I need to run a query that groups the result and orders it. When I used the following query I noticed that the results were ordered by the field name:
SELECT name, count(name)
FROM contacts
GROUP BY name
HAVING count(name)>1
Originally I planed on using the following query:
SELECT name, count(name)
FROM contacts
GROUP BY name
HAVING count(name)>1
ORDER BY name
I'm worried that order by significantly slows the running time.
Can I depend on ms-access to always order by the field I am grouping by, and eliminate the order by?
EDIT: I tried grouping different fields in other tables and it was always ordered by the grouped field.
I have found answers to this question to other SQL DBMSs, but not access.
How GROUP BY and ORDER BY work in general
Databases usually choose between sorting and hashing when creating groups for GROUP BY or DISTINCT operations. If they do choose sorting, you might get lucky and the sorting is stable between the application of GROUP BY and the actual result set consumption. But at some later point, this may break as the database might suddenly prefer an order-less hashing algorithm to produce groups.
In no database, you should ever rely on any implicit ordering behaviour. You should always use explicit ORDER BY. If the database is sophisticated enough, adding an explicit ORDER BY clause will hint that sorting is more optimal for the grouping operation as well, as the sorting can then be re-used in the query execution pipeline.
How this translates to your observation
I tried grouping different fields in other tables and it was always ordered by the grouped field.
Have you exhaustively tried all possible queries that could ever be expressed? I.e. have you tried:
JOIN
OUTER JOIN
semi-JOIN (using EXISTS or IN)
anti-JOIN (using NOT EXISTS or NOT IN)
filtering
grouping by many many columns
DISTINCT + GROUP BY (this will certainly break your ordering)
UNION or UNION ALL (which defeats this argument anyway)
I bet you haven't. And even if you tried all of the above, can you be sure there isn't a very peculiar configuration where the above breaks, just because you've observed the behaviour in some (many) experiments?
You cannot.
MS Access specific behaviour
As far as MS Access is concerned, consider the documentation on ORDER BY
Remarks
ORDER BY is optional. However, if you want your data displayed in sorted order, then you must use ORDER BY.
Notice the wording. "You must use ORDER BY". So, MS Acces is no different from other databases.
The answer
So your question about performance is going in the wrong direction. You cannot sacrifice correctness for performance in this case. Better tackle performance by using indexes.
Here is the MSDN documentation for the GROUP BY clause in Access SQL:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb177905(v=office.12).aspx
The page makes no reference to any implied or automatic ordering of results - if you do see desired ordering without an explicit ORDER BY then it is entirely coincidental.
The only way to guarantee the particular ordering of results in SQL is with ORDER BY.
There is a slight performance problem with using ORDER BY (in general) in that it requires the DBMS to get all of the results first before it outputs the first row of results (though the DBMS is free to use an "online sort" algorithm that sorts data as it gets each row from its backing store, it still needs to get the last row from the backing store before it can return the first row to the client (in case the last row from the backing-store happens to be the 1st result according to the ORDER BY) - however unless you're querying tens of thousands of rows in a latency-sensitive application this is not a problem - and as you're using Access already it's very clear that this is not a performance-sensitive application.
Related
Suppose, if following rows are inserted in chronological order into a table:
row1, row2, row3, row4, ..., row1000, row1001.
After a while, we delete/remove the latest row1001.
As in this post: How to get Top 5 records in SqLite?
If the below command is run:
SELECT * FROM <table> LIMIT 1;
Will it assuredly provide the "row1000"?
If no, then is there any efficient way to get the latest row(s)
without traversing through all the rows? -- i.e. without using
combination of ORDER BY and DESC.
[Note: For now I am using "SQLite", but it will be interesting for me to know about SQL in general as well.]
You're misunderstanding how SQL works. You're thinking row-by-row which is wrong. SQL does not "traverse rows" as per your concern; it operates on data as "sets".
Others have pointed out that relational database cannot be assumed to have any particular ordering, so you must use ORDER BY to explicitly specify ordering.
However (not mentioned yet is that), in order to ensure it performs efficiently, you need to create an appropriate index.
Whether you have an index or not, the correct query is:
SELECT <cols>
FROM <table>
ORDER BY <sort-cols> [DESC] LIMIT <no-rows>
Note that if you don't have an index the database will load all data and probably sort in memory to find the TOP n.
If you do have the appropriate index, the database will use the best index available to retrieve the TOP n rows as efficiently as possible.
Note that the sqllite documentation is very clear on the matter. The section on ORDER BY explains that ordering is undefined. And nothing in the section on LIMIT contradicts this (it simply constrains the number of rows returned).
