My situation is that a SQL statement which is not predictable, is given to the program and I need to do pagination on top of it. The final SQL statement would be similar to the following one:
SELECT * FROM (*Given SQL Statement*) b
OFFSET 0 ROWS FETCH NEXT 50 ROWS ONLY;
The problem here is that the *Given SQL Statement* is unpredictable. It may or may not contain order by clause. I am not able to change the query result of this SQL Statement and I need to do pagination on it.
I searched for solution on the Internet, but all of them suggested to use an arbitrary column, like primary key, in order by clause. But it will change the original order.
The short answer is that it can't be done, or at least can't be done properly.
The problem is that SQL Server (or any RDBMS) does not and can not guarantee the order of the records returned from a query without an order by clause.
This means that you can't use paging on such queries.
Further more, if you use an order by clause on a column that appears multiple times in your resultset, the order of the result set is still not guaranteed inside groups of values in said column - quick example:
;WITH cte (a, b)
AS
(
SELECT 1, 'a'
UNION ALL
SELECT 1, 'b'
UNION ALL
SELECT 2, 'a'
UNION ALL
SELECT 2, 'b'
)
SELECT *
FROM cte
ORDER BY a
Both result sets are valid, and you can't know in advance what will you get:
a b
-----
1 b
1 a
2 b
2 a
a b
-----
1 a
1 b
2 a
2 b
(and of course, you might get other sorts)
The problem here is that the *Given SQL Statement" is unpredictable. It may or may not contain order by clause.
your inner query(unpredictable sql statement) should not contain order by,even if it contains,order is not guaranteed.
To get guaranteed order,you have to order by some column.for the results to be deterministic,the ordered column/columns should be unique
Please note: what I'm about to suggest is probably horribly inefficient and should really only be used to help you go back to the project leader and tell them that pagination of an unordered query should not be done. Having said that...
From your comments you say you are able to change the SQL statement before it is executed.
You could write the results of the original query to a temporary table, adding row count field to be used for subsequent pagination ordering.
Therefore any original ordering is preserved and you can now paginate.
But of course the reason for needing pagination in the first place is to avoid sending large amounts of data to the client application. Although this does prevent that, you will still be copying data to a temp table which, depending on the row size and count, could be very slow.
You also have the problem that the page size is coming from the client as part of the SQL statement. Parsing the statement to pick that out could be tricky.
As other notified using anyway without using a sorted query will not be safe, But as you know about it and search about it, I can suggest using a query like this (But not recommended as a good way)
;with cte as (
select *,
row_number() over (order by (select 0)) rn
from (
-- Your query
) t
)
select *
from cte
where rn between (#pageNumber-1)*#pageSize+1 and #pageNumber*#pageSize
[SQL Fiddle Demo]
I finally found a simple way to do it without any order by on a specific column:
declare #start AS INTEGER = 1, #count AS INTEGER = 5;
select * from (SELECT *,ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 1)) AS fakeCounter
FROM (select * from mytable) AS t) AS t2 order by fakeCounter OFFSET #start ROWS
FETCH NEXT #count ROWS ONLY
where select * from mytable can be any query
Related
I want to fetch the last n rows from a table in a Postgres database. I don't want to use an ORDER BY clause as I want to have a generic query. Anyone has any suggestions?
A single query will be appreciated as I don't want to use FETCH cursor of Postgres.
That you get what you expect with Lukas' solution (as of Nov. 1st, 2011) is pure luck. There is no "natural order" in an RDBMS by definition. You depend on implementation details that could change with a new release without notice. Or a dump / restore could change that order. It can even change out of the blue when db statistics change and the query planner chooses a different plan that leads to a different order of rows.
The proper way to get the "last n" rows is to have a timestamp or sequence column and ORDER BY that column. Every RDBMS you can think of has ORDER BY, so this is as 'generic' as it gets.
The manual:
If ORDER BY is not given, the rows are returned in whatever order the
system finds fastest to produce.
Lukas' solution is fine to avoid LIMIT, which is implemented differently in various RDBMS (for instance, SQL Server uses TOP n instead of LIMIT), but you need ORDER BY in any case.
Use window functions!
select t2.* from (
select t1.*, row_number() over() as r, count(*) over() as c
from (
-- your generic select here
) t1
) t2
where t2.r + :n > t2.c
In the above example, t2.r is the row number of every row, t2.c is the total records in your generic select. And :n will be the n last rows that you want to fetch. This also works when you sort your generic select.
EDIT: A bit less generic from my previous example:
select * from (
select my_table.*, row_number() over() as r, count(*) over() as c
from my_table
-- optionally, you could sort your select here
-- order by my_table.a, my_table.b
) t
where t.r + :n > t.c
I have a table Table1
Name Date
A 01-jun-2010
B 03-dec-2010
C 12-may-2010
When i query this table with the following query
select * from table1 where rownum=1
i got output as
Name Date
A 01-jun-2010
But in the same way when i use the following queries i do not get any output.
select * from table1 where rownum=2
select * from table1 where rownum=3
Someone please give me guidance why it works like that, and how to use the rownum.
