suppose my table structure is like
ID OEReference
--- ------------
1 00000634B9
2 00000634B6
3 0005000053
4 0002855071
5 0000940148
6 0001414825
7 00000634B9
i want that they way i supply OEReference that order should maintain in output.
my sql is like
Select * from mytable where OEReference in ('00000634B9','0001414825','00000634B6')
the above statement did not return resultset according to the order of IN clause. i know that it is not possible by ORDER BY CLAUSE
how can i do it with simple sql statement in sql server. thanks
You could use a temporary table as a filter. Aninner join will enforce the filter, and you can sort on the identity column:
declare #filter table (id int identity, ref varchar(50))
insert #filter values ('00000634B9')
insert #filter values ('0001414825')
insert #filter values ('00000634B6')
select *
from YourTable yt
join #filter filter
on filter.ref = yt.OEReference
order by
filter.id
Please here is my solution for you:
SELECT [id], [OEReference]
FROM [Tbl]
where [OEReference] in ('002', '001')
order by case [OEReference]
when '002' then 1
when '001' then 2
end
Please note: this can decrease performance of your server. It depends on how many rows in table you have. However, you can easily add index for OEReference. Off course, you should generate such query dynamically.
My solution is not close ideal. Maybe you found it useful for you.
Happy coding!
Related
I am trying to write a query to return multiple matching results,I want to see how many record match a column from a table.
select [pomDocumentId],
[svPartNo],
count(svPartNo) as dup
from [tbl_ODW_PomItem]
group by [svPartNo],[pomDocumentId]
I tried this,but won't work. I am trying to see how many [pomDocumentId] matches a [svPartNo] in the table.
Thank you.
id pomDocumentId svPartNo
4955 8298 5WK96132-E
6131 14826 5WK96132-E
Here is the query that solved the problem:
select [svPartNo], count(svPartNo) as dup
from [ODW_Dev].[dbo].[tbl_ODW_PomItem]
group by [svPartNo]
having count(svPartNo)>1
order by dup desc
Seems like you're after a simple GROUP BY with COUNT, run the below SQL to test with your sample data:
DECLARE #tbl_ODW_PomItem AS TABLE
([id] int, [pomDocumentId] int, [svPartNo] varchar(10))
;
INSERT INTO #tbl_ODW_PomItem
([id], [pomDocumentId], [svPartNo])
VALUES
(4955, 8298, '5WK96132-E'),
(6131, 14826, '5WK96132-E')
;
SELECT COUNT(pomDocumentId) DocCount, svPartNo
FROM #tbl_ODW_PomItem
GROUP BY svPartNo
This produces:
DocCount svPartNo
======================
2 5WK96132-E
Try the below code.
SELECT svPartNo, COUNT(pomDocumentId) FROM TAB GROUP BY svPartNo
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 am trying to construct a single SQL statement that returns unique, non-null values from multiple columns all located in the same table.
SELECT distinct tbl_data.code_1 FROM tbl_data
WHERE tbl_data.code_1 is not null
UNION
SELECT tbl_data.code_2 FROM tbl_data
WHERE tbl_data.code_2 is not null;
For example, tbl_data is as follows:
id code_1 code_2
--- -------- ----------
1 AB BC
2 BC
3 DE EF
4 BC
For the above table, the SQL query should return all unique non-null values from the two columns, namely: AB, BC, DE, EF.
I'm fairly new to SQL. My statement above works, but is there a cleaner way to write this SQL statement, since the columns are from the same table?
It's better to include code in your question, rather than ambiguous text data, so that we are all working with the same data. Here is the sample schema and data I have assumed:
CREATE TABLE tbl_data (
id INT NOT NULL,
code_1 CHAR(2),
code_2 CHAR(2)
);
INSERT INTO tbl_data (
id,
code_1,
code_2
)
VALUES
(1, 'AB', 'BC'),
(2, 'BC', NULL),
(3, 'DE', 'EF'),
(4, NULL, 'BC');
As Blorgbeard commented, the DISTINCT clause in your solution is unnecessary because the UNION operator eliminates duplicate rows. There is a UNION ALL operator that does not elimiate duplicates, but it is not appropriate here.
Rewriting your query without the DISTINCT clause is a fine solution to this problem:
SELECT code_1
FROM tbl_data
WHERE code_1 IS NOT NULL
UNION
SELECT code_2
FROM tbl_data
WHERE code_2 IS NOT NULL;
It doesn't matter that the two columns are in the same table. The solution would be the same even if the columns were in different tables.
If you don't like the redundancy of specifying the same filter clause twice, you can encapsulate the union query in a virtual table before filtering that:
SELECT code
FROM (
SELECT code_1
FROM tbl_data
UNION
SELECT code_2
FROM tbl_data
) AS DistinctCodes (code)
WHERE code IS NOT NULL;
I find the syntax of the second more ugly, but it is logically neater. But which one performs better?
I created a sqlfiddle that demonstrates that the query optimizer of SQL Server 2005 produces the same execution plan for the two different queries:
If SQL Server generates the same execution plan for two queries, then they are practically as well as logically equivalent.
Compare the above to the execution plan for the query in your question:
The DISTINCT clause makes SQL Server 2005 perform a redundant sort operation, because the query optimizer does not know that any duplicates filtered out by the DISTINCT in the first query would be filtered out by the UNION later anyway.
