I've been trying for a few hours (probably more than I needed to) to figure out the best way to write an update sql query that will dissallow duplicates on the column I am updating.
Meaning, if TableA.ColA already has a name 'TEST1', then when I'm changing another record, then I simply can't pick a value for ColA to be 'TEST1'.
It's pretty easy to simply just separate the query into a select, and use a server layer code that would allow conditional logic:
SELECT ID, NAME FROM TABLEA WHERE NAME = 'TEST1'
IF TableA.recordcount > 0 then
UPDATE SET NAME = 'TEST1' WHERE ID = 1234
END IF
But I'm more interested to see if these two queries can be combined into a single query.
I am using Oracle to figure things out, but I'd love to see a SQL Server query as well. I figured a MERGE statement can work, but for obvious reasons you can't have the clause:
..etc.. WHEN NOT MATCHED UPDATE SET ..etc.. WHERE ID = 1234
AND you can't update a column if it's mentioned in the join (oracle limitation but not limited to SQL Server)
ALSO, I know you can put a constraint on a column that prevents duplicate values, but I'd be interested to see if there is such a query that can do this without using constraint.
Here is an example start-up attempt on my end just to see what I can come up with (explanations on it failed is not necessary):
ERROR: ORA-01732: data manipulation operation not legal on this view
UPDATE (
SELECT d.NAME, ch.NAME FROM (
SELECT 'test1' AS NAME, '2722' AS ID
FROM DUAL
) d
LEFT JOIN TABLEA a
ON UPPER(a.name) = UPPER(d.name)
)
SET a.name = 'test2'
WHERE a.name is null and a.id = d.id
I have tried merge, but just gave up thinking it's not possible. I've also considered not exists (but I'd have to be careful since I might accidentally update every other record that doesn't match a criteria)
It should be straightforward:
update personnel
set personnel_number = 'xyz'
where person_id = 1001
and not exists (select * from personnel where personnel_number = 'xyz');
If I understand correctly, you want to conditionally update a field, assuming the value is not found. The following query does this. It should work in both SQL Server and Oracle:
update table1
set name = 'Test1'
where (select count(*) from table1 where name = 'Test1') > 0 and
id = 1234
Related
I need to render a query such that every column contains the count of a respective table.
The code I have now is:
SELECT COUNT(table1.Id),
COUNT(table2.Id),
COUNT(table3.Id)
FROM table1,
table2,
table3
WHERE table1.done = 'No' OR
table2.done = 'No' OR
table3.done = 'No' OR
But I need the query to return the same result values as if every table would be counted independently, like:
SELECT COUNT(tableX.Id) FROM tableX WHERE talbeX.done = 'No'
where the 'X' stands for 1,2 or 3.
How can this be achived with SQL?
Thanks beforhand for the help.
Just use a nested sub query, exactly as you have explained it:
SELECT
(SELECT COUNT(table1.Id) FROM table1 WHERE table1.done = 'No') as T1Count,
(SELECT COUNT(table2.Id) FROM table2 WHERE table2.done = 'No') as T2Count,
(SELECT COUNT(table3.Id) FROM table3 WHERE table3.done = 'No') as T3Count,
(SELECT COUNT(tableN.Id) FROM tableN) as TNCount;
This will query the tables independently so you are free to use what ever additional criteria you may need without trying to correlate the results from each query
FROM in this case is not strictly necessary in the outer query as we are not returning rows from any specific table, there is no table that we could specify in the from clause. Each RDBMS has their own convention for these types of queries, MS SQL Server and Oracle are to predominant database engines used in Outsystems
If we did specify a table in FROM then this would return 1 row for every record in that table, which is inefficient and not required. So it is important that we do not include a FROM clause.
Transact-SQL - FROM
The FROM clause is usually required on the SELECT statement. The exception is when no table columns are listed, and the only items listed are literals or variables or arithmetic expressions.
ORACLE - DUAL Table
DUAL is a table automatically created by Oracle Database along with the data dictionary. DUAL is in the schema of the user SYS but is accessible by the name DUAL to all users. It has one column, DUMMY, defined to be VARCHAR2(1), and contains one row with a value X. Selecting from the DUAL table is useful for computing a constant expression with the SELECT statement. Because DUAL has only one row, the constant is returned only once. Alternatively, you can select a constant, pseudocolumn, or expression from any table, but the value will be returned as many times as there are rows in the table.
Update - OP is using Oracle!
After attempting the solution, OP responded that it raised the following error:
Error in advanced query SQL2: ORA-00923: FROM keyword not found where expected
The ORA prefix of this error number indicates that the data store is actually an Oracle implementation, so we need to append the FROM DUAL to the query.
SELECT
(SELECT COUNT(table1.Id) FROM table1 WHERE table1.done = 'No') as T1Count,
(SELECT COUNT(table2.Id) FROM table2 WHERE table2.done = 'No') as T2Count,
(SELECT COUNT(table3.Id) FROM table3 WHERE table3.done = 'No') as T3Count,
(SELECT COUNT(tableN.Id) FROM tableN) as TNCount
FROM DUAL;
tables
Hi, I'm looking to update the last column in a blank table. Picture shows input and desired output. Trying to pick the largest date where workorder and state match.
