I'm in the process of writing a Membership Provider for use with our existing membership base. I use EF4.1 for all of my database access and one of the issued that I'm running into is when the DB was originally setup the relationships were done programmatically instead of in the db. One if the relationships needs to be made on a column that isn't required for all of our users, but in order to make the relationships does need to be unique (from my understanding).
My solution that I believe will work is to do an MD5 hash on the userid field (which is unique ...which would/should guarantee a unique value in that field). The part that I'm having issues with on sql server is the query that would do this WITHOUT replacing the existing values stored in the employeeNum field (the one in question).
So in a nutshell my question is. What is the best way to get a unique value in the employeeNum field (possibly based on an md5 hash of the userid field) on all the rows in which a value isn't already present. Also, to a minor/major extent...does this sound like a good plan?
If your question is just how to generate a hash value for userid, you can do it this way using a computed column (or generate this value as part of the insert process). It isn't clear to me whether you know about the HASHBYTES function or what other criteria you're looking at when you say "best."
DECLARE #foo TABLE
(
userid INT,
hash1 AS HASHBYTES('MD5', CONVERT(VARCHAR(12), userid)),
hash2 AS HASHBYTES('SHA1', CONVERT(VARCHAR(12), userid))
);
INSERT #foo(userid) SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2 UNION ALL SELECT 500;
SELECT userid, hash1, hash2 FROM #foo;
Results:
userid hash1 hash2
------ ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
1 0xC4CA4238A0B923820DCC509A6F75849B 0x356A192B7913B04C54574D18C28D46E6395428AB
2 0xC81E728D9D4C2F636F067F89CC14862C 0xDA4B9237BACCCDF19C0760CAB7AEC4A8359010B0
500 0xCEE631121C2EC9232F3A2F028AD5C89B 0xF83A383C0FA81F295D057F8F5ED0BA4610947817
In SQL Server 2012, I highly recommend at least SHA2_256 instead of either of the above. (You forgot to mention what version you're using - always useful information.)
All that said, I still want to call attention to the point I made in the comments: the "best" solution here is to fix the model. If employeeNum is optional, EF shouldn't be made to think it is required or unique, and it shouldn't be used in relationships if it is not, in fact, some kind of identifier. Why would a user care about collisions between employeeNum and userid if you're using the right attribute for the relationship in the first place?
EDIT as requested by OP
So what is wrong with saying UPDATE table SET EmployeeNum = 1000000 + UserID WHERE EmployeeNum IS NULL? If EmployeeNum will stay below 1000000 then you've guaranteed no collisions and you've avoided hashing altogether.
You could generate similar padding if employeeNum might contain a string, but again is it EF that promotes these horrible column names? Why would a column with a Num suffix contain anything but a number?
You could also use a uniqueidentifier setting the default value to (newid())
Create a new column EmployeeNum as uniqueidentifer, then:
UPDATE Employees SET EmployeeNum = newid()
Then set as primary key.
UPDATE EMPLOYEE
SET EMPLOYEENUM = HASHBYTES('SHA1', CAST(USERID AS VARCHAR(20)))
WHERE EMPLOYEENUM IS NULL
Related
Hi I have a login table that has some duplicated username.
Yes I know I should have put a constraint on it, but it's a bit too late for that now!
So essentially what I want to do is to first identify the duplicates. I can't just delete them since I can't be too sure which account is the correct one. The accounts have the same username and both of them have roughly the same information with a few small variances.
Is there any way to efficiently script it so that I can add "_duplicate" to only one of the accounts per duplicate?
You can use ROW_NUMBER with a PARTITION BY in the OVER() clause to find the duplicates and an updateable CTE to change the values accordingly:
DECLARE #dummyTable TABLE(ID INT IDENTITY, UserName VARCHAR(100));
INSERT INTO #dummyTable VALUES('Peter'),('Tom'),('Jane'),('Victoria')
,('Peter') ,('Jane')
,('Peter');
WITH UpdateableCTE AS
(
SELECT t.UserName AS OldValue
,t.UserName + CASE WHEN ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY UserName ORDER BY ID)=1 THEN '' ELSE '_duplicate' END AS NewValue
FROM #dummyTable AS t
)
UPDATE UpdateableCTE SET OldValue = NewValue;
SELECT * FROM #dummyTable;
The result
ID UserName
1 Peter
2 Tom
3 Jane
4 Victoria
5 Peter_duplicate
6 Jane_duplicate
7 Peter_duplicate
You might include ROW_NUMBER() as another column to find the duplicates ordinal. If you've got a sort clause to get the earliest (or must current) numbered with 1 it should be easy to find and correct the duplicates.