If a SELECT statement that returns more than one row does not have an ORDER BY clause, the order in which the rows are returned is undefined.
This behaviour is also consistent with the ANSI standard and all major SQL implementations. Note that any database vendor that guaranteed any kind of ordering would have to sacrifice performance to the detriment of queries trying to retrieve data but not caring about order. (Not good for business.)
As a side note, flawed assumptions about ordering is an easy mistake to make (similar to flawed assumptions about uninitialised local variables).
RDBMS implementations are very likely to make ordering appear consistent. They follow a certain algorithm for adding data, a certain algorithm for retrieving data. And as a result, their operations are highly repeatable (it's what we love (and hate) about computers). So things repeatably look the same.
Theoretical examples:
Inserting a row results in the row being added to the next available free space. So data appears sequential. But an update would have to move the row to a new location if it no longer fits.
The DB engine might retrieve data sequentially from clustered index pages and seem to use clustered index as the 'natural ordering' ... until one day a page-split puts one of the pages in a different location. * Or a new version of the DMBS might cache certain data for performance, and suddenly order changes.
Real-world example:
The MS SQL Server 6.5 implementation of GROUP BY had the side-effect of also sorting by the group-by columns. When MS (in version 7 or 2000) implemented some performance improvements, GROUP BY would by default, return data in a hashed order. Many people blamed MS for breaking their queries when in fact they had made false assumptions and failed to ORDER BY their results as needed.
This is why the only guarantee of a specific ordering is to use the ORDER BY clause.
No. Table records have no inherent order. So it is undefined which row(s) to get with a LIMIT clause without an ORDER BY.
SQLite in its current implemantation may return the latest inserted row, but even if that were the case you must not rely on it.
Give a table a datetime column or some sortkey, if record order is important for you.
In SQL, data is stored in tables unordered. What comes out first one day might not be the same the next.
ORDER BY, or some other specific selection criteria is required to guarantee the correct value.
Is the result of GROUP BY should be sorted accordingly the SQL standard?
Many databases return the sorted results for GROUP BY,
but is it enforced by SQL92 or other standard?
No. GROUP BY has no standard impact on the order of rows returned. That's what ORDER BY is designed to do.
If you're getting some kind of repeatable or predictable sort order returned by a GROUP BY, it's something being done in your DBMS that is not defined in the standards.
As a previous answer has explained, no sorting is ever implied by any basic SQL construct other than ORDER BY.
However, to compute GROUP BY, either index scan or in-memory sorting may take place (to create the buckets), and such an index scan, or sorting, implies a traversal of the data in a sorted order. So it is no accident that a particular database often behaves like this. Do not rely on it, however, because with a different set of indexes, or even just a different query plan (which may be triggered as little as by a few inserts and/or a restart of your database server) the behavior could be quite different.
Notice also that reordering the column list in the ORDER BY clause will result in reliably reordering the output, whereas reordering the column list in a GROUP BY clause will likely have no effect whatsoever.
There is no performance cost of using a seemingly "redundant" ORDER BY. The query plan will likely be identical, if the original one already guaranteed sorted output.
Um, sorting the output of a GROUP BY is not in the standard because there are standard algorithms for grouping that do not produce results in order.
The most common of these is the use of a hash table for doing the group by.
In addition, on a multithreaded server, the data could be sorted, but the results would be returned processor-by-processor. There is no guarantee that the lowest order processor would be the first to return data.
And also, on a parallel machine, the data may be split among the processors using a variety of methods. For instance, all strings that end in "a" may go to one processor. All that end in "b" to another. These could then be sorted locally, but the results themselves would not be sorted overall.
Databases such as mysql that guarantee a sort after the group by are making a poor design decision. In addition to not conforming to the standard, such databases either limit the choice of algorithm or impose additional processing for ordering.
I have view for which it only makes sense to use a certain ordering. What I would like to do is to include the ORDER BY clause in the view, so that all SELECTs on that view can omit it. However, I am concerned that the ordering may not necessarily carry over to the SELECT, because it didn't specify the order.
Does there exist a case where an ordering specified by a view would not be reflected in the results of a select on that view (other than an order by clause in the view)?
You can't count on the order of rows in any query that doesn't have an explicit ORDER BY clause. If you query an ordered view, but you don't include an ORDER BY clause, be pleasantly surprised if they're in the right order, and don't expect it to happen again.
That's because the query optimizer is free to access rows in different ways depending on the query, table statistics, row counts, indexes, and so on. If it knows your query doesn't have an ORDER BY clause, it's free to ignore row order in order (cough) to return rows more quickly.
