Related
This question is almost exactly like mine but none of the answers work with my case.
If it was my question I'd slightly edit it to make it a different question. This question is thus different from the linked one.
Here's the problem: I want a way to match any non-null value ('%') AND null values.
The thing is:
I'm using oracle so I can't use IsNull
Some columns are NUMBERs, which means I can't use COALESCE(column, ' '). (ORA-00932: inconsistent datatypes: expected NUMBER got CHAR). However, like '%' and like '2118' do work on NUMBER columns.
None of the answers apply to this problem because you can't make a null into an empty string when the column is a NUMBER.
How could I do to achieve this?
Some context:
My procedure takes a lot of parameters, and does a select with all of them. They can all have a value or be null, so if they're null they're replaced with '%'.
That way, the procedure does :
where t.col1 like param1
and t.col2 like param2
...
Most of the times, only one or two parameters is not null. For the others parameters, the procedure needs to match on every row.
But when the value is null, like '%' doesn't match the row. I'm looking for a way to match anything when param x is empty (so paramx = '%')
My procedure takes a lot of parameters, and does a select with all of them. They can all have a value or be null, so if they're null they're replaced with '%'.
That seems like you're making life hard for yourself. Leave them null, then do:
where (param1 is null or t.col1 like param1)
and (param2 is null or t.col2 like param2)
If param1 (the procedure argument; life is simpler when your parameter/variable names and column names are different... so I've changed the column names to make it a bit clearer) is null it is basically ignored* and all rows pass that part of the filter, whether the column value is null or not null. If param2 is not null then the is null check for that fails and only rows with (not-null) column values that match param2 value meet that part of the filter.
* Conditions in an or can be evaluated in any order; putting the is null check first doesn't necessarily mean the like won't be evaluated - but the optimiser is pretty smart about that sort of thing
If you want to match a specific value and NULL, you can use OR:
where col = <specific value> or col is null
In Oracle NVL can be used instead of ISNULL
IF NVL(aNumberColumn,-1) = -1 THEN
---whatever
END IF;
Oracle automatically converts NUMBER to VARCHAR2 for like-conditions. So what you have todo is do that yourself so you can use coalesce:
COALESCE(TO_CHAR(column), ' ') like '%'
The proposals from other answers based on OR or NVL/ COALESCE are "elegant" and simple, but as a rule they inhibit the index access, which is the most important thing.
You may step down to use dynamic SQL to address the optional parameter problem - which is your case. If a parameter is not passed (it is NULL) - simple ignore it.
So for example with two parameters, if both parameters are passed, generate following SQL
select * from tab t
where t.col1 like :param1
and t.col2 like :param2
If only parameter 1 is given, generate this SQL:
select * from tab t
where t.col1 like :param1
With no parameter you will end with
select * from tab t
Technically it is preferable to have in all SQL statements the same number of bind variables, which is not the case in the above proposal. See this answer for detailed explanation of the trick popularized by Tom Kyte to preserve the number of bind variable with optional parameters.
For example the second statement with only parameter 1 would yield following SQL
select * from tab t
where t.col1 like :param1
and (1=1 or t.col2 like :param2)
The shortcut logik of 1=1(which is TRUE) eliminates the second part of the predicate, but the bind variable is still used, so the number of the bind variables remains constant.
The big advantage is a fine index range access of this query
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <conditions> in a SQL clause (Either SQL obtained through concatenated strings, either view definition)
I've seen somewhere that this would be used to protect against SQL Injection, but it seems very weird.
If there is injection WHERE 1 = 1 AND injected OR 1=1 would have the same result as injected OR 1=1.
Later edit: What about the usage in a view definition?
Thank you for your answers.
Still,
I don't understand why would someone use this construction for defining a view, or use it inside a stored procedure.
Take this for example:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1 AND table.Field=Value
If the list of conditions is not known at compile time and is instead built at run time, you don't have to worry about whether you have one or more than one condition. You can generate them all like:
and <condition>
and concatenate them all together. With the 1=1 at the start, the initial and has something to associate with.
I've never seen this used for any kind of injection protection, as you say it doesn't seem like it would help much. I have seen it used as an implementation convenience. The SQL query engine will end up ignoring the 1=1 so it should have no performance impact.
