I'm entirely new at SQL, but let's say that on the StackExchange Data Explorer, I just want to list the top 15 users by reputation, and I wrote something like this:
SELECT TOP 15
DisplayName, Id, Reputation, Reputation/1000 As RepInK
FROM
Users
WHERE
RepInK > 10
ORDER BY Reputation DESC
Currently this gives an Error: Invalid column name 'RepInK', which makes sense, I think, because RepInK is not a column in Users. I can easily fix this by saying WHERE Reputation/1000 > 10, essentially repeating the formula.
So the questions are:
Can I actually use the RepInK "column" in the WHERE clause?
Do I perhaps need to create a virtual table/view with this column, and then do a SELECT/WHERE query on it?
Can I name an expression, e.g. Reputation/1000, so I only have to repeat the names in a few places instead of the formula?
What do you call this? A substitution macro? A function? A stored procedure?
Is there an SQL quicksheet, glossary of terms, language specification, anything I can use to quickly pick up the syntax and semantics of the language?
I understand that there are different "flavors"?
Can I actually use the RepInK "column" in the WHERE clause?
No, but you can rest assured that your database will evaluate (Reputation / 1000) once, even if you use it both in the SELECT fields and within the WHERE clause.
Do I perhaps need to create a virtual table/view with this column, and then do a SELECT/WHERE query on it?
Yes, a view is one option to simplify complex queries.
Can I name an expression, e.g. Reputation/1000, so I only have to repeat the names in a few places instead of the formula?
You could create a user defined function which you can call something like convertToK, which would receive the rep value as an argument and returns that argument divided by 1000. However it is often not practical for a trivial case like the one in your example.
Is there an SQL quicksheet, glossary of terms, language specification, anything I can use to quickly pick up the syntax and semantics of the language?
I suggest practice. You may want to start following the mysql tag on Stack Overflow, where many beginner questions are asked every day. Download MySQL, and when you think there's a question within your reach, try to go for the solution. I think this will help you pick up speed, as well as awareness of the languages features. There's no need to post the answer at first, because there are some pretty fast guns on the topic over here, but with some practice I'm sure you'll be able to bring home some points :)
I understand that there are different "flavors"?
The flavors are actually extensions to ANSI SQL. Database vendors usually augment the SQL language with extensions such as Transact-SQL and PL/SQL.
You could simply re-write the WHERE clause
where reputation > 10000
This won't always be convenient. As an alternativly, you can use an inline view:
SELECT
a.DisplayName, a.Id, a.Reputation, a.RepInK
FROM
(
SELECT TOP 15
DisplayName, Id, Reputation, Reputation/1000 As RepInK
FROM
Users
ORDER BY Reputation DESC
) a
WHERE
a.RepInK > 10
Regarding something like named expressions, while there are several possible alternatives, the query optimizer is going to do best just writing out the formula Reputation / 1000 long-hand. If you really need to run a whole group of queries using the same evaluated value, your best bet is to create view with the field defined, but you wouldn't want to do that for a one-off query.
As an alternative, (and in cases where performance is not much of an issue), you could try something like:
SELECT TOP 15
DisplayName, Id, Reputation, RepInk
FROM (
SELECT DisplayName, Id, Reputation, Reputation / 1000 as RepInk
FROM Users
) AS table
WHERE table.RepInk > 10
ORDER BY Reputation DESC
though I don't believe that's supported by all SQL dialects and, again, the optimizer is likely to do a much worse job which this kind of thing (since it will run the SELECT against the full Users table and then filter that result). Still, for some situations this sort of query is appropriate (there's a name for this... I'm drawing a blank at the moment).
Personally, when I started out with SQL, I found the W3 schools reference to be my constant stopping-off point. It fits my style for being something I can glance at to find a quick answer and move on. Eventually, however, to really take advantage of the database it is necessary to delve into the vendors documentation.
Although SQL is "standarized", unfortunately (though, to some extent, fortunately), each database vendor implements their own version with their own extensions, which can lead to quite different syntax being the most appropriate (for a discussion of the incompatibilities of various databases on one issue see the SQLite documentation on NULL handling. In particular, standard functions, e.g., for handling DATEs and TIMEs tend to differ per vendor, and there are other, more drastic differences (particularly in not support subselects or properly handling JOINs). If you care for some of the details, this document provides both the standard forms and deviations for several major databases.
You CAN refer to RepInK in the Order By clause, but in the Where clause you must repeat the expression. But, as others have said, it will only be executed once.
There are good answers for the technical problem already, so I'll only address some of the rest of your questions.
