Today I wrote this bit of sql:
SELECT COUNT(T0021_werk_naam)
FROM (SELECT Distinct T0021_werk_naam,T0021_jaar,T0021_kwartiel
FROM T0021_offertes
WHERE T0021_status_code = 'G' AND T0021_jaar = 2013 AND (T0021_kwartiel = 3))
This sql runs great when I run it locally in access, however, when I run it through the code that has been used for ages for this and most certainly definetly is not the problem, and send it to SQL Express it gives an error that says there's a problem near ')'
After stripping away all the brackets possible it becomes clear that it detects there's a problem with the last ')' but I don't see the problem.
Any Ideas?
You need to give an alias for the select in the parenthesis:
SELECT COUNT(T0021_werk_naam)
FROM (
SELECT Distinct T0021_werk_naam,
T0021_jaar,
T0021_kwartiel
FROM T0021_offertes
WHERE T0021_status_code = 'G'
AND T0021_jaar = 2013
AND (T0021_kwartiel = 3)
) T
notice the T in the end after the last parenthesis.
Related
I have the following problem retrieving messages from the OpenFire Monitoring Service plugin. I discovered that the error is due to an incorrect query in the database but I still cannot detect the error for which the query is not working correctly.
SELECT
fromjid,
fromjidresource,
tojid,
tojidresource,
sentdate,
body,
stanza,
messageid,
barejid
FROM
(
SELECT
DISTINCT ofmessagearchive.fromjid,
ofmessagearchive.fromjidresource,
ofmessagearchive.tojid,
ofmessagearchive.tojidresource,
ofmessagearchive.sentdate,
ofmessagearchive.body,
ofmessagearchive.stanza,
ofmessagearchive.messageid,
ofconparticipant.barejid
FROM
ofmessagearchive
INNER JOIN ofconparticipant ON ofmessagearchive.conversationid =
ofconparticipant.conversationid
WHERE
(
ofmessagearchive.stanza IS NOT NULL
OR ofmessagearchive.body IS NOT NULL
)
AND ofmessagearchive.messageid IS NOT NULL
AND ofmessagearchive.sentdate >= 0
AND ofmessagearchive.sentdate <= 1602748770287
AND ofconparticipant.barejid = 'usuario3#192.168.0.79'
AND (
ofmessagearchive.tojid = 'usuario4#192.168.0.79'
OR ofmessagearchive.fromjid = 'usuario3#192.168.0.79'
)
ORDER BY
ofmessagearchive.sentdate DESC
LIMIT
100
) AS part
ORDER BY
sentdate
I get an error when doing the following query
ORA-00907: missing right parenthesis
Command line error:32 Column: 9
There is no LIMIT keyword available in Oracle and if you are using Oracle 12c you can use FETCH FIRST 100 ROWS ONLY instead of it.
You cannot use AS to give alias to the sub query and it is not recognised by Oracle. So either you can remove the alias completely as you are not using it anywhere or just remove the AS and keep the alias name part only which should be fine.
Here is a good SO link about the Oracle limiting result set and you can always look into other sites available such as Oracle base or the official document as well. For 11g solution you have to use row_number
I am trying to convert an Access query to one that works in SQL server. The original query in Access works perfectly well (just terribly slow).
I only changed things slightly to make it compatible with SQL server instead of Access, like changing "NOW()" to "GETDATE()" and we can no longer divide aliases.
Running this query in SQL Server:
SELECT batches.[price-group],
[development].verifier,
Count([development].company) AS SENT,
Sum([order] *- 1) AS ORDS,
Count([development].company) / Sum([order] *- 1) AS PCT
FROM [development]
INNER JOIN batches
ON [development].batch = batches.batch
WHERE (( ( [development].[mail-date] ) < Getdate() - 50 ))
GROUP BY batches.[price-group],
[development].verifier
HAVING (( ( batches.[price-group] ) = 'pgb' ))
ORDER BY batches.[price-group],
[development].verifier,
Count([development].company) DESC;
Returns this error:
Msg 8134, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Divide by zero error encountered.
