return a default row in sql - sql

Is it possible in oracle sql to return a default row if no rows found.
I have a process where in rows fetched will be put in a flat ascii file.
now i have a requirement that if there are no rows fetched by the sql query then there should be a default row in the ascii file.
is it possible in sql to output a default row if no rows fetched by the query
note: i dont want to use pl/sql.

For complex queries where the overhead on finding out if there is a row in the result set is onerous or the query is just very large and unwieldy, then a subquery factoring clause might be beneficial:
With my_query as
(
select a, b, c from foobar where foo='FOO'
)
Select a,b,c
From my_query
Union All
Select ...
From dual
Where Not Exists
(Select 1 from my_query)
/

You could use UNION ALL for this:
select a, b, c from foobar
where foo='FOO'
union all
select 'def', 'ault', 'value' from dual
where not exists ( select 'x' from foobar where foo='FOO' )

I suspect that it would be cleaner to have the process that the writes the ASCII file write the default data if no rows are returned rather than getting Oracle to do it. If the query that you're using is expensive, you'd significantly increase that cost if you fudge it to return a default row as ammoQ and David Oniell have done.

There is another (sad, twisted) option. No CTEs or subquery repetition needed.
select
coalesce(a, 'def'),
coalesce(b, 'ault'),
coalesce(c, 'value')
from foobar
right join (select 1 from dual) on 1=1
where foobar.some_condition;

Related

How to make a query where every column is a parallel count of a subquery?

I need to render a query such that every column contains the count of a respective table.
The code I have now is:
SELECT COUNT(table1.Id),
COUNT(table2.Id),
COUNT(table3.Id)
FROM table1,
table2,
table3
WHERE table1.done = 'No' OR
table2.done = 'No' OR
table3.done = 'No' OR
But I need the query to return the same result values as if every table would be counted independently, like:
SELECT COUNT(tableX.Id) FROM tableX WHERE talbeX.done = 'No'
where the 'X' stands for 1,2 or 3.
How can this be achived with SQL?
Thanks beforhand for the help.
Just use a nested sub query, exactly as you have explained it:
SELECT
(SELECT COUNT(table1.Id) FROM table1 WHERE table1.done = 'No') as T1Count,
(SELECT COUNT(table2.Id) FROM table2 WHERE table2.done = 'No') as T2Count,
(SELECT COUNT(table3.Id) FROM table3 WHERE table3.done = 'No') as T3Count,
(SELECT COUNT(tableN.Id) FROM tableN) as TNCount;
This will query the tables independently so you are free to use what ever additional criteria you may need without trying to correlate the results from each query
FROM in this case is not strictly necessary in the outer query as we are not returning rows from any specific table, there is no table that we could specify in the from clause. Each RDBMS has their own convention for these types of queries, MS SQL Server and Oracle are to predominant database engines used in Outsystems
If we did specify a table in FROM then this would return 1 row for every record in that table, which is inefficient and not required. So it is important that we do not include a FROM clause.
Transact-SQL - FROM
The FROM clause is usually required on the SELECT statement. The exception is when no table columns are listed, and the only items listed are literals or variables or arithmetic expressions.
ORACLE - DUAL Table
DUAL is a table automatically created by Oracle Database along with the data dictionary. DUAL is in the schema of the user SYS but is accessible by the name DUAL to all users. It has one column, DUMMY, defined to be VARCHAR2(1), and contains one row with a value X. Selecting from the DUAL table is useful for computing a constant expression with the SELECT statement. Because DUAL has only one row, the constant is returned only once. Alternatively, you can select a constant, pseudocolumn, or expression from any table, but the value will be returned as many times as there are rows in the table.
Update - OP is using Oracle!
After attempting the solution, OP responded that it raised the following error:
Error in advanced query SQL2: ORA-00923: FROM keyword not found where expected
The ORA prefix of this error number indicates that the data store is actually an Oracle implementation, so we need to append the FROM DUAL to the query.
SELECT
(SELECT COUNT(table1.Id) FROM table1 WHERE table1.done = 'No') as T1Count,
(SELECT COUNT(table2.Id) FROM table2 WHERE table2.done = 'No') as T2Count,
(SELECT COUNT(table3.Id) FROM table3 WHERE table3.done = 'No') as T3Count,
(SELECT COUNT(tableN.Id) FROM tableN) as TNCount
FROM DUAL;

