Postgresql – Count violated unique constraint caused by INSERT statement

insertpostgresqlunique-constraint

I would like to add rows from table2 into table1 and see how many conflicts of the type "duplicate key value violates unique constraint" result from this in PostgreSQL. pkey is a primary key, so there a unique constraint on it. Unfortunately and apparently, conflict_action does not permit incrementing a counter.

INSERT INTO table1 (pkey, col1, col2)
  SELECT pkey, col1, col2 FROM table2
  ON CONFLICT ...;

So is there another (elegant) way for tackling this either by calculating or retrieving that count?

Best Answer

Insert not needed for to count:

WITH
cte1 AS ( SELECT COUNT(*) cnt FROM table1 ),
cte2 AS ( SELECT COUNT(*) cnt FROM table2 ),
cte3 AS ( SELECT COUNT(*) cnt FROM table1 JOIN table2 USING (pkey) )
SELECT cte1.cnt "Records in table1",
       cte2.cnt "Records in table2",
       cte3.cnt "Conflicts count",
       cte2.cnt - cte3.cnt "Potential inserts count"
FROM cte1, cte2, cte3;

And insert only non-conflicted records - it will be less expensive.

Related Solutions

PostgreSQL – insert/update violates foreign key constraints

There are a few problems with your tables. I'll try to address the foreign keys first, since you question asked about them :)

But before that, we should realize that the two sets of tables (the first three you created and the second set, which you created after dropping the first set) are the same. Of course, the definition of Table3 in your second attempt has syntax and logical errors, but the basic idea is:

CREATE TABLE table3 (   
  "ID" bigint NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',   
  "DataID" bigint DEFAULT NULL,   
  "Address" numeric(20) DEFAULT NULL,   
  "Data" bigint DEFAULT NULL,
   PRIMARY KEY ("ID"),   
   FOREIGN KEY ("DataID") REFERENCES Table1("DataID") on delete cascade on update cascade,   
   FOREIGN KEY ("Address") REFERENCES Table2("Address") on delete cascade on update cascade
);

This definition tell PostgreSQL roughly the following: "Create a table with four columns, one will be the primary key (PK), the others can be NULL. If a new row is inserted, check DataID and Address: if they contain a non-NULL value (say 27856), then check Table1 for DataID˙and Table2 for Address. If there is no such value in those tables, then return an error." This last point which you've seen first:

ERROR: insert or update on table "Table3" violates foreign key constraint 
    "Table3_DataID_fkey" DETAIL: Key (DataID)=(27856) is not present in table "Table1".

So simple: if there is no row in Table1 where DataID = 27856, then you can't insert that row into Table3.

If you need that row, you should first insert a row into Table1 with DataID = 27856, and only then try to insert into Table3. If this seems to you not what you want, please describe in a few sentences what you want to achieve, and we can help with a good design.

And now about the other problems.

You define your PKs as

CREATE all_your_tables (
    first_column NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',   
    [...]
    PRIMARY KEY ("ID"),

A primary key means that all the items in it are different from each other, that is, the values are UNIQUE. If you give a static DEFAULT (like '0') to a UNIQUE column, you will experience bad surprises all the time. This is what you got in your third error message.

Furthermore, '0' means a text string, but not a number (bigint or numeric in your case). Use simply 0 instead (or don't use it at all, as I written above).

And a last point (I may be wrong here): in Table2, your Address field is set to numeric(20). At the same time, it is the PK of the table. The column name and the data type suggests that this address can change in the future. If this is true, than it is a very bad choice for a PK. Think about the following scenario: you have an address '1234567890454', which has a child in Table3 like

ID        DataID           Address             Data
123       3216547          1234567890454       654897564134569

Now that address happens to change to something other. How do you make your child row in Table3 follow its parent to the new address? (There are solutions for this, but can cause much confusion.) If this is your case, add an ID column to your table, which will not contain any information from the real world, it will simply serve as an identification value (that is, ID) for an address.

PostgreSQL UPSERT – Handling NULL Values Issue

Clarify `ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE` behavior

Consider the manual here:

For each individual row proposed for insertion, either the insertion proceeds, or, if an arbiter constraint or index specified by conflict_target is violated, the alternative conflict_action is taken.

