SELECT (SELECT STRING_VALUE
FROM EMP_NODE_PROPERTIES
WHERE NODE_ID=AN.ID ) containedWithin
FROM EMP_NODE AN
WHERE AN.STORE_ID = ALS.ID
AND an.TYPE_QNAME_ID=(SELECT ID
FROM EMP_QNAME
where LOCAL_NAME = 'document')
AND
AND AN.UUID='13456677';
from the above query I am getting below error.
ORA-01427: single-row subquery returns more than one row
so how to change the above query so that it should fetch comma separated values
This query won't return error you mentioned because
there are two ANDs and
there's no ALS table (or its alias).
I suggest you post something that is correctly written, then we can discuss other errors.
Basically, it is either select string_value ... or select id ... (or even both of them) that return more than a single value.
The most obvious "solution" is to use select DISTINCT
another one is to include where rownum = 1
or, use aggregate functions, e.g. select max(string_value) ...
while the most appropriate option would be to join all tables involved and decide which row (value) is correct and adjust query (i.e. its WHERE clause) to make sure that desired value will be returned.
You would seem to want something like this:
SELECT LISTAGG(NP.STRING_VALUE, ',') WITHIN GROUP(ORDER BY NP.STRING_VALUE)
as containedWithin
FROM EMP_NODE N
JOIN EMP_QNAME Q
ON N.TYPE_QNAME_ID = Q.ID
LEFT JOIN EMP_NODE_PROPERTIES NP
ON NP.NODE_ID = N.ID
WHERE Q.LOCAL_NAME = 'document'
AND AN.UUID = '13456677';
This is a bit speculative because your original query would not run for the reason explained by Littlefoot.
Related
Is it possible to use the input from one field of the database for another query in combination with the IN statement. The point is that in the sting, I use for IN, contains several by comma separated values:
SELECT id, name
FROM refPlant
WHERE id IN (SELECT cover
FROM meta_characteristic
WHERE id = 2);
the string of the subquery is: 1735,1736,1737,1738,1739,1740,1741,1742,1743,1744
The query above give me only the first element of the string. But when I put the string directly in the query, I get all the ten elements:
SELECT id, name
FROM refPlant
WHERE id IN (735,1736,1737,1738,1739,1740,1741,1742,1743,1744);
Is it possible to have all ten elements and not only one with query like the first one.
My sql version is 10.1.16-MariaDB
You can use FIND_IN_SET in the join condition.
SELECT r.id, r.name
FROM refPlant r
JOIN (SELECT * FROM meta_characteristic m WHERE id=2) m
ON FIND_IN_SET(r.id,m.cover) > 0
If you use a sub-query as in the first code snippet you will get a filter for each row returned from it. It will not work when it returns as a single string field.
SELECT id, name
FROM refPlant
WHERE FIND_IN_SET(id, (SELECT cover
FROM meta_charateristic
WHERE id = 2));
I am trying to write a query where I need to check whether a value is not present in an array of strings returned by another nested query how can I do that,
For example I have to check whether,
1234 is present in [abc_1234,fgh_12345,ghi_5343]
Hence 1234 is present in string abc_1234 so I will not select 1234.
I hope I understand your request correctly. You have a query returning strings, e.g. 'abc_1234' and 'fgh_12345'. You have a table with values, e.g. '1234'. You want to select rows from the table where the value is not part of any of the strings of the existing query.
This is where the anti-join pattern comes into play. You outer-join the undesired rows, so all rows that found no partner are the desired ones:
select *
from mytable m
left join (<your query here>) q on instr(q.string, m.value) > 0
where q.string is null;
(Instead of INSTR you can also use LIKE: on q.string like '%' || m.value || '%'. It should not matter which of the string operations you choose.)
I need to update a column in one table with the results from a select sub-query (and they should ultimately be different). But When I do this, I either get the exact same number for the hundreds of records, or I get the ORA-01427: single row sub-query returns more than one row query. error.
