I need to access the red marked "id". There is no id in the query. How do i access it ?
I want to access it via a Select statement, of course.
You cannot exactly "access" it. You can calculate it using row_number().
Tables represent unordered sets. So there is no inherent ordering. I cannot tell if any columns specify the ordering. But you can do the calculation as:
select row_number() over (order by uid) as id, t.*
from t;
If you want insertion order for the table, you should add an identity() column to capture the insertion order. To be accurate, you should recreate the table.
You don't have to specify a column if you use:
select row_number() over (order by (select null)) as id, t.*
from t;
In this case, the result is indeterminate.
Related
I have an aggregate transformation in Informatica where Description1 column=First(Description).
I want to implement the same in SQL query.Can anyone suggest how to do this?
Sample Dataset
Table name-ABC
Name Expression
ID ID
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION1 FIRST(DESCRIPTION1)
INSERT_DATE
INSERT_DATE1 FIRST(INSERT_DATE)
RANK
RANK1 FIRST(RANK)
Please use below query,
select max(Description1) from Router_Transform;
If you are using sorter transformation in your Mapping, please use order by clause,
select max(Description1) from Router_Transform order by column_name;
If you want the row with the smallest id, then you can sort the resultset and retain just one row. In standard SQL, you would typically use a row-limiting clause for this:
select t.*
from mytable
order by id
fetch first row only
Note that all databases support this syntax (but almost all have alternatives for that).
On the other hand, if you want to add more columns to each row that display the "first" value for each column, then you would use window function first_value():
select
t.*,
first_value(description) over(order by id) description1,
first_value(insert_date) over(order by id) insert_date1,
first_value(rank) over(order by id) rank1
from mytable
This is a follow-up question to Retrieving last record in each group from database - SQL Server 2005/2008
In the answers, this example was provided to retrieve last record for a group of parameters (example below retrieves last updates for each value in computername):
select t.*
from t
where t.lastupdate = (select max(t2.lastupdate)
from t t2
where t2.computername = t.computername
);
In my case, however, "lastupdate" is not unique (some updates come in batches and have same lastupdate value, and if two updates of "computername" come in the same batch, you will get non-unique output for "computername + lastupdate").
Suppose I also have field "rowId" that is just auto-incremental. The mitigation would be to include in the query another criterion for a max('rowId') field.
NB: while the example employs time-specific name "lastupdate", the actual selection criteria may not be related to the time at all.
I, therefore, like to ask, what would be the most performant query that selects the last record in each group based both on "group-defining parameter" (in the case above, "computername") and on maximal rowId?
If you don't have uniqueness, then row_number() is simpler:
select t.*
from (select t.*,
row_number() over (partition by computername order by lastupdate, rowid desc) as seqnum
from t
) t
where seqnum = 1;
With the right indexes, the correlated subquery is usually faster. However, the performance difference is not that great.
In some other databases (e.g. DB2, or Oracle with ROWNUM), I can omit the ORDER BY clause in a ranking function's OVER() clause. For instance:
ROW_NUMBER() OVER()
This is particularly useful when used with ordered derived tables, such as:
SELECT t.*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER()
FROM (
SELECT ...
ORDER BY
) t
How can this be emulated in SQL Server? I've found people using this trick, but that's wrong, as it will behave non-deterministically with respect to the order from the derived table:
-- This order here ---------------------vvvvvvvv
SELECT t.*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY (SELECT 1))
FROM (
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT ...
-- vvvvv ----redefines this order here
ORDER BY
) t
A concrete example (as can be seen on SQLFiddle):
SELECT v, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) RN
FROM (
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT 1 UNION ALL
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT 2 UNION ALL
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT 3 UNION ALL
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT 4
-- This descending order is not maintained in the outer query
ORDER BY 1 DESC
) t(v)
Also, I cannot reuse any expression from the derived table to reproduce the ORDER BY clause in my case, as the derived table might not be available as it may be provided by some external logic.
So how can I do it? Can I do it at all?
The Row_Number() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 1)) trick should NOT be seen as a way to avoid changing the order of underlying data. It is only a means to avoid causing the server to perform an additional and unneeded sort (it may still perform the sort but it's going to cost the minimum amount possible when compared to sorting by a column).
All queries in SQL server ABSOLUTELY MUST have an ORDER BY clause in the outermost query for the results to be reliably ordered in a guaranteed way.
The concept of "retaining original order" does not exist in relational databases. Tables and queries must always be considered unordered until and unless an ORDER BY clause is specified in the outermost query.
You could try the same unordered query 100,000 times and always receive it with the same ordering, and thus come to believe you can rely on said ordering. But that would be a mistake, because one day, something will change and it will not have the order you expect. One example is when a database is upgraded to a new version of SQL Server--this has caused many a query to change its ordering. But it doesn't have to be that big a change. Something as little as adding or removing an index can cause differences. And more: Installing a service pack. Partitioning a table. Creating an indexed view that includes the table in question. Reaching some tipping point where a scan is chosen instead of a seek. And so on.
