MySQL statements to update overlapping database entries and insert new data into various tables











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












As I've mentioned in previous questions, I am writing MySQL statements to update overlapping database entries and insert new data into various tables. My database design looks something like this, where there's one parent table (hash is the primary key and id is indexed):



+---------------+
| hashes |
+---------------+
| hash | id |
+---------------+
| hash1 | id1 |
| hash2 | id1 |
| hash3 | id1 |
| hash4 | id2 |
+---------------+


And many child tables (id is indexed, there are no primary or unique keys):



+-------------------------+
| other_table |
+-------------------------+
| id | group_id | value |
+-------------------------+
| id1 | groupid1 | val1 |
| id1 | groupid1 | val2 |
| id2 | groupid2 | val3 |
| id2 | groupid3 | val4 |
+-------------------------+


There are foreign key constraints on the child table id columns, so that if any ids in the hashes table are updated, all child tables update with the new information. The ids change when any inserted hashes are overlapped somewhere in the hashes table.



To achieve all this, I wrote the following statement:



START TRANSACTION; 

/* Generated with PHP */
SET @id = '610de097-26d0-41b2-839b-1bd8c0d05dea';
SET @group_id = '54c41b95-5897-4984-961c-cc8fc97fc586';

/* Insert new data */
INSERT INTO hashes
(id, hash)
VALUES
(@id, 'hash1'), (@id, 'hash2')
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE
repeat_count = repeat_count + 1;

INSERT IGNORE INTO categories
(id, group_id, value)
VALUES
(@id, @group_id, 'some value');

COMMIT;


And a collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:



/* Update all parent table ids for any overlapping hashes */
UPDATE hashes
SET id=@id
WHERE id IN (
SELECT id
FROM (SELECT id, hash FROM hashes ORDER BY id) as temp
WHERE hash IN ('hash1', 'hash2')
ORDER BY id ASC
);


This works, and with around 950 entries to insert, it takes around 25 seconds to run. The slowest part, by far, is the many update statements since it needs to search over the entire hash table and update rows accordingly.



Consequently, if I want to see any speed improvements, I need to modify those update statements. Any ideas?










share|improve this question
























  • I don't know if MySQL recognizes that your ORDER BY's are not needed, but you can see if it makes any noticeable difference removing them from your SELECTs. Maybe I'm missing something but I wouldn't think an UPDATE would need to be dependent on the data order
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 19:34










  • @dbmitch Just checked, difference is negligible.
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 19:43










  • Hello! Please don't make changes to the original post once it has been reviewed, as that invalidates the current answers. Please see our meta side on performing iterative reviews for more information!
    – syb0rg
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:56










  • @syb0rg No problem. However, my last edit that was rolled back by Vogel didn't change any code, it just provided an example for what I already posted. Am I incorrect about that?
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:19










  • According to what you are saying, hash is the primary key. Do you have an actual unique index specified using this table I ran into some circumstances where MySQL wanted the indices specifically stated instead of implied by the primary key clause. In addition, using INSERT IGNORE ( dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/insert.html ) seems questionable. Are you saying that you are deliberately allowing primary key violations?
    – Bradley Ross
    Jul 7 '16 at 22:17















up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












As I've mentioned in previous questions, I am writing MySQL statements to update overlapping database entries and insert new data into various tables. My database design looks something like this, where there's one parent table (hash is the primary key and id is indexed):



+---------------+
| hashes |
+---------------+
| hash | id |
+---------------+
| hash1 | id1 |
| hash2 | id1 |
| hash3 | id1 |
| hash4 | id2 |
+---------------+


And many child tables (id is indexed, there are no primary or unique keys):



+-------------------------+
| other_table |
+-------------------------+
| id | group_id | value |
+-------------------------+
| id1 | groupid1 | val1 |
| id1 | groupid1 | val2 |
| id2 | groupid2 | val3 |
| id2 | groupid3 | val4 |
+-------------------------+


There are foreign key constraints on the child table id columns, so that if any ids in the hashes table are updated, all child tables update with the new information. The ids change when any inserted hashes are overlapped somewhere in the hashes table.



