I have made a search but couldn't find a solution which works for me.
I just wonder how Facebook or Linkedin manages to handle same type activity with one sentence?
I mean, if you store every activity with different IDs in an Activity Table, how can you list them as "Member_a and 15 more people changed their photos"
I'm trying to make a social activity wall for my web-site, it's not that big but I just wanted to know the logic on this situation.
For example, when first page loads, I make an Ajax call and listing 0-10 records and if user scrolls down, page makes another ajax call which lists 11-20 records.
Now; if I try to combine same type of activity after sql select query with using if else, if this 10 records are the same, the user will only see 1 item. I hope I could explain what I want to say :)
So, I need a solution which makes this query in SQL Statement.
I'm not asking from you to write a query for me, I just want to know the logic.
Here is a screenshot what I want to achieve:
You see, they are actually different stored data but they combined it and made it as a 1 item network update.
By the way, I'm using C# and SQL Server 2008.
for example:
SELECT Min(b.MemberName), COUNT(*) as Total FROM Network_Feed a
JOIN Member b on a.MemberID = b.MemberID
WHERE a.FeedType = 1
did I understand your question right?
It's not easy to manage petabytes of data as a one table. So, big projects running on SQL Server are used some advanced scaling(distributing data and load) tricks like Service Brokers and Replication.
You can check
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000004532 as an SQL Server example.
Related
Okay, just to clarify: I have a SQL Table (contains ID, School, Student ID, Name, Fee $, Fee Type, and Paid (as the columns)) that needs to be posted on a Grid that will uploaded on a website. The Grid shows everything correctly and shows what Fees need to be Paid. The Paid column has a bit data type for 1 or 0 (basically a checklist.) I am being asked to add two more columns: User and DateChanged. The reason why is to log which staff changed the "Paid" column. It would only capture the Username of the staff who changed it in the SQL Table and also the time. So to clarify even more, I need to create 2 columns: "User, DateChanged" and the columns would log when someone changed the "Paid" column.
For example: User:Bob checks the Paid column for X student on 5/2/17 at 10pm.
In the same row of X student's info, under User column Tom would appear there. Under DateChanged it would show 2017-05-02 10pm.
What steps would I take to make this possible.
I'm currently IT Intern and all this SQL stuff is new to me. Let me know if you need more clarification. FYI The two new columns: User, DateChanged will not be on the grid.
The way to do this as you've described is to use a trigger. I have an example of some code below but be warned as triggers can have unexpected side-effects, depending on how the database and app interface are set up.
If it is possible for you to change the application code that sends SQL queries to the database instead, that would be much safer than using a trigger. You can still add the new fields, you would just be relying on the app to keep them updated instead of doing it all in SQL.
Things to keep in mind about this code:
If any background processes or procedures make updates to the table, it will overwrite the timestamp and username automatically, because this is triggered on any update to the row(s) in question.
If the users don't have any direct access to SQL Server (in other words, the app is the only thing connecting to the database), then it is possible that the app will only be using one database login username for everyone, and in that case you will not be able to figure out which user made the update unless you can change the application code.
If anyone changes something by accident and then changes it back, it will overwrite your timestamp and make it look like the wrong person made the update.
Triggers can potentially bog down the database system if there are a very large number of rows and/or a high number of updates being made to the table constantly, because the trigger code will be executed every time an update is made to a row in the table.
But if you don't have access to change the application code, and you want to give triggers a try, here's some example code that should do what you are needing:
create trigger TG_Payments_Update on Payments
after update
as
begin
update Payments
set DateChanged = GetDate(), UserChanged = USER_NAME()
from Payments, inserted
where Payments.ID = inserted.ID
end
The web app already knows the current user working on the system, so your update would just include that user's ID and the current system time for when the action took place.
I would not rely on SQL Server triggers since that hides what's going on within the system. Plus, as others have said, they have side effects to deal with too.
We want to know what rows in a certain table is used frequently, and which are never used. We could add an extra column for this, but then we'd get an UPDATE for every SELECT, which sounds expensive? (The table contains 80k+ rows, some of which are used very often.)
