Hi today I have met with weird situation. I had a where clause where was condition which returns String and I wanted to check if it's empty or not. And when it returns empty string Oracle still treat it like a different Strings. So I went further and prepared simple queries:
select 1 from dual where 1 = 1;
returns: 1
select 1 from dual where 'A' = 'A';
returns: 1
And now what I cannot understand:
select 1 from dual where '' = '';
No result.
Even if I check if they are different there is still no result.
select 1 from dual where '' != '';
No result.
Can someone explain it for me ?
Oracle treats empty strings as NULL. It's a gotcha. Make a note of it and hope it never bites you in the butt in production.
The reason is as #Captain Kenpachi explained. If want to compare two strings (or other types that are the same) and want to be tolerant of NULLs (or empty string in Oracle as it treats it as the same) then you need to involve an IS test.
You could try the common cheat of using a rogue value that will never be used but Murphy's Law dictates that one day someone will. This technique also has the drawback that the rogue value should match the type of the thing you are comparing i.e. comparing strings you need a rogue string while comparing dates you need a rouge date. This also means you can't cut-and-paste it liberally without applying a little thought. Example:
WHERE NVL(col1,'MyRougeValue')=NVL(col2,'MyRougeValue')
The standard version is to explicitly test for NULLs
WHERE (col1=col2 OR (col1 IS NULL AND col2 IS NULL))
The opposite becomes WHERE NOT(col1=col2 OR (col1 IS NULL AND col2 IS NULL))
I have seen the a long winded opposite version (as seen in Toad's data compare tool)
WHERE (col1<>col2 OR (col1 IS NULL AND col2 IS NOT NULL) OR (col1 IS NOT NULL AND col2 IS NULL))
Oracle does have a handy DECODE function that is basically is IF a IS b THEN c ELSE d so equality is WHERE DECODE(col1,col2,1,0)=1 and the opposite is WHERE DECODE(col1,col2,1,0)=0. You may find this a little slower than the explicit IS test. It is proprietary to Oracle but helps make up for the empty string problem.
Related
I have a column in my table with these values:
PING_TO_ME_20100828_Any87
TO_THESE_D_COLUMN_ENTRY_20200825
TO_THESE_D_20100829_COLUMN_ENTRY
201901_ARE_YOU_TRYING_TO_REACH47
ASK_TO_UOU_201008
I need to separate date values in a separate column.
My output should be:
20100828
20200825
20100829
201901
201008
Any help is very much appreciated.
You will (and already have) likely get comments about this telling you to fix your design. And while that is likely true...I won't try to pick apart why you are doing this, and I'll just give you the answer you came here for.
Your goal is to pick out either an 8 digit string of integers, or a 6 digit string of integers.
Here is one way you could do it:
SELECT x.y
, COALESCE(SUBSTRING(x.y, NULLIF(PATINDEX('%[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]%', x.y), 0), 8)
, SUBSTRING(x.y, NULLIF(PATINDEX('%[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]%', x.y), 0), 6))
FROM (
VALUES ('PING_TO_ME_20100828_Any87'),
('TO_THESE_D_COLUMN_ENTRY_20200825'),
('TO_THESE_D_20100829_COLUMN_ENTRY'),
('201901_ARE_YOU_TRYING_TO_REACH47'),
('ASK_TO_UOU_201008')
) x(y)
Explanation:
Since you are looking for both 8 and 6 digit values, you need to check for the longer of the two first. So first I search for the occurrence of a string of 8 integers using:
NULLIF(PATINDEX('%[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]%', x.y), 0)
This returns the first position of a string of 8 integers. The reason I wrap it in a NULLIF() is because if the value is not found, then PATINDEX will return 0.
I use NULLIF() to return NULL in that case, essentially indicating nothing was found. If you pass a NULL value to SUBSTRING() then it also returns NULL.
This is all just a nice way of "failing over" to the 6 character string check.
So there I do the same thing again:
NULLIF(PATINDEX('%[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]%', x.y), 0)
Except this time, I only repeat [0-9] six times. And again, I use the NULLIF() trick, so that it returns NULL if no string is found.
Throw that all into SUBSTRING() and COALESCE() and you've got a function that returns the results you're looking for.
