I just want to check whether my query is correct. I have written a simple query on one table and against a field in that table where we are looking for all rows where the value in that field is starting with a certain characters and ending in certain characters, but must not contain certain characters in that field's value. Thus -
WHERE field_1 LIKE 'ABC%' AND field_1 LIKE '%XWY' AND field_1 NOT LIKE '%GHI12XY%'
The result is no rows, which is what we wanted, but I am not 100% sure whether the query is spot on and would like other whether this is correct
It looks correct to me. A good idea in all database software development is to create and load one or more test tables with rows that can be used to verify your logic. Then run your query against the test table(s) and see if you get the results you expect. Ideally, the rows in your test table will cover all the possibilities, for example, where you're supposed to get output, and where you're not supposed to get any.
Related
I am convinced that this question is NOT a duplicate of:
Cannot construct data type datetime, some of the arguments have values which are not valid
In that case the values passed in are explicitly not valid. Whereas in this case the values that the function could be expected to be called upon are all valid.
I know what the actual problem is, and it's not something that would help most people that find the other question. But it IS something that would be good to be findable on SO.
Please read the answer, and understand why it's different from the linked question before voting to close as dupe of that question.
I've run some SQL that's errored with the error message: Cannot construct data type datetime, some of the arguments have values which are not valid.
My SQL uses DATETIMEFROMPARTS, but it's fine evaluating that function in the select - it's only a problem when I filter on the selected value.
It's also demonstrating weird, can't-possibly-be-happening behaviour w.r.t. other changes to the query.
My query looks roughly like this:
WITH FilteredDataWithDate (
SELECT *, DATETIMEFROMPARTS(...some integer columns representing date data...) AS Date
FROM Table
WHERE <unrelated pre-condition filter>
)
SELECT * FROM FilteredDataWithDate
WHERE Date > '2020-01-01'
If I run that query, then it errors with the invalid data error.
But if I omit the final Date > filter, then it happily renders every result record, so clearly none of the values it's filtering on are invalid.
I've also manually examined the contents of Table WHERE <unrelated pre-condition filter> and verified that everything is a valid date.
It also has a wild collection of other behaviours:
If I replace all of ...some integer columns representing date data... with hard-coded numbers then it's fine.
If I replace some parts of that data with hardcoded values, that fixes it, but others don't. I don't find any particular patterns in what does or doesn't help.
If I remove most of the * columns from the Table select. Then it starts to be fine again.
Specifically, it appears to break any time I include an nvarchar(max) column in the CTE.
If I add an additional filter to the CTE that limits the results to Id values in the following ranges, then the results are:
130,000 and 140,000. Error.
130,000 and 135,000. Fine.
135,000 and 140,000. Fine.!!!!
Filtering by the Date column breaks everything ... but ORDER BY Date is fine. (and confirms that all dates lie within perfectly sensible bounds.)
Adding TOP 1000000 makes it work ... even though there are only about 1000 rows.
... WTAF?!
This took me a while to decode, but it turns out that the SS compiler doesn't necessarily restrict its execution of the function just to rows that are, or could be, relevant to the result set.
Depending on the execution plan it arrives at, the function could get called on any record in Table, even one that doesn't satisfy WHERE <unrelated pre-condition filter>.
This was found by another user, for another function, over here.
So the fact that it could return all the results without the filter wasn't actually proving that every input into the function was valid. And indeed there were some records in the table that weren't in the result set, but still had invalid data.
That actually means that even if you were to add an explicit WHERE filter to exclude rows containing invalid date-component data ... that isn't actually guaranteed to fix it, because the function may still get called against the 'excluded' rows.
Each of the random other things I did will have been influencing the query plan in one way or another that happened to fix/break things.
The solution is, naturally, to fix the underlying table data.
I need to replace all occurrences "google.com" that are met in the SQL db table Column1 with "newurl". It can be a full cell value, a part of it (substring of varchar()), can be met even several times in a cell.
Based on SO answer search-and-replace-part-of-string-in-database
this is what I need:
UPDATE
MyTable
SET
Column1 = Replace(Column, 'google.com', 'newurl')
WHERE
xxx
However, in that answer it is mentioned that
You will want to be extremely careful when doing this! I highly recommend doing a backup first.
What are the pitfalls of doing this query? Looks like it does the same what any texteditor would do by clicking on Replace All button. I don't think it is possible in my case to check the errors even with reserve copy as I would like to know possible errors in advance.
Any reasons to be careful with this query?
Again, I expect it replaces all occurences of google.com with 'newurl' in the Column1 of MyTable table in the SQL db.
Thank you.
Just create a test table, as a replica of your original source table, complete the update on there and check results.
You would want to do this as good SQL programming practice to ensure you don't mess up columns that should not be updated.
Another thing you can do is get a count of the records before hand that fit the criteria using a SELECT statement.
Run your update statement and if it's a 1-1 match on count, you should be good to go.
