How to run SQL like EVAL in BigQuery - sql

In BigQuery, I have a query and its result is like:
myQueryValue
select * from 'some path'
I'd like to use it directly in new query.
SELECT someValue
FROM
(
select * from 'some path' <- How can I replace this to myQueryValue?
)
How can I use the result value of some queries like EVAL?
----------------EDITED AT 14th Oct.----------------
Thanks for all answer but I need to explain more what I want.
If I have a 'queryTable' like
col
'select * from tableA'
The result of 'select * from tableA' is
foo
bar
When I only know about 'queryTable', how can I get the this result?
foo
bar
I'd like to refer 'queryTable', and get the final result of its.

You can use sub queries, its a query inside the from clause.
Here is an example code:
SELECT * FROM (SELECT ID FROM CUSTOMERS WHERE SALARY > 4500)
A Subquery or Inner query or a Nested query is a query within another
SQL query and embedded within the WHERE clause.
A subquery is used to return data that will be used in the main query
as a condition to further restrict the data to be retrieved.
Subqueries can be used with the SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE
statements along with the operators like =, <, >, >=, <=, IN, BETWEEN,
etc.
There are a few rules that subqueries must follow −
Subqueries must be enclosed within parentheses.
A subquery can have only one column in the SELECT clause, unless
multiple > >columns are in the main query for the subquery to compare
its selected > >columns.
An ORDER BY command cannot be used in a subquery, although the main
query >can use an ORDER BY. The GROUP BY command can be used to
perform the same >function as the ORDER BY in a subquery.
Subqueries that return more than one row can only be used with
multiple >value operators such as the IN operator.
The SELECT list cannot include any references to values that evaluate
to a >BLOB, ARRAY, CLOB, or NCLOB.
A subquery cannot be immediately enclosed in a set function.
The BETWEEN operator cannot be used with a subquery. However, the
BETWEEN >operator can be used within the subquery.
click here for more information about sub queries.

Below is example of how easy to achieve this
DECLARE myQueryValue STRING;
SET myQueryValue = "select * from your_table";
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE '''
SELECT someValue
FROM ( ''' || myQueryValue || ''' )''';

As you didn't provide additional information I'm going to elaborate my comment.
In comment I've proposed that you can use Declare with Set. Good differences between those two are presented in this stackoverflow thread.
DECLARE does not initialize the variable. When you declare it you declare the variable name, the type, and a default value, which could be an expression.
SET is for initializing the variable you declared previously, and you cannot SET the variable until you DECLARE it.
One of the examples has been provided in #Mikhail Berlyant answer in this thread.
However, more detailed information with more examples are mentioned in GCP Set Reference.
Sets a variable to have the value of the provided expression, or sets multiple variables at the same time based on the result of multiple expressions.
The SET statement may appear anywhere within the body of a script.
This is the easiest way to achieve this.
Another common way you could do this is to use SubQuery/Nested Query, it's also well described in the GCP BigQuery Reference.
In GCP doc you can also find example which uses Set, Declare and subquery:
DECLARE target_word STRING DEFAULT 'methinks';
DECLARE corpus_count, word_count INT64;
SET (corpus_count, word_count) = (
SELECT AS STRUCT COUNT(DISTINCT corpus), SUM(word_count)
FROM `bigquery-public-data`.samples.shakespeare
WHERE LOWER(word) = target_word
);
SELECT
FORMAT('Found %d occurrences of "%s" across %d Shakespeare works',
word_count, target_word, corpus_count) AS result;
Output:
Found 151 occurrences of "methinks" across 38 Shakespeare works

Related

How can you filter Snowflake EXPLAIN AS TABULAR syntax when its embedded in the TABLE function? Can you filter it with anything?

