I have the following select statement in ABAP:
SELECT munic~mandt VREFER BIS AB ZZELECDATE ZZCERTDATE CONSYEAR ZDIMO ZZONE_M ZZONE_T USAGE_M USAGE_T M2MC M2MT M2RET EXEMPTMCMT EXEMPRET CHARGEMCMT
INTO corresponding fields of table GT_INSTMUNIC_F
FROM ZCI00_INSTMUNIC AS MUNIC
INNER JOIN EVER AS EV on
MUNIC~POD = EV~VREFER(9).
"where EV~BSTATUS = '14' or EV~BSTATUS = '32'.
My problem with the above statement is that does not recognize the substring/offset operation on the 'ON' clause. If i remove the '(9) then
it recognizes the field, otherwise it gives error:
Field ev~refer is unknown. It is neither in one of the specified tables
nor defined by a "DATA" statement. I have also tried doing something similar in the 'Where' clause, receiving a similar error:
LOOP AT gt_instmunic.
clear wa_gt_instmunic_f.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-mandt = gt_instmunic-mandt.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-bis = gt_instmunic-bis.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-ab = gt_instmunic-ab.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-zzelecdate = gt_instmunic-zzelecdate.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-ZZCERTDATE = gt_instmunic-ZZCERTDATE.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-CONSYEAR = gt_instmunic-CONSYEAR.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-ZDIMO = gt_instmunic-ZDIMO.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-ZZONE_M = gt_instmunic-ZZONE_M.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-ZZONE_T = gt_instmunic-ZZONE_T.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-USAGE_M = gt_instmunic-USAGE_M.
wa_gt_instmunic_f-USAGE_T = gt_instmunic-USAGE_T.
temp_pod = gt_instmunic-pod.
SELECT vrefer
FROM ever
INTO wa_gt_instmunic_f-vrefer
WHERE ( vrefer(9) LIKE temp_pod ). " PROBLEM WITH SUBSTRING
"AND ( BSTATUS = '14' OR BSTATUS = '32' ).
ENDSELECT.
WRITE: / sy-dbcnt.
WRITE: / 'wa is: ', wa_gt_instmunic_f.
WRITE: / 'wa-ever is: ', wa_gt_instmunic_f-vrefer.
APPEND wa_gt_instmunic_f TO gt_instmunic_f.
WRITE: / wa_gt_instmunic_f-vrefer.
ENDLOOP.
itab_size = lines( gt_instmunic_f ).
WRITE: / 'Internal table populated with', itab_size, ' lines'.
The basic task i want to implement is to modify a specific field on one table,
pulling values from another. They have a common field ( pod = vrefer(9) ). Thanks in advance for your time.
If you are on a late enough NetWeaver version, it works on 7.51, you can use the OpenSQL function LEFT or SUBSTRING. Your query would look something like:
SELECT munic~mandt VREFER BIS AB ZZELECDATE ZZCERTDATE CONSYEAR ZDIMO ZZONE_M ZZONE_T USAGE_M USAGE_T M2MC M2MT M2RET EXEMPTMCMT EXEMPRET CHARGEMCMT
FROM ZCI00_INSTMUNIC AS MUNIC
INNER JOIN ever AS ev
ON MUNIC~POD EQ LEFT( EV~VREFER, 9 )
INTO corresponding fields of table GT_INSTMUNIC_F.
Note that the INTO clause needs to move to the end of the command as well.
field(9) is a subset operation that is processed by the ABAP environment and can not be translated into a database-level SQL statement (at least not at the moment, but I'd be surprised if it ever will be). Your best bet is either to select the datasets separately and merge them manually (if both are approximately equally large) or pre-select one and use a FAE/IN clause.
They have a common field ( pod = vrefer(9) )
This is a wrong assumption, because they both are not fields, but a field an other thing.
If you really need to do that task through SQL, I'll suggest you to check native SQL sentences like SUBSTRING and check if you can manage to use them within an EXEC_SQL or (better) the CL_SQL* classes.
Tired brain - perhaps you can help.
My table has two bit fields:
1) TestedByPCL and
2) TestedBySPC.
Both may = 1.
