We have a table that has claim number, amount, and code for writeoffs. We do multiple writeoffs per record so we have 4 separate instances labeled as:
WOCLAIMNO1,WOAMT1,WOCODE1
WOCLAIMNO2,WOAMT2,WOCODE2
WOCLAIMNO3,WOAMT3,WOCODE3
WOCLAIMNO4,WOAMT4,WOCODE4
Currently we need to run 4 separate queries and then just copy and paste them all into one spreadsheet. We need to get the results of every record that has the WO code including the word 'Warehouse'.
So if you take the example table below and run query with that criteria you should get the output expected. What I need is a way to run just one query on all the columns instead of running each query separately, meaning query WO1, then WO2, then WO3, and then WO4 and then combining all the results together manually.
Sample Table
Output
You could just use UNION ALL :
SELECT
WOCLAIMNO1 AS WOCLAIMNO,
WOAMT1 AS WOAMT,
WOCODE1 AS WOCODE
FROM
mytable
WHERE
WOCODE1 LIKE '%Warehouse%'
UNION ALL
SELECT WOCLAIMNO2, WOAMT2, WOCODE2 FROM mytable WHERE WOCODE2 LIKE '%Warehouse%'
UNION ALL
SELECT WOCLAIMNO3, WOAMT3, WOCODE3 FROM mytable WHERE WOCODE3 LIKE '%Warehouse%'
UNION ALL
SELECT WOCLAIMNO4, WOAMT4, WOCODE4 FROM mytable WHERE WOCODE4 LIKE '%Warehouse%'
Related
I'm using an Oracle database where I need to run the same query on a multitude of customer database tables all held in the same database.
The query is a select command and runs as such:
select id from customer1_table name where customer1_table.row = 1234
The problem is, instead of running the command 100 times I'm trying to figure out if I can change cusotmer1 to point to a list with all 100 customer names (they each have a unique name for the same table to denote who belongs where) in a loop statement and each successive run of the loop picks a different customer name and inserts it where needed into the select statement. Any help is GREATLY appreciated.
You can use list selection such as:
SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE ID IN (1,2,3,4,...,1001,1002,...)
Syntax may vary between database types.
You could just use a WITH clause in order to define a scope and just join it:
WITH names_list AS
(
SELECT name1 AS name FROM dual UNION ALL
SELECT name1 FROM dual UNION ALL
...
SELECT nameN FROM dual
)
SELECT name.id
FROM customer1_table name
INNER JOIN names_list nl ON name.name = nl.name;
introduction:
I have query using a pipeline function. I won't change the names of the returned columns but I will add other columns.
I want to compare the result of the old query with the new query (syntaxal always the same (select * from mypipelinefunction) , but I have changed the pipeline function )
I have used "select *" instead of "select the name of the columns" because there is a lot names.
code:
the code example is simplified to focus on the problem addressed in the title. (no pipeline function. Only two "identic" queries are tested. The second query has one more column that the first.
SELECT
XMLDIFF (
XMLTYPE.createXML (
DBMS_XMLGEN.getxml ('select 1 one, 2 two from dual')),
XMLTYPE.createXML (
DBMS_XMLGEN.getxml ('select 1 one from dual')))
from dual.
I want that XMLDIFF to say that there is no difference because the only columns that I care about are the colums that are in common.
In short I would like to have this result
<xd:xdiff xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xd="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
</xd:xdiff>
instead of this result
<xd:xdiff xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xd="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><xd:delete-node xd:node-type="element" xd:xpath="/ROWSET[1]/ROW[1]/TWO[1]"/></xd:xdiff>
Is this possible to force XMLdiff to compare only the columns that are in commun?
code
Another way to fix this problem would be to have a shortcut in TOAD that transform select * from t in select first_column, ......last_column from t. And it should work even if t is a pipeline function
If you only care about certain columns then wrap your query in a outer-query to only output the columns you care about:
SELECT XMLDIFF (
XMLTYPE.createXML (
DBMS_XMLGEN.getxml (
'SELECT one FROM (select 1 one, 2 two from dual)'
)
),
XMLTYPE.createXML (
DBMS_XMLGEN.getxml (
'SELECT one FROM (select 1 one from dual)'
)
)
) AS diff
FROM DUAL;
Which outputs:
DIFF
<xd:xdiff xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xd="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><?oracle-xmldiff operations-in-docorder="true" output-model="snapshot" diff-algorithm="global"?></xd:xdiff>
db<>fiddle here
I have this huge table upon which I apply a lot of processing (using CTEs), and I want to perform a UNION ALL on 2 particular CTEs.
