I need to order a select query using a varchar column, using numerical and text order. The query will be done in a java program, using jdbc over postgresql.
If I use ORDER BY in the select clause I obtain:
1
11
2
abc
However, I need to obtain:
1
2
11
abc
The problem is that the column can also contain text.
This question is similar (but targeted for SQL Server):
How do I sort a VARCHAR column in SQL server that contains words and numbers?
However, the solution proposed did not work with PostgreSQL.
Thanks in advance, regards,
I had the same problem and the following code solves it:
SELECT ...
FROM table
order by
CASE WHEN column < 'A'
THEN lpad(column, size, '0')
ELSE column
END;
The size var is the length of the varchar column, e.g 255 for varying(255).
You can use regular expression to do this kind of thing:
select THECOL from ...
order by
case
when substring(THECOL from '^\d+$') is null then 9999
else cast(THECOL as integer)
end,
THECOL
First you use regular expression to detect whether the content of the column is a number or not. In this case I use '^\d+$' but you can modify it to suit the situation.
If the regexp doesn't match, return a big number so this row will fall to the bottom of the order.
If the regexp matches, convert the string to number and then sort on that.
After this, sort regularly with the column.
I'm not aware of any database having a "natural sort", like some know to exist in PHP. All I've found is various functions:
Natural order sort in Postgres
Comment in the PostgreSQL ORDER BY documentation
Related
I have got a table with a column that is type of VARCHAR2(255 BYTE). I would like to select only these rows that have numbers as a value, so I discard any other values as for example "lala","1z". I just want to have pure numbers from 1 to ..... 999999999 (just digital numbers in other words) :P
Could you tell me how to make it?
if you're using Oracle 12c r2 or later then use the built-in validate_conversion() function:
select *
from your_table
where validate_conversion(cast(your_column as number)) = 0
validate_conversion() returns 0 when the proposed conversion would succeed and 1 when it wouldn't. It also supports date and timestamp conversions. Find out more.
Something like this is the usual option. You could use regexp, but it's usually a bit slower.
select column1
from tableA
where translate(column1, '1234567890', '') is null;
Here's the regexp version kfinity referred to. The regex matches a line consisting of 1 or more digits.
select column1
from tableA
where regexp_like(column1, '^\d+$');
You don't want zero to start a number. So it seems like regular expressions are the way to go:
where regexp_like(column1, '^[1-9][0-9]*$');
I have a table with about 200 million records. One of the columns is defined as varchar(100) and it's included in a full text index. Most of the values are numeric. Only few are not numeric.
The problem is that it's not working well. For example if a row contains the value '123456789' and i look for '567', it's not returning this row. It will only return rows where the value is exactly '567'.
What am I doing wrong?
sql server 2012.
Thanks.
Full text search doesn't support leading wildcards
In my setup, these return the same
SELECT *
FROM [dbo].[somelogtable]
where CONTAINS (logmessage, N'28400')
SELECT *
FROM [dbo].[somelogtable]
where CONTAINS (logmessage, N'"2840*"')
This gives zero rows
SELECT *
FROM [dbo].[somelogtable]
where CONTAINS (logmessage, N'"*840*"')
You'll have to use LIKE or some fancy trigram approach
The problem is probably that you are using a wrong tool since Full-text queries perform linguistic searches and it seems like you want to use simple "like" condition.
If you want to get a solution to your needs then you can post DDL+DML+'desired result'
You can do this:
....your_query.... LIKE '567%' ;
This will return all the rows that have a number 567 in the beginning, end or in between somewhere.
99% You're missing % after and before the string you search in the LIKE clause.
es:
SELECT * FROM t WHERE att LIKE '66'
is the same as as using WHERE att = '66'
if you write:
SELECT * FROM t WHERE att LIKE '%66%'
will return you all the lines containing 2 'sixes' one after other
I have been working on this on for months. I just cannot get the natural (True alpha-numeric) results. I am shocked that I cannot get them as I have been able to in RPG since 1992 with EBCDIC.
I am looking for any solution in SQL, VBS or simple excel or access. Here is the data I have:
299-8,
3410L-87,
3410L-88,
420-A20,
420-A21,
420A-40,
4357-3,
AN3H10A,
K117GM-8,
K129-1,
K129-15,
K271B-200L,
K271B-38L,
K271D-200EL,
KD1051,
KD1062,
KD1092,
KD1108,
KD1108,
M8000-3,
MS24665-1,
SK271B-200L,
SAYA4008
The order I am looking for is the true alpha-numeric order as below:
AN3H10A,
KD1051,
KD1062,
KD1092,
KD1108,
KD1108,
K117GM-8,
K129-1,
K129-15,
MS24665-1,
M8000-3,
SAYA4008,
SK271B-200L
The inventory is 7800 records so I have had some problems with processing power as well.
