Accidently I noticed a bug-like behaviour in SSMS. I was querying from a table named Candidate with the below query.
select CandidateId, CandidateName from Candidate
where CandidateId='73415005-77C6-4D4B-9947-02D6B148E03F2'
I was copy-pasting the CandidateId which is a unique identifier, but somehow I added a two (2) in the end. Actually the candidate id I was querying to was '73415005-77C6-4D4B-9947-02D6B148E03F' and there is no candidate with candidateid 73415005-77C6-4D4B-9947-02D6B148E03F2 (that is not even a GUID i suppose)
But still, I was getting the result back.
You can see in the query and the result, the CandidateId's are different. Why is it happening so? Anyone please explain.
The top-level description is that the string is being converted to a unique identifier, so the last digit is ignored.
This logic is documented. First, unique identifiers have a slightly higher operator precedence than strings. The relevant part of the documentation:
uniqueidentifier
nvarchar (including nvarchar(max) )
nchar
varchar (including varchar(max) )
char
This is why the conversion is to uniqueidentifier rather than to a string.
Second, this is a case where SQL Server does "silent conversion". That is, it converts the first 36 characters and doesn't generate an error for longer strings. This is also documented:
The following example demonstrates the truncation of data when the
value is too long for the data type being converted to. Because the
uniqueidentifier type is limited to 36 characters, the characters that
exceed that length are truncated.
So, the behavior that you see is not a bug. It is documented behavior, combining two different aspects of documented SQL Server functionality.
Because your column CandidateId is of type GUID the right (string) part of the condition gets converted to uniqueidentifier data type and truncated. You can see this in your execution plan. There will be a Scalar Operator(CONVERT_IMPLICIT(uniqueidentifier,[#1],0)) in your index seek/scan operator.
That's because you probably have a convert_implicit in your execution plan and SQL converted '73415005-77C6-4D4B-9947-02D6B148E03F2' into a guid.
SQL Truncate data when the value is too long for the data type being converted to.
Since you try to compare uniqueidentifier field with text variable, SQL convert it to uniqueidentifier. It is not a bug.
Ex:
select Cast('73415005-77C6-4D4B-9947-02D6B148E03F2' as uniqueidentifier)
Result :
73415005-77C6-4D4B-9947-02D6B148E03F
Related
I am having to create a second header line and am using the first record of the Query to do this. I am using a UNION All to create this header record and the second part of the UNION to extract the Data required.
I have one issue on one column.
,'Active Energy kWh'
UNION ALL
,SUM(cast(invc.UNITS as Decimal (15,0)))
Each side are 11 lines before and after the Union and I have tried all sorts of combinations but it always results in an error message.
The above gives me "Error converting data type varchar to numeric."
Any help would be much appreciated.
The error message indicates that one of your values in the INVC table UNITS column is non-numeric. I would hazard a guess that it's either a string (VARCHAR or similar) column or something else - and one of the values has ended up in a state where it cannot be parsed.
Unfortunately there is no way other than checking small ranges of the table to gradually locate the 'bad' row (i.e. Try running the query for a few million rows at a time, then reducing the number until you home in on the bad data). SQL 2014 if you can get a database restored to it has the TRY_CONVERT function which will permit conversions to fail, enabling a more direct check - but you'll need to play with this on another system
(I'm assuming that an upgrade to 2014 for this feature is out of the question - your best bet is likely just looking for the bad row).
The problem is that you are trying to mix header information with data information in a single query.
Obviously, all your header columns will be strings. But not all your data columns will be strings, and SQL Server is unhappy when you mix data types this way.
What you are doing is equivalent to this:
select 'header1' as col1 -- string
union all
select 123.5 -- decimal
The above query produces the following error:
Error converting data type varchar to numeric.
...which makes sense, because you are trying to mix both a string (the header) with a decimal field.
So you have 2 options:
Remove the header columns from your query, and deal with header information outside your query.
Accept the fact that you'll need to convert the data type of every column to a string type. So when you have numeric data, you'll need to cast the column to varchar(n) explicitly.
In your case, it would mean adding the cast like this:
,'Active Energy kWh'
UNION ALL
,CAST(SUM(cast(invc.UNITS as Decimal (15,0))) AS VARCHAR(50)) -- Change 50 to appropriate value for your case
EDIT: Based on comment feedback, changed the cast to varchar to have an explicit length (varchar(n)) to avoid relying on the default length, which may or may not be long enough. OP knows the data, so OP needs to pick the right length.
I am joining a field that has single digit numbers formatted with a leading 0 to another that does not have leading 0's. When I realized this I tested my query out only to find that it was actually working perfectly. Then I realized what I'd done... I had joined an nvarchar field to an int field. I would have thought sql would have given me an error for this but apparently it converts the character field to an int field for me.
