I've a query that pulls records based on the search parameter, and I want query to return total records as well as paginate based on start and end, do I've to run two queries or is there more intuitive way to do in a single query.
SELECT * FROM page WHERE article_id = ? AND content like '%#%' //replacing # with keyword
Edit:
Looking for Standard SQL (using WebSQL actually)
This query will return for each row the total of records and the actual page (considering there is 5 rows per page)
select *, count(*) as total, (seq - MOD(seq, 5)) / 5
from (select id, row_number() over(order by id) as seq
from page) a
join page b on b.id = a.id;
Note that this query will works only for Oracle since you did not specify your DBMS I decided by myself so you might have to edit.
Try to use a subquery
count * from table where (select .....)
Related
I would like to display a table of results. The data is sourced from a SQL query on an Oracle database. I would like to show the results one page (say, 10 records) at a time, minimising the actual data being sent to the front-end.
At the same time, I would like to show the total number of possible results (say, showing 1-10 of 123), and to allow for pagination (say, to calculate that 10 per page, 123 results, therefore 13 pages).
I can get the total number of results with a single count query.
SELECT count(*) AS NUM_RESULTS FROM ... etc.
and I can get the desired subset with another query
SELECT * FROM ... etc. WHERE ? <= ROWNUM AND ROWNUM < ?
But, is there a way to get all the relevant details in one single query?
Update
Actually, the above query using ROWNUM seems to work for 0 - 10, but not for 10 - 20, so how can I do that too?
ROWNUM is a bit tricky to use.
The ROWNUM pseudocolumn always starts with 1 for the first result that actually gets fetched. If you filter for ROWNUM>10, you will never fetch any result and therefore will not get any.
If you want to use it for paging (not that you really should), it requires nested subqueries:
select * from
(select rownum n, x.* from
(select * from mytable order by name) x
)
where n between 3 and 5;
Note that you need another nested subquery to get the order by right; if you put the order by one level higher
select * from
(select rownum n, x.* from mytable x order by name)
where n between 3 and 5;
it will pick 3 random(*) rows and sort them, but that is ususally not what you want.
(*) not really random, but probably not what you expect.
See http://use-the-index-luke.com/sql/partial-results/window-functions for more effient ways to implement pagination.
You can use inner join on your table and fetch total number of result in your subquery. The example of an query is as follows:
SELECT E.emp_name, E.emp_age, E.emp_sal, E.emp_count
FROM EMP as E
INNER JOIN (SELECT emp_name, COUNT(*) As emp_count
FROM EMP GROUP BY emp_name) AS T
ON E.emp_name = T.emp_name WHERE E.emp_age < 35;
Not sure exactly what you're after based on your question wording, but it seems like you want to see your specialized table of all records with a row number between two values, and in an adjacent field in each record see the total count of records. If so, you can try selecting everything from your table and joining a subquery of a COUNT value as a field by saying where 1=1 (i.e. everywhere) tack that field onto the record. Example:
SELECT *
FROM table_name LEFT JOIN (SELECT COUNT(*) AS NUM_RESULTS FROM table_name) ON 1=1
WHERE ? <= ROWNUM AND ROWNUM < ?
I need to fetch 4 random values from each category. What should be the correct sql syntax for maria db. I have attached one image of table structure.
Please click here to check the structure
Should i write some procedure or i can do it with basic sql syntax?
You can do that with a SQL statement if you only have a few rows:
SELECT id, question, ... FROM x1 ORDER BY rand() LIMIT 1
This works fine if you have only a few rows - as soon as you have thousands of rows the overhead for sorting the rows becomes important, you have to sort all rows for getting only one row.
A trickier but better solution would be:
SELECT id, question from x1 JOIN (SELECT CEIL(RAND() * (SELECT(MAX(id)) FROM x1)) AS id) as id using(id);
Running EXPLAIN on both SELECTS will show you the difference...
If you need random value for different categories combine the selects via union and add a where clause
http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/groupwise_max#top_n_in_each_group
But then ORDER BY category, RAND(). (Your category is the blog's province.)
Notice how it uses #variables to do the counting.
If you have MariaDB 10.2, then use one of its Windowing functions.
SELECT column FROM table WHERE category_id = XXX
ORDER BY RAND()
LIMIT 4
do it for all categories
I have to structure these queries so they are perfect SQL. The queries need to be for a SQL Server database, I have a database StoresDB, a table items_table.