Is there a better and perhaps faster way to do this? We're using some old version of Microsoft's SQL Server.
This kind of logging/tracking is the classical application server's task. If you want to realize your own architecture (there tracking architecture) do it on your own layer.
And in any case you will need application server there. You are not going to update tracking field it in the same transaction with select, isn't it? what about rollbacks? so you have some manager who first run select than write track information. And what is the point to save tracking information together with entity info sending it back to DB? Save it into application server file.
You could either update the column in the table as you suggested, but if it was me I'd log the event to another table, i.e. id of the record, datetime, userid (maybe ip address etc, browser version etc), just about anything else I could capture and that was even possibly relevant. (For example, 6 months from now your manager decides not only does s/he want to know which records were used the most, s/he wants to know which users are using the most records, or what time of day that usage pattern is etc).
This type of information can be useful for things you've never even thought of down the road, and if it starts to grow large you can always roll-up and prune the table to a smaller one if performance becomes an issue. When possible, I log everything I can. You may never use some of this information, but you'll never wish you didn't have it available down the road and will be impossible to re-create historically.
In terms of making sure the application doesn't slow down, you may want to 'select' the data from within a stored procedure, that also issues the logging command, so that the client is not doing two roundtrips (one for the select, one for the update/insert).
Alternatively, if this is a web application, you could use an async ajax call to issue the logging action which wouldn't slow down the users experience at all.
Adding new column to track SELECT is not a practice, because it may affect database performance, and the database performance is one of major critical issue as per Database Server Administration.
So here you can use one very good feature of database called Auditing, this is very easy and put less stress on Database.
Find more info: Here or From Here
Or Search for Database Auditing For Select Statement
Use another table as a key/value pair with two columns(e.g. id_selected, times) for storing the ids of the records you select in your standard table, and increment the times value by 1 every time the records are selected.
To do this you'd have to do a mass insert/update of the selected ids from your select query in the counting table. E.g. as a quick example:
SELECT id, stuff1, stuff2 FROM myTable WHERE stuff1='somevalue';
INSERT INTO countTable(id_selected, times)
SELECT id, 1 FROM myTable mt WHERE mt.stuff1='somevalue' # or just build a list of ids as values from your last result
ON DUPLICATE KEY
UPDATE times=times+1
The ON DUPLICATE KEY is right from the top of my head in MySQL. For conditionally inserting or updating in MSSQL you would need to use MERGE instead
I have 1 application module, 1 connection to DB and two DataControls based on a single ViewObject. They are placed on the same form. Is it any possibility that ADF makes 2 sessions when I insert data to first DataControl and trying to re-execute query in second?
Yours is not practically a problem. It is the way it should work. Two users cannot update/change the same row in the same time. The first that Commits the change is OK whereas to the second an Error popup will be displayed telling him that the current row has been updated from someone else. If the users are not working (changing) the same row but different rows of the same ViewObject then you should consider this link:
http://radio-weblogs.com/0118231/stories/2004/03/24/whyDoIGetOraclejborowinconsistentexception.html
I suggest you take a look also to this book, you can find it free to download, just search a bit.
http://www.amazon.com/Quick-Start-Oracle-Fusion-Development/dp/0071744282
Have a nice day, tung.
I'm new to pagination, so I'm not sure I fully understand how it works. But here's what I want to do.
Basically, I'm creating a search engine of sorts that generates results from a database (MySQL). These results are merged together algorithmically, and then returned to the user.
My question is this: When the results are merged on the backend, do I need to create a temporary view with the results that is then used by the PHP pagination? Or do I create a table? I don't want a bunch of views and/or tables floating around for each and every query. Also, if I do use temporary tables, when are they destroyed? What if the user hits the "Back" button on his/her browser?
I hope this makes sense. Please ask for clarification if you don't understand. I've provided a little bit more information below.
MORE EXPLANATION: The database contains English words and phrases, each of which is mapped to a concept (Example: "apple" is 0.67 semantically-related to the concept of "cooking"). The user can enter in a bunch of keywords, and find the closest matching concept to each of those keywords. So I am mathematically combining the raw relational scores to find a ranked list of the most semantically-related concepts for the set of words the user enters. So it's not as simple as building a SQL query like "SELECT * FROM words WHERE blah blah..."