To achieve all this, I wrote the following statement:



START TRANSACTION; 

/* Generated with PHP */
SET @id = '610de097-26d0-41b2-839b-1bd8c0d05dea';
SET @group_id = '54c41b95-5897-4984-961c-cc8fc97fc586';

/* Insert new data */
INSERT INTO hashes
(id, hash)
VALUES
(@id, 'hash1'), (@id, 'hash2')
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE
repeat_count = repeat_count + 1;

INSERT IGNORE INTO categories
(id, group_id, value)
VALUES
(@id, @group_id, 'some value');

COMMIT;


And a collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:



/* Update all parent table ids for any overlapping hashes */
UPDATE hashes
SET id=@id
WHERE id IN (
SELECT id
FROM (SELECT id, hash FROM hashes ORDER BY id) as temp
WHERE hash IN ('hash1', 'hash2')
ORDER BY id ASC
);


This works, and with around 950 entries to insert, it takes around 25 seconds to run. The slowest part, by far, is the many update statements since it needs to search over the entire hash table and update rows accordingly.



Consequently, if I want to see any speed improvements, I need to modify those update statements. Any ideas?










share|improve this question
























  • I don't know if MySQL recognizes that your ORDER BY's are not needed, but you can see if it makes any noticeable difference removing them from your SELECTs. Maybe I'm missing something but I wouldn't think an UPDATE would need to be dependent on the data order
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 19:34










  • @dbmitch Just checked, difference is negligible.
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 19:43










  • Hello! Please don't make changes to the original post once it has been reviewed, as that invalidates the current answers. Please see our meta side on performing iterative reviews for more information!
    – syb0rg
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:56










  • @syb0rg No problem. However, my last edit that was rolled back by Vogel didn't change any code, it just provided an example for what I already posted. Am I incorrect about that?
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:19










  • According to what you are saying, hash is the primary key. Do you have an actual unique index specified using this table I ran into some circumstances where MySQL wanted the indices specifically stated instead of implied by the primary key clause. In addition, using INSERT IGNORE ( dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/insert.html ) seems questionable. Are you saying that you are deliberately allowing primary key violations?
    – Bradley Ross
    Jul 7 '16 at 22:17













up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1






1





As I've mentioned in previous questions, I am writing MySQL statements to update overlapping database entries and insert new data into various tables. My database design looks something like this, where there's one parent table (hash is the primary key and id is indexed):



+---------------+
| hashes |
+---------------+
| hash | id |
+---------------+
| hash1 | id1 |
| hash2 | id1 |
| hash3 | id1 |
| hash4 | id2 |
+---------------+


And many child tables (id is indexed, there are no primary or unique keys):



+-------------------------+
| other_table |
+-------------------------+
| id | group_id | value |
+-------------------------+
| id1 | groupid1 | val1 |
| id1 | groupid1 | val2 |
| id2 | groupid2 | val3 |
| id2 | groupid3 | val4 |
+-------------------------+


There are foreign key constraints on the child table id columns, so that if any ids in the hashes table are updated, all child tables update with the new information. The ids change when any inserted hashes are overlapped somewhere in the hashes table.



To achieve all this, I wrote the following statement:



START TRANSACTION; 

/* Generated with PHP */
SET @id = '610de097-26d0-41b2-839b-1bd8c0d05dea';
SET @group_id = '54c41b95-5897-4984-961c-cc8fc97fc586';

/* Insert new data */
INSERT INTO hashes
(id, hash)
VALUES
(@id, 'hash1'), (@id, 'hash2')
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE
repeat_count = repeat_count + 1;

INSERT IGNORE INTO categories
(id, group_id, value)
VALUES
(@id, @group_id, 'some value');

COMMIT;


And a collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:



/* Update all parent table ids for any overlapping hashes */
UPDATE hashes
SET id=@id
WHERE id IN (
SELECT id
FROM (SELECT id, hash FROM hashes ORDER BY id) as temp
WHERE hash IN ('hash1', 'hash2')
ORDER BY id ASC
);


This works, and with around 950 entries to insert, it takes around 25 seconds to run. The slowest part, by far, is the many update statements since it needs to search over the entire hash table and update rows accordingly.



