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.
Related
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 would like to know if it's possible for expressions that are part of the SELECT statement list to be evaluated for rows not matching the WHERE clause?
From the execution order documented here, it seems that the SELECT gets evaluated long after the WHERE, however I ran into a very weird problem with a real-life query similar to the query below.
To put you in context, in the example, the SomeOtherTable has a a_varchar column which always contains numerical values for the code 105, but may contain non-numerical values for other codes.
The query statement works:
SELECT an_id, an_integer FROM SomeTable
UNION ALL
SELECT an_id, CAST(a_varchar AS int)
FROM SomeOtherTable
WHERE code = 105
The following query complains about being unable to cast a_varchar to int:
SELECT 1
FROM (
SELECT an_id, an_integer FROM SomeTable
UNION ALL
SELECT an_id, CAST(a_varchar AS int)
FROM SomeOtherTable
WHERE code = 105
) i
INNER JOIN AnotherOne a
ON a.an_id = i.an_id
And finally, the following query works:
SELECT 1
FROM (
SELECT an_id, an_integer FROM SomeTable
UNION ALL
SELECT
an_id,
CASE code WHEN 105 THEN CAST(a_varchar AS int) ELSE NULL END
FROM SomeOtherTable
WHERE code = 105
) i
INNER JOIN AnotherOne a
ON a.an_id = i.an_id
Therefore, the only explanation I could find was that with the JOIN, the query gets optimized differently in a way that CAST(a_varchar AS int) gets executed even if code <> 105.
The queries are run against SQL SERVER 2008.
Absolutely.
The documentation that you reference has a section called Logical Processing Order of the SELECT statement. This is not the physical processing order. It explains how the query itself is interpreted. For instance, an alias defined in the select clause cannot be references in the where clause, because the where clause is logically processed first.
In fact, SQL Server has the ability to optimize queries by doing various data transformation operations when it reads the data. This is a nice performance benefit, because the data is in memory, locally, and the operations can simply be done in place. However, the following can fail with a run-time error:
select cast(a_varchar as int)
from table t
where a_varchar not like '%[^0-9]%';
The filter is applied after the attempt at conversion, in the real process flow. I happen to consider this a bug; presumably, the folks at Microsoft do not think so, because they have not bothered to fix this.
Two workarounds are available. The first is try_convert(), which does conversions and returns NULL for a failure instead of a run-time error. The second is the case statement:
select (case when a_varchar not like '%[^0-9]%' then cast(a_varchar as int) end)
from table t
where a_varchar not like '%[^0-9]%';
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
I have a valid SQL select which returns an empty result, up and until a specific transaction has taken place in the environment.
Is there something available in SQL itself, that will allow me to return a 0 as opposed to an empty dataset? Similar to isNULL('', 0) functionality. Obviously I tried that and it didn't work.
PS. Sadly I don't have access to the database, or the environment, I have an agent installed that is executing these queries so I'm limited to solving this problem with just SQL.
FYI: Take any select and run it where the "condition" is not fulfilled (where LockCookie='777777777' for example.) If that condition is never met, the result is empty. But at some point the query will succeed based on a set of operations/tasks that happen. But I would like to return 0, up until that event has occurred.
You can store your result in a temp table and check ##rowcount.
select ID
into #T
from YourTable
where SomeColumn = #SomeValue
if ##rowcount = 0
select 0 as ID
else
select ID
from #T
drop table #T
If you want this as one query with no temp table you can wrap your query in an outer apply against a dummy table with only one row.
select isnull(T.ID, D.ID) as ID
from (values(0)) as D(ID)
outer apply
(
select ID
from YourTable
where SomeColumn = #SomeValue
) as T
alternet way is from code, you can check count of DataSet.
DsData.Tables[0].Rows.count > 0
make sure that your query matches your conditions
Debugging an app which queries SQL Server 05, can't change the query but need to optimise things.
Running all the selects seperately are quick <1sec, eg: select * from acscard, select id from employee... When joined together it takes 50 seconds.
Is it better to set uninteresting accesscardid fields to null or to '' when using EXISTS?
SELECT * FROM ACSCard
WHERE NOT EXISTS
( SELECT Id FROM Employee
WHERE Employee.AccessCardId = ACSCard.acs_card_number )
AND NOT EXISTS
( SELECT Id FROM Visit
WHERE Visit.AccessCardId = ACSCard.acs_card_number )
ORDER by acs_card_id
Do you have indexes on Employee.AccessCardId, Visit.AccessCardId, and ACSCard.acs_card_number?
The SELECT clause is not evaluated in an EXISTS clause. This:
WHERE EXISTS(SELECT 1/0
FROM EMPLOYEE)
...should raise an error for dividing by zero, but it won't. But you need to put something in the SELECT clause for it to be a valid query - it doesn't matter if it's NULL or a zero length string.
In SQL Server, NOT EXISTS (and NOT IN) are better than the LEFT JOIN/IS NULL approach if the columns being compared are not nullable (the values on either side can not be NULL). The columns compared should be indexed, if they aren't already.