Potential downsides
There are a couple down sides to this method.
It is not checking for a valid date, it's simply looking for a string of either 8 integers, or 6 integers. It could be 12345678 and it would still detect and return that.
If there are strings of integers longer than 8 digits, it will grab only the first 8 characters.
If there are multiple occurrences of 6 or 8 character integer strings...it will only return the first one.
There are much more robust ways you could write this, but it all depends on your data and what you need to do.
Other methods
Another way it could be done depending on which version of SQL Server you are using, is using STRING_SPLIT().
SELECT x.y, s.[value]
FROM (
VALUES ('PING_TO_ME_20100828_Any87'),('TO_THESE_D_COLUMN_ENTRY_20200825'),('TO_THESE_D_20100829_COLUMN_ENTRY'),('201901_ARE_YOU_TRYING_TO_REACH47'),('ASK_TO_UOU_201008')
) x(y)
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT [value]
FROM STRING_SPLIT(x.y, '_')
WHERE [value] LIKE '[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]'
OR [value] LIKE '[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]'
) s
This method handles a couple of the downsides mentioned earlier. For example, it will ONLY return integer strings of length 6 or 8. It will also return ALL integer strings of length 6 or 8 and not just the first one.
And there's other ways to identify the strings as well, like using ISNUMERIC(x.[value]) or TRY_CONVERT(int, s.[value]).
It all depends on how you are using this code...if it's runs fast enough, and it's a one off script, then it really doesn't matter. If it's running for millions of records at a time, then yeah you should play around with other methods.
I have data following data structure..
_ID _BEGIN _END
7003 99210 99217
7003 10225 10324
7003 111111
I want to look through every _BEGIN and _END and return all rows where the input value is between the range of values including the values themselves (i.e. if 10324 is the input, row 2 would be returned)
I have tried this filter but it does not work..
where #theInput between a._BEGIN and a._END
--THIS WORKS
where convert(char(7),'10400') >= convert(char(7),a._BEGIN)
--BUT ADDING THIS BREAKS AND RETURNS NOTHING
AND convert(char(7),'10400') < convert(char(7),a._END)
Less than < and greater than > operators work on xCHAR data types without any syntactical error, but it may go semantically wrong. Look at examples:
1 - SELECT 'ab' BETWEEN 'aa' AND 'ac' # returns TRUE
2 - SELECT '2' BETWEEN '1' AND '10' # returns FALSE
Character 2 as being stored in a xCHAR type has greater value than 1xxxxx
So you should CAST types here. [Exampled on MySQL - For standard compatibility change UNSIGNED to INTEGER]
WHERE CAST(#theInput as UNSIGNED)
BETWEEN CAST(a._BEGIN as UNSIGNED) AND CAST(a._END as UNSIGNED)
You'd better change the types of columns to avoid ambiguity for later use.
This would be the obvious answer...
SELECT *
FROM <YOUR_TABLE_NAME> a
WHERE #theInput between a._BEGIN and a._END
If the data is string (assuming here as we don't know what DB) You could add this.
Declare #searchArg VARCHAR(30) = CAST(#theInput as VARCHAR(30));
SELECT *
FROM <YOUR_TABLE_NAME> a
WHERE #searchArg between a._BEGIN and a._END
If you care about performance and you've got a lot of data and indexes you won't want to include function calls on the column values.. you could in-line this conversion but this assures that your predicates are Sargable.
SELECT * FROM myTable
WHERE
(CAST(#theInput AS char) >= a._BEGIN AND #theInput < a.END);
I also saw several of the same type of questions:
SQL "between" not inclusive
MySQL "between" clause not inclusive?
When I do queries like this, I usually try one side with the greater/less than on either side and work from there. Maybe that can help. I'm very slow, but I do lots of trial and error.
Or, use Tony's convert.
I supposed you can convert them to anything appropriate for your program, numeric or text.
Also, see here, http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa226054%28v=sql.80%29.aspx.
I am not convinced you cannot do your CAST in the SELECT.
Nick, here is a MySQL version from SO, MySQL "between" clause not inclusive?
I just had a trivial but genuine use for NULLIF(), for the first time in my career in SQL. Is it a widely used tool I've just ignored, or a nearly-forgotten quirk of SQL? It's present in all major database implementations.
