JPH0844604A - Data base comparing method - Google Patents

Abstract

PURPOSE:To efficiently verify consistency between plural data bases due to the update of data bases without any human intervention at the time of this update processing by detecting the update defect parts of data bases by relating the respective data bases while using a common keycode for the plural data bases. CONSTITUTION:Concerning the first and second data bases provided with the same keycode sequences, the respective data bases are related for each keycode. At a first data base part 1, a first data base 41 before updating is compared with a first data base 11 after updating for each keycode, and three different points classified into addition, erasure and change presence are stored in a compared result storage part 81. Then, the data of this compared result storage part 81 are compared with the data of a compared result storage part 82, which similarly stores the different points before and after updating at a second data base part 2, by a result comparing part 90 and those non-coincident contents are outputted to an update defect output part 110 as the update defects.

Description

Detailed Description of the Invention

[0001]

The present invention relates to a database having the same key code string and a record string consisting of records corresponding to the key code of this key code string,
A database comparison method for confirming the update process by comparing the database before update and the database after update, for example, for a plurality of distributed databases using the same device code as a key code in a power system, After modifying the data accompanying the expansion and revision of
The present invention relates to a database comparison method for verifying the consistency of the processing. Further, for example, it relates to a database comparison method for verifying the consistency of the processing from the old database at the time of the previous comparison and the transaction file storing the updated contents generated thereafter, with respect to the database that is updated at any time. .

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art In a database system such as an electric power system, it is necessary to modify the data of the database relating to the equipment by adding or modifying the equipment. At this time, since the same device code is used as a key code and data is remodeled simultaneously for multiple databases distributed on several computers, for example, key code addition or Omission of deletions and omission of changes to record contents
There was a possibility of inconsistency between the databases.

FIG. 34 is a block diagram showing an example of a conventional database comparison method for checking the consistency of old and new data after such data modification of the database. In FIG. The new data section of the new database, 40 is the old data section of the old database before data modification, 70 is the comparison section for comparing these new and old data sections 10 and 40, and 110 is this comparison section 70.
It is a comparison result output unit that outputs the non-coincidence data.

Next, the operation will be described with reference to the flowchart of the conventional database comparison method shown in FIG. First, in steps S1 and S2, the data parts 10 and 40 of the old and new databases are first read, and each data part is divided into units as shown in Japanese Patent Publication No. 62-30647 (step S3). , The contents of the old and new database parts are compared for each unit (step S4), and the non-matching portion is printed out (step S5). Such processing was performed on all databases (step S6), and the change contents output of each database was analyzed and compared by hand to confirm the consistency of data modification. As a conventional database comparison method, for example, Japanese Patent Publication No. 5-43
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 140 and Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 57-31040 disclose both databases, and do not show a method for comparing a new database and a plurality of databases.

[0005]

Since the conventional database comparison method is configured as described above, the comparison results of a plurality of old and new databases are output as enormous prints. It is extremely difficult and time-consuming to check the consistency of the update status of the old and new databases, and there is no means for automatically comparing the old and new databases with each other to automatically determine whether the update process is normal or abnormal. There wasn't. Further, for comparison between the old and new databases, it is necessary to save the old data section before data modification, and a very large storage capacity is required for storing the old database.

The present invention has been made in order to solve the above-mentioned problems, and at the time of updating the databases, the comparison of the databases can be efficiently performed without verifying the consistency of the updating process. Aim to get a way. It is another object of the present invention to provide a database comparison method that enables easy comparison even if the databases are distributed among a plurality of databases, and can minimize the storage capacity required for the comparison.

[0007]

According to a first aspect of the present invention, there is provided a database comparison method for a first database and a second database having the same key code sequence, which are used before and after updating the first database. For each key code, the difference is stored in the first storage unit, and before and after the update of the second database is compared for each key code,
The difference is stored in the second storage unit, the differences stored in the first and second storage units are compared, and the content of the mismatch is output.

The database comparison method according to claim 2 of the present invention is the first and second database comparison methods having the same key code sequence.
Of the database of the above, it has only the key code string before update as the data before update, and compares this key code string before update with the key code string of the first database after update, and the difference Is stored in the first storage unit, the key code string before update is compared with the key code string of the second database after update, and the difference is stored in the second storage unit, This is to compare the differences stored in the first and second storage units and output the content of the mismatch.

According to a third aspect of the database comparison method of the present invention, each key code has data indicating a time when a record corresponding to the key code is updated, and each database has a key code string before updating. When comparing the updated key code string, the update time points corresponding to the respective key codes are also compared, and the difference is stored in the storage unit.

The database comparison method according to claim 4 of the present invention uses the key code string of the database before update as:
It is recorded together with the data indicating the storage time, and for each key code of the updated database, data indicating the time when the record corresponding to that key code was updated is provided, and the key code string before update and the after update When comparing with the key code sequence of No. 2, the update time and the storage time corresponding to each key code are also compared, and the difference is stored in the storage unit.

In the database comparison method according to claim 5 of the present invention, when comparing before and after updating each database for each key code, the difference is added, deleted,
And is stored in the storage unit after being classified into three types with changes.

In the database comparison method according to claim 6 of the present invention, there are three or more databases having the same key code sequence, and the storage section stores the difference between before and after comparison for each database. On the other hand, the difference stored in each storage unit is compared for each key code, and the contents of the respective disagreements are output.

