Develop Reference

Generating Unique & Randon codes in SQL Server and .NET

I have a requirement to generate a semi-random code in C#/ASP.NET that has to be unique in the SQL Server database.
These codes need to be generated in batches of up to 100 codes per run.
Given the requirements, I'm not sure how I can do this without generating a code and then checking the database to see if it exists, which seems like a horrible way of doing it.
Here are the requirements:
Maximum 10 characters long (alpha-numeric only)
Must not be case sensitive
User can specify an optional 3 character prefix for the code
Must not violate 2 column unique constraint in the database, i.e. must be a unique "code text" within the "category" (CONSTRAINT ucCodes UNIQUE (ColumnCodeText, ColumnCategoryId))
So, given the 10 character limit, GUIDs are not an option. Given the case insensitivity requirement, the mathematical probability for database collisions are fairly high, I think.
At the same time, there are enough possible combinations that a straight look-up table in the DB would be prohibitive, I believe.
Is there a reasonably performant way of generating codes with these requirements that doesn't involve saving them to the DB one code at a time and waiting for a unique key violation to see if it goes through?

You have two options here.
You generate a new ID and insert it. If it throws dup unique key exception then try again until you succeed or bail if you run out of IDs. The performance will stink if most of the IDs are used up.
You pregenerate all the possible IDs and store them in a table. Whenever you need to get one you can remove one from a random row index and use that as the ID. Database will take care of the concurrency for you so its guarantee unique. if the first three letters are given then you can simply add a where clause to restrict the rows to match that constraint.

How to implement Identity for group of records?

I have a table that contains a non primary key RequestID. When I do a bulkInsert, all the records must have the same RequestID. But If I do another BulkInsert, the next inserted rows must have RequestID incremented :
NewRequestID = PreviousRequestID + 1
The only solution I found so far -and I don't like it by the way-, is to get the last record everytime before inserting the new records.
Why I dont like this approach ? because the database is supposed to be relationnel, which means there is "no specific order". Besides, I don't have primary keys or Dates to order with.
What is the best way to implement this?
(I've added c# tag because i am using EF. if there is an easy solution with EF)

You could take a number of different approaches:
Are you guaranteed that your RequestID's are always incremented? If so, you could query table for largest RequestID and that should represent the "last one inserted."
You could track state somewhere in your application, but this is likely dangerous in scenarios where service fails/restarts (unless state is tracked externally).
Assuming you have control over the schema, if you don't want to update the particular table schema you are speaking of, you could create another table to track the last RequestID used, and retrieve it from there (which would protect you against service restarts/failures).
Those are a few that come to mind.
UPDATE:
Assuming RequestID isn't a particular type of identifier, you could use timestamp - which will always be incremented when you do a new batch, however, I'm not sure if you needed it to always be incremented by exactly '1' which would preclude this approach.

Should primary key always start from 1?

I am migrating an old database (oracle) and there are few tables like CountryCode, DeptCode and RoleCodes, their primary key is string (Codes) and i am thinking about adding Number column as a primary key because it would work fast with joins. These tables are not really big.
I am wondering if primary key for those tables should start from number '1' or it can be started from 100 just to differentiate b/w tables PK although i don't think i would be showing them on reports.

For sequence-generated IDs, I would suggest starting at different values if it's easy to do (depends on your database etc). You shouldn't be using this to differentiate between them in code, but it can make testing more reasonable.
Before now, I've had a situation where I've accidentally used a foreign key one table as if it were the foreign key for another table. The tests passed as the IDs were coincidentally the same. After we discovered the problem, we changed the initial seed and found the tests were a lot clearer.

You shouldn't do it to differentiate between tables. That is just not practical.
Not all primary keys have to start at 1, as in the case of an order number.

The rationale you're using to switch to an integer primary key doesn't seem valid: the performance gain you'd see using an INT rather than the original codes (which I assume are strings) will be negligable. The PK is always indexed, and indexes for strings or numerics are as good as instant. So unless you really need an INT, I'd be tempted to stick with the original data-type and work with the original data - simplifies data migration (which is something that should be considered whilst doing any work).

It is very common for example in ERP systems to define number ranges that
represent a certain group of items.
This can be both as position in a bigger number, e.g.
1234567890
| |
index 4 - 6 represents region code
index 7 - 8 represents dept code...
or, as I suspect in your case, parts at the same place, like
1000 - 1999 Region codes
2000 - 2999 DeptCode
3000 - 3999 RoleCode
Therefore: No, it not necessarily starts with 1.
Bigger ERP Systems have even configuration sections for number ranges!
Now, from a database point of view:
Yes, your tables should always have a primary key!
Having one will tremendously improve performance on average cases.
(but in most database systems, if you do not provide one, one will be
set by the DBMS which you do not see and can not handle. Some DBMS even
create indices, but thats another story)

I think it does not matter the start number or the start value that will hold the primary key .
What is important is that they will be represented in the FK of the join tables with the same values that are in the PK of the MAIN table .