Can you please take a look and see what it is that I am overlooking? (I could just be overlooking something simple for all I know)
UPDATE WD_PRODUCT_CLASS
SET CURRENT_CASES = ( WITH STUFF_COUNT AS
(
SELECT sum(CURRENT_DETAIL.COMBINED_QTY) AS TOTAL_CASES
FROM CURRENT_DETAIL, SKU_MAJORS, WD_PRODUCT_CLASS
WHERE CURRENT_DETAIL.LOC_ID =
&PARM_LOC_ID
AND CURRENT_DETAIL.INVEN_ID = SKU_MAJORS.INVEN_ID
AND WD_PRODUCT_CLASS.CATEGORY = SKU_MAJORS.CONT_DESC
GROUP BY WD_PRODUCT_CLASS.CATEGORY
)
(
SELECT SUM(Z.TOTAL_CASES) FROM STUFF_COUNT Z
)
);
Maybe you need someting like this:
UPDATE WD_PRODUCT_CLASS wpc
SET wpc.CURRENT_CASES = (
SELECT sum(cd.COMBINED_QTY)
FROM CURRENT_DETAIL cd join SKU_MAJORS sm ON cd.INVEN_ID = sm.INVEN_ID
WHERE cd.LOC_ID = &PARM_LOC_ID
AND sm.CONT_DESC = wpc.CATEGORY
)
WHERE 1=1; -- if you don't set a condition all the rows will be updated
Your query updates the table with the same values because you're using a not correlated subquery in the SET clause. This subquery don't depends on the parent query, so it's calculated only once.
I suppose you need a correlated subquery so I changed your update + removed some extra parts.
I am just learning SQL, and I'm wondering what the difference is between the following lines:
WHERE s.parent IN (SELECT l.parent .....)
versus
WHERE s.parent = (SELECT l.parent .....)
IN
will not generate an error if you have multiple results on the subquery. Allows to have more than one value in the result returned by the subquery.
=
will generate an error if you have more than one result on the subquery.
SQLFiddle Demo (IN vs =)
when you are using 'IN' it can compare multiple values....like
select * from tablename where student_name in('mari','sruthi','takudu')
but when you are using '=' you can't compare multiple values
select * from tablenamewhere student_name = 'sruthi'
i hope this is the right answer
The "IN" clause is also much much much much slower. If you have many results in the select portion of
IN (SELECT l.parent .....),
it will be extremely inefficient as it actually generates a separate select sql statement for each and every result within the select statement ... so if you return 'Cat', 'Dog', 'Cow'
it will essentially create a sql statement for each result... if you have 200 results... you get the full sql statement 200 times...takes forever... (This was as of a few years ago... maybe imporved by now... but it was horribly slow on big result sets.)
Much more efficient to do an inner join such as:
Select id, parent
from table1 as T
inner join (Select parent from table2) as T2 on T.parent = T2.parent
For future visitors.
Basically in case of equals (just remember that here we are talking like where a.name = b.name), each cell value from table 1 will be compared one by one to each cell value of all the rows from table 2, if it matches then that row will be selected (here that row will be selected means that row from table 1 and table 2) for the overall result set otherwise will not be selected.
Now, in case of IN, complete result set on the right side of the IN will be used for comparison, so its like each value from table 1 will be checked on whether this cell value is present in the complete result set of the IN, if it is present then that value will be shown for all the rows of the IN’s result set, so let say IN result set has 20 rows, so that cell value from table 1 will be present in overall result set 20 times (i.e. that particular cell value will have 20 rows).
For more clarity see below screen shot, notice below that how complete result set from the right of the IN (and NOT IN) is considered in the overall result set; whole emphasis is on the fact that in case comparison using =, matching row from second table is selected, while in case of IN complete result from the second table is selected.
In can match a value with more than one values, in other words it checks if a value is in the list of values so for e.g.
x in ('a', 'b', 'x') will return true result as x is in the the list of values
while = expects only one value, its as simple as
x = y returns false
and
x = x returns true
The general rule of thumb is:
The = expects a single value to compare with. Like this:
WHERE s.parent = 'father_name'
IN is extremely useful in scenarios where = cannot work i.e. scenarios where you need the comparison with multiple values.