If you're just working with the DataExplorer, you'll want to familiarize yourself with SQL Server syntax since that's what it's running. The best place to find that, of course, is MSDN's reference.
Yes, there are different variations in SQL syntax. For example, the TOP clause in the query you gave is SQL Server specific; in MySQL you'd use the LIMIT clause instead (and these keywords don't necessarily appear in the same spot in the query!).
Related
I have a repository of SQL queries and I want to understand which queries use certain tables or fields.
Let's say I want to understand what queries use the email field, how can I write it?
Example SQL query:
select
users.email as email_user
,users.email as email_user_too
,email as email_user_too_2
email as email_user_too_3,
back_email as wrong_email -- wrong field
from users
So to state the problem more accurately, you are sorting through a list of SQL queries [as text], and you now need to find the queries that use certain fields using SQL & RegEx (Regular Expressions) in PostgreSQL. (please tag the question so that StackOverflow indexes your question correctly, more importantly, readers have more context about the question)
PostgreSQL has Regular Expression support OOTB (Out Of The Box). So we skip exploring other ways to do this. (If you are reading this as Microsoft SQL Server person, then I strongly suggest you to have a read of this brilliant article on Microsoft's website on defining a Table-Valued UDF (User Defined Function))
The simplest way I could think of to approach your problem, is to throw away what we don't want out of the query text first, and then filter out what's left.
This way, after throwing away the stuff you don't need, you will be left with a set of "tokens" that you can easily filter, and I'm putting token in quotes since we are not really parsing the SQL language, but if we did that would be the first step: to extract tokens.. (:
Take this query for example:
With Queries (
Id
, QueryText
) As (
values (1, 'select
users.email as email_user
,users.email as email_user_too
,email as email_user_too_2,
email as email_user_too_3,
back_email as wrong_email -- wrong field
from users')
)
Select QueryText
, found
From (
Select Id
, QueryText
, regexp_split_to_table (QueryText, '(--[\s\w]+|select|from|as|where|[ \s\n,])') As found
From Queries
) As Result
Where found != ''
And found = 'back_email'
I have sourced the concept of a "query repository" with a WITH statement for ease of doing the pseudo-code.
I have also selected few words/characters to split QueryText with. Like select, where etc. We don't need these in our 'found' set.
And in the end, as you can see above, I simply used found as what's left and filtered it with the field name you are looking for. (Assuming that you know the field you are looking for)
You could improve upon the RegEx I did, or change the method as you wish to make it better. But I think the general concept addresses what you need to achieve. One problem I can see with my solution right off the bat is the fact that you can search for anything really, not just names of the selected fields - which begs the question, why use RegEx, and not Like statements? But again, as I mentioned, you can improve upon the RegEx and address specific requirements you may have. Using Like might limit you in that direction. (In other words, only you know what's good for you. I can't say that from here.)
You can play with the query online here: db-fiddle query and use https://regex101.com/ for testing your RegEx.
Disclaimer I'm not a PostgreSQL developer. There must be other, perhaps better ways of doing this. (:
This works:
SELECT * FROM users ORDER BY id LIMIT 5
This doesn't - throws a syntax error:
SELECT * FROM users LIMIT 5 ORDER BY id
SQL seems to be too strict about clause order.
Does it have a good reason to be that strict?
P.S. SELECT and FROM specify the source of the data and I agree that this should have a specific position in the query. The other clauses, though, just "play" with that data - they have a relationship with the source of the data, but not with each other so the fact that they should be ordered in a particular way doesn't seem very intuitive to me.
Hugh Darwen theorizes that it was fashionable for languages to be this way in the 1960s:
Do you take SELECT-FROM-WHERE for
granted, or do you, like me, find it
rather curious that the System R team
should have spurned the normal way of
writing expressions of arbitrary
complexity in favour of something
utterly idiosyncratic and, one might
say, rather dictatorial...?
The fact is that in the 1960s various
scripting languages (as we tend to
call such things these days) had come
about for the purposes of report
generation, especially ad hoc report
generation. We had one such language
in the prerelational DBMS called
Terminal Business System (TBS) that I
worked on for IBM from 1969-77. Our
language required the user to specify
the required report in a series of
steps that had to be given in the
prescribed order...
A somewhat similar but much more
sophisticated report generator was
later developed by IBM in the US, as
part of a product called (prosaically,
as was IBM's style in those days)
Generalized Information System
(GIS)... when I first looked at SQL,
my immediate reaction was "Oh no!
Son of GIS? Please not that!" I
might have been quite wrong about
this. The similarity I perceived
might have been illusory and even if
it was not, I have no firm evidence
that anybody in the System R team was
familiar with GIS. The fact remains
that the general style of a fixed
order of actions was the order of the
day at the time. I postulate that
SQL's SELECT-FROM-WHERE arose out of
this fashion.