A database comparison method according to claim 7 of the present invention is a transaction consisting of transaction data having a key code corresponding to an updated record from before the database is updated to the present time, and data indicating the type of this update. A file is provided, before and after updating the database is compared for each key code of the transaction data, the difference is stored in the storage unit, and the difference stored in this storage unit and the transaction data are stored. It compares and outputs the content of the mismatch.

A database comparison method according to claim 8 of the present invention is a transaction having a key code corresponding to an updated record, data indicating the type of this update, and data indicating the time at which this update was performed. A transaction file consisting of data is provided, and when the difference between each key code before and after updating each database is stored in the storage unit, it is stored together with the data indicating the point of time of the comparison, and each storage If the time stored in each of the above storage units is different from the content of the inconsistency obtained by comparing the differences stored in the copy section, transaction data indicating update data of a portion corresponding to the difference in the comparison time is output from the transaction file. By extracting and comparing with these transaction data, the above inconsistent contents can be corrected. It is.

[0015]

In the database comparison method according to the first aspect of the present invention, the first and second databases having the same key code sequence are associated with each other for each key code. The first database The differences obtained by comparing the before and after updates for each key code and the differences obtained by comparing the before and after updates of the second database should originally match. Therefore, if they do not match, it is regarded as an update failure and the contents of the mismatch are output.

The database comparison method according to claim 2 of the present invention is the first and second database comparison methods having the same key code sequence.
Since each database is associated with each other for each key code, since the key code string before update is common, the common key code string before update and the first database after update are common. The difference obtained by comparing the key code string and the difference obtained by comparing the key code string before update and the key code string of the second database after update are originally the same. Therefore, if they do not match, it is regarded as an update failure and the contents of the mismatch are output.

According to the third aspect of the database comparison method of the present invention, the key code sequence before update and the key code sequence after update are compared for each database, and the update time point corresponding to each key code is also obtained. After the comparison, the difference is stored in the storage unit, the difference is compared for each storage unit, and the content of the mismatch is output.

A database comparison method according to a fourth aspect of the present invention compares a pre-update key code string and a post-update key code string for each database, and compares a pre-update key code string common to the databases. The recorded save time is also compared with the update time of the updated key code, the difference is stored in the storage unit, the difference is compared for each storage unit, and the content of the mismatch is output. .

In the database comparison method according to claim 5 of the present invention, the difference between before and after updating of each database is classified into three for each key code: addition, deletion, and modification, and each of them is classified. The data is stored in a storage unit provided corresponding to the database, these differences are compared for each storage unit, and the content of the mismatch is output.

In the database comparison method according to claim 6 of the present invention, the difference between the data before and after the update for each database is stored in the storage section provided corresponding to each of the three or more databases. Then, the differences stored in the respective storage units are compared for each key code, and the contents of disagreement are output.

In the database comparison method according to claim 7 of the present invention, before and after updating of the database is compared for each key code of transaction data, the difference is stored in the storage unit, and this storage unit is stored. The stored difference is compared with the transaction data, and the content of the mismatch is output.

In the database comparison method according to claim 8 of the present invention, the difference between each database before and after the update and the time point at which the comparison is performed are stored in each storage unit. However, if the execution time stored in each of these storage units is different from the content of inconsistency obtained by comparing the difference stored in each storage unit, the update data of the portion corresponding to the difference at the above comparison time is calculated from the transaction file. The transaction data indicating the above is extracted and compared with these transaction data to correct the content of the inconsistency.

[0023]

【Example】

Example 1. 1 is a block diagram of a database comparison method showing a first embodiment of the present invention, in which 1 is a first database unit, 11 is an updated first database,
21 is a key code string of this database 11, 31 is a record string consisting of detailed data corresponding to each key code of the key code string 21, 41 is the first database before updating, 51 and 61 are databases 41 before updating , A key code string and a record string, 71 is a comparison unit that compares the first databases 11 and 41 for each key code,
Reference numeral 81 is a comparison result storage unit that stores the difference between the results. 2 is the second database part, 12, 22, 32, 4
2, 52, 62, 72, and 82 are components in the second database unit 2, and the last digit 2 of the reference numeral indicates the number of the database unit, and the upper digit character is
The same character as the corresponding character in the first database part is shown.
After that, when there are a plurality of database parts, the number 1 below the code
The digit characters indicate the database part number. However, the one in which the last digit of the code is 0 indicates the one common to a plurality of databases or existing in a single database.

Reference numeral 90 is a result comparison unit for comparing the differences between the comparison result storage units 81 and 82 of the respective database units, and 100.
Is a mismatch content storage unit that stores the mismatch content that is the result of the result comparison unit 90, and 110 is an update failure output unit that outputs a database update failure based on this mismatch content.
2 and 3 are flowcharts for explaining the processing procedure of the database comparison method according to the first embodiment of the present invention, and FIGS. 4 and 5 are data examples for explaining the database comparison method.

Hereinafter, the first embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS.
The database comparison method will be described. First, according to the flowchart of FIG. 2, differences between before and after updating the database are compared. 2 is a comparison unit 71 or 72 of FIG.
In the first database section as an example, the old and new databases 11 and 41 (hereinafter, the updated database is called the new database, and the database before the update is called the old database) in step S101 in the figure. The key code strings 21 and 51 of are compared. Steps S102 and S104 for each key code
Then, it is compared whether the corresponding key code exists in the old and new databases. If the key code exists only in the new database 11 in step S103,
The code indicating the key code and “addition” indicating the type are stored in the comparison result storage unit 81. In step S105, if the key code exists only in the old database 41,
A code indicating this key code and “deletion” indicating the type are stored in the comparison result storage unit 81. If the key code exists in both the old and new databases in steps S106 and S107, the records 31 and 61 corresponding to the key code are compared to check whether or not there is a change in the record contents. S1
At 08, a code indicating this key code and “changed” indicating the type are stored in the comparison result storage unit 81. This operation is performed for all the key codes 21 and 51 of the old and new databases. The processing for the second database unit is also the same as above.

