Some background, I have a code column that is char(6). In this field, I have the values of 0,00,000,0000,000000,000000. It seems illogical but that's how it is. What i need to do is delete all rows that possess these code values. I know how to do it individually as such
delete from [dbo.table] where code='0'
delete from [dbo.table] where code='00'
and so on.
How does one do this one section of code instead of 6
Try this:
delete from [dbo.table] where code='0'
or code='00'
or code='000'
etc. You get the idea.
There can be more efficient ways when the set of vales gets larger, but your 5 or 6 values is still quite a ways from that.
Update:
If your list grows long, or if your table is significantly larger than can reside in cache, you will likely see a significant performance gain by storing your selection values into an indexed temporary table and joining to it.
It strongly depends on your DBMS, but I suggest to use regular expressions. For example, with MySQL you just need simple query like this:
delete from dbo.table where code regexp '(0+)'
For most of popular DBMS you can do the same, but syntax may be various
I can't test it right now, but the following should work:
DELETE FROM dbo.table WHERE CONVERT(int, code) = 0
edit- Just thought of another way, that should be safer:
DELETE FROM dbo.table WHERE LEN(code) > 0 AND LEFT(code + '0000000000', 10) = '0000000000'
Related
I have just one abhorrend table, no index, no keys, no IDs, no order, 25 columns, 19 million rows.
I am using the SQL-ish language named TaQL ("Table Query Language").
I need to select-from-where ... It sounds no problem!
However the WHERE conditions are 1683 sets of simple conditions:
set#1: columnA>num1 and columnB>num2 and columnC<num3 and columnD>=num4 ...
or
set#2: columnA>num189 and columnB>num274 and columnC<num321 and columnD>=num457 ...
or
set#n: ...
or
set#1683: ....
My current code is working fine, but it has 1683 lines in the WHERE statement. I created it by awk and regular expressions.
Is there an elegant way to reduce such enormous code?
Have you ever tried the approach of creating a new data format the DID have some normalization to it so you could import into your own database, then you can add indexes, clean criteria keep, etc. Maybe even adding a new column to the end of your table (or columns) as "KeepThis".
Then, apply an update YourTable set KeepThis = 1 where your criteria.. maybe even set the value equal to the condition it qualified with. Then you could query based on those values, or even all those NOT assigned to a value and see if any merit with those records not previously realized.
Sounds like a task no matter what, but might be a nice approach to have things pre-stamped and in a database you can manage vs other source.
I need to replace all occurrences "google.com" that are met in the SQL db table Column1 with "newurl". It can be a full cell value, a part of it (substring of varchar()), can be met even several times in a cell.
Based on SO answer search-and-replace-part-of-string-in-database
this is what I need:
UPDATE
MyTable
SET
Column1 = Replace(Column, 'google.com', 'newurl')
WHERE
xxx
However, in that answer it is mentioned that
You will want to be extremely careful when doing this! I highly recommend doing a backup first.
What are the pitfalls of doing this query? Looks like it does the same what any texteditor would do by clicking on Replace All button. I don't think it is possible in my case to check the errors even with reserve copy as I would like to know possible errors in advance.
Any reasons to be careful with this query?
Again, I expect it replaces all occurences of google.com with 'newurl' in the Column1 of MyTable table in the SQL db.
Thank you.
Just create a test table, as a replica of your original source table, complete the update on there and check results.
You would want to do this as good SQL programming practice to ensure you don't mess up columns that should not be updated.
Another thing you can do is get a count of the records before hand that fit the criteria using a SELECT statement.
Run your update statement and if it's a 1-1 match on count, you should be good to go.
The only thing i can think of that would happen negatively in this respect is that additional columns get updated. Your WHERE clause is not specific for us to see, so there's no way to validate that what you're doing will do what you expect it to.
I think the person posting the answer is just being cautious - This will modify the value in Column1 for every row in MyTable, so make sure you mean it when you execute. Another way to be cautious would be to wrap it in a transaction so you could roll it back if you don't like the results.
this is probably a little thing
but i try to use this sql statement:
SELECT * FROM Colors
WHERE colorHueWarmth < 0
AND colorV >=0.7
AND (fk_subCategory=4 OR fk_subCategory=5 OR fk_subCategory=11)
And in the results i get the perfect colorHueWarmth and colorV but i also get the fk_subcategories for other values than 4, 5 or 11.
i tried changing the values but no results, is it even possible to do such a statement?
Does anyone what i am doing wrong?
Thanks in advance
You've actually got multiple options; although I'd point out that the query (in your qusetion) actually works for me (see this Sql Fiddle)
SELECT
*
FROM
Colors
WHERE
colorHueWarmth < 0
AND colorV >=0.7
AND (fk_subCategory=4 OR fk_subCategory=5 OR fk_subCategory=11)
As stated in one of the comments I would guess that your original didn't have braces on the fk_subCategory clause (the third table in my previous fiddle). Brackets are immensely important when working with logic and should always be used to group items together.
The easiest solution is as follows:
SELECT
*
FROM
Colors
WHERE
colorHueWarmth < 0
AND colorV >=0.7
AND (fk_subCategory IN(4,5,11));
You will find loads of documentation online regarding the LIKE clause here are a few you might find useful:
http://webcheatsheet.com/sql/interactive_sql_tutorial/sql_in.php
http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_in.asp (note W3Schools can't always be taken on face value and are often excluded from suggested links due to the errors/omissions they often contain)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ms177682.aspx
Given the size of the foreign key constraint (4,5 or 11) the IN clause is a reasonable option, if you have other queries using something similar with large collections this can become quite inefficient in which case you could create a temporary table which contains the ID's and INNER JOIN onto that. (here is a question regarding alternatives to LIKE)
I am wondering how others would handle a scenario like such:
Say I have multiple choices for a user to choose from.