I have a table named Posts I would like to count and profile in Snowflake using the current Snowsight UI.
When I return the results via EXPLAIN using TABLULAR I am able to return the set with the combination of TABLE, RESULT_SCAN, and LAST_QUERY_ID functions, but any predicate or filter or column reference seems to fail.
Is there a valid way to do this in Snowflake with the TABLE function or is there another way to query the output of the EXPLAIN using TABLULAR?
-- Works
EXPLAIN using TABULAR SELECT COUNT(*) from Posts;
-- Works
SELECT t.* FROM TABLE(RESULT_SCAN(LAST_QUERY_ID())) as t;
-- Does not work
SELECT t.* FROM TABLE(RESULT_SCAN(LAST_QUERY_ID())) as t where operation = 'GlobalStats';
-- invalid identifier 'OPERATION', the column does not seem recognized.
Tried the third example and expected the predicate to apply to the function output. I don't understand why the filter works on some TABLE() results and not others.
You need to double quote the column name
where "operation"=
From the Documentation
Note that because the output column names from the DESC USER command
were generated in lowercase, the commands use delimited identifier
notation (double quotes) around the column names in the query to
ensure that the column names in the query match the column names in
the output that was scanned

How concatenating the rows works [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
nvarchar concatenation / index / nvarchar(max) inexplicable behavior
(2 answers)
Order by with variable Coalesce
(1 answer)
Closed 7 months ago.
Can someone please clarify how variables are executing here?
In query 1 how are all the rows concatenated with a comma? There is no while loop there.
In query 2 I assign empty strings directly to the query but it shows different results. Can someone explain this?
Table data:
select name from names
Output:
s
r
i
n
u
Query 1:
declare #var varchar(20)
set #var=''
select #var=#var+name+',' from names
select #var
Output:
s,r,i,n,u,
Query 2:
declare #var varchar(20)
select #var=''+name+',' from names
select #var
Output:
u,
As I mentioned in the comment, the logic you have in your query is a documented antipattern. Effectively you are relying on that query is row in a row by row basis, and for each row the variable is updated.
So, you are hoping, that the variable is first set to the value '' + 's,' (which is 's,'), then for the second row, the prior rows value of variable would be used ('s,') and concatenated to the next ('r'), resulting in 's,r,'. For the third row, again use the prior rows value of variable ('s,r,') and concatenate it to the next ('i'), resulting in 's,r,i'. Repeat until you get to the end of the dataset.
Per the documentation, however, there is no guarantee that'll actually happen though:
In this case, it is not guaranteed that #Var would be updated on a row by row basis. For example, #Var may be set to initial value of #Var for all rows. This is because the order and frequency in which the assignments are processed is nondeterminant. This applies to expressions containing variables string concatenation, as demonstrated below, but also to expressions with non-string variables or += style operators. Use aggregation functions instead for a set-based operation instead of a row-by-row operation.
So this means you could simply end up with a single delimited value like 'u,', or perhaps some missing values (maybe 'n,u,') due to when the rows and variable assignments were processed.
Instead, as the documentation also states, use string aggregation. On all (fully) support versions of SQL Server, that would be STRING_AGG:
SELECT #var = STRING_AGG(name,',')
FROM dbo.Names;
If you are on an older version of SQL Server, then you would need to use the "old" FOR XML PATH (with STUFF) method, like shown in this question.

USE WHERE 1=1 SQL [duplicate]

Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <conditions> in a SQL clause (Either SQL obtained through concatenated strings, either view definition)
I've seen somewhere that this would be used to protect against SQL Injection, but it seems very weird.
If there is injection WHERE 1 = 1 AND injected OR 1=1 would have the same result as injected OR 1=1.
Later edit: What about the usage in a view definition?
Thank you for your answers.
Still,
I don't understand why would someone use this construction for defining a view, or use it inside a stored procedure.
Take this for example:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1 AND table.Field=Value
If the list of conditions is not known at compile time and is instead built at run time, you don't have to worry about whether you have one or more than one condition. You can generate them all like:
and <condition>
and concatenate them all together. With the 1=1 at the start, the initial and has something to associate with.
I've never seen this used for any kind of injection protection, as you say it doesn't seem like it would help much. I have seen it used as an implementation convenience. The SQL query engine will end up ignoring the 1=1 so it should have no performance impact.
Just adding a example code to Greg's answer:
dim sqlstmt as new StringBuilder
sqlstmt.add("SELECT * FROM Products")
sqlstmt.add(" WHERE 1=1")
''// From now on you don't have to worry if you must
''// append AND or WHERE because you know the WHERE is there
If ProductCategoryID <> 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND ProductCategoryID = {0}", trim(ProductCategoryID))
end if
If MinimunPrice > 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND Price >= {0}", trim(MinimunPrice))
end if
I've seen it used when the number of conditions can be variable.
You can concatenate conditions using an " AND " string. Then, instead of counting the number of conditions you're passing in, you place a "WHERE 1=1" at the end of your stock SQL statement and throw on the concatenated conditions.
Basically, it saves you having to do a test for conditions and then add a "WHERE" string before them.
Seems like a lazy way to always know that your WHERE clause is already defined and allow you to keep adding conditions without having to check if it is the first one.
Indirectly Relevant: when 1=2 is used:
CREATE TABLE New_table_name
as
select *
FROM Old_table_name
WHERE 1 = 2;
this will create a new table with same schema as old table. (Very handy if you want to load some data for compares)
I found this pattern useful when I'm testing or double checking things on the database, so I can very quickly comment other conditions:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
AND Table.Field=Value
AND Table.IsValid=true
turns into:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
--AND Table.Field=Value
--AND Table.IsValid=true
1 = 1 expression is commonly used in generated sql code. This expression can simplify sql generating code reducing number of conditional statements.
Actually, I've seen this sort of thing used in BIRT reports. The query passed to the BIRT runtime is of the form:
select a,b,c from t where a = ?
and the '?' is replaced at runtime by an actual parameter value selected from a drop-down box. The choices in the drop-down are given by:
select distinct a from t
union all
select '*' from sysibm.sysdummy1
so that you get all possible values plus "*". If the user selects "*" from the drop down box (meaning all values of a should be selected), the query has to be modified (by Javascript) before being run.
Since the "?" is a positional parameter and MUST remain there for other things to work, the Javascript modifies the query to be:
select a,b,c from t where ((a = ?) or (1==1))
That basically removes the effect of the where clause while still leaving the positional parameter in place.
I've also seen the AND case used by lazy coders whilst dynamically creating an SQL query.
Say you have to dynamically create a query that starts with select * from t and checks:
the name is Bob; and
the salary is > $20,000
some people would add the first with a WHERE and subsequent ones with an AND thus:
select * from t where name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
Lazy programmers (and that's not necessarily a bad trait) wouldn't distinguish between the added conditions, they'd start with select * from t where 1=1 and just add AND clauses after that.
select * from t where 1=1 and name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
where 1=0, This is done to check if the table exists. Don't know why 1=1 is used.
While I can see that 1=1 would be useful for generated SQL, a technique I use in PHP is to create an array of clauses and then do
implode (" AND ", $clauses);
thus avoiding the problem of having a leading or trailing AND. Obviously this is only useful if you know that you are going to have at least one clause!
Here's a closely related example: using a SQL MERGE statement to update the target tabled using all values from the source table where there is no common attribute on which to join on e.g.
MERGE INTO Circles
USING
(
SELECT pi
FROM Constants
) AS SourceTable
ON 1 = 1
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE
SET circumference = 2 * SourceTable.pi * radius;
If you came here searching for WHERE 1, note that WHERE 1 and WHERE 1=1 are identical. WHERE 1 is used rarely because some database systems reject it considering WHERE 1 not really being boolean.