Only real change, was like I said, in Access we could do this
[ords] / [sent] AS PCT
Any help will be appreciated, I'm not sure exactly why it isn't working! Removing the converted line above, does work in SQL server without any errors.
Thank you!
Use NULLIF():
Count([development].company) / NULLIF(Sum([order] * -1), 0) AS PCT
I have a following table:
EstimatedCurrentRevenue -- Revenue column value of yesterday
EstimatedPreviousRevenue --- Revenue column value of current day
crmId
OwnerId
PercentageChange.
I am querying two snapshots of the similarly structured data in Azure data lake and trying to query the percentage change in Revenue.
Following is my query i am trying to join on OpportunityId to get the difference between the revenue values:
#opportunityRevenueData = SELECT (((opty.EstimatedCurrentRevenue - optyPrevious.EstimatedPreviousRevenue)*100)/opty.EstimatedCurrentRevenue) AS PercentageRevenueChange, optyPrevious.EstimatedPreviousRevenue,
opty.EstimatedCurrentRevenue, opty.crmId, opty.OwnerId From #opportunityCurrentData AS opty JOIN #opportunityPreviousData AS optyPrevious on opty.OpportunityId == optyPrevious.OpportunityId;
But i get the following error:
E_CSC_USER_SYNTAXERROR: syntax error. Expected one of: AS EXCEPT FROM
GROUP HAVING INTERSECT OPTION ORDER OUTER UNION UNION WHERE ';' ')'
','
at token 'From', line 40
near the ###:
This expression is having the problem i know but not sure how to fix it.
(((opty.EstimatedCurrentRevenue - optyPrevious.EstimatedPreviousRevenue)*100)/opty.EstimatedCurrentRevenue)
Please help, i am completely new to U-sql
U-SQL is case-sensitive (as per here) with all SQL reserved words in UPPER CASE. So you should capitalise the FROM and ON keywords in your statement, like this:
#opportunityRevenueData =
SELECT (((opty.EstimatedCurrentRevenue - optyPrevious.EstimatedPreviousRevenue) * 100) / opty.EstimatedCurrentRevenue) AS PercentageRevenueChange,
optyPrevious.EstimatedPreviousRevenue,
opty.EstimatedCurrentRevenue,
opty.crmId,
opty.OwnerId
FROM #opportunityCurrentData AS opty
JOIN
#opportunityPreviousData AS optyPrevious
ON opty.OpportunityId == optyPrevious.OpportunityId;
Also, if you are completely new to U-SQL, you should consider working through some tutorials to establish the basics of the language, including case-sensitivity. Start at http://usql.io/.
This same crazy sounding error message can occur for (almost?) any USQL syntax error. The answer above was clearly correct for the provided code.
However since many folks will probably get to this page from a search for 'AS EXCEPT FROM GROUP HAVING INTERSECT OPTION ORDER OUTER UNION UNION WHERE', I'd say the best advice to handle these is look closely at the snippet of your code that the error message has marked with '###'.
For example I got to this page upon getting a syntax error for a long query and it turned out I didn't have a casing issue, but just a malformed query with parens around the wrong thing. Once I looked more closely at where in the snippet the ### symbol was, the error became clear.
I have the following SQL statement which returns the desired result in SQL Server 2012:
SELECT
S.ONOMA
, S.DIEY
, S.POLH
, S.TK
, S.IDIOT
, S.KODIKOS
, S.AFM
FROM
SYNERG AS S
INNER JOIN
(SELECT
G.AFM, MIN(KODIKOS) AS KODIKOS
FROM SYNERG AS G
WHERE LEN(ISNULL(AFM, '')) != 0
GROUP BY AFM) AS I ON S.KODIKOS = I.KODIKOS
ORDER BY
S.AFM
but when I run the same SQL statement in MS Access 2007 I get an error:
Circular reference caused by 'KODIKOS' in query definition's SELECT list.
