In MS Access 2010 I have the following code:
SELECT
[Teile-LF-Beziehungen].Lieferant,
COUNT([Teile-LF-Beziehungen].Lieferant) AS [Anz Teile],
First([Teile-LF-Beziehungen].Name) AS Name
FROM
[Teile-LF-Beziehungen]
GROUP BY
[Teile-LF-Beziehungen].Lieferant
ORDER BY
COUNT([Teile-LF-Beziehungen].Lieferant) DESC;
I want to put that query into SQL Server, because MS Access should be only the frontend.
But in SQL Server I can't use the ORDER in a view. But why? I don't understand it. The code I want to use in SQL Server:
SELECT
[Lieferant],
COUNT([Lieferant]) AS [Anz Teile],
MIN([Name]) AS [Name]
FROM
[dbo].[VIEW_Teile-LF-Beziehungen]
GROUP BY
[Lieferant]
ORDER BY
COUNT([Lieferant]) DESC;
I know it don't work. But is there any way to incur a MS Access query 1:1 to a SQL Server query (view)?
Only the outermost select can use an order by (but you might state a TOP 100 percent to trick this out). Therefore it is perfectly OK, that at VIEW does not allow this.
Many people think, that tables have kind of an implicit order (as you see the result ordered), but this is random... The next call could lead to a different sorting.
There is another way using ROW_NUMBER with OVER(ORDER BY). The result is delivered in this order and the order is guaranteed as long the orderby is sorting after unique values.
EDIT
Sorry my first attempt was to quick. The ROW_NUMBER was not allowed due to the grouping
This should work:
SELECT tbl.Lieferant
,tbl.[Anz Teile]
,tbl.Name
,ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY tbl.[Anz Teile] DESC) AS Sort
FROM
(
SELECT [Lieferant]
,COUNT([Lieferant]) AS [Anz Teile]
,MIN([Name]) AS [Name]
FROM [dbo].[VIEW_Teile-LF-Beziehungen]
GROUP BY [Lieferant]
) AS tbl;
EDIT2
This SELECT can be placed within a VIEW, just place your CREATE VIEW YourViewName AS before the SELECT and execute. After this you'll be able to do a SELECT * FROM YourViewName to get a sorted list.
BUT
As stated in many places: The best is the outermost ORDER BY in any case!
ORDER BY doesnt work inside the view. SQL server is free to return the rows anyway he want if you dont include the order by when calling the View
So you need
SELECT *
FROM yourView
ORDER BY yourField
EDIT: Im saying if your view is
CREATE VIEW yourView AS
SELECT
[Lieferant],
COUNT([Lieferant]) AS [Anz Teile],
MIN([Name]) AS [Name]
FROM
[dbo].[VIEW_Teile-LF-Beziehungen]
GROUP BY
[Lieferant];
Then you call your View like this
SELECT *
FROM yourView
ORDER BY [Anz Teile]
Related
Is there a way to make a simple GROUP BY query with SQL and not use COUNT,AVG or SUM? I want to show all columns and group it with a single column.
SELECT * FROM [SPC].[dbo].[BoardSFC] GROUP BY boardsn
The query above is working on Mysql but not on SQL, is there a way to achieve this? any suggestion would be great
UPDATE: Here is my data I just need to group them by boardsn and get imulti equals to 1
I thing you just understand 'group data' in a different way than it is implemented in sql server. You simply want rows that have the same value together in the result and that would be ordering not grouping. So maybe what you need is:
SELECT *
FROM [SPC].[dbo].[BoardSFC]
WHERE imulti = 1
ORDER BY boardsn
The query above is working on Mysql but not on SQL, is there a way to achieve this? any suggestion would be great
No, there is not. MySQL only lets you do this because it violates the various SQL standards quite egregiously.
You need to name each column you want in the result-set whenever you use GROUP BY. The SELECT * feature is only provided as a convenience when working with data interactively - in production code you should never use SELECT *.
You could use a TOP 1 WITH TIES combined with a ORDER BY ROW_NUMBER.
