Related
I'm a GIS intern.
I've been asked:
"Could you also create IN queries for the different sets of GUID’s? Here is an example:
"GlobalID" IN '{58BEE03F-1656-4BD5-B53D-B887E93A5287}', '{009C7364-8D77-46B3-A531-B60ED4E5B407}', '{0105263C-1305-4AB9-A00A-4BED01832177}')"
I'm not sure what that means or why I'd have to do it. What I can tell you is that I have several .shp that I have geocoded and then created global IDs for.
I've googled this for hours now and am no closer to understanding the request than I was. It could be that the answer is staring me in the face but I don't think I know enough to know that.
Thank you,
Kathy
In order to create and understand IN queries, first you'll have to understand the basics of a query. It sounds like this might not be something you're familiar with, so I'll start with that.
There are 3 main parts to a query, SELECT, FROM, and WHERE.
SELECT is the information (or columns) you want to return. You can SELECT * to select all columns or SELECT specificColumn1, specificColumn2 to select specific columns.
The next step is the FROM statement. From determines what table(s) you will be querying. You can query multiple tables here if you like and tables can also be aliased like so: FROM table1 t1.
The third statement is the WHERE statement, which specifies any conditions that the query is required to meet. In your case, this is where your IN statement will go. There are a ton of different keywords you can use here, but I'll just give a quick sample query for you (keep in mind I have no idea what your schema looks like).
SELECT *
FROM GUIDData
WHERE GlobalID IN ('{58BEE03F-1656-4BD5-B53D-B887E93A5287}', '{009C7364-8D77-46B3-A531-B60ED4E5B407}', '{0105263C-1305-4AB9-A00A-4BED01832177}');
So what this query will do, is it will give you all the data for each item in the GUIDData table with a global ID of {58BEE03F-1656-4BD5-B53D-B887E93A5287}, {009C7364-8D77-46B3-A531-B60ED4E5B407}, or {0105263C-1305-4AB9-A00A-4BED01832177}.
Did this help?
I've always preached to my developers that SELECT * is evil and should be avoided like the plague.
Are there any cases where it can be justified?
I'm not talking about COUNT(*) - which most optimizers can figure out.
Edit
I'm talking about production code.
And one great example I saw of this bad practice was a legacy asp application that used select * in a stored procedure, and used ADO to loop through the returned records, but got the columns by index. You can imagine what happened when a new field was added somewhere other than the end of the field list.
I'm quite happy using * in audit triggers.
In that case it can actually prove a benefit because it will ensure that if additional columns are added to the base table it will raise an error so it cannot be forgotten to deal with this in the audit trigger and/or audit table structure.
(Like dotjoe) I am also happy using it in derived tables and column table expressions. Though I habitually do it the other way round.
WITH t
AS (SELECT *,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY a) AS RN
FROM foo)
SELECT a,
b,
c,
RN
FROM t;
I'm mostly familiar with SQL Server and there at least the optimiser has no problem recognising that only columns a,b,c will be required and the use of * in the inner table expression does not cause any unnecessary overhead retrieving and discarding unneeded columns.
In principle SELECT * ought to be fine in a view as well as it is the final SELECT from the view where it ought to be avoided however in SQL Server this can cause problems as it stores column metadata for views which is not automatically updated when the underlying tables change and the use of * can lead to confusing and incorrect results unless sp_refreshview is run to update this metadata.
There are many scenarios where SELECT * is the optimal solution. Running ad-hoc queries in Management Studio just to get a sense of the data you're working with. Querying tables where you don't know the column names yet because it's the first time you've worked with a new schema. Building disposable quick'n'dirty tools to do a one-time migration or data export.
I'd agree that in "proper" development, you should avoid it - but there's lots of scenarios where "proper" development isn't necessarily the optimum solution to a business problem. Rules and best practices are great, as long as you know when to break them. :)
I'll use it in production when working with CTEs. But, in this case it's not really select *, because I already specified the columns in the CTE. I just don't want to respecify in the final select.
with t as (
select a, b, c from foo
)
select t.* from t;
None that I can think of, if you are talking about live code.
People saying that it makes adding columns easier to develop (so they automatically get returned and can be used without changing the Stored procedure) have no idea about writing optimal code/sql.
I only ever use it when writing ad-hoc queries that will not get reused (finding out the structure of a table, getting some data when I am not sure what the column names are).
I think using select * in an exists clause is appropriate:
select some_field from some_table
where exists
(select * from related_table [join condition...])
Some people like to use select 1 in this case, but it's not elegant, and it doesn't buy any performance improvements (early optimization strikes again).
