It's a very strange thing! I havea a table called invoices, and a table calle customer payments which has the invoiceID of the payment.
I have many invoices that haven't been paid (so they don't have a record on the customer payments). I know this, as i can for example do: select * from invoices where invoiceID = 302247 (and i'll get one result) select * from customer_payments where invoice = 302247 (and i'll get none results)
however, if i do the following: select * from invoices where invoice_id not in (select invoice_id from customer_payments) I get nothing!!!???
It doesn't make any sense, as I should get at least 300 (including the 302247) - both invoiceids fields are int... so i just don't understand what's wrong?
I am trying to bring my stored proc's into the 21st century with try catch and the output clause. In the past I have returned info like the new timestamp, the new identity (if an insert sproc), username with output params and a return value as well. I have checked if error is a concurrency violation(I check if @@rowcount is 0 and if so my return value is a special number.)
I have used the old goto method for trapping errors committing or rolling back the transaction.
Now I want to use the try,catch with transactions. This is easy enough but how do I do what I had done before?
I get an error returning the new timestamp in the Output clause (tstamp is my timestamp field -- so I am using inserted.tstamp).
Plus how do I check for concerrency error. Is it the same as before and if so would the check of @@rowcount be in the catch section?
So how to return timestamp and a return value and how to check for concurrency all in the try/catch.
by the way I read that you could not return an identity in the output clause but I had no problem.
Example, suppose you have these 2 tables(NOTE: My example is totally different, but I'm simply trying to setupthe a simpler version, so excuse the bad design; not the point here)CarsSold {CarsSoldID int (primary key)MonthID intDealershipID intNumberCarsSold int}Dealership {DealershipID int, (primary key)SalesTax decimal}so you may have many delearships selling cars the same month, and youwanted a report to sum up totals of all dealerships per month.select cs.MonthID,sum(cs.NumberCarsSold) as 'TotalCarsSoldInMonth',sum(cs.NumberCarsSold) * d.SalesTax as 'TotalRevenue'from CarsSold csjoin Dealership d on d.DealershipID = cs.DealershipIDgroup by cs.MonthIDMy question is, is there a way to achieve something like this:select cs.MonthID,sum(cs.NumberCarsSold) as 'TotalCarsSoldInMonth',TotalCarsSoldInMonth * d.SalesTax as 'TotalRevenue'from CarsSold csjoin Dealership d on d.DealershipID = cs.DealershipIDgroup by cs.MonthIDNotice the only difference is the 3rd column in the select. Myparticular query is performing some crazy math and the only way I knowof how to get it to work is to copy and past the logic which isgetting out way out of hand...Thanks,Dave
I've search around quite extensively on the net and found a few examples that touch on this subject, but the only definitive one that seemed to solve this problem used a temp table in the UDF, which, to my knowledge, is impossible...
The problem is thus: I want to create either a stored procedure or a user defined function to return a list of values I can intersperse to use in a WHERE AccountID IN (<values>). This way, if someone were to create a new stored procedure and they wanted to either only select accounts with those IDs or perform a NOT IN and use it to filter.
The Solution I'm attempting: My idea is best represented in psuedo-code: - Create a Function that stores all account Ids we relate to a particular account type, in this case, let's say accountsids "100, 101, 102, 407" are all accounts we want to consider "cash". - The function would look something like: CREATE FUNCTION CashAccountIDs()
RETURNS TABLE
AS
BEGIN DECLARE TABLE @t1 (account INT) INSERT INTO @t1 VALUES (100) INSERT INTO @t1 VALUES (101) INSERT INTO @t1 VALUES (102) INSERT INTO @t1 VALUES (407) RETURN @t1 END
Then I could call this function by doing something such as:
SELECT * FROM Accounts WHERE AccountId IN (dbo.CashAccountIds())
I would presumably do this for other collections of accounts as well, so that I would end up with say 5 functions I could call to filter various types of accounts.
Not too certain if I am approaching this the correct way or not, I've been receiving a myriad of errors trying different methods. If I use the function above it tells me "Must declare @t1", so I modified it so @t1 is declared in the RETURNS statement, and the syntax checks then work, but when I attempt to save the function it tells me "Cannot perform alter on fn_cashaccountids because it is an incompatible object type"
(The code I use to generate this error is: CREATE FUNCTION fn_cashaccountids ()
RETURNS @t1 TABLE (i INT)
AS
BEGIN INSERT INTO @t1 VALUES (100) RETURN END
Hopefully I've provided enough but not too much info to sift through, it seems to me this would be something encountered a bit before.
I have a form that has many checkboxes (more than 40) that provide information about companies.
For example. Company ABC Checkbox 1 (Windows XP) Checkbox 2 (Windows Vista) Checkbox 3 (Windows NT4) etc.
I save these in a SQL table like the following Row 1 - Col 1 (CompanyID), col2 (checkbox value) Row 2 - Col 1 (CompanyID), col2 (checkbox value) etc.. so a comapany can have multiple checkbox selected..