A surrogate key can have any values, as long as they are unique. That's what makes it "surrogate" after all - values have no intrinsic meaning on their own, and shouldn't generally even be shown to the user. That being said, you could think about using different seeds, just for testing purposes, as Jon Skeet suggested.
That being said, do you really need to introduce a new (surrogate) key? The existing natural key could actually lead to less1 JOINS, and may be useful for clustering. While there are legitimate uses for surrogate keys, don't do it just becaus it is "fashionable" - always be aware of the tradeoffs you are making and pick the right balance for you concrete needs.
1 It is automatically "propagated" down foreign keys, so you don't need to JOIN the child table to the parent just to get the natural key - natural key is already in the child.

Doesn't matter what int the primary key starts from.
Assuming the codes aren't updated regularly, I don't believe that int will be any faster. It more heavily depends on it being a varchar or of a known size.

I personally always have an field names "Id" as a primary key to a table, defined as an int or a bigInt if necessary.
If the table matches up to an enumerated type then I make sure the Id matches the EnumeratedType id which can be any number - so no it doesn't need to start from 1.
If it doesn't match an enumerated type, then I will usually use an auto-incrementing key starting from 1 but this is not always needed.
Note - that if the number of rows is small, then the difference between indexing on a number and on a varchar will be negligible.

yes, it does'nt matter what integer it start from, it main use is define row uniquely and relationship among other table.

TSQL: Generate human readable ids

We have a large database with enquiries, each enquirys is referenced using a Guid. The Guid isn't very customer friendly so we want to the additional 5 digit "human id" (ok as we'll very likely won't have more than 99999 enquirys active at any time, and it's ok if a humanuid reference multiple enquirys as they aren't used for anything important).
1) Is there any way to have a IDENTITY column reset to 1 after 99999?
My current workaround to this is to use a INT IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL column and when presenting a HumanId take HumanId % 100000.
2) Is there any way to automatically "randomly distribute" the ids over [0..99999] so that two enquirys created after each other don't get the adjacent ids? I guess I'm looking for a two-way one-to-one hash function??
... Ideally I'd like to create this using T-SQL automatically creating these id's when a enquiry is created.

If performance and concurrency isn't too much of an issue, you can use triggers and the MAX() function to calculate a 'next human ID' value. You probably would want to keep your IDENTITY column as is, and have the 'human ID' in a separate column.
EDIT: On a side note, this sounds like a 'presentation layer' issue, which shouldn't be in your database. Your presentation layer of your application should have the code to worry about presenting a record in a human readable manner. Just a thought...

If you absolutely need to do this in the database, then why not derive your human-friendly value directly from the GUID column?
-- human_id doesn't have to be calculated when you retrieve the data
-- you could create a computed column on the table itself if you prefer
SELECT (CAST(your_guid_column AS BINARY(3)) % 100000) AS human_id
FROM your_table
This will give you a random-ish value between 0 and 99999, derived from the first 3 bytes of the GUID. If you want a larger, or smaller, range then adjust the divisor accordingly.

I would strongly recommend relooking at your logic. Your approach has a few dangers, including:
It is always a bad idea to re-use ID's, even if the original record has become "obsolete" - do you lose anything by continuing to grow ID's beyond 99999? The problem here is more likely to be with long term maintenance, especially if there is any danger of the system developing over time. Another thing to consider - is there any chance a user will take this reference number, and use it to reference your system at some stage in the future?
With manually assigning a generated / random ID, you will need to ensure that multiple records are not assigned the same ID. There are a few options that you have to follow this (for example, using transactions), however you should ensure that the scope of the transactions is not going to leave you open to problems with concurrent transactions being blocked - this may cause a few problems eg. Performance. You may be best served by generating your ID externally (as SQL does not do random especially well), and then enforcing a unique constraint on your DB, perhaps in the way suggested by Firoz Ansari.
If you still want to reset the identity column, this can be done with the DBCC CHECKIDENT command.
An example of generating random seeds in SQL server can be found here:
http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/jeffs/archive/2004/11/22/2927.aspx

You can create composite primary key with two columns, say..BatchId and HumanId.
Records in these columns will look like this:
BatchId, HumanId
1, 1
1, 2
1, 3
.
.
1, 99998
1, 99999
2, 1
2, 2
3, 3
use MAX or ORDER BY DESC to get next available HumanId with condition with BachId
SELECT TOP 1 #NextHumanId=HumanId
FROM [THAT_TABLE]
ORDER BY BatchId DESC, HumanID DESC
IF #NextHumanId>=99999 THEN SET #NextHumanId=1
Hope this help.

