For the following query, I get 2000. But when I run the query inside the
outer select Count(*) , it returns me 1100 records. Why is that?
Actual query had to be truncated due to StackOverflow whining about too much code.
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM (
SELECT Max(sequence) Sequence,
Max(keycode) Keycode,
Min(dfo) DFO,
segmentid
FROM ( SomeTable2)
UNION ALL
SELECT TOP 1000 *
FROM SomeTable2
)
AS C
Select count (*) can admit repetitions or redundants columns that why you get more results but with distinct the count will only hive you the occurency of columns without repetitions.Example You have the following record in your table a b c d e d .With select count(*) you will get 6 but the letter d come 2 times but which distinct you will get 5 as it ignore the repeted record as it will ignore d become it's more than one time.
Related
I have a table CodeResult as follows:
Here we can notice that Code 123 alone has a Code2, that has a value in Result. I want to take a count of distinct Codes that has no values at all in Result. Which means, in this example, I should get 2.
I do not want to use group by clause because it will slow down the query.
Below code gives wrong result:
Select count(distinct code) from CodeResult where Result is Null
One method is two levels of aggregation:
select count(*)
from (select code
from t
group by code
having max(result) is null
) c;
A more clever method doesn't use a subquery. It counts the number of distinct codes and then removes the ones that have a result:
select ( count(distinct code) -
count(distinct case when result is not null then code end )
)
from t;
You simply can't avoid a GROUP BY: In all DBMSs I know, the query plan you get from a:
SELECT DISTINCT a,b,c FROM tab; ,
is the same as the one for:
SELECT a,b,c FROM tab GROUP BY a,b,c;
The following query will return each of the Code values for which there are no corresponding non-NULL values in CodeResult:
select distinct Code
from CodeResult as CR
where not exists
( select 42 from CodeResult as iCR where iCR.Code = CR.Code and iCR.CodeResult is not NULL );
Counting the rows is left as an exercise for the reader.
i have a tablet 'A' that have a column of date. and the same date can be in a few records. I'm trying to filter the records where the amount of the records by day is less than 5. And still keep all the fields of the tablet.
I mean that if i have only 4 records on 11/10/2017 I need to filter all of this 4 records.
So You can SELECT them basing at sub-query . In SUB-Query group them by this date column and then use HAVING with aggregated count to know how many in every date-group we have and then select all which have this count lesser than 5 ;
SELECT *
FROM A
WHERE A.date in (SELECT subA.date
FROM A
GROUP BY A.date
HAVING COUNT(*) < 5 );
Take Care's answer is good. Alternatively, you can use an analytic/windowing function. I'd benchmark both and see which one works better.
with cte as (
select *, count(1) over (partition by date) as cnt
from table_a
)
select *
from cte
where cnt < 5
I used the following query and it returned what I wanted it to return, but I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around what the query is doing.
Query is nothing fancier than what's in the title: select distinct(count(*)) from table1
Distinct is not required in your SQL ,as you are going to get only result, count(*) without group by clause returns, count of all rows within that table.
Hence try this :
select count(*) from table1
Distinct is used for finding distinct values from a group of values:
say you have table1 , with column1 as :
Column1
----------
a
a
b
b
a
c
following sqls are run you will get output as :
1) select count(*) from table1
output :6
2) select distinct(count(*)) from table1
output :6
3) select count( distinct column1) from table1
output :3
Usually distinct is used inside count preferably with a particular column .
select count( distinct column_name_n ) from table1
The distinct is redundant... Select Count(*) with only one table can only generate one value, so distinct (which would eliminate duplicates) is irelelvant.
If you had multiple outputs, (if for example you were grouping on something) then it would cause the query to only display one output row for every distinct value of count(*) that would other wise be generated...
if, for example, you had
name
Bob
Bob
Bob
Bob
Mary
Mary
Mary
Mary
Dave
Dave
Al
George
then
select count(*)
From table
group By name
would result in
4
4
2
1
1
but
select distinct count(*)
From table
group By name
would result in
4
2
1
I am trying to find a query that would give me a count of another table in the query. The problem is that I have no idea what to set where in the count part to. As it is now it will just give back a count of all the values in that table.
Select
ID as Num,
(select Count(*) from TASK where ID=ID(Also tried Num)) as Total
from ORDER
The goal is to have a result that reads like
Num Total
_________________
1 13
2 5
3 22
You need table aliases. So I think you want:
Select ID as Num,
(select Count(*) from TASK t where t.ID = o.ID) as Total
from ORDER o;
By the way, ORDER is a terrible name for a table because it is a reserved work in SQL.
You can do it as a sub query or a join (or an OVER statement.)
I think the join is clearest when you are first learning SQL
Select
ID as Num, count(TASK.ID) AS Total
from ORDER
left join TASK ON ORDER.ID=TASK.ID
GROUP BY ORDER.ID
I need to get the row count of a query, and also get the query's columns in one single query. The count should be a part of the result's columns (It should be the same for all rows, since it's the total).
for example, if I do this:
select count(1) from table
I can have the total number of rows.
If I do this:
select a,b,c from table
I'll get the column's values for the query.
What I need is to get the count and the columns values in one query, with a very effective way.
For example:
select Count(1), a,b,c from table
with no group by, since I want the total.
The only way I've found is to do a temp table (using variables), insert the query's result, then count, then returning the join of both. But if the result gets thousands of records, that wouldn't be very efficient.
Any ideas?
#Jim H is almost right, but chooses the wrong ranking function:
create table #T (ID int)
insert into #T (ID)
select 1 union all
select 2 union all
select 3
select ID,COUNT(*) OVER (PARTITION BY 1) as RowCnt from #T
drop table #T
Results:
ID RowCnt
1 3
2 3
3 3
Partitioning by a constant makes it count over the whole resultset.
Using CROSS JOIN:
SELECT a.*, b.numRows
FROM YOUR_TABLE a
CROSS JOIN (SELECT COUNT(*) AS numRows
FROM YOUR_TABLE) b
Look at the Ranking functions of SQL Server.
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY a) AS 'RowNumber', a, b, c
FROM table;
You could do it like this:
SELECT x.total, a, b, c
FROM
table
JOIN (SELECT total = COUNT(*) FROM table) AS x ON 1=1
which will return the total number of records in the first column, followed by fields a,b & c