The only thing i can think of that would happen negatively in this respect is that additional columns get updated. Your WHERE clause is not specific for us to see, so there's no way to validate that what you're doing will do what you expect it to.
I think the person posting the answer is just being cautious - This will modify the value in Column1 for every row in MyTable, so make sure you mean it when you execute. Another way to be cautious would be to wrap it in a transaction so you could roll it back if you don't like the results.
I'm working with a relatively large SQL Server 2000 DB at the moment. It's 80 GB in size, and have millions and millions of records.
I currently need to return a list of names that contains at least one of a series of illegal characters. By illegal characters is just meant an arbitrary list of characters that is defined by the customer. In the below example I use question mark, semi-colon, period and comma as the illegal character list.
I was initially thinking to do a CLR function that worked with regular expressions, but as it's SQL server 2000, I guess that's out of the question.
At the moment I've done like this:
select x from users
where
columnToBeSearched like '%?%' OR
columnToBeSearched like '%;%' OR
columnToBeSearched like '%.%' OR
columnToBeSearched like '%,%' OR
otherColumnToBeSearched like '%?%' OR
otherColumnToBeSearched like '%;%' OR
otherColumnToBeSearched like '%.%' OR
otherColumnToBeSearched like '%,%'
Now, I'm not a SQL expert by any means, but I get the feeling that the above query will be very inefficient. Doing 8 multiple wildcard searches in a table with millions of records, seems like it could slow the system down rather seriously. While it seems to work fine on test servers, I am getting the "this has to be completely wrong" vibe.
As I need to execute this script on a live production server eventually, I hope to achieve good performance, so as not to clog the system. The script might need to be expanded later on to include more illegal characters, but this is very unlikely.
To sum up: My aim is to get a list of records where either of two columns contain a customer-defined "illegal character". The database is live and massive, so I want a somewhat efficient approach, as I believe the above queries will be very slow.
Can anyone tell me the best way for achieving my result? Thanks!
/Morten
It doesn't get used much, but the LIKE statement accepts patterns in a similar (but much simplified) way to Regex. This link is the msdn page for it.
In your case you could simplify to (untested):
select x from users
where
columnToBeSearched like '%[?;.,]%' OR
otherColumnToBeSearched like '%[?;.,]%'
Also note that you can create the LIKE pattern as a variable, allowing for the customer defined part of your requirements.
One other major optimization: If you've got an updated date (or timestamp) on the user row (for any audit history type of thing), then you can always just query rows updated since the last time you checked.
If this is a query that will be run repeatedly, you are probably better off creating an index for it. The syntax escapes me at the moment, but you could probably create a computed column (edit: probably a PERSISTED computed column) which is 1 if columnToBeSearched or otherColumnToBeSearched contain illegal characters, and 0 otherwise. Create an index on that column and simply select all rows where the column is 1. This assumes that the set of illegal characters is fixed for that database installation (I assume that that's what you mean by "specified by the customer"). If, on the other hand, each query might specify a different set of illegal characters, this won't work.
By the way, if you don't mind the risk of reading uncommitted rows, you can run the query in a transaction with the the isolation level READ UNCOMMITTED, so that you won't block other transactions.
You can try to partition your data horizontally and "split" your query in a number of smaller queries. For instance you can do
SELECT x FROM users
WHERE users.ID BETWEEN 1 AND 5000
AND -- your filters on columnToBeSearched
putting your results back together in one list may be a little inconvenient, but if it's a report you're only extracting once (or once in a while) it may be feasible.
I'm assuming ID is the primary key of users or a column that has a index defined, which means SQL should be able to create an efficient execution plan, where it evaluates users.ID BETWEEN 1 AND 5000 (fast) before trying to check the filters (which may be slow).
Look up PATINDEX it allows you to put in an array of characters PATINDEX('[._]',ColumnName) returns a 0 or a value of the first occurance of an illegal character found in a certain value. Hope this helps.
I suppose I have always naively assumed that scalar functions in the select part of a SQL query will only get applied to the rows that meet all the criteria of the where clause.
Today I was debugging some code from a vendor and had that assumption challenged. The only reason I can think of for this code failing is that the Substring() function is getting called on data that should have been filtered out by the WHERE clause. But it appears that the substring call is being applied before the filtering happens, the query is failing.
Here is an example of what I mean. Let's say we have two tables, each with 2 columns and having 2 rows and 1 row respectively. The first column in each is just an id. NAME is just a string, and NAME_LENGTH tells us how many characters in the name with the same ID. Note that only names with more than one character have a corresponding row in the LONG_NAMES table.
NAMES: ID, NAME
1, "Peter"
2, "X"
LONG_NAMES: ID, NAME_LENGTH
1, 5
If I want a query to print each name with the last 3 letters cut off, I might first try something like this (assuming SQL Server syntax for now):
SELECT substring(NAME,1,len(NAME)-3)
FROM NAMES;
I would soon find out that this would give me an error, because when it reaches "X" it will try using a negative number for in the substring call, and it will fail.
