sql question what is this statement meaning - sql

What does this statement meaning, could somebody elaborate me on this please
(#diplomaPercentage is null OR diploma_percentage>=#diplomaPercentage)

Will be returned all rows if diplomaPercentage is not specified (i.e. passed null), in other cases will be returned rows where diploma_percentage more or equal #diplomaPercentage. :)

This kind of condition is usually used to avoid "dynamic SQL", but it makes the code ugly and ironically may result in worse performance compared to just using dynamic SQL. You can read more about this at:
http://www.sommarskog.se/dyn-search-2005.html

#diplomaPercentage is a variable.
#diplomaPercentage is null is checking if the variable is NULL or not and
diploma_percentage>=#diplomaPercentage is checking if the column value diploma_percentage is greater than or equal to variable value

If you give it a null value for #diplomapercentage then it will return all records, otherwise it will it return only the records with a diploma_percentage value greater than or equal to the one you supply.

If no value for #diplomaPercentage is passed it it will return all rows, otherwise it will return all the rows where diploma_percentage is greater than #diplomaPercentage if a value has been passed in

Related

SQL query - What does taking the MIN of this boolean expression mean?

Excuse my ignorance about this... I'm taking a data analysis course and I stumbled upon this query in an exercise:
SELECT
CASE
WHEN MIN(REGEXP_CONTAINS(STRING(ActivityDate), DATE_REGEX)) = TRUE THEN
"Valid"
ELSE
"Not Valid"
END
AS valid_test
FROM
`tracker_data_clean.daily-activity-clean`;
ActivityDate is a field that contains date type data and DATE_REGEX is a regular expression variable for a date format string.
What I don't know, is what does taking the MIN() of this boolean expression REGEX_CONTAINS do or mean.
I would appreciate if any of you could help me understand the concept of doing this.
Thanks !
The query selects rows from the table and applies the REGEXP_CONTAINS() function to every (string-converted) value in the ActivityDate column. REGEXP_CONTAINS() will either return true or false based on whether the value matches the regex pattern in DATE_REGEX.
How MIN() behaves here can vary by implementation:
Booleans might be coerced as integers, so MIN() is evaluating 0's and 1's. If all the values are 1 (true), MIN() will be 1 (true), otherwise it will be 0 (false).
Other implementations might evaluate booleans directly, so MIN() returns true if all of the values are true, because the minimum value is true (true being "greater" than false), otherwise it returns false.
The result, based on the implementation, is that MIN() returns 0/1, or false/true. Either way, that result is compared to true in the CASE statement. If all values matched the regex, the comparison will be true.
Basically, the query is "does every row have a valid date in the ActivityDate column?" The result will be a table with a single column valid_test and one row, containing "Valid" if they all match, "Not Valid" otherwise.
Another way to look at it that would be relatable to some programming languages is that MIN(bool_function()) is analogous to all(), meaning return true if all values are true. Similarly, MAX(bool_function()) would be analogous to any(), meaning return true if any value is true.

Which one of these two SELECT statment are correct?

I am a little bit confusing and have no idea which one of these two SELECT statments are correct
SELECT Value FROM visibility WHERE site_info LIKE '%site_is_down%';
OR
SELECT Value FROM visibility WHERE site_info = 'site_is_down';
SInce I run both of these I get same result, but I am interesting which one is correct since Value column is VARCHAR data type OR both of these SELECT are incorect ?
Result set running first SELECT
Value
1. 0
Result set running second SELECT
Value
1. 0
The two statements do not do the same thing.
The first statement filters on rows whose site_infos contain string 'site_is_down'. The surrounding '%' are wildcards. So it would match on something like 'It looks like site_is_down right now'.
The second query, with the equality condition, filters on site_info whose content is exactly 'site_is_dow'.
Everything that the second query is also returned by the first query - but the opposite is not true.
Which statement is "correct" depends on your actual requirement.
If both queries are useful for you, I'd use the second query, as it is the simplest, and runs faster.