Once you've cleaned this mess, you should ensure not to get new dups. But you know this already :-D
There is no easy way to get rid of this nightmare. Some manual actions required.
First identify duplicates.
select * from dbo.users
where userId in
(select userId from dbo.users
group by username
having count(userId) > 1)
Next identify "useless" users (for example those who registered but never place any order).
Rerun the query above. Out of this list find duplicates which are the same (by email for example) and combine them in a single record. If they did something useful previously (for example placed orders) then first assign these orders to a user which survive. Remove others.
Continue with other criteria until you you get rid of duplicates.
Then set unique constrain on username field. Also it is good idea to set unique constraint on email field.
Again, it is not easy and not automatic.
In this case where you duplicates and the original names have some variance it is highly impossible to select non duplicate rows since you are not aware which is real and which is duplicate.
I think the best thing to is to correct you data and then fix from where you are getting this slight variant duplicates.
I'm using SQL Server 2014. My request I believe is rather simple. I have one table containing a field holding a date value that is stored as VARCHAR, and another table containing a field holding a date value that is stored as INT.
The date value in the VARCHAR field is stored like this: 2015M01
The data value in the INT field is stored like this: 201501
I need to compare these tables against each other using EXCEPT. My thought process was to somehow extract or TRIM the "M" out of the VARCHAR value and see if it would let me compare the two. If anyone has a better idea such as using CAST to change the date formats or something feel free to suggest that as well.
I am also concerned that even extracting the "M" out of the VARCHAR may still prevent the comparison since one will still remain VARCHAR and the other is INT. If possible through a T-SQL query to convert on the fly that would be great advice as well. :)
REPLACE the string and then CONVERT to integer
SELECT A.*, B.*
FROM TableA A
INNER JOIN
(SELECT intField
FROM TableB
) as B
ON CONVERT(INT, REPLACE(A.varcharField, 'M', '')) = B.intField
Since you say you already have the query and are using EXCEPT, you can simply change the definition of that one "date" field in the query containing the VARCHAR value so that it matches the INT format of the other query. For example:
SELECT Field1, CONVERT(INT, REPLACE(VarcharDateField, 'M', '')) AS [DateField], Field3
FROM TableA
EXCEPT
SELECT Field1, IntDateField, Field3
FROM TableB
ＨＯＷＥＶＥＲ, while I realize that this might not be feasible, your best option, if you can make this happen, would be to change how the data in the table with the VARCHAR field is stored so that it is actually an INT in the same format as the table with the data already stored as an INT. Then you wouldn't have to worry about situations like this one.
Meaning:
Add an INT field to the table with the VARCHAR field.
Do an UPDATE of that table, setting the INT field to the string value with the M removed.
Update any INSERT and/or UPDATE stored procedures used by external services (app, ETL, etc) to do that same M removal logic on the way in. Then you don't have to change any app code that does INSERTs and UPDATEs. You don't even need to tell anyone you did this.
Update any "get" / SELECT stored procedures used by external services (app, ETL, etc) to do the opposite logic: convert the INT to VARCHAR and add the M on the way out. Then you don't have to change any app code that gets data from the DB. You don't even need to tell anyone you did this.
This is one of many reasons that having a Stored Procedure API to your DB is quite handy. I suppose an ORM can just be rebuilt, but you still need to recompile, even if all of the code references are automatically updated. But making a datatype change (or even moving a field to a different table, or even replacinga a field with a simple CASE statement) "behind the scenes" and masking it so that any code outside of your control doesn't know that a change happened, not nearly as difficult as most people might think. I have done all of these operations (datatype change, move a field to a different table, replace a field with simple logic, etc, etc) and it buys you a lot of time until the app code can be updated. That might be another team who handles that. Maybe their schedule won't allow for making any changes in that area (plus testing) for 3 months. Ok. It will be there waiting for them when they are ready. Any if there are several areas to update, then they can be done one at a time. You can even create new stored procedures to run in parallel for any updated app code to have the proper INT datatype as the input parameter. And once all references to the VARCHAR value are gone, then delete the original versions of those stored procedures.
If you want everything in the first table that is not in the second, you might consider something like this:
select t1.*
from t1
where not exists (select 1
from t2
where cast(replace(t1.varcharfield, 'M', '') as int) = t2.intfield
);
This should be close enough to except for your purposes.
I should add that you might need to include other columns in the where statement. However, the question only mentions one column, so I don't know what those are.
You could create a persisted view on the table with the char column, with a calculated column where the M is removed. Then you could JOIN the view to the table containing the INT column.