Consequently, if I want to see any speed improvements, I need to modify those update statements. Any ideas?










share|improve this question















As I've mentioned in previous questions, I am writing MySQL statements to update overlapping database entries and insert new data into various tables. My database design looks something like this, where there's one parent table (hash is the primary key and id is indexed):



+---------------+
| hashes |
+---------------+
| hash | id |
+---------------+
| hash1 | id1 |
| hash2 | id1 |
| hash3 | id1 |
| hash4 | id2 |
+---------------+


And many child tables (id is indexed, there are no primary or unique keys):



+-------------------------+
| other_table |
+-------------------------+
| id | group_id | value |
+-------------------------+
| id1 | groupid1 | val1 |
| id1 | groupid1 | val2 |
| id2 | groupid2 | val3 |
| id2 | groupid3 | val4 |
+-------------------------+


There are foreign key constraints on the child table id columns, so that if any ids in the hashes table are updated, all child tables update with the new information. The ids change when any inserted hashes are overlapped somewhere in the hashes table.



To achieve all this, I wrote the following statement:



START TRANSACTION; 

/* Generated with PHP */
SET @id = '610de097-26d0-41b2-839b-1bd8c0d05dea';
SET @group_id = '54c41b95-5897-4984-961c-cc8fc97fc586';

/* Insert new data */
INSERT INTO hashes
(id, hash)
VALUES
(@id, 'hash1'), (@id, 'hash2')
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE
repeat_count = repeat_count + 1;

INSERT IGNORE INTO categories
(id, group_id, value)
VALUES
(@id, @group_id, 'some value');

COMMIT;


And a collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:



/* Update all parent table ids for any overlapping hashes */
UPDATE hashes
SET id=@id
WHERE id IN (
SELECT id
FROM (SELECT id, hash FROM hashes ORDER BY id) as temp
WHERE hash IN ('hash1', 'hash2')
ORDER BY id ASC
);


This works, and with around 950 entries to insert, it takes around 25 seconds to run. The slowest part, by far, is the many update statements since it needs to search over the entire hash table and update rows accordingly.



Consequently, if I want to see any speed improvements, I need to modify those update statements. Any ideas?







performance sql mysql






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:43









Community

1




1










asked Jul 7 '16 at 15:43









Charlie

371316




371316












  • I don't know if MySQL recognizes that your ORDER BY's are not needed, but you can see if it makes any noticeable difference removing them from your SELECTs. Maybe I'm missing something but I wouldn't think an UPDATE would need to be dependent on the data order
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 19:34










  • @dbmitch Just checked, difference is negligible.
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 19:43










  • Hello! Please don't make changes to the original post once it has been reviewed, as that invalidates the current answers. Please see our meta side on performing iterative reviews for more information!
    – syb0rg
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:56










  • @syb0rg No problem. However, my last edit that was rolled back by Vogel didn't change any code, it just provided an example for what I already posted. Am I incorrect about that?
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:19










  • According to what you are saying, hash is the primary key. Do you have an actual unique index specified using this table I ran into some circumstances where MySQL wanted the indices specifically stated instead of implied by the primary key clause. In addition, using INSERT IGNORE ( dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/insert.html ) seems questionable. Are you saying that you are deliberately allowing primary key violations?
    – Bradley Ross
    Jul 7 '16 at 22:17


















  • I don't know if MySQL recognizes that your ORDER BY's are not needed, but you can see if it makes any noticeable difference removing them from your SELECTs. Maybe I'm missing something but I wouldn't think an UPDATE would need to be dependent on the data order
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 19:34










  • @dbmitch Just checked, difference is negligible.
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 19:43










