This is one annoying issue and I can't figure out how to solve it. I'm Using Microsoft SQL Server 2008.
So I have two tables and I need to update both of them. They share a common key, say id. I want to update Table1 with some stuff and then update the Table2 rows which were respectively modified in Table1.
The issue is that I don't quite know which rows were modified, because I'm picking them randomly with ORDER BY NEWID() so I probably cannot use a JOIN on Table2 in any way. I am trying to save the necessary details which were modified in my query for Table1 and pass them to Table2
This is what I'm trying to do
CREATE TABLE IDS (id int not null, secondid int)
SELECT [Table1].[id], [Table1].[secondid]
INTO IDS
FROM
(
UPDATE [Table1]
SET [secondid]=100
FROM [Table1] t
WHERE t.[id] IN
(SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT t.[id] FROM [Table1]
WHERE (SOME_CONDITION)
ORDER BY NEWID()
)
)
UPDATE [Table2]
SET some_column=i.secondid
FROM [Table2] JOIN IDS i ON i.id = [Table2].[id]
But I get
Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'UPDATE'.
So the question is: how can I solve the syntax error or is it a better way to do this?
Note: the query enclosed between the parentheses of the first FROM worked well before this new requirement, so I doubt there's a problem in there. Or maybe?
EDIT: Changing the second UPDATE as skk suggested still leads to the same error (on exactly the below line which contains UPDATE):
UPDATE [Table2]
SET some_column=i.secondid
FROM [Task] JOIN IDS i on i.[id]=[Table2].[id]
WHERE i.id=some_value
Instead of creating a new table manually, SQL server has the OUTPUT clause to help with this
It's complaining because you aren't aliasing the derived table used in the first query, immediately preceding UPDATE [Table2].
If you add an alias, you'll get a different error:
A nested INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, or MERGE statement must have an OUTPUT clause.
Which leads back to #Adam Wenger's answer.
Not sure I completely understand what you are trying to do, but the following sql will execute (after replacing SOME_CONDITION):
CREATE TABLE IDS (id int not null, secondid int)
UPDATE t SET [secondid] = 100
OUTPUT inserted.[id], inserted.[secondid] into [IDS]
FROM [Table1] t
WHERE t.[Id] IN
(
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT t.[id] from [Table1]
WHERE (SOME_CONDITION)
ORDER BY NEWID()
)
UPDATE [Table2]
SET some_column = i.secondid
FROM [Table2] JOIN IDS i ON i.id = [Table2].[id]
The Update syntax is as follows
UPDATE TableName SET ColumnName = Value WHERE {Condition}
but you have used FROM keyword also in that.
EDIT:
You change the code like follows and try again
UPDATE [Table2] SET some_column=IDS.secondid WHERE IDS.[id] = [Table2].[id] and
IDS.id=some_value
Related
I need to get a value from one database for a customer and update another database with that value.
The procedure below works but I need to have it go through table2 and update every customer in table1 with a matching CustomerID. I hate to use the word loop through but as I said, I am very new to this and lost. I have watched videos, and tried to search with no luck. Can someone point me to a tutorial or tell me if I am trying to do something I shouldn't be?
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.bhshSample
as
BEGIN;
update table1 set
ptall = (
SELECT TOP (1) nsma1_ans
from table2
where nsma1_code = 'ptall'
order by nsma1_tm
)
where CustomerID = '4'
End;
In php, I would loop and do a select distinct CustomerID from table 2
then do the update using the variable I set but I can't seem to figure it out with stored procedure.
Use a correlated subquery, like this:
update table1 set
ptall = (
SELECT TOP (1) nsma1_ans
from table2
where nsma1_code = 'ptall'
and CustomerID = table1.CustomerID
order by nsma1_tm
)
I'm using Oracle SQL Developer and I'm trying combine an update and a select statment into one. I know that Oracle dosen't support FROM or JOINS directly in the update statement and I therefor put the select in a subquery but it still don't work.
I have got two tables; MASTERTABLE and TESTTABLE.
MASTERTABLE contain an ID_NUMBER column and a TESTTABLE_ID column.
TESTTABLE contains a TESTTABLE_ID column and a TEST_COLUMN column.
What I want to do is to update the TEST_COLUMN value while only knowing the ID_NUMBER.
What my statement looks like:
UPDATE TESTTABLE
SET TEST_COLUMN= 'Testvalue'
WHERE TESTTABLE.TESTTABLE_ID IN (SELECT MASTERTABLE.TESTTABLE_ID
FROM MASTERTABLE
WHERE ID_NUMBER=11);
But I get stuck in some kind of loop. Where did I go wrong?
I have faced the same problem. The solution is usage of MERGE operation instead of UPDATE.
