This question already has answers here:
SQL IN Clause 1000 item limit
(5 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have an SQL statement where I would like to get data of 1200 ep_codes by making use of IN clause. When I include more than 1000 ep_codes inside IN clause, Oracle says I'm not allowed to do that. To overcome this, I tried to change the SQL code as follows:
SELECT period, ...
FROM my_view
WHERE period = '200912'
...
AND ep_codes IN (...1000 ep_codes...)
OR ep_codes IN (...200 ep_codes...)
The code was executed succesfully but the results are strange (calculation results are fetched for all periods, not just for 200912, which is not what I want). Is it appropriate to do that using OR between IN clauses or should I execute two separate codes as one with 1000 and the other with 200 ep_codes?
Pascal Martin's solution worked perfectly. Thanks all who contributed with valuable suggestions.
The recommended way to handle this in Oracle is to create a Temporary Table, write the values into this, and then join to this. Using dynamically created IN clauses means the query optimizer does a 'hard parse' of every query.
create global temporary table LOOKUP
(
ID NUMBER
) on commit delete rows;
-- Do a batch insert from your application to populate this table
insert into lookup(id) values (?)
-- join to it
select foo from bar where code in (select id from lookup)
Not sure that using so many values in a IN() is that good, actually -- especially for performances.
When you say "the results are strange", maybe this is because a problem with parenthesis ? What if you try this, instead of what you proposed :
SELECT ...
FROM ...
WHERE ...
AND (
ep_codes IN (...1000 ep_codes...)
OR ep_codes IN (...200 ep_codes...)
)
Does it make the results less strange ?
Actually you can use collections/multisets here. You'll need a number table type to store them.
CREATE TYPE NUMBER_TABLE AS TABLE OF NUMBER;
...
SELECT *
FROM my_view
WHERE period MEMBER OF NUMBER_TABLE(1,2,3...10000)
Read more about multisets here:
Seems like it would be a better idea, both for performance and maintainability, to put the codes in a separate table.
SELECT ...
FROM ...
WHERE ...
AND ep_code in (select code from ep_code_table)
could you insert the 1200 ep_code values into a temporary table and then INNER JOIN to that table to filter rows instead?
SELECT a.*
FROM mytable a
INNER JOIN tmp ON (tmp.ep_code = a.ep_code)
WHERE ...
Related
I'm using the following code:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE Col IN (123,123,222,....)
However, if I put more than ~3000 numbers in the IN clause, SQL throws an error.
Does anyone know if there's a size limit or anything similar?!!
Depending on the database engine you are using, there can be limits on the length of an instruction.
SQL Server has a very large limit:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
ORACLE has a very easy to reach limit on the other side.
So, for large IN clauses, it's better to create a temp table, insert the values and do a JOIN. It works faster also.
There is a limit, but you can split your values into separate blocks of in()
Select *
From table
Where Col IN (123,123,222,....)
or Col IN (456,878,888,....)
Parameterize the query and pass the ids in using a Table Valued Parameter.
For example, define the following type:
CREATE TYPE IdTable AS TABLE (Id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY)
Along with the following stored procedure:
CREATE PROCEDURE sp__Procedure_Name
#OrderIDs IdTable READONLY,
AS
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE Col IN (SELECT Id FROM #OrderIDs)
Why not do a where IN a sub-select...
Pre-query into a temp table or something...
CREATE TABLE SomeTempTable AS
SELECT YourColumn
FROM SomeTable
WHERE UserPickedMultipleRecordsFromSomeListOrSomething
then...
SELECT * FROM OtherTable
WHERE YourColumn IN ( SELECT YourColumn FROM SomeTempTable )
Depending on your version, use a table valued parameter in 2008, or some approach described here:
Arrays and Lists in SQL Server 2005
For MS SQL 2016, passing ints into the in, it looks like it can handle close to 38,000 records.
select * from user where userId in (1,2,3,etc)
I solved this by simply using ranges
WHERE Col >= 123 AND Col <= 10000
then removed unwanted records in the specified range by looping in the application code. It worked well for me because I was looping the record anyway and ignoring couple of thousand records didn't make any difference.
Of course, this is not a universal solution but it could work for situation if most values within min and max are required.
You did not specify the database engine in question; in Oracle, an option is to use tuples like this:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE (Col, 1) IN ((123,1),(123,1),(222,1),....)
This ugly hack only works in Oracle SQL, see https://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/asktom.search?tag=limit-and-conversion-very-long-in-list-where-x-in#9538075800346844400
However, a much better option is to use stored procedures and pass the values as an array.
You can use tuples like this:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE (Col, 1) IN ((123,1),(123,1),(222,1),....)