  • Hello! Please don't make changes to the original post once it has been reviewed, as that invalidates the current answers. Please see our meta side on performing iterative reviews for more information!
    – syb0rg
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:56










  • @syb0rg No problem. However, my last edit that was rolled back by Vogel didn't change any code, it just provided an example for what I already posted. Am I incorrect about that?
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:19










  • According to what you are saying, hash is the primary key. Do you have an actual unique index specified using this table I ran into some circumstances where MySQL wanted the indices specifically stated instead of implied by the primary key clause. In addition, using INSERT IGNORE ( dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/insert.html ) seems questionable. Are you saying that you are deliberately allowing primary key violations?
    – Bradley Ross
    Jul 7 '16 at 22:17
















I don't know if MySQL recognizes that your ORDER BY's are not needed, but you can see if it makes any noticeable difference removing them from your SELECTs. Maybe I'm missing something but I wouldn't think an UPDATE would need to be dependent on the data order
– dbmitch
Jul 7 '16 at 19:34




I don't know if MySQL recognizes that your ORDER BY's are not needed, but you can see if it makes any noticeable difference removing them from your SELECTs. Maybe I'm missing something but I wouldn't think an UPDATE would need to be dependent on the data order
– dbmitch
Jul 7 '16 at 19:34












@dbmitch Just checked, difference is negligible.
– Charlie
Jul 7 '16 at 19:43




@dbmitch Just checked, difference is negligible.
– Charlie
Jul 7 '16 at 19:43












Hello! Please don't make changes to the original post once it has been reviewed, as that invalidates the current answers. Please see our meta side on performing iterative reviews for more information!
– syb0rg
Jul 7 '16 at 20:56




Hello! Please don't make changes to the original post once it has been reviewed, as that invalidates the current answers. Please see our meta side on performing iterative reviews for more information!
– syb0rg
Jul 7 '16 at 20:56












@syb0rg No problem. However, my last edit that was rolled back by Vogel didn't change any code, it just provided an example for what I already posted. Am I incorrect about that?
– Charlie
Jul 7 '16 at 21:19




@syb0rg No problem. However, my last edit that was rolled back by Vogel didn't change any code, it just provided an example for what I already posted. Am I incorrect about that?
– Charlie
Jul 7 '16 at 21:19












According to what you are saying, hash is the primary key. Do you have an actual unique index specified using this table I ran into some circumstances where MySQL wanted the indices specifically stated instead of implied by the primary key clause. In addition, using INSERT IGNORE ( dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/insert.html ) seems questionable. Are you saying that you are deliberately allowing primary key violations?
– Bradley Ross
Jul 7 '16 at 22:17




According to what you are saying, hash is the primary key. Do you have an actual unique index specified using this table I ran into some circumstances where MySQL wanted the indices specifically stated instead of implied by the primary key clause. In addition, using INSERT IGNORE ( dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/insert.html ) seems questionable. Are you saying that you are deliberately allowing primary key violations?
– Bradley Ross
Jul 7 '16 at 22:17










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













I was going in circles looking at your query and then I thought
... it looks like you're just updating the one table form the same table



Why can't you just use



UPDATE hashes 
SET id=@id
WHERE hash IN ('hash1', 'hash2');


Or is this a typo?



UPDATE hashes 





share|improve this answer





















  • Because that only updates the id of the row(s) where the hash overlaps. I need to update all rows with the returned ids. For instance, in my example, if hash1 and hash4 are added to the table again, I don't want to only update the row 1 and 4. Instead I need to select all rows that match those ids and update everything to the new value.
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:06












  • Perhaps you should share your "collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:" If I just look at the query in the context of being a query I don't see why you shouldn;t use it. Can you show the context of the update query?
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:13










  • Now I'm really confused - you've changed the table and the contents for hash field from a text to a number - still incremental I guess, then you've also changed the update query. Why wouldn't you include '3' in your query if you want it updated? You didn't include 'hash3' or 'hash4' in your original example.
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:13










  • The type change was inadvertent, just quicker to type but doesn't really change anything either. And because I don't know if hash3 (3) exists. All I know is that hash1 (1) and hash2 (2) exist. However, there might be other rows that share the id's of hash1/hash2 which I want to update as well (should they exist, which is what my query takes care of).
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:15













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134181%2fmysql-statements-to-update-overlapping-database-entries-and-insert-new-data-into%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













I was going in circles looking at your query and then I thought
... it looks like you're just updating the one table form the same table



Why can't you just use



UPDATE hashes 
SET id=@id
WHERE hash IN ('hash1', 'hash2');


Or is this a typo?