Column Mismatch in UNION queries

I have columns A,B in Table 1 and columns B,C in Table 2.Need to perform Union between them .
For example : select A,B from Table 1 UNION select 0,B from Table 2.
I dont need this zero to solve the column mismatch.Instead is there any other solution?
Am asking the question by providing simple example . But in my case the table structure is very large and the queries are already built.Now I need to fix this union query by replacing this zero.(due to DB2 upgrade)
Can anyone help?
For two legs A and B in a union to be union compatible it is required that:
a) A and B have the same number of columns
b) The types for each column in A is compatible with the corresponding column in B
In your query you can use null that is part of every type:
select a, b from T1
UNION
select null, b from T2
Under certain circumstances, you may have to explicitly cast null to the same type as A has (probably not in this case):
select a, b from Table 1
UNION
select cast(null as ...), b from Table 2
A column returned in a SQL result set can only have one data type.
A union or union all results in rows from the first query and the rows of the second query (in case of union they are deduplicated).
So the first column of the first query needs to match the data type of the first column of the second query.
You can check this by running a describe:
describe select a,b from t1
If you work within a GUI (JDBC Connection) you could also use
call admin_cmd('describe select a,b from t1')
So if the some column does not match you have to explicitly cast the data types.

sql statement inside decode clause

The decode works like this:
SELECT DECODE('col1', 'x', 'result1','y','result2') resultFinal
FROM table1;
It possible to accomplish this in sql:
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT DECODE('col1', 'x' (someSql),'y',(someOthersql)) result
FROM table1)
So instead of result1 and result2 being fixed values, they would be sql statements. If not possible, how can I achieve the same result without a stored proc.
EDIT: someSql and someOthersql are both complex queries with many joins returining many but same number of cols with same col names.
If someSql and someOthersql return exactly one row with one column, then this should work.
The following works for me:
select decode(col, (select 'foo' from dual), (select 'bar' from dual))
from some table
I think you may need to create a PL/SQL procedure to handle the complex logic.

TSQL NOT EXISTS Why is this query so slow?

Debugging an app which queries SQL Server 05, can't change the query but need to optimise things.
Running all the selects seperately are quick <1sec, eg: select * from acscard, select id from employee... When joined together it takes 50 seconds.
Is it better to set uninteresting accesscardid fields to null or to '' when using EXISTS?
SELECT * FROM ACSCard
WHERE NOT EXISTS
( SELECT Id FROM Employee
WHERE Employee.AccessCardId = ACSCard.acs_card_number )
AND NOT EXISTS
( SELECT Id FROM Visit
WHERE Visit.AccessCardId = ACSCard.acs_card_number )
ORDER by acs_card_id
Do you have indexes on Employee.AccessCardId, Visit.AccessCardId, and ACSCard.acs_card_number?
The SELECT clause is not evaluated in an EXISTS clause. This:
WHERE EXISTS(SELECT 1/0
FROM EMPLOYEE)
...should raise an error for dividing by zero, but it won't. But you need to put something in the SELECT clause for it to be a valid query - it doesn't matter if it's NULL or a zero length string.
In SQL Server, NOT EXISTS (and NOT IN) are better than the LEFT JOIN/IS NULL approach if the columns being compared are not nullable (the values on either side can not be NULL). The columns compared should be indexed, if they aren't already.

Difference between EXISTS and IN in SQL?