WHERE s.parent IN ('father_name', 'mother_name', 'brother_name', 'sister_name')
Hope this is useful!!!
IN
This helps when a subquery returns more than one result.
=
This operator cannot handle more than one result.
Like in this example:
SQL>
Select LOC from dept where DEPTNO = (select DEPTNO from emp where
JOB='MANAGER');
Gives ERROR ORA-01427: single-row subquery returns more than one row
Instead use
SQL>
Select LOC from dept where DEPTNO in (select DEPTNO from emp
where JOB='MANAGER');
1) Sometimes = also used as comparison operator in case of joins which IN doesn't.
2) You can pass multiple values in the IN block which you can't do with =. For example,
SELECT * FROM [Products] where ProductID IN((select max(ProductID) from Products),
(select min(ProductID) from Products))
would work and provide you expected number of rows.However,
SELECT * FROM [Products] where ProductID = (select max(ProductID) from Products)
and ProductID =(select min(ProductID) from Products)
will provide you 'no result'. That means, in case subquery supposed to return multiple number of rows , in that case '=' isn't useful.
I'd like to achieve something as follows, I have the following query (As simple as this),
SELECT ENT_ID,TP_ID FROM TC_LOGS WHERE ENT_ID IN (1,2,3,4,5).
Now the table TC_LOGS may not have all the items in the IN clause. So assuming that the table TC_LOGS has only 1,2. I'd like to compare the items in the IN clause i.e. 1,2,3,4,5 with 1,2(the resultset) and get a result as FOUND - 1,2 NOT FOUND - 3,4,5. I've have implemented this by applying an XSL transformation on the resultset in the application code, but I'd like to achieve this in a query, which I feel is more of an elegant solution to this problem. Also, I tried the following query with NVL, just to separate out the FOUND and NOT FOUND items as,
SELECT NVL(ENT_ID,"NOT FOUND") FROM TC_LOGS WHERE ENT_ID IN(1,2,3,4,5)
I was expecting a result as 1,2,NOT FOUND,NOT FOUND,NOT FOUND
But the above query doesn't return any result.. I'd appreciate if someone can guide me in the right path here.. Thanks much in advance.
Assuming that the items in your IN list can (or can come) from another query, you can do something like
WITH src AS (
SELECT level id
FROM dual
CONNECT BY level <= 5)
SELECT nvl(ent_id, 'Not Found' )
FROM src
LEFT OUTER JOIN tc_logs ON (src.id = tc_logs.ent_id)
In my case, the src query is just generating the numbers 1 through 5. You could just as easily fetch that data from a different table, load the numbers into a collection that you query using the TABLE operator, load the numbers into a temporary table that you query, etc. depending on how the IN list data is determined.
NVL isn't going to work because no values (including NULLS) are returned when there is no match with the IN statement.
What you can do is something like this:
SELECT NVL(ENT_ID, "NOT FOUND")
FROM TC_LOGS
RIGHT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT 1 AS 'TempID' UNION
SELECT 2 UNION
SELECT 3 UNION
SELECT 4 UNION
SELECT 5) AS Sub ON ENT_ID = TempID
The outer join will return NULLS for ENT_ID where there are no matches. Note, I'm not an Oracle person so I can't guarantee that this syntax is perfect.
if you have a table (let's use table src )contains all (1,2,3,4,5) values, you can use full join.
You can use (WITH src AS ( SELECT level id FROM dual CONNECT BY level <= 5) as the src table also)
SELECT
ent_id,tl.tp_id,src.tp_id
FROM
src
FULL JOIN
tc_logs tl
USING (ent_id)
ORDER BY
ent_id
Here is the web site for oracle full join.http://psoug.org/snippet/Oracle-PL-SQL-ANSI-Joins-FULL-JOIN_738.htm