MERGE INTO TESTTABLE t
USING
(
SELECT m.ID_NUMBER num,
m.TESTTABLE_ID id
FROM MASTERTABLE m
) newnum ON (t.TESTTABLE_ID = newnum.id)
WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE
SET t.TEST_COLUMN = newnum.num;
You can try any one of this in Oracle
Normal Update
UPDATE
TESTTABLE
SET
TEST_COLUMN= 'Testvalue'
WHERE
EXISTS
(SELECT MASTERTABLE.TESTTABLE_ID
FROM MASTERTABLE
WHERE ID_NUMBER=11);
Using Inline View (If it is considered updateable by Oracle)
Note: If you face a non key preserved row error add an index to resolve the same to make it update-able
UPDATE
(SELECT
TESTTABLE.TEST_COLUMN AS OLD,
'Testvalue' AS NEW
FROM
TESTTABLE
INNER JOIN
MASTERTABLE
ON TESTTABLE.TESTTABLE_ID = MASTERTABLE.TESTTABLE_ID
WHERE ID_NUMBER=11) T
SET
T.OLD = T.NEW;
Using Merge
MERGE INTO
TESTTABLE
USING
(SELECT
T1.ROWID AS RID,
T2.TESTTABLE_ID
FROM
TESTTABLE T1
INNER JOIN
MASTERTABLE T2
ON TESTTABLE.TESTTABLE_ID = MASTERTABLE.TESTTABLE_ID
WHERE ID_NUMBER=11)
ON
( ROWID = RID )
WHEN MATCHED
THEN
UPDATE SET TEST_COLUMN= 'Testvalue';
The problem was as Tom H wrote a blocking problem. When I started working on the project today all of the solutions worked.
I am trying to execute a query which is something like:
update table set column=(select column1 from table1);
I just want to store the value from other table to my column
but when i try my sql query it says
ERROR 1242 (21000): Subquery returns more than 1 row
definitely this means my table1 contains more than 1 row so i want to know that is there any way to store data into column from other table with multiple row.
or basically saving content of other table as a text something like
update table set column='Data in text from other table';
You probably need a correlation clause:
update table
set column = (select column1 from table1 where table.col = table1.col);
You need to decide what column(s) are used for the correlation.
it will work as i am getting your requirement.Please let me know if your requirement is other i ll make changes in query
update table_name t1
inner join table1 t2 on t1.id =t2.id
set column =column1
Your nested query returns multiple rows so you encountered this error.
Try in this way
UPDATE FirstTable
SET FirstTable.ColumnName =tbl2.ColumnName
FROM SecondTable tbl2 WHERE tbl2.Id = FirstTable.Id
There should be a common id or something that will help to find exact row.
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;
I want use the SQL Server IN operator and also set a variable to a column value. Is this possible?
My code is like this:
DECLARE #SubkindId as tinyint;
SELECT NAME FROM SampleTable001 WHERE
Id in (SELECT Id, #SubkindId = Subkind FROM SampleTable002)
ORDER BY Name;
My issue is: I want to set the #SubkindId variable in the inner select statement.
Can It Be Done?
In SQL Server you can't SELECT a result set and SET variables in the same statement (though you can in MySQL). Sorry. But there may be another way to get what you want. Unfortunately, what you want is not completely clear.
Assuming you want to do a SELECT and at the same time return another value into a variable, you have to handle the issue that your query can return multiple rows, so in that case, which one would you want to return into #SubkindId?
Now, I may have misunderstood, and instead of trying to pull the column value into the variable, you instead want to pull only the row where the SubkindId matches the value already in the variable (though you didn't show assigning a value to it first, so this seems less likely).
Please confirm which is the case and answer the above questions, and I can help you more.
In the meantime, I'll try to give you answers for both scenarios.
First, let me mention that I recommend against using the IN() syntax with a subquery returning a list of IDs. It is poor practice in my opinion because it usually demonstrates that the person doesn't really know how to JOIN properly, and as soon as the query gets a little complicated, not only that person but even the best professional SQL Server query writer can get lost (... WHERE x IN (SELECT ... WHERE y IN (SELECT ... WHERE z NOT IN (...))) which soon leads to a serious case of what!?!?!?!. Just use JOINs, and if required, semi-joins (introduced with an EXISTS clause).
Query and Return a Value
If what you really wanted was to get access to the values that the SELECT statement found while doing its join, it might look something like this:
DECLARE #KindsAndSubkinds TABLE (
Name varchar(100),
SubkindId tinyint
);
INSERT #KindsAndSubkinds
SELECT
T1.Name,
T2.SubkindId
FROM
dbo.SampleTable001 T1
INNER JOIN dbo.SampleTable002 T2
ON T1.Id = T2.Id
SELECT DISTINCT Name
FROM #KindsAndSubkinds
ORDER BY Name;
-- Now you can something with the `SubkindId`s in the #KindsAndSubkinds table variable.
Just Query
If you really were just trying to query rather than return a value, this is what I would recommend:
DECLARE #SubkindId as tinyint;
SET #SubkindId = 5;
SELECT
T1.Name
FROM
dbo.SampleTable001 T1
INNER JOIN dbo.SampleTable002 T2
ON T1.Id = T2.Id
WHERE
T2.Subkind = #SubkindId
ORDER BY
T1.Name;
If there are multiple rows in SampleTable002 but you don't want them in the result set, then:
SELECT
T1.Name
FROM
dbo.SampleTable001 T1
WHERE
EXISTS (
-- This semi-join requires at least one row to exist
-- but doesn't increase the row count
SELECT *
FROM dbo.SampleTable002 T2
WHERE
T1.Id = T2.Id
AND T2.Subkind = #SubkindId
)
ORDER BY
T1.Name;
I hope this helps.
Do it like this:
DECLARE #SubkindId as tinyint
SELECT [NAME]
FROM SampleTable001
WHERE Id in (SELECT Id
from SampleTable002
WHERE Subkind=#SubkindId)
order by [Name]
or by using JOIN
DECLARE #SubkindId as tinyint
SELECT [NAME]
FROM SampleTable001 a
INNER JOIN SampleTable002 b
ON a.id = b.id
WHERE b.Subkind=#SubkindId
order by [Name]