UPDATE hashes 





share|improve this answer





















  • Because that only updates the id of the row(s) where the hash overlaps. I need to update all rows with the returned ids. For instance, in my example, if hash1 and hash4 are added to the table again, I don't want to only update the row 1 and 4. Instead I need to select all rows that match those ids and update everything to the new value.
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:06












  • Perhaps you should share your "collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:" If I just look at the query in the context of being a query I don't see why you shouldn;t use it. Can you show the context of the update query?
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:13










  • Now I'm really confused - you've changed the table and the contents for hash field from a text to a number - still incremental I guess, then you've also changed the update query. Why wouldn't you include '3' in your query if you want it updated? You didn't include 'hash3' or 'hash4' in your original example.
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:13










  • The type change was inadvertent, just quicker to type but doesn't really change anything either. And because I don't know if hash3 (3) exists. All I know is that hash1 (1) and hash2 (2) exist. However, there might be other rows that share the id's of hash1/hash2 which I want to update as well (should they exist, which is what my query takes care of).
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:15

















up vote
0
down vote













I was going in circles looking at your query and then I thought
... it looks like you're just updating the one table form the same table



Why can't you just use



UPDATE hashes 
SET id=@id
WHERE hash IN ('hash1', 'hash2');


Or is this a typo?



UPDATE hashes 





share|improve this answer





















  • Because that only updates the id of the row(s) where the hash overlaps. I need to update all rows with the returned ids. For instance, in my example, if hash1 and hash4 are added to the table again, I don't want to only update the row 1 and 4. Instead I need to select all rows that match those ids and update everything to the new value.
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:06












  • Perhaps you should share your "collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:" If I just look at the query in the context of being a query I don't see why you shouldn;t use it. Can you show the context of the update query?
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:13










  • Now I'm really confused - you've changed the table and the contents for hash field from a text to a number - still incremental I guess, then you've also changed the update query. Why wouldn't you include '3' in your query if you want it updated? You didn't include 'hash3' or 'hash4' in your original example.
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:13










  • The type change was inadvertent, just quicker to type but doesn't really change anything either. And because I don't know if hash3 (3) exists. All I know is that hash1 (1) and hash2 (2) exist. However, there might be other rows that share the id's of hash1/hash2 which I want to update as well (should they exist, which is what my query takes care of).
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:15















up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









I was going in circles looking at your query and then I thought
... it looks like you're just updating the one table form the same table



Why can't you just use



UPDATE hashes 
SET id=@id
WHERE hash IN ('hash1', 'hash2');


Or is this a typo?



UPDATE hashes 





share|improve this answer












I was going in circles looking at your query and then I thought
... it looks like you're just updating the one table form the same table



Why can't you just use



UPDATE hashes 
SET id=@id
WHERE hash IN ('hash1', 'hash2');


Or is this a typo?



UPDATE hashes 






share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Jul 7 '16 at 19:54









dbmitch

250212




250212












  • Because that only updates the id of the row(s) where the hash overlaps. I need to update all rows with the returned ids. For instance, in my example, if hash1 and hash4 are added to the table again, I don't want to only update the row 1 and 4. Instead I need to select all rows that match those ids and update everything to the new value.
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:06












  • Perhaps you should share your "collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:" If I just look at the query in the context of being a query I don't see why you shouldn;t use it. Can you show the context of the update query?
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:13










