I want to write a dimension value query to filter the records based on dimension values. I have a requirement to use the "!=" operator in the EQL query. I know that EQL queries support this operator and it also given in the manual that even dimension value queries support this. In the manual examples are given only for property value queries. I tried to implement the same for dimension value queries but the application did not return any records for that. Can anyone help me with an example for dimension value queries for this operator?
below is the query I am trying, but it does not return any result as there is some problem with the query:
Nrs=collection()/record[GROUP=collection("dimensions")/dval[name="GROUP"]/dval[name!="G001"]]
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Sav
Put "not" in front of the whole expression. Try:
collection()/record[ not ( Genre = collection("dimensions")/dval[name="Genre"]//id ) ]
Note that there are some minor wrinkles. For more info, check out page 105 in this document. http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E55324_01/Mdex.651/pdf/DevGuide.pdf
Related
Given a list of natural numbers List I want to check if the sums of the elements of each subset are distinct. Initially I used this code
distinctSubsetSums(List,Sums) :- findall(Sum,(subset(Sub,List),sum_list(Sub,Sum)),Sums), all_distinct(Sums).
But I think there exists a better solution since with my code I found all the sums of all the possibile subsets and then I check if they are distinct. I think there is a way to check dynamically if a sum has been already calculated and then return false without searching for all the subsets.
Can anyone help me?
subset_sums(List,Sums) :-
sum_subset(List,[],[],Sums).
sum_subset([I|Is],Js,Sums0,Sums) :-
sum_subset(Is,Js,Sums0,Sums1),
sum_subset(Is,[I|Js],Sums1,Sums).
sum_subset([],Js,Sums0,Sums) :-
sum_list(Js,Sum),
\+ member(Sum,Sums0),
Sums = [Sum|Sums0].
I have a field in SSRS that i need to filter on.
For 3 table I can use a IN filter.
But I am in need to use a NOT IN operator. The field contains numeric values.
I need to be able to say not in (30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39)
I cant do it within the dataset either, needs to be a filter.
How should I achieve it ?
You can use an expression to determine which values are going to be filtered.
Go to Tablix properties/ Filters
In expression use:
=IIF(Array.IndexOf(split("30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39",","),
CStr(Fields!YourField.Value))>-1,"Exclude","Include")
For Operator use:
=
For Value use:
="Include"
Let me know if this can help you
For a variation of the selected answer that I find easier to use, please see below. This is in a Visibility expression, but should be easily ported to a Filter expression by setting Expression type to Boolean and comparing if Expression = True:
=IIf(InStr("unwanted values here", Fields!fieldToCheck.Value), True, False)
Firstly I would like to say that, to my knowledge, NOT IN is not available in list of operators for filters.
To Achieve the same thing in other way, please refer the following link..it might help you...
http://blog.datainspirations.com/2011/01/20/working-with-reporting-services-filters-part-4-creating-a-not-in-filter/
I created an IIf statement in a MS Access query, to fill null spaces in a particular field. The statement in only affecting some of the data, but not all. Why would it only work on a certain percentage of the records?
Field:Line_off_Date
Table:Claims
Criteria:IIf(IsNull("Line_off_Date "),"1/1/1900"
Here is the official Sql after delimiting:
SELECT Claims.Line_off_Date
FROM Claims
WHERE (((Claims.Line_off_Date)=IIf("Line_off_Date IsNull",#1/1/1900#,"Line_off_Date ")));
I can't screen shot onto this site, but I could give a mock up representation:
Line_off_Date
12/23/2013
12/23/2013
5/16/2010
1/1/1900
1/1/1900
12/10/2000
11/4/2008
This is listed as a column, with a space between 1/1/1900 and 12/10/2000. When I post it here, it turns into a paragraph. I hope this helps in some way...
I'm unsure about your goal, but this looks like something where you could use the Nz Function.
Criteria: Nz(Line_off_Date, "1/1/1900")
If you want IIf instead, try it this way ...
Criteria: IIf(Line_off_Date Is Null, "1/1/1900", Line_off_Date)
Note those suggestions assume Line_off_Date is text datatype. If it is actually Date/Time, delimit the value with # instead of quotes.
Criteria: Nz(Line_off_Date, #1/1/1900#)
Criteria: IIf(Line_off_Date Is Null, #1/1/1900#, Line_off_Date)
I'm more confused after seeing your WHERE clause ...
WHERE (((Claims.Line_off_Date)=IIf("Line_off_Date IsNull",#1/1/1900#,"Line_off_Date ")));
Aside from the issues of quoting and so forth, I think the logic is faulty. If you say "show me rows where Line_off_Date = something other than what is stored in Line_off_Date", you may not get any rows back.
I think you need a different approach. If you need more help, show us a brief set of sample data and your desired output based on those data.
Based on the comment discussion, my understanding is you don't really want to filter the result set based on Line_off_Date --- which means this is not a WHERE clause issue. Instead, you want to retrieve Line_off_Date values, but substitute #1900-1-1# for any which are Null. If that is correct, do the transformation with a field expression in the SELECT clause.
SELECT Nz(Claims.Line_off_Date, #1900-1-1-#) AS Line_off_Date_adjusted
FROM Claims;
I'm just an basic SQL user (mySQL+php now). I have search box with multiple input (conditions).
For example:
Color: ____
Size: ____
Price: ___
Condition: ___
Discount %: ___
Hit Count: ___
etc, many more ............
User may input 1 or more fileds.
Result should be filtered for multiple input also.
