The MERGE statement, introduced with Db2 9 for z/OS, is sometimes referred to as the "upsert" statement, because it enabled, via a combination of update and/or insert operations, the "merging" of one "table" into another (I'll explain the quotes around "table" momentarily): in a MERGE statement, you'd indicate what constitutes a match between an input "table" "row" (again, quote marks to be explained) and a target table row, and where a match exists the target table row is updated with information in the matching input "table" "row," and when a match doesn't exists the input "table" "row" is inserted into the target table. That functionality sounds pretty useful, but the initial Db2 for z/OS implementation of MERGE left a good bit to be desired (read on to see what I mean).
What's great about the new versus the old Db2 for z/OS MERGE statement is best shown by way of example. Here is what a pre-Db2 12 MERGE statement might look like, with color-coded complaints following:
MERGE INTO ACCOUNT AS A
USING (VALUES (:hv_id, :hv_amount)
FOR 3 ROWS)
AS T (ID, AMOUNT)
ON (A.ID = T.ID)
WHEN MATCHED
THEN UPDATE SET BALANCE = A.BALANCE +
T.AMOUNT
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT (ID, BALANCE)
VALUES (T.ID, T.AMOUNT)
NOT ATOMIC CONTINUE ON SQLEXCEPTION;
Complaint: the input "table" has to be represented as a series of host variable arrays -- one for each "column" of the "table" -- Thus the quotation marks I've been putting around input "table" and "row." It's not really a Db2 table that's used for MERGE-input purposes. It's a clunky representation of a table. What a hassle.
Complaint: the input "table" has to be represented as a series of host variable arrays -- one for each "column" of the "table" -- Thus the quotation marks I've been putting around input "table" and "row." It's not really a Db2 table that's used for MERGE-input purposes. It's a clunky representation of a table. What a hassle.
Complaint: only a very simple row-match qualification can be specified, and only a simple pair of actions are possible: when a match is found, do this update, and when a match is not found, do this insert -- Not a lot of sophistication or flexibility here.
Complaint: the NOT ATOMIC CONTINUE ON SQLEXCEPTION clause, which indicates that input "rows" (if there are several of them) are processed separately, with processing continuing in the event that an error is encountered for a given row, is required -- You might not want that behavior.
And, on top of all that, a target table row can be operated on more than once in a single execution of a pre-Db2 12 MERGE statement (it could be inserted and subsequently updated) – Again, you might not want that behavior.
Along comes Db2 12 (at function level V12R1M500 or above, as previously noted), and boy, is MERGE ever better than it was before. I'll stick with the color-coded-example approach to show how MERGE has been enhanced. A Db2 12 MERGE might look like this:
MERGE INTO RECORDS AR
USING (SELECT
ACTIVITY, DESCRIPTION, DATE, LAST_MODIFIED
FROM ACTIVITIES_GROUPA)
AC
ON (AR.ACTIVITY = AC.ACTIVITY) AND
AR.GROUP = ’A’
WHEN MATCHED AND AC.DATE IS NULL THEN SIGNAL SQLSTATE ’70001’
SET MESSAGE_TEXT =
AC.ACTIVITY CONCAT ’ CANNOT BE
MODIFIED. REASON: DATE IS NOT KNOWN’
WHEN MATCHED AND AC.DATE <
CURRENT DATE THEN DELETE
WHEN MATCHED AND AR.LAST_MODIFIED
< AC.LAST_MODIFIED THEN
UPDATE SET
(DESCRIPTION, DATE, LAST_MODIFIED) =
(AC.DESCRIPTION, AC.DATE, DEFAULT)
WHEN NOT MATCHED AND AC.DATE IS
NULL THEN SIGNAL SQLSTATE ’70002’
SET MESSAGE_TEXT =
AC.ACTIVITY CONCAT ’ CANNOT BE
INSERTED. REASON: DATE IS NOT KNOWN’
WHEN NOT MATCHED AND AC.DATE
>= CURRENT DATE THEN
INSERT (GROUP, ACTIVITY, DESCRIPTION,
DATE)
VALUES (’A’, AC.ACTIVITY, AC.DESCRIPTION,
AC.DATE)
ELSE IGNORE;
Love it: with Db2 12's new-and-improved MERGE, you can actually merge an honest-to-goodness Db2 table with another table; or, you can merge a view with a table; or (as shown in this example), you can merge the result set of a SELECT statement with a table -- So long, host variable arrays. Can't say I'll miss you.