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <proper conditions>
I've seen homespun frameworks do stuff like this (blush), as this allows lazy parsing practices to be applied to both the WHERE and AND Sql keywords.
For example (I'm using C# as an example here), consider the conditional parsing of the following predicates in a Sql query string builder:
var sqlQuery = "SELECT * FROM FOOS WHERE 1 = 1"
if (shouldFilterForBars)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Bars > 3";
}
if (shouldFilterForBaz)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Baz < 12";
}
The "benefit" of WHERE 1 = 1 means that no special code is needed:
For AND - whether zero, one or both predicates (Bars and Baz's) should be applied, which would determine whether the first AND is required. Since we already have at least one predicate with the 1 = 1, it means AND is always OK.
For no predicates at all - In the case where there are ZERO predicates, then the WHERE must be dropped. But again, we can be lazy, because we are again guarantee of at least one predicate.
This is obviously a bad idea and would recommend using an established data access framework or ORM for parsing optional and conditional predicates in this way.
Having review all the answers i decided to perform some experiment like
SELECT
*
FROM MyTable
WHERE 1=1
Then i checked with other numbers
WHERE 2=2
WHERE 10=10
WHERE 99=99
ect
Having done all the checks, the query run town is the same. even without the where clause. I am not a fan of the syntax
This is useful in a case where you have to use dynamic query in which in where
clause you have to append some filter options. Like if you include options 0 for status is inactive, 1 for active. Based from the options, there is only two available options(0 and 1) but if you want to display All records, it is handy to include in where close 1=1.
See below sample:
Declare #SearchValue varchar(8)
Declare #SQLQuery varchar(max) = '
Select [FirstName]
,[LastName]
,[MiddleName]
,[BirthDate]
,Case
when [Status] = 0 then ''Inactive''
when [Status] = 1 then ''Active''
end as [Status]'
Declare #SearchOption nvarchar(100)
If (#SearchValue = 'Active')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 1'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'Inactive')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 0'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'All')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where 1=1'
End
Set #SQLQuery = #SQLQuery + #SearchOption
Exec(#SQLQuery);
Saw this in production code and asked seniors for help.
Their answer:
-We use 1=1 so when we have to add a new condition we can just type
and <condition>
and get on with it.
I do this usually when I am building dynamic SQL for a report which has many dropdown values a user can select. Since the user may or may not select the values from each dropdown, we end up getting a hard time figuring out which condition was the first where clause. So we pad up the query with a where 1=1 in the end and add all where clauses after that.
Something like
select column1, column2 from my table where 1=1 {name} {age};
Then we would build the where clause like this and pass it as a parameter value
string name_whereClause= ddlName.SelectedIndex > 0 ? "AND name ='"+ ddlName.SelectedValue+ "'" : "";
As the where clause selection are unknown to us at runtime, so this helps us a great deal in finding whether to include an 'AND' or 'WHERE'.
Making "where 1=1" the standard for all your queries also makes it trivially easy to validate the sql by replacing it with where 1 = 0, handy when you have batches of commands/files.
Also makes it trivially easy to find the end of the end of the from/join section of any query. Even queries with sub-queries if properly indented.
I first came across this back with ADO and classic asp, the answer i got was: performance.
if you do a straight
Select * from tablename
and pass that in as an sql command/text you will get a noticeable performance increase with the
Where 1=1
added, it was a visible difference. something to do with table headers being returned as soon as the first condition is met, or some other craziness, anyway, it did speed things up.
Using a predicate like 1=1 is a normal hint sometimes used to force the access plan to use or not use an index scan. The reason why this is used is when you are using a multi-nested joined query with many predicates in the where clause where sometimes even using all of the indexes causes the access plan to read each table - a full table scan. This is just 1 of many hints used by DBAs to trick a dbms into using a more efficient path. Just don't throw one in; you need a dba to analyze the query since it doesn't always work.
Here is a use case... however I am not too concerned with the technicalities of why I should or not use 1 = 1.
I am writing a function, using pyodbc to retrieve some data from SQL Server. I was looking for a way to force a filler after the where keyword in my code. This was a great suggestion indeed:
if _where == '': _where = '1=1'
...
...
...
cur.execute(f'select {predicate} from {table_name} where {_where}')
The reason is because I could not implement the keyword 'where' together inside the _where clause variable. So, I think using any dummy condition that evaluates to true would do as a filler.

