Updating redundant/denormalized data automatically in SQL Server - sql-server

Use a high level of redundant, denormalized data in my DB designs to improve performance. I'll often store data that would normally need to be joined or calculated. For example, if I have a User table and a Task table, I would store the Username and UserDisplayName redundantly in every Task record. Another example of this is storing aggregates, such as storing the TaskCount in the User table.
User
UserID
Username
UserDisplayName
TaskCount
Task
TaskID
TaskName
UserID
UserName
UserDisplayName
This is great for performance since the app has many more reads than insert, update or delete operations, and since some values like Username change rarely. However, the big draw back is that the integrity has to be enforced via application code or triggers. This can be very cumbersome with updates.
My question is can this be done automatically in SQL Server 2005/2010... maybe via a persisted/permanent View. Would anyone recommend another possibly solution or technology. I've heard document-based DBs such as CouchDB and MongoDB can handle denormalized data more effectively.

You might want to first try an Indexed View before moving to a NoSQL solution:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187864.aspx
and:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191432.aspx
Using an Indexed View would allow you to keep your base data in properly normalized tables and maintain data-integrity while giving you the denormalized "view" of that data. I would not recommend this for highly transactional tables, but you said it was heavier on reads than writes so you might want to see if this works for you.
Based on your two example tables, one option is:
1) Add a column to the User table defined as:
TaskCount INT NOT NULL DEFAULT (0)
2) Add a Trigger on the Task table defined as:
CREATE TRIGGER UpdateUserTaskCount
ON dbo.Task
AFTER INSERT, DELETE
AS
;WITH added AS
(
SELECT ins.UserID, COUNT(*) AS [NumTasks]
FROM INSERTED ins
GROUP BY ins.UserID
)
UPDATE usr
SET usr.TaskCount = (usr.TaskCount + added.NumTasks)
FROM dbo.[User] usr
INNER JOIN added
ON added.UserID = usr.UserID
;WITH removed AS
(
SELECT del.UserID, COUNT(*) AS [NumTasks]
FROM DELETED del
GROUP BY del.UserID
)
UPDATE usr
SET usr.TaskCount = (usr.TaskCount - removed.NumTasks)
FROM dbo.[User] usr
INNER JOIN removed
ON removed.UserID = usr.UserID
GO
3) Then do a View that has:
SELECT u.UserID,
u.Username,
u.UserDisplayName,
u.TaskCount,
t.TaskID,
t.TaskName
FROM User u
INNER JOIN Task t
ON t.UserID = u.UserID
And then follow the recommendations from the links above (WITH SCHEMABINDING, Unique Clustered Index, etc.) to make it "persisted". While it is inefficient to do an aggregation in a subquery in the SELECT as shown above, this specific case is intended to be denormalized in a situation that has higher reads than writes. So doing the Indexed View will keep the entire structure, including the aggregation, physically stored so each read will not recalculate it.
Now, if a LEFT JOIN is needed if some Users do not have any Tasks, then the Indexed View will not work due to the 5000 restrictions on creating them. In that case, you can create a real table (UserTask) that is your denormalized structure and have it populated via either a Trigger on just the User Table (assuming you do the Trigger I show above which updates the User Table based on changes in the Task table) or you can skip the TaskCount field in the User Table and just have Triggers on both tables to populate the UserTask table. In the end, this is basically what an Indexed View does just without you having to write the synchronization Trigger(s).

Related

Snowflake CHANGES | Why does it need to perform a self join? Why is it slower than join using other unique column?

I was facing issues with merge statement over large tables.
The source table for merge is basically clone of the target table after applying some DML.
e.g. In the below example PUBLIC.customer is target and STAGING.customer is the source.
CREATE OR REPLACE TABLE STAGING.customer CLONE PUBLIC.customer;
MERGE INTO STAGING.customer TARGET USING (SELECT * FROM NEW_CUSTOMER) AS SOURCE ON TARGET.ID = SOURCE.ID
WHEN MATCHED AND SOURCE.DELETEFLAG=TRUE THEN DELETE
WHEN MATCHED AND TARGET.ROWMODIFIED < SOURCE.ROWMODIFIED THEN UPDATE SET TARGET.AGE = SOURCE.AGE, ...
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT (AGE) VALUES (AGE, DELETEFLAG, ID,...);
Currently, we are simply merging the STAGING.customer back to PUBLIC.customer at the end.
This final merge statement is very costly for some of the large tables.
While looking for a solution to reduce the cost, I discovered Snowflake "CHANGES" mechanism. As per the documentation,
Currently, at least one of the following must be true before change tracking metadata is recorded for a table:
Change tracking is enabled on the table (using ALTER TABLE … CHANGE_TRACKING = TRUE).
A stream is created for the table (using CREATE STREAM).
Both options add hidden columns to the table which store change tracking metadata. The columns consume a small amount of storage.
I assumed that the metadata added to the table is equivalent to the result-set of the select statement using "changes" clause, which doesn't seem to be the case.
INSERT INTO PUBLIC.CUSTOMER(AGE,...) (SELECT AGE,... FROM STAGING.CUSTOMER CHANGES (information => default) at(timestamp => 1675772176::timestamp) where "METADATA$ACTION" = 'INSERT' );
The select statement using "changes" clause is way slower than the merge statement that I am using currently.
I checked the execution plan and found that Snowflake performs a self-join(sort of) on the table at two different timestamp.
Should it really be the behaviour or am I missing something here? I was hoping to get better performance assuming to scan the table one time and then simply inserting the new records which should be faster than the merge statement.
Also, even if it does a self join, why does the merge query perform better than this, the merge query is also doing join on similar volumes.
I was also hoping to use same mechanism for delete/updates on source table.

