I have this SQL query
SELECT ACCBAL_DATE, ACCBAL_AMOUNT
FROM ACCOUNT_BALANCES t
WHERE ACC_KEY = '964570223'
AND ACCBAL_KEY = '16'
ORDER BY ACCBAL_DATE DESC
FETCH FIRST 1 ROWS ONLY;
It returns one row but I need to use this query for many ACC_KEYS (about 600).
So first way to do that is to run this query about 600x with different ACC_KEY parameter.
The second one is creating a procedure I think.
Procedure which will use variable acc_key and move it to WHERE statement.
Issue is that I can't create procedure stored on server because of permissions.
Is there some way to solve it without storing procedure on server?
EDIT: I know the IN clause but that is not what I need. I need something which will run the query about 600x, each execution with another ACC_KEY in WHERE clause and the output should be 600 rows.
when I used them in clause IN, then it will still return only one row. I want to return only one row because without limitations it returns about 100 rows, so I want only the first row which has needed data. For each ACC_KEY it should return only one row
You can still do that with an IN() clause listing all 600 key values:
select acc_key,
max(accbal_date) as accbal_date,
max(accbal_amount) keep (dense_rank last order by accbal_date) as accbal_amount
from account_balances t
where acc_key in ('964570223', '964570224', ...) -- up to 1000 allowed
and accbal_key = '16'
group by acc_key
order by acc_key;
This is using aggregate functions and grouping by the key, so you will get one row per key, with the data for the most recent date.
Read more about keep/last.
It would still be better to use a collection or a table - maybe an external table loaded from your Excel sheet, saved as a CSV; not least because you can only supply 1000 entries to a single IN() clause - or any expression list - but also for performance and readability/maintenance reasons.
You can store the keys in a table or use a derived table in the query. I would recommend something more like this:
WITH keys as (
SELECT '964570223' as ACC_KEY FROM DUAL UNION ALL
. . .
)
SELECT k.ACC_KEY, MAX(ab.ACCBAL_DATE) as ACCBAL_DATE,
MAX(ab.ACCBAL_AMOUNT) KEEP (DENSE_RANK FIRST ORDER BY ab.ACCBAL_DATE DESC) as ACCBAL_AMOUNT
FROM keys k LEFT JOIN
ACCOUNT_BALANCES ab
ON ab.ACC_KEY = k.ACC_KEY AND
ab.ACCBAL_KEY = '16'
GROUP BY k.ACC_KEY;
Of course the CTE keys could be replaced with a table that has the accounts of interest.
Note that this replaces your logic with aggregation logic. You just want the most recent date and balance, which Oracle supports using the KEEP keyword.
Step-1 : CREATE TABLE WITH 1 COLUMN ACC_KEY STORES ALL LIST OF ACC_KEY.
Step-2 : Code Run.
SELECT T.ACCBAL_DATE, T.ACCBAL_AMOUNT
FROM ACCOUNT_BALANCES t
WHERE EXISTS(SELECT A.ACC_KEY FROM <TABLENAME> A WHERE A.ACC_KEY=T.ACC_KEY)
AND T.ACCBAL_KEY = '16'
ORDER BY T.ACCBAL_DATE DESC
FETCH FIRST 1 ROWS ONLY;
Related
Data I have a table in Access that has a Part Number and PriceYr and Price associated to each Part Number.There are over 10,000 records and the PartNumber are repeated and has different PriceYr and Price associated to it. However, I need a query to just find the 5 most recent price and date associated with it.
I tried using MAX(PriceYr) however, it only returns 1 most recent record for each PartNumber.
I also tried the following query but it doesn't seem to work.
SELECT Catalogs.PartNumber,Catalogs.PriceYr, Catalogs.Price FROM Catalogs
WHERE Catalogs.PriceYr in
(SELECT TOP 5 Catalogs.PriceYr
FROM Catalogs as Temp
WHERE Temp.PartNumber = Catalogs.PartNumber
ORDER By Catalogs.PriceYr DESC)
Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Desired Result that i am trying to get.
Consider a correlated count subquery to filter by a rank variable. Right now, you pull top 5 overall on matching PartNumber not per PartNumber.
SELECT main.*
FROM
(SELECT c.PartNumber, c.PriceYr, c.Price,
(SELECT Count(*)
FROM Catalogs AS Temp
WHERE Temp.PartNumber = c.PartNumber
AND Temp.PriceYr >= c.PriceYr) As rank
FROM Catalogs c
) As main
WHERE main.rank <= 5
MAX() is an aggregating function, meaning that it groups all the data and takes the maximal value in the specified column. You need to use a GROUP BY statement to prevent the query from grouping the whole dataset in a single row.
On the other hand, your query seems to needlessly use a subquery. The following query should work quite fine :
SELECT TOP 5 c.PartNumber, c.PriceYr, c.Price
FROM Catalogs c
ORDER BY c.PriceYr DESC
WHERE c.PartNumber = #partNumber -- if you want the query to
-- work on a specific part number
(please post a table creation query to make sure this example works)
My situation is that a SQL statement which is not predictable, is given to the program and I need to do pagination on top of it. The final SQL statement would be similar to the following one:
SELECT * FROM (*Given SQL Statement*) b
OFFSET 0 ROWS FETCH NEXT 50 ROWS ONLY;
The problem here is that the *Given SQL Statement* is unpredictable. It may or may not contain order by clause. I am not able to change the query result of this SQL Statement and I need to do pagination on it.