Tom has an answer for many Oracle related questions
In short, rownum is available after the where clause has been applied and before the order by clause is applied.
In the case of RowNum=2, the predicate in the where clause will never evaluate to true as RowNum starts at 1 and only increases if records matching the predicate can be found.
Adding rownums is one of the last things done after the result set has been fetched from the database. This means that the first row will always have rownum 1. Rownum is better used when you want to limit the result set, for instance when doing paging.
See this for more: http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/ROWNUM
(Not an Oracle expert by any means)
From what I understand, rownum numbers the rows in a result set.
So, in your example:
select * from table1 where rownum=2
How many rows are there going to be in the result set? Therefore, what rownum would be assigned to such a row? Can you see now why no result is actually returned?
In general, you should avoid relying on rownum, or any features that imply an order to results. Try to think about working with the entire set of results.
With that being said, I believe the following would work:
select * from (select rownum as rn,table1.* from table1) as t where t.rn = 2
Because in that case, you're numbering the rows within the subquery.
I have SQL SELECT query which returns a lot of rows, and I have to split it into several partitions. Ie, set max results to 10000 and iterate the rows calling the query select time with increasing first result (0, 10000, 20000). All the queries are done in same transaction, and data that my queries are fetching is not changing during the process (other data in those tables can change, though).
Is it ok to use just plain select:
select a from b where...
Or do I have to use order by with the select:
select a from b where ... order by c
In order to be sure that I will get all the rows? In other word, is it guaranteed that query without order by will always return the rows in the same order?
Adding order by to the query drops performance of the query dramatically.
I'm using Oracle, if that matters.
EDIT: Unfortunately I cannot take advantage of scrollable cursor.
Order is definitely not guaranteed without an order by clause, but whether or not your results will be deterministic (aside from the order) would depend on the where clause. For example, if you have a unique ID column and your where clause included a different filter range each time you access it, then you would have non-ordered deterministic results, i.e.:
select a from b where ID between 1 and 100
select a from b where ID between 101 and 200
select a from b where ID between 201 and 300
would all return distinct result sets, but order would not be any way guaranteed.
No, without order by it is not guaranteed that query will ALWAYS return the rows in the same order.
No guarantees unless you have an order by on the outermost query.
Bad SQL Server example, but same rules apply. Not guaranteed order even with inner query
SELECT
*
FROM
(
SELECT
*
FROM
Mytable
ORDER BY SomeCol
) foo
Use Limit
So you would do:
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY id LIMIT 0,100
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY id LIMIT 101,100
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY id LIMIT 201,100
The LIMIT would be from which position you want to start and the second variable would be how many results you want to see.
Its a good pagnation trick.
I want to implement paging in a gridview or in an html table which I will fill using ajax. How should I write queries to support paging? For example if pagesize is 20 and when the user clicks page 3, rows between 41 and 60 must be shown on table. At first I can get all records and put them into cache but I think this is the wrong way. Because data can be very huge and data can be change from other sessions. so how can I implement this? Is there any generic way ( for all databases ) ?
As others have suggested, you can use rownum in Oracle. It's a little tricky though and you have to nest your query twice.
For example, to paginate the query
select first_name from some_table order by first_name
you need to nest it like this
select first_name from
(select rownum as rn, first_name from
(select first_name from some_table order by first_name)
) where rn > 100 and rn <= 200
The reason for this is that rownum is determined after the where clause and before the order by clause. To see what I mean, you can query
select rownum,first_name from some_table order by first_name
and you might get
4 Diane
2 Norm
3 Sam
1 Woody
That's because oracle evaluates the where clause (none in this case), then assigns rownums, then sorts the results by first_name. You have to nest the query so it uses the rownum assigned after the rows have been sorted.
The second nesting has to do with how rownum is treated in a where condition. Basically, if you query "where rownum > 100" then you get no results. It's a chicken and egg thing where it can't return any rows until it finds rownum > 100, but since it's not returning any rows it never increments rownum, so it never counts to 100. Ugh. The second level of nesting solves this. Note it must alias the rownum column at this point.
Lastly, your order by clause must make the query deterministic. For example, if you have John Doe and John Smith, and you order by first name only, then the two can switch places from one execution of the query to the next.
There are articles here http://www.oracle.com/technology/oramag/oracle/06-sep/o56asktom.html
and here http://www.oracle.com/technology/oramag/oracle/07-jan/o17asktom.html. Now that I see how long my post is, I probably should have just posted those links...
Unfortunately, the methods for restricting the range of rows returned by a query vary from one DBMS to another: Oracle uses ROWNUM (see ocdecio's answer), but ROWNUM won't work in SQL Server.
Perhaps you can encapsulate these differences with a function that takes a given SQL statement and first and last row numbers and generates the appropriate paginatd SQL for the target DBMS - i.e. something like:
sql = paginated ('select empno, ename from emp where job = ?', 101, 150)
which would return
'select * from (select v.*, ROWNUM rn from ('
+ theSql
+ ') v where rownum < 150) where rn >= 101'
for Oracle and something else for SQL Server.
