with temp(name) as (select 'abc' from dual
union select '123abc' from dual
union select '1abc3' from dual)
select * from temp where temp.name like '%[a-z]%'
why i am not able to get all the 3 records in output
, I am using Oracle SQL Developer 11g
Reason why i am using this query is : I want to check if Desired column Contains only String no Number and Special Character
You are mixing SQL Server and Oracle syntax:
SQL SERVER Demo:
with temp(name) as (
select 'abc' union all select '123abc' union select '1abc3'
)
select * from temp where temp.name like '%[a-z]%';
-- [] is T-SQL specific
ORACLE Demo:
with temp(name) as (select 'abc' from dual
union select '123abc' from dual
union select '1abc3' from dual)
select * from temp where regexp_like(temp.name, '[a-z]')
First of all, you are mixing concepts. You are trying to do a regular expression compare by using a normal LIKE operator. Secondly, you should tag your question with the database you are using. I am assuming that you are using oracle, given the dual table.
WITH temp(name) AS (SELECT 'abc' FROM dual
UNION SELECT '123abc' FROM dual
UNION SELECT '1abc3' FROM dual)
SELECT * FROM temp
WHERE REGEXP_LIKE(temp.name,'[a-z]+')
Also note that using the % wildcard character will not work as you expect it to in a regular expression match.
Fist, it is better to use union all rather than union, because union incurs overhead for removing duplicates.
Second, your like pattern is non-standard, supported only in SQL Server and Sybase. In other words, none of your names contain square braces or hyphens, so none match the pattern.
Does this do what you expect?
with temp(name) as (
select 'abc' from dual union all
select '123abc' from dual union all
select '1abc3' from dual
)
select *
from temp
where temp.name like '%a%';
This is only checking for syntax. It is not equivalent to your like pattern.
I speculate from the syntax that you are using Oracle. If so, then you can use regular expressions:
where regexp_like(temp.name, '[a-z]')
Most (but not all) databases support regular expressions, so you can express similar logic in most databases.
Related
The following query is perfectly valid in pretty much every database (give or take a dual dummy table), including Oracle:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual
order by x asc
Returning:
| X |
|---|
| A |
| B |
Now this query is still quite standard SQL, but doesn't work on Oracle
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual
order by x asc
I'm getting
ORA-00904: "X": invalid identifier
This, however, works:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' as x from dual union all
select 'C' from dual
order by x asc
I've been playing around with this issue and figured out that apparently, at least the first subselect and the second-last (??) subselect need to have a column called x. In the first example, the two subselects seemed to simply coincide. Working example:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual union all
select 'D' from dual union all
select 'E' from dual union all
select 'F' as x from dual union all
select 'G' from dual
order by x asc
As you may have guessed, this wouldn't work:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual union all
select 'D' from dual union all
select 'E' as x from dual union all
select 'F' from dual union all
select 'G' from dual
order by x asc
Interesting side-note:
Derived tables seem not to suffer from this limitation. This works:
select * from (
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual
)
order by x asc
Question:
Is this a (known?) bug in the Oracle SQL parser, or is there any very subtle detail in the language syntax that absolutely requires the first and the second-last subselect to hold a column of the name as referenced from the ORDER BY clause?
This doesn't really answer the question, but it seems to be a parser bug (or 'feature') rather than a language requirement.
According to My Oracle Support, this seems to have been raised as bug 14196463 but closed with no resolution. It's also mentioned in community thread 3561546. You need a MOS account, or at least an Oracle account, to see either of those though.
It's also been discussed in an OTN thread which requires a basic Oracle login rather than a MOS account, as far as I can tell. That also doesn't have much information but repeats your findings, and also suggests the behaviour has existed back at least to 9.2.0.8 and perhaps much earlier.
The documentation is a bit vague but doesn't indicate this is expected to be a problem:
For compound queries containing set operators UNION, INTERSECT, MINUS, or UNION ALL, the ORDER BY clause must specify positions or aliases rather than explicit expressions. Also, the ORDER BY clause can appear only in the last component query. The ORDER BY clause orders all rows returned by the entire compound query.