I searched for solution on the Internet, but all of them suggested to use an arbitrary column, like primary key, in order by clause. But it will change the original order.
The short answer is that it can't be done, or at least can't be done properly.
The problem is that SQL Server (or any RDBMS) does not and can not guarantee the order of the records returned from a query without an order by clause.
This means that you can't use paging on such queries.
Further more, if you use an order by clause on a column that appears multiple times in your resultset, the order of the result set is still not guaranteed inside groups of values in said column - quick example:
;WITH cte (a, b)
AS
(
SELECT 1, 'a'
UNION ALL
SELECT 1, 'b'
UNION ALL
SELECT 2, 'a'
UNION ALL
SELECT 2, 'b'
)
SELECT *
FROM cte
ORDER BY a
Both result sets are valid, and you can't know in advance what will you get:
a b
-----
1 b
1 a
2 b
2 a
a b
-----
1 a
1 b
2 a
2 b
(and of course, you might get other sorts)
The problem here is that the *Given SQL Statement" is unpredictable. It may or may not contain order by clause.
your inner query(unpredictable sql statement) should not contain order by,even if it contains,order is not guaranteed.
To get guaranteed order,you have to order by some column.for the results to be deterministic,the ordered column/columns should be unique
Please note: what I'm about to suggest is probably horribly inefficient and should really only be used to help you go back to the project leader and tell them that pagination of an unordered query should not be done. Having said that...
From your comments you say you are able to change the SQL statement before it is executed.
You could write the results of the original query to a temporary table, adding row count field to be used for subsequent pagination ordering.
Therefore any original ordering is preserved and you can now paginate.
But of course the reason for needing pagination in the first place is to avoid sending large amounts of data to the client application. Although this does prevent that, you will still be copying data to a temp table which, depending on the row size and count, could be very slow.
You also have the problem that the page size is coming from the client as part of the SQL statement. Parsing the statement to pick that out could be tricky.
As other notified using anyway without using a sorted query will not be safe, But as you know about it and search about it, I can suggest using a query like this (But not recommended as a good way)
;with cte as (
select *,
row_number() over (order by (select 0)) rn
from (
-- Your query
) t
)
select *
from cte
where rn between (#pageNumber-1)*#pageSize+1 and #pageNumber*#pageSize
[SQL Fiddle Demo]
I finally found a simple way to do it without any order by on a specific column:
declare #start AS INTEGER = 1, #count AS INTEGER = 5;
select * from (SELECT *,ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 1)) AS fakeCounter
FROM (select * from mytable) AS t) AS t2 order by fakeCounter OFFSET #start ROWS
FETCH NEXT #count ROWS ONLY
where select * from mytable can be any query
I'm running a pretty straightforward query using the database/sql and lib/pq (postgres) packages and I want to toss the results of some of the fields into a slice, but I need to know how big to make the slice.
The only solution I can find is to do another query that is just SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tableName;.
Is there a way to both get the result of the query AND the count of returned rows in one query?
Conceptually, the problem is that the database cursor may not be enumerated to the end so the database does not really know how many records you will get before you actually read all of them. The only way to count (in general case) is to go through all the records in the resultset.
But practically, you can enforce it to do so by using subqueries like
select *, (select count(*) from table) from table
and just ignore the second column for records other than first. But it is very rude and I do not recommend doing so.
Not sure if this is what you are asking for but you can call the ##Rowcount function to return the count of the previous select statement that has been executed.
SELECT mytable.mycol FROM mytable WHERE mytable.foo = 'bar'
SELECT ##Rowcount
If you want the row count included in your result set you can use the the OVER clause (MSDN)
SELECT mytable.mycol, count(*) OVER(PARTITION BY mytable.foo) AS 'Count' FROM mytable WHERE mytable.foo = 'bar'
You could also perhaps just separate two SQL statements with the a ; . This would return a result set of both statements executed.
You would used count(*)
SELECT count(distinct last)
FROM (XYZTable)
WHERE date(FROM_UNIXTIME(time)) >= '2013-10-28' AND
id = 90 ;
I have two separate databases. I am trying to update a column in one database to the values of a column from the other database:
UPDATE customer
SET customer_id=
(SELECT t1 FROM dblink('port=5432, dbname=SERVER1 user=postgres password=309245',
'SELECT store_key FROM store') AS (t1 integer));
This is the error I am receiving:
ERROR: more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression
Any ideas?
Technically, to remove the error, add LIMIT 1 to the subquery to return at most 1 row. The statement would still be nonsense.
... 'SELECT store_key FROM store LIMIT 1' ...
Practically, you want to match rows somehow instead of picking an arbitrary row from the remote table store to update every row of your local table customer.