Update SQL Table Based On Composite Primary Key

I have an ETL process (CSV to SQL database) that runs daily, but the data in the source sometimes changes, so I want to have it run again the next day with an updated file.
How do I write a SQL statement to find all the differences?
For example, let's say Table_1 has a composite PRIMARY KEY consisting of FK_1, FK_2 and FK_3.
Do I do this in SQL or in the ETL process?
Thanks.
Edit
I realize now this question is too broad. Disregard.
You can use EXCEPT to find which are the IDs which are missing. For example:
SELECT FK_1, FK_2, FK_2
FROM new_data_table
EXCEPT
SELECT FK_1, FK_2, FK_2
FROM current_data_table;
It will be better (in performance prospective) to materialized these IDs and then to join this new table to the new_data_table in order to insert all of the columns.
If you need to do this in one query, you can use simple LEFT JOIN. For example:
INSERT INTO current_data_table
SELECT A.*
FROM new_data_table A
LEFT JOIN current_data_table B
ON A.FK_1 = B.FK_1
AND A.FK_2 = B.FK_2
AND A.FK_3 = B.FK_3
WHRE B.[FK_1] IS NULL;
The idea is to get all records in the new_data_table for which, there is no match in the current_data_table table (WHRE B.[FK_1] IS NULL).

Using Triggers in SQL Server to keep a history

I am using SQL Server 2012
I have a table called AMOUNTS and a table called AMOUNTS_HIST
Both tables have identical columns:
CHANGE_DATE
AMOUNT
COMPANY_ID
EXP_ID
SPOT
UPDATE_DATE [system date]
The Primary Key of AMOUNTS is COMPANY_ID and EXP_ID.
The Primary Key pf AMOUNTS_HIST is COMPANY_ID, EXP_ID and CHANGE_DATE
Whenever I add a row in the AMOUNTS table, I would like to create a copy of it in the AMOUNTS_HIST table. [Theoretically, each time a row is added to 'AMOUNTS', the COMPANY_ID, EXP_ID, CHANGE_DATE will be unique. Practically, if they are not, the relevant row in AMOUNTS_HIST would need to be overridden. The code below does not take the overriding into account.]
I created a trigger as follows:
CREATE TRIGGER [MYDB].[update_history] ON [MYDB].[AMOUNTS]
FOR UPDATE
AS
INSERT MYDB.AMOUNTS_HIST (
CHANGE_DATE,
COMPANY_ID,
EXP_ID,
SPOT
UPDATE_DATE
)
SELECT e.CHANGE_DATE,
e.COMPANY_ID,
e.EXP_ID
e.REMARKS,
e.SPOT,
e.UPDATE_DATE
FROM MYDB.AMOUNTS e
JOIN inserted ON inserted.company_id = e.company_id
AND inserted.exp_id=e.exp_id
I don't understand why it does nothing at all in my AMOUNTS_HIST table.
Can anyone help?
Thanks,
Probably because the trigger, the way it's currently written, will only get fired when an Update is done, not an insert.
Try changing it to:
CREATE TRIGGER [MYDB].[update_history] ON [MYDB].[AMOUNTS]
FOR UPDATE, INSERT
I just wanted to chime in. Have you looked at CDC (change data capture).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb522489(v=sql.105).aspx
"Change data capture is designed to capture insert, update, and delete activity applied to SQL Server tables, and to make the details of the changes available in an easily consumed relational format. The change tables used by change data capture contain columns that mirror the column structure of a tracked source table, along with the metadata needed to understand the changes that have occurred.
Change data capture is available only on the Enterprise, Developer, and Evaluation editions of SQL Server."
As far as your trigger goes, when you update [MYDB].[AMOUNTS] does the trigger throw any errors?
Also I believe you can get all your data from Inserted table without needed to do the join back to mydb.amounts.