I've tried a couple different codes:
UPDATE mytable
SET mytable.orderstartdate = MAX(table2.earliestdate)
FROM mytable as table2
WHERE (mytable.workorder = table2.workorder AND
mytable.state = table2.state)
;
"Syntax Error (missing operator) in query expression 'MAX(table2.earliestdate) FROM mytable as table2'."
UPDATE mytable
SET mytable.orderstartdate = (
SELECT max(earliestdate)
FROM mytable as table2
WHERE (mytable.workorder = table2.workorder AND
mytable.state = table2.state)
)
;
"Operation must use an updateable query"
Edit - click tables link for image.
Write PL/SQL Code.
First, select DISTINCT WorkOrder and State and capture in variables.
Now, Iterate the list and Write a query to get max date i.e. max(date) using work_order and State in where clause. Capture the
date.
Now, In the same loop write update query setting max(date) and workorder and State in where clause.
UPDATE table A
SET A.orderstartDate = (SELECT max(earliestdate)
FROM table B
WHERE A.WorkOrder = B.WorkOrder
GROUP BY WorkOrder)
not sure if access supports correlated subqueries but if it does...
and if not...
UPDATE table A
INNER JOIN (SELECT WorkOrder, max(OrderStartDate) MOSD
FROM Table B
GROUP BY WorkOrder) C
ON A.WorkOrder = C.workOrder
SET A.OrderStartDate = C.MOSD
Check database open mode, it may be locked for editing, or you may have no permission to to file.
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 have an update query in which I am trying to locate data in a column from a single table. All while taking other defined data listed in the query to update another column in the same table once a match has been found with that original search. Below is an example of my update statement. My end goal is to find '003447710' then update AltId to '540112'
UPDATE Site
SET AltId = ('540112'
'540129'
'540142'
'540143')
WHERE CCMFStatus in ('003447710',
'002754540',
'003564370',
'005942870')
I am sure there may already be something like this out there but I am really having trouble on an easy method on how to do this quickly and accurately.
Try this
update site
set altid = a.altid
from
(select altid,CCMFstatus from site) as a
where site.CCMFstatus = a.CCMFstatus
The best way might be multiple update statements:
UPDATE Site
SET AltId = '540112'
WHERE CCMFStatus = '003447710';
And so on.
If not, you can do this with a giant case statement or a join:
WITH values as (
SELECT '003447710' as oldstatus, '540112' as newaltid UNION ALL
SELECT '002754540', '540129' UNION ALL
SELECT '003564370', '540142' UNION ALL
SELECT '005942870', '540143'
)
UPDATE s
SET AltId = va.newaltid
FROM site s JOIN
values v
ON s.CCMFStatus = v.oldstatus;
If you already have the values in a table, then you don't need the WITH statement. You can just use the table.
Have you tried using CASE statement?
UPDATE SITE SET AltID = (CASE
WHEN CCMFStatus = '003447710' THEN '540112'
WHEN CCMFStatus = '002754540' THEN '540129'
END)
WHERE
CCMFStatus in ('003447710', '002754540', '003564370', '005942870');
BR,
I've tried searching for this particular topic here, but haven't found the answer... Anyway, my aim is to update table (let's call it t_item), specifically column owner_id with values depending on another table (t_item_geo which is in turn linked to t_geo).
I'm not entirely sure whether the syntax below is actually valid for update statements.
UPDATE t_item SET owner_id= 6993 WHERE t_item.owner_id in
(SELECT t_item.owner_id FROM
t_item,
t_item_geo,
t_geo
WHERE
t_item.id = t_item_geo.item_id and
t_item_geo.geo_id = t_geo.id and
t_item.owner_id in (SELECT id FROM t_user WHERE network_id='fffffff') and
t_geo.id in (SELECT id FROM t_geo WHERE full_name = 'yyyyyyy')
);
Anyway, my problem with this query is that it updates far more rows than it should - if I separate just the select statement Oracle returns ~750 rows but the udpate itself updates more than 4000 rows. It's almost as if the condition was completely ignored - which would point me to perhaps incorrect syntax.
I need to update specific value in the table based on the select from few other 'joined' tables. Hope it makes sense.
Thanks for any contribution!
UPDATE: sorry - maybe it wasn't clear from the question itself, but the correct number of edited items should be ~750 and not ~4000. Thanks!
try this
MERGE INTO t_item
USING
(
SELECT t_item.owner_id FROM
t_item,
t_item_geo,
t_geo,
t_item.rowid rowid_sub
WHERE
t_item.id = t_item_geo.item_id and
t_item_geo.geo_id = t_geo.id and
t_item.owner_id in (SELECT id FROM t_user WHERE network_id='fffffff') and
t_geo.id in (SELECT id FROM t_geo WHERE full_name = 'yyyyyyy')
) on (rowid = rowid_sub)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET owner_id= 6993;