I assume a text column match_name in both tables (UNIQUE in store) for the sake of this example:
... 'SELECT store_key FROM store
WHERE match_name = ' || quote_literal(customer.match_name) ...
But that's an extremely expensive way of doing things.
Ideally, you completely rewrite the statement.
UPDATE customer c
SET customer_id = s.store_key
FROM dblink('port=5432, dbname=SERVER1 user=postgres password=309245'
, 'SELECT match_name, store_key FROM store')
AS s(match_name text, store_key integer)
WHERE c.match_name = s.match_name
AND c.customer_id IS DISTINCT FROM s.store_key;
This remedies a number of problems in your original statement.
Obviously, the basic error is fixed.
It's typically better to join in additional relations in the FROM clause of an UPDATE statement than to run correlated subqueries for every individual row.
When using dblink, the above becomes a thousand times more important. You do not want to call dblink() for every single row, that's extremely expensive. Call it once to retrieve all rows you need.
With correlated subqueries, if no row is found in the subquery, the column gets updated to NULL, which is almost always not what you want. In my updated query, the row only gets updated if a matching row is found. Else, the row is not touched.
Normally, you wouldn't want to update rows, when nothing actually changes. That's expensively doing nothing (but still produces dead rows). The last expression in the WHERE clause prevents such empty updates:
AND c.customer_id IS DISTINCT FROM sub.store_key
Related:
How do I (or can I) SELECT DISTINCT on multiple columns?
The fundamental problem can often be simply solved by changing an = to IN, in cases where you've got a one-to-many relationship. For example, if you wanted to update or delete a bunch of accounts for a given customer:
WITH accounts_to_delete AS
(
SELECT account_id
FROM accounts a
INNER JOIN customers c
ON a.customer_id = c.id
WHERE c.customer_name='Some Customer'
)
-- this fails if "Some Customer" has multiple accounts, but works if there's 1:
DELETE FROM accounts
WHERE accounts.guid =
(
SELECT account_id
FROM accounts_to_delete
);
-- this succeeds with any number of accounts:
DELETE FROM accounts
WHERE accounts.guid IN
(
SELECT account_id
FROM accounts_to_delete
);
This means your nested SELECT returns more than one rows.
You need to add a proper WHERE clause to it.
This error means that the SELECT store_key FROM store query has returned two or more rows in the SERVER1 database. If you would like to update all customers, use a join instead of a scalar = operator. You need a condition to "connect" customers to store items in order to do that.
If you wish to update all customer_ids to the same store_key, you need to supply a WHERE clause to the remotely executed SELECT so that the query returns a single row.
USE LIMIT 1 - so It will return only 1 row.
Example
customerId- (select id from enumeration where enumerations.name = 'Ready To Invoice' limit 1)
The result produced by the Query is having no of rows that need proper handling this issue can be resolved if you provide the valid handler in the query like
1. limiting the query to return one single row
2. this can also be done by providing "select max(column)" that will return the single row
I'm using sql-server 2005 and ASP.NET with C#.
I have Users table with
userId(int),
userGender(tinyint),
userAge(tinyint),
userCity(tinyint)
(simplified version of course)
I need to select always two fit to userID I pass to query users of opposite gender, in age range of -5 to +10 years and from the same city.
Important fact is it always must be two, so I created condition if ##rowcount<2 re-select without age and city filters.
Now the problem is that I sometimes have two returned result sets because I use first ##rowcount on a table. If I run the query.
Will it be a problem to use the DataReader object to read from always second result set? Is there any other way to check how many results were selected without performing select with results?
Can you simplify it by using SELECT TOP 2 ?
Update: I would perform both selects all the time, union the results, and then select from them based on an order (using SELECT TOP 2) as the union may have added more than two. Its important that this next select selects the rows in order of importance, ie it prefers rows from your first select.
Alternatively, have the reader logic read the next result-set if there is one and leave the SQL alone.
To avoid getting two separate result sets you can do your first SELECT into a table variable and then do your ##ROWCOUNT check. If >= 2 then just select from the table variable on its own otherwise select the results of the table variable UNION ALLed with the results of the second query.
Edit: There is a slight overhead to using table variables so you'd need to balance whether this was cheaper than Adam's suggestion just to perform the 'UNION' as a matter of routine by looking at the execution stats for both approaches
SET STATISTICS IO ON
Would something along the following lines be of use...
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT 1 AS prio, *
FROM my_table M1 JOIN my_table M2
WHERE M1.userID = supplied_user_id AND
M1.userGender <> M2.userGender AND
M1.userAge - 5 >= M2.userAge AND
M1.userAge + 15 <= M2.userAge AND
M1.userCity = M2.userCity
LIMIT TO 2 ROWS
UNION
SELECT 2 AS prio, *
FROM my_table M1 JOIN my_table M2
WHERE M1.userID = supplied_user_id AND
M1.userGender <> M2.userGender
LIMIT TO 2 ROWS)
ORDER BY prio
LIMIT TO 2 ROWS;
I haven't tried it as I have no SQL Server and there may be dialect issues.