The way my vendor decided to solve this was by filtering out rows where the strings were too short for the len - 3 query to work. He did it by joining to another table:
SELECT substring(NAMES.NAME,1,len(NAMES.NAME)-3)
FROM NAMES
INNER JOIN LONG_NAMES
ON NAMES.ID = LONG_NAMES.ID;
At first glance, this query looks like it might work. The join condition will eliminate any rows that have NAME fields short enough for the substring call to fail.
However, from what I can observe, SQL Server will sometimes try to calculate the the substring expression for everything in the table, and then apply the join to filter out rows. Is this supposed to happen this way? Is there a documented order of operations where I can find out when certain things will happen? Is it specific to a particular Database engine or part of the SQL standard? If I decided to include some predicate on my NAMES table to filter out short names, (like len(NAME) > 3), could SQL Server also choose to apply that after trying to apply the substring? If so then it seems the only safe way to do a substring would be to wrap it in a "case when" construct in the select?
Martin gave this link that pretty much explains what is going on - the query optimizer has free rein to reorder things however it likes. I am including this as an answer so I can accept something. Martin, if you create an answer with your link in it i will gladly accept that instead of this one.
I do want to leave my question here because I think it is a tricky one to search for, and my particular phrasing of the issue may be easier for someone else to find in the future.
TSQL divide by zero encountered despite no columns containing 0
EDIT: As more responses have come in, I am again confused. It does not seem clear yet when exactly the optimizer is allowed to evaluate things in the select clause. I guess I'll have to go find the SQL standard myself and see if i can make sense of it.
Joe Celko, who helped write early SQL standards, has posted something similar to this several times in various USENET newsfroups. (I'm skipping over the clauses that don't apply to your SELECT statement.) He usually said something like "This is how statements are supposed to act like they work". In other words, SQL implementations should behave exactly as if they did these steps, without actually being required to do each of these steps.
Build a working table from all of
the table constructors in the FROM
clause.
Remove from the working table those
rows that do not satisfy the WHERE
clause.
Construct the expressions in the
SELECT clause against the working table.
So, following this, no SQL dbms should act like it evaluates functions in the SELECT clause before it acts like it applies the WHERE clause.
In a recent posting, Joe expands the steps to include CTEs.
CJ Date and Hugh Darwen say essentially the same thing in chapter 11 ("Table Expressions") of their book A Guide to the SQL Standard. They also note that this chapter corresponds to the "Query Specification" section (sections?) in the SQL standards.
You are thinking about something called query execution plan. It's based on query optimization rules, indexes, temporaty buffers and execution time statistics. If you are using SQL Managment Studio you have toolbox over your query editor where you can look at estimated execution plan, it shows how your query will change to gain some speed. So if just used your Name table and it is in buffer, engine might first try to subquery your data, and then join it with other table.
I got a table with 75 columns,. what is the sql statement to display only the columns with values in in ?
thanks
It's true that a similar statement doesn't exist (in a SELECT you can use condition filters only for the rows, not for the columns). But you could try to write a (bit tricky) procedure. It must check which are the columns that contains at least one not NULL/empty value, using queries. When you get this list of columns just join them in a string with a comma between each one and compose a query that you can run, returning what you wanted.
EDIT: I thought about it and I think you can do it with a procedure but under one of these conditions:
find a way to retrieve column names dynamically in the procedure, that is the metadata (I never heard about it, but I'm new with procedures)
or hardcode all column names (loosing generality)
You could collect column names inside an array, if stored procedures of your DBMS support arrays (or write the procedure in a programming language like C), and loop on them, making a SELECT each time, checking if it's an empty* column or not. If it contains at least one value concatenate it in a string where column names are comma-separated. Finally you can make your query with only not-empty columns!
Alternatively to stored procedure you could write a short program (eg in Java) where you can deal with a better flexibility.
*if you check for NULL values it will be simple, but if you check for empty values you will need to manage with each column data type... another array with data types?
I would suggest that you write a SELECT statement and define which COLUMNS you wish to display and then save that QUERY as a VIEW.
This will save you the trouble of typing in the column names every time you wish to run that query.
As marc_s pointed out in the comments, there is no select statement to hide columns of data.
You could do a pre-parse and dynamically create a statement to do this, but this would be a very inefficient thing to do from a SQL performance perspective. Would strongly advice against what you are trying to do.
A simplified version of this is to just select the relevant columns, which was what I needed personally. A quick search of what we're dealing with in a table
SELECT * FROM table1 LIMIT 10;
-> shows 20 columns where im interested in 3 of them. Limit is just to not overflow the console.
SELECT column1,column3,colum19 FROM table1 WHERE column3='valueX';
It is a bit of a manual filter but it works for what I need.