Can I use a query parameter in a table name?

I want to do something along the lines of:
SELECT some_things
FROM `myproject.mydataset.mytable_#suffix`
But this doesn't work because the parameter isn't expanded inside the table name.
This does work, using wildcard tables:
SELECT some_things
FROM `myproject.mydataset.mytable_*`
WHERE _TABLE_SUFFIX = #suffix
However, it has some problems:
If I mistype the parameter, this query silently returns zero rows, rather than yelling at me loudly.
Query caching stops working when querying with a wildcard.
If other tables exist with the mytable_ prefix, they must have the same schema, even if they don't match the suffix. Otherwise, weird stuff happens. It seems like BigQuery either computes the union of all columns, or takes the schema of an arbitrary table; it's not documented and I didn't look at it in detail.
Is there a better way to query a single table whose name depends on a query parameter?
Yes, you can, here's a working example:
DECLARE tablename STRING;
DECLARE tableQuery STRING;
##get list of tables
CREATE TEMP TABLE tableNames as select table_name from nomo_nausea.INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES where table_name not in ('_sdc_primary_keys', '_sdc_rejected', 'fba_all_order_report_data');
WHILE (select count(*) from tableNames) >= 1 DO
SET tablename = (select table_name from tableNames LIMIT 1);
##build dataset + table name
SET tableQuery = CONCAT('nomo_nausea.' , tablename);
##use concat to build string and execute
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE CONCAT('SELECT * from `', tableQuery, '` where _sdc_deleted_at is not null');
DELETE FROM tableNames where table_name = tablename;
END WHILE;
In order to answer your stated problems:
Table scanning happens in FROM clause, in WHERE clause happens filtering [1] thus if WHERE condition is not match an empty result would be returned.
"Currently, Cached results are not supported when querying with wildcard" [2].
"BigQuery uses the schema for the most recently created table that matches the wildcard as the schema" [3]. What kind of weird stuff you have faced in your use case? "A wildcard table represents a union of all the tables that match the wildcard expression" [4].
In BigQuery parameterized queries can be run, But table names can not be parameterized [5]. Your wildcard solution seems to be the only way.
You can actually use tables as parameters if you use the Python API, but it's not documented yet. If you pass the tables as parameters through a formatted text string vs. a docstring, your query should work.
SQL example:
sql = "SELECT max(_last_updt) FROM `{0}.{1}.{2}` WHERE _last_updt >= TIMESTAMP(" +
"CURRENT_DATE('-06:00'))".format(project_id, dataset_name, table_name)
SQL in context of Python API:
bigquery_client = bigquery.Client() #setup the client
query_job = bigquery_client.query(sql) #run the query
results = query_job.result() # waits for job to complete
for row in results:
print row

Good or Bad: 'where 1=1' in sql condition [duplicate]

Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <conditions> in a SQL clause (Either SQL obtained through concatenated strings, either view definition)
I've seen somewhere that this would be used to protect against SQL Injection, but it seems very weird.
If there is injection WHERE 1 = 1 AND injected OR 1=1 would have the same result as injected OR 1=1.
Later edit: What about the usage in a view definition?
Thank you for your answers.
Still,
I don't understand why would someone use this construction for defining a view, or use it inside a stored procedure.
Take this for example:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1 AND table.Field=Value
If the list of conditions is not known at compile time and is instead built at run time, you don't have to worry about whether you have one or more than one condition. You can generate them all like:
and <condition>
and concatenate them all together. With the 1=1 at the start, the initial and has something to associate with.
I've never seen this used for any kind of injection protection, as you say it doesn't seem like it would help much. I have seen it used as an implementation convenience. The SQL query engine will end up ignoring the 1=1 so it should have no performance impact.
Just adding a example code to Greg's answer:
dim sqlstmt as new StringBuilder
sqlstmt.add("SELECT * FROM Products")
sqlstmt.add(" WHERE 1=1")
''// From now on you don't have to worry if you must
''// append AND or WHERE because you know the WHERE is there
If ProductCategoryID <> 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND ProductCategoryID = {0}", trim(ProductCategoryID))
end if
If MinimunPrice > 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND Price >= {0}", trim(MinimunPrice))
end if
I've seen it used when the number of conditions can be variable.
You can concatenate conditions using an " AND " string. Then, instead of counting the number of conditions you're passing in, you place a "WHERE 1=1" at the end of your stock SQL statement and throw on the concatenated conditions.
Basically, it saves you having to do a test for conditions and then add a "WHERE" string before them.
Seems like a lazy way to always know that your WHERE clause is already defined and allow you to keep adding conditions without having to check if it is the first one.
Indirectly Relevant: when 1=2 is used:
CREATE TABLE New_table_name
as
select *
FROM Old_table_name
WHERE 1 = 2;
this will create a new table with same schema as old table. (Very handy if you want to load some data for compares)
I found this pattern useful when I'm testing or double checking things on the database, so I can very quickly comment other conditions:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
AND Table.Field=Value
AND Table.IsValid=true
turns into:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
--AND Table.Field=Value
--AND Table.IsValid=true
1 = 1 expression is commonly used in generated sql code. This expression can simplify sql generating code reducing number of conditional statements.
Actually, I've seen this sort of thing used in BIRT reports. The query passed to the BIRT runtime is of the form:
select a,b,c from t where a = ?
and the '?' is replaced at runtime by an actual parameter value selected from a drop-down box. The choices in the drop-down are given by:
select distinct a from t
union all
select '*' from sysibm.sysdummy1
so that you get all possible values plus "*". If the user selects "*" from the drop down box (meaning all values of a should be selected), the query has to be modified (by Javascript) before being run.
Since the "?" is a positional parameter and MUST remain there for other things to work, the Javascript modifies the query to be:
select a,b,c from t where ((a = ?) or (1==1))
That basically removes the effect of the where clause while still leaving the positional parameter in place.
I've also seen the AND case used by lazy coders whilst dynamically creating an SQL query.
Say you have to dynamically create a query that starts with select * from t and checks:
the name is Bob; and
the salary is > $20,000
some people would add the first with a WHERE and subsequent ones with an AND thus:
select * from t where name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
Lazy programmers (and that's not necessarily a bad trait) wouldn't distinguish between the added conditions, they'd start with select * from t where 1=1 and just add AND clauses after that.
select * from t where 1=1 and name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
where 1=0, This is done to check if the table exists. Don't know why 1=1 is used.
While I can see that 1=1 would be useful for generated SQL, a technique I use in PHP is to create an array of clauses and then do
implode (" AND ", $clauses);
thus avoiding the problem of having a leading or trailing AND. Obviously this is only useful if you know that you are going to have at least one clause!
Here's a closely related example: using a SQL MERGE statement to update the target tabled using all values from the source table where there is no common attribute on which to join on e.g.
MERGE INTO Circles
USING
(
SELECT pi
FROM Constants
) AS SourceTable
ON 1 = 1
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE
SET circumference = 2 * SourceTable.pi * radius;
If you came here searching for WHERE 1, note that WHERE 1 and WHERE 1=1 are identical. WHERE 1 is used rarely because some database systems reject it considering WHERE 1 not really being boolean.
