LIMIT in FoxPro - sql

I am attempting to pull ALOT of data from a fox pro database, work with it and insert it into a mysql db. It is too much to do all at once so want to do it in batches of say 10 000 records. What is the equivalent to LIMIT 5, 10 in Fox Pro SQL, would like a select statement like
select name, address from people limit 5, 10;
ie only get 10 results back, starting at the 5th. Have looked around online and they only make mention of top which is obviously not of much use.

Take a look at the RecNo() function.

FoxPro does not have direct support for a LIMIT clause. It does have "TOP nn" but that only provides the "top-most records" within a given percentage, and even that has a limitation of 32k records returned (maximum).
You might be better off dumping the data as a CSV, or if that isn't practical (due to size issues), writing a small FoxPro script that auto-generates a series of BEGIN-INSERT(x10000)-COMMIT statements that dump to a series of text files. Of course, you would need a FoxPro development environment for this, so this may not apply to your situation...

Visual FoxPro does not support LIMIT directly.
I used the following query to get over the limitation:
SELECT TOP 100 * from PEOPLE WHERE RECNO() > 1000 ORDER BY ID;
where 100 is the limit and 1000 is the offset.

It is very easy to get around LIMIT clause using TOP clause ; if you want to extract from record _start to record _finish from a file named _test, you can do :
[VFP]
** assuming _start <= _finish, if not you get a top clause error
*
_finish = MIN(RECCOUNT('_test'),_finish)
*
SELECT * FROM (SELECT TOP (_finish - _start + 1) * FROM (SELECT TOP _finish *, RECNO() AS _tempo FROM _test ORDER BY _tempo) xx ORDER BY _tempo DESC) yy ORDER BY _tempo
**
[/VFP]

I had to convert a Foxpro database to Mysql a few years ago. What I did to solve this was add an auto-incrementing id column to the Foxpro table and use that as the row reference.
So then you could do something like.
select name, address from people where id >= 5 and id <= 10;
The Foxpro sql documentation does not show anything similar to limit.

Here, adapt this to your tables. Took me like 2 mins, i do this waaaay too often.
N1 - group by whatever, and make sure you got a max(id), you can use recno() to make one, sorted correctly
N2 - Joins N1 where the ID = Max Id of N1, display the field you want from N2
Then if you want to join to other tables, put that all in brackets and give it an alias and include it in a join.
Select N1.reference, N1.OrderNoteCount, N2.notes_desc LastNote
FROM
(select reference, count(reference) OrderNoteCount, Max(notes_key) MaxNoteId
from custnote
where reference != ''
Group by reference
) N1
JOIN
(
select reference, count(reference) OrderNoteCount, notes_key, notes_desc
from custnote
where reference != ''
Group by reference, notes_key, notes_desc
) N2 ON N1.MaxNoteId = N2.notes_key

To expand on Eyvind's answer I would create a program to uses the RecNo() function to pull records within a given range, say 10,000 records.
You could then programmatically cycle through the large table in chucks of 10,000 records at a time and preform your data load into you MySQL database.
By using the RecNO() function you can be certain not to insert rows more than once, and be able to restart at a know point in the data load process. That by it's self can be very handy in the event you need to stop and restart the load process.

Depending on the number of the returned rows and if you are using .NET Framework you can offset/limit the gotten DataTable on the following way:
dataTable = dataTable.AsEnumerable().Skip(offset).Take(limit).CopyToDataTable();
Remember to add the Assembly System.Data.DataSetExtensions.

Related

How to improve the efficiency of below query in SQL Server?