Next, referring to FIG. 3, the difference between the pre-updated and post-updated databases recorded in the comparison result storage units 81 and 82 is determined by the update failure output unit via the result comparison unit 90 and the mismatch content storage unit 100. The operation of outputting to 110 is described.

In step S111 of FIG. 3, among the differences stored in the comparison result storage units 81 and 82, the key code is compared with the type "addition" ((in step S111) 1) and (2) indicate the numbers of the respective database parts (the same applies hereinafter), and if there is a key code whose comparison result is only one of them (step S112), the code indicating the key code and the defect content "additional NG"", And whether or not addition is made for each database is stored in the mismatch content storage unit 100 (step S113). Next, in step S114, among the differences stored in the comparison result storage units 81 and 82, the key code is compared with the one having the type of "deletion", and the key code having only one of the comparison results. If there is (step S11
5), the code indicating the key code and the content of the defect "Delete N"
G ”and the presence / absence of deletion for each database are stored in the inconsistency content storage unit 100 (step S116). Further, in step S117, among the differences stored in the comparison result storage units 81 and 82, the type is“ changed ”. If there is a key code whose comparison result is only one of them, the key code is compared with a certain one (step S118),
The code indicating the key code, the defect content “change NG”, and the presence / absence of change for each database do not match the content storage unit 100.
(Step S119). Finally step S1
At 20, the mismatch content stored in the mismatch content storage unit 100 is output to the update failure output unit 110.

For example, referring to the data examples shown in FIGS. 4A to 4D, the first old database 41 before the update is (A) and the new database 11 after the update is (B). Is. If the process is performed according to the flowchart of FIG. 2, the key code (a) is in the old database 41 and not in the new database 11, so that it is stored in the comparison result storage unit 81 as the type “delete”. The contents of the comparison result storage unit 81 are shown in FIG. The key code (b) is also processed in the same manner and stored as the type “delete”. The key code (c) exists in both the old database 41 and the new database 11, and the record contents are compared. If there is no change in this content, this key code (c) is not stored in the comparison result storage unit 81. Since the key code (d) exists in the new database and does not exist in the old database 41, it is stored in the comparison result storage unit 81 as the type “addition”. The same applies to the key code (e). Also for the second database, FIG.
In contrast to (D), the difference is stored in the comparison result storage unit 82 as shown in FIG.
It is stored as shown in (B). If the processing is performed according to the flowchart of FIG. 3, the differences between the first database and the second database are compared with each other by comparing (A) and (B) of FIG. Is stored in the mismatch content storage unit 100. By outputting the content of the mismatch to the update failure output unit 110, the update failure due to the data update work can be found.

As described above, according to the first embodiment, even if the contents of the databases are different from each other, the key codes common to the two are used to associate the databases with each other to update the defective portion of the database. Can be detected,
Since the detection process is simple and only the update failure part is output, there is an effect that the time for confirmation work can be significantly reduced. In addition, since the comparison part that compares old and new databases and the comparison result storage part are provided in each database part, even if multiple databases are distributed and arranged on multiple computers, only the comparison results of each database Since it is possible to detect the update failure portion by collecting the data of 1., it is possible to reduce the amount of data transmission across computers and to easily configure the comparison portion between databases.

Example 2. FIG. 6 is a block diagram of a database comparison method showing a second embodiment of the present invention, in which the pre-update databases 41 and 42 of the first embodiment are eliminated, and a common pre-update key code string 60 is provided in each database section. It is a thing. Further, the number of database parts is not limited to two, and n (n
Indicates the case of having (3 or more integer) database parts. In the case of this embodiment, it is premised that the databases before updating are matched with each other and have the same key code string.

The database comparison method according to the second embodiment will be described below with reference to FIGS. First, according to the flowchart in FIG. 7, differences between before and after updating the database are compared. FIG. 7 shows the operation of the comparing unit 71, 72 or 7n in FIG. 6. Taking the first database unit as an example, in step S201 of the figure, the key code string 21 and the key code string 60 of the old and new databases are displayed. To compare. Similar to the case of the first embodiment, the presence / absence of a key code is compared with each other, and addition in S203 is performed,
The deletion is detected as each difference, and the code indicating the key code and the type “addition” or “deletion” are stored in the comparison result storage unit 81. However, unlike the case of the first embodiment, it is not possible to compare records when the same key code exists. The second to nth database sections are processed in the same manner, and the difference between the old and new is stored in the comparison result storage sections 82 to 8n.
To memorize.

Next, according to the flowchart of FIG. 8, the result comparing section 90 compares the difference between the databases before and after the update recorded in the comparison result storing sections 81 to 8n, and the content of the inconsistency is stored in the inconsistent content storage section. The data is output to the update failure output unit 110 via 100. In step S211, all the key codes recorded in the comparison result storage units 81 to 8n are compared for each "addition" or "deletion" for each type, and if there is any discrepancy, "additional NG" (step S21).
3) or “Delete NG” (step S216),
The code indicating the key code, the defect content, and the presence or absence of each database are stored in the inconsistency content storage unit 100, and the inconsistency content is finally output to the update defect output unit 110 (step 217).