In production code, I'd tend to agree 100% with you.
However, I think that the * more than justifies its existence when performing ad-hoc queries.
You've gotten a number of answers to your question, but you seem to be dismissing everything that isn't parroting back what you want to hear. Still, here it is for the third (so far) time: sometimes there is no bottleneck. Sometimes performance is way better than fine. Sometimes the tables are in flux, and amending every SELECT query is just one more bit of possible inconsistency to manage. Sometimes you've got to deliver on an impossible schedule and this is the last thing you need to think about.
If you live in bullet time, sure, type in all the column names. But why stop there? Re-write your app in a schema-less dbms. Hell, write your own dbms in assembly. That'd really show 'em.
And remember if you use select * and you have a join at least one field will be sent twice (the join field). This wastes database resources and network resources for no reason.
As a tool I use it to quickly refresh my memory as to what I can possibly get back from a query. As a production level query itself .. no way.
When creating an application that deals with the database, like phpmyadmin, and you are in a page where to display a full table, in that case using SELECT * can be justified, I guess.
About the only thing that I can think of would be when developing a utility or SQL tool application that is being written to run against any database. Even here though, I would tend to query the system tables to get the table structure and then build any necessary query from that.
There was one recent place where my team used SELECT * and I think that it was ok... we have a database that exists as a facade against another database (call it DB_Data), so it is primarily made up of views against the tables in the other database. When we generate the views we actually generate the column lists, but there is one set of views in the DB_Data database that are automatically generated as rows are added to a generic look-up table (this design was in place before I got here). We wrote a DDL trigger so that when a view is created in DB_Data by this process then another view is automatically created in the facade. Since the view is always generated to exactly match the view in DB_Data and is always refreshed and kept in sync, we just used SELECT * for simplicity.
I wouldn't be surprised if most developers went their entire career without having a legitimate use for SELECT * in production code though.
I've used select * to query tables optimized for reading (denormalized, flat data). Very advantageous since the purpose of the tables were simply to support various views in the application.
How else do the developers of phpmyadmin ensure they are displaying all the fields of your DB tables?
It is conceivable you'd want to design your DB and application so that you can add a column to a table without needing to rewrite your application. If your application at least checks column names it can safely use SELECT * and treat additional columns with some appropriate default action. Sure the app could consult system catalogs (or app-specific catalogs) for column information, but in some circumstances SELECT * is syntactic sugar for doing that.
There are obvious risks to this, however, and adding the required logic to the app to make it reliable could well simply mean replicating the DB's query checks in a less suitable medium. I am not going to speculate on how the costs and benefits trade off in real life.
In practice, I stick to SELECT * for 3 cases (some mentioned in other answers:
As an ad-hoc query, entered in a SQL GUI or command line.
As the contents of an EXISTS predicate.
In an application that dealt with generic tables without needing to know what they mean (e.g. a dumper, or differ).
Yes, but only in situations where the intention is to actually get all the columns from a table not because you want all the columns that a table currently has.
For example, in one system that I worked on we had UDFs (User Defined Fields) where the user could pick the fields they wanted on the report, the order as well as filtering. When building a result set it made more sense to simply "select *" from the temporary tables that I was building instead of having to keep track of which columns were active.
I have several times needed to display data from a table whose column names were unknown. So I did SELECT * and got the column names at run time.
I was handed a legacy app where a table had 200 columns and a view had 300. The risk exposure from SELECT * would have been no worse than from listing all 300 columns explicitly.
Depends on the context of the production software.
If you are writing a simple data access layer for a table management tool where the user will be selecting tables and viewing results in a grid, then it would seem *SELECT ** is fine.
In other words, if you choose to handle "selection of fields" through some other means (as in automatic or user-specified filters after retrieving the resultset) then it seems just fine.
If on the other hand we are talking about some sort of enterprise software with business rules, a defined schema, etc. ... then I agree that *SELECT ** is a bad idea.
EDIT: Oh and when the source table is a stored procedure for a trigger or view, "*SELECT **" should be fine because you're managing the resultset through other means (the view's definition or the stored proc's resultset).
Select * in production code is justifiable any time that:
it isn't a performance bottleneck
development time is critical
Why would I want the overhead of going back and having to worry about changing the relevant stored procedures, every time I add a field to the table?
Why would I even want to have to think about whether or not I've selected the right fields, when the vast majority of the time I want most of them anyway, and the vast majority of the few times I don't, something else is the bottleneck?