If anyone needs a refresher, NULLIF(A, B) returns the first value, unless it's equal to the second in which case it returns NULL. It is equivalent to this CASE statement:
CASE WHEN A <> B OR B IS NULL THEN A END
or, in C-style syntax:
A == B || A == null ? null : A
So far the only non-trivial example I've found is to exclude a specific value from an aggregate function:
SELECT COUNT(NULLIF(Comment, 'Downvoted'))
This has the limitation of only allowing one to skip a single value; a CASE, while more verbose, would let you use an expression.
For the record, the use I found was to suppress the value of a "most recent change" column if it was equal to the first change:
SELECT Record, FirstChange, NULLIF(LatestChange, FirstChange) AS LatestChange
This was useful only in that it reduced visual clutter for human consumers.
I rather think that
NULLIF(A, B)
is syntactic sugar for
CASE WHEN A = B THEN NULL ELSE A END
But you are correct: it is mere syntactic sugar to aid the human reader.
I often use it where I need to avoid the Division by Zero exception:
SELECT
COALESCE(Expression1 / NULLIF(Expression2, 0), 0) AS Result
FROM …
Three years later, I found a material use for NULLIF: using NULLIF(Field, '') translates empty strings into NULL, for equivalence with Oracle's peculiar idea about what "NULL" represents.
NULLIF is handy when you're working with legacy data that contains a mixture of null values and empty strings.
Example:
SELECT(COALESCE(NULLIF(firstColumn, ''), secondColumn) FROM table WHERE this = that
SUM and COUNT have the behavior of turning nulls into zeros. I could see NULLIF being handy when you want to undo that behavior. If fact this came up in a recent answer I provided. If I had remembered NULLIF I probably would have written the following
SELECT student,
NULLIF(coursecount,0) as courseCount
FROM (SELECT cs.student,
COUNT(os.course) coursecount
FROM #CURRENTSCHOOL cs
LEFT JOIN #OTHERSCHOOLS os
ON cs.student = os.student
AND cs.school <> os.school
GROUP BY cs.student) t
I have the following SQL query:
select AuditStatusId
from dbo.ABC_AuditStatus
where coalesce(AuditFrequency, 0) <> 0
I'm struggling a bit to understand it. It looks pretty simple, and I know what the coalesce operator does (more or less), but dont' seem to get the MEANING.
Without knowing anymore information except the query above, what do you think it means?
select AuditStatusId
from dbo.ABC_AuditStatus
where AuditFrequency <> 0 and AuditFrequency is not null
Note that the use of Coalesce means that it will not be possible to use an index properly to satisfy this query.
COALESCE is the ANSI standard function to deal with NULL values, by returning the first non-NULL value based on the comma delimited list. This:
WHERE COALESCE(AuditFrequency, 0) != 0
..means that if the AuditFrequency column is NULL, convert the value to be zero instead. Otherwise, the AuditFrequency value is returned.
Since the comparison is to not return rows where the AuditFrequency column value is zero, rows where AuditFrequency is NULL will also be ignored by the query.
It looks like it's designed to detect a null AuditFrequency as zero and thus hide those rows.
From what I can see, it checks for fields that aren't 0 or null.
I think it is more accurately described by this:
select AuditStatusId
from dbo.ABC_AuditStatus
where (AuditFrequency IS NOT NULL AND AuditFrequency != 0) OR 0 != 0
I'll admit the last part will never do anything and maybe i'm just being pedantic but to me this more accurately describes your query.
The idea is that it is desireable to express a single search condition using a single expression but it's merely style, a question of taste:
One expression:
WHERE age = COALESCE(#parameter_value, age);
Two expressions:
WHERE (
age = #parameter_value
OR
#parameter_value IS NULL
);
Here's another example:
One expression:
WHERE age BETWEEN 18 AND 65;
Two expressions
WHERE (
age >= 18
AND
age <= 65
);
Personally, I have a strong personal perference for single expressions and find them easier to read... if I am familiar with the pattern used ;) Whether they perform differently is another matter...
So, I asked a question this morning, which I did not phrase correctly, so I got a lot of responses as to why NULL compared to anything will give NULL/FALSE.