It depends on your database engine (i.e. what kind of SQL), but nearly each SQL flavor has support for paginating a query.
For example, MySQL has LIMIT and MS SQL has ROW_NUMBER.
So you build your SQL as usual, and then you just add the database engine-specific pagination stuff and the server automatically returns only, say, row 10 to 20 of the query result.
EDIT:
So the final query (which selects the data that is returned to the user) selects data from some tables (temporary or not), as I expected.
It's a SELECT query, which you can page with LIMIT in MySQL.
Your description sounds to me as if the actual calculation is way more resource-hogging than the final query which returns the results to the user.
So I would do the following:
get the individual results tables for the entered words, and save them in a table in a way that you can get the data for this specifiy query later (for example, with an additional column like SessionID or QueryID). No pagination here.
query these result tables again for the final query that is returned to the user.
Here you can do paging by using LIMIT.
So you have to do the actual calculation (the resource-hogging queries) only once when the user "starts" the query. Then you can return paginated results to the user by just selecting from the already populated results table.
EDIT 2:
I just saw that you accepted my answer, but still, here's more detail about my usage of "temporary" tables.
Of course this is only one possible way to do it. If the expected result is not too large, returning the whole resultset to the client, keeping it in memory and doing the paging client side (as you suggested) is possible as well.
But if we are talking about real huge amounts of data of which the user will only view a few (think Google search results), and/or low bandwidth, then you only want to transfer as little data as possible to the client.
That's what I was thinking about when I wrote this answer.
So: I don't mean a "real" temporary table, I'm talking about a "normal" table used for saving temporary data.
I'm way more proficient in MS SQL than in MySQL, so I don't know much about temp tables in MySQL.
I can tell you how I would do it in MS SQL, but maybe there's a better way to do this in MySQL that I don't know.
When I'd have to page a resource-intensive query, I want do the actual calculation once, save it in a table and then query that table several times from the client (to avoid doing the calculation again for each page).
The problem is: in MS SQL, a temp table only exists in the scope of the query where it is created.
So I can't use a temp table for that because it would be gone when I want to query it the second time.
So I use "real" tables for things like that.
I'm not sure whether I understood your algorithm example correct, so I'll simplify the example a bit. I hope that I can make my point clear anyway:
This is the table (this is probably not valid MySQL, it's just to show the concept):
create table AlgorithmTempTable
(
QueryID guid,
Rank float,
Value float
)
As I said before - it's not literally a "temporary" table, it's actually a real permanent table that is just used for temporary data.
Now the user opens your application, enters his search words and presses the "Search" button.
Then you start your resource-heavy algorithm to calculate the result once, and store it in the table:
insert into AlgorithmTempTable (QueryID, Rank, Value)
select '12345678-9012-3456789', foo, bar
from Whatever
insert into AlgorithmTempTable (QueryID, Rank, Value)
select '12345678-9012-3456789', foo2, bar2
from SomewhereElse
The Guid must be known to the client. Maybe you can use the client's SessionID for that (if he has one and if he can't start more than one query at once...or you generate a new Guid on the client each time the user presses the "Search" button, or whatever).
Now all the calculation is done, and the ranked list of results is saved in the table.
Now you can query the table, filtering by the QueryID:
select Rank, Value
from AlgorithmTempTable
where QueryID = '12345678-9012-3456789'
order by Rank
limit 0, 10
Because of the QueryID, multiple users can do this at the same time without interfering each other's query. If you create a new QueryID for each search, the same user can even run multiple queries at once.
Now there's only one thing left to do: delete the temporary data when it's not needed anymore (only the data! The table is never dropped).
So, if the user closes the query screen:
delete
from AlgorithmTempTable
where QueryID = '12345678-9012-3456789'
This is not ideal in some cases, though. If the application crashes, the data stays in the table forever.