Just adding a example code to Greg's answer:
dim sqlstmt as new StringBuilder
sqlstmt.add("SELECT * FROM Products")
sqlstmt.add(" WHERE 1=1")
''// From now on you don't have to worry if you must
''// append AND or WHERE because you know the WHERE is there
If ProductCategoryID <> 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND ProductCategoryID = {0}", trim(ProductCategoryID))
end if
If MinimunPrice > 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND Price >= {0}", trim(MinimunPrice))
end if
I've seen it used when the number of conditions can be variable.
You can concatenate conditions using an " AND " string. Then, instead of counting the number of conditions you're passing in, you place a "WHERE 1=1" at the end of your stock SQL statement and throw on the concatenated conditions.
Basically, it saves you having to do a test for conditions and then add a "WHERE" string before them.
Seems like a lazy way to always know that your WHERE clause is already defined and allow you to keep adding conditions without having to check if it is the first one.
Indirectly Relevant: when 1=2 is used:
CREATE TABLE New_table_name
as
select *
FROM Old_table_name
WHERE 1 = 2;
this will create a new table with same schema as old table. (Very handy if you want to load some data for compares)
I found this pattern useful when I'm testing or double checking things on the database, so I can very quickly comment other conditions:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
AND Table.Field=Value
AND Table.IsValid=true
turns into:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
--AND Table.Field=Value
--AND Table.IsValid=true
1 = 1 expression is commonly used in generated sql code. This expression can simplify sql generating code reducing number of conditional statements.
Actually, I've seen this sort of thing used in BIRT reports. The query passed to the BIRT runtime is of the form:
select a,b,c from t where a = ?
and the '?' is replaced at runtime by an actual parameter value selected from a drop-down box. The choices in the drop-down are given by:
select distinct a from t
union all
select '*' from sysibm.sysdummy1
so that you get all possible values plus "*". If the user selects "*" from the drop down box (meaning all values of a should be selected), the query has to be modified (by Javascript) before being run.
Since the "?" is a positional parameter and MUST remain there for other things to work, the Javascript modifies the query to be:
select a,b,c from t where ((a = ?) or (1==1))
That basically removes the effect of the where clause while still leaving the positional parameter in place.
I've also seen the AND case used by lazy coders whilst dynamically creating an SQL query.
Say you have to dynamically create a query that starts with select * from t and checks:
the name is Bob; and
the salary is > $20,000
some people would add the first with a WHERE and subsequent ones with an AND thus:
select * from t where name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
Lazy programmers (and that's not necessarily a bad trait) wouldn't distinguish between the added conditions, they'd start with select * from t where 1=1 and just add AND clauses after that.
select * from t where 1=1 and name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
where 1=0, This is done to check if the table exists. Don't know why 1=1 is used.
While I can see that 1=1 would be useful for generated SQL, a technique I use in PHP is to create an array of clauses and then do
implode (" AND ", $clauses);
thus avoiding the problem of having a leading or trailing AND. Obviously this is only useful if you know that you are going to have at least one clause!
Here's a closely related example: using a SQL MERGE statement to update the target tabled using all values from the source table where there is no common attribute on which to join on e.g.
MERGE INTO Circles
USING
(
SELECT pi
FROM Constants
) AS SourceTable
ON 1 = 1
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE
SET circumference = 2 * SourceTable.pi * radius;
If you came here searching for WHERE 1, note that WHERE 1 and WHERE 1=1 are identical. WHERE 1 is used rarely because some database systems reject it considering WHERE 1 not really being boolean.
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <proper conditions>
I've seen homespun frameworks do stuff like this (blush), as this allows lazy parsing practices to be applied to both the WHERE and AND Sql keywords.
For example (I'm using C# as an example here), consider the conditional parsing of the following predicates in a Sql query string builder:
var sqlQuery = "SELECT * FROM FOOS WHERE 1 = 1"
if (shouldFilterForBars)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Bars > 3";
}
if (shouldFilterForBaz)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Baz < 12";
}
The "benefit" of WHERE 1 = 1 means that no special code is needed:
For AND - whether zero, one or both predicates (Bars and Baz's) should be applied, which would determine whether the first AND is required. Since we already have at least one predicate with the 1 = 1, it means AND is always OK.