My actual question was, what is the time honored fashion in which db guys test inequalities for two columns that can both be NULL. My question is the exact opposite of this question.
The requirements are as follows, A and B are two columns:
a) if A and B are both NULL, they are equal, return FALSE
b) if A and B are both not NULL, then return A<>B
c) if either A or B are NULL, they are not equal, return TRUE
Depending on the data type and possible values for the columns:
COALESCE(A, -1) <> COALESCE(B, -1)
The trick is finding a value (here I used -1) that will NEVER appear in your data.
The other way would be:
(A <> B) OR (A IS NOT NULL AND B IS NULL) OR (A IS NULL AND B IS NOT NULL)
This can be a problem depending on how your particular RDBMS handles NULLs. By the ANSI standard, this should give you what you want, but who follows standards anyway. :)
P.S. - I should also point out that using the COALESCE function may invalidate the use of indexes in comparing the columns. Check your query plan and performance of the query to see if that's a problem.
P.P.S. - I just noticed that OMG Ponies mentioned that Informix doesn't support COALESCE. It's an ANSI standard function I believe, but see what I said above about standards...
I would personally write out the expression you came up with, especially if the table is expected to grow large. Wrapping the columns in function calls hurts performance by making it so the engine can't use any indexes you have on those columns. Of course, in a small table, this may not be any sort of issue, but I still like to do it the explicit way just in case a table ends up growing.
can you try something like this in informix?
CASE
WHEN a IS NULL AND B IS NULL THEN false
WHEN a IS NULL OR B IS NULL THEN true
ELSE a <> B
END
from IBM Informix Guide to SQL: Syntax , CASE Expressions
If you want to be sure about how NULLs are handled, you'll have to use whatever Informix supports for null checking. I haven't turned up much, other than the SE version doesn't support COALESCE, but it does support DECODE and possibly CASE.
WHERE COALESCE(t.a, 0) != COALESCE(t.b, 0)
WHERE DECODE(NULL, 0, t.a) != DECODE(NULL, 0, t.b)
For SQL Server, use:
WHERE ISNULL(A, '') <> ISNULL(B, '')
The trouble is that a<>b (or a=b) yields NULL, not 1 or 0 when one or both operands are NULL. This doesn't matter for the = case because NULL OR 1 is 1 and NULL OR 0 is NULL which behaves like 0 for selecting in a WHERE clause.
You could say:
a<>b OR (a IS NULL)<>(b IS NULL)
However needing to do it either way may be a sign that you're misusing NULL and should consider changing the schema to use some other NOT NULL value to signify this comparable condition.
For example if you've got a person table with a title column, don't use NULL to signify that they have no title; that's not a ‘missing’ datum, it's just that no title exists. So store it as an empty string '' that you can happily compare with other empty strings. (Well unless you run Oracle of course, with its Empty String Problem...)
IBM Informix Dynamic Server has a somewhat peculiar view of booleans for a variety of historical (aka 'bad') reasons. Adapting the idea suggested by #astander, this CASE expression 'works', but I'd be the first to say 'not obvious' (see - I said it before you did!). The setup phase:
create table x(a int, b int);
insert into x values(null, null);
insert into x values(null, 1);
insert into x values(1, null);
insert into x values(1, 1);
insert into x values(1, 2);
The SELECT statement:
SELECT *
FROM x
WHERE CASE
WHEN a IS NULL AND b IS NULL THEN 'f'::BOOLEAN
WHEN a IS NULL OR b IS NULL THEN 't'::BOOLEAN
WHEN a != b THEN 't'::BOOLEAN
ELSE 'f'::BOOLEAN
END
;
The result from this query is:
1
1
1 2
Issues:
IDS does not recognize FALSE or TRUE or UNKNOWN as keywords.
IDS does not recognize boolean expressions such as 'a != b' (or 'a <> b') as such.
Yes, it pains me greatly to have to state this.
If
where ((A=B) OR (A IS NULL AND B IS NULL))
is for equality, then why just not use:
where NOT (
((A=B) OR (A IS NULL AND B IS NULL))
)
for inequality?
A slight modification of #user3830747 answer, based on demorgans law:
NOT (NVL(a = b,FALSE) OR COALESCE(a,b) IS NULL)