Mysql – thesql Failed to read auto-increment value from storage engine

Use INSERT IGNORE INTO table.

There's also INSERT … ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE syntax, and you can find explanations in 13.2.6.2 INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE Statement.

Post from bogdan.org.ua according to Google's webcache:

18th October 2007

To start: as of the latest MySQL, syntax presented in the title is not possible. But there are several very easy ways to accomplish what is expected using existing functionality.

There are 3 possible solutions: using INSERT IGNORE, REPLACE, or INSERT … ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE.

Imagine we have a table:

CREATE TABLE `transcripts` (
`ensembl_transcript_id` varchar(20) NOT NULL,
`transcript_chrom_start` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
`transcript_chrom_end` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`ensembl_transcript_id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;

Now imagine that we have an automatic pipeline importing transcripts meta-data from Ensembl, and that due to various reasons the pipeline might be broken at any step of execution. Thus, we need to ensure two things:

1. repeated executions of the pipeline will not destroy our > database

2. repeated executions will not die due to ‘duplicate > primary key’ errors.

Method 1: using REPLACE

It’s very simple:

REPLACE INTO `transcripts`
SET `ensembl_transcript_id` = 'ENSORGT00000000001',
`transcript_chrom_start` = 12345,
`transcript_chrom_end` = 12678;

If the record exists, it will be overwritten; if it does not yet exist, it will be created. However, using this method isn’t efficient for our case: we do not need to overwrite existing records, it’s fine just to skip them.

Method 2: using INSERT IGNORE Also very simple:

INSERT IGNORE INTO `transcripts`
SET `ensembl_transcript_id` = 'ENSORGT00000000001',
`transcript_chrom_start` = 12345,
`transcript_chrom_end` = 12678;

Here, if the ‘ensembl_transcript_id’ is already present in the database, it will be silently skipped (ignored). (To be more precise, here’s a quote from MySQL reference manual: “If you use the IGNORE keyword, errors that occur while executing the INSERT statement are treated as warnings instead. For example, without IGNORE, a row that duplicates an existing UNIQUE index or PRIMARY KEY value in the table causes a duplicate-key error and the statement is aborted.”.) If the record doesn’t yet exist, it will be created.

This second method has several potential weaknesses, including non-abortion of the query in case any other problem occurs (see the manual). Thus it should be used if previously tested without the IGNORE keyword.

Method 3: using INSERT … ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE:

Third option is to use INSERT … ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE syntax, and in the UPDATE part just do nothing do some meaningless (empty) operation, like calculating 0+0 (Geoffray suggests doing the id=id assignment for the MySQL optimization engine to ignore this operation). Advantage of this method is that it only ignores duplicate key events, and still aborts on other errors.

As a final notice: this post was inspired by Xaprb. I’d also advise to consult his other post on writing flexible SQL queries.

My favorite answer is as what the first sentence in this thread suggested. Use an Adjacency List to maintain the hierarchy and use Nested Sets to query the hierarchy.

The problem up until now has been that the coversion method from an Adjacecy List to Nested Sets has been frightfully slow because most people use the extreme RBAR method known as a "Push Stack" to do the conversion and has been considered to be way to expensive to reach the Nirvana of the simplicity of maintenance by the Adjacency List and the awesome performance of Nested Sets. As a result, most people end up having to settle for one or the other especially if there are more than, say, a lousy 100,000 nodes or so. Using the push stack method can take a whole day to do the conversion on what MLM'ers would consider to be a small million node hierarchy.

I thought I'd give Celko a bit of competition by coming up with a method to convert an Adjacency List to Nested sets at speeds that just seem impossible. Here's the performance of the push stack method on my i5 laptop.

Duration for     1,000 Nodes = 00:00:00:870 
Duration for    10,000 Nodes = 00:01:01:783 (70 times slower instead of just 10)
Duration for   100,000 Nodes = 00:49:59:730 (3,446 times slower instead of just 100) 
Duration for 1,000,000 Nodes = 'Didn't even try this'

And here's the duration for the new method (with the push stack method in parenthesis).

Duration for     1,000 Nodes = 00:00:00:053 (compared to 00:00:00:870)
Duration for    10,000 Nodes = 00:00:00:323 (compared to 00:01:01:783)
Duration for   100,000 Nodes = 00:00:03:867 (compared to 00:49:59:730)
Duration for 1,000,000 Nodes = 00:00:54:283 (compared to something like 2 days!!!)

Yes, that's correct. 1 million nodes converted in less than a minute and 100,000 nodes in under 4 seconds.

You can read about the new method and get a copy of the code at the following URL. http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Hierarchy/94040/

I also developed a "pre-aggregated" hierarchy using similar methods. MLM'ers and people making bills of materials will be particularly interested in this article. http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/94570/

If you do stop by to take a look at either article, jump into the "Join the discussion" link and let me know what you think.