Any help would be appreciated.
As explained in the link by HansUp:
The alias of a calculated field cannot be identical to any of the field names used to calculate the field.
This can be rather annoying (esp. if it is a field that is returned by the query), but there is no way around it.
So you need to change the alias, e.g.:
SELECT
S.ONOMA
, S.DIEY
, S.POLH
, S.TK
, S.IDIOT
, S.KODIKOS
, S.AFM
FROM
SYNERG AS S
INNER JOIN
(SELECT
G.AFM, MIN(KODIKOS) AS MinKODIKOS
FROM SYNERG AS G
WHERE LEN(Nz(AFM, '')) <> 0
GROUP BY AFM) AS I ON S.KODIKOS = I.MinKODIKOS
ORDER BY
S.AFM
Note also that an IsNull() function exists in Access, but has a different meaning (it takes one argument and returns a Boolean). The corresponding function is Nz()
And (thanks #HansUp), the unequal operator is <>, not !=. I always use <> in SQL Server too, no need to make things more complicated than necessary. :)
I am running a SQL query in stored procedure which is like following
SELECT
t1.id,t2.Name
FROM
table1 t1 , table2 t2 ,table2 t3,table4 t4
WHERE
t1.id=t3.t4.id
this query gets executed on SQL server 2008 when its compatible with SQL server 2000 but if we turn OFF the compatibility with SQL server 2000 then this Query gives syntax error which is expected.
Can some one help me to understand why this is happeneing ? thanks in advance
Original query:
SELECT
ConfigID , LocationDesc + '-' + LOBTeamDesc LocLOBTeamSource
FROM Config CONFIG , Location_LOBTeam LOCLOB , Location LOC , LOBTeam LOB, System SRC
WHERE CONFIG.LocationLOBTeamID = LOC.LOB.LocationLOBTeamID
AND CONFIG.SourceSystemID = SRC.SystemID
AND LOCLOB.LocationID = LOC.LocationID
AND LOCLOB.LOBTeamID = LOB.LOBTeamID
AND (GETDATE() BETWEEN CONFIG.effectiveDate AND CONFIG.EndDate
OR CONFIG.EndDate IS NULL)
ORDER BY
LOC.LocationCode
I think that original query, with current standard join syntax applied would be this:
SELECT
ConfigID
, LocationDesc + '-' + LOBTeamDesc LocLOBTeamSource
FROM Config CONFIG
INNER JOIN Location_LOBTeam LOCLOB
ON CONFIG.LocationLOBTeamID = LOCLOB.LocationLOBTeamID
INNER JOIN Location LOC
ON LOCLOB.LocationID = LOC.LocationID
INNER JOIN LOBTeam LOB
ON LOCLOB.LOBTeamID = LOB.LOBTeamID
INNER JOIN [System] SRC
ON CONFIG.SourceSystemID = SRC.SystemID
WHERE (GETDATE() BETWEEN CONFIG.effectiveDate AND CONFIG.EndDate
OR CONFIG.EndDate IS NULL)
ORDER BY
LOC.LocationCode
Perhaps this will help.
+EDIT
"System" as a table name, could that be a problem? Suggest you try it as [System]
+EDIT2
The original is given with this: LOC.LOB.LocationLOBTeamID but that appears to be an error as there is an alias LOCLOB
I think below post from msdn answers this issue Compatibility Levels and Stored Procedures
in the above post the point number 3 under section "Differences Between Compatibility Level 80 and Level 90" states "WHEN binding the column references in the ORDER BY list to the columns defined in the SELECT list, column ambiguities are ignored and column prefixes are sometimes ignored. This can cause the result set to return in an unexpected order."
on my database I am using compatibility level 80 i.e 2000 thats why it runs smoothly with the given syntax but when I remove this compatibility and make it to 100 i.e. 2008/R2 script gives syntax error which is expected