Here is my SQL query:
select * from TABLE T where ROWNUM<=100
If i execute this and then re-execute this, I don't get the same result. Why?
Also, on a sybase system if i execute
set rowcount 100
select * from TABLE
even on re-execution i get the same result?
Can someone explain why? and provide possible solution for RowNum
Thanks
If you don't use ORDER BY in your query you get the results in natural order.
Natural order is whatever is fastest for the database at the moment.
A possible solution is to ORDER BY your primary key, if it's an INT
SELECT TOP 100 START AT 0 * FROM TABLE
ORDER BY TABLE.ID;
If your primary key is not a sequentially incrementing integer and you don't have another column to order by (such as a timestamp) you may need to create an extra column SORT_ORDER INT and increment in automatically on insert using either an Autoincrement column or a sequence and an insert trigger, depending on the database.
Make sure to create an index on that column to speed up the query.
You need to specify an ORDER BY. Queries without explicit ORDER BY clause make no guarantee about the order in which the rows are returned. And from this result set you take the first 100 rows. As the order in which the rows can be different every time, so can be your first 100 rows.
You need to use ORDER BY first, followed by ROWNUM. You will get inconsistent results if you don't follow this order.
select * from
(
select * from TABLE T ORDER BY rowid
) where ROWNUM<=100
Related
Posting two questions:
1.
Let's say there is a query:
SELECT C1, C2, C3 from TABLE;
When this query is fired for the first time,it retrieves all the values in a certain order.
Next time, when the same query is fired, will the previous order be retained?
There are 2 tables, TABLE1 and TABLE2, both of them have identical data.
Will (SELECT * from TABLE1) and (SELECT * from TABLE1) retrieve the same order of rows?
SQL tables represent unordered sets. Period. There is no ordering in a result set unless you explicitly include an ORDER BY.
It is that simple. If you want data in a particular order, then you need to use ORDER BY. That is how relational databases work.
The same query can return results in different orders each time the query is executed. There are no guarantees about the order -- unless the query has an ORDER BY for the outermost SELECT.
No, unless you are fetching data from result cache!
No, unless they are very small tables and your query runs with low parallelism.
Sorry for extra answer, but I see Tim claims that the query will return same result as long as the underlying table(s) is not modified, and the query has same execution plan.
Snowflake executes the queries in parallel, therefore the order of data is not predictable unless ORDER BY is used.
Let's create a table (big enough to be processed in parallel), and run a simple test case:
-- running on medium warehouse
create or replace table my_test_table ( id number, name varchar ) as
select seq4(), 'gokhan' || seq4() from table(generator(rowcount=>1000000000));
alter session set USE_CACHED_RESULT = false;
select * from my_test_table limit 10;
You will see that it will return different rows every time you run.
To answer both questions short: No.
If your query has no ORDER BY-clause, the SELECT statement always returns an unordered set. This means: Even if you query the same table twice and the data didnt change, SELECT without ORDER BY can retrieve different row-orders.
https://docs.snowflake.com/en/sql-reference/sql/select.html
if suppose we have written a SQL select command without using order by clause then what will be the column on which the sorting will done while displaying records of select command...
create table test
(
ID int identity (1,1) primary key,
em_id int,
name varchar(20),
address varchar(20)
mobile number int
)
suppose the table is like above structure and select command like
select * from test
then how can i check the column name on which the sorting is done by sql..
In a query like this:
select *
from test;
The result set is not sorted.
SQL tables represent unordered sets. Running the query multiple times can result in the same result set -- but with the rows in a different order.
If you want a specific ordering in the result set, you need to include an order by.
You may be confusing "ordering" with the clustered index. If so, you can find the keys in a clustered index (if one exists) using the system metadata tables. But the data is not guaranteed to be returned by the clustered index unless you have an order by in the query.
If you want a specific ordering in the result set, you need to include an order by clause.
By default order by(if you specify order by clause) is in ASC order.
I have a column named id in my SQLite database which is auto-increment, Primary Key, Unique.
Is the result of the following query guaranteed to be the smallest value of id in the database and does this correspond to the "oldest" (as in a FIFO) row to be inserted?
SELECT id FROM table LIMIT 1
The SQLite documentation is quite explicit:
If a SELECT statement that returns more than one row does not have an
ORDER BY clause, the order in which the rows are returned is
undefined. Or, if a SELECT statement does have an ORDER BY clause,
then the list of expressions attached to the ORDER BY determine the
order in which rows are returned to the user.
The LIMIT is applied after an ORDER BY would be, so I don't think it affects the application of this statement.
Hence, if you want the first row, use ORDER BY:
SELECT id
FROM table
ORDER BY id
LIMIT 1;
Note that if id is a primary key, this will add basically no overhead.
I should emphasize that in practice you are probably going to get the smallest id without the ORDER BY. However, it is a really, really bad idea to depend on behavior that directly contradicts the documentation.