For example, looking at the data examples shown in FIGS. 9A to 9D, FIG. 9A shows only the key code string extracted from the first old database before updating, which is before updating. Key code sequence 60. Also, (B),
(C) and (D) are new databases 11, 12, and 1n after the 1st, 2nd, and nth updates, respectively, and are (A) and (B), (A) and (C), (A), respectively. ) And (D) are compared in accordance with the flowchart of FIG. 7, and the results are (A), (B), and (C) of FIG.
82, 8n. Next, according to the flowchart of FIG. 8, the result of comparing (A), (B), and (C) of FIG. 10 is (D), which is stored in the mismatch content storage unit 100. In FIG. 10, regarding key code (e), there is "addition" common to all databases, but regarding other key codes, there is a mismatch in the contents of the comparison result storage part of some databases, so the mismatch content is output. Has been done. By outputting the content of the mismatch to the update failure output unit 110, the update failure due to the data update work can be found.

As described above, according to the second embodiment, as the database before update, only the key code string before update is common to all databases, so that when comparing databases, the old database is used. Is not required to be held, and the storage capacity for comparison can be made extremely small. Further, even when there are three or more databases, the key code common to each database can be used to associate the databases with each other to detect the update failure portion of the database.
There is an effect that the detection process can be easily performed.

Example 3. FIG. 11 shows a third embodiment of the present invention.
2 is a configuration diagram of a database comparison method showing
An update date and time 21t indicating the time when the record corresponding to the key code is updated in the key code of each database of
22t is provided, and further, an update date and time 60t indicating an update time is provided corresponding to the key code of the key code string 60 before update, which is common to each database section. In the third embodiment as well, similar to the second embodiment, it is premised that the databases before update are matched with each other and have the same key code string.

The database comparison method of the third embodiment will be described below with reference to FIGS. First, FIG.
The difference between before and after updating the database is compared in accordance with the flowchart in FIG. FIG. 12 shows the comparison unit 71 of FIG.
The first and second database sections will be described by way of example, and in step S301 of the figure, the key code sequence 21 and the key code sequence 60 of the old and new databases are compared. Step 302 to Step 305
Is exactly the same as the case of the second embodiment, comparing the presence or absence of key codes with each other, detecting addition in S303 and deletion in S305 as respective differences, and a code indicating the key code and type "addition" Alternatively, “delete” is stored in the comparison result storage unit 81. However, unlike the case of the second embodiment, when the same key code exists, the update date and time 21t and 60t of the key code are compared in step S306,
If the update dates and times are different, the code indicating the key code and the type “changed” are stored in the comparison result storage unit 81 (step S308). The processing for the second database unit is also the same as above.

Next, according to the flowchart of FIG. 13, the result comparing unit 90 compares the differences between the databases before and after the update, which are recorded in the comparison result storing units 81 and 82, and the inconsistent contents are stored in the inconsistent contents storing unit. The data is output to the update failure output unit 110 via 100. Step S31
1, S314 or S317, the comparison result storage unit 81
And all key codes recorded in 82 are compared for each "addition", "deletion" or "changed" for each type, and if there is a discrepancy between them, "additional NG" (step S31)
3), "Delete NG" (step S316) or "Change NG" (step S319), the code indicating the key code, the defect content, and the presence or absence of each database are stored in the inconsistency content storage unit 100, and finally this The content of the mismatch is output to the update failure output unit 110 (step S32).
0).

For example, referring to the data examples shown in (A1), (B) and (C) of FIG. 14, (A1) extracts only the key code string and the update date and time from the first old database before the update. This is the key code string 60 before update.
And the update date and time becomes 60t. Further, (B) and (C) are new databases 11 and 12 after the first and second updates, respectively, and (A1) and (B), (A1) and (C) respectively, according to the flowchart of FIG. The comparison result is shown in FIG.
(A) and (B) are stored in the comparison result storage units 81 and 82. Next, according to the flowchart of FIG.
The result of comparing (A) and (B) of FIG. 15 is (C), which is stored in the mismatch content storage unit 100. By outputting the content of the mismatch to the update failure output unit 110, the update failure due to the data update work can be found.

As shown in (A2) of FIG. 14, a key code string 60 is obtained by extracting only the key code string from the pre-update first old database and recording the storage date and time indicating the time of the extraction. The storage date and time may be 60t. In this case, in the flowchart of FIG. 12, when comparing the update date and time in step S307, the save date and time 60t of the old database is compared with the update date and time 21t of the corresponding key code, and if the update date and time 21t is newer, ”
If "changed" is set, the same processing is possible.

As described above, according to the third embodiment, as the database before update, only the key code string before update and the update date and time are common to all databases. It is not necessary to keep the old database as it is, and there is an effect that the storage capacity for comparison can be made very small. Further, as compared with the case of the second embodiment in which only the key code string before the update is used, there is an effect that the consistency can be detected even in the case where the content of the record is changed.

Example 4. As shown in the first to third embodiments above, the method of comparing the database before update and the database after update for each key code and checking the consistency of the update process is performed by updating the data updated by the update process. Can also be applied to a single database that is generated as a transaction file, an example of which is shown in Example 4.

