I can't seem to figure out why this won't work - can someone please help? This is part of a larger query, so I don't want to have to update the one that already exists - just wanna add to it -
SELECT INNERPART.*,
SUBSTR(status_remday, 1,1) AS COMPLETE,
**--this line shows if it is completed or not**
DECODE(SUBSTR(status_remday, 1,1),'Y','Complete','N','Incomplete', null) AS qualCompleted,
**--need this to show if the curriculum is complete or not, in it's own row. will eventually have about 10 or more qual_ids**
decode(INNERPART.qualID,'ENG_CURR_SAFETY CERT', qualCompleted) as SAFETY
FROM (Innerpart)
The problem is that the SQL syntax (the Oracle dialect, anyway) doesn't allow you to define an alias in a SELECT clause and then reference the same alias in the same SELECT clause (even if it's later in the clause).
You define qualCompleted as a DECODE, and then you reference qualCompleted in the second DECODE. That won't work.
If you don't want to define qualCompleted at one level and then wrap everything within an outer SELECT where you can reference that name, your other option is to use the first DECODE, as is (not by alias) in the second DECODE.
This:
decode(INNERPART.qualID,'ENG_CURR_SAFETY CERT', qualCompleted) as SAFETY
should instead be written as
decode(INNERPART.qualID,'ENG_CURR_SAFETY CERT',
DECODE(SUBSTR(status_remday, 1,1),'Y','Complete','N','Incomplete', null) )
as SAFETY
One more thing: by default, DECODE returns null if the first parameter is not matched in DECODE. So you don't actually need to give the last parameter (null) in your definition of qualCompleted.
EDIT: here is what the Oracle documentation says about column aliases.
Link: https://docs.oracle.com/database/121/SQLRF/statements_10002.htm#i2080424
c_alias Specify an alias for the column expression. Oracle Database will use this alias in the column heading of the result set.
The AS keyword is optional. The alias effectively renames the select
list item for the duration of the query. The alias can be used in
the order_by_clause but not other clauses in the query.
This means a few things. An alias like the qualCompleted you created cannot be used in the same query in the WHERE clause, GROUP BY, etc. - and not even in the SELECT clause where it was created. It can ONLY be used in the ORDER BY clause of the same query. Any other use must be in a surrounding, "outer" query. It also does mean, though, that you can use it in ORDER BY, if needed.
In your case, if you ONLY created qualCompleted so that you can reference it in another DECODE, and had no other use for it, then you don't even need to define it at all (since it doesn't help anyway); just define SAFETY directly as a nested call to DECODE.
Related
I'm trying to get some rows from a table using the GetRowsWithConditions method in App Inventor 2. I've used AND and it works correctly but when I use OR I get 400 Bad Request Invalid query: Parse error near 'OR'.
The condition is
WHERE ROWID=1 OR ROWID=1001 OR ROWID=2001
As Taifun mentioned, "OR" is not supported in Fusion Tables, but an alternative suggested by Google is to use "IN".
Wikipedia Entry:
IN will find any values existing in a set of candidates.
SELECT ename WHERE ename IN ('value1', 'value2', ...)
All rows match the predicate if their value is one of the candidate set of values. This is the same behavior as
SELECT ename WHERE ename='value1' OR ename='value2'
except that the latter could allow comparison of several columns, which each IN clause does not. For a larger number of candidates, IN is less verbose.
So in theory*, your query would be reformatted to:
... WHERE ROWID IN ('1','1001','2001')
Hope that helps!
*I say in theory, because I've never used ROWID as the filter as I've always created a custom ID column.
OR does not exist in the Fusiontable SQL language, see also the SQL Reference Documentation of the Fusion Tables API.
I'd like to reuse an alias that contains a non-alphabetic character in a query, something like:
SELECT 42 AS "the#answer", "the#answer"+8 AS "fifty";
Output I want: 42|50; output I get: 42|8.
I've tried almost every possible combination of quote types, and looked for documentation, but I can't seem to find a working solution.
Any idea?
SQL cannot refer to an alias from the same output clause in which it was introduced. (It has nothing to do with quoting, which only allows otherwise invalid identifiers; some SQL vendors would have thrown an error, but SQLite appears "more relaxed" in the handling of this case.)