What is the difference between the EXISTS and IN clause in SQL?
When should we use EXISTS, and when should we use IN?
The exists keyword can be used in that way, but really it's intended as a way to avoid counting:
--this statement needs to check the entire table
select count(*) from [table] where ...
--this statement is true as soon as one match is found
exists ( select * from [table] where ... )
This is most useful where you have if conditional statements, as exists can be a lot quicker than count.
The in is best used where you have a static list to pass:
select * from [table]
where [field] in (1, 2, 3)
When you have a table in an in statement it makes more sense to use a join, but mostly it shouldn't matter. The query optimiser should return the same plan either way. In some implementations (mostly older, such as Microsoft SQL Server 2000) in queries will always get a nested join plan, while join queries will use nested, merge or hash as appropriate. More modern implementations are smarter and can adjust the plan even when in is used.
EXISTS will tell you whether a query returned any results. e.g.:
SELECT *
FROM Orders o
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM Products p
WHERE p.ProductNumber = o.ProductNumber)
IN is used to compare one value to several, and can use literal values, like this:
SELECT *
FROM Orders
WHERE ProductNumber IN (1, 10, 100)
You can also use query results with the IN clause, like this:
SELECT *
FROM Orders
WHERE ProductNumber IN (
SELECT ProductNumber
FROM Products
WHERE ProductInventoryQuantity > 0)
Based on rule optimizer:
EXISTS is much faster than IN, when the sub-query results is very large.
IN is faster than EXISTS, when the sub-query results is very small.
Based on cost optimizer:
There is no difference.
I'm assuming you know what they do, and thus are used differently, so I'm going to understand your question as: When would it be a good idea to rewrite the SQL to use IN instead of EXISTS, or vice versa.
Is that a fair assumption?
Edit: The reason I'm asking is that in many cases you can rewrite an SQL based on IN to use an EXISTS instead, and vice versa, and for some database engines, the query optimizer will treat the two differently.
For instance:
SELECT *
FROM Customers
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM Orders
WHERE Orders.CustomerID = Customers.ID
)
can be rewritten to:
SELECT *
FROM Customers
WHERE ID IN (
SELECT CustomerID
FROM Orders
)
or with a join:
SELECT Customers.*
FROM Customers
INNER JOIN Orders ON Customers.ID = Orders.CustomerID
So my question still stands, is the original poster wondering about what IN and EXISTS does, and thus how to use it, or does he ask wether rewriting an SQL using IN to use EXISTS instead, or vice versa, will be a good idea?
EXISTS is much faster than IN when the subquery results is very large.
IN is faster than EXISTS when the subquery results is very small.
CREATE TABLE t1 (id INT, title VARCHAR(20), someIntCol INT)
GO
CREATE TABLE t2 (id INT, t1Id INT, someData VARCHAR(20))
GO
INSERT INTO t1
SELECT 1, 'title 1', 5 UNION ALL
SELECT 2, 'title 2', 5 UNION ALL
SELECT 3, 'title 3', 5 UNION ALL
SELECT 4, 'title 4', 5 UNION ALL
SELECT null, 'title 5', 5 UNION ALL
SELECT null, 'title 6', 5
INSERT INTO t2
SELECT 1, 1, 'data 1' UNION ALL
SELECT 2, 1, 'data 2' UNION ALL
SELECT 3, 2, 'data 3' UNION ALL
SELECT 4, 3, 'data 4' UNION ALL
SELECT 5, 3, 'data 5' UNION ALL
SELECT 6, 3, 'data 6' UNION ALL
SELECT 7, 4, 'data 7' UNION ALL
SELECT 8, null, 'data 8' UNION ALL
SELECT 9, 6, 'data 9' UNION ALL
SELECT 10, 6, 'data 10' UNION ALL
SELECT 11, 8, 'data 11'
Query 1
SELECT
FROM t1
WHERE not EXISTS (SELECT * FROM t2 WHERE t1.id = t2.t1id)
Query 2
SELECT t1.*
FROM t1
WHERE t1.id not in (SELECT t2.t1id FROM t2 )
If in t1 your id has null value then Query 1 will find them, but Query 2 cant find null parameters.
I mean IN can't compare anything with null, so it has no result for null, but EXISTS can compare everything with null.
If you are using the IN operator, the SQL engine will scan all records fetched from the inner query. On the other hand if we are using EXISTS, the SQL engine will stop the scanning process as soon as it found a match.