There are no restrictions on number of these. It compares pairs.
I'm using the following code:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE Col IN (123,123,222,....)
However, if I put more than ~3000 numbers in the IN clause, SQL throws an error.
Does anyone know if there's a size limit or anything similar?!!
Depending on the database engine you are using, there can be limits on the length of an instruction.
SQL Server has a very large limit:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
ORACLE has a very easy to reach limit on the other side.
So, for large IN clauses, it's better to create a temp table, insert the values and do a JOIN. It works faster also.
There is a limit, but you can split your values into separate blocks of in()
Select *
From table
Where Col IN (123,123,222,....)
or Col IN (456,878,888,....)
Parameterize the query and pass the ids in using a Table Valued Parameter.
For example, define the following type:
CREATE TYPE IdTable AS TABLE (Id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY)
Along with the following stored procedure:
CREATE PROCEDURE sp__Procedure_Name
#OrderIDs IdTable READONLY,
AS
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE Col IN (SELECT Id FROM #OrderIDs)
Why not do a where IN a sub-select...
Pre-query into a temp table or something...
CREATE TABLE SomeTempTable AS
SELECT YourColumn
FROM SomeTable
WHERE UserPickedMultipleRecordsFromSomeListOrSomething
then...
SELECT * FROM OtherTable
WHERE YourColumn IN ( SELECT YourColumn FROM SomeTempTable )
Depending on your version, use a table valued parameter in 2008, or some approach described here:
Arrays and Lists in SQL Server 2005
For MS SQL 2016, passing ints into the in, it looks like it can handle close to 38,000 records.
select * from user where userId in (1,2,3,etc)
I solved this by simply using ranges
WHERE Col >= 123 AND Col <= 10000
then removed unwanted records in the specified range by looping in the application code. It worked well for me because I was looping the record anyway and ignoring couple of thousand records didn't make any difference.
Of course, this is not a universal solution but it could work for situation if most values within min and max are required.
You did not specify the database engine in question; in Oracle, an option is to use tuples like this:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE (Col, 1) IN ((123,1),(123,1),(222,1),....)
This ugly hack only works in Oracle SQL, see https://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/asktom.search?tag=limit-and-conversion-very-long-in-list-where-x-in#9538075800346844400
However, a much better option is to use stored procedures and pass the values as an array.
You can use tuples like this:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE (Col, 1) IN ((123,1),(123,1),(222,1),....)
There are no restrictions on number of these. It compares pairs.
I am passing in a comma-delimited list of values that I need to compare to the database
Here is an example of the values I'm passing in:
#orgList = "1123, 223%, 54%"
To use the wildcard I think I have to do LIKE but the query runs a long time and only returns 14 rows (the results are correct, but it's just taking forever, probably because I'm using the join incorrectly)
Can I make it better?
This is what I do now:
declare #tempTable Table (SearchOrg nvarchar(max) )
insert into #tempTable
select * from dbo.udf_split(#orgList) as split
-- this splits the values at the comma and puts them in a temp table
-- then I do a join on the main table and the temp table to do a like on it....
-- but I think it's not right because it's too long.
select something
from maintable gt
join #tempTable tt on gt.org like tt.SearchOrg
where
AYEAR= ISNULL(#year, ayear)
and (AYEAR >= ISNULL(#yearR1, ayear) and ayear <= ISNULL(#yearr2, ayear))
and adate = ISNULL(#Date, adate)
and (adate >= ISNULL(#dateR1, adate) and adate <= ISNULL(#DateR2 , adate))
The final result would be all rows where the maintable.org is 1123, or starts with 223 or starts with 554
The reason for my date craziness is because sometimes the stored procedure only checks for a year, sometimes for a year range, sometimes for a specific date and sometimes for a date range... everything that's not used in passed in as null.
Maybe the problem is there?
Try something like this:
Declare #tempTable Table
(
-- Since the column is a varchar(10), you don't want to use nvarchar here.
SearchOrg varchar(20)
);
INSERT INTO #tempTable
SELECT * FROM dbo.udf_split(#orgList);
SELECT
something
FROM
maintable gt
WHERE
some where statements go here
And
Exists
(
SELECT 1
FROM #tempTable tt
WHERE gt.org Like tt.SearchOrg
)
Such a dynamic query with optional filters and LIKE driven by a table (!) are very hard to optimize because almost nothing is statically known. The optimizer has to create a very general plan.
You can do two things to speed this up by orders of magnitute:
Play with OPTION (RECOMPILE). If the compile times are acceptable this will at least deal with all the optional filters (but not with the LIKE table).
