How do I select only 1 row in sybase without using rowcount? I don't have the privilege to set rowcount in sybase. Is there a way to select only 1 row?
For example:
select * from table where name = 'jack'
This returns two rows; how do I select only one row from the result set without using set rowcount?
Try the query:
SELECT TOP 1 * FROM mytable
WHERE name = 'jack'
As you might guess, this selects the TOP 1 matching results. If you wanted more (which you don't here) you could use any number (TOP 100 or TOP 1000, etc).
A more comprehensive example can be found on w3schools: http://www.w3schools.com/Sql/sql_top.asp
There seems to be a reason, why you're getting more than 1 row for "WHERE name = 'jack'", it looks as if the rows differ.
But if, the rows do not differ you can try adding "distinct":
SELECT DISTINCT * FROM TABLE WHERE name = 'jack'
or try with "GROUP BY" statement, then you should type explicitly all columns, eg.:
SELECT name FROM TABLE WHERE name = 'jack' GROUP BY name
if this is not what you wanted, can you paste here how the 2 rows look exactly?
If you want a single result, use 'GROUP BY' and 'HAVING column = max(column)'. Or replace max() with min().
This should work unless the max or min values are also not unique.
Related
I am just learning SQL, and I'm wondering what the difference is between the following lines:
WHERE s.parent IN (SELECT l.parent .....)
versus
WHERE s.parent = (SELECT l.parent .....)
IN
will not generate an error if you have multiple results on the subquery. Allows to have more than one value in the result returned by the subquery.
=
will generate an error if you have more than one result on the subquery.
SQLFiddle Demo (IN vs =)
when you are using 'IN' it can compare multiple values....like
select * from tablename where student_name in('mari','sruthi','takudu')
but when you are using '=' you can't compare multiple values
select * from tablenamewhere student_name = 'sruthi'
i hope this is the right answer
The "IN" clause is also much much much much slower. If you have many results in the select portion of
IN (SELECT l.parent .....),
it will be extremely inefficient as it actually generates a separate select sql statement for each and every result within the select statement ... so if you return 'Cat', 'Dog', 'Cow'
it will essentially create a sql statement for each result... if you have 200 results... you get the full sql statement 200 times...takes forever... (This was as of a few years ago... maybe imporved by now... but it was horribly slow on big result sets.)
Much more efficient to do an inner join such as:
Select id, parent
from table1 as T
inner join (Select parent from table2) as T2 on T.parent = T2.parent
For future visitors.
Basically in case of equals (just remember that here we are talking like where a.name = b.name), each cell value from table 1 will be compared one by one to each cell value of all the rows from table 2, if it matches then that row will be selected (here that row will be selected means that row from table 1 and table 2) for the overall result set otherwise will not be selected.
Now, in case of IN, complete result set on the right side of the IN will be used for comparison, so its like each value from table 1 will be checked on whether this cell value is present in the complete result set of the IN, if it is present then that value will be shown for all the rows of the IN’s result set, so let say IN result set has 20 rows, so that cell value from table 1 will be present in overall result set 20 times (i.e. that particular cell value will have 20 rows).
For more clarity see below screen shot, notice below that how complete result set from the right of the IN (and NOT IN) is considered in the overall result set; whole emphasis is on the fact that in case comparison using =, matching row from second table is selected, while in case of IN complete result from the second table is selected.
In can match a value with more than one values, in other words it checks if a value is in the list of values so for e.g.
x in ('a', 'b', 'x') will return true result as x is in the the list of values
while = expects only one value, its as simple as
x = y returns false
and
x = x returns true
The general rule of thumb is:
The = expects a single value to compare with. Like this:
WHERE s.parent = 'father_name'
IN is extremely useful in scenarios where = cannot work i.e. scenarios where you need the comparison with multiple values.
WHERE s.parent IN ('father_name', 'mother_name', 'brother_name', 'sister_name')
Hope this is useful!!!
IN
This helps when a subquery returns more than one result.
=
This operator cannot handle more than one result.
Like in this example:
SQL>
Select LOC from dept where DEPTNO = (select DEPTNO from emp where
JOB='MANAGER');
Gives ERROR ORA-01427: single-row subquery returns more than one row
Instead use
SQL>
Select LOC from dept where DEPTNO in (select DEPTNO from emp
where JOB='MANAGER');
1) Sometimes = also used as comparison operator in case of joins which IN doesn't.
