I am trying to better automate my queries so I don't have to change the table name and where clause each time. Right now this is what I do:
Years 2014, 2013, etc. I might out these variables into a table. Also doing this on Oracle.
Colors: Red, Green, etc
select count(*) from Apples_2014
where Type = 'Red'
;
select count(*) from Apples_2014
where Type = 'Green'
;
select count(*) from Apples_2013
where Type = 'Red'
;
select count(*) from Apples_2013
where Type = 'Green'
;
Is there a simpler way to do this so I have only one query and then it gets run multiple times but with the different parameters?
Also through some research I saw I can use && which then creates a popup each time in Toad. This isn't really efficient though but its kinda works.
ADDITION (original answer below. Editing after seeing your comment on your post.)
Sounds like you actually want do to grouping.
Running something like the below will give counts for all tables and all values at once in a single result set.
select count(*) as total, 'TABLENAME' as tablename, value
from Tablename
group by value;
UNION ALL
select count(*) as total, 'TABLENAME2' as tablename, value
from Tablename2
group by value
***********************************88
Original answer:
you can use bind variables in Oracle - it will then prompt for each value.
select count(*) from TABLE
where Type = :value
assuming your table structures are very similar, you can union and add a paramater to handle the table name changes without switching to use dynamic sql (dynamic sql is just writing it as a concatenated string - not very efficient.).
So like this....
select total
from (
select count(*) as total, 'TABLENAME' as tablename
from Tablename
where type = :value;
UNION ALL
select count(*) as total, 'TABLENAME2' as tablename
from Tablename2
where type = :value
) a
where a.tablename = :tablename
Related
introduction:
I have query using a pipeline function. I won't change the names of the returned columns but I will add other columns.
I want to compare the result of the old query with the new query (syntaxal always the same (select * from mypipelinefunction) , but I have changed the pipeline function )
I have used "select *" instead of "select the name of the columns" because there is a lot names.
code:
the code example is simplified to focus on the problem addressed in the title. (no pipeline function. Only two "identic" queries are tested. The second query has one more column that the first.
SELECT
XMLDIFF (
XMLTYPE.createXML (
DBMS_XMLGEN.getxml ('select 1 one, 2 two from dual')),
XMLTYPE.createXML (
DBMS_XMLGEN.getxml ('select 1 one from dual')))
from dual.
I want that XMLDIFF to say that there is no difference because the only columns that I care about are the colums that are in common.
In short I would like to have this result
<xd:xdiff xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xd="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
</xd:xdiff>
instead of this result
<xd:xdiff xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xd="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><xd:delete-node xd:node-type="element" xd:xpath="/ROWSET[1]/ROW[1]/TWO[1]"/></xd:xdiff>
Is this possible to force XMLdiff to compare only the columns that are in commun?
code
Another way to fix this problem would be to have a shortcut in TOAD that transform select * from t in select first_column, ......last_column from t. And it should work even if t is a pipeline function
If you only care about certain columns then wrap your query in a outer-query to only output the columns you care about:
SELECT XMLDIFF (
XMLTYPE.createXML (
DBMS_XMLGEN.getxml (
'SELECT one FROM (select 1 one, 2 two from dual)'
)
),
XMLTYPE.createXML (
DBMS_XMLGEN.getxml (
'SELECT one FROM (select 1 one from dual)'
)
)
) AS diff
FROM DUAL;
Which outputs:
DIFF
<xd:xdiff xsi:schemaLocation="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xd="http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb/xdiff.xsd" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><?oracle-xmldiff operations-in-docorder="true" output-model="snapshot" diff-algorithm="global"?></xd:xdiff>
db<>fiddle here
I have a component that retrieves data from database based on the keys provided.
However I want my java application to get all the data for all keys in a single database hit to fasten up things.
I can use 'in' clause when I have only one key.
While working on more than one key I can use below query in oracle
SELECT * FROM <table_name>
where (value_type,CODE1) IN (('I','COMM'),('I','CORE'));
which is similar to writing
SELECT * FROM <table_name>
where value_type = 1 and CODE1 = 'COMM'
and
SELECT * FROM <table_name>
where value_type = 1 and CODE1 = 'CORE'
together
However, this concept of using 'in' clause as above is giving below error in 'SQL server'
ERROR:An expression of non-boolean type specified in a context where a condition is expected, near ','.
Please let know if their is any way to achieve the same in SQL server.
This syntax doesn't exist in SQL Server. Use a combination of And and Or.
SELECT *
FROM <table_name>
WHERE
(value_type = 1 and CODE1 = 'COMM')
OR (value_type = 1 and CODE1 = 'CORE')
(In this case, you could make it shorter, because value_type is compared to the same value in both combinations. I just wanted to show the pattern that works like IN in oracle with multiple fields.)