I need to retrieve the
total number of items within this table
The number of item where the price is higher or equal than £10 - the column name is amount
The list of items in the computer category - column name ='comp_id' sorted by decreased amount.
For the above requests I have attempted the below:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM items_table
Select * from items_table where amount >= 10
Select * from items_table where comp_id = ’electronics’ desc
I am very new to SQL and not sure if I have attempted this correctly.
Maybe is good to know few things when writing this sort of query:
a) SELECT COUNT(*) FROM items_table
This query is written correctly.
b) SELECT COUNT(*) FROM items_table WHERE amount >= 10
Query is OK, but choose to create indexes which cover WHERE clause, in this case, is good to have non-clustered index on amount column
c) SELECT * FROM items_table WHERE comp_id = 'electronics' ORDER BY price DESC
With this last query you have an issue that searching all columns in result, with SELECT * ... which is considered like bad practice in production, so you need to put in SELECT list only columns which are really needed, not all columns. Also you can create non-clustered index on comp_id column, with included columns from SELECT list.
a) Looks correct.
b) You are being asked for a count but are querying a list.
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM items_table WHERE price >= 10
c) This one looks good but you are missing an ORDER BY statement.
SELECT * FROM items_table WHERE catID='electronics' ORDER BY price DESC
I am new to SQL, so I need your help on a query. Basically I have a Database of ZipCodes and I want to get 3 items before the selected ZipCode and 3 items after. The Query that I came up with is pretty bad...
WITH numberedlogtable AS
(
SELECT *
FROM dbo.US
)
SELECT *
FROM numberedlogtable
WHERE ZipCode IN (SELECT ZipCode+i
FROM numberedlogtable
CROSS JOIN (SELECT -1 AS i UNION ALL SELECT 0 UNION ALL SELECT 1) n
WHERE ZipCode='91803')
I picked up a sample Query from somewhere and successfully converted it for my use. The only problem is that this Query returns current item and the next item. Instead, it should returns previous 3 items, current item, and next three items.
Using a common table expression (the WITH part) producing a numbered sequence:
WITH NumberedZipCodes AS
(SELECT SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ZipCode) AS RowNumber, *
FROM ZipCodes)
SELECT * From NumberedZipCodes
WHERE RowNumber BETWEEN
(SELECT RowNumber FROM NumberedZipCodes WHERE ZipCode=91803) - 3
AND (SELECT RowNumber FROM NumberedPerson WHERE ZipCode=91803) + 3
Normally in SQL there is no such concept as the previous or next items in a match. Actually, unless an order by clause is specified the rows are returned in any order that the sql engine find suitable. To make a query like this, an order has to be applied and index numbers generated. That's done in NumberedZipCodes. The second part is just a query to get the data out of it.
To have the query run efficiently, make sure that there is an index on the ZipCode column.
"Before" and "after" only have meaning in the context of ordering. Assuming you wish to order by ZIP code, selecting the desired ZIP code and 2 rows after it could be done like this:
SELECT TOP(3) *
FROM numberedlogtable
WHERE ZipCode >= '91803'
ORDER BY ZipCode
Selecting 3 rows before:
SELECT TOP(3) *
FROM numberedlogtable
WHERE ZipCode < '91803'
ORDER BY ZipCode DESC
Put UNION ALL between these two queries to make it one, if that's what you wish.
You can play with it in the SQL Fiddle.
3 items before the selected ZipCode and 3 items afte
SQL is set based, it has no defined order UNLESS YOU DEFINE ONE (with order by).
Now, lets not get into the more complex stuff - FURST you have to create an order asking for the central item, then in a second query you can ask for the other 6. Sorry, no other way. x+3 would be doable with a Top 4 statement and a filter etc. - but the 3 before will definitely require a second query.
All assume you creata query / view that has
* THe zipCodes in a defined order
* a row number once you filter it, used to define (a) the "current line" as well as filter for all with smaller lines.
But you need an order manually first.
I want to implement paging in a gridview or in an html table which I will fill using ajax. How should I write queries to support paging? For example if pagesize is 20 and when the user clicks page 3, rows between 41 and 60 must be shown on table. At first I can get all records and put them into cache but I think this is the wrong way. Because data can be very huge and data can be change from other sessions. so how can I implement this? Is there any generic way ( for all databases ) ?