Like, Color, Size, Make, Model, etc.
What is the best solution or practice for handling the build of your query for this scneario?
so if they select 6 of the 8 possible colors, 4 of the possible 7 makes, and 8 of the 12 possible brands?
You could do dynamic OR statements or dynamic IN Statements, but I am trying to figure out if there is a better solution for handling this "WHERE" criteria type logic?
EDIT:
I am getting some really good feedback (thanks everyone)...one other thing to note is that some of the selections could even be like (40 of the selections out of the possible 46) so kind of large. Thanks again!
Thanks,
S
What I would suggest doing is creating a function that takes in a delimited list of makeIds, colorIds, etc. This is probably going to be an int (or whatever your key is). And splits them into a table for you.
Your SP will take in a list of makes, colors, etc as you've said above.
YourSP '1,4,7,11', '1,6,7', '6'....
Inside your SP you'll call your splitting function, which will return a table-
SELECT * FROM
Cars C
JOIN YourFunction(#models) YF ON YF.Id = C.ModelId
JOIN YourFunction(#colors) YF2 ON YF2.Id = C.ColorId
Then, if they select nothing they get nothing. If they select everything, they'll get everything.
What is the best solution or practice for handling the build of your query for this scenario?
Dynamic SQL.
A single parameter represents two states - NULL/non-existent, or having a value. Two more means squaring the number of parameters to get the number of total possibilities: 2 yields 4, 3 yields 9, etc. A single, non-dynamic query can contain all the possibilities but will perform horribly between the use of:
ORs
overall non-sargability
and inability to reuse the query plan
...when compared to a dynamic SQL query that constructs the query out of only the absolutely necessary parts.
The query plan is cached in SQL Server 2005+, if you use the sp_executesql command - it is not if you only use EXEC.
I highly recommend reading The Curse and Blessing of Dynamic SQL.
For something this complex, you may want a session table that you update when the user selects their criteria. Then you can join the session table to your items table.
This solution may not scale well to thousands of users, so be careful.
If you want to create dynamic SQL it won't matter if you use the OR approach or the IN approach. SQL Server will process the statements the same way (maybe with little variation in some situations.)
You may also consider using temp tables for this scenario. You can insert the selections for each criteria into temp tables (e.g., #tmpColor, #tmpSize, #tmpMake, etc.). Then you can create a non-dynamic SELECT statement. Something like the following may work:
SELECT <column list>
FROM MyTable
WHERE MyTable.ColorID in (SELECT ColorID FROM #tmpColor)
OR MyTable.SizeID in (SELECT SizeID FROM #tmpSize)
OR MyTable.MakeID in (SELECT MakeID FROM #tmpMake)
The dynamic OR/IN and the temp table solutions work fine if each condition is independent of the other conditions. In other words, if you need to select rows where ((Color is Red and Size is Medium) or (Color is Green and Size is Large)) you'll need to try other solutions.
In the process of fixing a poorly imported database with issues caused by using the wrong database encoding, or something like that.
Anyways, coming back to my question, in order to fix this issues I'm using a query of this form:
UPDATE table_name SET field_name =
replace(field_name,’search_text’,'replace_text’);
And thus, if the table I'm working on has multiple columns I have to call this query for each of the columns. And also, as there is not only one pair of things to run the find and replace on I have to call the query for each of this pairs as well.
So as you can imagine, I end up running tens of queries just to fix one table.
What I was wondering is if there is a way of either combine multiple find and replaces in one query, like, lets say, look for this set of things, and if found, replace with the corresponding pair from this other set of things.
Or if there would be a way to make a query of the form I've shown above, to run somehow recursively, for each column of a table, regardless of their name or number.
Thank you in advance for your support,
titel
Let's try and tackle each of these separately:
If the set of replacements is the same for every column in every table that you need to do this on (or there are only a couple patterns), consider creating a user-defined function that takes a varchar and returns a varchar that just calls replace(replace(#input,'search1','replace1'),'search2','replace2') nested as appropriate.
To update multiple columns at the same time you should be able to do UPDATE table_name SET field_name1 = replace(field_name1,...), field_name2 = replace(field_name2,...) or something similar.
As for running something like that for every column in every table, I'd think it would be easiest to write some code which fetches a list of columns and generates the queries to execute from that.
I don't know of a way to automatically run a search-and-replace on each column, however the problem of multiple pairs of search and replace terms in a single UPDATE query is easily solved by nesting calls to replace():
UPDATE table_name SET field_name =
replace(
replace(
replace(
field_name,
'foo',
'bar'
),
'see',
'what',
),
'I',
'mean?'
)
If you have multiple replaces of different text in the same field, I recommend that you create a table with the current values and what you want them replaced with. (Could be a temp table of some kind if this is a one-time deal; if not, make it a permanent table.) Then join to that table and do the update.
Something like:
update t1
set field1 = t2.newvalue
from table1 t1
join mycrossreferncetable t2 on t1.field1 = t2.oldvalue
Sorry didn't notice this is MySQL, the code is what I would use in SQL Server, my SQL syntax may be different but the technique would be similar.
I wrote a stored procedure that does this. I use this on a per database level, although it would be easy to abstract it to operate globally across a server.
I would just paste this inline, but it would seem that I'm too dense to figure out how to use the markdown deal, so the code is here:
http://www.anovasolutions.com/content/mysql-search-and-replace-stored-procedure