Need help. This problem blowed my mind.
My problems is almost the same as in the question Lookup values in one table and add to dataset according to IF condition (MERGE/SQL)?
I am using one of the code from answers:
proc sql;
update master as a
set loadport=(select loadport from lookup as b
where a.LoadCountry=b.LoadCountry and a.LoadArea=b.LoadArea)
where lportmiss=1;
quit;
However I faced with error "Subquery evaluated to more than one row". As far as I find out it means that there are more than one loadports with equal loadports name in lookup dataset and sql does not know which one to choose.
My question is what refinements should be made to choose first met loadport in lookup dataset?
Thanks!
Something like this will work. You need to use a summary function to reduce to one row. If you're confident one loadCountry/loadArea combination will always have only one port, this is safe; if you're not, then you need to think about how to do this properly (whether max or min is okay, or if you need to flag an error or something else if this happens). Almost any summary function will do here.
proc sql;
update master as a
set loadport=(select max(loadport) from lookup as b
where a.LoadCountry=b.LoadCountry and a.LoadArea=b.LoadArea
group by b.loadCountry,b.loadArea)
where lportmiss=1;
quit;
Related
I have a stored procedure that is performing two different queries. When the stored procedure is complete I see both result sets. Is there a way to suppress the first result set, and only have the second one display without combining the information?
select info
from table
where (select * from othertable)
This statement causes me to end up with two different result sets. I want to suppress the results from the "othertable" query.
Is this possible?
Note: This is the answer, but not the answer. While going over #Jeroen's response I decided to go into my sproc and include more information in the original post. Upon doing that I came across a "stray" select statement I was using in conjunction with print for debugging purposes. I commented out that line and the additional result set went away. Problem solved! Thank you #Jeoroen!!
I need to replace all occurrences "google.com" that are met in the SQL db table Column1 with "newurl". It can be a full cell value, a part of it (substring of varchar()), can be met even several times in a cell.
Based on SO answer search-and-replace-part-of-string-in-database
this is what I need:
UPDATE
MyTable
SET
Column1 = Replace(Column, 'google.com', 'newurl')
WHERE
xxx
However, in that answer it is mentioned that
You will want to be extremely careful when doing this! I highly recommend doing a backup first.
What are the pitfalls of doing this query? Looks like it does the same what any texteditor would do by clicking on Replace All button. I don't think it is possible in my case to check the errors even with reserve copy as I would like to know possible errors in advance.
Any reasons to be careful with this query?
Again, I expect it replaces all occurences of google.com with 'newurl' in the Column1 of MyTable table in the SQL db.
Thank you.
Just create a test table, as a replica of your original source table, complete the update on there and check results.
You would want to do this as good SQL programming practice to ensure you don't mess up columns that should not be updated.
Another thing you can do is get a count of the records before hand that fit the criteria using a SELECT statement.
Run your update statement and if it's a 1-1 match on count, you should be good to go.
The only thing i can think of that would happen negatively in this respect is that additional columns get updated. Your WHERE clause is not specific for us to see, so there's no way to validate that what you're doing will do what you expect it to.
I think the person posting the answer is just being cautious - This will modify the value in Column1 for every row in MyTable, so make sure you mean it when you execute. Another way to be cautious would be to wrap it in a transaction so you could roll it back if you don't like the results.
I got a table with 75 columns,. what is the sql statement to display only the columns with values in in ?
thanks
It's true that a similar statement doesn't exist (in a SELECT you can use condition filters only for the rows, not for the columns). But you could try to write a (bit tricky) procedure. It must check which are the columns that contains at least one not NULL/empty value, using queries. When you get this list of columns just join them in a string with a comma between each one and compose a query that you can run, returning what you wanted.
EDIT: I thought about it and I think you can do it with a procedure but under one of these conditions:
find a way to retrieve column names dynamically in the procedure, that is the metadata (I never heard about it, but I'm new with procedures)
or hardcode all column names (loosing generality)
You could collect column names inside an array, if stored procedures of your DBMS support arrays (or write the procedure in a programming language like C), and loop on them, making a SELECT each time, checking if it's an empty* column or not. If it contains at least one value concatenate it in a string where column names are comma-separated. Finally you can make your query with only not-empty columns!
Alternatively to stored procedure you could write a short program (eg in Java) where you can deal with a better flexibility.
*if you check for NULL values it will be simple, but if you check for empty values you will need to manage with each column data type... another array with data types?
I would suggest that you write a SELECT statement and define which COLUMNS you wish to display and then save that QUERY as a VIEW.
This will save you the trouble of typing in the column names every time you wish to run that query.
As marc_s pointed out in the comments, there is no select statement to hide columns of data.
You could do a pre-parse and dynamically create a statement to do this, but this would be a very inefficient thing to do from a SQL performance perspective. Would strongly advice against what you are trying to do.
A simplified version of this is to just select the relevant columns, which was what I needed personally. A quick search of what we're dealing with in a table
SELECT * FROM table1 LIMIT 10;
-> shows 20 columns where im interested in 3 of them. Limit is just to not overflow the console.
SELECT column1,column3,colum19 FROM table1 WHERE column3='valueX';
It is a bit of a manual filter but it works for what I need.
I want to know what columns where updated during update operation on a triger on first scaaning books online it looks like COLUMNS_UPDATED is the perfect solution but this function actualy don't check if values has changed , it check only what columns where selected in update clause, any one has other suggestions ?
The only way you can check if the values have changed is to compare the values in the DELETED and INSERTED virtual tables within the trigger. SQL doesn't check the existing value before updating to the new one, it will happily write a new identical value over the top - in other words, it takes your word for the update and tracks the update rather than actual changes.
We can use Update function to find if a particular column is updated:
IF UPDATE(ColumnName)
Refer to this link for details: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187326.aspx
As the others have posted, you'll need to interrogate INSERTED and DELETED. The only other useful bit of advice might be that you can get only the rows that have changed values (and discard the rows that didn't change) by using the EXCEPT operator - like this:
SELECT * FROM Inserted
EXCEPT
SELECT * FROM Deleted
The only way I can think of is that you can compare the values in DELETED and INSERTED to see which columns have changed.
Doesn't seem a particularly elegant solution though.
I asked this same question!
The previous posters are correct -- without directly comparing the values, you can't tell for sure whether the data has actually changed or not. However, there are several ways to do this type of checking, depending on what else you're trying to do in the trigger. My question has some good advice in the answers about those different mechanisms and their tradeoffs.
I use PostgreSQL database and C to connect to it. With a help from dyntest.pgc I can access to number of columns and their (SQL3) types from a result table of a query.
Problem is that when result table is empty, I can't fetch a row to get this data. Does anyone have a solution for this?
Query can be SELECT 1,2,3 - so, I think I can't use INFORMATION SCHEMA for this because there is no base table.
I'm not familiar with ecpg, but with libpq you should be able to call PQnfields to get the number of fields and then call various PQf* routines (like PQftype, PQfname) to get detailed info. Those functions take a PGResult, which you have even if there are no rows.
Problem is that when result table is empty, I can't fetch a row to get this data. Does anyone have a solution for this?
I am not sure to really get what you want, but it seems the answer is in the question. If the table is empty, there are no rows...
The only solution here seems you must wait a non empty result table, and then get the needed informations.