Any help would be appreciated.
Jeff
In native Excel, you can add multiple sorting columns to return the ASCII code for each character, but if the character is a number, then add a large number to the code (e.g 1000).
Then sort on each of the helper columns, including the first column in the table, but not in the sort.
The formula:
=IFERROR(CODE(MID($A1,COLUMNS($A:A),1))+AND(CODE(MID($A1,COLUMNS($A:A),1))>=48,CODE(MID($A1,COLUMNS($A:A),1))<=57)*1000,"")
The Sort dialog:
The results:
You can implement a similar algorithm using VBA, and probably SQL also. I dunno about VBS or Access.
You could try using format for left padding the string in order by
select column
from my_table
order by Format(column, "0000000000")
Add a sorting column:
, iif (left(fieldname, 1) between '0' and '9', 1, 0) sortField
etc
order by sortField, FieldName
Lets say you have your data in column "A". If you put this formula in column "B" =IFERROR(IF(LEFT(A1,1)+1>0,"ZZZZZZZ "&A1,A1),A1), it will automatically add Z in front of all numerical values, so that they will naturally appear after all alphabetical values when you sort A-Z. later you can find&replace that funny ZZZZZZ string...
There a number of approaches, but likely the least amount of work is to build two columns that split out the delimiter (-) in this case.
You then “pad” the results (spaces, or 0) right justified, and then sort on the two columns.
So in the query builder we have this:
SELECT Field1,
Format(
Mid(field1,1,IIf(InStr(field1,"-")=0,50,InStr(field1,"-")-1)),
">##########") AS Expr1,
Format(
Mid(field1,IIf(InStr(field1,"-")=0,99,InStr(field1,"-")+1)),
">##########") AS Expr2
FROM Data
When we run the above raw query we get this:
So now in the query builder, simply sort on the first derived column, and then sort on the 2nd derived column.
Eg this:
Run the query, and we get this result:
Edit:
Looking at you desired results, it looks like above sort is wrong. We have to RIGHT just and pad with 0’s.
So this 2nd try:
SELECT Field1,
Left(Mid(field1,1,IIf(InStr(field1,"-")=0,30,InStr(field1,"-")-1))
& String(30,"0"),30) AS Expr1,
Left(Mid(field1,IIf(InStr(field1,"-")=0,99,InStr(field1,"-")+1))
& String(30,"0"),30) AS Expr2
FROM Data
The results are thus this:
Given your small table size, then the above query should perform quite well.
I've got a Postgres ORDER BY issue with the following table:
em_code name
EM001 AAA
EM999 BBB
EM1000 CCC
To insert a new record to the table,
I select the last record with SELECT * FROM employees ORDER BY em_code DESC
Strip alphabets from em_code usiging reg exp and store in ec_alpha
Cast the remating part to integer ec_num
Increment by one ec_num++
Pad with sufficient zeors and prefix ec_alpha again
When em_code reaches EM1000, the above algorithm fails.
First step will return EM999 instead EM1000 and it will again generate EM1000 as new em_code, breaking the unique key constraint.
Any idea how to select EM1000?
Since Postgres 9.6, it is possible to specify a collation which will sort columns with numbers naturally.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/collation.html
-- First create a collation with numeric sorting
CREATE COLLATION numeric (provider = icu, locale = 'en#colNumeric=yes');
-- Alter table to use the collation
ALTER TABLE "employees" ALTER COLUMN "em_code" type TEXT COLLATE numeric;
Now just query as you would otherwise.
SELECT * FROM employees ORDER BY em_code
On my data, I get results in this order (note that it also sorts foreign numerals):
Value
0
0001
001
1
06
6
13
۱۳
14
One approach you can take is to create a naturalsort function for this. Here's an example, written by Postgres legend RhodiumToad.
create or replace function naturalsort(text)
returns bytea language sql immutable strict as $f$
select string_agg(convert_to(coalesce(r[2], length(length(r[1])::text) || length(r[1])::text || r[1]), 'SQL_ASCII'),'\x00')
from regexp_matches($1, '0*([0-9]+)|([^0-9]+)', 'g') r;
$f$;
Source: http://www.rhodiumtoad.org.uk/junk/naturalsort.sql
To use it simply call the function in your order by:
SELECT * FROM employees ORDER BY naturalsort(em_code) DESC
The reason is that the string sorts alphabetically (instead of numerically like you would want it) and 1 sorts before 9.
