how can I convert to T-Sql this one?
IIf([ESSValue]<>0,Int([ESSValue]*100),"")
I think the following pretty much does what you want:
select coalesce(cast(EssValue * 100 as int), 0)
Here is the thinking. The comparison to zero is unimportant, because 0 times any value is going to be zero. The iif() returns an integer (I think) because the "then" argument is an integer; the empty string gets converted to zero.
I'm not 100% certain about the last statements with regard to MS Access, but that is how iif() works in SQL Server.
I should add. Although I don't approve of iif() for conditional expressions (because case is the standard and more powerful), SQL Server does support it. So you could write:
IIf([ESSValue]<>0, cast([ESSValue]*100 as int), '')
Note: As I mentioned earlier, the '' will be converted to 0.
CASE WHEN ESSValue <> 0
THEN CAST(ESSValue * 100 AS INT)
ELSE NULL
END as fieldname
For case expression the default is NULL if doesn't meet any condition, so you dont really need the ELSE condition
Related
Apologies if this has been asked before - I've spent a couple of hours searching but not found anything that's helped.
It's quite simple really - I've been asked to create a query which includes a field that when it was set up (not by me) was created as a VARCHAR instead of an INT.
I need to do some calculations on this field, however some users have been entering text into it, so the calculations fail as it can't convert the data to an INT.
Is there anything I can add to a CASE statement to handle where there's text?
I was thinking something like the below, but don't know what the actual code is:
CASE
WHEN [Field1] IS TEXT THEN 1 ;
ELSE [Field2] as [Chose name]
END
Edit: Note that this is in MS SQL Server.
Thanks.
In SQL Server, you can use try_convert() and isnull() for this:
isnull(try_convert(int, field), 1)
try_convert() attempts you cast field to an int. When that fails, null is returned; you can trap that with isnull() and turn the result to 1 instead.
Note that this only works as long as field is not null (otherwise, you would get 1 as a result).
In SQL Server
Declare #Salary varchar(100);
Set #Salary = 50000;
Select Case when ISNUMERIC(#Salary) = 1 then 1
else 0 end as [Check]
May be this will be Helpful.
I have an equation that multiplies loads of variables together, if one of those variables is 0 then I don't want it included in the equation by substituting it for 1 which won't affect the result.
A case when - then, statement for each variable validating if they're greater than 0is a bit clunky.
Is there a similar function like IsNull where if the variable is 0 then it returns an alternate value?
--edit #Backs answer is right but apparently after sql 2012 iif was taken out, when i try to write the statement there is a syntax error at the '=' sign. Is there a replacement for iif after sql-2012?
IIF(#variable = 0, 1, #variable)
I need to checking a column where numeric or not in SQL Server 2012.
This my case code.
CASE
WHEN ISNUMERIC(CUST_TELE) = 1
THEN CUST_TELE
ELSE NULL
END AS CUSTOMER_CONTACT_NO
But when the '78603D99' value is reached, it returns 1 which means SQL Server considered this string as numeric.
Why is that?
How to avoid this kind of issues?
Unfortunately, the ISNUMERIC() function in SQL Server has many quirks. It's not exactly buggy, but it rarely does what people expect it to when they first use it.
However, since you're using SQL Server 2012 you can use the TRY_PARSE() function which will do what you want.
This returns NULL:
SELECT TRY_PARSE('7860D399' AS int)
This returns 7860399
SELECT TRY_PARSE('7860399' AS int)
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh213126.aspx
Obviously, this works for datatypes other than INT as well. You say you want to check that a value is numeric, but I think you mean INT.
Although try_convert() or try_parse() works for a built-in type, it might not do exactly what you want. For instance, it might allow decimal points, negative signs, and limit the length of digits.
Also, isnumeric() is going to recognize negative numbers, decimals, and exponential notation.
If you want to test a string only for digits, then you can use not like logic:
(CASE WHEN CUST_TELE NOT LIKE '%[^0-9]%'
THEN CUST_TELE
END) AS CUSTOMER_CONTACT_NO
This simply says that CUST_TELE contains no characters that are not digits.