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <proper conditions>
I've seen homespun frameworks do stuff like this (blush), as this allows lazy parsing practices to be applied to both the WHERE and AND Sql keywords.
For example (I'm using C# as an example here), consider the conditional parsing of the following predicates in a Sql query string builder:
var sqlQuery = "SELECT * FROM FOOS WHERE 1 = 1"
if (shouldFilterForBars)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Bars > 3";
}
if (shouldFilterForBaz)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Baz < 12";
}
The "benefit" of WHERE 1 = 1 means that no special code is needed:
For AND - whether zero, one or both predicates (Bars and Baz's) should be applied, which would determine whether the first AND is required. Since we already have at least one predicate with the 1 = 1, it means AND is always OK.
For no predicates at all - In the case where there are ZERO predicates, then the WHERE must be dropped. But again, we can be lazy, because we are again guarantee of at least one predicate.
This is obviously a bad idea and would recommend using an established data access framework or ORM for parsing optional and conditional predicates in this way.
Having review all the answers i decided to perform some experiment like
SELECT
*
FROM MyTable
WHERE 1=1
Then i checked with other numbers
WHERE 2=2
WHERE 10=10
WHERE 99=99
ect
Having done all the checks, the query run town is the same. even without the where clause. I am not a fan of the syntax
This is useful in a case where you have to use dynamic query in which in where
clause you have to append some filter options. Like if you include options 0 for status is inactive, 1 for active. Based from the options, there is only two available options(0 and 1) but if you want to display All records, it is handy to include in where close 1=1.
See below sample:
Declare #SearchValue varchar(8)
Declare #SQLQuery varchar(max) = '
Select [FirstName]
,[LastName]
,[MiddleName]
,[BirthDate]
,Case
when [Status] = 0 then ''Inactive''
when [Status] = 1 then ''Active''
end as [Status]'
Declare #SearchOption nvarchar(100)
If (#SearchValue = 'Active')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 1'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'Inactive')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 0'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'All')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where 1=1'
End
Set #SQLQuery = #SQLQuery + #SearchOption
Exec(#SQLQuery);
Saw this in production code and asked seniors for help.
Their answer:
-We use 1=1 so when we have to add a new condition we can just type
and <condition>
and get on with it.
I do this usually when I am building dynamic SQL for a report which has many dropdown values a user can select. Since the user may or may not select the values from each dropdown, we end up getting a hard time figuring out which condition was the first where clause. So we pad up the query with a where 1=1 in the end and add all where clauses after that.
Something like
select column1, column2 from my table where 1=1 {name} {age};
Then we would build the where clause like this and pass it as a parameter value
string name_whereClause= ddlName.SelectedIndex > 0 ? "AND name ='"+ ddlName.SelectedValue+ "'" : "";
As the where clause selection are unknown to us at runtime, so this helps us a great deal in finding whether to include an 'AND' or 'WHERE'.
Making "where 1=1" the standard for all your queries also makes it trivially easy to validate the sql by replacing it with where 1 = 0, handy when you have batches of commands/files.
Also makes it trivially easy to find the end of the end of the from/join section of any query. Even queries with sub-queries if properly indented.
I first came across this back with ADO and classic asp, the answer i got was: performance.
if you do a straight
Select * from tablename
and pass that in as an sql command/text you will get a noticeable performance increase with the
Where 1=1
added, it was a visible difference. something to do with table headers being returned as soon as the first condition is met, or some other craziness, anyway, it did speed things up.
Using a predicate like 1=1 is a normal hint sometimes used to force the access plan to use or not use an index scan. The reason why this is used is when you are using a multi-nested joined query with many predicates in the where clause where sometimes even using all of the indexes causes the access plan to read each table - a full table scan. This is just 1 of many hints used by DBAs to trick a dbms into using a more efficient path. Just don't throw one in; you need a dba to analyze the query since it doesn't always work.
Here is a use case... however I am not too concerned with the technicalities of why I should or not use 1 = 1.
I am writing a function, using pyodbc to retrieve some data from SQL Server. I was looking for a way to force a filler after the where keyword in my code. This was a great suggestion indeed:
if _where == '': _where = '1=1'
...
...
...
cur.execute(f'select {predicate} from {table_name} where {_where}')
The reason is because I could not implement the keyword 'where' together inside the _where clause variable. So, I think using any dummy condition that evaluates to true would do as a filler.