2) You can pass multiple values in the IN block which you can't do with =. For example,
SELECT * FROM [Products] where ProductID IN((select max(ProductID) from Products),
(select min(ProductID) from Products))
would work and provide you expected number of rows.However,
SELECT * FROM [Products] where ProductID = (select max(ProductID) from Products)
and ProductID =(select min(ProductID) from Products)
will provide you 'no result'. That means, in case subquery supposed to return multiple number of rows , in that case '=' isn't useful.
Suppose I have a table with following records
value text
company/about about Us
company company
company/contactus company contact
I have a very simple query in sql server as below. I am having problem with the 'or' condition. In below query, I am trying to find text for value 'company/about'. If it is not found, then only I want to run the other side of 'or'. The below query returns two records as below
value text
company/about about Us
company company
Query
select
*
from
tbl
where
value='company/about' or
value=substring('company/about',0,charindex('/','company/about'))
How can I modify the query so the result set looks like
value text
company/about about Us
A bit roundabout, but you can check for the existence of results from the first where clause:
select
*
from
tbl
where
value='company/about' or
(
not exists (select * from tbl where value='company/about')
and
value=substring('company/about',0,charindex('/','company/about'))
)
Since your second condition can be re-written as value = 'company' this would work (at least for the data and query you've presented):
select top(1) [value], [text]
from dbo.MyTable
where value in ('company/about', 'company')
order by len(value) desc
The TOP() ignores the second row if both are found, and the ORDER BY ensures that the first row is always the one with 'company/about', if it exists.
I have this:
SELECT
COUNT(resurs_id) AS 'antalLikes'
FROM kopplaResursLikesUsers
WHERE resurs_id = 19
UNION
SELECT user_id AS 'gillarJagEller'
FROM kopplaResursLikesUsers
WHERE user_id = 5
And I thought the output would be:
antalLikes = 2
gillarJagEller = 5
but the result I get is:
antalLikes[0] = 2
antalLikes[1] = 5
Any ideas why it completely ignores my 2nd "AS" statement?
UNION does make an UNION for COLUMS, not for rows
So, it's taking the first select, get the column 'antalLikes'
and then make the union by the ordinal order.
So, it put the values from your 'gillarJagEller' column in the first one
to get your desired result, I suggest this:
select
(
SELECT
COUNT(resurs_id)
FROM kopplaResursLikesUsers
WHERE resurs_id = 19) AS 'antalLikes',
(
SELECT user_id
FROM kopplaResursLikesUsers
WHERE user_id = 5) AS 'gillarJagEller'
UNION takes as column names only the names specified in the first select statement, in this case, "antalLikes".
To get this:
antalLikes = 2 gillarJagEller = 5
You need something like this:
SELECT
COUNT(resurs_id) AS 'antalLikes',
(SELECT top 1 user_id
FROM kopplaResursLikesUsers
WHERE user_id = 5) AS 'gillarJagEller'
FROM kopplaResursLikesUsers
WHERE resurs_id = 19
Column names and column data types in a UNION are provided by the first select statement in the UNION. Any column names in subsequent `select statements are ignored.
Subsequent select statements in the UNION are required to have the same number of columns as the first select statement. Further, each column in each subsequent select statement must have a datatype that is identical to the column with the same ordinal number in the first select statement or is implicitly convertible to that data type.
WRT to nullity, I believe UNION sets the nullity of each column in the final result set by examining the nullity of that same column in each component select statement. Only if that column is non-nullable across each component select statement is the column in the final result set non-nullable.
How can you query a column for any value in that column? (ie. How do I build a dynamic where clause that can either filter the value, or not.)
I want to be able to query for either a specific value, or not. For instance, I might want the value to be 1, but I might want it to be any number.
Is there a way to use a wild card (like "*"), to match any value, so that it can be dynamically inserted where I want no filter?
For instance:
select int_col from table where int_col = 1 // Query for a specific value
select int_col from table where int_col = * // Query for any value
The reason why I do not want to use 2 separate SQL statements is because I am using this as a SQL Data Source, which can only have 1 select statement.
Sometimes I would query for actual value (like 1, 2...) so I can't not have a condition either.
I take it you want some dynamic behavior on your WHERE clause, without having to dynamically build your WHERE clause.
With a single parameter, you can use ISNULL (or COALESCE) like this:
SELECT * FROM Table WHERE ID = ISNULL(#id, ID)
which allows a NULL parameter to match all. Some prefer the longer but more explicit:
SELECT * FROM Table WHERE (#id IS NULL) OR (ID = #id)
A simple answer would be use: IS NOT NULL. But if you are asking for say 123* for numbers like 123456 or 1234 or 1237 then the you could convert it to a varchar and then test against using standard wild cards.