For no predicates at all - In the case where there are ZERO predicates, then the WHERE must be dropped. But again, we can be lazy, because we are again guarantee of at least one predicate.
This is obviously a bad idea and would recommend using an established data access framework or ORM for parsing optional and conditional predicates in this way.
Having review all the answers i decided to perform some experiment like
SELECT
*
FROM MyTable
WHERE 1=1
Then i checked with other numbers
WHERE 2=2
WHERE 10=10
WHERE 99=99
ect
Having done all the checks, the query run town is the same. even without the where clause. I am not a fan of the syntax
This is useful in a case where you have to use dynamic query in which in where
clause you have to append some filter options. Like if you include options 0 for status is inactive, 1 for active. Based from the options, there is only two available options(0 and 1) but if you want to display All records, it is handy to include in where close 1=1.
See below sample:
Declare #SearchValue varchar(8)
Declare #SQLQuery varchar(max) = '
Select [FirstName]
,[LastName]
,[MiddleName]
,[BirthDate]
,Case
when [Status] = 0 then ''Inactive''
when [Status] = 1 then ''Active''
end as [Status]'
Declare #SearchOption nvarchar(100)
If (#SearchValue = 'Active')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 1'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'Inactive')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 0'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'All')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where 1=1'
End
Set #SQLQuery = #SQLQuery + #SearchOption
Exec(#SQLQuery);
Saw this in production code and asked seniors for help.
Their answer:
-We use 1=1 so when we have to add a new condition we can just type
and <condition>
and get on with it.
I do this usually when I am building dynamic SQL for a report which has many dropdown values a user can select. Since the user may or may not select the values from each dropdown, we end up getting a hard time figuring out which condition was the first where clause. So we pad up the query with a where 1=1 in the end and add all where clauses after that.
Something like
select column1, column2 from my table where 1=1 {name} {age};
Then we would build the where clause like this and pass it as a parameter value
string name_whereClause= ddlName.SelectedIndex > 0 ? "AND name ='"+ ddlName.SelectedValue+ "'" : "";
As the where clause selection are unknown to us at runtime, so this helps us a great deal in finding whether to include an 'AND' or 'WHERE'.
Making "where 1=1" the standard for all your queries also makes it trivially easy to validate the sql by replacing it with where 1 = 0, handy when you have batches of commands/files.
Also makes it trivially easy to find the end of the end of the from/join section of any query. Even queries with sub-queries if properly indented.
I first came across this back with ADO and classic asp, the answer i got was: performance.
if you do a straight
Select * from tablename
and pass that in as an sql command/text you will get a noticeable performance increase with the
Where 1=1
added, it was a visible difference. something to do with table headers being returned as soon as the first condition is met, or some other craziness, anyway, it did speed things up.
Using a predicate like 1=1 is a normal hint sometimes used to force the access plan to use or not use an index scan. The reason why this is used is when you are using a multi-nested joined query with many predicates in the where clause where sometimes even using all of the indexes causes the access plan to read each table - a full table scan. This is just 1 of many hints used by DBAs to trick a dbms into using a more efficient path. Just don't throw one in; you need a dba to analyze the query since it doesn't always work.
Here is a use case... however I am not too concerned with the technicalities of why I should or not use 1 = 1.
I am writing a function, using pyodbc to retrieve some data from SQL Server. I was looking for a way to force a filler after the where keyword in my code. This was a great suggestion indeed:
if _where == '': _where = '1=1'
...
...
...
cur.execute(f'select {predicate} from {table_name} where {_where}')
The reason is because I could not implement the keyword 'where' together inside the _where clause variable. So, I think using any dummy condition that evaluates to true would do as a filler.
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <conditions> in a SQL clause (Either SQL obtained through concatenated strings, either view definition)
I've seen somewhere that this would be used to protect against SQL Injection, but it seems very weird.
If there is injection WHERE 1 = 1 AND injected OR 1=1 would have the same result as injected OR 1=1.
Later edit: What about the usage in a view definition?
Thank you for your answers.
Still,
I don't understand why would someone use this construction for defining a view, or use it inside a stored procedure.