If I have a specific performance issue then I'll go back and fix that. Otherwise in my environment, it's just premature (and expensive) optimisation that I can do without.
Edit.. following the discussion, I guess I'd add to this:
... and where people haven't done other undesirable things like tried to access columns(i), which could break in other situations anyway :)
I know I'm very late to the party but I'll chip in that I use select * whenever I know that I'll always want all columns regardless of the column names. This may be a rather fringe case but in data warehousing, I might want to stage an entire table from a 3rd party app. My standard process for this is to drop the staging table and run
select *
into staging.aTable
from remotedb.dbo.aTable
Yes, if the schema on the remote table changes, downstream dependencies may throw errors but that's going to happen regardless.
If you want to find all the columns and want order, you can do the following (at least if you use MySQL):
SHOW COLUMNS FROM mytable FROM mydb; (1)
You can see every relevant information about all your fields. You can prevent problems with types and you can know for sure all the column names. This command is very quick, because you just ask for the structure of the table. From the results you will select all the name and will build a string like this:
"select " + fieldNames[0] + ", fieldNames[1]" + ", fieldNames[2] from mytable". (2)
If you don't want to run two separate MySQL commands because a MySQL command is expensive, you can include (1) and (2) into a stored procedure which will have the results as an OUT parameter, that way you will just call a stored procedure and every command and data generation will happen at the database server.
When you need to compare two tables to see what the differences are, are there any tools or shortcuts you use, or do you handcode the SQL to compare the two tables?
Basically the core features of a product like Red Gate SQL Data Compare (schemas for my tables typically always match).
Background: In my SQL Server environment, I created a stored procedure which inspects the metadata of the two tables/views, creates a query (as dynamic sql) which joins the two tables on the specified key columns, and compares data in the compare columns, reporting key differences and data differences. The query can either be printed and modified/copied or just excecuted as is. We are not allowed to create stored procedures in our Teradata environment, unfortunately.
Sounds like a data profiling tool such as Talend's Open Profiler would make the most sense at that point.
You could write a BTEQ statement that builds the query similar to your SQL Server stored procedure and then export the dynamically built SQL. You can then in turn run that inside of your BTEQ. It might get cumbersome, but with enough determination you could probably mock something up.
I dont know if this is the right answer you are searching for.
sel * from database_name1.table_name1
minus
sel * from database_name2.table_name2;
you can do the same by selecting specific columns. This will basically give the non existent rows from table2 which are in table1.
If you were not looking for this type of answer, please ignore this and continue.
Also you can select like below.
select
table1.keycol1,
table2.keycol2,
(table1.factcol1 - table2.factcol2) as diff
from table1
inner join
table2
on table1.keycol1 = table2.keycol1
and table1.keycol2 = table2.keycol2
where diff <> 0
This was just an analysis which can give an idea. Please ignore any syntactical and programmatical errors.
Hope this helps.
How do you select all fields of two joined tables, without having conflicts with the common field?
Suppose I have two tables, Products and Services. I would like to make a query like this:
SELECT Products.*, Services.*
FROM Products
INNER JOIN Services ON Products.IdService = Services.IdService
The problem with this query is that IdService will appear twice and lead to a bunch of problems.
The alternative I found so far is to discriminate every field from Products except the IdService one. But this way I'll have to update the query every time I add a new field to Products.
Is there a better way to do this?
What are the most common SQL anti-patterns?
You've hit anti-pattern #1.
The better way is to provide a fieldlist. One way to get a quick field list is to
sp_help tablename
And if you want to create a view from this query - using select * gets you in more trouble. SQL Server captures the column list at the time the view is created. If you edit the underlying tables and don't recreate the view - you're signing up for trouble (I had a production fire of this nature - view was against tables in a different database though).
You should NEVER have SELECT * in production code (well, almost never, but the times where it is justified can be easily counted).
As far as I am aware you'll have to avoid SELECT * but this't really a problem.
SELECT * is usually regarded as a problem waiting to happen for the reason you quote as an advantage! Usually extra results columns appearing for queries when the database has been modified will cause problems.
Does your dialect of SQL support COMPOSE? COMPOSE gets rid of the extra copy of the column that's used on an equijoin, like the one in your example.
As others have said the Select * is bad news especially if other fields are added to the tables in which you are querying. You should select out the exact fields you want from the tables and can use an alias for fields with the same names or just use table.columnName.