Nothing substantive to add but a couple warnings.
1) ISNUMERIC() won't catch blanks but they will break numeric conversions.
2) If there is a single non-numeric character in the field and you use REPLACE to get rid of it you still need to handle the blank (usually with a CASE statement).
For instance if the field contains a single '-' character and you use this:
cast(REPLACE(myField, '-', '') as decimal(20,4)) myNumField
it will fail and you'll need to use something like this:
CASE WHEN myField IN ('','-') THEN NULL ELSE cast(REPLACE(myField, '-', '') as decimal(20,4)) END myNumField
Given:
The following Select statement:
select case NULL
when NULL then 0
else 1
end
Problem:
I'm expecting this to return 0 but instead it returns 1. What gives?
Generally speaking, NULL is not something you should attempt to compare for equality, which is what a case statement does. You can use "Is NULL" to test for it. There is no expectation that NULL != NULL or that NULL = NULL. It's an indeterminate, undefined value, not a hard constant.
-- To encompass questions in the comments --
If you need to retrieve a value when you may encounter a NULL column, try this instead:
Case
When SomeColumn IS NULL
Then 0
Else 1
End
I believe that should work. As far as your original post is concerned:
Select Case NULL
When NULL then 0 // Checks for NULL = NULL
else 1 // NULL = NULL is not true (technically, undefined), else happens
end
The trouble is that your Case select automatically attempts to use equality operations. That simply doesn't work with NULL.
I was going to add this as a comment to Aaron's answer, but it was getting too long, so I'll add it as another (part of the) answer.
The CASE statement actually has two distinct modes, simple and searched.
From BOL:
The CASE expression has two formats:
The simple CASE expression compares an expression to a set of simple expressions to determine the result.
The searched CASE expression evaluates a set of Boolean expressions to determine the result.
When the simple CASE (your example) does what it describes as comparison it does an equality comparison - i.e. =
This is clarified in the later documentation:
The simple CASE expression operates by comparing the first expression
to the expression in each WHEN clause for equivalency. If these
expressions are equivalent, the expression in the THEN clause will be
returned.
Allows only an equality check.
Because anything = NULL is always false in ANSI SQL (and if you didn't know this, you need to read up on NULLs in SQL more generally, particularly also with the behavior in the other searched comparison - WHERE x IN (a, b, c)), you cannot use NULL in a simple case and have it ever be compared to a value, with a NULL either in the initial expression or in the list of expressions to be compared against.
If you want to check for NULL, you will have to use an IF/ELSE construct or the searched CASE with a full expression.
I agree that it's kind of unfortunate there is no version which supports an IS comparison to make it easier to write:
select case colname
when IS NULL then 0
else 1
end
Which would make writing certain long CASE statements easier:
select case colname
when IS NULL then ''
when 1 then 'a'
when 2 then 'b'
when 3 then 'c'
when 4 then 'd'
else 'z'
end
But that's just wishful thinking...
An option is to use ISNULL or COALESCE:
select case COALESCE(colname, 999999) -- 999999 is some value never used
when 999999 then ''
when 1 then 'a'
when 2 then 'b'
when 3 then 'c'
when 4 then 'd'
else 'z'
end
But it isn't always a great option.
In addition to the other answers, you need to change the syntax for CASE slightly to do this:
SELECT CASE
WHEN NULL IS NULL THEN 0
ELSE 1
END;
Using the value in your syntax implicitly uses an equals comparison. NULL is unknown, and so is NULL = NULL, so with your current code you will always get zero 1 (geez I did it too).
To get the behavior you want, you can use SET ANSI_NULLS ON; however note that this can change other code in ways you may not be able to predict, and the setting is deprecated - so it will stop working at all in a future version of SQL Server (see this SQL Server 2008 doc).
You need to use the IS NULL operator. Standard comparison operators do not work with NULL.
Check out these MSDN articles about Null that may be useful:
IS [NOT] NULL (Transact-SQL)
Null Values
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...