Slightly off-topic . . .
Sort order isn't necessarily identical across platforms even for well-known collations. I understand that sorting UTF-8 on Mac OS X is particularly odd. (PostgreSQL developers call it broken.) PostgreSQL relies on strcoll(), which I understand relies on the OS locales.
It's not clear to me how PostgreSQL 9.1 will handle this. In 9.1, you can have multiple indexes, each with a different collation. An ORDER BY that doesn't specify a collation will usually use the collation of the underlying base table's columns, but what will the optimizer do with an index that specifies a different collation than an unindexed column in the base table?
Couldn't see how to reply further up. Just adding my reply here.
You can rely on the ordering in every case where you could rely on it if you manually wrote the query.
That's because PostgreSQL rewrites your query merging in the view.
CREATE VIEW v AS SELECT * FROM people ORDER BY surname;
-- next two are identical
SELECT * FROM v WHERE forename='Fred';
SELECT * FROM people WHERE forename='Fred' ORDER BY surname;
However, if you use the view as a sub-query then the sorting might not remain, just as the output order from a sub-query is never maintained.
So - am I saying to rely on this? No, probably better all round to specify your desired sort order in the application. You'll need to do it for every other query anyway. If it's a utility view for DBA use, that's a different matter though - I have plenty of utility views that provide sorted output.
While observations have so far been true for the following, this answer is not definitive by any means. #Catcall and I, both, could not find anything definitive in the documentation and I have to admit, I'm too lazy to wade through and make sense of the source code.
But for observations sake, consider the following:
SELECT * FROM (select * from foo order by bar) foobar;
The query should return ordered.
SELECT * FROM vw_foo; -- where vw_foo is the sub-select above
The query should return ordered.
SELECT * FROM vw_foo LEFT JOIN (select * from bar) bar ON vw_foo.id = bar.id;
The query should use it's own discretion and may return unordered.
Disclaimer:
Much like #Catcall said, you should never truly depend on any implicit sorting, as many times it will be left up to the database engine. Databases are designed for quickness and reliability; they often interface with memory and try to pull/push data as quickly as possible. However, the ordering isn't solely based on memory management, there are several factors that are involved.
Unless you have something specific in mind, you should do your sorting at the end (on the outer query).
If the above observation was true, something like the following should always turn the results in the correct order:
SELECT *
FORM (select trunc(random()*999999+1) as i
from generate_series(1,1000000)
order by i
) foo;
The simple process would be: perform preprocessing and perform query identification (identify that an order exists), start loop, fetch first field (generate random number), add to output stack in sorted order. The ordering may also occur at the end of the stack generation, instead of during (eg compile the list and then do the sorting). This depends on versioning and the query.
Maybe someone can explain this to me, but when querying a data table from Oracle, where multiple records exist for a key (say a customer ID), the record that appears first for that customer can vary if there is no implicit "order by" statement enforcing the order by say an alternate field such as a transaction type. So running the same query on the same table could yield a different record ordering than from 10 minutes ago.
E.g., one run could yield:
Cust_ID, Transaction_Type
123 A
123 B
Unless an "order by Transaction_Type" clause is used, Oracle could arbitrarily return the following result the next time the query is run:
Cust_ID, Transaction_Type
123 B
123 A
I guess I was under the impression that there was a database default ordering of rows in Oracle which (perhaps) reflected the physical ordering on the disk medium. In other words, an arbitrary order that is immutable and would guarantee the same result when a query is rerun.
Does this have to do with the optimizer and how it decides where to most efficiently retrieve the data?
Of course the best practice from a programming perspective is to force whatever ordering is required, I was just a little unsettled by this behavior.
The order of rows returned to the application from a SELECT statement is COMPLETELY ARBITRARY unless otherwise specified. If you want, need, or expect rows to return in a certain order, it is the user's responsibility to specify such an order.
(Caveat: Some versions of Oracle would implicitly sort data in ascending order if certain operations were used, such as DISTINCT, UNION, MINUS, INTERSECT, or GROUP BY. However, as Oracle has implemented hash sorting, the nature of the sort of the data can vary, and lots of SQL relying on that feature broke.)
There is no default ordering, ever. If you don't specify ORDER BY, you can get the same result the first 10000 times, then it can change.
Note that this is also true even with ORDER BY for equal values. For example:
Col1 Col2
1 1
2 1
3 2
4 2
If you use ORDER BY Col2, you still don't know if row 1 or 2 will come first.
