I have a licensing database set up for storing my cutomers' records. However, when I need to find someone, it is hard since it is not in alphabetical order.. And I cannot find an option to sort them in Visual Studio's Server Explorer.
Here is a picture, notice the first name letters I did not cut off, they are not in order: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4946/captureeg.png
So how do I fix this problem? Is there some secret button in VS I have to discover?
If using a T-SQL statement, you can rewrite the SQL with an ending of
ORDER BY Name DESC
this will allow it to be alphabetical in descending order and ten it will be easier or when searching add a search clause
WHERE Name = 'Earl Smith'
if you do comment with more specific in how you are getting the table would be helpful as well.
full Query and of course update customer_records to your table name:
SELECT * FROM customer_records ORDER BY Name DESC;
To be exact - this is by SQL standard. No set has an order UNLESS YOU IMPOSE ONE. Which means a ORDER BY part in a SELECT statement. If you dont do that, the return value is technically random and at the discretion of the database server which will come up in them in an order that is as fast as possible to compute.
Related
I'm struggling with some special characters that work fine with my SQL query, however will create problems in a secondary system (Excel), so I would like to replace them already during the query if possible.
TRANSACTIONS
ID DESC
1 14ft
2 15/16ft
3 17ft
This is just a dummy example, but "/" represents one of the characters I need to remove, but there are a few different. Although it should technically work, I can't use:
select ID, case when DESC = '15/16ft' then '15_16ft' else DESC from TRANSACTIONS
I can't keep track on all the strings, so I should approach based on character. I'd prefer converting them to another char or removing them altogether.
Unfortunately not sure on the exact db engine, although good chance it's an IBM based product, but most "generic" SQL queries tend to run fine. And just to emphazise that I'm looking to convert data within the SQL query, not update the database records. Thanks a lot!
Analyzing an Oracle DB of an application of mine, I always run queries ending with the very same "order by" clause, given that every table has a date type "DT_EXTRACTION" column.
Is there a way to define an alias for String "order by DT_EXTRACTION desc" (say, equals to $DD) and write my query like this?
select *
from foo
$DD;
Since you're using SQL Developer you could (ab)use substitution variables for this:
define DD='order by DT_EXTRACTION desc'
select * from your_table
ⅅ
but you'd have to either define that string in each script/session, or add it to a login script to make it always available (which you can choose from Tools->Preferences->Database).
That would work in SQL*Plus too.
SQL Developer also has 'snippets', which you can view and manage from the panel revealed by View->Snippets. You can add your own snippet for that order by clause, and can then drag-and-drop it from the snippets panel into your code wherever you need to use it. Not quite what you asked for but still useful. #thatjeffsmith has a write up with pictures, so I won't repeat those details here, since it's not quite what you need.
You may find code templates useful too. From Tool->Preferences->Database choose SQL Editor Code Templates, and define a new one for your string:
Then in the worksheet, type as far as:
select * from your_table DD
hit control-space and it will expand automatically to
select * from your_table order by dt_extraction desc
I know this might probably sound like a stupid question, but please bear with me.
In SQL-server we have
SELECT TOP N ...
now in that we can get the first n rows in ascending order (by default), cool. If we want records to be sorted on any other column, we just specify that in the order by clause, something like this...
SELECT TOP N ... ORDER BY [ColumnName]
Even more cool. But what if I want the last row? I just write something like this...
SELECT TOP N ... ORDER BY [ColumnName] DESC
But there is a slight concern with that. I said concern and not issue because it isn't actually an issue. By this way, I could get the last row based on that column, but what if I want the last row that was inserted. I know about SCOPE_IDENTITY, IDENT_CURRENT and ##IDENTITY, but consider a heap (a table without a clustered index) without any identity column, and multiple accesses from many places (please don't go into this too much as to how and when these multiple operation are happening, this doesn't concern the main thing). So in this case there doesn't seems to be an easy way to find which row was actually inserted last. Some might answer this as
If you do a select * from [table] the last row shown in the sql result window will be the last one inserted.
To anything thinking about this, this is not actually the case, at least not always and one that you can always rely on (msdn, please read the Advanced Scanning section).
So the question boils down to this, as in the title itself. Why doesn't SQL Server have a
SELECT LAST
or say
SELECT BOTTOM
or something like that, where we don't have to specify the Order By and then it would give the last record inserted in the table at the time of executing the query (again I am not going into details about how would this result in case of uncommitted reads or phantom reads).