In your where clause: cast(myIntColumn as varchar(15)) like '123%'.
Assuming the value you're filtering on is a parameter in a stored procedure, or contained in a variable called #Value, you can do it like this:
select * from table where #Value is null or intCol = #Value
If #Value is null then the or part of the clause is ignored, so the query won't filter on intCol.
The equivalent of wildcards for numbers are the comparators.
So, if you wanted to find all positive integers:
select int_col from table where int_col > 0
any numbers between a hundred and a thousand:
select int_col from table where int_col BETWEEN 100 AND 1000
and so on.
I don't quite understand what you're asking. I think you should use two different queries for the different situations you have.
When you're not looking for a specific value:
SELECT * FROM table
When you are looking for a specific value:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE intcol = 1
You can use the parameter as a wildcard by assigning special meaning to NULL:
DECLARE #q INT = 1
SELECT * FROM table WHERE IntegerColumn = #q OR #q IS NULL
This way, when you pass in NULL; you get all rows.
If NULL is a valid value to query for, then you need to use two parameters.
If you really want the value of your column for all rows on the table you can simply use
select int_col
from table
If you want to know all the distinct values, but don't care how many times they're repeated you can use
select distinct int_col
from table
And if you want to know all the distinct values and how many times they each appear, use
select int_col, count(*)
from table
group by int_col
To have the values sorted properly you can add
order by int_col
to all the queries above.
Share and enjoy.
I am attempting to use a case statement but keep getting errors. Here's the statement:
select TABLE1.acct,
CASE
WHEN TABLE1.acct_id in (select acct_id
from TABLE2
group by acct_id
having count(*) = 1 ) THEN
(select name
from TABLE3
where TABLE1.acct_id = TABLE3.acct_id)
ELSE 'All Others'
END as Name
from TABLE1
When I replace the TABLE1.acct_id in the THEN expression with a literal value, the query works. When I try to use TABLE1.acct_id from the WHEN part of the query, I get a error saying the result is more than one row. It seems like the THEN expression is ignoring the single value that the WHEN statement was using. No idea, maybe this isn't even a valid use of the CASE statement.
I am trying to see names for accounts that have one entry in TABLE2.
Any ideas would be appreciated, I'm kind of new at SQL.
First, you are missing a comma after TABLE1.acct. Second, you have aliased TABLE1 as acct, so you should use that.
Select acct.acct
, Case
When acct.acct_id in ( Select acct_id
From TABLE2
Group By acct_id
Having Count(*) = 1 )
Then ( Select name
From TABLE3
Where acct.acct_id = TABLE3.acct_id
Fetch First 1 Rows Only)
Else 'All Others'
End as Name
From TABLE1 As acct
As others have said, you should adjust your THEN clause to ensure that only one value is returned. You can do that by add Fetch First 1 Rows Only to your subquery.
Then ( Select name
From TABLE3
Where acct.acct_id = TABLE3.acct_id
Fetch First 1 Rows Only)
Fetch is not accepting in CASE statement - "Keyword FETCH not expected. Valid tokens: ) UNION EXCEPT. "
select name from TABLE3 where TABLE1.acct_id = TABLE3.acct_id
will give you all the names in Table3, which have a accompanying row in Table 1. The row selected from Table2 in the previous line doesn't enter into it.
Must be getting more than one value.
You can replace the body with...
(select count(name) from TABLE3 where TABLE1.acct_id = TABLE3.acct_id)
... to narrow down which rows are returning multiples.
It may be the case that you just need a DISTINCT or a TOP 1 to reduce your result set.
Good luck!
I think that what is happening here is that your case must return a single value because it will be the value for the "name" column. The subquery (select acct_id from TABLE2 group by acct_id having count(*) = 1 ) is OK because it will only ever return one value. (select name from TABLE3 where TABLE1.acct_id= TABLE3.acct_id) could return multiple values depending on your data. The problem is you trying to shove multiple values into a single field for a single row.
The next thing to do would be to find out what data causes multiple rows to be returned by (select name from TABLE3 where TABLE1.acct_id= TABLE3.acct_id), and see if you can further limit this query to only return one row. If need be, you could even try something like ...AND ROWNUM = 1 (for Oracle - other DBs have similar ways of limiting rows returned).