When using IN with a subquery, you need to rephrase it like this:
Oracle:
SELECT *
FROM foo
WHERE
(value_type, CODE1) IN (
SELECT type, code
FROM bar
WHERE <some conditions>)
SQL Server:
SELECT *
FROM foo
WHERE
EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM bar
WHERE <some conditions>
AND foo.type_code = bar.type
AND foo.CODE1 = bar.code)
There are other ways to do it, depending on the case, like inner joins and the like.
If you have under 1000 tuples you want to check against and you're using SQL Server 2008+, you can use a table values constructor, and perform a join against it. You can only specify up to 1000 rows in a table values constructor, hence the 1000 tuple limitation. Here's how it would look in your situation:
SELECT <table_name>.* FROM <table_name>
JOIN ( VALUES
('I', 'COMM'),
('I', 'CORE')
) AS MyTable(a, b) ON a = value_type AND b = CODE1;
This is only a good idea if your list of values is going to be unique, otherwise you'll get duplicate values. I'm not sure how the performance of this compares to using many ANDs and ORs, but the SQL query is at least much cleaner to look at, in my opinion.
You can also write this to use EXIST instead of JOIN. That may have different performance characteristics and it will avoid the problem of producing duplicate results if your values aren't unique. It may be worth trying both EXIST and JOIN on your use case to see what's a better fit. Here's how EXIST would look,
SELECT * FROM <table_name>
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM (
VALUES
('I', 'COMM'),
('I', 'CORE')
) AS MyTable(a, b)
WHERE a = value_type AND b = CODE1
);
In conclusion, I think the best choice is to create a temporary table and query against that. But sometimes that's not possible, e.g. your user lacks the permission to create temporary tables, and then using a table values constructor may be your best choice. Use EXIST or JOIN, depending on which gives you better performance on your database.
Normally you can not do it, but can use the following technique.
SELECT * FROM <table_name>
where (value_type+'/'+CODE1) IN (('I'+'/'+'COMM'),('I'+'/'+'CORE'));
A better solution is to avoid hardcoding your values and put then in a temporary or persistent table:
CREATE TABLE #t (ValueType VARCHAR(16), Code VARCHAR(16))
INSERT INTO #t VALUES ('I','COMM'),('I','CORE')
SELECT DT. *
FROM <table_name> DT
JOIN #t T ON T.ValueType = DT.ValueType AND T.Code = DT.Code
Thus, you avoid storing data in your code (persistent table version) and allow to easily modify the filters (without changing the code).
I think you can try this, combine and and or at the same time.
SELECT
*
FROM
<table_name>
WHERE
value_type = 1
AND (CODE1 = 'COMM' OR CODE1 = 'CORE')
What you can do is 'join' the columns as a string, and pass your values also combined as strings.
where (cast(column1 as text) ||','|| cast(column2 as text)) in (?1)
The other way is to do multiple ands and ors.
I had a similar problem in MS SQL, but a little different. Maybe it will help somebody in futere, in my case i found this solution (not full code, just example):
SELECT Table1.Campaign
,Table1.Coupon
FROM [CRM].[dbo].[Coupons] AS Table1
INNER JOIN [CRM].[dbo].[Coupons] AS Table2 ON Table1.Campaign = Table2.Campaign AND Table1.Coupon = Table2.Coupon
WHERE Table1.Coupon IN ('0000000001', '0000000002') AND Table2.Campaign IN ('XXX000000001', 'XYX000000001')
Of cource on Coupon and Campaign in table i have index for fast search.
Compute it in MS Sql
SELECT * FROM <table_name>
where value_type + '|' + CODE1 IN ('I|COMM', 'I|CORE');
I've been playing around with the sample on Jeff' Server blog to compare two tables to find the differences.
In my case the tables are a backup and the current data. I can get what I want with this SQL statement (simplified by removing most of the columns). I can then see the rows from each table that don't have an exact match and I can see from which table they come.
SELECT
MIN(TableName) as TableName
,[strCustomer]
,[strAddress1]
,[strCity]
,[strPostalCode]
FROM
(SELECT
'Old' as TableName
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCustomer]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strAddress1]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCity]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strPostalCode]
FROM
[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
UNION ALL
SELECT
'New' as TableName
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCustomer]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strAddress1]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCity]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strPostalCode]
FROM
[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]) tmp
GROUP BY
[strCustomer]
,[strAddress1]
,[strCity]
,[strPostalCode]
HAVING
COUNT(*) = 1
This Stack Overflow Answer gives me a much cleaner SQL query but does not tell me from which table the rows come.