However, note that the Oracle solution is adding a new column RN to the results that you'll need to deal with.
I believe that both have a ROWNUM analytic Function. Use that and you'll be identical.
In Oracle it is here
ROW_NUMBER
Yep, just verified that ROW_NUMBER is the same function in both.
"Because...data can be change from other sessions."
What do you want to happen for this ?
For example, user gets the 'latest' ten rows at 10:30.
At 10:31, 3 new rows are added (so those ten being view by the user are no longer the latest).
At 10:32, the user requests then 'next' ten entries.
Do you want that new set to include those three that have been bumped from 8/9/10 down to 11/12/13 ?
If not, in Oracle you can select the data as it was at 10:30
SELECT * FROM table_1 as of timestamp (timestamp '2009-01-29 10:30:00');
You still need the row_number logic, eg
select * from
(SELECT a.*, row_number() over (order by hire_date) rn
FROM hr.employees as of timestamp (timestamp '2009-01-29 10:30:00') a)
where rn between 10 and 19
select *
from ( select /*+ FIRST_ROWS(n) */ a.*,
ROWNUM rnum
from ( your_query_goes_here,
with order by ) a
where ROWNUM <=
:MAX_ROW_TO_FETCH )
where rnum >= :MIN_ROW_TO_FETCH;
Step 1: your query with order by
Step 2: select a.*, ROWNUM rnum from ()a where ROWNUM <=:MAX_ROW_TO_FETCH
Step 3: select * from ( ) where rnum >= :MIN_ROW_TO_FETCH;
put 1 in 2 and 2 in 3
If the expected data set is huge, I'd recommend to create a temp table, a view or a snapshot (materialized view) to store the query results + a row number retrieved either using ROWNUM or ROW_NUMBER analytic function. After that you can simply query this temp storage using row number ranges.
Basically, you need to separate the actual data fetch from the paging.
There is no uniform way to ensure paging across various RDBMS products. Oracle gives you rownum which you can use in where clause like:
where rownum < 1000
SQL Server gives you row_id( ) function which can be used similar to Oracle's rownum. However, row_id( ) isn't available before SQL Server 2005.
I have a SQL query, that returns a set of rows:
SELECT id, name FROM users where group = 2
I need to also include a column that has an incrementing integer value, so the first row needs to have a 1 in the counter column, the second a 2, the third a 3 etc
The query shown here is just a simplified example, in reality the query could be arbitrarily complex, with several joins and nested queries.
I know this could be achieved using a temporary table with an autonumber field, but is there a way of doing it within the query itself ?
For starters, something along the lines of:
SELECT my_first_column, my_second_column,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY my_order_column) AS Row_Counter
FROM my_table
However, it's important to note that the ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ...) construct only determines the values of Row_Counter, it doesn't guarantee the ordering of the results.
Unless the SELECT itself has an explicit ORDER BY clause, the results could be returned in any order, dependent on how SQL Server decides to optimise the query. (See this article for more info.)
The only way to guarantee that the results will always be returned in Row_Counter order is to apply exactly the same ordering to both the SELECT and the ROW_NUMBER():
SELECT my_first_column, my_second_column,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY my_order_column) AS Row_Counter
FROM my_table
ORDER BY my_order_column -- exact copy of the ordering used for Row_Counter
The above pattern will always return results in the correct order and works well for simple queries, but what about an "arbitrarily complex" query with perhaps dozens of expressions in the ORDER BY clause? In those situations I prefer something like this instead:
SELECT t.*
FROM
(
SELECT my_first_column, my_second_column,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ...) AS Row_Counter -- complex ordering
FROM my_table
) AS t
ORDER BY t.Row_Counter
Using a nested query means that there's no need to duplicate the complicated ORDER BY clause, which means less clutter and easier maintenance. The outer ORDER BY t.Row_Counter also makes the intent of the query much clearer to your fellow developers.
In SQL Server 2005 and up, you can use the ROW_NUMBER() function, which has options for the sort order and the groups over which the counts are done (and reset).
The simplest way is to use a variable row counter. However it would be two actual SQL commands. One to set the variable, and then the query as follows:
SET #n=0;
SELECT #n:=#n+1, a.* FROM tablename a
Your query can be as complex as you like with joins etc. I usually make this a stored procedure. You can have all kinds of fun with the variable, even use it to calculate against field values. The key is the :=
Heres a different approach.
If you have several tables of data that are not joinable, or you for some reason dont want to count all the rows at the same time but you still want them to be part off the same rowcount, you can create a table that does the job for you.
Example:
create table #test (
rowcounter int identity,
invoicenumber varchar(30)
)
insert into #test(invoicenumber) select [column] from [Table1]
insert into #test(invoicenumber) select [column] from [Table2]
insert into #test(invoicenumber) select [column] from [Table3]
select * from #test
drop table #test