But if still, someone argues that we can't talk about this without talking about these read levels, then, for them, we could make it behave as the same way as TOP work but just the opposite. But if your argument is then we don't need it as we can always do
SELECT TOP N ... ORDER BY [ColumnName] DESC
then I really don't know what to say here. I know we can do that, but are there any relation based reason, or some semantics based reason, or some other reason due to which we don't have or can't have this SELECT LAST/BOTTOM. I am not looking for way to does Order By, I am looking for reason as to why do don't have it or can't have it.
Extra
I don't know much about how NOSQL works, but I've worked (just a little bit) with mongodb and elastic search, and there too doesn't seems to be anything like this. Is the reason they don't have it is because no one ever had it before, or is it for some reason not plausible?
UPDATE
I don't need to know that I need to specify order by descending or not. Please read the question and understand my concern before answering or commenting. I know how will I get the last row. That's not even the question, the main question boils down to why no select last/bottom like it's counterpart.
UPDATE 2
After the answers from Vladimir and Pieter, I just wanted to update that I know the the order is not guaranteed if I do a SELECT TOP without ORDER BY. I know from what I wrote earlier in the question might make an impression that I don't know that's the case, but if you just look a further down, I have given a link to msdn and have mentioned that the SELECT TOP without ORDER BY doesn't guarantees any ordering. So please don't add this to your answer that my statement in wrong, as I have already clarified that myself after a couple of lines (where I provided the link to msdn).
You can think of it like this.
SELECT TOP N without ORDER BY returns some N rows, neither first, nor last, just some. Which rows it returns is not defined. You can run the same statement 10 times and get 10 different sets of rows each time.
So, if the server had a syntax SELECT LAST N, then result of this statement without ORDER BY would again be undefined, which is exactly what you get with existing SELECT TOP N without ORDER BY.
You have stressed in your question that you know and understand what I've written below, but I'll still keep it to make it clear for everyone reading this later.
Your first phrase in the question
In SQL-server we have SELECT TOP N ... now in that we can get the
first n rows in ascending order (by default), cool.
is not correct. With SELECT TOP N without ORDER BY you get N "random" rows. Well, not really random, the server doesn't jump randomly from row to row on purpose. It chooses some deterministic way to scan through the table, but there could be many different ways to scan the table and server is free to change the chosen path when it wants. This is what is meant by "undefined".
The server doesn't track the order in which rows were inserted into the table, so again your assumption that results of SELECT TOP N without ORDER BY are determined by the order in which rows were inserted in the table is not correct.
So, the answer to your final question
why no select last/bottom like it's counterpart.
is:
without ORDER BY results of SELECT LAST N would be exactly the same as results of SELECT TOP N - undefined.
with ORDER BY result of SELECT LAST N ... ORDER BY X ASC is exactly the same as result of SELECT TOP N ... ORDER BY X DESC.
So, there is no point to have two key words that do the same thing.
There is a good point in the Pieter's answer: the word TOP is somewhat misleading. It really means LIMIT result set to some number of rows.
By the way, since SQL Server 2012 they added support for ANSI standard OFFSET:
OFFSET { integer_constant | offset_row_count_expression } { ROW | ROWS }
[
FETCH { FIRST | NEXT } {integer_constant | fetch_row_count_expression } { ROW | ROWS } ONLY
]
Here adding another key word was justified that it is ANSI standard AND it adds important functionality - pagination, which didn't exist before.
I would like to thank #Razort4x here for providing a very good link to MSDN in his question. The "Advanced Scanning" section there has an excellent example of mechanism called "merry-go-round scanning", which demonstrates why the order of the results returned from a SELECT statement cannot be guaranteed without an ORDER BY clause.
This concept is often misunderstood and I've seen many question here on SO that would greatly benefit if they had a quote from that link.
The answer to your question
Why doesn't SQL Server have a SELECT LAST or say SELECT BOTTOM or
something like that, where we don't have to specify the ORDER BY and
then it would give the last record inserted in the table at the time
of executing the query (again I am not going into details about how
would this result in case of uncommitted reads or phantom reads).
is:
The devil is in the details that you want to omit. To know which record was the "last inserted in the table at the time of executing the query" (and to know this in a somewhat consistent/non-random manner) the server would need to keep track of this information somehow. Even if it is possible in all scenarios of multiple simultaneously running transactions, it is most likely costly from the performance point of view. Not every SELECT would request this information (in fact very few or none at all), but the overhead of tracking this information would always be there.
So, you can think of it like this: by default the server doesn't do anything specific to know/keep track of the order in which the rows were inserted, because it affects performance, but if you need to know that you can use, for example, IDENTITY column. Microsoft could have designed the server engine in such a way that it required an IDENTITY column in every table, but they made it optional, which is good in my opinion. I know better than the server which of my tables need IDENTITY column and which do not.