As others have suggested, you can use rownum in Oracle. It's a little tricky though and you have to nest your query twice.
For example, to paginate the query
select first_name from some_table order by first_name
you need to nest it like this
select first_name from
(select rownum as rn, first_name from
(select first_name from some_table order by first_name)
) where rn > 100 and rn <= 200
The reason for this is that rownum is determined after the where clause and before the order by clause. To see what I mean, you can query
select rownum,first_name from some_table order by first_name
and you might get
4 Diane
2 Norm
3 Sam
1 Woody
That's because oracle evaluates the where clause (none in this case), then assigns rownums, then sorts the results by first_name. You have to nest the query so it uses the rownum assigned after the rows have been sorted.
The second nesting has to do with how rownum is treated in a where condition. Basically, if you query "where rownum > 100" then you get no results. It's a chicken and egg thing where it can't return any rows until it finds rownum > 100, but since it's not returning any rows it never increments rownum, so it never counts to 100. Ugh. The second level of nesting solves this. Note it must alias the rownum column at this point.
Lastly, your order by clause must make the query deterministic. For example, if you have John Doe and John Smith, and you order by first name only, then the two can switch places from one execution of the query to the next.
There are articles here http://www.oracle.com/technology/oramag/oracle/06-sep/o56asktom.html
and here http://www.oracle.com/technology/oramag/oracle/07-jan/o17asktom.html. Now that I see how long my post is, I probably should have just posted those links...
Unfortunately, the methods for restricting the range of rows returned by a query vary from one DBMS to another: Oracle uses ROWNUM (see ocdecio's answer), but ROWNUM won't work in SQL Server.
Perhaps you can encapsulate these differences with a function that takes a given SQL statement and first and last row numbers and generates the appropriate paginatd SQL for the target DBMS - i.e. something like:
sql = paginated ('select empno, ename from emp where job = ?', 101, 150)
which would return
'select * from (select v.*, ROWNUM rn from ('
+ theSql
+ ') v where rownum < 150) where rn >= 101'
for Oracle and something else for SQL Server.
However, note that the Oracle solution is adding a new column RN to the results that you'll need to deal with.
I believe that both have a ROWNUM analytic Function. Use that and you'll be identical.
In Oracle it is here
ROW_NUMBER
Yep, just verified that ROW_NUMBER is the same function in both.
"Because...data can be change from other sessions."
What do you want to happen for this ?
For example, user gets the 'latest' ten rows at 10:30.
At 10:31, 3 new rows are added (so those ten being view by the user are no longer the latest).
At 10:32, the user requests then 'next' ten entries.
Do you want that new set to include those three that have been bumped from 8/9/10 down to 11/12/13 ?
If not, in Oracle you can select the data as it was at 10:30
SELECT * FROM table_1 as of timestamp (timestamp '2009-01-29 10:30:00');
You still need the row_number logic, eg
select * from
(SELECT a.*, row_number() over (order by hire_date) rn
FROM hr.employees as of timestamp (timestamp '2009-01-29 10:30:00') a)
where rn between 10 and 19
select *
from ( select /*+ FIRST_ROWS(n) */ a.*,
ROWNUM rnum
from ( your_query_goes_here,
with order by ) a
where ROWNUM <=
:MAX_ROW_TO_FETCH )
where rnum >= :MIN_ROW_TO_FETCH;
Step 1: your query with order by
Step 2: select a.*, ROWNUM rnum from ()a where ROWNUM <=:MAX_ROW_TO_FETCH
Step 3: select * from ( ) where rnum >= :MIN_ROW_TO_FETCH;
put 1 in 2 and 2 in 3
If the expected data set is huge, I'd recommend to create a temp table, a view or a snapshot (materialized view) to store the query results + a row number retrieved either using ROWNUM or ROW_NUMBER analytic function. After that you can simply query this temp storage using row number ranges.
Basically, you need to separate the actual data fetch from the paging.
There is no uniform way to ensure paging across various RDBMS products. Oracle gives you rownum which you can use in where clause like:
where rownum < 1000
SQL Server gives you row_id( ) function which can be used similar to Oracle's rownum. However, row_id( ) isn't available before SQL Server 2005.