You are aliasing your expression and using that, and it doesn't say you have to alias particular components (although of course it doesn't say you don't have to either).
The behaviour seems inconsistent with the alias being valid for the final projection, and the usual rule about the alias only being valid in the order by clause - this seems to be falling down somewhere in between.
This doesn't answer why you are getting inconsistent behavior from your current query, but in Oracle you can easily rewrite as the following (which should never fail with an invalid identifier error):
with t(x) as (
select 'A' from dual
union all
select 'B' from dual
union all
select 'C' from dual
)
select * from t
order by x asc
With the added bonus that you only specify the column alias (x) once.
The following query is perfectly valid in pretty much every database (give or take a dual dummy table), including Oracle:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual
order by x asc
Returning:
| X |
|---|
| A |
| B |
Now this query is still quite standard SQL, but doesn't work on Oracle
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual
order by x asc
I'm getting
ORA-00904: "X": invalid identifier
This, however, works:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' as x from dual union all
select 'C' from dual
order by x asc
I've been playing around with this issue and figured out that apparently, at least the first subselect and the second-last (??) subselect need to have a column called x. In the first example, the two subselects seemed to simply coincide. Working example:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual union all
select 'D' from dual union all
select 'E' from dual union all
select 'F' as x from dual union all
select 'G' from dual
order by x asc
As you may have guessed, this wouldn't work:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual union all
select 'D' from dual union all
select 'E' as x from dual union all
select 'F' from dual union all
select 'G' from dual
order by x asc
Interesting side-note:
Derived tables seem not to suffer from this limitation. This works:
select * from (
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual
)
order by x asc
Question:
Is this a (known?) bug in the Oracle SQL parser, or is there any very subtle detail in the language syntax that absolutely requires the first and the second-last subselect to hold a column of the name as referenced from the ORDER BY clause?
This doesn't really answer the question, but it seems to be a parser bug (or 'feature') rather than a language requirement.
According to My Oracle Support, this seems to have been raised as bug 14196463 but closed with no resolution. It's also mentioned in community thread 3561546. You need a MOS account, or at least an Oracle account, to see either of those though.
It's also been discussed in an OTN thread which requires a basic Oracle login rather than a MOS account, as far as I can tell. That also doesn't have much information but repeats your findings, and also suggests the behaviour has existed back at least to 9.2.0.8 and perhaps much earlier.
The documentation is a bit vague but doesn't indicate this is expected to be a problem:
For compound queries containing set operators UNION, INTERSECT, MINUS, or UNION ALL, the ORDER BY clause must specify positions or aliases rather than explicit expressions. Also, the ORDER BY clause can appear only in the last component query. The ORDER BY clause orders all rows returned by the entire compound query.
You are aliasing your expression and using that, and it doesn't say you have to alias particular components (although of course it doesn't say you don't have to either).
The behaviour seems inconsistent with the alias being valid for the final projection, and the usual rule about the alias only being valid in the order by clause - this seems to be falling down somewhere in between.
This doesn't answer why you are getting inconsistent behavior from your current query, but in Oracle you can easily rewrite as the following (which should never fail with an invalid identifier error):
with t(x) as (
select 'A' from dual
union all
select 'B' from dual
union all
select 'C' from dual
)
select * from t
order by x asc
With the added bonus that you only specify the column alias (x) once.
Whats is the difference between:
select 'mari makan' value from dual ;
and
select 'mari makan' from dual ;
when querying from oracle table.
Precisely, what is the purpose of value keyword in above statement?
The first names the column value. It is more typically written using as:
select 'mari makan' as value
from dual ;
The second does not give a user-defined name to the column.
The difference between them is that the first query aliasing this column, and giving it a unique name, while the other one doesn't.
What does that mean?
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT 'asda' FROM dual
UNION
SELECT 'asdasda' FROM dual
)
WHERE ??? = ??
This query is not aliasing the column, if you would want to use this column in the other query, you will have a problem. I think the default is to name the column after what you selected, which means it will be named 'asda' .