There are several better ways. Which one is the best for you depends on your application. Some possibilities:
You can add a datetime column with the current time as default value, and then run a nightly (or weekly) job that deletes everything older than X
Same as above, but instead of a weekly job you can delete everything older than X every time someone starts a new query
If you have a session per user, you can save the SessionID in an additional column in the table. When the user logs out or the session expires, you can delete everything with that SessionID in the table
Paging results can be very tricky. They way I have done this is as follows. Set an upperbound limit for any query that may be run. For example say 5,000. If a query returns more than 5,000 then limit the results to 5,000.
This is best done using a stored procedure.
Store the results of the query into a temp table.
Select Page X's amount of data from the temp table.
Also return back the current page and total number of pages.
Have you ever seen any of there error messages?
-- SQL Server 2000
Could not allocate ancillary table for view or function resolution.
The maximum number of tables in a query (256) was exceeded.
-- SQL Server 2005
Too many table names in the query. The maximum allowable is 256.
If yes, what have you done?
Given up? Convinced the customer to simplify their demands? Denormalized the database?
#(everyone wanting me to post the query):
I'm not sure if I can paste 70 kilobytes of code in the answer editing window.
Even if I can this this won't help since this 70 kilobytes of code will reference 20 or 30 views that I would also have to post since otherwise the code will be meaningless.
I don't want to sound like I am boasting here but the problem is not in the queries. The queries are optimal (or at least almost optimal). I have spent countless hours optimizing them, looking for every single column and every single table that can be removed. Imagine a report that has 200 or 300 columns that has to be filled with a single SELECT statement (because that's how it was designed a few years ago when it was still a small report).
For SQL Server 2005, I'd recommend using table variables and partially building the data as you go.
To do this, create a table variable that represents your final result set you want to send to the user.
Then find your primary table (say the orders table in your example above) and pull that data, plus a bit of supplementary data that is only say one join away (customer name, product name). You can do a SELECT INTO to put this straight into your table variable.
From there, iterate through the table and for each row, do a bunch of small SELECT queries that retrieves all the supplemental data you need for your result set. Insert these into each column as you go.
Once complete, you can then do a simple SELECT * from your table variable and return this result set to the user.
I don't have any hard numbers for this, but there have been three distinct instances that I have worked on to date where doing these smaller queries has actually worked faster than doing one massive select query with a bunch of joins.
#chopeen You could change the way you're calculating these statistics, and instead keep a separate table of all per-product stats.. when an order is placed, loop through the products and update the appropriate records in the stats table. This would shift a lot of the calculation load to the checkout page rather than running everything in one huge query when running a report. Of course there are some stats that aren't going to work as well this way, e.g. tracking customers' next purchases after purchasing a particular product.
This would happen all the time when writing Reporting Services Reports for Dynamics CRM installations running on SQL Server 2000. CRM has a nicely normalised data schema which results in a lot of joins. There's actually a hotfix around that will up the limit from 256 to a whopping 260: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/818406 (we always thought this a great joke on the part of the SQL Server team).
The solution, as Dillie-O aludes to, is to identify appropriate "sub-joins" (preferably ones that are used multiple times) and factor them out into temp-table variables that you then use in your main joins. It's a major PIA and often kills performance. I'm sorry for you.
#Kevin, love that tee -- says it all :-).
I have never come across this kind of situation, and to be honest the idea of referencing > 256 tables in a query fills me with a mortal dread.
Your first question should probably by "Why so many?", closely followed by "what bits of information do I NOT need?" I'd be worried that the amount of data being returned from such a query would begin to impact performance of the application quite severely, too.
I'd like to see that query, but I imagine it's some problem with some sort of iterator, and while I can't think of any situations where its possible, I bet it's from a bad while/case/cursor or a ton of poorly implemented views.
Post the query :D
Also I feel like one of the possible problems could be having a ton (read 200+) of name/value tables which could condensed into a single lookup table.
I had this same problem... my development box runs SQL Server 2008 (the view worked fine) but on production (with SQL Server 2005) the view didn't. I ended up creating views to avoid this limitation, using the new views as part of the query in the view that threw the error.
Kind of silly considering the logical execution is the same...
Had the same issue in SQL Server 2005 (worked in 2008) when I wanted to create a view. I resolved the issue by creating a stored procedure instead of a view.