CREATE VIEW dbo.PersistedView
WITH SCHEMA_BINDING
AS
SELECT ConvertedDateCol = CONVERT(INT, REPLACE(VarcharCol, 'M', ''))
--, other columns including the PK, etc
FROM dbo.TablewithCharColumn;
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IX_PersistedView
ON dbo.PersistedView(<the PK column>);
SELECT *
FROM dbo.PersistedView pv
INNER JOIN dbo.TableWithIntColumn ic ON pv.ConvertedDateCol = ic.IntDateCol;
If you provide the actual details of both tables, I will edit my answer to make it clearer.
A persisted view with a computed column will perform far better on the SELECT statement where you join the two columns compared with doing the CONVERT and REPLACE every time you run the SELECT statement.
However, a persisted view will slightly slow down inserts into the underlying table(s), and will prevent you from making DDL changes to the underlying tables.
If you're looking to not persist the values via a schema-bound view, you could create a non-persisted computed column on the table itself, then create a non-clustered index on that column. If you are using the computed column in WHERE or JOIN clauses, you may see some benefit.
By way of example:
CREATE TABLE dbo.PCT
(
PCT_ID INT NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT PK_PCT
PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
IDENTITY(1,1)
, SomeChar VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL
, SomeCharToInt AS CONVERT(INT, REPLACE(SomeChar, 'M', ''))
);
CREATE INDEX IX_PCT_SomeCharToInt
ON dbo.PCT(SomeCharToInt);
INSERT INTO dbo.PCT(SomeChar)
VALUES ('2015M08');
SELECT SomeCharToInt
FROM dbo.PCT;
Results:
I have the following table:
tbl_ProductCatg
Id IDENTITY
Code
Description
a few more.
Id field is auto-incremented and I have to insert this field value in Code field.
i.e. if Id generated is 1 then in Code field the value should be inserted like 0001(formatted for having length of four),if id is 77 Code should be 0077.
For this, I made the query like:
insert into tbl_ProductCatg(Code,Description)
values(RIGHT('000'+ltrim(Str(SCOPE_IDENTITY()+1,4)),4),'testing')
This query runs well in sql server query analyzer but if I write this in C# then it insets Null in Code even Id field is updated well.
Thanks
You may want to look at Computed Columns (Definition)
From what is sounds like you are trying to do, this would work well for you.
CREATE TABLE tbl_ProductCatg
(
ID INT IDENTITY(1, 1)
, Code AS RIGHT('000' + CAST(ID AS VARCHAR(4)), 4)
, Description NVARCHAR(128)
)
or
ALTER TABLE tbl_ProductCatg
ADD Code AS RIGHT('000' + CAST(id AS VARCHAR(4)), 4)
You can also make the column be PERSISTED so it is not calculated every time it is referenced.
Marking a column as PERSISTED Specifies that the Database Engine will physically store the computed values in the table, and update the values when any other columns on which the computed column depends are updated.
Unfortunately SCOPE_IDENTITY isn't designed to be used during an insert so the value will not be populated until after the insert happens.
The three solutions I can see of doing this would be either making a stored procedure to generate the scope identity and then do an update of the field.
insert into tbl_ProductCatg(Description) values(NULL,'testing')
update tbl_ProductCatg SET code=RIGHT('000'+ltrim(Str(SCOPE_IDENTITY()+1,4)),4) WHERE id=SCOPE_IDENTITY()
The second option, is taking this a step further and making this into a trigger which runs on UPDATE and INSERT. I've always been taught to avoid triggers where possible and instead do things at the SP level, but triggers are justified in some cases.
The third option is computed fields, as described by #Adam Wenger
I have a customer table, and my requirement is to add a new varchar column that automatically obtains a random unique value each time a new customer is created.
I thought of writing an SP that randomizes a string, then check and re-generate if the string already exists. But to integrate the SP into the customer record creation process would require transactional SQL stuff at code level, which I'd like to avoid.
Help please?
edit:
I should've emphasized, the varchar has to be 5 characters long with numeric values between 1000 and 99999, and if the number is less than 10000, pad 0 on the left.
if it has to be varchar, you can cast a uniqueidentifier to varchar.
to get a random uniqueidentifier do NewId()
here's how you cast it:
CAST(NewId() as varchar(36))
EDIT
as per your comment to #Brannon:
are you saying you'll NEVER have over 99k records in the table? if so, just make your PK an identity column, seed it with 1000, and take care of "0" left padding in your business logic.
This question gives me the same feeling I get when users won't tell me what they want done, or why, they only want to tell me how to do it.
"Random" and "Unique" are conflicting requirements unless you create a serial list and then choose randomly from it, deleting the chosen value.