You could solve it like this:
SELECT * FROM employees
ORDER BY substring(em_code, 3)::int DESC;
It would be more efficient to drop the redundant 'EM' from your em_code - if you can - and save an integer number to begin with.
Answer to question in comment
To strip any and all non-digits from a string:
SELECT regexp_replace(em_code, E'\\D','','g')
FROM employees;
\D is the regular expression class-shorthand for "non-digits".
'g' as 4th parameter is the "globally" switch to apply the replacement to every occurrence in the string, not just the first.
After replacing every non-digit with the empty string, only digits remain.
This always comes up in questions and in my own development and I finally tired of tricky ways of doing this. I finally broke down and implemented it as a PostgreSQL extension:
https://github.com/Bjond/pg_natural_sort_order
It's free to use, MIT license.
Basically it just normalizes the numerics (zero pre-pending numerics) within strings such that you can create an index column for full-speed sorting au naturel. The readme explains.
The advantage is you can have a trigger do the work and not your application code. It will be calculated at machine-speed on the PostgreSQL server and migrations adding columns become simple and fast.
you can use just this line
"ORDER BY length(substring(em_code FROM '[0-9]+')), em_code"
I wrote about this in detail in this related question:
Humanized or natural number sorting of mixed word-and-number strings
(I'm posting this answer as a useful cross-reference only, so it's community wiki).
I came up with something slightly different.
The basic idea is to create an array of tuples (integer, string) and then order by these. The magic number 2147483647 is int32_max, used so that strings are sorted after numbers.
ORDER BY ARRAY(
SELECT ROW(
CAST(COALESCE(NULLIF(match[1], ''), '2147483647') AS INTEGER),
match[2]
)
FROM REGEXP_MATCHES(col_to_sort_by, '(\d*)|(\D*)', 'g')
AS match
)
I thought about another way of doing this that uses less db storage than padding and saves time than calculating on the fly.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/47522040/935122
I've also put it on GitHub
https://github.com/ccsalway/dbNaturalSort
The following solution is a combination of various ideas presented in another question, as well as some ideas from the classic solution:
create function natsort(s text) returns text immutable language sql as $$
select string_agg(r[1] || E'\x01' || lpad(r[2], 20, '0'), '')
from regexp_matches(s, '(\D*)(\d*)', 'g') r;
$$;
The design goals of this function were simplicity and pure string operations (no custom types and no arrays), so it can easily be used as a drop-in solution, and is trivial to be indexed over.
Note: If you expect numbers with more than 20 digits, you'll have to replace the hard-coded maximum length 20 in the function with a suitable larger length. Note that this will directly affect the length of the resulting strings, so don't make that value larger than needed.
We have legacy table where one of the columns part of composite key was manually filled with values:
code
------
'001'
'002'
'099'
etc.
Now, we have feature request in which we must know MAX(code) in order to give user next possible value, in example case form above next value is '100'.
We tried to experiment with this but we still can't find any reasonable explanation how DB2 engine calculates that
MAX('001', '099', '576') is '576'
MAX('099', '99', 'www') is '99' and so on.
Any help or suggestion would be much appreciated!
You already have the answer to getting the maximum numeric value, but to answer the other part with regard to 'www','099','99'.
The AS/400 uses EBCDIC to store values, this is different to ASCII in several ways, the most important for your purposes is that Alpha characters come before numbers, which is the opposite of Ascii.
So on your Max() your 3 strings will be sorted and the highest EBCDIC value used so
'www'
'099'
'99 '
As you can see your '99' string is really '99 ' so it is higher that the one with the leading zero.
Cast it to int before applying max()
For the numeric maximum -- filter out the non-numeric values and cast to a numeric for aggregation:
SELECT MAX(INT(FLD1))
WHERE FLD1 <> ' '
AND TRANSLATE(FLD1, '0123456789', '0123456789') = FLD1
SQL Reference: TRANSLATE
And the reasonable explanation:
SQL Reference: MAX
This max working well in your type definition, when you want do max on integer values then convert values to integer before calling MAX, but i see you mixing max with string 'www' how you imagine this works?
Filter integer only values, cast it to int and call max. This is not good designed solution but looking at your problem i think is enough.
Sharing the solution for postgresql
which worked for me.
Suppose here temporary_id is of type character in database. Then above query will directly convert char type to int type when it gives response.
SELECT MAX(CAST (temporary_id AS Integer)) FROM temporary
WHERE temporary_id IS NOT NULL
As per my requirement I've applied MAX() aggregate function. One can remove that also and it will work the same way.