Populating a table with fields from two other tables

I have two tables in Filemaker:
tableA (which includes fields idA (e.g. a123), date, price) and
tableB (which includes fields idB (e.g. b123), date, price).
How can I create a new table, tableC, with field id, populated with both idA and idB, (with the other fields being used for calculations on the combined data of both tables)?
The only way is to script it (for repeating uses) or do it 'manually', if this is an ad-hoc process. Details depend on the situation, so please clarify.
Update: Sorry, I actually forgot about the question. I assume the ID fields do not overlap even across tables and you do not need to add the same record more than once, but update it instead. In such a case the simplest script would be like that:
Set Variable[ $self, Get( FileName ) ]
Import Records[ $self, Table A -> Table C, sync on ID, update and add new ]
Import Records[ $self, Table B -> Table C, sync on ID, update and add new ]
The Import Records step is managed via rather elaborate dialog, but the idea is that you import from the same file (you can just type file:<YourFileName> there), the format is FileMaker Pro, and then set the field mapping. Make sure to choose the Update matching records and Add remaining records options and select the ID fields as key files to sync by.
It would be a FileMaker script. It could be run as a script trigger, but then it's not going to be seamless to the user. Your best bet is to create the tables, then just run the script as needed (manually) to build Table C. If you have FileMaker Server, you could schedule this script to be run periodically to keep Table C up-to-date.
Maybe you can use the select into statement.
I'm unsure if you wish to use calculated field from TableA and TableB or if your intension was to only calculate fields from the same table?
If tableA.IdA exists also in tableB.IdA, you could join the two tables and select into.
Else, you run the statement once for each table.
Select into statement
Select tableA.IdA, tableA.field1A, tableA.field2A, tableA.field1A * tableB.field2A
into New_Table from tableA
Edit: missed the part where you mentioned FileMaker.
But maybe you could script this on the db and just drop the table.

table relationships, SQL 2005

Ok I have a question and it is probably very easy but I can not find the solution.
I have 3 tables plus one main tbl.
tbl_1 - tbl_1Name_id
tbl_2- tbl_2Name_id
tbl_3 - tbl_3Name_id
I want to connect the Name_id fields to the main tbl fields below.
main_tbl
___________
tbl_1Name_id
tbl_2Name_id
tbl_3Name_id
Main tbl has a Unique Key for these fields and in the other table, fields they are normal fields NOT NULL.
What I would like to do is that any time when the record is entered in tbl_1, tbl_2 or tbl_3, the value from the main table shows in that field, or other way.
Also I have the relationship Many to one, one being the main tbl of course.
I have a feeling this should be very simple but can not get it to work.
Take a look at SQL Server triggers. This will allow you to perform an action when a record is inserted into any one of those tables.
If you provide some more information like:
An example of an insert
The resulting change you would like
to see as a result of that insert
I can try and give you some more details.
UPDATE
Based on your new comments I suspect that you are working with a denormalized database schema. Below is how I would suggest you structure your tables in the Employee-Medical visit scenario you discussed:
Employee
--------
EmployeeId
fName
lName
EmployeeMedicalVisit
--------------------
VisitId
EmployeeId
Date
Cost
Some important things:
Note that I am not entering the
employees name into the
EmployeeMedicalVisit table, just the EmployeeId. This
helps to maintain data integrity and
complies with First Normal Form
You should read up on 1st, 2nd and
3rd normal forms. Database
normalization is a very imporant
subject and it will make your life
easier if you can grasp them.
With the above structure, when an employee visited a medical office you would insert a record into EmployeeMedicalVisit. To select all medical visits for an employee you would use the query below:
SELECT e.fName, e.lName
FROM Employee e
INNER JOIN EmployeeMedicalVisit as emv
ON e.EployeeId = emv.EmployeeId
Hope this helps!
Here is a sample trigger that may show you waht you need to have:
Create trigger mytabletrigger ON mytable
For INSERT
AS
INSERT MYOTHERTABLE (MytableId, insertdate)
select mytableid, getdate() from inserted
In a trigger you have two psuedotables available, inserted and deleted. The inserted table constains the data that is being inserted into the table you have the trigger on including any autogenerated id. That is how you get the data to the other table assuming you don't need other data at the same time. YOu can get other data from system stored procuders or joins to other tables but not from a form in the application.
If you do need other data that isn't available in a trigger (such as other values from a form, then you need to write a sttored procedure to insert to one table and return the id value through an output clause or using scope_identity() and then use that data to build the insert for the next table.

Resources