I have a ten million level database. The client needs to read data and perform calculation.
Due to the large amount of data, if it is saved in the application cache, memory will be overflow and crash will occur.
If I use select statement to query data from the database in real time, the time may be too long and the number of operations on the database may be too frequent.
Is there a better way to read the database data? I use C++ and C# to access SQL Server database.
My database statement is similar to the following:
SELECT TOP 10 y.SourceName, MAX(y.EndTimeStamp - y.StartTimeStamp) AS ProcessTimeStamp
FROM
(
SELECT x.SourceName, x.StartTimeStamp, IIF(x.EndTimeStamp IS NOT NULL, x.EndTimeStamp, 134165256277210658) AS EndTimeStamp
FROM
(
SELECT
SourceName,
Active,
LEAD(Active) OVER(PARTITION BY SourceName ORDER BY TicksTimeStamp) NextActive,
TicksTimeStamp AS StartTimeStamp,
LEAD(TicksTimeStamp) OVER(PARTITION BY SourceName ORDER BY TicksTimeStamp) EndTimeStamp
FROM Table1
WHERE Path = N'App1' and TicksTimeStamp >= 132165256277210658 and TicksTimeStamp < 134165256277210658
) x
WHERE (x.Active = 1 and x.NextActive = 0) OR (x.Active = 1 and x.NextActive = null)
) y
GROUP BY y.SourceName
ORDER BY ProcessTimeStamp DESC, y.SourceName
The database structure is roughly as follows:
ID Path SourceName TicksTimeStamp Active
1 App1 Pipe1 132165256277210658 1
2 App1 Pipe1 132165256297210658 0
3 App1 Pipe1 132165956277210658 1
4 App2 Pipe2 132165956277210658 1
5 App2 Pipe2 132165956277210658 0
I use the ExecuteReader of C #. The same SQL statement runs on SQL Management for 4s, but the time returned by the ExecuteReader is 8-9s. Does the slow time have anything to do with this interface?
I don't really 'get' the entire query but I'm wondering about this part:
WHERE (x.Active = 1 and x.NextActive = 0) OR (x.Active = 1 and x.NextActive = null)
SQL doesn't really like OR's so why not convert this to
WHERE x.Active = 1 and ISNULL(x.NextActive, 0) = 0
This might cause a completely different query plan. (or not)
As CharlieFace mentioned, probably best to share the query plan so we might get an idea of what's going on.
PS: I'm also not sure what those 'ticksTimestamps' represent, but it looks like you're fetching a pretty wide range there, bigger volumes will also cause longer processing time. Even though you only return the top 10 it still has to go through the entire range to calculate those durations.
I agree with #Charlieface. I think the index you want is as follows:
CREATE INDEX idx ON Table1 (Path, TicksTimeStamp) INCLUDE (SourceName, Active);
You can add both indexes (with different names of course) and see which one the execution engine chooses.
I can suggest adding the following index which should help the inner query using LEAD:
CREATE INDEX idx ON Table1 (SourceName, TicksTimeStamp, Path) INCLUDE (Active);
The key point of the above index is that it should allow the lead values to be rapidly computed. It also has an INCLUDE clause for Active, to cover the entire select.

Difference of values in the same column ms access sql (mdb)

I have a table which contains two column with values that are not unique, those values are generated automatically and I have no way to do anything about it, cannot edit the table, db nor make custom functions.
With that in mind I've solved this problem in sql server, but it contains some functions that does not exist in ms-access.
The columns are Volume and ComponentID, here is my code in sql:
with rows as (
select row_number() over (order by volume) as rownum, volume
from test where componentid = 'S3')
select top 10
rowsMinusOne.volume, coalesce(rowsMinusOne.volume - rows.volume,0) as diff
from rows as rowsMinusOne
left outer join rows
on rows.rownum = rowsMinusOne.rownum - 1
Sample data:
58.29168
70.57396
85.67902
97.04888
107.7026
108.2022
108.3975
108.5777
109
109.8944
Expected results:
Volume
diff
58.29168
0
70.57396
12.28228
85.67902
15.10506
97.04888
11.36986
107.7026
10.65368
108.2022
0.4996719
108.3975
0.1952896
108.5777
0.1801834
109
0.4223404
109.8944
0.89431
I have solved the part of the coalesce by replacing it with NZ, I have tryed to use the DCOUNT to solve the row_number (How to show the record number in a MS Access report table?) but I reveive the error that it cannot find the function (I am reading the data by code, that is the only thing I can do).
I also tryed this but, as the answer says I need a column with a unique value which I do not have nor can create Microsoft Access query to duplicate ROW_NUMBER
Consider:
SELECT TOP 10 Table1.ComponentID,
DCount("*","Table1","ComponentID = 'S3' AND Volume<" & [Volume])+1 AS Seq, Table1.Volume,
Nz(Table1.Volume -
(SELECT Top 1 Dup.Volume FROM Table1 AS Dup
WHERE Dup.ComponentID = Table1.ComponentID AND Dup.Volume<Table1.Volume
ORDER BY Volume DESC),0) AS Diff
FROM Table1
WHERE (((Table1.ComponentID)="S3"))
ORDER BY Table1.Volume;
This will likely perform very slowly with large dataset.
Alternative solutions:
build query that calculates difference, use that query as source for a report, use textbox RunningSum property to calculate sequence number
VBA looping through recordset and saving results to a 'temp' table
export to Excel