  • Now I'm really confused - you've changed the table and the contents for hash field from a text to a number - still incremental I guess, then you've also changed the update query. Why wouldn't you include '3' in your query if you want it updated? You didn't include 'hash3' or 'hash4' in your original example.
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:13










  • The type change was inadvertent, just quicker to type but doesn't really change anything either. And because I don't know if hash3 (3) exists. All I know is that hash1 (1) and hash2 (2) exist. However, there might be other rows that share the id's of hash1/hash2 which I want to update as well (should they exist, which is what my query takes care of).
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:15




















  • Because that only updates the id of the row(s) where the hash overlaps. I need to update all rows with the returned ids. For instance, in my example, if hash1 and hash4 are added to the table again, I don't want to only update the row 1 and 4. Instead I need to select all rows that match those ids and update everything to the new value.
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:06












  • Perhaps you should share your "collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:" If I just look at the query in the context of being a query I don't see why you shouldn;t use it. Can you show the context of the update query?
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 20:13










  • Now I'm really confused - you've changed the table and the contents for hash field from a text to a number - still incremental I guess, then you've also changed the update query. Why wouldn't you include '3' in your query if you want it updated? You didn't include 'hash3' or 'hash4' in your original example.
    – dbmitch
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:13










  • The type change was inadvertent, just quicker to type but doesn't really change anything either. And because I don't know if hash3 (3) exists. All I know is that hash1 (1) and hash2 (2) exist. However, there might be other rows that share the id's of hash1/hash2 which I want to update as well (should they exist, which is what my query takes care of).
    – Charlie
    Jul 7 '16 at 21:15


















Because that only updates the id of the row(s) where the hash overlaps. I need to update all rows with the returned ids. For instance, in my example, if hash1 and hash4 are added to the table again, I don't want to only update the row 1 and 4. Instead I need to select all rows that match those ids and update everything to the new value.
– Charlie
Jul 7 '16 at 20:06






Because that only updates the id of the row(s) where the hash overlaps. I need to update all rows with the returned ids. For instance, in my example, if hash1 and hash4 are added to the table again, I don't want to only update the row 1 and 4. Instead I need to select all rows that match those ids and update everything to the new value.
– Charlie
Jul 7 '16 at 20:06














Perhaps you should share your "collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:" If I just look at the query in the context of being a query I don't see why you shouldn;t use it. Can you show the context of the update query?
– dbmitch
Jul 7 '16 at 20:13




Perhaps you should share your "collection of updates to run after everything is inserted:" If I just look at the query in the context of being a query I don't see why you shouldn;t use it. Can you show the context of the update query?
– dbmitch
Jul 7 '16 at 20:13












Now I'm really confused - you've changed the table and the contents for hash field from a text to a number - still incremental I guess, then you've also changed the update query. Why wouldn't you include '3' in your query if you want it updated? You didn't include 'hash3' or 'hash4' in your original example.
– dbmitch
Jul 7 '16 at 21:13




Now I'm really confused - you've changed the table and the contents for hash field from a text to a number - still incremental I guess, then you've also changed the update query. Why wouldn't you include '3' in your query if you want it updated? You didn't include 'hash3' or 'hash4' in your original example.
– dbmitch
Jul 7 '16 at 21:13












The type change was inadvertent, just quicker to type but doesn't really change anything either. And because I don't know if hash3 (3) exists. All I know is that hash1 (1) and hash2 (2) exist. However, there might be other rows that share the id's of hash1/hash2 which I want to update as well (should they exist, which is what my query takes care of).
– Charlie
Jul 7 '16 at 21:15






The type change was inadvertent, just quicker to type but doesn't really change anything either. And because I don't know if hash3 (3) exists. All I know is that hash1 (1) and hash2 (2) exist. However, there might be other rows that share the id's of hash1/hash2 which I want to update as well (should they exist, which is what my query takes care of).
– Charlie
Jul 7 '16 at 21:15




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134181%2fmysql-statements-to-update-overlapping-database-entries-and-insert-new-data-into%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Сан-Квентин

8-я гвардейская общевойсковая армия

Алькесар