This query is logically equivalent to the other two, but the redundant operation makes it less efficient. On a large data set, I would expect your query to take longer to return a result set than the two here. Don't take my word for it; experiment in your own environment to be sure!
try something like SubQuery:
SELECT derivedtable.NewColumn
FROM
(
SELECT code_1 as NewColumn FROM tbl_data
UNION
SELECT code_2 as NewColumn FROM tbl_data
) derivedtable
WHERE derivedtable.NewColumn IS NOT NULL
The UNION already returns DISTINCT values from the combined query.
Union is applied wherever the row data required is similar in terms of type, values etc. It doesnt matter you have column in the same table or the other to retrieve from as the results would remain the same ( in one of the above answers already mentioned though).
As you didn't wanted duplicates theres no point using UNION ALL and use of distinct is simply unnecessary as union gives distinct data
Can create a view would be best choice as view is a virtual representation of the table. Modifications could be then done neatly on that view created
Create VIEW getData AS
(
SELECT distinct tbl_data.code_1
FROM tbl_data
WHERE tbl_data.code_1 is not null
UNION
SELECT tbl_data.code_2
FROM tbl_data
WHERE tbl_data.code_2 is not null
);
Try this if you have more than two Columns:
CREATE TABLE #temptable (Name1 VARCHAR(25),Name2 VARCHAR(25))
INSERT INTO #temptable(Name1, Name2)
VALUES('JON', 'Harry'), ('JON', 'JON'), ('Sam','harry')
SELECT t.Name1+','+t.Name2 Names INTO #t FROM #temptable AS tSELECT DISTINCT ss.value FROM #t AS t
CROSS APPLY STRING_SPLIT(T.Names,',') AS ss
I'd like to limit the entries in a table. Let's say in table tBoss. Is there a SQL constraint that checks how many tuples are currently in the table? Like
SELECT COUNT(*) from tBoss < 2
Firebird says:
Invalid token.
Dynamic SQL Error.
SQL error code = -104.
Token unknown - line 3, column 8.
SELECT.
You could do this with a check constraint and a scalar function. Here's how I built a sample.
First, create a table:
CREATE TABLE MyTable
(
MyTableId int not null identity(1,1)
,MyName varchar(100) not null
)
Then create a function for that table. (You could maybe add the row count limit as a parameters if you want more flexibility.)
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.MyTableRowCount()
RETURNS int
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #HowMany int
SELECT #HowMany = count(*)
from MyTable
RETURN #HowMany
END
Now add a check constraint using this function to the table
ALTER TABLE MyTable
add constraint CK_MyTable__TwoRowsMax
check (dbo.MyTableRowCount() < 3)
And test it:
INSERT MyTable (MyName) values ('Row one')
INSERT MyTable (MyName) values ('Row two')
INSERT MyTable (MyName) values ('Row three')
INSERT MyTable (MyName) values ('Row four')
A disadvantage is that every time you insert to the table, you have to run the function and perform a table scan... but so what, the table (with clustered index) occupies two pages max. The real disadvantage is that it looks kind of goofy... but everything looks goofy when you don't understand why it has to be that way.
(The trigger solution would work, but I like to avoid triggers whenever possible.)
Does your database have triggers? If so, Add a trigger that rolls back any insert that would add more than 2 rows...
Create Trigger MyTrigName
For Insert On tBoss
As
If (Select Count(*) From tBoss) > 2
RollBack Transaction
but to answer your question directly, the predicate you want is to just put the select subquery inside parentheses. like this ...
[First part of sql statement ]
Where (SELECT COUNT(*) from tBoss) < 2
To find multiples in a database your best bet is a sub-query for example: (Note I am assuming you are looking to find duplicated rows of some sort)
SELECT id FROM tBoss WHERE id IN ( SELECT id FROM tBoss GROUP BY id HAVING count(*) > 1 )
where id is the possibly duplicated column
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tBoss WHERE someField < 2 GROUP BY someUniqueField
How to write one SQL query that selects a column from a table but returns two columns where the additional one contains an index of the row (a new one, starting with 1 to n). It must be without using functions that do that (like row_number()).
Any ideas?
Edit: it must be a one-select query
You can do this on any database:
SELECT (SELECT COUNT (1) FROM field_company fc2
WHERE fc2.field_company_id <= fc.field_company_id) AS row_num,
fc.field_company_name
FROM field_company fc
SET NOCOUNT ON
DECLARE #item_table TABLE
(
row_num INT IDENTITY(1, 1) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, --THE IDENTITY STATEMENT IS IMPORTANT!
field_company_name VARCHAR(255)
)
INSERT INTO #item_table
SELECT field_company_name FROM field_company
SELECT * FROM #item_table
if you are using Oracle or a database that supports Sequence objects, make a new db sequence object for this purpose. Next create a view, and run this.
insert into the view as select column_name, sequence.next from table
In mysql you can :
SELECT Row,Column1
FROM (SELECT #row := #row + 1 AS Row, Column1 FROM table1 )
As derived1
I figured out a hackish way to do this that I'm a bit ashamed of. On Postgres 8.1:
SELECT generate_series, (SELECT username FROM users LIMIT 1 OFFSET generate_series) FROM generate_series(0,(SELECT count(*) - 1 FROM users));
I believe this technique will work even if your source table does not have unique ids or identifiers.
On SQL Server 2005 and higher, you can use OVER to accomplish this:
SELECT rank() over (order by company_id) as rownum
, company_name
FROM company