You could use a nested query (sqlfiddle).
SELECT fortytwo, fortytwo + 8 as fifty
FROM (
SELECT 42 AS fortytwo)
This works because the referenced identifier, fortytwo, was introduced in a "previous" output clause.
Assume mytable is an Oracle table and it has a field called id. The datatype of id is NUMBER(8). Compare the following queries:
select * from mytable where id like '715%'
and
select * from mytable where id between 71500000 and 71599999
I would think the second is more efficient since I think "number comparison" would require fewer number of assembly language instructions than "string comparison". I need a confirmation or correction. Please confirm/correct and throw any further comment related to either operator.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention 1 important piece of info. id in this case must be an 8-digit number.
If you only want values between 71500000 and 71599999 then yes the second one is much more efficient. The first one would also return values between 7150-7159, 71500-71599 etc. and so forth. You would either need to sift through unecessary results or write another couple lines of code to filter the rest of them out. The second option is definitely more efficient for what you seem to want to do.
It seems like the execution plan on the second query is more efficient.
The first query is doing a full table scan of the id's, whereas the second query is not.
My Test Data:
Execution Plan of first query:
Execution Plan of second query:
I don't like the idea of using LIKE with a numeric column.
Also, it may not give the results you are looking for.
If you have a value of 715000000, it will show up in the query result, even though it is larger than 71599999.
Also, I do not like between on principle.
If a thing is between two other things, it should not include those two other things. But this is just a personal annoyance.
I prefer to use >= and <= This avoids confusion when I read the query. In addition, sometimes I have to change the query to something like >= a and < c. If I started by using the between operator, I would have to rewrite it when I don't want to be inclusive.
Harv
In addition to the other points raised, using LIKE in the manner you suggest would cause Oracle to not use any indexes on the ID column due to the implicit conversion of the data from number to character, resulting in a full table scan when using LIKE versus and index range scan when using BETWEEN. Assuming, of course, you have an index on ID. Even if you don't, however, Oracle will have to do the type conversion on each value it scans in the LIKE case, which it won't have to do in the other.
You can use math function, otherwise you have to use to_char function to use like, but it will cause performance problems.
select * from mytable where floor(id /100000) = 715
or
select * from mytable where floor(id /100000) = TO_NUMBER('715') // this is parametric
Was wondering whether anyone would know why do we use the parentheses in this SQL:
So, the format goes as follows:
Name,location and department of the service of the employees whose name starts with A or B. (A rough translation from French).
I answered the following way:
SELECT service.nom_serv, localite.ville, localite.departemen
FROM service, localite, employe
WHERE service.code_loc=localite.code_loc
AND employe.service=service.code_serv
AND ((employe.nom LIKE 'A%') OR (employe.nom LIKE 'B%'))
Basically, where the last AND is concerned for the WHERE, couldn't I simply do without the parenthesis in order to have the SQL select for me employees with their name starting either with an A or a B? What difference does positioning a parenthesis in that way make? And ahy is there a double use of parentheses? Or is it to prioritize the OR in the last clause, since an AND is preceding it?
Take a look at the Operator Precedence in SQL Server (You've not specified that, but I'd imagine it's the same for all RDBMS). What this means is that ANDs (without parenthesis) are evaluated before1 bind more tightly than ORs.
So in your specific case, without the parenthesis, the conditions are:
employe.service=service.code_serv AND employe.nom LIKE 'A%'
OR
employe.nom LIKE 'B%'
1Evaluation order is deliberately not specified in SQL, allowing many more possible re-orderings that languages that guarantee left-to-right or precedence ordered evaluation.
You use it to specify grouping of the clause, not priority. SQL does not allow you to specify priority as the optimizer will create the best priority for you.
AND ()
Will take both of the OR conditions in one statement. So if either is true then the AND is true as well. The inner parentheses are not necessary, but help in visualizing the separation.
Without the outer parentheses it would allow anything with the final clause as true as well.
