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.
Related
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 have a stored procedure which takes the same columns but with different WHERE clause.
Something like this.
SELECT
alarms.startt, alarms.endt, clients.code, clients.Plant,
alarms.controller, alarmtype.atype, alarmstatus.[text]
FROM alarms
INNER JOIN clients ON alarms.clientid = clients.C_id
INNER JOIN alarmstatus ON alarms.statusid = alarmstatus.AS_id
INNER JOIN alarmtype ON alarms.typeid = alarmtype.AT_id
and I put the same query in 3 if's (conditions) where the WHERE clause changes according the parameter passed in a variable.
Do I have to write the whole string over and over for each condition in every if?
Or can I optimize it to one time and the only thing what will change will be the WHERE clause?
You don't have to, you can get around it by doing something like
SELECT *
FROM [Query]
WHERE (#Parameter = 1 AND Column1 = 8)
OR (#Parameter = 2 AND Column2 = 8)
OR (#Parameter = 3 AND Column3 = 8)
However, just because you can do something, does not mean you should. Less verbose SQL does not mean better performance, so using something like:
IF #Parameter = 1
BEGIN
SELECT *
FROM [Query]
WHERE Column1 = 8
END
ELSE IF #Parameter = 2
BEGIN
SELECT *
FROM [Query]
WHERE Column2 = 8
END
ELSE IF #Parameter = 3
BEGIN
SELECT *
FROM [Query]
WHERE Column3 = 8
END
while equavalent to the first query should result in better perfomance as it will be optimised better.
You can avoid repeating the code if you do something like:
WHERE (col1 = #var1 AND #var1 IS NOT NULL)
OR ...
OPTION RECOMPILE;
You can also have some effect on this behavior with the parameterization setting of the database (simple vs. forced).
Something that avoids repeating the code and avoids sub-optimal plans due to parameter sniffing is to use dynamic SQL:
DECLARE #sql NVARCHAR(MAX) = N'SELECT ...';
IF #var1 IS NOT NULL
SET #sql = #sql + ' WHERE ...';
This may work better if you have the server setting "optimize for ad hoc queries" enabled.
I would probably stick with repeating the whole SQL Statement, but have resorted to this in the past...
WHERE (#whichwhere=1 AND mytable.field1=#id)
OR (#whichwhere=2 AND mytable.field2=#id)
OR (#whichwhere=3 AND mytable.field3=#id)
Not particularly readable, and you will have to check the execution plan if it is slow, but it keeps you from repeating the code.
Since no one has suggested this. You can put the original query in a view and then access the view with different WHERE clauses.
To improve performance, you can even add indexes to the view if you know what columns will be commonly used in the WHERE clause (check out http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd171921(v=sql.100).aspx).
Well like most things in SQL: it depends. There are a few consideration here.
Would the the different WHEREs lead to substantially different query
plans for execution e.g. one of the columns indexed but not the other
two
Is the query likely to change over time: i.e. customer
requirements needing other columns
Is the WHERE likely to become 4,
then 8, then 16 etc options.
One approach is to exec different procs into a temp table. Each proc would then have its own query plan.
Another approach would be to use dynamic SQL, once again each "query" would be assigned is own plan.
A third appoach would be to write an app that generated the SQL for each option, this could be either a stored proc or a sql string.
Then have a data set and do test driven development against it (this is true for each approach).
In the end the best learning solution is probably to
a) read about SQL Kalen Delaney Inside SQL is an acknowledged expert.
b) test your own solutions against your own data
I would go this way:
WHERE 8 = CASE #parameter
WHEN 1 THEN Column1
WHEN 2 THEN Column2
.
.
.
I'd like to get all the records from a huge table where any of the number columns countains a value greater than 0. What's the best way to do it?
E.g.:
/* table structure*/
create table sometable (id number,
somestring varchar2(12),
some_amount_1 number(17,3),
some_amount_2 number(17,3),
some_amount_3 number(17,3),
...
some_amount_xxx number(17,3));
/* "xxx" > 100, and yeah I did not designed that table structure... */
And I want any row where any of the some_amount_n > 0 (even better solution is to add a field in the first place to show which field(s) are greater than zero).
