I have a field in a table called "usage". (I did not create it)
In a query in SQLDeveloper the word "usage" is highlighted as if it is a keyword (like "Select")
Is "usage" a keyword is SQL? (or Oracle)
If yes, what does it do?
If no, why is it highlighted?
You can understand how difficult it has been to search for any information on this. Putting the word usage on any search returns results about to use stuff :-(
Thanks
Paul Mc
One example I know is
ALTER INDEX indexname MONITORING USAGE
See documentation
It's an identifier, not a keyword. SQL Developer allows you to highlight them independently.
According to the
Oracle documentation and the PostgreSQL documentation
it's indeed a keyword, and an ANSI keyword to boot. As to its usage (pun intended), I've got no idea.
UPDATE
According to this SQL grammar by Jonathan Leffler (I guess this is the same Jonathan Leffler, but I'm not 100% sure), it's a GRANTable privilege.
At least in MySQL, this privilege seems to be used to indicate the absence of privileges.
select orderid from orders where REGEXP_REPLACE(orderid,'/^0+(.)/')
I have searched the documentation and am missing it. If I run this query will it change any real data or just my set returned for output (the "virtual" data)? The word replace scares me. I am using oracle 11g.
Thank you.
Because you are performing a SELECT, you end up getting a read only view of the data, nothing has changed.
So you don't need to worry about running this select statement. The only way to update it would be to follow this up with an UPDATE command.
No, it doesn't. (even though this answer is too short for SO).
I tried session.createSQLQuery("ALTER TABLE People MODIFY address VARCHAR(1000);").executeUpdate();
but this throws org.hibernate.exception.SQLGrammarException: could not execute native bulk manipulation query
After a lot of googling, the recommendation is to use HQL instead of SQL query to do bulk updates. Not sure how to use HQL to accomplish this. There seems to be no decent HQL documentation for updating column length in a table.
Thanks so much for the help.
I suggest you to run this native SQL query via session.connection().
See section 16.2.2.1. Rules/limitations for using stored procedures of Chapter 16. Native SQL, it's near your ALTER query.
All the rest depends on your database vendor. Good Luck!
I could not find a way. Looks like a limitation. I added a new field and copied over data from old field at start-up!
I'm connected to an OpenEdge DataServer via ODBC (not our product, we are just accessing their database, I hardly have any information and certainly no help from the other side).
Anyhow, I just need to execute a simple Select, add a couple of rows and I need the equivalent of an IsNull statement.
Basically I'd like to execute
SELECT ISNULL(NULL,'test')
This fails with a Syntax Error. I've looked around at something they misleadingly call a "documentation" but there are only references to SP_SQL_ISNULL but I can't get that to work either. I'm fit in T-SQL, so any pointers in any direction appreciated, even if it's just a RTFM with a link to TFM :)
Thanks
Thanks to Catalin and this question I got on the right track. I kept thinking I needed a OpenEdge specific function but actually I needed to use only ODBC SQL syntax.
To get what
ISNULL(col,4)
does you can use
COALESCE(col,4)
which "returns the data type of expression with the highest data type precedence. If all expressions are nonnullable, the result is typed as nonnullable."MSDN
Basically it will convert to 4 if the value is null (and therefore not convertable).
I am not 100% sure, but I think ODBC driver expects a valid SQL statement, and not an DBMS specific SQL statement, like the one you provided.
I have been working with T-SQL in MS SQL for some time now and somehow whenever I have to insert data into a table I tend to use syntax:
INSERT INTO myTable <something here>
I understand that keyword INTO is optional here and I do not have to use it but somehow it grew into habit in my case.
My question is:
Are there any implications of using INSERT syntax versus INSERT INTO?
Which one complies fully with the standard?
Are they both valid in other implementations of SQL standard?
INSERT INTO is the standard. Even though INTO is optional in most implementations, it's required in a few, so it's a good idea to include it if you want your code to be portable.
You can find links to several versions of the SQL standard here. I found an HTML version of an older standard here.
They are the same thing, INTO is completely optional in T-SQL (other SQL dialects may differ).
Contrary to the other answers, I think it impairs readability to use INTO.
I think it is a conceptional thing: In my perception, I am not inserting a row into a table named "Customer", but I am inserting a Customer. (This is connected to the fact that I use to name my tables in singular, not plural).
If you follow the first concept, INSERT INTO Customer would most likely "feel right" for you.
If you follow the second concept, it would most likely be INSERT Customer for you.
It may be optional in mySQL, but it is mandatory in some other DBMSs, for example Oracle. So SQL will be more potentially portable with the INTO keyword, for what it's worth.
In SQL Server 2005, you could have something in between INSERT and INTO like this:
INSERT top(5) INTO tTable1 SELECT * FROM tTable2;
Though it works without the INTO, I prefer using INTO for readability.
One lesson I leaned about this issue is that you should always keep it consistent! If you use INSERT INTO, don't use INSERT as well. If you don't do it, some programmers may ask the same question again.
Here is my another related example case: I had a chance to update a very very long stored procedure in MS SQL 2005. The problem is that too many data were inserted to a result table. I had to find out where the data came from. I tried to find out where new records were added. At the beginning section of SP, I saw several INSERT INTOs. Then I tried to find "INSERT INTO" and updated them, but I missed one place where only "INSERT" was used. That one actually inserted 4k+ rows of empty data in some columns! Of course, I should just search for INSERT. However, that happened to me. I blame the previous programmer IDIOT:):)
They both do the same thing. INTO is optional (in SQL Server's T-SQL) but aids readability.
I started wtiting SQL on ORACLE, so when I see code without INTO it just looks 'broken' and confusing.
Yes, it is just my opinion, and I'm not saying you should always use INTO. But it you don't you should be aware that many other people will probably think the same thing, especially if they haven't started scripting with newer implementations.
With SQL I think it's also very important to realise that you ARE adding a ROW to a TABLE, and not working with objects. I think it would be unhelpful to a new developer to think of SQL table rows/entries as objects. Again, just me opinion.
INSERT INTO is SQL standard while INSERT without INTO is not SQL standard.
I experimented them on SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite as shown below.
Database
INSERT INTO
INSERT
SQL Server
Possible
Possible
MySQL
Possible
Possible
PostgreSQL
Possible
Impossible
SQLite
Possible
Impossible
In addition, I also experimented DELETE FROM and DELETE without FROM on SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite as shown below:
Database
DELETE FROM
DELETE
SQL Server
Possible
Possible
MySQL
Possible
Impossible
PostgreSQL
Possible
Impossible
SQLite
Possible
Impossible
I prefer using it. It maintains the same syntax delineation feel and readability as other parts of the SQL language, like group BY, order BY.
If available use the standard function. Not that you ever need portability for your particular database, but chances are you need portability for your SQL knowledge.
A particular nasty T-SQL example is the use of isnull, use coalesce!