FIG. 16 is a block diagram of a database comparison method showing a fourth embodiment of the present invention.
Is a new database after updating, 20 is a key code string of this database 10, 30 is a record string consisting of detailed data corresponding to each key code of the key code string 20,
40 is the old database at the time of the previous comparison, 50 and 60 are the respective key code strings and record strings of the old database 40, 70 is a comparison unit that compares the databases 10 and 40 for each key code, and 80 is the difference between the results. A comparison result storage unit, 120 is a transaction file in which transaction data consisting of a key code, an update date and time, an update type, and a record, which shows update data of this database, is stored and recorded at each update, and 130 is an old database from the transaction file 120. The comparison target key code extraction unit that extracts only the key code and the update type of the update data corresponding to the present comparison time when 40 is stored, 140 is the comparison target key code storage unit that stores the comparison target key code, 90 Of the comparison target key code storage unit 140 The result comparison unit that compares the difference between the new data and the old and new databases stored in the comparison result storage unit 80, 100 is a mismatch content storage unit that stores the mismatch content that is the result of the result comparison unit 90, and 110 is the mismatch content. It is an update failure output unit that outputs a database update failure based on the above.

The database comparison method of the fourth embodiment will be described below with reference to FIGS. First, FIG.
According to the flowchart of FIG. 3, differences between before and after updating the database are compared with respect to the key code selected by the comparison target key code extraction unit 130 from the transaction file 120. FIG. 17 shows the operations of the comparison target key code extraction unit 130 and the comparison unit 70 of FIG. 16, and in steps S401 and S402 of the figure, for example, FIG.
Only transaction data having an update date and time newer than the previous comparison date and time are extracted from the transaction file 120 composed of data as shown in (A), and the comparison target key code storage unit 140 stores the code indicating the key code and the update type. Memorize In step S403, with respect to the key code of the selected transaction data, the new database 10 and the old database 40 after update are compared with each other for the presence or absence of the key code, and added in S405 and deleted in S407. Detected as the difference between each,
The code indicating the key code and the type “addition” or “deletion” are stored in the comparison result storage unit 80. If the same key code exists, the records 30 and 50 corresponding to the key code are compared in step S408, and if there is a change in the content, the type “changed” is stored in the comparison result storage unit 81 in step S410. (Step S410). The above processing is executed for all the data of the transaction file 120, and after the end, the previous comparison date and time of the transaction file 120 is updated in step S412.

Next, according to the flow chart of FIG. 18, the difference between the old and new databases stored in the comparison result storage unit 80 and the data recorded in the comparison target key code storage unit 140 extracted from the transaction file 120 are compared. The unit 90 makes a comparison and outputs the mismatch content to the update failure output unit 110 via the mismatch content storage unit 100. That is, in step S421 of FIG. 18, the key code stored in the comparison result storage unit 80 whose type is “addition” and the key code stored in the comparison target key code storage unit 140 are compared, and there is a mismatch. For example, as "additional NG", the code indicating the key code and the defective content are stored in the inconsistent content storage unit 100 (step S423). Similarly, the type “deletion” is compared in step S424, and if there is a mismatch, it is determined as “deleted NG” (step S426), and the type “changed” is compared in step S427, and if there is a mismatch, “changed NG”. As (step S429),
The code indicating the key code and the defective content are stored in the mismatch content storage unit 100. Finally in step S430,
The content of the mismatch is output to the update failure output unit 110.

For example, in FIG. 19, (A) is an example of the transaction file 120, and the comparison target keyboard 130 extracts the comparison target key code and stores it in the comparison target key code storage unit 140 according to the flowchart of FIG. An example is (B). At the beginning of the transaction file 120, as shown in (A), the comparison date and time of the previous database comparison is stored. In this example, the update date and time of the key code (f) is older than the comparison date and time. The key code (b) and below are compared.

20A and 20B show the old database 40 at the time of the previous comparison and the updated new database 10, respectively, and these databases are compared by the comparison unit 70 according to the flowchart of FIG. The compared results are shown in FIG. Furthermore, this result and Fig. 1
The comparison target key code shown in FIG. 9 (B) is compared according to the flowchart of FIG. 18, and the content of the mismatch is output as shown in FIG. 21 (B).

As described above, according to the fourth embodiment, the transaction file is referred to and the update result of only the updated portion is compared and confirmed.
This has the effect of significantly reducing the time required for the comparison process.

Example 5. In the above-described first to third embodiments, the database before update and the database after update are compared for each key code with respect to a plurality of databases for which data modification is performed at the same time, and the matching of update processing between the plurality of databases is performed. In the fifth embodiment, the consistency of the processing is confirmed from the old database at the time of the previous comparison and the transaction file storing the updated contents in the fifth embodiment. It shows a database comparison method for verification. In the fifth embodiment, there is a plurality of databases having the same key code, and it is premised that updates of the respective databases are simultaneously reflected in all the databases.

FIG. 22 is a block diagram of a database comparison method according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention. When the database of the first embodiment is provided with a transaction file and the consistency of the databases is checked, each database is checked. The transaction file corrects the difference caused by the difference in the comparison time point. Also, unlike the first to third embodiments, an example is shown in which each database unit and result comparison unit are provided in different computers.

In the figure, 1 is a first database section provided in the computer (1), 2 is a second database section provided in the computer (2), and 3 is provided in the computer (3). Database comparison unit, comparison result storage unit 81, 8
2 is the comparison date / time 81a, 82a and the comparison result 81
b and 82b, 150 is a difference storage unit that stores the difference between the comparison result storage units 81 and 82 to be compared by the result comparison unit 90, and 160 is a difference confirmation unit that compares this difference with the transaction file 122. The other reference numerals are the same as or equivalent to those of the same reference numerals in the first embodiment.