From HAVING a Blunderful Time
When you write in english or another language, you also use a specific grammar.
You never put the verb at the end of the sentence in english but it is used in german.
In SQL, it's the same there is a syntax you have to respect.
You also don't write a query like that FROM user SELECT * ORDER BY xy WHERE a=b
Because this is MySQL's syntax:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/select.html
The parser is built for speed. If you allow inconsistant syntax, the parser takes more time to figure out what needs to be done. This can have a significant impact on performance.
Also, it makes it easier for humans to read.
LIMIT aside (it's TOP in SQL Server for example), there is a logical processing ORDER for SQL statements that reflects the syntax order
FROM
WHERE
GROUP BY
CUBE/ROLLUP
HAVING
SELECT
DISTINCT
TOP/LIMIT
ORDER BY
if you substitute LIMIT with TOP then it quite obvious
First and foremost, let me tell you
"Every language has its set of rules & regulations "
We need to follow this rules. Breaching of any kind of rules (e.g syntax) of any of the command will lead us to error.
Use the ORDER BY clause to specify the order in which cells on the left-hand side of the rule are to be evaluated. The expr must resolve to a dimension or measure column. If the ORDER BY clause is not specified, the order defaults to the order of the columns as specified in the DIMENSION BY clause.
Check out here for more :
Order By Clause (a)
Order By Clause (b)
I suppose I have always naively assumed that scalar functions in the select part of a SQL query will only get applied to the rows that meet all the criteria of the where clause.
Today I was debugging some code from a vendor and had that assumption challenged. The only reason I can think of for this code failing is that the Substring() function is getting called on data that should have been filtered out by the WHERE clause. But it appears that the substring call is being applied before the filtering happens, the query is failing.
Here is an example of what I mean. Let's say we have two tables, each with 2 columns and having 2 rows and 1 row respectively. The first column in each is just an id. NAME is just a string, and NAME_LENGTH tells us how many characters in the name with the same ID. Note that only names with more than one character have a corresponding row in the LONG_NAMES table.
NAMES: ID, NAME
1, "Peter"
2, "X"
LONG_NAMES: ID, NAME_LENGTH
1, 5
If I want a query to print each name with the last 3 letters cut off, I might first try something like this (assuming SQL Server syntax for now):
SELECT substring(NAME,1,len(NAME)-3)
FROM NAMES;
I would soon find out that this would give me an error, because when it reaches "X" it will try using a negative number for in the substring call, and it will fail.
The way my vendor decided to solve this was by filtering out rows where the strings were too short for the len - 3 query to work. He did it by joining to another table:
SELECT substring(NAMES.NAME,1,len(NAMES.NAME)-3)
FROM NAMES
INNER JOIN LONG_NAMES
ON NAMES.ID = LONG_NAMES.ID;
At first glance, this query looks like it might work. The join condition will eliminate any rows that have NAME fields short enough for the substring call to fail.
However, from what I can observe, SQL Server will sometimes try to calculate the the substring expression for everything in the table, and then apply the join to filter out rows. Is this supposed to happen this way? Is there a documented order of operations where I can find out when certain things will happen? Is it specific to a particular Database engine or part of the SQL standard? If I decided to include some predicate on my NAMES table to filter out short names, (like len(NAME) > 3), could SQL Server also choose to apply that after trying to apply the substring? If so then it seems the only safe way to do a substring would be to wrap it in a "case when" construct in the select?
Martin gave this link that pretty much explains what is going on - the query optimizer has free rein to reorder things however it likes. I am including this as an answer so I can accept something. Martin, if you create an answer with your link in it i will gladly accept that instead of this one.
I do want to leave my question here because I think it is a tricky one to search for, and my particular phrasing of the issue may be easier for someone else to find in the future.
TSQL divide by zero encountered despite no columns containing 0
EDIT: As more responses have come in, I am again confused. It does not seem clear yet when exactly the optimizer is allowed to evaluate things in the select clause. I guess I'll have to go find the SQL standard myself and see if i can make sense of it.
Joe Celko, who helped write early SQL standards, has posted something similar to this several times in various USENET newsfroups. (I'm skipping over the clauses that don't apply to your SELECT statement.) He usually said something like "This is how statements are supposed to act like they work". In other words, SQL implementations should behave exactly as if they did these steps, without actually being required to do each of these steps.
Build a working table from all of
the table constructors in the FROM
clause.
Remove from the working table those
rows that do not satisfy the WHERE
clause.