Take this for example:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1 AND table.Field=Value
If the list of conditions is not known at compile time and is instead built at run time, you don't have to worry about whether you have one or more than one condition. You can generate them all like:
and <condition>
and concatenate them all together. With the 1=1 at the start, the initial and has something to associate with.
I've never seen this used for any kind of injection protection, as you say it doesn't seem like it would help much. I have seen it used as an implementation convenience. The SQL query engine will end up ignoring the 1=1 so it should have no performance impact.
Just adding a example code to Greg's answer:
dim sqlstmt as new StringBuilder
sqlstmt.add("SELECT * FROM Products")
sqlstmt.add(" WHERE 1=1")
''// From now on you don't have to worry if you must
''// append AND or WHERE because you know the WHERE is there
If ProductCategoryID <> 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND ProductCategoryID = {0}", trim(ProductCategoryID))
end if
If MinimunPrice > 0 then
sqlstmt.AppendFormat(" AND Price >= {0}", trim(MinimunPrice))
end if
I've seen it used when the number of conditions can be variable.
You can concatenate conditions using an " AND " string. Then, instead of counting the number of conditions you're passing in, you place a "WHERE 1=1" at the end of your stock SQL statement and throw on the concatenated conditions.
Basically, it saves you having to do a test for conditions and then add a "WHERE" string before them.
Seems like a lazy way to always know that your WHERE clause is already defined and allow you to keep adding conditions without having to check if it is the first one.
Indirectly Relevant: when 1=2 is used:
CREATE TABLE New_table_name
as
select *
FROM Old_table_name
WHERE 1 = 2;
this will create a new table with same schema as old table. (Very handy if you want to load some data for compares)
I found this pattern useful when I'm testing or double checking things on the database, so I can very quickly comment other conditions:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
AND Table.Field=Value
AND Table.IsValid=true
turns into:
CREATE VIEW vTest AS
SELECT FROM Table WHERE 1=1
--AND Table.Field=Value
--AND Table.IsValid=true
1 = 1 expression is commonly used in generated sql code. This expression can simplify sql generating code reducing number of conditional statements.
Actually, I've seen this sort of thing used in BIRT reports. The query passed to the BIRT runtime is of the form:
select a,b,c from t where a = ?
and the '?' is replaced at runtime by an actual parameter value selected from a drop-down box. The choices in the drop-down are given by:
select distinct a from t
union all
select '*' from sysibm.sysdummy1
so that you get all possible values plus "*". If the user selects "*" from the drop down box (meaning all values of a should be selected), the query has to be modified (by Javascript) before being run.
Since the "?" is a positional parameter and MUST remain there for other things to work, the Javascript modifies the query to be:
select a,b,c from t where ((a = ?) or (1==1))
That basically removes the effect of the where clause while still leaving the positional parameter in place.
I've also seen the AND case used by lazy coders whilst dynamically creating an SQL query.
Say you have to dynamically create a query that starts with select * from t and checks:
the name is Bob; and
the salary is > $20,000
some people would add the first with a WHERE and subsequent ones with an AND thus:
select * from t where name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
Lazy programmers (and that's not necessarily a bad trait) wouldn't distinguish between the added conditions, they'd start with select * from t where 1=1 and just add AND clauses after that.
select * from t where 1=1 and name = 'Bob' and salary > 20000
where 1=0, This is done to check if the table exists. Don't know why 1=1 is used.
While I can see that 1=1 would be useful for generated SQL, a technique I use in PHP is to create an array of clauses and then do
implode (" AND ", $clauses);
thus avoiding the problem of having a leading or trailing AND. Obviously this is only useful if you know that you are going to have at least one clause!
Here's a closely related example: using a SQL MERGE statement to update the target tabled using all values from the source table where there is no common attribute on which to join on e.g.
MERGE INTO Circles
USING
(
SELECT pi
FROM Constants
) AS SourceTable
ON 1 = 1
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE
SET circumference = 2 * SourceTable.pi * radius;
If you came here searching for WHERE 1, note that WHERE 1 and WHERE 1=1 are identical. WHERE 1 is used rarely because some database systems reject it considering WHERE 1 not really being boolean.
Why would someone use WHERE 1=1 AND <proper conditions>
I've seen homespun frameworks do stuff like this (blush), as this allows lazy parsing practices to be applied to both the WHERE and AND Sql keywords.