I realize this is probably not a good practice and I plan to explicitly cast it myself now, but I'm just curious if there are rules for how SQL decides which field to cast in these situations. What's to keep it from casting the int field to a character type instead (in which case my query would no longer work properly)?
There are rules indeed.
CAST and CONVERT (Transact-SQL) to learn what can be converted to what ("Implicit Conversions" section).
Data Type Precedence (Transact-SQL) to learn what will be converted to what unless specifically asked.
I need to store Medicare APC codes. I believe the format requires 4 numbers. Leading zeros are relevant. Is there any way to store this data type with verification? How should I store this data (varchar(4), int)?
This kind of issue, storing zero leading numbers that need to be treated as Numeric values on some scenarios (i.e. sorting) and as textual values in others (i.e. addresses) is always a pain and there is no one answer that is best for all users. At my company we have a database that stores numbers as text for codes (not Medicare APC codes) and we must pad them with zero’s so they will sort properly when used in an order operation.
Do not use a numeric data type for this because the item is not a true number but textual data that uses numeric characters. You will not be performing any calculations or aggregates on the codes and so the only benefit to storing them as a number would be to ensure proper sorting of the codes and that can be done with the code stored as text by padding it with zeros where needed. If you sue a numeric data type then any time the code is combined with other textual values you will have to explicitly convert it to CHAR/VARCHAR or let SQL Server do it since implicit conversions should always be avoided that means a lot of extra work for you and the query processor any time the code is used.
Assuming you decide to go with a textual data type the question then is should you use VARCHAR or CHAR and while many who have posted say VARCHAR I would suggest you go with CHAR set to a length of 4. WHY?
The VARCHAR data type is for textual data in which the size (the length or number of characters) is unknown in advance. For this Medicare code we know the length will always be at least 4 and possibly no more than 4 for the foreseeable future. SQL Server handles the storage of the data differently between CHAR and VARCHAR. SQL Server’s BOL (Books On Line) says :
Use CHAR when the size of the column data entries are consistent
Use VARCHAR when the size of the column data varies considerably.
I can’t say for certain this is true for SQL Server 2008 and up but for earlier versions, the use of a VARCHAR data type carries an extra overhead of 1 byte per row of data per column in a table that has a VARCHAR data type. If the data stored is always the same size and in your scenario it sounds like it is then this extra byte is a waste.
In the end it’s up to you as to whether you like CHAR or VARCHAR better but definitely don’t use a numeric data type to store a fixed length code.
That's not numeric data; it's textual data that happens to contain digits.
Use a VARCHAR.
I agree, using
CHAR(4)
for the check constraint use
check( APC_ODE LIKE '[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]' )
This will force a 4 digit number only to be accepted...
varchar(4)
optionally, you can still add a check constraint to ensure the data is numeric with leading zeros. This example will throw exceptions in Oracle. In other RDBMS, you could use regular expression checks:
alter table X add constraint C
check (cast(APC_CODE as int) = cast(APC_CODE as int))
If you are certain that the APC codes will always be numeric (that is if it wouldn't change in the near future), a better way would be to leave the database column as is, and handle the formatting (to include leading zeros) at places where you use this field values.
If you need leading 0s, then you must use a varchar or other string data type.
There are ways to format the output for leading 0s without compromising your actual data.
See this blog entry for an easy method.
CHAR(4) seems more appropriate to me (if I understood you right, and the code is always 4 digits).
What you want to use is a VARCHAR data type with a CHECK constraint, using LIKE with a pattern to check for numeric values.
in TSQL
check( isnumeric(APC_ODE) = 1)
I have a simple select statement like this:
SELECT [dok__Dokument].[dok_Id],
[dok__Dokument].[dok_WartUsNetto],
[dok__Dokument].[dok_WartUsBrutto],
[dok__Dokument].[dok_WartTwNetto],
[dok__Dokument].[dok_WartTwBrutto],
[dok__Dokument].[dok_WartNetto],
[dok__Dokument].[dok_WartVat],
[dok__Dokument].[dok_WartBrutto],
[dok__Dokument].[dok_KwWartosc]
FROM [dok__Dokument]
WHERE [dok_NrPelnyOryg] = 2753
AND [dok_PlatnikId] = 174
AND [dok_OdbiorcaId] = 174
AND [dok_PlatnikAdreshId] = 625
AND [dok_OdbiorcaAdreshId] = 624
Column dok_NrPelnyOryg is of type varchar(30), and not null.
The table contained both integer and string values in this column and this select statement was fired millions of times.