Bold emphasis mine. So you do not have to repeat predicates for columns included in the unique index in the WHERE clause to the UPDATE (the conflict_action):

INSERT INTO test_upsert AS tu
       (name   , status, test_field  , identifier, count) 
VALUES ('shaun', 1     , 'test value', 'ident'   , 1)
ON CONFLICT (name, status, test_field) DO UPDATE
SET count = tu.count + 1;
WHERE tu.name = 'shaun' AND tu.status = 1 AND tu.test_field = 'test value'

The unique violation already establishes what your added WHERE clause would enforce redundantly.

Clarify partial index

Add a WHERE clause to make it an actual partial index like you mentioned yourself (but with inverted logic):

CREATE UNIQUE INDEX test_upsert_partial_idx
ON public.test_upsert (name, status)
WHERE test_field IS NULL;  -- not: "is not null"

To use this partial index in your UPSERT you need a matching conflict_target like @ypercube demonstrates:

ON CONFLICT (name, status) WHERE test_field IS NULL

Now the above partial index is inferred. However, as the manual also notes:

[...] a non-partial unique index (a unique index without a predicate) will be inferred (and thus used by ON CONFLICT) if such an index satisfying every other criteria is available.

If you have an additional (or only) index on just (name, status) it will (also) be used. An index on (name, status, test_field) would explicitly not be inferred. This doesn't explain your problem, but may have added to the confusion while testing.

Solution

AIUI, none of the above solves your problem, yet. With the partial index, only special cases with matching NULL values would be caught. And other duplicate rows would either be inserted if you have no other matching unique indexes / constraints, or raise an exception if you do. I suppose that's not what you want. You write:

The composite key is made up of 20 columns, 10 of which can be nullable.

What exactly do you consider a duplicate? Postgres (according to the SQL standard) does not consider two NULL values to be equal. The manual:

In general, a unique constraint is violated if there is more than one row in the table where the values of all of the columns included in the constraint are equal. However, two null values are never considered equal in this comparison. That means even in the presence of a unique constraint it is possible to store duplicate rows that contain a null value in at least one of the constrained columns. This behavior conforms to the SQL standard, but we have heard that other SQL databases might not follow this rule. So be careful when developing applications that are intended to be portable.

Allow null in unique column

I assume you want NULL values in all 10 nullable columns to be considered equal. It is elegant & practical to cover a single nullable column with an additional partial index like demonstrated here:

PostgreSQL multi-column unique constraint and NULL values

But this gets out of hand quickly for more nullable columns. You'd need a partial index for every distinct combination of nullable columns. For just 2 of those that's 3 partial indexes for (a), (b) and (a,b). The number is growing exponentially with 2^n - 1. For your 10 nullable columns, to cover all possible combinations of NULL values, you'd already need 1023 partial indexes. No go.

The simple solution: replace NULL values and define involved columns NOT NULL, and everything would work just fine with a simple UNIQUE constraint.

If that's not an option I suggest an expression index with COALESCE to replace NULL in the index:

CREATE UNIQUE INDEX test_upsert_solution_idx
    ON test_upsert (name, status, COALESCE(test_field, ''));

The empty string ('') is an obvious candidate for character types, but you can use any legal value that either never appears or can be folded with NULL according to your definition of "unique".

Then use this statement:

INSERT INTO test_upsert as tu(name,status,test_field,identifier, count) 
VALUES ('shaun', 1, null        , 'ident', 11)  -- works with
     , ('bob'  , 2, 'test value', 'ident', 22)  -- and without NULL
ON     CONFLICT (name, status, COALESCE(test_field, '')) DO UPDATE  -- match expr. index
SET    count = COALESCE(tu.count + EXCLUDED.count, EXCLUDED.count, tu.count);

Like @ypercube I assume you actually want to add count to the existing count. Since the column can be NULL, adding NULL would set the column NULL. If you define count NOT NULL, you can simplify.

Another idea would be to just drop the conflict_target from the statement to cover all unique violations. Then you could define various unique indexes for a more sophisticated definition of what's supposed to be "unique". But that won't fly with ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE. The manual once more:

For ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING, it is optional to specify a conflict_target; when omitted, conflicts with all usable constraints (and unique indexes) are handled. For ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE, a conflict_target must be provided.