The user interface has two corresponding check boxes. In the code I convert the checks to int.
int TestedBySPC = SearchSPC ? 1 : 0;
int TestedByPCL = SearchPCL ? 1 : 0;
My WHERE clause looks something like this:
WHERE TestedByPCL = {TestedByPCL.ToString()} AND TestedBySPC = {TestedBySPC.ToString()}
The problem is when only one checkbox is selected I want to return rows having the corresponding field set to 1 or both fields set to 1.
Now when both fields are set to 1 my WHERE clause requires both check boxes to be checked instead of only one.
So, if one checkbox is ticked return records with with that field = 1 , regardless of whether the other field = 1.
Second attempt (I think I've got it now):
WHERE ((TestedByPCL = {chkTestedByPCL.IsChecked} AND TestedBySPC = {chkTestedBySPC.IsChecked})
OR
(TestedByPCL = 1 AND TestedBySPC = 1 AND 1 IN ({chkTestedByPCL.IsChecked}, {chkTestedBySPC.IsChecked})))
Misunderstood the question.
Change the AND to an OR:
WHERE TestedByPCL = {chkTestedByPCL.IsChecked} OR TestedBySPC = {chkTestedBySPC.IsChecked}
Also:
SQL Server does not have a Boolean data type, it's closest option is a bit data type.
The usage of curly brackets suggests using string concatenations to build your where clause. This might not be a big deal when you're handling checkboxes but it's a security risk when handling free text input as it's an open door for SQL injection attacks. Better use parameters whenever you can.
I'm running this code:
SELECT hID
FROM logonsHistory
WHERE aIDs NOT LIKE '%''101''%' AND
CASE src
WHEN 0 THEN
uID IN(29,41,42,45,49,50,57,73,83,107,166,349,356,367,375,376,416,471,472,473,474,481)
END
I get this error:
Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'IN'
I have no idea what's wrong.
A CASE statement is not appropriate in this case. Just use a simple OR condition:
SELECT hID
FROM logonsHistory
WHERE aIDs NOT LIKE '%''101''%'
AND (
src <> 0 -- add a COALESCE here if src can be NULL
OR uID IN(29,41,42,45,49,50,57,73,83,107,166,349,356,367,375,376,416,471,472,473,474,481)
)
... which basically is the equivalent of only applying the uID filtering if src = 0, which is what you appeared to be trying to accomplish with your query.
It sounds like you don't have to use CASE please test this
SELECT hID
FROM logonsHistory
WHERE aIDs NOT LIKE '%''101''%'
AND ( (src = 0 --scr is 0 => must have uid in the list
AND UID IN (29,41,42,45,49,50,57,73,83,107,166,349,356,367,375,376,416,471,472,473,474,481))
OR src <> 0) --else src is not 0 and there is no additional condition
i have a doubt on your not like condition have you tested it alone?
Guess this is what you are looking for
WHERE aIDs NOT LIKE '%''101''%' or
(
src = 0
AND
uID IN(29,41,42,45,49,50,57,73,83,107,166,349,356,367,375,376,416,471,472,473,474,481
)
It looks like your statement is not formatted properly. you placed a condition rather than a value to set within "When 0 then ...... END
the uID IN(29,41,42,45,49,50,57,73,83,107,166,349,356,367,375,376,416,471,472,473,474,481) you have there is a condition and shouldn't have been there
The when part of a case statement should select a single value. what you are trying to do is to check for a condition.
Or if you are checking for uid in those values, you should do
case when src = 0 then
case when uID IN (29,41,42,45,49,50,57,73,83,107,166,349,356,367,375,376,416,471,472,473,474,481)
then 'It is a Client ID'
-- add another when or else part here if required
end
else 'Not a UID and not a Client ID'
end
I need to pull back records based on a location ID, but I've got two fields that MAY contain the incoming criteria....
something like this
SELECT * FROM tbl
WHERE myVar = locationID
IF LocationID = 0
myVar = location2ID
this is a 'logical' example...
I think I can do
WHERE myVar = CASE WHEN locationID = 0 THEN location2ID ELSE locationID END
although I've read that CASE in a WHERE clause should be avoided...? why? or is this OK?