IN supports only equality relations (or inequality when preceded by NOT).
It is a synonym to =any / =some, e.g
select *
from t1
where x in (select x from t2)
;
EXISTS supports variant types of relations, that cannot be expressed using IN, e.g. -
select *
from t1
where exists (select null
from t2
where t2.x=t1.x
and t2.y>t1.y
and t2.z like '℅' || t1.z || '℅'
)
;
And on a different note -
The allegedly performance and technical differences between EXISTS and IN may result from specific vendor's implementations/limitations/bugs, but many times they are nothing but myths created due to lack of understanding of the databases internals.
The tables' definition, statistics' accuracy, database configuration and optimizer's version have all impact on the execution plan and therefore on the performance metrics.
The Exists keyword evaluates true or false, but IN keyword compare all value in the corresponding sub query column.
Another one Select 1 can be use with Exists command. Example:
SELECT * FROM Temp1 where exists(select 1 from Temp2 where conditions...)
But IN is less efficient so Exists faster.
I think,
EXISTS is when you need to match the results of query with another subquery.
Query#1 results need to be retrieved where SubQuery results match. Kind of a Join..
E.g. select customers table#1 who have placed orders table#2 too
IN is to retrieve if the value of a specific column lies IN a list (1,2,3,4,5)
E.g. Select customers who lie in the following zipcodes i.e. zip_code values lies in (....) list.
When to use one over the other... when you feel it reads appropriately (Communicates intent better).
As per my knowledge when a subquery returns a NULL value then the whole statement becomes NULL. In that cases we are using the EXITS keyword. If we want to compare particular values in subqueries then we are using the IN keyword.
Which one is faster depends on the number of queries fetched by the inner query:
When your inner query fetching thousand of rows then EXIST would be better choice
When your inner query fetching few rows, then IN will be faster
EXIST evaluate on true or false but IN compare multiple value. When you don't know the record is exist or not, your should choose EXIST
Difference lies here:
select *
from abcTable
where exists (select null)
Above query will return all the records while below one would return empty.
select *
from abcTable
where abcTable_ID in (select null)
Give it a try and observe the output.
The reason is that the EXISTS operator works based on the “at least found” principle. It returns true and stops scanning table once at least one matching row found.
On the other hands, when the IN operator is combined with a subquery, MySQL must process the subquery first, and then uses the result of the subquery to process the whole query.
The general rule of thumb is that if the subquery contains a large
volume of data, the EXISTS operator provides a better performance.
However, the query that uses the IN operator will perform faster if
the result set returned from the subquery is very small.
In certain circumstances, it is better to use IN rather than EXISTS. In general, if the selective predicate is in the subquery, then use IN. If the selective predicate is in the parent query, then use EXISTS.
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14211/sql_1016.htm#i28403
My understand is both should be the same as long as we are not dealing with NULL values.
The same reason why the query does not return the value for = NULL vs is NULL.
http://sqlinthewild.co.za/index.php/2010/02/18/not-exists-vs-not-in/
As for as boolean vs comparator argument goes, to generate a boolean both values needs to be compared and that is how any if condition works.So i fail to understand how IN and EXISTS behave differently
.
If a subquery returns more than one value, you might need to execute the outer query- if the values within the column specified in the condition match any value in the result set of the subquery. To perform this task, you need to use the in keyword.