For example (I'm using C# as an example here), consider the conditional parsing of the following predicates in a Sql query string builder:
var sqlQuery = "SELECT * FROM FOOS WHERE 1 = 1"
if (shouldFilterForBars)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Bars > 3";
}
if (shouldFilterForBaz)
{
sqlQuery = sqlQuery + " AND Baz < 12";
}
The "benefit" of WHERE 1 = 1 means that no special code is needed:
For AND - whether zero, one or both predicates (Bars and Baz's) should be applied, which would determine whether the first AND is required. Since we already have at least one predicate with the 1 = 1, it means AND is always OK.
For no predicates at all - In the case where there are ZERO predicates, then the WHERE must be dropped. But again, we can be lazy, because we are again guarantee of at least one predicate.
This is obviously a bad idea and would recommend using an established data access framework or ORM for parsing optional and conditional predicates in this way.
Having review all the answers i decided to perform some experiment like
SELECT
*
FROM MyTable
WHERE 1=1
Then i checked with other numbers
WHERE 2=2
WHERE 10=10
WHERE 99=99
ect
Having done all the checks, the query run town is the same. even without the where clause. I am not a fan of the syntax
This is useful in a case where you have to use dynamic query in which in where
clause you have to append some filter options. Like if you include options 0 for status is inactive, 1 for active. Based from the options, there is only two available options(0 and 1) but if you want to display All records, it is handy to include in where close 1=1.
See below sample:
Declare #SearchValue varchar(8)
Declare #SQLQuery varchar(max) = '
Select [FirstName]
,[LastName]
,[MiddleName]
,[BirthDate]
,Case
when [Status] = 0 then ''Inactive''
when [Status] = 1 then ''Active''
end as [Status]'
Declare #SearchOption nvarchar(100)
If (#SearchValue = 'Active')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 1'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'Inactive')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where a.[Status] = 0'
End
If (#SearchValue = 'All')
Begin
Set #SearchOption = ' Where 1=1'
End
Set #SQLQuery = #SQLQuery + #SearchOption
Exec(#SQLQuery);
Saw this in production code and asked seniors for help.
Their answer:
-We use 1=1 so when we have to add a new condition we can just type
and <condition>
and get on with it.
I do this usually when I am building dynamic SQL for a report which has many dropdown values a user can select. Since the user may or may not select the values from each dropdown, we end up getting a hard time figuring out which condition was the first where clause. So we pad up the query with a where 1=1 in the end and add all where clauses after that.
Something like
select column1, column2 from my table where 1=1 {name} {age};
Then we would build the where clause like this and pass it as a parameter value
string name_whereClause= ddlName.SelectedIndex > 0 ? "AND name ='"+ ddlName.SelectedValue+ "'" : "";
As the where clause selection are unknown to us at runtime, so this helps us a great deal in finding whether to include an 'AND' or 'WHERE'.
Making "where 1=1" the standard for all your queries also makes it trivially easy to validate the sql by replacing it with where 1 = 0, handy when you have batches of commands/files.
Also makes it trivially easy to find the end of the end of the from/join section of any query. Even queries with sub-queries if properly indented.
I first came across this back with ADO and classic asp, the answer i got was: performance.
if you do a straight
Select * from tablename
and pass that in as an sql command/text you will get a noticeable performance increase with the
Where 1=1
added, it was a visible difference. something to do with table headers being returned as soon as the first condition is met, or some other craziness, anyway, it did speed things up.
Using a predicate like 1=1 is a normal hint sometimes used to force the access plan to use or not use an index scan. The reason why this is used is when you are using a multi-nested joined query with many predicates in the where clause where sometimes even using all of the indexes causes the access plan to read each table - a full table scan. This is just 1 of many hints used by DBAs to trick a dbms into using a more efficient path. Just don't throw one in; you need a dba to analyze the query since it doesn't always work.
Here is a use case... however I am not too concerned with the technicalities of why I should or not use 1 = 1.
I am writing a function, using pyodbc to retrieve some data from SQL Server. I was looking for a way to force a filler after the where keyword in my code. This was a great suggestion indeed:
if _where == '': _where = '1=1'
...
...