Do not rely on results to be ordered unless you have said "Server, ORDER BY".
I have a table with n number of records
How can i retrieve the nth record and (n-1)th record from my table in SQL without using derived table ?
I have tried using ROWID as
select * from table where rowid in (select max(rowid) from table);
It is giving the nth record but i want the (n-1)th record also .
And is there any other method other than using max,derived table and pseudo columns
Thanks
You cannot depend on rowid to get you to the last row in the table. You need an auto-incrementing id or creation time to have the proper ordering.
You can use, for instance:
select *
from (select t.*, row_number() over (order by <id> desc) as seqnum
from t
) t
where seqnum <= 2
Although allowed in the syntax, the order by clause in a subquery is ignored (for instance http://docs.oracle.com/javadb/10.8.2.2/ref/rrefsqlj13658.html).
Just to be clear, rowids have nothing to do with the ordering of rows in a table. The Oracle documentation is quite clear that they specify a physical access path for the data (http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/datatype.htm#i6732). It is true that in an empty database, inserting records into a newtable will probably create a monotonically increasing sequence of row ids. But you cannot depend on this. The only guarantees with rowids are that they are unique within a table and are the fastest way to access a particular row.
I have to admit that I cannot find good documentation on Oracle handling or not handling order by's in subqueries in its most recent versions. ANSI SQL does not require compliant databases to support order by in subqueries. Oracle syntax allows it, and it seems to work in some cases, at least. My best guess is that it would probably work on a single processor, single threaded instance of Oracle, or if the data access is through an index. Once parallelism is introduced, the results would probably not be ordered. Since I started using Oracle (in the mid-1990s), I have been under the impression that order bys in subqueries are generally ignored. My advice would be to not depend on the functionality, until Oracle clearly states that it is supported.
select * from (select * from my_table order by rowid) where rownum <= 2
and for rows between N and M:
select * from (
select * from (
select * from my_table order by rowid
) where rownum <= M
) where rownum >= N
Try this
select top 2 * from table order by rowid desc
Assuming rowid as column in your table:
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY rowid DESC LIMIT 2
I have a SQL query, that returns a set of rows:
SELECT id, name FROM users where group = 2
I need to also include a column that has an incrementing integer value, so the first row needs to have a 1 in the counter column, the second a 2, the third a 3 etc
The query shown here is just a simplified example, in reality the query could be arbitrarily complex, with several joins and nested queries.
I know this could be achieved using a temporary table with an autonumber field, but is there a way of doing it within the query itself ?
For starters, something along the lines of:
SELECT my_first_column, my_second_column,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY my_order_column) AS Row_Counter
FROM my_table
However, it's important to note that the ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ...) construct only determines the values of Row_Counter, it doesn't guarantee the ordering of the results.
Unless the SELECT itself has an explicit ORDER BY clause, the results could be returned in any order, dependent on how SQL Server decides to optimise the query. (See this article for more info.)
The only way to guarantee that the results will always be returned in Row_Counter order is to apply exactly the same ordering to both the SELECT and the ROW_NUMBER():
SELECT my_first_column, my_second_column,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY my_order_column) AS Row_Counter
FROM my_table
ORDER BY my_order_column -- exact copy of the ordering used for Row_Counter
The above pattern will always return results in the correct order and works well for simple queries, but what about an "arbitrarily complex" query with perhaps dozens of expressions in the ORDER BY clause? In those situations I prefer something like this instead:
SELECT t.*
FROM
(
SELECT my_first_column, my_second_column,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ...) AS Row_Counter -- complex ordering
FROM my_table
) AS t
ORDER BY t.Row_Counter
Using a nested query means that there's no need to duplicate the complicated ORDER BY clause, which means less clutter and easier maintenance. The outer ORDER BY t.Row_Counter also makes the intent of the query much clearer to your fellow developers.
In SQL Server 2005 and up, you can use the ROW_NUMBER() function, which has options for the sort order and the groups over which the counts are done (and reset).
The simplest way is to use a variable row counter. However it would be two actual SQL commands. One to set the variable, and then the query as follows:
SET #n=0;
SELECT #n:=#n+1, a.* FROM tablename a
Your query can be as complex as you like with joins etc. I usually make this a stored procedure. You can have all kinds of fun with the variable, even use it to calculate against field values. The key is the :=
Heres a different approach.
If you have several tables of data that are not joinable, or you for some reason dont want to count all the rows at the same time but you still want them to be part off the same rowcount, you can create a table that does the job for you.
Example:
create table #test (
rowcounter int identity,
invoicenumber varchar(30)
)
insert into #test(invoicenumber) select [column] from [Table1]
insert into #test(invoicenumber) select [column] from [Table2]
insert into #test(invoicenumber) select [column] from [Table3]
select * from #test
drop table #test