However recently this started crashing with message:
Conversion failed when converting the varchar value 'garbi czerwiec B' to data type int.
Little explanation: the table contains multiple "document" records and the mentioned column contains document original number (which comes from multiple different sources).
I know I can fix this by adding '' around the the number, but I'm rather looking for an explanation why this used to work and while not changing anything now it crashes.
It's possible that a plan change (due to changed statistics, recompile etc) led to this data being evaluated earlier (full scan for example), or that this particular data was not in the table previously (maybe before this started happening, there wasn't bad data in there). If it is supposed to be a number, then make it a numeric column. If it needs to allow strings as well, then stop treating it like a number. If you properly parameterize your statements and always pass a varchar you shouldn't need to worry about whether the value is enclosed in single quotes.
All those equality comparison operations are subject to the Data Type Precedence rules of SQL Server:
When an operator combines two
expressions of different data types,
the rules for data type precedence
specify that the data type with the
lower precedence is converted to the
data type with the higher precedence.
Since character types have lower precedence than int types, the query is basically the same as:
SELECT ...
FROM [dok__Dokument]
WHERE cast([dok_NrPelnyOryg] as int) = 2753
...
This has two effects:
it makes all indexes on columns involved in the WHERE clause useless
it can cause conversion errors.
You're not the first to have this problem, in fact several CSS cases I faced had me eventually write an article about this: On SQL Server boolean operator short-circuit.
The correct solution to your problem is that if the field value is numeric then the column type should be numeric. since you say that the data come from a 3rd party application you cannot change, the best solution is to abandon the vendor of this application and pick one that knows what is doing. Short of that, you need to search for character types on character columns:
SELECT ...
FROM [dok__Dokument]
WHERE [dok_NrPelnyOryg] = '2753'
...
In .Net managed ADO.Net parlance this means you use a SqlCommand like follows:
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand (#" SELECT ...
FROM [dok__Dokument]
WHERE [dok_NrPelnyOryg] = #nrPelnyOryg
... ");
cmd.Parameters.Add("#nrPelnyOryg", SqlDbType.Varchar).Value = "2754";
...
Just make sure you don't fall into he easy trap of passing in a NVARCHAR parameter (Unicode) for comparing with a VARCHAR column, since the same data type precendence rules quoted before will coerce the comparison to occur on the NVARCHAR type, thus rendering indexes, again, useless. the easiest way to fall for this trap is to use the dredded AddWithValue and pass in a string value.
Your query stopped working because someone inserted the text string in to the field you are querying using INT. Up until that time it was possible to implicitly convert the data but now that's no longer the case.
I'd go check your data and, more importantly, the model; as Aaron said do you need to allow strings in that field? If not, change the data type to prevent this happening in the future.
This is on Microsoft SQL Server. We have a query where we are trying to join two tables on fields containing numeric data.
One table has the field defined as numeric(18,2) and the other table has the field defined as decimal(24,4). When joining with the native data types, the query hangs and we run out of patience before it will finish (left it running 6 min…). So we tried casting the two fields to be both numeric(18,2) and the query finished in under 10 seconds. So we tried casting the two fields to be both decimal(18,2) and again the query hangs. Does anyone know the difference between the decimal and numeric data types that would make them perform so differently?
DECIMAL and NUMERIC datatypes are the one and the same thing in SQL Server.
Quote from BOL:
Numeric data types that have fixed
precision and scale.
decimal[ (p[ ,s] )] and numeric[ (p[
,s] )] Fixed precision and scale
numbers. When maximum precision is
used, valid values are from - 10^38 +1
through 10^38 - 1. The ISO synonyms
for decimal are dec and dec(p, s).
numeric is functionally equivalent to
decimal.
From that, I'm surprised to hear of a difference. I'd expect the execution plans to be the same between the 2 routes, can you check?
Why are you using two datatypes to begin with? If they contain the same type of data (and joining on them implies they do), they should be the same datatype. Fix this and all your problems go away. Why waste server resources continually casting to match two fields that should be defined the same?
You of course may need to adjust the input variables for any insert or update queries to match waht you chose as the datatype.
My guess is that it's not a matter of a specific difference between the two data types, but simply the fact that SQL Server needs to implicitly convert them to match for the join operation.
I don't know why there would be a difference from your first query and the second, where you explicitly convert, but I can see why there might be a problem when you convert to a datatype that doesn't match and then SQL Server has to implicitly convert them anyway (as in your third case). Maybe in the first case, SQL Server is implicitly converting both to decimal(24,4) so as not to lose data and that operation takes longer than converting the other way. Have you tried explicitly converting the numeric(18,2) to a decimal(24,4)?