Summary
I'd like to summarise that you can look at SELECT LAST without ORDER BY in two different ways.
1) When you expect SELECT LAST to behave in line with existing SELECT TOP. In this case result is undefined for both LAST and TOP, i.e. result is effectively the same. In this case it boils down to (not) having another keyword. Language developers (T-SQL language in this case) are always reluctant to add keywords, unless there are good reasons for it. In this case it is clearly avoidable.
2) When you expect SELECT LAST to behave as SELECT LAST INSERTED ROW. Which should, by the way, extend the same expectations to SELECT TOP to behave as SELECT FIRST INSERTED ROW or add new keywords LAST_INSERTED, FIRST_INSERTED to keep existing keyword TOP intact. In this case it boils down to the performance and added overhead of such behaviour. At the moment the server allows you to avoid this performance penalty if you don't need this information. If you do need it IDENTITY is a pretty good solution if you use it carefully.
There is no select last because there is no need for it. Consider a "select top 1 * from table" . Top 1 would get you the first row that is returned. And then the process stops.
But there is no guarantees about ordering if you don't specify an order by. So it may as well be any row in the dataset you get back.
Now do a "select last 1 * from table". Now the database will have to process all the rows in order to get you the last one.
And because ordering is non-deterministic, it may as well be the same result as from the select "top 1".
See now where the problem comes? Without an order by top and last are actually the same, only "last" will take more time. And with an order by, there's really only a need for top.
SELECT TOP N ...
now in that we can get the first n rows in ascending order (by
default), cool. If we want records to be sorted on any other column,
we just specify that in the order by clause, something like this...
What you say here is totally wrong and absolutely NOT how it works. There is no guarantee on what order you get. Ascending order on what ?
create table mytest(id int, id2 int)
insert into mytest(id,id2)values(1,5),(2,4),(3,3),(4,2),(5,1)
select top 1 * from mytest
select * from mytest
create clustered index myindex on mytest(id2)
select top 1 * from mytest
select * from mytest
insert into mytest(id,id2)values(6,0)
select top 1 * from mytest
Try this code line by line and see what you get with the last "select top 1".....you get in this case the last inserted record.
update
I think you understand that "select top 1 * from table" basically means: "Select a random row from the table".
So what would last mean? "Select the last random row from the table?" Wouldn't the last random row from a table be conceptually the same as saying any 1 random row from the table? And if that's true, top and last are the same, so there is no need for last.
Update 2
In hindsight I was happier with the syntax mysql uses : LIMIT.
Top doesn't say anything about ordering it is only there to specify the number of rows to be returned.
Limits the rows returned in a query result set to a specified number of rows or percentage of rows in SQL Server 2014.
The reasons why SELECT LAST_INSERTED does not make sense.
It cannot be easily applied to non-heap tables.
Heap data can be freely moved by DBMS so those "natural" order is subject to change. To keep it the system needs some additional mechanism which seems to be a useless waste.
If really desired it can be simulated by adding some 'auto-increment' column.
SQL Server ordering is arbitrary unless otherwise stated. It's set based, therefore you must define what your set is. Correct SCOPE_IDENTITY() is the correct way to capture the last inserted record, or the OUTPUT clause. Why would you do inserts on a heap that you need to reference chronologically anyway?? That's super bad database design.
What's the equivalent of mysql Limit in ms access. TOP is not sufficient since I'm going to use it for pagination.
Thanks
There isn't one. Your best bet is to add an ID column as a primary key (if you don't already have one) and chunk output by looping through:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE id >= offset AND id <= offset + chunk_size - 1
until you get all the rows.
Curiously, there are a few references in Microsoft documentation to a LIMIT TO nn ROWS syntax for the Access Database Engine:
ACC2002: Setting ANSI 92 Compatibility in a Database Does Not Allow DISTINCT Keyword in Aggregate Functions
About ANSI SQL query mode (MDB)
However, actual testing seems to confirm that this syntax has never existed in a release version of the Access Database Engine. Perhaps this is one of those features that the SQL Server team wanted to put into Jet 4.0 but were ordered to rollback by the Windows team? Whatever, it seem we must simply put it down to a bad documentation error that Microsoft won't take the time to correct :(
If you need to do pagination on the server** side then I suggest you consider a more capable, modern SQL product with better documentation ;)
** conceptually, that is: the Access Database Engine is not a server DBMS.
Since it doesn't appear that you have any type of sequencial unique key number for these rows, you'll need to create a ranking column: How to Rank Records Within a Query
You need to determine how many rows at a time you will return N = (10, 25,100).
You need to keep track of what "page" the user is on and the values of the first and last rank.