Do not use *. Use somthing like this:
SELECT P.field1 AS 'Field from P'
, P.field2
, S.field1 AS 'Field from S'
, S.field4
FROM Products P
INNER JOIN
Services S
ON P.IdService = S.IdService
That would be correct, list the fields you want (in SQL Server you can drag them over from the object browser, so you don't have to type them all). Incidentally, if there are fields your specific query doe not need, do not list them. This creates extra work for the server and uses up extra network resources and can be one of the causes of poor performance when it is done thoughout your system and such wasteful queries are run thousands of times a day.
As to it being a maintenance problem, you only need to add the fields if the part of the application that uses your query would be affected by them. If you don't know what affect the new field would have or where you need to add it, you shouldn't be adding the field. Also adding new fileds unexopectedly through the use of select * can cause maintenance problems as well. Creating performance problems to avoid doing maintenance (maintenance you may never even need to do as column changes should be rare (if they aren't you need to look at your design)) is pretty short-sighted.
The best way is to specify the exact fields that you want from the query. You shouldn't use * anyway.
It is convenient to use * to get all fields, but it doesn't produce robust code. Any change in the table will change the result that is returned from the query, and that is not always desirable.
You should return only the data that you really want from the query, specified in the exact order you want it. That way the result looks exactly the same even if you add fields to the table or change the order of the fields in the table.
It's a litte more work to specify the exact output, but in the long run it usually pays off. When you make a change, only what you actually change is affected, you don't get cascading effects that breaks code that you didn't even know was affected.
This question already has answers here:
What is the reason not to use select *?
(20 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
We are using SQL Server 2005, but this question can be for any RDBMS.
Which of the following is more efficient, when selecting all columns from a view?
Select * from view
or
Select col1, col2, ..., colN from view
NEVER, EVER USE "SELECT *"!!!!
This is the cardinal rule of query design!
There are multiple reasons for this. One of which is, that if your table only has three fields on it and you use all three fields in the code that calls the query, there's a great possibility that you will be adding more fields to that table as the application grows, and if your select * query was only meant to return those 3 fields for the calling code, then you're pulling much more data from the database than you need.
Another reason is performance. In query design, don't think about reusability as much as this mantra:
TAKE ALL YOU CAN EAT, BUT EAT ALL YOU TAKE.
It is best practice to select each column by name. In the future your DB schema might change to add columns that you would then not need for a particular query. I would recommend selecting each column by name.
Just to clarify a point that several people have already made, the reason Select * is inefficient is because there has to be an initial call to the DB to find out exactly what fields are available, and then a second call where the query is made using explicit columns.
Feel free to use Select * when you are debugging, running casual queries or are in the early stages of developing a query, but as soon as you know your required columns, state them explicitly.
Select * is a poor programming practice. It is as likely to cause things to break as it is to save things from breaking. If you are only querying one table or view, then the efficiency gain may not be there (although it is possible if you are not intending to actually use every field). If you have an inner join, then you have at least two fields returning the same data (the join fields) and thus you are wasting network resources to send redundant data back to the application. You won't notice this at first, but as the result sets get larger and larger, you will soon have a network pipeline that is full and doesn't need to be. I can think of no instance where select * gains you anything. If a new column is added and you don't need to go to the code to do something with it, then the column shouldn't be returned by your query by definition. If someone drops and recreates the table with the columns in a different order, then all your queries will have information displaying wrong or will be giving bad results, such as putting the price into the part number field in a new record.
Plus it is quick to drag the column names over from the object browser, so that is just pure laziness not efficiency in coding.
It depends. Inheritance of views can be a handy thing and easy to maintain (SQL Anywhere):
create view v_fruit as select F.id, S.strain from F key join S;
create view v_apples as select v_fruit.*, C.colour from v_fruit key join C;
If you're really selecting all columns, it shouldn't make any noticeable difference whether you ask for * or if you are explicit. The SQL server will parse the request the same way in pretty much the same amount of time.
Always do select col1, col2 etc from view. There's no efficieny difference between the two methods that I know of, but using "select *" can be dangerous. If you modify your view definition adding new columns, you can break a program using "select *", whereas selecting a predefined set of columns (even all of them, named), will still work.
I guess it all depends on what the query optimizer does.
If I want to get every record in the row, I will generally use the "SELECT *..." option, since I then don't have to worry should I change the underlying table structure. As well, for someone maintaining the code, seeing "SELECT *" tells them that this query is intended to return every column, whereas listing the columns individually does not convey the same intention.
For performance - look at the query plan (should be no difference).
For maintainability. - always supply a fieldlist (that goes for INSERT INTO too).
select
column1
,column2
,column3
.
.
.
from Your-View
this one is more optimizer than Using the
select *
from Your View