Construct the expressions in the
SELECT clause against the working table.
So, following this, no SQL dbms should act like it evaluates functions in the SELECT clause before it acts like it applies the WHERE clause.
In a recent posting, Joe expands the steps to include CTEs.
CJ Date and Hugh Darwen say essentially the same thing in chapter 11 ("Table Expressions") of their book A Guide to the SQL Standard. They also note that this chapter corresponds to the "Query Specification" section (sections?) in the SQL standards.
You are thinking about something called query execution plan. It's based on query optimization rules, indexes, temporaty buffers and execution time statistics. If you are using SQL Managment Studio you have toolbox over your query editor where you can look at estimated execution plan, it shows how your query will change to gain some speed. So if just used your Name table and it is in buffer, engine might first try to subquery your data, and then join it with other table.
Given your data stored somewhere in a database:
Hello my name is Tom I like dinosaurs to talk about SQL.
SQL is amazing. I really like SQL.
We want to implement a site search, allowing visitors to enter terms and return relating records. A user might search for:
Dinosaurs
And the SQL:
WHERE articleBody LIKE '%Dinosaurs%'
Copes fine with returning the correct set of records.
How would we cope however, if a user mispells dinosaurs? IE:
Dinosores
(Poor sore dino). How can we search allowing for error in spelling? We can associate common misspellings we see in search with the correct spelling, and then search on the original terms + corrected term, but this is time consuming to maintain.
Any way programatically?
Edit
Appears SOUNDEX could help, but can anyone give me an example using soundex where entering the search term:
Dinosores wrocks
returns records instead of doing:
WHERE articleBody LIKE '%Dinosaurs%' OR articleBody LIKE '%Wrocks%'
which would return squadoosh?
If you're using SQL Server, have a look at SOUNDEX.
For your example:
select SOUNDEX('Dinosaurs'), SOUNDEX('Dinosores')
Returns identical values (D526) .
You can also use DIFFERENCE function (on same link as soundex) that will compare levels of similarity (4 being the most similar, 0 being the least).
SELECT DIFFERENCE('Dinosaurs', 'Dinosores'); --returns 4
Edit:
After hunting around a bit for a multi-text option, it seems that this isn't all that easy. I would refer you to the link on the Fuzzt Logic answer provided by #Neil Knight (+1 to that, for me!).
This stackoverflow article also details possible sources for implentations for Fuzzy Logic in TSQL. Once respondant also outlined Full text Indexing as a potential that you might want to investigate.
Perhaps your RDBMS has a SOUNDEX function? You didn't mention which one was involved here.
SQL Server's SOUNDEX
Just to throw an alternative out there. If SSIS is an option, then you can use Fuzzy Lookup.
SSIS Fuzzy Lookup
I'm not sure if introducing a separate "search engine" is possible, but if you look at products like the Google search appliance or Autonomy, these products can index a SQL database and provide more searching options - for example, handling misspellings as well as synonyms, search results weighting, alternative search recommendations, etc.
Also, SQL Server's full-text search feature can be configured to use a thesaurus, which might help:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142491.aspx
Here is another SO question from someone setting up a thesaurus to handle common misspellings:
FORMSOF Thesaurus in SQL Server
Short answer, there is nothing built in to most SQL engines that can do dictionary-based correction of "fat fingers". SoundEx does work as a tool to find words that would sound alike and thus correct for phonetic misspellings, but if the user typed in "Dinosars" missing the final U, or truly "fat-fingered" it and entered "Dinosayrs", SoundEx would not return an exact match.
Sounds like you want something on the level of Google Search's "Did you mean __?" feature. I can tell you that is not as simple as it looks. At a 10,000-foot level, the search engine would look at each of those keywords and see if it's in a "dictionary" of known "good" search terms. If it isn't, it uses an algorithm much like a spell-checker suggestion to find the dictionary word that is the closest match (requires the fewest letter substitutions, additions, deletions and transpositions to turn the given word into the dictionary word). This will require some heavy procedural code, either in a stored proc or CLR Db function in your database, or in your business logic layer.
You can also try the SubString(), to eliminate the first 3 or so characters . Below is an example of how that can be achieved
SELECT Fname, Lname
FROM Table1 ,Table2
WHERE substr(Table1.Fname, 1,3) || substr(Table1.Lname,1 ,3) = substr(Table2.Fname, 1,3) || substr(Table2.Lname, 1 , 3))
ORDER BY Table1.Fname;
When I try to run this query in Access through the ODBC interface into a MySQL database I get an "Expression too complex in query expression" error. The essential thing I'm trying to do is translate abbreviated names of languages into their full body English counterparts. I was curious if there was some way to "trick" access into thinking the expression is smaller with sub queries, or if someone else had a better idea of how to solve this problem. I thought about making a temporary table and doing a join on it, but that's not supported in Access SQL.
