I have a pretty big query (no pun intended) written out in BigQuery that returns about 5 columns. I simply want to append an extra column to it that is not joined to any other table and just returns a single word in every row. As if to be an ID for the entire table.
Just wrap original select and add new constant or add it into original query. The answer might be more precise if you put your query and expected result to your question.
select q.*, 'JOHN' as new_column
from ( <your_big_query> ) q
previous (now unrelated) answer follows
You can use row_number window function:
select q.*, row_number() over (order by null) as id
from ( <your_big_query> ) q
It returns values 1,2, etc.
Depending on how complicated your query is, the row_number could be inlined directly into your query.
If all you want is one static column, just add an extra static column at the end of your existing select columns list.
select {ALL_COLUMNS_YOU_ARE_JOINING_COMPUTING_ETC}, 'something' as your_new_static_col from {YOUR_QUERY}
This static column does not need to be a string, it can be an int or some other type.
Related
As we all know, the ORDER BY clause is processed after the SELECT clause, so a column alias in the SELECT clause can be used.
However, I find that I can’t use the aliased column in a calculation in the ORDER BY clause.
WITH data AS(
SELECT *
FROM (VALUES
('apple'),
('banana'),
('cherry'),
('date')
) AS x(item)
)
SELECT item AS s
FROM data
-- ORDER BY s; -- OK
-- ORDER BY item + ''; -- OK
ORDER BY s + ''; -- Fails
I know there are alternative ways of doing this particular query, and I know that this is a trivial calculation, but I’m interested in why the column alias doesn’t work when in a calculation.
I have tested in PostgreSQL, MariaDB, SQLite and Oracle, and it works as expected. SQL Server appears to be the odd one out.
The documentation clearly states that:
The column names referenced in the ORDER BY clause must correspond to
either a column or column alias in the select list or to a column
defined in a table specified in the FROM clause without any
ambiguities. If the ORDER BY clause references a column alias from
the select list, the column alias must be used standalone, and not as
a part of some expression in ORDER BY clause:
Technically speaking, your query should work since order by clause is logically evaluated after select clause and it should have access to all expressions declared in select clause. But without looking at having access to the SQL specs I cannot comment whether it is a limitation of SQL Server or the other RDBMS implementing it as a bonus feature.
Anyway, you can use CROSS APPLY as a trick.... it is part of FROM clause so the expressions should be available in all subsequent clauses:
SELECT item
FROM t
CROSS APPLY (SELECT item + '') AS CA(item_for_sort)
ORDER BY item_for_sort
It is simply due to the way expressions are evaluated. A more illustrative example:
;WITH data AS
(
SELECT * FROM (VALUES('apple'),('banana')) AS sq(item)
)
SELECT item AS s
FROM data
ORDER BY CASE WHEN 1 = 1 THEN s END;
This returns the same Invalid column name error. The CASE expression (and the concatenation of s + '' in the simpler case) is evaluated before the alias in the select list is resolved.
One workaround for your simpler case is to append the empty string in the select list:
SELECT
item + '' AS s
...
ORDER BY s;
There are more complex ways, like using a derived table or CTE:
;WITH data AS
(
SELECT * FROM (VALUES('apple'),('banana') AS sq(item)
),
step2 AS
(
SELECT item AS s FROM data
)
SELECT s FROM step2 ORDER BY s+'';
This is just the way that SQL Server works, and I think you could say "well SQL Server is bad because of this" but SQL Server could also say "what the heck is this use case?" :-)
So, I am running a large query that returns n columns, but additionally, i would like to retrieve another column as the sum of an existing column.
I know that this works:
select A.*, (select sum(column_n) from my_query) from my_query A
The problem is my_query is quite large and I don't want to repeat it twice.
Thanks, guys.
Use window functions:
select q.*, sum(column_n) over ()
from my_query q;
I am looking for a way to update records so each entry adds 1 to the end of the string. In my case, I'm trying to update a field named FiberID. Each Record should have JCK0.R000.Ax, where x is equal to 1,2,3...,24.
Ideal result:
FiberID
JCK0.R000.A1
JCK0.R000.A2
JCK0.R000.A3
... and so on until it reaches A24.
Here is an example of the data.
This seems so useful that I'm sure it has been discussed here before, but for what ever reason I'm not seeing anything.
You could use an row_number and an updatable CTE:
with cte as (
select
fiber_id,
concat(
fiber_id,
'.A',
cast(row_number() over (partition by fiber_id order by id) as varchar(2))
) new_fiber_id
from mytable
)
update cte set fiber_id = new_fiber_id
This assumes that you have a column called id that can be used to order records having the same fiber_id.
Side note: it is unclear why you should have exactly 24 numbers per fiber_id, and you sample data does not describes that. This will assign increasing numbers to duplicate fiber_ids, regardless of how many there are.
What is the most efficient way to select the first and last element only, from a column in SQLite?
The first and last element from a row?
SELECT column1, columnN
FROM mytable;
I think you must mean the first and last element from a column:
SELECT MIN(column1) AS First,
MAX(column1) AS Last
FROM mytable;
See http://www.sqlite.org/lang_aggfunc.html for MIN() and MAX().
