Suppose I have a table with following records
value text
company/about about Us
company company
company/contactus company contact
I have a very simple query in sql server as below. I am having problem with the 'or' condition. In below query, I am trying to find text for value 'company/about'. If it is not found, then only I want to run the other side of 'or'. The below query returns two records as below
value text
company/about about Us
company company
Query
select
*
from
tbl
where
value='company/about' or
value=substring('company/about',0,charindex('/','company/about'))
How can I modify the query so the result set looks like
value text
company/about about Us
A bit roundabout, but you can check for the existence of results from the first where clause:
select
*
from
tbl
where
value='company/about' or
(
not exists (select * from tbl where value='company/about')
and
value=substring('company/about',0,charindex('/','company/about'))
)
Since your second condition can be re-written as value = 'company' this would work (at least for the data and query you've presented):
select top(1) [value], [text]
from dbo.MyTable
where value in ('company/about', 'company')
order by len(value) desc
The TOP() ignores the second row if both are found, and the ORDER BY ensures that the first row is always the one with 'company/about', if it exists.
Related
I am currently working with a MS SQL database on Windows 2012 Server
I need to query only 1 column from a table that I only have access to read, not make any kind of changes.
Problem is that the name of the column is "Value"
My code is this:
SELECT 'Value' FROM table
If I add
`ORDER BY 'Value'`
The issue is that the query is returning an empty list of results.
Things I've tried already
I tried replacing ' with `"' but this didn't work either.
I also tried writing SELECT * instead of SELECT VALUE
Using the table name in the SELECT or ORDER clauses again didn't help
You are claiming that this query:
SELECT 'Value'
FROM table
ORDER BY 'Value'
Is returning no rows. That's not quite correct. It is returning an error because SQL Server does not allow constant expressions as keys for ORDER BY (or GROUP BY for that matter).
Do not use single quotes. In this case:
SELECT 'Value' as val
FROM table
ORDER BY val;
Or, if value is a column in the table:
SELECT t.Value
FROM table t
ORDER BY t.Value;
Value is not a reserved word in SQL Server, but if it were, you could escape it:
SELECT t.[Value]
FROM table t
ORDER BY t.[Value];
it looks like your table has null values. and because of the order by all null values come first.
try to add filter like this
select Value FROM table
where Value is not null and Value <> ''
order by Value
Let's say that we have a table named Data with Id and Weather columns. Other columns in that table are not important to this problem. The Weather column can be null.
I want to display all rows where Weather fits a condition, but if there is a null value in weather then display null value.
My SQL so far:
SELECT *
FROM Data d
WHERE (d.Weather LIKE '%'+COALESCE(NULLIF('',''),'sunny')+'%' OR d.Weather IS NULL)
My results are wrong, because that statement also shows values where Weather is null if condition is not correct (let's say that users mistyped wrong).
I found similar topic, but there I do not find appropriate answer.
SQL WHERE clause not returning rows when field has NULL value
Please help me out.
Your query is correct for the general task of treating NULLs as a match. If you wish to suppress NULLs when there are no other results, you can add an AND EXISTS ... condition to your query, like this:
SELECT *
FROM Data d
WHERE d.Weather LIKE '%'+COALESCE(NULLIF('',''),'sunny')+'%'
OR (d.Weather IS NULL AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM Data dd WHERE dd.Weather LIKE '%'+COALESCE(NULLIF('',''),'sunny')+'%'))
The additional condition ensures that NULLs are treated as matches only if other matching records exist.
You can also use a common table expression to avoid duplicating the query, like this:
WITH cte (id, weather) AS
(
SELECT *
FROM Data d
WHERE d.Weather LIKE '%'+COALESCE(NULLIF('',''),'sunny')+'%'
)
SELECT * FROM cte
UNION ALL
SELECT * FROM Data WHERE weather is NULL AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM cte)
statement show also values where Wether is null if condition is not correct (let say that users typed wrong sunny).
This suggests that the constant 'sunny' is coming from end-user's input. If that is the case, you need to parameterize your query to avoid SQL injection attacks.
I am just learning SQL, and I'm wondering what the difference is between the following lines:
WHERE s.parent IN (SELECT l.parent .....)
versus
WHERE s.parent = (SELECT l.parent .....)
IN
will not generate an error if you have multiple results on the subquery. Allows to have more than one value in the result returned by the subquery.
=
will generate an error if you have more than one result on the subquery.
SQLFiddle Demo (IN vs =)
when you are using 'IN' it can compare multiple values....like
select * from tablename where student_name in('mari','sruthi','takudu')
but when you are using '=' you can't compare multiple values
select * from tablenamewhere student_name = 'sruthi'
i hope this is the right answer
The "IN" clause is also much much much much slower. If you have many results in the select portion of
IN (SELECT l.parent .....),
it will be extremely inefficient as it actually generates a separate select sql statement for each and every result within the select statement ... so if you return 'Cat', 'Dog', 'Cow'
it will essentially create a sql statement for each result... if you have 200 results... you get the full sql statement 200 times...takes forever... (This was as of a few years ago... maybe imporved by now... but it was horribly slow on big result sets.)
Much more efficient to do an inner join such as:
Select id, parent
from table1 as T
inner join (Select parent from table2) as T2 on T.parent = T2.parent
For future visitors.