SELECT TOP 1 WITH TIES *
FROM [SPC].[dbo].[BoardSFC]
ORDER BY ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY boardsn ORDER BY imulti)
Or more explicitly, use ROW_NUMBER in a sub-query
SELECT *
FROM
(
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY boardsn ORDER BY imulti) as RN
FROM [SPC].[dbo].[BoardSFC]
) q
where RN = 1
When view is created including an ORDER BY clause, will that order be maintained when using SELECT * FROM VIEW?
Or is it necessary to state SELECT * FROM VIEW ORDER BY ?
You would need an order by on the outer query to guarantee that the rows are returned in the order you want.
If you run a select * from view query against the view without a where clause, it is likely that the rows would be returned in the order defined in the order by. But that's not something that you should depend on.
I dont believe you can create a view using order by. You need to select from the view and then order by in that statement.
I have a page to show 10 messages by each user (don't ask me why)
I have the following code:
SELECT *, row_number() over(partition by user_id) as row_num
FROM "posts"
WHERE row_num <= 10
It doesn't work.
When I do this:
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT *, row_number() over(partition by user_id) as row_num FROM "posts") as T
WHERE row_num <= 10
It does work.
Why do I need nested query to see row_num column? Btw, in first request I actually see it in results but can't use where keyword for this column.
It seems to be the same "rule" as any query, column aliases aren't visible to the WHERE clause;
This will also fail;
SELECT id AS newid
FROM test
WHERE newid=1; -- must use "id" in WHERE clause
SQL Query like:
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE <condition>
will execute in next order:
3.SELECT *
1.FROM table
2.WHERE <condition>
so, as Joachim Isaksson say, columns in SELECt clause are not visible in WHERE clause, because of processing order.
In your second query, column row_num are fetched in FROM clause first, so it will be visible in WHERE clause.
Here is simple list of steps in order they executes.
There is a good reason for this rule in standard SQL.
Consider the statement:
SELECT *, row_number() over (partition by user_id) as row_num
FROM "posts"
WHERE row_num <= 10 and p.type = 'xxx';
When does the p.type = 'xxx' get evaluated relative to the row number? In other words, would this return the first ten rows of "xxx"? Or would it return the "xxx"s in the first ten rows?
The designers of the SQL language recognize that this is a hard problem to resolve. Only allowing them in the select clause resolves the issue.
You can check this topic and this one on dba.stockexchange.com about order in which SQL executes SELECT clause. I think it aplies not only for PostgreSQL, but for all RDBMS.
How can I use TOP function in SQL Server 2005 on a single column in a table along with count function?
I am getting only one count for this query, where I have 35 entries that should come.
this is my query
select top(1) room_no, count(room_no) from rooms
Seems like what you want is the following:
select room_no,count(room_no)
from rooms
group by room_no
BTW, I wonder why it would execute without the group by. Should throw an error.
COUNT function is evaluated after TOP. That is why you are only getting one for the count. What you want is something like this
SELECT TOP(1) dbo.Table.Column1, (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbo.Table)
FROM dbo.Table
Also as mentioned you really should be ordering by something.
Edit: This also works:
SELECT TOP(1) dbo.Table.Column1, COUNT(*) OVER() AS Total
FROM dbo.Table
Seems to be more efficient as well (only tested on small dataset though).
I've created a sql view and I need to sort the results of select by using the ORDER BY on 4 fields, but I'm getting message that ORDER BY cannot be used in views unless I use TOP.
Can someone explain why TOP is needed, and does someone have a workaround for sorting in a sql view?
Thanks.
you don't need to sort a view. a view is like a table so you sort it when you select from it:
select * from yourView order by yourColumns
There is no guarantee the output of the view will be ordered
Only the outermost ORDER BY applies for result sets: not any inner ones. So only this ORDER BY can be guaranteed to work:
SELECT col1, col2, FROm MyView ORDER BY col2
You can add it to views or derived tables and it forces "intermediate materialisation" because the results have to be ordered. However, for SQL Server 2005 and above, you have to use TOP 2000000000 not TOP 100 PERCENT (except for that HF that Daniel Vassallo mentioned!)
Someone will use your view with a different order to that internally at some point too.
You can try:
CREATE VIEW View_Products
AS
SELECT ProductID, ProductName, UnitPrice, CreateDate FROM Products
Order by CreateDate DESC
OFFSET 0 ROWS
Would creating an index on the column with which you intend to sort the view help?