Is the result of the following query guaranteed to be the smallest value of id in the database
Yes. However if the table is empty or the id column is NULL, it could also return NULL
and does this correspond to the "oldest" (as in a FIFO) row to be inserted?
No, there's no guarantee of that.
Say I want to do this with SQL (Sybase): Find all fields of the record with the latest timestamp.
One way to write that is like this:
select * from data where timestamp = (select max(timestamp) from data)
This is a bit silly because it causes two queries - first to find the max timestamp, and then to find all the data for that timestamp (assume it's unique, and yes - i do have an index on timestamp). More so it just seems unnecessary because max() has already found the row that I am interested in so looking for it again is wasteful.
Is there a way to directly access fields of the row that max() returns?
Edit: All answers I see are basically clever hacks - I was looking for a syntactic way of doing something like max(field1).field2 to access field2 of the row with max field1
SELECT TOP 1 * from data ORDER BY timestamp DESC
No, using an aggregate means that you are automatically grouping, so there isn't a single row to get data from even if the group happens to contain a single row.
You can order by the field and get the first row:
set rowcount 1
select * from data order by timestamp desc
(Note that you shouldn't use select *, but rather specify the fields that you want from the query. That makes the query less sensetive to changes in the database layout.)
Can you try this
SELECT TOP 1 *
FROm data
ORDER BY timestamp DESC
You're making assumptions about how Sybase optimizes queries. For all you know, it may do precisely what you want it to do - it may notice both queries are from "data" and that the condition is "where =", and may optimize as you suggest.
I know in the case of SQL Server, it's possible to configure indexes to include fields from the indexed row. Doing a select through such an index leaves those fields available.
This is SQL server, but you'll get the idea.
SELECT TOP(1) * FROM data
ORDER BY timestamp DESC;
I'm using an Informix (Version 7.32) DB. On one operation I create a temp table with the ID of a regular table and a serial column (so I would have all the IDs from the regular table numbered continuously). But I want to insert the info from the regular table ordered by ID something like:
CREATE TEMP TABLE tempTable (id serial, folio int );
INSERT INTO tempTable(id,folio)
SELECT 0,folio FROM regularTable ORDER BY folio;
But this creates a syntax error (because of the ORDER BY)
Is there any way I can order the info then insert it to the tempTable?
UPDATE: The reason I want to do this is because the regular table has about 10,000 items and in a jsp file, it has to show every record, but it would take to long, so the real reason I want to do this is to paginate the output. This version of Informix doesn't have Limit nor Skip. I can't renumber the serial because is in a relationship, and this is the only solution we could get a fixed number of results on one page (for example 500 results per page). In the Regular table has skipped id's (called folio) because they have been deleted. if i were to put
SELECT * FROM regularTable WHERE folio BETWEEN X AND Y
I would get maybe 300 in one page, then 500 in the next page
You can do this by breaking up the SQL into two temp tables:
CREATE TEMP TABLE tempTable1 (
id serial,
folio int);
SELECT folio FROM regularTable ORDER BY folio
INTO TEMP tempTable2;
INSERT INTO tempTable1(id,folio) SELECT 0,folio FROM tempTable2;
In Informix when using a SELECT as a sub-clause in an INSERT statement, you are limited
to a subset of the SELECT syntax.
The following SELECT clauses are not supported in this case:
INTO TEMP
ORDER BY
UNION.
Additionally, the FROM clause of the SELECT can not reference the same table as referenced by the INSERT (not that this matters in your case).
It's been years since I worked on Informix, but perhaps something like this will work:
INSERT INTO tempTable(id,folio)
SELECT 0, folio
FROM (
SELECT folio FROM regularTable ORDER BY folio
);
You might try it iterating a cursor over the SELECT ... ORDER BY and doing the INSERTs within the loop.
It makes no sense to order the rows as you insert into a table. Relational databases do not allow you to specify the order of rows in a table.
Even if you could, SQL does not guarantee a query will return rows in any order, such as the order you inserted them. You must specify an ORDER BY clause to guarantee an order for a query result.
So it would do you no good to change the order in which you insert the rows.
As stated by Bill, there's not a lot of point ordering the input, you really need to order the output. In the simplistic example you've provided, it just makes no sense, so I can only assume that the real problem you're trying to solve is more complex - deduplication perhaps?
The functionality you're after is CREATE SEQUENCE, but I'm pretty sure it's not available in such an old version of Informix.
If you really need to do what you're asking, you could look into UNLOADing the data in the required order, and then LOADing it again. That would ensure the SERIAL values get allocated sequentially.
Would something like this work?
SELECT
folio
FROM
(
SELECT
ROWNUM n,
folio
FROM
regularTable
ORDER BY
folio
)
WHERE
n BETWEEN 501 AND 1000
It may not be terribly efficient if the table grows larger or you're fetching later "pages", but 10K rows is pretty small.
I don't recall if Informix has a ROWNUM concept, I use Oracle.