RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded on update and delete for small number of rows (10s)

I have the following two calls that return the same RangeError:

 await db
    .update(schema.cards)
    .set({ redeemable: true })
    .where(eq(schema.cards.contractAddress, vaultAddress))
    .returning({ address: vaultAddress })
    .catch((error) => {
      console.error(error);
      error(500);
    });

await db
    .delete(schema.cards)
    .where(
      and(
        eq(schema.accounts.address, address),
        eq(schema.cards.contractAddress, vaultAddress),
      ),
    )
    .returning({ address })
    .catch((error) => {
      console.error(error);
      error(500);
    });

 await db
    .update(schema.cards)
    .set({ redeemable: true })
    .where(eq(schema.cards.contractAddress, vaultAddress))
    .returning({ address: vaultAddress })
    .catch((error) => {
      console.error(error);
      error(500);
    });

await db
    .delete(schema.cards)
    .where(
      and(
        eq(schema.accounts.address, address),
        eq(schema.cards.contractAddress, vaultAddress),
      ),
    )
    .returning({ address })
    .catch((error) => {
      console.error(error);
      error(500);
    });

The number of rows in question is around 10. I am successfully using .where with update in another query.

30 Replies

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

Is it exactly how your delete is written? .returning({ address }) is invalid, you need to .returning({ address: schema.accounts.address }) or an other column you are assigning address to .returning looks the same for update maybe it is not clear but returnin is {aName: theTableColumn}

shot•4mo ago

thank you! that solved the first and led to another issue for the latter (deletion). so I get the following: PostgresError: missing FROM-clause entry for table "accounts" Which I suppose makes sense; there is a one-to-many relation from accounts -> cards, I would like to delete all cards that belong to the specific account based on an address of that account, but the reference in cards is to the accounts id

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

oh you want a subquery in your where

shot•4mo ago

accounts.address is unique, would one way of addressing this being making the relation reference the address in the card relation? Oh I like that option much more. I will have a look at the docs for that ❤️

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

Relations are only for select. https://orm.drizzle.team/docs/operators#exists I am thinking about exists but it depends on the query you need

I would like to delete all cards that belong to the specific account based on an address of that account

if there is a way to match a card and account it could be possible

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

you can try to reproduce a light version of your schema and share it with https://drizzle.run

Drizzle Run

shot•4mo ago

yessir https://drizzle.run/ylvbdkuyfnwkkaube1ux4itc

Drizzle Run

New starter 01 playground - Drizzle Run

shot•4mo ago

woops, forgot a field, changes pushed the playground is 🤌 btw and maybe to be a bit clearer with the query I am after: Delete all cards - that match a given contractAddress and - that reference the account given by the account.address. So cards that match the contractAddress but reference another account are not deleted

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

Ok, I'm forking it and come back in few minutes. If you try on your own we could compare :p

shot•4mo ago

I will try 🙂

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

can a cards have no accountId ?

shot•4mo ago

strictly, yes, because there is no notNull. This isn't the case in my application however

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

ok because we could add a reference from accountId to accounts.id but I was just asking :p

shot•4mo ago

for this POC I am making for tomorrow I won't include the notNull but it should be there I suppose as all cards should be related to an account wait, isn't that what there is already?

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

Relations are "runtime" link between tables but not "real" link like references (foreign key)

shot•4mo ago

ah so you're saying I could add a database-level relation with foreign keys?

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

yes, only if you need to prevent errors

shot•4mo ago

If that is my only option I will have to but I'm trying to avoid changes to the schema if possible atm 😉

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

With a ref, you have the guarantee that it will be an existing accountId

shot•4mo ago

Right, I see

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

shot•4mo ago

hmm, with the following I delete all cards but for every user. Will keep trying.

const query = db.select().from(accounts).where(eq(accounts.address, "0xdeadbeef"))

const result = await db
    .delete(cards)
    .where(
        and(
            exists(query),
            eq(cards.contractAddress, "0xsomething"),
        ),
    )

const query = db.select().from(accounts).where(eq(accounts.address, "0xdeadbeef"))

const result = await db
    .delete(cards)
    .where(
        and(
            exists(query),
            eq(cards.contractAddress, "0xsomething"),
        ),
    )

Which I guess makes sense, as exists(query) I expect to always be true with how I have defined it.

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

I did the same query

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

https://drizzle.run/r8be0g6tp5knhfui3ajmmbd3

Drizzle Run

Delete with where on sub query - Drizzle Run

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

It seems to delete the expected cards

shot•4mo ago

If you add the card value, in your playground:

    {
    id: 4,
    accountId: 2,
    contractAddress: "contract-aa",
  },

    {
    id: 4,
    accountId: 2,
    contractAddress: "contract-aa",
  },

This will also get deleted though no? i.e. it is deleting cards that match the contractAddress but for every user.

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

ah yes 🤦‍♂️ I have updated

const checkQuery = db
  .select()
  .from(accounts)
  .where(and(eq(accounts.address, address), eq(cards.accountId, accounts.id)));

const checkQuery = db
  .select()
  .from(accounts)
  .where(and(eq(accounts.address, address), eq(cards.accountId, accounts.id)));

now the check is also checking the accountId

shot•4mo ago

ahhh this makes good sense. Thanks for all the help! its greatly appreciated Curious, how big is the team working on drizzle?

rphlmr ⚡•4mo ago

I think they are 4 developers (I am not a core member, just an early adopter contributing lol)

shot•4mo ago

awesome, well, thanks again ❤️

Gaming

Programming

RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded on update and delete for small number of rows (10s)