You could have a table of available HUMANIDs, each time you add an enquiry you could randomly pull a HUMANID from the table (and DELETE it), and each time you delete the enquiry you could add it back (by INSERTing).

LINQ to SQL Insert Sequential GUID

I have a database that is part of a Merge Replication scheme that has a GUID as it's PK. Specifically the Data Type is uniqueidentifier, Default Value (newsequentialid()), RowGUID is set to Yes. When I do a InsertOnSubmit(CaseNote) I thought I would be able to leave CaseNoteID alone and the database would input the next Sequential GUID like it does if you manually enter a new row in MSSMS. Instead it sends 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000. If I add CaseNoteID = Guid.NewGuid(), the I get a GUID but not a Sequential one (I'm pretty sure).
Is there a way to let SQL create the next sequential id on a LINQ InsertOnSubmit()?
For reference below is the code I am using to insert a new record into the database.
CaseNote caseNote = new CaseNote
{
CaseNoteID = Guid.NewGuid(),
TimeSpentUnits = Convert.ToDecimal(tbxTimeSpentUnits.Text),
IsCaseLog = chkIsCaseLog.Checked,
ContactDate = Convert.ToDateTime(datContactDate.Text),
ContactDetails = memContactDetails.Text
};
caseNotesDB.CaseNotes.InsertOnSubmit(caseNote);
caseNotesDB.SubmitChanges();
Based on one of the suggestions below I enabled the Autogenerated in LINQ for that column and now I get the following error --> The target table of the DML statement cannot have any enabled triggers if the statement contains an OUTPUT clause without INTO clause.
Ideas?

In the Linq to Sql designer, set the Auto Generated Value property to true for that column.
This is equivalent to the IsDbGenerated property for a column. The only limitation is that you can't update the value using Linq.

From the top of the "Related" box on the right:
Sequential GUID in Linq-to-Sql?
If you really want the "next" value, use an int64 instead of GUID. COMB guid will ensure that the GUIDs are ordered.

In regards to your "The target table of the DML statement cannot have any enabled triggers if the statement contains an OUTPUT clause without INTO clause", check out this MS KB article, it appears to be a bug in LINQ:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/961073

You really needed to do a couple of things.
Remove any assignment to the GUID type property
Change the column to autogenerated
Create a constraint in the database to default the column to NEWSEQUENTIALID()
Do insert on submit just like you were before.
On the insert into the table the ID will be created and will be sequential. Performance comparison of NEWSEQUENTIALID() vs. other methods

There is a bug in Linq2Sql when using an auto-generated (guid/sequential guid) primary key and having a trigger on the table.. that is what is causing your error. There is a hotfix for the problem:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;961073&sd=rss&spid=2855

Masstransit uses a combguid :
https://github.com/MassTransit/MassTransit/blob/master/src/MassTransit/NewId/NewId.cs
is this what you're looking for?
from wikipedia:
Sequential algorithms
GUIDs are commonly used as the primary key of database tables, and
with that, often the table has a clustered index on that attribute.
This presents a performance issue when inserting records because a
fully random GUID means the record may need to be inserted anywhere
within the table rather than merely appended near the end of it. As a
way of mitigating this issue while still providing enough randomness
to effectively prevent duplicate number collisions, several algorithms
have been used to generate sequential GUIDs. The first technique,
described by Jimmy Nilsson in August 2002[7] and referred to as a
"COMB" ("combined guid/timestamp"), replaces the last 6 bytes of Data4
with the least-significant 6 bytes of the current system date/time.
While this can result in GUIDs that are generated out of order within
the same fraction of a second, his tests showed this had little
real-world impact on insertion. One side effect of this approach is
that the date and time of insertion can be easily extracted from the
value later, if desired. Starting with Microsoft SQL Server version
2005, Microsoft added a function to the Transact-SQL language called
NEWSEQUENTIALID(),[8] which generates GUIDs that are guaranteed to
increase in value, but may start with a lower number (still guaranteed
unique) when the server restarts. This reduces the number of database
table pages where insertions can occur, but does not guarantee that
the values will always increase in value. The values returned by this
function can be easily predicted, so this algorithm is not well-suited
for generating obscure numbers for security or hashing purposes. In
2006, a programmer found that the SYS_GUID function provided by Oracle
was returning sequential GUIDs on some platforms, but this appears to
be a bug rather than a feature.[9]

You must handle OnCreated() method
Partial Class CaseNote
Sub OnCreated()
id = Guid.NewGuid()
End Sub
End Class