The database comparison method of the fifth embodiment will be described below with reference to FIGS. First, FIG.
The difference between the old database at the time of the previous comparison and the new database at the current time is compared in accordance with the flowchart of FIG. FIG. 23 shows the operation of the comparison unit 71 or 72 of FIG. 22, and the first database unit will be described as an example. In step S501 of the figure, the key code sequence 21 and the key code sequence 61 of the old and new databases are compared. To do.
Similar to the case of the first embodiment, the presence / absence of a key code is compared with each other, addition in S503 and deletion in S505 are detected as respective differences, and the code indicating the key code and the type “addition” or “deletion” are detected. Are stored in the comparison result storage unit 81. If the same key code exists in both the old and new databases, the records 31 and 51 are compared (step S506), and if the record contents are changed,
The code indicating the key code and the type “changed” are stored in the comparison result storage unit 81. Further, after comparing all the key codes, the time at this time is stored in the comparison result storage unit 81 as the comparison date and time 81a. The second database unit is similarly processed, and the difference between old and new is stored in the comparison result storage unit 82.

Next, according to the flowchart of FIG. 24, the result comparing section 90 compares the difference between the databases before and after the update recorded in the comparison result storing sections 81 and 82, and the content of the mismatch is stored in the difference storing section. Store in 150.
In step S511, the comparison result storage units 81 and 82.
All the key codes recorded in are compared for each "addition", "deletion" and "changed", and if there is any discrepancy, "additional NG" (step S513), "deletion NG" ( As the step S516) or "change NG" (step S519), the code indicating the key code, the content of the mismatch, and the presence / absence of each database are stored in the difference storage unit 150 (step S520). At this time, in step S521, the comparison dates / times 81a and 82a of the respective databases are also stored together in the difference storage unit 150.

Further, according to the flowchart of FIG. 25, the stored contents of the difference storage unit 150 and the transaction file 122 are compared. First, step S531
Then, comparison date / time 81a and 82 of each database
a is compared, and if the comparison date and time match, step S
In 533, all the NG information is stored in the mismatch content storage unit 100, and in step S540, the mismatch content is output to the update failure output unit 110. If there is a difference in the comparison date and time in step S532, the difference storage unit 1 is selected in step S534.
The stored contents of 50 and the transaction file 122 are compared for each key code. The update date and time of the transaction data is between the comparison date and time (step S5).
35), and if the types of the inconsistent contents stored in the difference storage unit 150 are the same (step S537), the inconsistent contents are not stored as defective contents as an inconsistency due to the difference in comparison time, and Only in the case of, the NG information is stored in the mismatch content storage unit 100 in steps S536 and S538. After comparing all the key codes, the update failure output unit 11 is finally sent in step S540.
The content of the disagreement is output to 0.

For example, referring to the data examples of FIGS. 26 and 27, the old and new databases of the first database section ((B) and (A) of FIG. 26) and the old and new databases of the second database section (of FIG. 26). The contents of the comparison result storage units 81 and 82 obtained by comparing (D) and (C)) by the comparison units 71 and 72 are as shown in (A) and (B) of FIG. 27. The result of extracting the differences is shown in FIG. When this result is processed according to the flowchart of FIG. 25 by (E) of FIG. 26 showing the data example of the transaction file 122 of the second database, the deletion NG of the key code (b) is between the comparison date and time of both. Since the types of non-matching contents are the same, this is not stored and, as a result, the defective contents shown in (D) of FIG. 27 are obtained.

As described above, according to the fifth embodiment, the transaction file is used for confirmation of the comparison result for a plurality of databases which are updated at any time, so that the update failure occurs even when the comparison timings are different. There is an effect that a part can be detected. In addition, in this embodiment, the case where the transaction file is placed in the second database section is shown, but if a similar transaction file is provided in the first database section, the same is done without considering the order of comparison. It is possible to detect a defective update portion.

Example 6. The sixth embodiment shows an embodiment of a transaction file data compression method for efficiently holding the transaction files shown in the fourth and fifth embodiments.

FIG. 28 is a block diagram showing a method of compressing a transaction file according to the sixth embodiment. In the figure, 120 is a transaction file before compression, and 120a, 120b, 120c and 120d.
Is a component of the transaction file 120, and is provided for each transaction data indicating the update content for each update of the database. The key code, the update date and time, the update type, and the record 170 indicating the update content of the database are 170 A compressible period input unit for inputting a compressible period of a transaction file, 180 extracts data having a compressible update date and time 120b from the transaction file 120 and has a plurality of updates for the same key code. A comparison unit 200 is stored in the key code storage unit 190, and a compression unit 200 compresses the transaction file 120 based on the data stored in the key code storage unit 190.

Next, a method of compressing a transaction file according to the sixth embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS. First, according to the flowchart of FIG. 29, the compressible date and time is input from the compressible period input unit 170 (step S601). Transaction data corresponding to this period is extracted from the transaction file 120 in step S602 with reference to the update date and time 120b, and the key code, update type, and transaction data data number (serial number) are sorted for each same key code. And stores it in the key code storage unit 190 (step S6).
03). Next, from this stored data, only the one having a plurality of updates for the same key code is left and the others are deleted (step S606).