Do code generation and EXEC sp_executesql the code. Build a query with all LIKE clauses inlined into the SQL so that it looks like this: WHERE a LIKE #like0 OR a LIKE #like1 ... (not sure if you need OR or AND). This allows the optimizer to get rid of the join and just execute a normal predicate).
Your query may be difficult to optimize. Part of the question is what is in the where clause. You probably want to filter these first, and then do the join using like. Or, you can try to make the join faster, and then do a full table scan on the results.
SQL Server should optimize a like statement of the form 'abc%' -- that is, where the wildcard is at the end. (See here, for example.) So, you can start with an index on maintable.org. Fortunately, your examples meet this criteria. However, if you have '%abc' -- the wildcard comes first -- then the optimization won't work.
For the index to work best, it might also need to take into account the conditions in the where clause. In other words, adding the index is suggestive, but the rest of the query may preclude the use of the index.
And, let me add, the best solution for these types of searches is to use the full text search capability in SQL Server (see here).
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
SQL exclude a column using SELECT * [except columnA] FROM tableA?
Is it possible to exclude a column from a select * from table statement with SQL Server?
I have a need for this and this is my only option other than parsing a raw SQL string to get out the required field names (I really don't want to do that).
Just to be bold. When the query is made I do not have access to the list of fields needed from the table but I do know which field I do not need. This is part of a complex multi-part query.
Surely there must be some way even if it's "hackish" such as using table variables or views
My other option is to reorder the columns. My problem is with ExecuteScalar SQL functions which get the first row and first column.
EDIT
I can't add an answer since this is now closed but the way I ended up doing it was like so:
;with results_cte as (
select (calculation) as calculated_column, * from table
)
select * into #temptable from results_cte
where calculated_column<10 /*or whatever*/
alter table #temptable
drop column calculated_column
select * from #temptable
drop table #temptable
Nope. You'll have to build your statement manually or just select *.
No.
Instead, you could check syscolumns to get all of the field names, or (perhaps) SELECT * and ignore that column.
If you use dynamic SQL, you can generate the query from metadata about the table or view (INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS) and exclude columns that way. I do this a lot to generate triggers or views.
But there is nothing in the SQL language which supports this.
The best way to handle this would be to select * and then just not present the excluded column to your users in your frontend. As others have noted, SQL has no direct capability of doing an all-columns-except construct.
I'm using the following code:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE Col IN (123,123,222,....)
However, if I put more than ~3000 numbers in the IN clause, SQL throws an error.
Does anyone know if there's a size limit or anything similar?!!
Depending on the database engine you are using, there can be limits on the length of an instruction.
SQL Server has a very large limit:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
ORACLE has a very easy to reach limit on the other side.
So, for large IN clauses, it's better to create a temp table, insert the values and do a JOIN. It works faster also.
There is a limit, but you can split your values into separate blocks of in()
Select *
From table
Where Col IN (123,123,222,....)
or Col IN (456,878,888,....)
Parameterize the query and pass the ids in using a Table Valued Parameter.
For example, define the following type:
CREATE TYPE IdTable AS TABLE (Id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY)
Along with the following stored procedure:
CREATE PROCEDURE sp__Procedure_Name
#OrderIDs IdTable READONLY,
AS
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE Col IN (SELECT Id FROM #OrderIDs)
Why not do a where IN a sub-select...
Pre-query into a temp table or something...
CREATE TABLE SomeTempTable AS
SELECT YourColumn
FROM SomeTable
WHERE UserPickedMultipleRecordsFromSomeListOrSomething
then...
SELECT * FROM OtherTable
WHERE YourColumn IN ( SELECT YourColumn FROM SomeTempTable )
Depending on your version, use a table valued parameter in 2008, or some approach described here:
Arrays and Lists in SQL Server 2005
For MS SQL 2016, passing ints into the in, it looks like it can handle close to 38,000 records.
select * from user where userId in (1,2,3,etc)
I solved this by simply using ranges
WHERE Col >= 123 AND Col <= 10000
then removed unwanted records in the specified range by looping in the application code. It worked well for me because I was looping the record anyway and ignoring couple of thousand records didn't make any difference.
Of course, this is not a universal solution but it could work for situation if most values within min and max are required.
You did not specify the database engine in question; in Oracle, an option is to use tuples like this:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE (Col, 1) IN ((123,1),(123,1),(222,1),....)
This ugly hack only works in Oracle SQL, see https://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/asktom.search?tag=limit-and-conversion-very-long-in-list-where-x-in#9538075800346844400
However, a much better option is to use stored procedures and pass the values as an array.
You can use tuples like this:
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE (Col, 1) IN ((123,1),(123,1),(222,1),....)
There are no restrictions on number of these. It compares pairs.