But what's the problem this is intended to solve?
With your edit/update, sounds like what you need is an auto-increment and some padding.
Below is an approach that uses a bogus table, then adds an IDENTITY column (assuming that you don't have one) which starts at 1000, and then which uses a Computed Column to give you some padding to make everything work out as you requested.
CREATE TABLE Customers (
CustomerName varchar(20) NOT NULL
)
GO
INSERT INTO Customers
SELECT 'Bob Thomas' UNION
SELECT 'Dave Winchel' UNION
SELECT 'Nancy Davolio' UNION
SELECT 'Saded Khan'
GO
ALTER TABLE Customers
ADD CustomerId int IDENTITY(1000,1) NOT NULL
GO
ALTER TABLE Customers
ADD SuperId AS right(replicate('0',5)+ CAST(CustomerId as varchar(5)),5)
GO
SELECT * FROM Customers
GO
DROP TABLE Customers
GO
I think Michael's answer with the auto-increment should work well - your customer will get "01000" and then "01001" and then "01002" and so forth.
If you want to or have to make it more random, in this case, I'd suggest you create a table that contains all possible values, from "01000" through "99999". When you insert a new customer, use a technique (e.g. randomization) to pick one of the existing rows from that table (your pool of still available customer ID's), and use it, and remove it from the table.
Anything else will become really bad over time. Imagine you've used up 90% or 95% of your available customer ID's - trying to randomly find one of the few remaining possibility could lead to an almost endless retry of "is this one taken? Yes -> try a next one".
Marc
Does the random string data need to be a certain format? If not, why not use a uniqueidentifier?
insert into Customer ([Name], [UniqueValue]) values (#Name, NEWID())
Or use NEWID() as the default value of the column.
EDIT:
I agree with #rm, use a numeric value in your database, and handle the conversion to string (with padding, etc) in code.
Try this:
ALTER TABLE Customer ADD AVarcharColumn varchar(50)
CONSTRAINT DF_Customer_AVarcharColumn DEFAULT CONVERT(varchar(50), GETDATE(), 109)
It returns a date and time up to milliseconds, wich would be enough in most cases.
Do you really need an unique value?
I have a postgres database with a user table (userid, firstname, lastname) and a usermetadata table (userid, code, content, created datetime). I store various information about each user in the usermetadata table by code and keep a full history. so for example, a user (userid 15) has the following metadata:
15, 'QHS', '20', '2008-08-24 13:36:33.465567-04'
15, 'QHE', '8', '2008-08-24 12:07:08.660519-04'
15, 'QHS', '21', '2008-08-24 09:44:44.39354-04'
15, 'QHE', '10', '2008-08-24 08:47:57.672058-04'
I need to fetch a list of all my users and the most recent value of each of various usermetadata codes. I did this programmatically and it was, of course godawful slow. The best I could figure out to do it in SQL was to join sub-selects, which were also slow and I had to do one for each code.
This is actually not that hard to do in PostgreSQL because it has the "DISTINCT ON" clause in its SELECT syntax (DISTINCT ON isn't standard SQL).
SELECT DISTINCT ON (code) code, content, createtime
FROM metatable
WHERE userid = 15
ORDER BY code, createtime DESC;
That will limit the returned results to the first result per unique code, and if you sort the results by the create time descending, you'll get the newest of each.
I suppose you're not willing to modify your schema, so I'm afraid my answe might not be of much help, but here goes...
One possible solution would be to have the time field empty until it was replaced by a newer value, when you insert the 'deprecation date' instead. Another way is to expand the table with an 'active' column, but that would introduce some redundancy.
The classic solution would be to have both 'Valid-From' and 'Valid-To' fields where the 'Valid-To' fields are blank until some other entry becomes valid. This can be handled easily by using triggers or similar. Using constraints to make sure there is only one item of each type that is valid will ensure data integrity.
Common to these is that there is a single way of determining the set of current fields. You'd simply select all entries with the active user and a NULL 'Valid-To' or 'deprecation date' or a true 'active'.
You might be interested in taking a look at the Wikipedia entry on temporal databases and the article A consensus glossary of temporal database concepts.
A subselect is the standard way of doing this sort of thing. You just need a Unique Constraint on UserId, Code, and Date - and then you can run the following:
SELECT *
FROM Table
JOIN (
SELECT UserId, Code, MAX(Date) as LastDate
FROM Table
GROUP BY UserId, Code
) as Latest ON
Table.UserId = Latest.UserId
AND Table.Code = Latest.Code
AND Table.Date = Latest.Date
WHERE
UserId = #userId