Then when you make the call for the next page it is either the next N rows that are > or < the first and last ranks (depending if the users is going to the previous or next page.).
I'm sure there is a way to calculate the last page, first page, etc.
Only way to achive paging SQL similar to Limit statement by using TOP keywords is as follows:
First Step:
sql = "select top "&LESS_COUNT&" * from (SELECT top "&(PAGE_COUNT*getPage)&" * FROM (SELECT "&COLUMNS&" FROM "&TABLENAME&") AS TBL "&getWhere&getOrderby("asc")&") as TBL "&getOrderby("desc")
Second step:
sql = "SELECT TOP "&PAGE_COUNT&" * FROM (" & sql & ") as TBL "&getOrderby("asc")
To summarize; you should re-order and make the results upside down for 3 times.
port your project to PHP & MySQL. Better support for these type of actions and queries and much much better online documentation. As a 16 year veteran DB developer, I have grown to dispise MS Access and MS SQL with a passion unmatched by anything else. This is due exclusively to their lack of support and documentation.
we have a view in our database which has an ORDER BY in it.
Now, I realize views generally don't order, because different people may use it for different things, and want it differently ordered. This view however is used for a VERY SPECIFIC use-case which demands a certain order. (It is team standings for a soccer league.)
The database is Sql Server 2008 Express, v.10.0.1763.0 on a Windows Server 2003 R2 box.
The view is defined as such:
CREATE VIEW season.CurrentStandingsOrdered
AS
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT *, season.GetRanking(TEAMID) RANKING
FROM season.CurrentStandings
ORDER BY
GENDER, TEAMYEAR, CODE, POINTS DESC,
FORFEITS, GOALS_AGAINST, GOALS_FOR DESC,
DIFFERENTIAL, RANKING
It returns:
GENDER, TEAMYEAR, CODE, TEAMID, CLUB, NAME,
WINS, LOSSES, TIES, GOALS_FOR, GOALS_AGAINST,
DIFFERENTIAL, POINTS, FORFEITS, RANKING
Now, when I run a SELECT against the view, it orders the results by GENDER, TEAMYEAR, CODE, TEAMID. Notice that it is ordering by TEAMID instead of POINTS as the order by clause specifies.
However, if I copy the SQL statement and run it exactly as is in a new query window, it orders correctly as specified by the ORDER BY clause.
The order of rows returned by a view with an ORDER BY clause is never guaranteed. If you need a specific row order, you must specify where you select from the view.
See this the note at the top of this Book On-Line entry.
SQL Server 2005 ignores TOP 100 PERCENT by design.
Try TOP 2000000000 instead.
Now, I'll try and find a reference... I was at a seminar presented by Itzak Ben-Gan who mentioned it
Found some...
Kimberly L. Tripp
"TOP 100 Percent ORDER BY Considered Harmful"
In this particular case, the optimizer
recognizes that TOP 100 PERCENT
qualifies all rows and does not need
to be computed at all.
Just use :
"Top (99) Percent "
or
"Top (a number 1000s times more than your data rows like 24682468123)"
it works! just try it.
In SQL server 2008, ORDER BY is ignored in views that use TOP 100 PERCENT. In prior versions of SQL server, ORDER BY was only allowed if TOP 100 PERCENT was used, but a perfect order was never guaranteed. However, many assumed a perfect order was guaranteed. I infer that Microsoft does not want to mislead programmers and DBAs into believing there is a guaranteed order using this technique.
An excellent comparative demonstration of this inaccuracy, can be found here...
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2009/11/24/sql-server-interesting-observation-top-100-percent-and-order-by
Oops, I just noticed that this was already answered. But checking out the comparative demonstration is worth a look anyway.
Microsoft has fixed this. You have patch your sql server
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926292
I found an alternative solution.
My initial plan was to create a 'sort_order' column that would prevent users from having to perform a complex sort.
I used a windowed function ROW_NUMBER. In the ORDER BY clause, I specified the default sort order that I needed (just as it would have been in the ORDER BY of a SELECT statement).
I get several positive outcomes:
By default, the data is getting returned in the default sort order I originally intended (this is probably due to the windowed function having to sort the data prior to assigning the sort_order value)
Other users can sort the data in alternative ways if they choose to
The sort_order column is there for a very specific sort need, making it easier for users to sort the data should whatever tool they use rearranges the rowset.
Note: In my specific application, users are accessing the view via Excel 2010, and by default the data is presented to the user as I had hoped without further sorting needed.
Hope this helps those with a similar problem.
Cheers,
Ryan
run a profiler trace on your database and see the query that's actually being run when you query your view.
You also might want to consider using a stored procedure to return the data from your view, ordered correctly for your specific use case.