SELECT * FROM [JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
UNION
SELECT * FROM [JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
EXCEPT
SELECT * FROM [JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
INTERSECT
SELECT * FROM [JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
I could use the first version but I have many tables that I need to compare and I think that there has to be an easy way to add the source table column to the second query. I've tried several things and googled to no avail. I suspect that maybe I'm just not searching for the correct thing since I'm sure it's been answered before.
Maybe I'm going down the wrong trail and there is a better way to compare the databases?
Could you use the following setup to accomplish your goal?
SELECT 'New not in Old' Descriptor, *
FROM
(
SELECT * FROM [JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
EXCEPT
SELECT * FROM [JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
) a
UNION
SELECT 'Old not in New' Descriptor, *
FROM
(
SELECT * FROM [JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
EXCEPT
SELECT * FROM [JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
) b
You can't add the table name there because union, except, and intersection all compare all columns. This means you can't differentiate between them by adding the table name to the query. A group by gives you control over what columns are considered in finding duplicates so you can exclude the table name.
To help you with the large number of tables you need to compare you could write a sql query off the metadata tables that hold table names and columns and generate the sql commands dynamically off those values.
Derive one column using table names like below
SELECT MIN(TableName) as TableName
,[strCustomer]
,[strAddress1]
,[strCity]
,[strPostalCode]
,table_name_came
FROM
(SELECT 'Old' as TableName
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCustomer]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strAddress1]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCity]
,[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strPostalCode]
,'[JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]' as table_name_came
FROM [JAS001].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
UNION ALL
SELECT 'New' as TableName
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCustomer]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strAddress1]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strCity]
,[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses].[strPostalCode]
,'[JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]' as table_name_came
FROM [JAS001new].[dbo].[AR_CustomerAddresses]
) tmp
GROUP BY [strCustomer]
,[strAddress1]
,[strCity]
,[strPostalCode]
,table_name_came
HAVING COUNT(*) = 1
select * into #transacTbl from tmpTrans
insert
select
(case when tmpT.TranStatus = 10
then(
select ID, 'Returned')
else(
select ID, 'GoodSale')
end)
from
(
select * from MainTransacSource
) as tmpT
I want to be able to insert the details of a transaction into a different table with a label if it is a returned or good sale/transaction. I did this to avoid the cursor so please avoid giving a solution using a cursor.
I know the code looks good but what I'm experiencing is that, the case statement only returns one value via subquery.
This is a simplified version of the code; I have at least 6 types of cases and should be able to insert by ROW. I hate to think that I have to repeat each case per column because the actual number of columns is about 38.
You may suggest another work-around if this doesn't fit the logic. Of course, without a cursor.
Without access to your tables and not knowing more about what precisely you want to acheive, try something like this:
select * into #transacTbl from tmpTrans
insert
select tmpT.ID,
(case when tmpT.TranStatus = 10
then 'Returned'
else 'GoodSale'
end)
from
(select * from MainTransacSource) as tmpT <OR simply MainTransacSource tmpT (maybe)>
Cheers.
This is probably a really simple question, but I don't write stored procedures often and I'm a bit mystified...
After doing various stuff, the concluding bit of the SP ends by returning counts or sums from several different tables. The obvious approach is:
select SUM(ThisCol) as ThisResult from...
select SUM(ThatCol) as ThatResult from...
select count(DISTINCT OtherCol) as OtherResult from...
Of course, this creates multiple recordsets - one for each select plus one containing zero. This is a bit silly since each recordset contains exactly one value. I would much prefer to return a single recordset with multiple columns: ThisResult, ThatResult and OtherResult.
Is that possible?
You can use variables
DECLARE #thisResult INT
DECLARE #thatResult INT
DECLARE #otherResult INT
select #thisResult = SUM(ThisCol) as ThisResult from...
select #thatResult = SUM(ThatCol) as ThatResult from...
select #otherResult = count(OtherCol) as OtherResult from...
SELECT #thisResult AS 'thisResult', #thatResult AS 'thatResult', #otherResult AS 'otherResult'
SELECT T1.ThisResult, T2.ThatResult, T3.OtherResult
FROM (select SUM(ThisCol) as ThisResult from...) T1,
(select SUM(ThatCol) as ThatResult from...) T2,
(select count(DISTINCT OtherCol) as OtherResult from...) T3
Because each table contains only 1column & 1 value, you do a cross join of all 3 and put each value in a column in the result table.
If you're using SQL Server, you can select these quantities again as your last statement.
Select ThisResult, ThatResult, OtherResult
You don't have to specify a table