I'm using First and Last as column aliases.
if it's just one column:
SELECT min(column) as first, max(column) as last FROM table
if you want to select whole row:
SELECT 'first',* FROM table ORDER BY column DESC LIMIT 1
UNION
SELECT 'last',* FROM table ORDER BY column ASC LIMIT 1
The most efficient way would be to know what those fields were called and simply select them.
SELECT `first_field`, `last_field` FROM `table`;
Probably like this:
SELECT dbo.Table.FirstCol, dbo.Table.LastCol FROM Table
You get minor efficiency enhancements from specifying the table name and schema.
First: MIN() and MAX() on a text column gives AAAA and TTTT results which are not the first and last entries in my test table. They are the minimum and maximum values as mentioned.
I tried this (with .stats on) on my table which has over 94 million records:
select * from
(select col1 from mitable limit 1)
union
select * from
(select col1 from mitable limit 1 offset
(select count(0) from mitable) -1);
But it uses up a lot of virtual machine steps (281,624,718).
Then this which is much more straightforward (which works if the table was created without WITHOUT ROWID) [sql keywords are in capitals]:
SELECT col1 FROM mitable
WHERE ROWID = (SELECT MIN(ROWID) FROM mitable)
OR ROWID = (SELECT MAX(ROWID) FROM mitable);
That ran with 55 virtual machine steps on the same table and produced the same answer.
min()/max() approach is wrong. It is only correct, if the values are ascending only. I needed something liket this for currency rates, which are random raising and falling.
This is my solution:
select st.*
from stats_ticker st,
(
select min(rowid) as first, max(rowid) as last --here is magic part 1
from stats_ticker
-- next line is just a filter I need in my case.
-- if you want first/last of the whole table leave it out.
where timeutc between datetime('now', '-1 days') and datetime('now')
) firstlast
WHERE
st.rowid = firstlast.first --and these two rows do magic part 2
OR st.rowid = firstlast.last
ORDER BY st.rowid;
magic part 1: the subselect results in a single row with the columns first,last containing rowid's.
magic part 2 easy to filter on those two rowid's.
This is the best solution I've come up so far. Hope you like it.
We can do that by the help of Sql Aggregate function, like Max and Min. These are the two aggregate function which help you to get last and first element from data table .
Select max (column_name ), min(column name) from table name
Max will give you the max value means last value and min will give you the min value means it will give you the First value, from the specific table.
I have a SQL query, that returns a set of rows:
SELECT id, name FROM users where group = 2
I need to also include a column that has an incrementing integer value, so the first row needs to have a 1 in the counter column, the second a 2, the third a 3 etc
The query shown here is just a simplified example, in reality the query could be arbitrarily complex, with several joins and nested queries.
I know this could be achieved using a temporary table with an autonumber field, but is there a way of doing it within the query itself ?
For starters, something along the lines of:
SELECT my_first_column, my_second_column,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY my_order_column) AS Row_Counter
FROM my_table
However, it's important to note that the ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ...) construct only determines the values of Row_Counter, it doesn't guarantee the ordering of the results.
Unless the SELECT itself has an explicit ORDER BY clause, the results could be returned in any order, dependent on how SQL Server decides to optimise the query. (See this article for more info.)
The only way to guarantee that the results will always be returned in Row_Counter order is to apply exactly the same ordering to both the SELECT and the ROW_NUMBER():
SELECT my_first_column, my_second_column,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY my_order_column) AS Row_Counter
FROM my_table
ORDER BY my_order_column -- exact copy of the ordering used for Row_Counter
The above pattern will always return results in the correct order and works well for simple queries, but what about an "arbitrarily complex" query with perhaps dozens of expressions in the ORDER BY clause? In those situations I prefer something like this instead:
SELECT t.*
FROM
(
SELECT my_first_column, my_second_column,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ...) AS Row_Counter -- complex ordering
FROM my_table
) AS t
ORDER BY t.Row_Counter
Using a nested query means that there's no need to duplicate the complicated ORDER BY clause, which means less clutter and easier maintenance. The outer ORDER BY t.Row_Counter also makes the intent of the query much clearer to your fellow developers.
In SQL Server 2005 and up, you can use the ROW_NUMBER() function, which has options for the sort order and the groups over which the counts are done (and reset).
The simplest way is to use a variable row counter. However it would be two actual SQL commands. One to set the variable, and then the query as follows:
SET #n=0;
SELECT #n:=#n+1, a.* FROM tablename a
Your query can be as complex as you like with joins etc. I usually make this a stored procedure. You can have all kinds of fun with the variable, even use it to calculate against field values. The key is the :=
Heres a different approach.
If you have several tables of data that are not joinable, or you for some reason dont want to count all the rows at the same time but you still want them to be part off the same rowcount, you can create a table that does the job for you.
Example:
create table #test (
rowcounter int identity,
invoicenumber varchar(30)
)
insert into #test(invoicenumber) select [column] from [Table1]
insert into #test(invoicenumber) select [column] from [Table2]
insert into #test(invoicenumber) select [column] from [Table3]
select * from #test
drop table #test