I know I can write this with a huge some_amount_1 > 0 OR some_amount_2 > 0 OR ... block (and the field names with some case when but is there should be some more elegant solution, isn't there?
Possible solutions:
Normalize the table. You said you are not allowed to. Try to convince those that forbid such a change by explaining the benefits (performance, ease of writing queries, etc).
Write the huge ugly OR query. You could also print it along with the version of the query for the normalized tables. Add performance tests (you are allowed to create another test table or database, I hope.)
Write a program (either in PL/SQL or in another procedural language) that produces the horrible OR query. (Again, print along with the elegant version)
Add a new column, say called Any_x_bigger_than_zero which is automatically filled with either 0 or 1 via a trigger (that uses a huge ugly OR). Then you just need to check: WHERE Test_x_bigger_than_zero = 1 to see if any of the rows is > 0
Similar to previous but even better, create a materialized view with such a column.
First, create a table to sort the data into something more easily read from...something simple like id,column_name,column_value. You'll have to bear with me, been a while since I've operated in oracle, so this is heavy pseudo code at best:
Quick dynamic sql blurb...you can set a variable to a sql statement and then execute that variable. There are some security risks and it's possible this feature is disabled in your environment...so confirm you can run this first. Declare a variable, set the variable to 'select 1' and then use 'execute immediate' to execute the sql stored in your variable.
set var = 'select id, ''some_amount_' || 1 || '', some_amount || 1 || ' from table where some_amount_' || 1 || ' <> 0'
Assuming I've got my oracle syntax right...( pipe is append right? I believe a 3 single quote as ''' should result in one ' when in a variable too, you may have to trial and error this line until you have the var set to):
select id, 'some_amount_1',some_amount_1
from table
where some_amount_1 <> 0
This should select the ID and the value in some_amount_1 for each id in your database. You can turn this into an insert statement pretty easily.
I'm assuming some_amount_xxx has an upper limit...next trick is to loop this giant statement. Once again, horrible pseudo code:
declare sql_string
declare i and set to 1
for i = 1 to xxx (whatever your xxx is)
set sql_string to the first set var statement we made, replacing the '1' with the i var here.
execute sql
increment i
loop
Hopefully it makes sense...it's one of the very few scenarios you would ever want to loop dynamic sql on. Now you have a relatively straight forward table to read from and this should be a relatively easy query from here
I am converting a stored procedure which I had previously written as a string then, using BIT parameters I decided whether to append certain WHERE/ON clauses
This sp is passed a number of comma-separated strings and then some of the dynamic WHERE clauses are like:
IF #pUse_Clause_A THEN SET #WhereClause = #WhereClause + ' AND [FIELD_A] IN (' + #pComma_Separated_List_A + ')'
In this case, #pComma_Separated_List_A is something like '1,3,6,66,22' ... a list of the things I want included.
Now I am changing these from strings into TVP,s so I can just use "real" SQL like
AND [FIELD_A] IN (SELECT [TVP_FIELD] FROM #pTVP_A)
When I do this, I don't like the string-building method
However, I also don't like having to nest the IF statements.
IF A
ENTIRE SQL WHERE A
ELSE
ENTIRE SQL WITHOUT WHERE CLAUSE
The more parameters I add, the more complicated it gets:
IF A
IF B
SQL WHERE A AND B
ELSE
SQL WHERE A
ELSE
IF B
SQL WHERE B
ELSE
SQL
What I would rather do is something like this:
SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE 1=1
CASE USE_A WHEN 1 THEN
AND [FIELD_A] IN (SELECT A FROM TBP_A)
END
CASE USE_B WHEN 1 THEN
AND [FIELD_B] IN (SELECT B FROM TVP_B)
END
I know it ignored SQL outside the chosen "IF" result, but having all that duplicated statement seems sloppy
Dynamically changing searches based on the given parameters is a complicated subject and doing it one way over another, even with only a very slight difference, can have massive performance implications. The key is to use an index, ignore compact code, ignore worrying about repeating code, you must make a good query execution plan (use an index).
Read this and consider all the methods. Your best method will depend on your parameters, your data, your schema, and your actual usage:
Dynamic Search Conditions in T-SQL by by Erland Sommarskog
The Curse and Blessings of Dynamic SQL by Erland Sommarskog
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.