So, how can i handle this multiple conditions in Query?
I'm confusing how to write query (in former way):
SELECT * FROM _item_ WHERE color='silver' AND/OR .... ... ?????
????
A simple sample please.
The easiest approach would be to have a base query, that even without filter criteria, still returns results:
SELECT *
FROM _item_
WHERE 1=1
this then allows you to easily add additional criteria to further filter your results, based on what was specified in the user interface. So, if someone says they want to filter on the color "silver" and the condition "new", we just add these to the WHERE clause of our query:
SELECT *
FROM _item_
WHERE 1=1
AND color = 'silver'
AND condition = 'new'
each additional filter criteria can just be added with an AND to the end of the base query.
edit: as pointed out in other posts, this is a naïve approach and you need to be careful of SQL injection, but the original question asked for a simple example and this was as simple as I could think of.
There is no one simple solution. You could create dynamic SQL from scratch based on the parameters or you could use some a different SP for each combination of parameters or you could just get everything then filter in your client side or...
But be very careful about SQL injection.
I would suggest, before going any further, you read something like http://www.sommarskog.se/dyn-search.html and
http://www.sommarskog.se/dynamic_sql.html which give a lot of detail about this sort of thing. Long but worth it.
You can use COALESCE to dynamically construct the WHERE clause, if the supplied parameter is null then column value will be used instead so you just need to ensure that you pass null where appropriate:
SELECT * FROM Table
WHERE color = COALESCE(#Color,color)
AND condition = COALESCE(#Condition,condition)
Note that this assumes the use of a parameterised query so should be pretty SQL Injection proof.
I suppose I have always naively assumed that scalar functions in the select part of a SQL query will only get applied to the rows that meet all the criteria of the where clause.
Today I was debugging some code from a vendor and had that assumption challenged. The only reason I can think of for this code failing is that the Substring() function is getting called on data that should have been filtered out by the WHERE clause. But it appears that the substring call is being applied before the filtering happens, the query is failing.
Here is an example of what I mean. Let's say we have two tables, each with 2 columns and having 2 rows and 1 row respectively. The first column in each is just an id. NAME is just a string, and NAME_LENGTH tells us how many characters in the name with the same ID. Note that only names with more than one character have a corresponding row in the LONG_NAMES table.
NAMES: ID, NAME
1, "Peter"
2, "X"
LONG_NAMES: ID, NAME_LENGTH
1, 5
If I want a query to print each name with the last 3 letters cut off, I might first try something like this (assuming SQL Server syntax for now):
SELECT substring(NAME,1,len(NAME)-3)
FROM NAMES;
I would soon find out that this would give me an error, because when it reaches "X" it will try using a negative number for in the substring call, and it will fail.
The way my vendor decided to solve this was by filtering out rows where the strings were too short for the len - 3 query to work. He did it by joining to another table:
SELECT substring(NAMES.NAME,1,len(NAMES.NAME)-3)
FROM NAMES
INNER JOIN LONG_NAMES
ON NAMES.ID = LONG_NAMES.ID;
At first glance, this query looks like it might work. The join condition will eliminate any rows that have NAME fields short enough for the substring call to fail.
However, from what I can observe, SQL Server will sometimes try to calculate the the substring expression for everything in the table, and then apply the join to filter out rows. Is this supposed to happen this way? Is there a documented order of operations where I can find out when certain things will happen? Is it specific to a particular Database engine or part of the SQL standard? If I decided to include some predicate on my NAMES table to filter out short names, (like len(NAME) > 3), could SQL Server also choose to apply that after trying to apply the substring? If so then it seems the only safe way to do a substring would be to wrap it in a "case when" construct in the select?
Martin gave this link that pretty much explains what is going on - the query optimizer has free rein to reorder things however it likes. I am including this as an answer so I can accept something. Martin, if you create an answer with your link in it i will gladly accept that instead of this one.
I do want to leave my question here because I think it is a tricky one to search for, and my particular phrasing of the issue may be easier for someone else to find in the future.
TSQL divide by zero encountered despite no columns containing 0
EDIT: As more responses have come in, I am again confused. It does not seem clear yet when exactly the optimizer is allowed to evaluate things in the select clause. I guess I'll have to go find the SQL standard myself and see if i can make sense of it.
Joe Celko, who helped write early SQL standards, has posted something similar to this several times in various USENET newsfroups. (I'm skipping over the clauses that don't apply to your SELECT statement.) He usually said something like "This is how statements are supposed to act like they work". In other words, SQL implementations should behave exactly as if they did these steps, without actually being required to do each of these steps.
Build a working table from all of
the table constructors in the FROM
clause.
Remove from the working table those
rows that do not satisfy the WHERE
clause.
Construct the expressions in the
SELECT clause against the working table.
So, following this, no SQL dbms should act like it evaluates functions in the SELECT clause before it acts like it applies the WHERE clause.
In a recent posting, Joe expands the steps to include CTEs.
CJ Date and Hugh Darwen say essentially the same thing in chapter 11 ("Table Expressions") of their book A Guide to the SQL Standard. They also note that this chapter corresponds to the "Query Specification" section (sections?) in the SQL standards.
You are thinking about something called query execution plan. It's based on query optimization rules, indexes, temporaty buffers and execution time statistics. If you are using SQL Managment Studio you have toolbox over your query editor where you can look at estimated execution plan, it shows how your query will change to gain some speed. So if just used your Name table and it is in buffer, engine might first try to subquery your data, and then join it with other table.