As opposed to:
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT 'asda' Col1 FROM dual
UNION
SELECT 'asdasda' as Col1 FROM dual
) WHERE Col1 <> 'asda'
Which will let you call this column from an outer query.
The standard is to write it as SELECT <Col> AS <New_Name> but it can be written with out the AS as well.
The following query is perfectly valid in pretty much every database (give or take a dual dummy table), including Oracle:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual
order by x asc
Returning:
| X |
|---|
| A |
| B |
Now this query is still quite standard SQL, but doesn't work on Oracle
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual
order by x asc
I'm getting
ORA-00904: "X": invalid identifier
This, however, works:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' as x from dual union all
select 'C' from dual
order by x asc
I've been playing around with this issue and figured out that apparently, at least the first subselect and the second-last (??) subselect need to have a column called x. In the first example, the two subselects seemed to simply coincide. Working example:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual union all
select 'D' from dual union all
select 'E' from dual union all
select 'F' as x from dual union all
select 'G' from dual
order by x asc
As you may have guessed, this wouldn't work:
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual union all
select 'D' from dual union all
select 'E' as x from dual union all
select 'F' from dual union all
select 'G' from dual
order by x asc
Interesting side-note:
Derived tables seem not to suffer from this limitation. This works:
select * from (
select 'A' as x from dual union all
select 'B' from dual union all
select 'C' from dual
)
order by x asc
Question:
Is this a (known?) bug in the Oracle SQL parser, or is there any very subtle detail in the language syntax that absolutely requires the first and the second-last subselect to hold a column of the name as referenced from the ORDER BY clause?
This doesn't really answer the question, but it seems to be a parser bug (or 'feature') rather than a language requirement.
According to My Oracle Support, this seems to have been raised as bug 14196463 but closed with no resolution. It's also mentioned in community thread 3561546. You need a MOS account, or at least an Oracle account, to see either of those though.
It's also been discussed in an OTN thread which requires a basic Oracle login rather than a MOS account, as far as I can tell. That also doesn't have much information but repeats your findings, and also suggests the behaviour has existed back at least to 9.2.0.8 and perhaps much earlier.
The documentation is a bit vague but doesn't indicate this is expected to be a problem:
For compound queries containing set operators UNION, INTERSECT, MINUS, or UNION ALL, the ORDER BY clause must specify positions or aliases rather than explicit expressions. Also, the ORDER BY clause can appear only in the last component query. The ORDER BY clause orders all rows returned by the entire compound query.
You are aliasing your expression and using that, and it doesn't say you have to alias particular components (although of course it doesn't say you don't have to either).
The behaviour seems inconsistent with the alias being valid for the final projection, and the usual rule about the alias only being valid in the order by clause - this seems to be falling down somewhere in between.
This doesn't answer why you are getting inconsistent behavior from your current query, but in Oracle you can easily rewrite as the following (which should never fail with an invalid identifier error):
with t(x) as (
select 'A' from dual
union all
select 'B' from dual
union all
select 'C' from dual
)
select * from t
order by x asc
With the added bonus that you only specify the column alias (x) once.
I am doing some debugging in SQL for oracle 10g. I have a big input string which is used in "IN Clause" i.e.
select * from table where col in ('str2','str3','str4','str5',...)
i want to convert the in clause to rows or table?
Is there a way to do this i.e.
select 'str2','str3','str4','str5', .. from dual
but this outputs multiple columns and i want multiple rows?
Edit:
Here is what i am trying to do. suppose i have an excel data in tmp_table1 (cant create in reality) and tmp_table1 is same as the IN clause, then the below statement will give the missing keys.
SELECT *
FROM tmp_table1
WHERE unique_id NOT IN (
SELECT unique_id
FROM table1
WHERE unique_id IN
('str1', 'str2', 'str3', 'str4'))
now #andriy-m solution works if the in string is less than 4000. but what if its greater?
You are probably looking for this solution.
You can UNION the values into multiple rows:
SELECT 'str2' AS col FROM dual
UNION
SELECT 'str3' FROM dual
UNION
SELECT 'str4' FROM dual
UNION
SELECT 'str5' FROM dual