I have this SQL query:
but I'm getting an error:
If I remove the comma-separated value from the variable, it is working fine. As well as if I remove the NULL checking feature it is working fine. Can I know the issue of this
It's because a CASE WHEN can only return 1 value.
And a STRING_SPLIT returns a resultset.
I assume something like this is what you want.
SELECT *
FROM Facility f
WHERE (#Facility IS NULL OR f.facilityCode IN (SELECT value FROM string_split(#Facility,',')))
This will get all records if the variable is null.
The function dbo.split will split the string in more than one value. This will confuse your subquery and the error you are receiving will be thrown.
In case you need what goes before the comma consider using:
select top 1 value
from dbo.split(#Facility, ','))
You want to say if the variable is NULL so ignore the WHERE statement, if so your query would be:
SELECT *
FROM Facility f
WHERE #Facility IN (select value from dbo.split(#Facility, ',')) OR #Facility IS NULL
Related
I have a following query in an Azure SQL database:
Select *
from item_table
where itemNumber IN (:itemNbr) or (:itemNbr) is null;
Means, if the passed list :itemNbr is null or empty then I want all the rows from the table.
The problem I am getting with this query is it runs fine if the :itemNbr is null or empty, but if I pass some objects in the list, then it becomes like this:
Select *
from item_table
where itemNumber IN ('2134234', '23423423') or ('2134234', '23423423') is null;
and I get this error while executing it:
SQL Error [4145] [S0001]: An expression of non-boolean type specified in a context where a condition is expected, near ','
I have tried ISNULL, NULLIF and some other ways but nothing is working correctly
Found one way to handle the same in the query itself, without changing the application code:
Select * from item_table where (COALESCE(:itemNbr,1) = 1 or itemNumber in ( :itemNbr ));
So Now, if we pass the arg itemNbr as null then it will fetch all the rows from the table or else it will filter the rows basis on the itemNbr argument.
I want to find the number of data that is NULL but i do not know why this code returns an error: (Error Message said there was a problem with my WHERE)
SELECT first_review, COUNT (1) AS firstreviewisnull
FROM [table_name]
GROUP BY first_review
WHERE first_review IS NULL
I tried this code and the count returns to 0 - which I know is incorrect:
SELECT COUNT(first_review) AS firstreviewisnull
FROM [table_name]
WHERE first_review IS NULL
If possible, please help to:
explain what i did wrong
provide with the correct code
thank you!
SELECT COUNT(*) AS firstreviewisnull
FROM [table_name]
WHERE first_review IS NULL
Count() function ignores Null values (it does not count them). Use count(*) if you want to count the rows where girst_review is null.
Your SQL in the second image seems correct, assuming the [table_name] is actually replaced with the proper table name?
Also, check that the values for first_review are actually null, and not an empty String “”, which is not NULL.
I am currently working with a MS SQL database on Windows 2012 Server
I need to query only 1 column from a table that I only have access to read, not make any kind of changes.
Problem is that the name of the column is "Value"
My code is this:
SELECT 'Value' FROM table
If I add
`ORDER BY 'Value'`
The issue is that the query is returning an empty list of results.
Things I've tried already
I tried replacing ' with `"' but this didn't work either.
I also tried writing SELECT * instead of SELECT VALUE
Using the table name in the SELECT or ORDER clauses again didn't help
You are claiming that this query:
SELECT 'Value'
FROM table
ORDER BY 'Value'
Is returning no rows. That's not quite correct. It is returning an error because SQL Server does not allow constant expressions as keys for ORDER BY (or GROUP BY for that matter).
Do not use single quotes. In this case:
SELECT 'Value' as val
FROM table
ORDER BY val;
Or, if value is a column in the table:
SELECT t.Value
FROM table t
ORDER BY t.Value;
Value is not a reserved word in SQL Server, but if it were, you could escape it:
SELECT t.[Value]
FROM table t
ORDER BY t.[Value];
it looks like your table has null values. and because of the order by all null values come first.
try to add filter like this
select Value FROM table
where Value is not null and Value <> ''
order by Value
Can anyone please point out what is wrong with the following SQL statement:
SELECT DiaryType
FROM tblDiaryTypes
WHERE DiaryType NOT IN (SELECT NextDiary
FROM tblActionLinks
WHERE HistoryType = 'Info Chased');
Now the nested SELECT statement currently returns NULL because there are initially no entries in tblActionLinks, and I am wondering if that is the issue.
The outer SELECT statement if executed on its own does return all the Diary Types from tblDiaryTypes as expected. But when I add the nested SELECT statement to exclusde certain values, then the overall SQL statement returns empty!
Does this have something to do withthe fact that tblActionLinks is currently empty? If so, how can I amend my SQL statement to handle that possibility.
For SQL SERVER (you didn't specified sql engine) try with:
SELECT ISNULL(NextDiary, 0) ...
When no rows found all value is null then it will return 0
Are you sure there are no entries currently in tblActionLinks? If there are no entries in tblActionLinks, then outer query should return all records
Does this have something to do withthe fact that tblActionLinks is currently empty?
Yes... NULL doesn't being handled so good in SQL, Comparing a value to NULL is undifned try give for null a flag value like -999:
SELECT DiaryType
FROM tblDiaryTypes
WHERE DiaryType NOT IN (SELECT NVL(NextDiary, -999) -- <===
FROM tblActionLinks
WHERE HistoryType = 'Info Chased');
NVL(NextDiary, -999) means that if NextDiary IS NULL, replace the value with -999
docs
I would rewrite your query the following way:
SELECT DiaryType
FROM tblDiaryTypes
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT NextDiary
FROM tblActionLinks
WHERE HistoryType = 'Info Chased'
AND NextDiary = DiaryType)
This ensures proper behaviour irrespective of ANSI_NULLS setting and you don't have to worry about properly choosing the magic value returned by ISNULL(NextDiary, 0) (what if you have DiaryType equal to 0 in tblDiaryTypes?)
Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
I'm using a stored procedure in MySQL, with a CASE statement.
In the ELSE clause of the CASE ( equivalent to default: ) I want to select and return an empty result set, thus avoiding to throw an SQL error by not handling the ELSE case, and instead return an empty result set as if a regular query would have returned no rows.
So far I've managed to do so using something like:
Select NULL From users Where False
But I have to name an existing table, like 'users' in this example.
It works, but I would prefer a way that doesn't break if eventually the table name used is renamed or dropped.
I've tried Select NULL Where False but it doesn't work.
Using Select NULL does not return an empty set, but one row with a column named NULL and with a NULL value.
There's a dummy-table in MySQL called 'dual', which you should be able to use.
select
1
from
dual
where
false
This will always give you an empty result.
This should work on most DBs, tested on Postgres and Netezza:
SELECT NULL LIMIT 0;
T-SQL (MSSQL):
SELECT Top 0 1;
How about
SELECT * FROM (SELECT 1) AS TBL WHERE 2=3
Checked in myphp, and it also works in sqlite and probably in any other db engine.
This will probably work across all databases.
SELECT * FROM (SELECT NULL AS col0) AS inner0 WHERE col0 IS NOT NULL;
SELECT TOP 0 * FROM [dbo].[TableName]
This is a reasonable approach to constant scan operator.
SELECT NULL WHERE FALSE;
it works in postgresql ,mysql, subquery in mysql.
How about this?
SELECT 'MyName' AS EmptyColumn
FROM dual
WHERE 'Me' = 'Funny'
SELECT * FROM (SELECT NULL) WHERE 0
In PostgreSQL a simple
SELECT;
works. You won't even get any columns labeled 'unknown'.
Note however, it still says 1 row retrieved.