I've a scenrio which process many data in Oracle database. In some cases, the variable Sec_email will contain many values and in some cases Sec_email will contain null or ' '.
so can please any one tell me how to write a query for this?
I tried with
(C.SECONDARY_EMAIL IN ('?,?') OR '' = '' )
where C is the Client table.
When I use this i get the count as 0.
You can perform a not null check before the IN comparison like
Sec_email is not null and C.SECONDARY_EMAIL IN (...
One obvious problem is that Oracle (by default) treats empty strings as NULL. So: '' = '' is the same as NULL = NULL, which is never true.
Arrgh.
In any case, you are probably constructing the query, so use is null instead:
(C.SECONDARY_EMAIL IN ('?,?') OR '' IS NULL
I think the real problem, though, is the first comparison. The IN list has one element with a constant, not two (but perhaps that is your intention). If you want to put a variable number of values for comparison, one method uses regular expressions. For instance:
C.SECONDARY_EMAIL REGEXP_LIKE '^val1|val2|val3$' or '' IS NULL
If you would like to get a list of values when some of them is null you should use:
("some other conditions" OR C.SECONDARY_EMAIL IS NULL)
The question is if it is not null and not ' ' value what you are expecting, if it should be some king of
pattern you should use regular expression:
regexp_like(C.SECONDARY_EMAIL, '^(.+?[,]+?)+$')
Also, if you have a few conditions in where clause use should use brackets to group you conditions null check and another one.
All conditions i this case will be divided by OR.
(C.SECONDARY_EMAIL IS NULL OR regexp_like(C.SECONDARY_EMAIL, '^(.+?[,]+?)+$'))
or
(C.SECONDARY_EMAIL IS NULL OR regexp_like(C.SECONDARY_EMAIL, '^(.+?[,]+?)+$')
OR C.SECONDARY_EMAIL = ' ')
Related
I have table, in which a column has empty fields.when i try to run simple query like below it is not
returning the data.
select * from table1 where "colunm1" = ''
But below two queries returns data
1,
select * from table1
where coalesce("colunm1", '') = ''
2,
select * from table1
where "colunm1" is null
Can someone tell me the reason?
TIA
You have describe the behavior of a column that is NULL. NULL is not the same as an empty string.
It fails any equality comparison. However, you can use is null or (less preferentially) coalesce().
The only database that treats an empty string like a NULL value, is Oracle.
Logically, for a DBMS, that would be wrong.
Relational DBMSs are all about :
set theory
Boolean algebra
A NULL value is a value that we don't know. A string literal of '' is a string whose value we know. It is a string with no characters, with a length of 0. We don't know of a NULL as a string how long it is, how many and, if any, which, characters it contains.
So it is only logical that:
the comparison '' = '' will evaluate to TRUE
the comparison NULL = NULL will evaluate to FALSE , as any comparison with a NULL value will evaluate to FALSE.
And functions like COALESCE() or NVL(), IFNULL(), ISNULL() will return the first parameter if it does not contain a NULL value. That is consistent.
Except in Oracle
I have a query that needs to exclude both Null and Blank Values, but for some reason I can't work out this simple logic in my head.
Currently, my code looks like this:
WHERE [Imported] = 0 AND ([Value] IS NOT NULL **OR** [Value] != '')
However, should my code look like this to exclude both condition:
WHERE [Imported] = 0 AND ([Value] IS NOT NULL **AND** [Value] != '')
For some reason I just can't sort this in my head properly. To me it seems like both would work.
In your question you wrote the following:
have a query that needs to exclude both Null and Blank Values
So you have answered yourself, the AND query is the right query:
WHERE [Imported] = 0 AND ([Value] IS NOT NULL AND [Value] != '')
Here is an extract from the ANSI SQL Draft 2003 that I borrowed from this question:
6.3.3.3 Rule evaluation order
[...]
Where the precedence is not determined by the Formats or by
parentheses, effective evaluation of expressions is generally
performed from left to right. However, it is
implementation-dependent whether expressions are actually evaluated left to right, particularly when operands or operators might
cause conditions to be raised or if the results of the expressions
can be determined without completely evaluating all parts of the
expression.
You don't specify what kind of database system you are using but the concept of short-circuit evaluation which is explained in the previous paragraph applies to all major SQL versions (T-SQL, PL/SQL etc...)
Short-circuit evaluation means that once an expression has been successfully evaluated it will immediately exit the condition and stop evaluating the other expressions, applied to your question:
If value is null you want to exit the condition, that's why it should be the first expression (from left to right) but if it isn't null it should also not be empty, so it has to be NOT NULL and NOT EMPTY.
This case is a bit tricky because you cannot have a non empty string that is also null so the OR condition will also work but you will do an extra evaluation because short-circuit evaluation will never exit in the first expression:
Value is null but we would always need to check that value is also not an empty string (value is null or value is not an empty string).
In this second case, you may get an exception because the expression [Value] != '' may be checked on a null object.
So I think AND is the right answer. Hope it helps.
If the value was numeric and you didn't want either 1 or 2, you would write that condition as
... WHERE value != 1 AND value != 2
An OR would always be true in this case. For instance a value of 1 would return true for the check against 2 - and then the OR-check would return true, as at least one of the conditions evaluated to true.
When yu also want to check against null values, the situation is a bit more complicated. A check against a null value always fails: value != '' is false when value is null. That is why there is a special IS NULL or IS NOT NULL test.
In NAME table FIRST column is having null but no rows are selected. Please help me to understand.
SELECT * FROM NAME WHERE FIRST != '1'
Any comparison with null is false - = and <>, >, <, and so on. You cannot use null in an IN list as well - it would be ignored. Moreover, two nulls are not even equal to each other.
To get the nulls, you need to ask for them explicitly, like this:
SELECT * FROM NAME WHERE FIRST IS NULL OR FIRST != '1'
Any comparison to NULL returns NULL, which is equivalent to FALSE. This is true eve of not-equals.
If you want to include NULL values, do one of the following:
where first <> '1' or first is null
or
where coalesce(first, '<null>') <> '1'
In Oracle, null is not considered a legal value to select unless you explicitly ask for it:
select * from name where (first != '1') or first is null
You could also use NVL (similar to coalesce):
select * from name where nvl(first,'0') != '1'
That is correct because NULL can never be compared with anything else....
The only option that you have is to include a NULL check as an or in the command
SELECT * FROM NAME WHERE FIRST!=1 OR FIRST IS NULL
According to Oracle Documentation NULL is defined as a value not knownm or when the value is not meaningful. That is solely the reason why Oracle mentions not consider a value of ZERO as NULL. This is just an FYI, an addon. Thanks!
NULL is dumb. Period.
NULL is evil.
If X is NULL and Y is NULL, then X does in fact equal Y because they are both NULL.
It's also a PITA that I can't say
IF X IN ('a','B','C', null)
Because this condition happens. But now I have to say
IF ( X IN ('a','B','C') or X is NULL )
which is a waste of time and a risk of error if I forget the parentheses.
What irks me further is that NULL shouldn't happen in the first place. Fields (er... ok kids, I'll call them Columns) should always be initialized. Period. Stop the nulls. Don't allow them. Default values should always be zeroes or blanks so that those folks that are too lazy to initialize columns in their software will have them initialized for them automatically.
There are many instances where a failure to define default values of zeroes and blanks makes life more difficult than it has to be.
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...