You can use a subquery to check if a set of records exists. For this, you need to use the exists clause with a subquery. The exists keyword always return true or false value.
I believe this has a straightforward answer. Why don't you check it from the people who developed that function in their systems?
If you are a MS SQL developer, here is the answer directly from Microsoft.
IN:
Determines whether a specified value matches any value in a subquery or a list.
EXISTS:
Specifies a subquery to test for the existence of rows.
I found that using EXISTS keyword is often really slow (that is very true in Microsoft Access).
I instead use the join operator in this manner :
should-i-use-the-keyword-exists-in-sql
If you can use where in instead of where exists, then where in is probably faster.
Using where in or where exists
will go through all results of your parent result. The difference here is that the where exists will cause a lot of dependet sub-queries. If you can prevent dependet sub-queries, then where in will be the better choice.
Example
Assume we have 10,000 companies, each has 10 users (thus our users table has 100,000 entries). Now assume you want to find a user by his name or his company name.
The following query using were exists has an execution of 141ms:
select * from `users`
where `first_name` ='gates'
or exists
(
select * from `companies`
where `users`.`company_id` = `companies`.`id`
and `name` = 'gates'
)
This happens, because for each user a dependent sub query is executed:
However, if we avoid the exists query and write it using:
select * from `users`
where `first_name` ='gates'
or users.company_id in
(
select id from `companies`
where `name` = 'gates'
)
Then depended sub queries are avoided and the query would run in 0,012 ms
I did a little exercise on a query that I have recently been using. I originally created it with INNER JOINS, but I wanted to see how it looked/worked with EXISTS. I converted it. I will include both version here for comparison.
SELECT DISTINCT Category, Name, Description
FROM [CodeSets]
WHERE Category NOT IN (
SELECT def.Category
FROM [Fields] f
INNER JOIN [DataEntryFields] def ON f.DataEntryFieldId = def.Id
INNER JOIN Section s ON f.SectionId = s.Id
INNER JOIN Template t ON s.Template_Id = t.Id
WHERE t.AgencyId = (SELECT Id FROM Agencies WHERE Name = 'Some Agency')
AND def.Category NOT IN ('OFFLIST', 'AGENCYLIST', 'RELTO_UNIT', 'HOSPITALS', 'EMS', 'TOWCOMPANY', 'UIC', 'RPTAGENCY', 'REP')
AND (t.Name like '% OH %')
AND (def.Category IS NOT NULL AND def.Category <> '')
)
ORDER BY 1
Here are the statistics:
Here is the converted version:
SELECT DISTINCT cs.Category, Name, Description
FROM [CodeSets] cs
WHERE NOT Exists (
SELECT * FROM [Fields] f
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT * FROM [DataEntryFields] def
WHERE def.Id = f.DataEntryFieldId
AND def.Category NOT IN ('OFFLIST', 'AGENCYLIST', 'RELTO_UNIT', 'HOSPITALS', 'EMS', 'TOWCOMPANY', 'UIC', 'RPTAGENCY', 'REP')
AND (def.Category IS NOT NULL AND def.Category <> '')
AND def.Category = cs.Category
AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM Section s
WHERE f.SectionId = s.Id
AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM Template t
WHERE s.Template_Id = t.Id
AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM Agencies
WHERE Name = 'Some Agency' and t.AgencyId = Id)
AND (t.Name like '% OH %')
)
)
)
)
ORDER BY 1
The results, at least to me, were unimpressive.
If I were more technically knowledgeable about how SQL works, I could give you an answer, but take this example as you may and make your own conclusion.
The INNER JOIN and IN () is easier to read, however.
EXISTS Is Faster in Performance than IN.
If Most of the filter criteria is in subquery then better to use IN and If most of the filter criteria is in main query then better to use EXISTS.
If you are using the IN operator, the SQL engine will scan all records fetched from the inner query. On the other hand if we are using EXISTS, the SQL engine will stop the scanning process as soon as it found a match.