How to query only old and duplicate data from a database in SQL

I'm trying to query my database to pull only duplicate/old data to write to a scratch section in excel (Using a macro passing SQL to the DB).
For now, I'm currently testing in Access alone to only filter out the old data.
First, I'm trying to filter my database by a specifed WorkOrder, RunNumber, and Row.
The code below only filters by Work Order, RunNumber, and Row. ...but SQL doesn't like when I tack on a 2nd AND statement; so this currently isn't working.
SELECT *
FROM DataPoints
WHERE (((DataPoints.[WorkOrder])=[WO2]) AND ((DataPoints.[RunNumber])=6) AND ((DataPoints.[Row]=1)
Once I figure that portion out....
Then if there is only 1 entry with specified WorkOrder, RunNumber, and Row, then I want filter it out. (its not needed in the scratch section, because its data is already written to the main section of my report)
If there are 2 or more entries with said criteria(WO, RN, and Row), then I want to filter out the newest entry based on RunDate and RunTime, and only keep all older entries.
For instance, in the clip below. The only item remaining in my filtered query will be the top entry with the timestamp 11:47:00AM.
.
Are there any recommended commands to complete this problem? Any ideas are helpful. Thank you.
I would suggest something along the lines of the following:
select t.*
from datapoints t
where
t.workorder = [WO2] and
t.runnumber = 6 and
t.row = 1 and
exists
(
select 1
from datapoints u
where
u.workorder = t.workorder and
u.runnumber = t.runnumber and
u.row = t.row and
(u.rundate > t.rundate or (u.rundate = t.rundate and u.runtime > t.runtime))
)
Here, if the correlated subquery within the where clause finds a record with the same workorder, runnumber and row, but with either a later rundate or the same rundate and a later runtime, then the record is returned by the main query.
You need two more )'s at the end of your code snippet. Or you can delete the parentheses completely in this example, MS Access will ad them back in as it deems necessary.
M.S. Access SQL can be tricky as it is not standards compliant and either doesn't allow for super complex queries, or it needs an ugly work around, like having a parentheses nesting nightmare when trying to join more than two tables.
For these reasons, I suggest using multiple Access queries to produce your results.

How can I get a specific chunk of results?

Is it possible to retrieve a specific range of results? I know how to do TOP x but the result I will retrieve is WAY too big and will time out. I was hoping to be able to pick say the first 10,000 results then the next 10,000 and so on. Is this possible?
WITH Q AS (
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ...some column) AS N, ...other columns
FROM ...some table
) SELECT * FROM Q WHERE N BETWEEN 1 AND 10000;
Read more about ROW_NUMBER() here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186734.aspx
Practically all SQL DB implementations have a way of specifying the starting row to return, as well as the number of rows.
For example, in both mysql and postgres it looks like:
SELECT ...
ORDER BY something -- not required, but highly recommended
LIMIT 100 -- only get 100 rows
OFFSET 500; -- start at row 500
Note that normally you would include an ORDER BY to make sure your chunks are consistent
MS SQL Server (being a "pretend" DB) don't support OFFSET directly, but it can be coded using ROW_NUMBER() - see this SO post for more detail.

Top N in View or Crystal Reports?

I am wondering if it's possible to use a view to get the top 5 lines from a table.
I am finding that Crystal reports doesn't seem to have anything built in to do this, or I'd do it there.
When I query the view Select * from qryTranHistory, it returns the first 5 items, but if I try to select a specific type Select * from qryTranHistory Where tID = 45 it returns nothing, since there are no tID=45 in the top 5 normally.
Is it possible to do this?
Can it be accomplished in a sub report in Crystal Reports?
It is easy to limit a report to the top 5 records. In the menu, just choose
Report --> Selection Formulas... --> Group
In the formula, enter "RecordNumber <= 5" and you are done.
You don't need to have a group field nor summary field to do the group filter. You don't need a sort order, but using top N records without a sort order doesn't usually make much sense. It might not be efficient as OMG Ponies suggested, but for small number of records it is OK.
You can reference a sproc from Crystal Reports. In the sproc, use a conditional on the parameter.
ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.Get_TOP5
(
#tID INT = NULL
)
AS
IF #tID IS NULL
BEGIN
SELECT TOP 5
FIELD1,
FIELD2
FROM qryTranHistory
END
ELSE
BEGIN
SELECT
FIELD1,
FIELD2
FROM qryTranHistory
WHERE tID =#tID
END
A simple setting can limit the records to top 5!! Here it is, if you're using .Net 1.1 (similar arrangement of options in higher frameworks too!).
Right click on the report layout > Reports > Top N/Sort Group Expert > Choose Top N in the Dropdown that asks for the type of filtering/ sorting you wish to do > Set the Value of top N (5 in your case) > Uncheck the option that includes other records.
Your report will be filtered for only the top 5 records from the Dataset.
There's another way how it could be done and that is through the Record selection formula where you limit the No. of records, as suggested by John Price in this thread.
Cheers!
Can you put the TOP in your SELECT statement instead of in the view?
SELECT TOP 5
col1,
col2,
...
FROM
qryTranHistory
WHERE
tid = 45
If your table has more then 5 rows I hope this query:
SELECT * FROM qryTranHistory
Returns more then 5 rows because you never mentioned TOP 5.
Your question doesn't make a lot of sense as I am not sure waht you are after.
You mentioned if you ran your query with WHERE tID=45, it returns nothing, what exactly do you want it to return ?
Read up on TOP in BOL:
SELECT TOP 10 Recs FROM Records WHERE...
By the way you do not want to do this in the report / a form interface, you want to do this in your db layer.
You can do Top N processing in Crystal Reports, but it's a little obscure - you have to use the group sort expert (and in order to use that, you need to have groups and summary fields inserted into the groups.)
Doing the Top N processing in the query should be more efficient, where possible.
If you have a small recordset, you can create a running total that counts the change of rows (field1), then in Section Expert in Details, tell it to supress RTotal0 (your running total variable) to > 5