Love it: in one MERGE statement, you can have a multitude of “when matched” and “when not matched” clauses, differentiated through various additional predicates -- Benefit: a number of update, insert, and/or delete actions can be driven via execution of a single MERGE statement (and, yes, the ability to drive DELETE operations -- in addition to UPDATE and DELETE -- via a MERGE statement is another part of the "new-and-improved" story).
Love it: you can use the SQL statement SIGNAL to provide customized error codes and messages -- Maybe you could have some fun with that, like, SET MESSAGE TEXT = 'BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME'
Love it: there's a new IGNORE option -- MERGE input rows probably hate to be ignored, but sometimes it's just necessary.
And on top of all that, with the new-and-improved MERGE, a target table row can be operated on (via INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE) only once -- Personally, I kind of like that.
And one more thing: if an error is encountered during execution of a new-and-improved MERGE, the whole statement is rolled back -- It's all or nuthin'.
Now, if you find yourself getting all sentimental and missing the pre-Db2 12 MERGE statement, you can always bring it back: just include in your coding of the statement the NOT ATOMIC CONTINUE ON SQLEXCEPTION clause. Do that, and MERGE behavior will be as it was prior to Db2 12, right down to the requirement that input "table" "rows" be in the form of host variable arrays.
Me? I'll take the new MERGE.
Love it: you can use the SQL statement SIGNAL to provide customized error codes and messages -- Maybe you could have some fun with that, like, SET MESSAGE TEXT = 'BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME'
Love it: there's a new IGNORE option -- MERGE input rows probably hate to be ignored, but sometimes it's just necessary.
And on top of all that, with the new-and-improved MERGE, a target table row can be operated on (via INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE) only once -- Personally, I kind of like that.
And one more thing: if an error is encountered during execution of a new-and-improved MERGE, the whole statement is rolled back -- It's all or nuthin'.
Now, if you find yourself getting all sentimental and missing the pre-Db2 12 MERGE statement, you can always bring it back: just include in your coding of the statement the NOT ATOMIC CONTINUE ON SQLEXCEPTION clause. Do that, and MERGE behavior will be as it was prior to Db2 12, right down to the requirement that input "table" "rows" be in the form of host variable arrays.
Me? I'll take the new MERGE.
hi Robert,
ReplyDeleteThe pre-DB2 MERGE statement sample that you have provided, does that work with Native SQL SPs on v11, if arrays were to be used? I know that it works for COBOL or External SQL SPs. But not sure if it works for Native SQL SPs.
Thanks!
I believe that you're asking if the pre-Db2 12 MERGE (the one that required the input "table" to be in the form of one or more arrays - one array per "column" of the "table") will work if the arrays are Db2 arrays (introduced with Db2 11). The answer to that question is, "No." The arrays used in that form of a MERGE statement have to be host variable arrays (i.e., arrays declared in a program written in a language such as COBOL), and those are not the same thing as Db2 arrays (which are a form of user-defined data type).
DeleteRobert
Can i use host variable in java
ReplyDeleteHello, Prabu.
DeleteYou can have variables in Java programs, and though they are generally not referred to as "host variables," they can be used as host variables are used in programs written in languages other than Java. With regard to variables in Java programs that access Db2 for z/OS data, here is a link to information on variables in JDBC applications: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSEPEK_12.0.0/java/src/tpc/imjcc_cjvdclvr.html
And here is a link to information about variables in SQLJ applications: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSEPEK_12.0.0/java/src/tpc/imjcc_cjvsjdcl.html
Robert