SELECT *
, 0 AS orders
, 0 AS revenue
, 0 AS units
FROM secondary_prep_cte WHERE purchase_event_flag IS FALSE
UNION ALL
SELECT *
FROM results_orders_and_revenues_cte
I get a "Column 1164 in UNION ALL has incompatible types : STRING,DATE at [97:5]
Obviously I don't know the name of the column, and I'd like to debug this but I feel like I'm going to waste a lot of time if I can't pin-point which column is 1164.
I also think this is a problem of the order of columns between the CTEs, so I have 2 questions:
How do I identify the 1164th column
How do I order my columns before performing the UNION ALL
I found this similar question but it is for MSSQL, I am using BigQuery
You can get information from INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS but you'll need to create a table or view from the CTE:
CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW `project.dataset.secondary_prep_view` as select * from (select 1 as id, "a" as name, "b" as value)
Then:
SELECT * FROM dataset.INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS WHERE table_name = 'secondary_prep_view';
I've been playing around with the sample on Jeff' Server blog to compare two tables to find the differences.
In my case the tables are a backup and the current data. I can get what I want with this SQL statement (simplified by removing most of the columns). I can then see the rows from each table that don't have an exact match and I can see from which table they come.
SELECT
MIN(TableName) as TableName
,[strCustomer]
,[strAddress1]
,[strCity]
,[strPostalCode]
FROM
(SELECT
'Old' as TableName
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCustomer]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strAddress1]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCity]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strPostalCode]
FROM
[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
UNION ALL
SELECT
'New' as TableName
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCustomer]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strAddress1]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCity]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strPostalCode]
FROM
[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]) tmp
GROUP BY
[strCustomer]
,[strAddress1]
,[strCity]
,[strPostalCode]
HAVING
COUNT(*) = 1
This Stack Overflow Answer gives me a much cleaner SQL query but does not tell me from which table the rows come.
SELECT * FROM [JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
UNION
SELECT * FROM [JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
EXCEPT
SELECT * FROM [JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
INTERSECT
SELECT * FROM [JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
I could use the first version but I have many tables that I need to compare and I think that there has to be an easy way to add the source table column to the second query. I've tried several things and googled to no avail. I suspect that maybe I'm just not searching for the correct thing since I'm sure it's been answered before.
Maybe I'm going down the wrong trail and there is a better way to compare the databases?
Could you use the following setup to accomplish your goal?
SELECT 'New not in Old' Descriptor, *
FROM
(
SELECT * FROM [JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
EXCEPT
SELECT * FROM [JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
) a
UNION
SELECT 'Old not in New' Descriptor, *
FROM
(
SELECT * FROM [JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
EXCEPT
SELECT * FROM [JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
) b
You can't add the table name there because union, except, and intersection all compare all columns. This means you can't differentiate between them by adding the table name to the query. A group by gives you control over what columns are considered in finding duplicates so you can exclude the table name.
To help you with the large number of tables you need to compare you could write a sql query off the metadata tables that hold table names and columns and generate the sql commands dynamically off those values.
Derive one column using table names like below
SELECT MIN(TableName) as TableName
,[strCustomer]
,[strAddress1]
,[strCity]
,[strPostalCode]
,table_name_came
FROM
(SELECT 'Old' as TableName
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCustomer]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strAddress1]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCity]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strPostalCode]
,'[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]' as table_name_came
FROM [JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
UNION ALL
SELECT 'New' as TableName
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCustomer]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strAddress1]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCity]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strPostalCode]
,'[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]' as table_name_came
FROM [JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
) tmp
GROUP BY [strCustomer]
,[strAddress1]
,[strCity]
,[strPostalCode]
,table_name_came
HAVING COUNT(*) = 1
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