There are extra parenthesis. The rule in math is to add the parenthesis to clarify the logic. In this case if you remove all of the parenthesis you'll get the wrong answer. What you have is a AND ((b) OR (c)). Removing all of the parenthesis would take it from (a OR b) AND (a OR c) to (a AND b) OR c which is incorrect.
I suppose I have always naively assumed that scalar functions in the select part of a SQL query will only get applied to the rows that meet all the criteria of the where clause.
Today I was debugging some code from a vendor and had that assumption challenged. The only reason I can think of for this code failing is that the Substring() function is getting called on data that should have been filtered out by the WHERE clause. But it appears that the substring call is being applied before the filtering happens, the query is failing.
Here is an example of what I mean. Let's say we have two tables, each with 2 columns and having 2 rows and 1 row respectively. The first column in each is just an id. NAME is just a string, and NAME_LENGTH tells us how many characters in the name with the same ID. Note that only names with more than one character have a corresponding row in the LONG_NAMES table.
NAMES: ID, NAME
1, "Peter"
2, "X"
LONG_NAMES: ID, NAME_LENGTH
1, 5
If I want a query to print each name with the last 3 letters cut off, I might first try something like this (assuming SQL Server syntax for now):
SELECT substring(NAME,1,len(NAME)-3)
FROM NAMES;
I would soon find out that this would give me an error, because when it reaches "X" it will try using a negative number for in the substring call, and it will fail.
The way my vendor decided to solve this was by filtering out rows where the strings were too short for the len - 3 query to work. He did it by joining to another table:
SELECT substring(NAMES.NAME,1,len(NAMES.NAME)-3)
FROM NAMES
INNER JOIN LONG_NAMES
ON NAMES.ID = LONG_NAMES.ID;
At first glance, this query looks like it might work. The join condition will eliminate any rows that have NAME fields short enough for the substring call to fail.
However, from what I can observe, SQL Server will sometimes try to calculate the the substring expression for everything in the table, and then apply the join to filter out rows. Is this supposed to happen this way? Is there a documented order of operations where I can find out when certain things will happen? Is it specific to a particular Database engine or part of the SQL standard? If I decided to include some predicate on my NAMES table to filter out short names, (like len(NAME) > 3), could SQL Server also choose to apply that after trying to apply the substring? If so then it seems the only safe way to do a substring would be to wrap it in a "case when" construct in the select?
Martin gave this link that pretty much explains what is going on - the query optimizer has free rein to reorder things however it likes. I am including this as an answer so I can accept something. Martin, if you create an answer with your link in it i will gladly accept that instead of this one.
I do want to leave my question here because I think it is a tricky one to search for, and my particular phrasing of the issue may be easier for someone else to find in the future.
TSQL divide by zero encountered despite no columns containing 0
EDIT: As more responses have come in, I am again confused. It does not seem clear yet when exactly the optimizer is allowed to evaluate things in the select clause. I guess I'll have to go find the SQL standard myself and see if i can make sense of it.
Joe Celko, who helped write early SQL standards, has posted something similar to this several times in various USENET newsfroups. (I'm skipping over the clauses that don't apply to your SELECT statement.) He usually said something like "This is how statements are supposed to act like they work". In other words, SQL implementations should behave exactly as if they did these steps, without actually being required to do each of these steps.
Build a working table from all of
the table constructors in the FROM
clause.
Remove from the working table those
rows that do not satisfy the WHERE
clause.
Construct the expressions in the
SELECT clause against the working table.
So, following this, no SQL dbms should act like it evaluates functions in the SELECT clause before it acts like it applies the WHERE clause.
In a recent posting, Joe expands the steps to include CTEs.
CJ Date and Hugh Darwen say essentially the same thing in chapter 11 ("Table Expressions") of their book A Guide to the SQL Standard. They also note that this chapter corresponds to the "Query Specification" section (sections?) in the SQL standards.
You are thinking about something called query execution plan. It's based on query optimization rules, indexes, temporaty buffers and execution time statistics. If you are using SQL Managment Studio you have toolbox over your query editor where you can look at estimated execution plan, it shows how your query will change to gain some speed. So if just used your Name table and it is in buffer, engine might first try to subquery your data, and then join it with other table.