...
cur.execute(f'select {predicate} from {table_name} where {_where}')
The reason is because I could not implement the keyword 'where' together inside the _where clause variable. So, I think using any dummy condition that evaluates to true would do as a filler.
I need to match on a partial string but can't turn full-text indexing on so can't use contains. I've looked at Levenstein's function for determining the distance between two strings but I'm not looking for fuzzy matching but that every character in the column exists in the string.
I.e. If the string being passed is something like AB_SYS_20120430.TXT I want to match on any columns containing AB_SYS. The like predicate isn't getting me there. I really need the equivalent of the .NET contains feature but as mentioned turning on full text indexing isn't an option to be turned on. Thought I would see if there were any other possible work arounds.
Are you looking for the LIKE function?
http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_like.asp
... WHERE MyColumn LIKE '%AB_SYS%'
That may not be optimal, but it seems like it answers your question... If you can search from only the left or right side that could further optimize.
That is functionally similar to String.Contains
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dy85x1sa.aspx
EDIT: How will you parse the input text into the "relevant" substring?
EDIT: To search the same LIKE condition but reverse, from your partial column to the complete literal, simply append the wildcard characters:
... WHERE 'AB_SYS_20120430.TXT' LIKE '%' + MyColumn + '%'
EDIT: You have suggested that you can't get it to work. If you add the schema do your question then I can help you further but consider this:
You have a table called MyTable
In that table there is a column called MyColumn
Some rows in that table have the data 'AB_SYS' in MyColumn
Given the parameter 'AB_SYS_20120430.TXT' you want to return all matching rows
CREATE PROCEDURE MyTestProcedure
#pFullNameString nvarchar(4000) = '' -- parameter passed in, like AB_SYS_20120430.TXT
AS
BEGIN
SELECT
*
FROM
MyTable
WHERE
#pFullNameString LIKE '%' + MyTable.[MyColumn] + '%'
END
GO
You could use CHARINDEX
WHERE CHARINDEX(StringToCheckFor, StringToCheckIn) > 0
I have a table with 10 columns as col_1,col_2,.... col_10. I want to write a select statement that will select a value of one of the row and from one of these 10 columns. I have a variable that will decide which column to select from. Can such query be written where the column name is dynamically decided from a variable.
Yes, using a CASE statement:
SELECT CASE #MyVariable
WHEN 1 THEN [Col_1]
WHEN 2 THEN [Col_2]
...
WHEN 10 THEN [Col_10]
END
Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely. You should use better names than Col_1, Col_2, etc.
You could also use a string substitution method, as suggested by others. However, that is an option of last resort because it can open up your code to sql injection attacks.
Sounds like a bad, denormalized design to me.
I think a better one would have the table as parent, with rows that contain a foreign key to a separate child table that contains ten rows, one for each of those columns you have now. Let the parent table set the foreign key according to that magic value when the row is inserted or updated in the parent table.
If the child table is fairly static, this will work.
Since I don't have enough details, I can't give code. Instead, I'll explain.
Declare a string variable, something like:
declare #sql varchar(5000)
Set that variable to be the completed SQL string you want (as a string, and not actually querying... so you embed the row-name you want using string concatenation).
Then call: exec(#sql)
All set.
I assume you are running purely within Transact-SQL. What you'll need to do is dynamically create the SQL statement with your variable as the column name and use the EXECUTE command to run it. For example:
EXECUTE('select ' + #myColumn + ' from MyTable')
You can do it with a T-SQl CASE statement:
SELECT 'The result' =
CASE
WHEN choice = 1 THEN col1
WHEN choice = 2 THEN col2
...
END
FROM sometable
IMHO, Joel Coehoorn's case statement is probably the best idea
... but if you really have to use dynamic SQL, you can do it with sp_executeSQL()
I have no idea what platform you are using but you can use Dynamic LINQ pretty easily to do this.
var query = context.Table
.Where( t => t.Id == row_id )
.Select( "Col_" + column_id );
IEnumerator enumerator = query.GetEnumerator();
enumerator.MoveNext();
object columnValue = enumerator.Current;
Presumably, you'll know which actual type to cast this to depending on the column. The nice thing about this is you get the parameterized query for free, protecting you against SQL injection attacks.
This isn't something you should ever need to do if your database is correctly designed. I'd revisit the design of that element of the schema to remove the need to do this.