- either way it FAILS
WHERE CASE WHEN locationID=0 THEN location2ID=myVAr ELSE locationID=myVar END
also FAILS
thx
Sorry for the confusion lads - didn't mean to be "ambiguous" - looks like #2 will do what I want - but for the clarification requested here is the issue...
the table stores TWO locations, let's call then CURRENT_LOC and ORIGINAL_LOC... in most cases these will BOTH have data, but in some cases the 'thing' hasn't moved... so the CURRENT_LOC is '0'. MY issue is I'll be passing in a LOCATION ID, I want the records where CURRENT_LOC matches OR if the the CURRENT_LOC=0 then I ALSO want the ORIGINAL_LOC... where that matches...
does that help the discussion? I hope.
WHERE myVar = COALESCE(NULLIF(locationID, 0), location2ID)
Alternatively,
WHERE (
(locationID <> 0 AND myVar = locationID)
OR
(locationID = 0 AND myVar = location2ID)
)
I have a proc that print checks if there is any new checks to be print. If there is nothing to issue new checks it wont print any. Now i want to modify this proc like even if i don't have any new checks to be print, it should pick up at least one check to be print.( even if it is already printed). Can you tell me how to do that. Here is the stored proc.
CREATE PROCEDURE [proc_1250_SELCashiersChecksForPrint] AS
SELECT t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.ControlNbr,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Audit_DateAdded,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.BatchNbr,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.SerialNbr,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.CheckRTN,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.CheckAccountNbr,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Amount,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.DateIssued,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Payee,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Address,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.City,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.State,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Zip,
t_DATA_Reclamation.ClaimId,
t_DATA_Reclamation.NoticeDate,
t_DATA_Reclamation.FirstName,
t_DATA_Reclamation.MiddleName,
t_DATA_Reclamation.LastName,
t_DATA_Reclamation.ClaimTotal,
t_PCD_Claimant.Name AS Agency,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.IDENTITYCOL
FROM t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued INNER JOIN
t_DATA_Reclamation ON
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.ControlNbr = t_DATA_Reclamation.ControlNbr
INNER JOIN
t_PCD_Claimant ON
t_DATA_Reclamation.ClaimantCode = t_PCD_Claimant.ClaimantCode
WHERE (t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.SerialNbr IS NULL) AND
(t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.DateIssued IS NULL)
ORDER BY t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Audit_DateAdded ASC,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.ControlNbr ASC
Let me know if you need more information.
SELECT TOP 1 t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.ControlNbr,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Audit_DateAdded,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.BatchNbr,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.SerialNbr,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.CheckRTN,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.CheckAccountNbr,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Amount,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.DateIssued,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Payee, t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Address,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.City, t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.State,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Zip, t_DATA_Reclamation.ClaimId,
t_DATA_Reclamation.NoticeDate, t_DATA_Reclamation.FirstName,
t_DATA_Reclamation.MiddleName, t_DATA_Reclamation.LastName,
t_DATA_Reclamation.ClaimTotal, t_PCD_Claimant.Name AS Agency,
t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.IDENTITYCOL
FROM t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued
INNER JOIN t_DATA_Reclamation ON t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.ControlNbr = t_DATA_Reclamation.ControlNbr
INNER JOIN t_PCD_Claimant ON t_DATA_Reclamation.ClaimantCode = t_PCD_Claimant.ClaimantCode
ORDER BY t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.Audit_DateAdded DESC
Use the TOP n SQL syntax :
if EXISTS ( /* Look for an unprinted check - "date_issued is null" */ )
/* print unprinted checks */
ELSE
select top 1 /* already-printed-checks */
where .... "date_issued is not null"
OR
Do you want to print a "Voided/Cancelled" check - when you do that?
You have to decide how you want to pick your "at least one".
The simplest way (probably) is to remove whatever condition in the WHERE clause is excluding already printed checks. Let's assume that's t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.DateIssued IS NULL. Now add a column to your SELECT clause like this: CASE WHEN t_DATA_CashiersChecksIssued.DateIssued IS NULL then 0 ELSE 1 END and make that column first in your ORDER BY clause.
Now in the procedure, fetch just one row from this cursor. If this new column has the value 0, there's at least one new check to be processed and you should iterate through the cursor but stop when you get to an already issued one. If it has the value 1, there are no new checks.
Edit: The other approach would be to do it right in your SQL. Leave the original as is, but add a clause like:
UNION ALL SELECT ... AND ROWNUM = 1 where ... represents your existing query, but with the condition to exclude already printed checks removed. On second thought, this may be simpler.