is null vs. equals null

I have a rough understanding of why = null in SQL and is null are not the same, from questions like this one.
But then, why is
update table
set column = null
a valid SQL statement (at least in Oracle)?
From that answer, I know that null can be seen as somewhat "UNKNOWN" and therefore and sql-statement with where column = null "should" return all rows, because the value of column is no longer an an unknown value. I set it to null explicitly ;)
Where am I wrong/ do not understand?
So, if my question is maybe unclear:
Why is = null valid in the set clause, but not in the where clause of an SQL statement?
SQL doesn't have different graphical signs for assignment and equality operators like languages such as c or java have. In such languages, = is the assignment operator, while == is the equality operator. In SQL, = is used for both cases, and interpreted contextually.
In the where clause, = acts as the equality operator (similar to == in C). I.e., it checks if both operands are equal, and returns true if they are. As you mentioned, null is not a value - it's the lack of a value. Therefore, it cannot be equal to any other value.
In the set clause, = acts as the assignment operator (similar to = in C). I.e., it sets the left operand (a column name) with the value of the right operand. This is a perfectly legal statement - you are declaring that you do not know the value of a certain column.
They completely different operators, even if you write them the same way.
In a where clause, is a comparsion operator
In a set, is an assignment operator
The assigment operator allosw to "clear" the data in the column and set it to the "null value" .
In the set clause, you're assigning the value to an unknown, as defined by NULL. In the where clause, you're querying for an unknown. When you don't know what an unknown is, you can't expect any results for it.

What does this SQL Query mean?

I have the following SQL query:
select AuditStatusId
from dbo.ABC_AuditStatus
where coalesce(AuditFrequency, 0) <> 0
I'm struggling a bit to understand it. It looks pretty simple, and I know what the coalesce operator does (more or less), but dont' seem to get the MEANING.
Without knowing anymore information except the query above, what do you think it means?
select AuditStatusId
from dbo.ABC_AuditStatus
where AuditFrequency <> 0 and AuditFrequency is not null
Note that the use of Coalesce means that it will not be possible to use an index properly to satisfy this query.
COALESCE is the ANSI standard function to deal with NULL values, by returning the first non-NULL value based on the comma delimited list. This:
WHERE COALESCE(AuditFrequency, 0) != 0
..means that if the AuditFrequency column is NULL, convert the value to be zero instead. Otherwise, the AuditFrequency value is returned.
Since the comparison is to not return rows where the AuditFrequency column value is zero, rows where AuditFrequency is NULL will also be ignored by the query.
It looks like it's designed to detect a null AuditFrequency as zero and thus hide those rows.
From what I can see, it checks for fields that aren't 0 or null.
I think it is more accurately described by this:
select AuditStatusId
from dbo.ABC_AuditStatus
where (AuditFrequency IS NOT NULL AND AuditFrequency != 0) OR 0 != 0
I'll admit the last part will never do anything and maybe i'm just being pedantic but to me this more accurately describes your query.
The idea is that it is desireable to express a single search condition using a single expression but it's merely style, a question of taste:
One expression:
WHERE age = COALESCE(#parameter_value, age);
Two expressions:
WHERE (
age = #parameter_value
OR
#parameter_value IS NULL
);
Here's another example:
One expression:
WHERE age BETWEEN 18 AND 65;
Two expressions
WHERE (
age >= 18
AND
age <= 65
);
Personally, I have a strong personal perference for single expressions and find them easier to read... if I am familiar with the pattern used ;) Whether they perform differently is another matter...

SQLServer Get Results Where Value Is Null

I have an SQL server database that I am querying and I only want to get the information when a specific row is null. I used a where statement such as:
WHERE database.foobar = NULL
and it does not return anything. However, I know that there is at least one result because I created an instance in the database where 'foobar' is equal to null. If I take out the where statement it shows data so I know it is not the rest of the query.
Can anyone help me out?
Correct syntax is WHERE database.foobar IS NULL. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188795.aspx for more info
Comparison to NULL will be false every time. You want to use IS NULL instead.
x = NULL -- always false
x <> NULL -- always false
x IS NULL -- these do what you want
x IS NOT NULL
Read Testing for Null Values, you need IS NULL not = NULL
Is it an SQL Server database?
If so, use IS NULL instead of making the comparison (MSDN).