Just as an FYI, the query worked fine until I added the big long IFF chain. I tested the query on a smaller IFF chain for three languages, and that wasn't an issue, so the problem definitely stems from the huge IFF chain (It's 26 deep). Also, I might be able to drop some of the options (like combining the different forms of Chinese or Portuguese)
As a test, I was able to get the SQL query to work after paring it down to 14 IFF() statements, but that's a far cry from the 26 languages I'd like to represent.
SELECT TOP 5 Count( * ) AS [Number of visits by language], IIf(login.lang="ar","Arabic",IIf(login.lang="bg","Bulgarian",IIf(login.lang="zh_CN","Chinese (Simplified Han)",IIf(login.lang="zh_TW","Chinese (Traditional Han)",IIf(login.lang="cs","Czech",IIf(login.lang="da","Danish",IIf(login.lang="de","German",IIf(login.lang="en_US","United States English",IIf(login.lang="en_GB","British English",IIf(login.lang="es","Spanish",IIf(login.lang="fr","French",IIf(login.lang="el","Greek",IIf(login.lang="it","Italian",IIf(login.lang="ko","Korean",IIf(login.lang="hu","Hungarian",IIf(login.lang="nl","Dutch",IIf(login.lang="pl","Polish",IIf(login.lang="pt_PT","European Portuguese",IIf(login.lang="pt_BR","Brazilian Portuguese",IIf(login.lang="ru","Russian",IIf(login.lang="sk","Slovak",IIf(login.lang="sl","Slovenian","IIf(login.lang="fi","Finnish",IIf(login.lang="sv","Swedish",IIf(login.lang="tr","Turkish","Unknown")))))))))))))))))))))))))) AS [Language]
FROM login, reservations, reservation_users, schedules
WHERE (reservations.start_date Between DATEDIFF('s','1970-01-01 00:00:00',[Starting Date in the Following Format YYYY/MM/DD]) And DATEDIFF('s','1970-01-01 00:00:00',[Ending Date in the Following Format YYYY/MM/DD])) And reservations.is_blackout=0 And reservation_users.memberid=login.memberid And reservation_users.resid=reservations.resid And reservation_users.invited=0 And reservations.scheduleid=schedules.scheduleid And scheduletitle=[Schedule Title]
GROUP BY login.lang
ORDER BY Count( * ) DESC;
# Michael Todd
I completely agree. The list of languages should have been a table in the database and the login.lang should have been a FK into that table. Unfortunately this isn't how the database was written, and it's not really mine to modify. The languages are placed into the login.lang field by the PHP running on top of the database.
I thought about making a temporary table and doing a join on it, but that's not supported in Access SQL.
Did you try making a table of languages within Access, and joining it to the MySQL tables?
You may try the below expression. what I did is, your expression is cut down to two parts, then a final 'IIf' check will do the trick. You will have additional 2 fields and you may ignore those. I had the same situation and this worked well for me. PS: You may need to double check the closing brackets in the below expression. I did it quickly.
Thanks,
Shibin
IIf(login.lang="ar","Arabic",IIf(login.lang="bg","Bulgarian",IIf(login.lang="zh_CN","Chinese (Simplified Han)",IIf(login.lang="zh_TW","Chinese (Traditional Han)",IIf(login.lang="cs","Czech",IIf(login.lang="da","Danish",IIf(login.lang="de","German",IIf(login.lang="en_US","United States English",IIf(login.lang="en_GB","British English",IIf(login.lang="es","Spanish",IIf(login.lang="fr","French",IIf(login.lang="el","Greek",IIf(login.lang="it","Italian",""))))))))))))) as l1,
IIf(login.lang="ko","Korean",IIf(login.lang="hu","Hungarian",IIf(login.lang="nl","Dutch",IIf(login.lang="pl","Polish",IIf(login.lang="pt_PT","European Portuguese",IIf(login.lang="pt_BR","Brazilian Portuguese",IIf(login.lang="ru","Russian",IIf(login.lang="sk","Slovak",IIf(login.lang="sl","Slovenian","IIf(login.lang="fi","Finnish",IIf(login.lang="sv","Swedish",IIf(login.lang="tr","Turkish","Unknown")))))))))))) as l2,
IIf(l1="",l2,l1) AS [Language]
If you can't use a lookup table, create a custom VB function, so that instead of 26 IIf statements, you have one function call.