I have a table like this:
unique_serial - Auto Increment
field_1
field_2
field_3
The Primary key is a combination of field_1, field_2, and field_3.
I want to do:
INSERT IGNORE INTO table_name (field_1,field_2,field_3) VALUES
('xx','xx','xx')
Sometimes this will be an existing record
Hi Ed,
Can you please reply with a repeatable test case?
On 2/1/07, Ed Pauley II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am importing a file into a table in which I want it to ignore
duplicate rows. When I specify --ignore (this also happens if I do a
SELECT IGNORE INTO from the client also) I get a
I am importing a file into a table in which I want it to ignore
duplicate rows. When I specify --ignore (this also happens if I do a
SELECT IGNORE INTO from the client also) I get a duplicate key error. If
I run the command again it skips the first such instance of a duplicate
key and gives me
Hi All,
I have read thehttp://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/
mysqldump.html and can find nothing regarding getting dump to
INSERT IGNORE instead of simply INSERT INTO. Is there any way to get
INSERT IGNORE to be dumped? Otherwise, I fear I may be forced to
parse the dump file
Hi.
Use the --insert-ignore option of mysqldump.
You can type 'mysqldump --help' on command line to see all options available.
Richard AB.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 6:19 PM
Subject
I want to be sure I understand INSERT IGNORE... correctly before I start
depending on it. Up until now, I have not been using any kind of key or
unique index, since many of my tables are created automatically and, until
now, it has been difficult for me to create a way to distinguish between
Comments embedded. See below
Hal Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/01/2005 02:50:13 PM:
I want to be sure I understand INSERT IGNORE... correctly before I
start
depending on it. Up until now, I have not been using any kind of key or
unique index, since many of my tables are created
INSERT
IGNORE..., MySQL will still have to verify that the new record does not
match any old records. How much faster is it to do it that way than
the way
I was? I'd think the same routines to find matching data would be used.
No, the same routine will not be used.
A hash
threw out the record I was going to
enter, if
there was not a match, I'd INSERT the new record. If I use INSERT
IGNORE..., MySQL will still have to verify that the new record does
not
match any old records. How much faster is it to do it that way than
the way
I
Hal Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24/08/2005 17:41:36:
#
Okay, so INSERT IGNORE only works if I am avoiding duplicate keys. Is
there
any way to use INSERT the way I thought INSERT IGNORE worked -- in other
words is there any keyword for the INSERT command to keep it from
On Thursday 25 August 2005 04:44 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hal Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24/08/2005 17:41:36:
#
Okay, so INSERT IGNORE only works if I am avoiding duplicate keys. Is
there
any way to use INSERT the way I thought INSERT IGNORE worked -- in other
words
Hal,
*IF* INSERT IGNORE worked ...
INSERT IGNORE _does_ work exactly as documented in the manual: "If you
specify the IGNORE keyword in an INSERT statement, errors that occur while
executing the statement are treated as warnings instead. For example,
without IGNORE, a row that dupli
I may have a misunderstanding of this, but as I have been told, if I have a
table with 3 columns, Idx (an Index column, unique, auto-increment), Name,
Value (both varchar), and I try a command like this:
INSERT IGNORE INTO myTable SET Name = Variable1, Value = 100;
or
INSERT IGNORE INTO myTable
Hi Hal,
in order to get INSERT IGNORE to work as you want it you must violate
a unique index somehow, i.e. you must have a unique index on Name,Value
or both and then you would get a quiet ignore of that violation.
The IGNORE keyword doesn't make the INSERT as such different, it just
affects
INSERT IGNORE Doesn't Seem To Work
I may have a misunderstanding of this, but as I have been told, if I have
a
table with 3 columns, Idx (an Index column, unique, auto-increment), Name,
Value (both varchar), and I try a command like this:
INSERT IGNORE INTO myTable SET Name = Variable1
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 02:47 am, Hal Vaughan wrote:
I may have a misunderstanding of this, but as I have been told, if I have a
table with 3 columns, Idx (an Index column, unique, auto-increment), Name,
Value (both varchar), and I try a command like this:
INSERT IGNORE INTO myTable SET
varchar), and I try a command like this:
INSERT IGNORE INTO myTable SET Name = Variable1, Value = 100;
or
INSERT IGNORE INTO myTable (Name, Value) VALUES(Variable1, 100);
AND I already have a row with the matching Name and Value columns
matching
in value, that MySQL will detect
I never got a reply for this, and I'm still trying to figure out the
best way to handle it. Anyone?
John A. McCaskey
-Original Message-
From: John McCaskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 2:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: INSERT IGNORE like feature
want the behavior to be that the one fails
silently and the other 4999 insert successfully.
Any ideas how I can do this? It seems like INSERT IGNORE would make
sense but that appears to only ignore duplicates not foreign key
failures.
John A. McCaskey
Software Development Engineer
IP
According to the manual, if INSERT IGNORE finds a row already present in
the table, it does not update the row with the new data. How can I get the
opposite behaviour? In my case, there shouldn't be a record with the unique
ID I am inserting. But if there is, my recovery behaviour is to delete
Hi,
Look at REPLACE statement.
Regards
--
Joseph Bueno
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to the manual, if INSERT IGNORE finds a row already present in
the table, it does not update the row with the new data. How can I get the
opposite behaviour? In my case, there shouldn't be a record
At 10:24 17/09/2002 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to the manual, if INSERT IGNORE finds a row already present in
the table, it does not update the row with the new data. How can I get the
opposite behaviour? In my case, there shouldn't be a record with the unique
ID I am inserting
Hi.
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 12:30:10AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul DuBois INSERT IGNORE can't fully assess whether the record is to be
ignored
Paul DuBois until the record's contents have been generated.
And why can't it wait until after the ignore/don't ignore assessment before
to increment by one
in situations when the query is not adding any new information to
the table.
This looks like a bug to me can anyone enlighten me to this anomaly?
Why is it a bug?
INSERT IGNORE can't fully assess whether the record is to be ignored
until the record's contents have been
.
But the last_insert_id() function still appears to increment by one
in situations when the query is not adding any new information to
the table.
This looks like a bug to me can anyone enlighten me to this anomaly?
Why is it a bug?
INSERT IGNORE can't fully assess whether
is it a bug?
INSERT IGNORE can't fully assess whether the record is to be ignored
until the record's contents have been generated.
I am using 3.23.42-log on red hat 7.1 (also same results on
3.23.40-log). I have searched the list archive for this topic but
havent found anything yet
;
CREATE TABLE organism (
OM varchar(100) NOT NULL unique,
OM_ID tinyint(1) NOT NULL auto_increment,
PRIMARY KEY (OM_ID)
) TYPE=MyISAM;
INSERT IGNORE INTO organism VALUES('foo', NULL);
INSERT IGNORE INTO organism VALUES('fodda', NULL);
SELECT * FROM organism;
#+---+---+
#| OM| OM_ID
is not adding any new information to
the table.
This looks like a bug to me can anyone enlighten me to this anomaly?
Why is it a bug?
INSERT IGNORE can't fully assess whether the record is to be ignored
until the record's contents have been generated.
I am using 3.23.42-log on red hat 7.1 (also
Paul DuBois INSERT IGNORE can't fully assess whether the record is to be
ignored
Paul DuBois until the record's contents have been generated.
And why can't it wait until after the ignore/don't ignore assessment before
assigning a new id? Call it a bug... call it a design feature... call it
what
29 matches
Mail list logo