From the data stored in the key code storage unit 190, the data of the transaction file 120 is compressed according to the flowchart of FIG. In step S611, the data stored in the key code storage unit 190 is read for each key code, and if the update type is deleted (step S612), the transaction data with the update type of the key code being "change" is read from the transaction file. It is deleted (step S613).
If the update type includes “addition” and there is no “delete” (step S614), steps S615 and S61.
At 6, the contents of the "change" record are written in the "add" record, and the "change" transaction data is deleted. Further, for the update type having only “change”, only the transaction data of the last “change” is left and the others are deleted (step S618). In this way, the transaction data to be deleted is extracted from the transaction file and the empty data is compressed (step S620).

For example, the transaction file shown in FIG. 31A will be described as an example. To explain, at the compressible date and time shown in FIG. 31B, only the compressible transaction data is extracted and the same key code is used. FIG. 32A shows an example of data arranged for each item, and FIG. 32B shows an example of data obtained by extracting only data obtained by performing a plurality of update processes on the same key code.
For this data, follow the flowchart in FIG.
FIG. 33 is a table showing the processing result, and the result of finally compressing the transaction file is as shown in FIG. 31 (C).

As described above, according to this embodiment, the transaction files shown in the fourth and fifth embodiments can be compressed and stored, and the storage capacity for the transaction files can be reduced. There is.

[0062]

Since the present invention is constructed as described above, it has the following effects.

In the database comparison method according to the first aspect of the present invention, even if the contents of the databases are different, the key codes common to both are used to associate the databases with each other to detect the update failure portion of the databases. Therefore, the detection process is simple, and since only the update failure part is output without human intervention, there is an effect that the time for confirmation work can be significantly reduced.

In the database comparison method according to claim 2 of the present invention, since only the key code string before update is common to all databases as the database before update, the old database is retained when comparing the databases. There is an effect that the storage capacity for comparison can be configured to be extremely small without having to keep it. Also, even if the contents of the databases are different, the key code common to both can be used to detect the update failure part of the database by associating the databases with each other, so the detection process is simple and manual. Since only the defective update portion is output without intervention, there is an effect that the time for confirmation work can be significantly reduced.

In the database comparison method according to the third aspect of the present invention, since only the key code sequence before update and the update date and time are common to all databases as the database before update, when comparing the databases,
It is not necessary to keep the old database as it is, and the storage capacity for comparison can be made extremely small. Further, as compared with the case where only the key code string before update is used, there is an effect that it is possible to detect the consistency even when the content of the record is changed. Furthermore, even if the contents of the databases are different, the key code common to both can be used to detect the update failure part of the database by associating each database with each other, so that the detection process is simple and manual. Since only the defective update portion is output without intervention, there is an effect that the time for confirmation work can be significantly reduced.

In the database comparison method according to claim 4 of the present invention, only the key code sequence before update and the storage date and time when this key code sequence is stored are common to each database as the database before update. Therefore, when comparing databases, it is not necessary to keep the old database as it is, and there is an effect that the storage capacity for comparison can be made extremely small. Further, as compared with the case where only the key code string before update is used, there is an effect that it is possible to detect the consistency even when the content of the record is changed. Furthermore, even if the contents of the databases are different, the key code common to both can be used to detect the update failure part of the database by associating each database with each other, so that the detection process is simple and manual. Since only the defective update portion is output without intervention, there is an effect that the time for confirmation work can be significantly reduced.

In the database comparison method according to the fifth aspect of the present invention, the pre-update and post-update of the database are classified into three update types of addition, deletion, and change for each key code for comparison. Therefore, even if the contents of the databases are different, it is possible to easily associate the databases with each other by using a key code common to both.

In the database comparison method according to the sixth aspect of the present invention, even when there are three or more databases, the key codes common to the databases are used to associate the databases with each other to update the defective portion of the databases. Since it can be detected, there is an effect that the detection process can be easily performed.

In the database comparison method according to claim 7 of the present invention, since the update result of only the updated portion is compared and confirmed by referring to the transaction file, the time required for the comparison processing is significantly increased. The effect is that it can be reduced.

The database comparison method according to the eighth aspect of the present invention has an effect that the defective update portion can be detected even when the comparison timing is different by using the transaction file for confirmation of the comparison result.

[Brief description of drawings]

FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram showing a database comparison method according to a first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure of comparing old and new databases in the database comparison method according to the first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure for detecting and outputting contents of update failure of a database in the database comparison method according to the first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 4 is a diagram showing a data example of a database for explaining the database comparison method according to the first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 5 is a diagram showing a data example of database comparison results for explaining the database comparison method according to the first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 6 is a configuration diagram showing a database comparison method according to a second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure of comparing old and new databases in the database comparison method according to the second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 8 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure for detecting and outputting the contents of update failure of the database in the database comparison method according to the second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 9 is a diagram showing a data example of a database for explaining a database comparison method according to the second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 10 is a diagram showing a data example of database comparison results for explaining a database comparison method according to the second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 11 is a configuration diagram showing a database comparison method according to the third embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 12 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure of comparing old and new databases in the database comparison method according to the third embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 13 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure for detecting and outputting the contents of update failure of the database of the database comparison method according to the third embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 14 is a diagram showing a data example of a database for explaining a database comparison method according to the third embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 15 is a diagram showing a data example of database comparison results for explaining a database comparison method according to the third embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 16 is a configuration diagram showing a database comparison method according to a fourth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 17 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure of comparing old and new databases in the database comparison method according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 18 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure for detecting and outputting the contents of update failure of the database in the database comparison method according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 19 is a diagram showing a data example of a transaction file for explaining the database comparison method according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 20 is a diagram showing a data example of a database for explaining a database comparison method according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 21 is a diagram showing a data example of database comparison results for explaining the database comparison method according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 22 is a configuration diagram showing a database comparison method according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 23 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure of comparing old and new databases in the database comparison method according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 24 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure for detecting mismatched contents of databases in the database comparison method according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 25 is a flowchart showing a processing procedure for detecting and outputting contents of update failure of a database in the database comparison method according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 26 is a diagram showing a data example of a database for explaining the database comparison method according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 27 is a diagram showing a data example of a database comparison result for explaining the database comparison method according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 28 is a configuration diagram showing a method of compressing a transaction file according to the sixth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 29 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure up to key code storage of the transaction file compression method according to the sixth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 30 is a flowchart showing a compression processing procedure of a transaction file compression method according to the sixth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 31 is a diagram showing an example of transaction file data for explaining a transaction file compression method according to the sixth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 32 is a diagram showing an example of data for explaining the processing of the transaction file compression method according to the sixth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 33 is a diagram showing an example of data for explaining processing by a combination of update types of the method of compressing a transaction file according to the sixth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 34 is a configuration diagram of a conventional database comparison method.

FIG. 35 is a flowchart illustrating a processing procedure of a conventional database comparison method.

[Explanation of symbols]

11 First Database after Update 21 Key Code Sequence of First Database After Update 31 Record Sequence of First Database after Update 41 First Database Before Update 51 Key Code of First Database Before Update Column 61 Record row of the first database before update 81 Comparison result storage section 81a between before and after update of the first database 81a Comparison date and time before and after update of the first database 81b Of the first database Result of comparison between before and after update 12 Second database after update 22 Key code string of second database after update 32 Record string of second database after update 42 Second database before update 52 Update Key code string of the previous second database 62 Record string of the second database before updating 82 Second database Comparing result storage section 82a before and after updating 82a Comparison date between before and after updating of the second database 82b Comparison result between before and after updating of the second database 60 Key code string 60t of old database Update date and time of record in old database 90 Result comparison unit 100 Inconsistent content storage unit 110 Update failure output unit 120 Transaction file

Claims (8)

[Claims] 1. A first database having a key code string and a record string consisting of records corresponding to the respective key codes of the key code string, and the key code string provided separately from the first database. In a database comparison method for confirming data update contents, a second database having a key code string having the same content and a record string composed of records corresponding to each key code of this key code string is used. The pre-update and the post-update are compared for each key code, the difference is stored in the first storage unit, the pre-update and the post-update of the second database are compared for each key code, and the difference is found. A database ratio characterized by being stored in a second storage unit, comparing the differences stored in the first and second storage units, and outputting the content of the mismatch. Comparison method. 2. A first database having a key code string and a record string consisting of records corresponding to each key code of the key code string, and the key code string provided separately from the first database. In the database comparison method for confirming the data update content, the key code before update is applied to a second database having a key code string having the same content and a record string consisting of records corresponding to each key code of this key code string. The column is compared with the updated key code sequence of the first database, and the difference is stored in the first storage unit, and the key code sequence before the update and the key of the second database after the update are stored. The code string is compared and the difference is stored in the second storage unit.
And a database comparison method characterized by comparing the differences stored in the second storage unit and outputting the content of the mismatch. 3. The data indicating the time when the record corresponding to the key code is updated is provided for each key code, and the key code string before update and the key code string after update are compared for each database. 3. The database comparison method according to claim 2, wherein the update times corresponding to the respective key codes are also compared, and the difference is stored in the storage unit. 4. The key code string of the database before update is recorded together with the data indicating the storage time, and the data indicating the time when the record corresponding to the key code is updated is recorded for each key code of the database after update. Provided, when comparing the key code string before update for each database, and the key code string after update, also comparing the update time and the save time corresponding to each key code,
The database comparison method according to claim 2, wherein the difference is stored in a storage unit. 5. Before and after updating each database,
5. When comparing for each key code, the difference is classified into three of addition, deletion, and change and stored in the storage unit. Database comparison method. 6. The difference stored in each storage unit with respect to the storage unit that stores three or more databases having the same key code sequence, and stores the difference between before and after the update for each database. Are compared for each key code, and the content of each mismatch is output.
The database comparison method according to claim 5. 7. A database having a key code string and a record string consisting of records corresponding to each key code of the key code string, an old database in which a state before update of this database is saved, and before update of this database. In the database comparison method for confirming the data update content, the database is provided with a transaction file including transaction data having a key code corresponding to the updated record up to the present time and data indicating the type of the update. Before and after updating for each key code of the transaction data, the difference is stored in the storage unit, the difference stored in this storage unit is compared with the transaction data, and the content of the mismatch A database characterized by outputting Comparison method. 8. A transaction file comprising transaction data having a key code corresponding to a record updated for each database, data indicating the type of this update, and data indicating the time at which this update was made, When storing the difference between each database before and after updating for each key code in the storage unit, the difference is stored together with the data indicating the point of time of the above comparison, and the differences stored in each storage unit are compared. If the contents stored in the respective storage units are different from each other with respect to the inconsistent content, the transaction data indicating the update data of the portion corresponding to the difference in the comparison time is extracted from the transaction file and compared with these transaction data. The inconsistency contents are corrected by doing so. Database comparison method according to any one.