if we use our own internal value as a primary key. No third party can come along and arbitrarily tell us to change our schema—we control our own keyspace. And if something such as the ISBN does need to change, it can change without affecting any of the existing relationships in the database. In effect, we’ve decoupled the knitting together of rows from the external representation of data in those rows.
Although the explanation is quite bookish but i think it explains the things in a simpler way.
#JeremyDWill
Thank you for providing some much-needed balance to the debate. In particular, thanks for the info on DOMAINs.
I actually use surrogate keys system-wide for the sake of consistency, but there are tradeoffs involved. The most common cause for me to curse using surrogate keys is when I have a lookup table with a short list of canonical values—I'd use less space and all my queries would be shorter/easier/faster if I had just made the values the PK instead of having to join to the table.
You can do both - since any big company database is likely to be used by several applications, including human DBAs running one-off queries and data imports, designing it purely for the benefit of ORM systems is not always practical or desirable.
What I tend to do these days is to add a "RowID" property to each table - this field is a GUID, and so unique to each row. This is NOT the primary key - that is a natural key (if possible). However, any ORM layers working on top of this database can use the RowID to identify their derived objects.
Thus you might have:
CREATE TABLE dbo.Invoice (
CustomerId varchar(10),
CustomerOrderNo varchar(10),
InvoiceAmount money not null,
Comments nvarchar(4000),
RowId uniqueidentifier not null default(newid()),
primary key(CustomerId, CustomerOrderNo)
)
So your DBA is happy, your ORM architect is happy, and your database integrity is preserved!
I just wanted to add something here that I don't ever see covered when discussing auto-generated integer identity fields with relational databases (because I see them a lot), and that is, it's base type can an will overflow at some point.
Now I'm not trying to say this automatically makes composite ids the way to go, but it's just a matter of fact that even though more data could be logically added to a table (which is still unique), the single auto-generated integer identity could prevent this from happening.
Yes I realize that for most situations it's unlikely, and using a 64bit integer gives you lots of headroom, and realistically the database probably should have been designed differently if an overflow like this ever occurred.
But that doesn't prevent someone from doing it... a table using a single auto-generated 32bit integer as it's identity, which is expected to store all transactions at a global level for a particular fast-food company, is going fail as soon as it tries to insert it's 2,147,483,648th transaction (and that is a completely feasible scenario).
It's just something to note, that people tend to gloss over or just ignore entirely. If any table is going to be inserted into with regularity, considerations should be made to just how often and how much data will accumulate over time, and whether or not an integer based identifier should even be used.