Just image the rows in a table like balls in a basket. Do the balls have an order?
I dont't think there is any DBMS that guarantees an order if ORDER BY is not specified.
Some might always return the rows in the order they were inserted, but that is an implementation side effect.
Some execution plans might cause the result set to be ordered even without an ORDER BY, but again this is an implementation side-effect that you should not rely on.
If an ORDER BY clause is not present the database (not just Oracle - any relational database) is free to return rows in whatever order it happens to find them. This will vary depending on the query plan chosen by the optimizer.
If the order in which the rows are returned matters you must use an ORDER BY clause. You may sometimes get lucky and the rows will come back in the order you want them to be even without an ORDER BY, but there is no guarantee that A) you will get lucky on other queries, and B) the order in which the rows are returned tomorrow will be the same as the order in which they're returned today.
In addition, updates to the database product may change the behavior of queries. We had to scramble a bit when doing a major version upgrade last year when we found that Oracle 10 returned GROUP BY results in a different order than did Oracle 9. Reason - no ORDER BY clause.
ORDER BY - when the order of the returned data really matters.
The simple answer is that the SQL standard says that there is no default order for queries that do not have an ORDER BY statement, so you should never assume one.
The real reason would probably relate to the hashes assigned to each row as it is pulled into the record set. There is no reason to assume consistent hashing.
if you don't use ORDER BY, the order is arbitrary; however, dependent on phisical storage and memory aspects.
so, if you repeat the same query hundreds of times in 10 minutes, you will get almost the same order everytime, because probably nothing changes.
Things that could change the "noorder order" are:
the executing plan - if is changed(you have pointed
that)
inserts and deletes on the tables involved in the query.
other things like presence in memory of the rows.(other querys on other tables could influence that)
When you get into parallel data retrieval I/O isn't it possible to get different sequences on different runs, even with no change to the stored data?
That is, in a multiprocessing environment the order of completion of parallel threads is undefined and can vary with what else is happening on the same shared processor.
As I'm new to Oracle database engine, I noticed this behavior in my SELECT statements that has no ORDER BY.
I've been using Microsoft SQL Server for years now. SQL Server Engine always will retrieve data ordered by the table's "Clustered Index" which is basically the Primary Key Index. SQL Server will always insert new data in a sequential order based on the clustered index.
So when you perform a select on a table without order by in SQL Server, it will always retrieve data ordered by primary key value.
ORDER BY can cause serious performance overhead, that's why you do not want to use it unless you are not happy with inconsistent results order.
I ended up with a conclusion that in ALL my Oracle queries I must use ORDER BY or I will end up with unpredicted order which will greatly effect my end-user reports.
Kind of a whimsical question, always something I've wondered about and I figure knowing why it does what it does might deepen my understanding a bit.
Let's say I do "SELECT TOP 10 * FROM TableName". In short timeframes, the same 10 rows come back, so it doesn't seem random. They weren't the first or last created. In my massive sample size of...one table, it isn't returning the min or max auto-incrementing primary key value.
I also figure the problem gets more complex when taking joins into account.
My database of choice is MSSQL, but I figure this might be an interesting question regardless of the platform.
If you do not supply an ORDER BY clause on a SELECT statement you will get rows back in arbitrary order.
The actual order is undefined, and depends on which blocks/records are already cached in memory, what order I/O is performed in, when threads in the database server are scheduled to run, and so on.
There's no rhyme or reason to the order and you should never base any expectations on what order rows will be in unless you supply an ORDER BY.
If they're not ordered by the calling query, I believe they're just returned in the order they were read off disk. This may vary because of the types of joins used or the indexes that looked up the values.
You can see this if the table has a clustered index on it (and you're just selecting - a JOIN can re-order things) - a SELECT will return the rows in clustered-index-order, even without an ORDER BY clause.
There is a very detailed explanation with examples here: http://sqlserverpedia.com/blog/sql-server-bloggers/its-the-natural-order-of-things-not/
"How do database servers decide which order to return rows without any “order by” statements?"
They simply do not take any "decision" with respect to ordering. They see the user doesn't care about ordering, and so they don't care either. And thus they simply go out to find the requested rows. The order in which they find them is normally the order in which you get them. That order depends on user-unpredictable things like the chosen physical access paths, ordering of physical records inside the database's physical files, etc. etc.
Don't let yourself be misled by the ordering as you get it, in the case where you didn't explicitly specify an ordering in your query. If you don't specify an ordering in your query, no ordering in the result set is guaranteed, even if in practice results seem to suggest that some ordering appears to be adhered to by the server.