We're using a "1 audit table for each monitored Table"; However, in our case emp(PARENT)
table has a child table emp_address
which also needs to be monitored, so we have emp_audit
and emp_address_audit tables
.
postgres audit SQL : how to join PARENT and CHILD tables for reporting purposes.
/* Employee table */
create table emp (
emp_id integer primary key,
empnum integer,
empname varchar(50),
loginid varchar(20),
updatetime timestamp
);
/* Address table */
create table emp_addr (
addr_id integer primary key,
emp_id integer, -- references table emp
line1 varchar(30),
line2 varchar(30),
loginid varchar(20),
updatetime timestamp
);
/* Audit table for emp table */
create table emp_audit (
operation character(1),
emp_id integer,
empnum integer,
empname varchar(50),
loginid varchar(20),
updatetime timestamp,
txid bigint
);
/* Audit table for emp_addr table */
create table emp_addr_audit (
operation character(1),
addr_id integer,
emp_id integer,
line1 varchar(30),
line2 varchar(30),
loginid varchar(20),
updatetime timestamp,
txid bigint
);
We're using hibernate(java) for persistence and hibernate updates only those tables whose columns were modified in the update operation. Given this, I might have multiple(say, 5) records in the emp_addr_audit table for 1 emp_audit table.
The report needs 1 row for each transaction(modification). The report will have the following columns
empnum, empname, line1, line2, operation(insert/delete/update), loginid, updatetime
Let's consider 2 scenarios to understand what's needed:
- In the initial transaction only
emp
attributes are created. Then in a separate transaction, the corresponding row inemp_addr
is created. So, now, we have 1 row inemp_audit
table and 1 row inemp_addr_audit
table. The report will have 2 rows (one each for each transaction). - Both
emp
andemp_addr
attributes are created in a single transaction. This will ensure that there is 1 row inemp_audit
and 1 row inemp_addr_audit
. Now, the report will have ONLY 1 row (since both table rows were created in a single transaction).
What SQL will satisfy both the above scenarios?
UPDATE
Scenario :
Transaction #1 : I insert a row into both emp and emp_addr. This results in a row each in emp_audit and emp_addr_audit.(INSERT)
Transaction #2 : I update the above emp' attribute. This results in a UPDATE row in emp_audit.
Transaction #3 : I update the above emp_addr's attribute. This results in a UPDATE row in emp_addr_audit.
I tried the following SQL #1 and it returned 3 rows as expected;
SQL #1
SELECT emp.*, addr.*
FROM emp_audit emp
FULL OUTER JOIN emp_addr addr USING(emp_id, txid);
However, when I added a where clause to the SQL, it returns only 2 rows. The missing row was the result of Transaction #3, where only emp_addr table row was UPDATED and emp table row was untouched.
SQL #2
SELECT emp.*, addr.*
FROM emp_audit emp
FULL OUTER JOIN emp_addr addr USING(emp_id, txid);
WHERE emp.empnum = 20;
What SQL will STILL be able to get me 3 rows for the 3 transactions so that I can still filter out based on empnum ?
Thank you,