Basically in case of equals (just remember that here we are talking like where a.name = b.name), each cell value from table 1 will be compared one by one to each cell value of all the rows from table 2, if it matches then that row will be selected (here that row will be selected means that row from table 1 and table 2) for the overall result set otherwise will not be selected.
Now, in case of IN, complete result set on the right side of the IN will be used for comparison, so its like each value from table 1 will be checked on whether this cell value is present in the complete result set of the IN, if it is present then that value will be shown for all the rows of the IN’s result set, so let say IN result set has 20 rows, so that cell value from table 1 will be present in overall result set 20 times (i.e. that particular cell value will have 20 rows).
For more clarity see below screen shot, notice below that how complete result set from the right of the IN (and NOT IN) is considered in the overall result set; whole emphasis is on the fact that in case comparison using =, matching row from second table is selected, while in case of IN complete result from the second table is selected.
In can match a value with more than one values, in other words it checks if a value is in the list of values so for e.g.
x in ('a', 'b', 'x') will return true result as x is in the the list of values
while = expects only one value, its as simple as
x = y returns false
and
x = x returns true
The general rule of thumb is:
The = expects a single value to compare with. Like this:
WHERE s.parent = 'father_name'
IN is extremely useful in scenarios where = cannot work i.e. scenarios where you need the comparison with multiple values.
WHERE s.parent IN ('father_name', 'mother_name', 'brother_name', 'sister_name')
Hope this is useful!!!
IN
This helps when a subquery returns more than one result.
=
This operator cannot handle more than one result.
Like in this example:
SQL>
Select LOC from dept where DEPTNO = (select DEPTNO from emp where
JOB='MANAGER');
Gives ERROR ORA-01427: single-row subquery returns more than one row
Instead use
SQL>
Select LOC from dept where DEPTNO in (select DEPTNO from emp
where JOB='MANAGER');
1) Sometimes = also used as comparison operator in case of joins which IN doesn't.
2) You can pass multiple values in the IN block which you can't do with =. For example,
SELECT * FROM [Products] where ProductID IN((select max(ProductID) from Products),
(select min(ProductID) from Products))
would work and provide you expected number of rows.However,
SELECT * FROM [Products] where ProductID = (select max(ProductID) from Products)
and ProductID =(select min(ProductID) from Products)
will provide you 'no result'. That means, in case subquery supposed to return multiple number of rows , in that case '=' isn't useful.
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.
I am attempting to use a case statement but keep getting errors. Here's the statement:
select TABLE1.acct,
CASE
WHEN TABLE1.acct_id in (select acct_id
from TABLE2
group by acct_id
having count(*) = 1 ) THEN
(select name
from TABLE3
where TABLE1.acct_id = TABLE3.acct_id)
ELSE 'All Others'
END as Name
from TABLE1
When I replace the TABLE1.acct_id in the THEN expression with a literal value, the query works. When I try to use TABLE1.acct_id from the WHEN part of the query, I get a error saying the result is more than one row. It seems like the THEN expression is ignoring the single value that the WHEN statement was using. No idea, maybe this isn't even a valid use of the CASE statement.
I am trying to see names for accounts that have one entry in TABLE2.
Any ideas would be appreciated, I'm kind of new at SQL.
First, you are missing a comma after TABLE1.acct. Second, you have aliased TABLE1 as acct, so you should use that.
Select acct.acct
, Case
When acct.acct_id in ( Select acct_id
From TABLE2
Group By acct_id
Having Count(*) = 1 )
Then ( Select name
From TABLE3
Where acct.acct_id = TABLE3.acct_id
Fetch First 1 Rows Only)
Else 'All Others'
End as Name
From TABLE1 As acct
As others have said, you should adjust your THEN clause to ensure that only one value is returned. You can do that by add Fetch First 1 Rows Only to your subquery.
Then ( Select name
From TABLE3
Where acct.acct_id = TABLE3.acct_id
Fetch First 1 Rows Only)
Fetch is not accepting in CASE statement - "Keyword FETCH not expected. Valid tokens: ) UNION EXCEPT. "
select name from TABLE3 where TABLE1.acct_id = TABLE3.acct_id
will give you all the names in Table3, which have a accompanying row in Table 1. The row selected from Table2 in the previous line doesn't enter into it.
Must be getting more than one value.
You can replace the body with...
(select count(name) from TABLE3 where TABLE1.acct_id = TABLE3.acct_id)
... to narrow down which rows are returning multiples.
It may be the case that you just need a DISTINCT or a TOP 1 to reduce your result set.
Good luck!
I think that what is happening here is that your case must return a single value because it will be the value for the "name" column. The subquery (select acct_id from TABLE2 group by acct_id having count(*) = 1 ) is OK because it will only ever return one value. (select name from TABLE3 where TABLE1.acct_id= TABLE3.acct_id) could return multiple values depending on your data. The problem is you trying to shove multiple values into a single field for a single row.
The next thing to do would be to find out what data causes multiple rows to be returned by (select name from TABLE3 where TABLE1.acct_id= TABLE3.acct_id), and see if you can further limit this query to only return one row. If need be, you could even try something like ...AND ROWNUM = 1 (for Oracle - other DBs have similar ways of limiting rows returned).