I am currently developing a report where the end user can select one or many of the checkbox to see if the company exist.
This is where I get stuck - I only want to return the results of the companies that meet the report selections. So if I want to see all the companies that current have Windows NT and Windows Vista...how would I build that querry based on the data model above.
I have tried using the IN clause - however that use the OR connector and doesnt show ONLY the compaines that meet. I have tried using a UNION and INTERSECT, and running the select statement many times.. (SELECT CompanyID from xx WHERE CheckboxVal = xx) INTERSECT (SELECT CompanyID from xx WHERE CheckboxVal = xx) etc.. howevert this creates a very large quesry that is unable to be handled by SQL 2005. I get a error message asking to minimize the query.
Any suggestions on this please...this is my 4th day working on this..
Say I want to return only records with dates that fall within the next 6 months. Is there some straight-forward, simple way of doing so?As of now, I'm explicitly giving it a date 6 months in the future, but I'd like to replace it with some sort of function. SELECT DateField1WHERE (DateField1 < CONVERT(DATETIME, '2008-06-03 00:00:00', 102)) Any help is greatly appreciated... btw I'm using SQL 2005.
1) Rows ordered using textual id rather than numeric id
Code Snippet select cast(v.id as nvarchar(2)) id from ( select 1 id union select 2 id union select 11 id ) v order by v.id
Result set is ordered as: 1, 11, 2 I expect: 1,2,11
if renamed or removed alias for "cast(v.id as nvarchar(2))" expression then all works fine.
2) SQL server reject query below with next message
Server: Msg 169, Level 15, State 3, Line 16 A column has been specified more than once in the order by list. Columns in the order by list must be unique.
Code Snippet select cast(v.id as nvarchar(2)) id from ( select 1 id union select 2 id union select 11 id ) v cross join ( select 1 id union select 2 id union select 11 id ) u order by v.id ,u.id
Again, if renamed or removed alias for "cast(v.id as nvarchar(2))" expression then all works fine.
It reproducible on
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.2039 (Intel X86) May 3 2005 23:18:38 Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Developer Edition on Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600: Service Pack 2)
and
Microsoft SQL Server 2005 - 9.00.3042.00 (Intel X86) Feb 9 2007 22:47:07 Copyright (c) 1988-2005 Microsoft Corporation Developer Edition on Windows NT 5.1 (Build 2600: Service Pack 2)
In both cases database collation is SQL_Latin1_General_CP1251_CS_AS
If I check quieries above on database with SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS collation then it works fine again.
Could someone clarify - is it bug or expected behaviour?
Far below (in section "original 3 steps"), you see the following:1. a temp table is created2. some data is inserted into this table3. some of the inserted data is removed based on a join with the sametable that the original select was made fromIn my opinion, there is no way that the join could produce more rowsthan were originally retrieved from viewD. Hence, we could get rid ofthe DELETE step by simply changing the query to be:INSERT INTO #details ( rec_id, orig_corr, bene_corr )SELECT rec_id, 0, 0FROM viewDWHERE SOURCE_SYS NOT IN ( 'G', 'K' )AND MONTH( VALUE_DATE_A8 ) = MONTH( @date )AND YEAR( VALUE_DATE_A8 ) = YEAR( @date )AND INMESS NOT LIKE '2__' ---- the added line===== original 3 steps (mentioned above) =====CREATE TABLE #details (rec_id UNIQUEIDENTIFIER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,orig VARCHAR(35) NULL,bene VARCHAR(35) NULL,orig_corr TINYINT NULL,bene_corr TINYINT NULL)INSERT INTO #details ( rec_id, orig_corr, bene_corr )SELECT rec_id, 0, 0FROM viewDWHERE SOURCE_SYS NOT IN ( 'G', 'K' )AND MONTH( VALUE_DATE_A8 ) = MONTH( @date )AND YEAR( VALUE_DATE_A8 ) = YEAR( @date )DELETE dFROM #details dJOIN viewD v ON ( d.rec_id = v.rec_id )WHERE INMESS LIKE '2__'
I recently ran into an issue with an issue with a query against our Data Warehouse. When attempting to sum revenue from a table, and using a WHERE clause on a field that contains NULL values, the records with the NULL values are suppressed (in addition to whatever the WHERE clause specified). I believe this is because a NULL value is unknown so SQL doesn't know if it does or doesn't fit the criteria of there WHERE clause so it is suppressed.
That being said, is there a way to avoid this instead of having to add an ISNULL function in the WHERE clause which is going to kill performance?
Code: create table #nullTest ( name varchar(50) ,revenue int)
INSERT INTO #nullTest Values ('Tim',100) ,('Andrew', 50) ,(null, 200)
SELECT sum(revenue) as Revenue FROM #nulltest WHERE name <> 'tim'
Ideally, I would want the SELECT statement above to return 250, not 50. The only way I can think to accomplish this is with this query:
Code: SELECT sum(revenue) as Revenue FROM #nullTest WHERE isnull(name,'') <> 'tim'
I have a stored procedure that selects the unique Name of an item from one table.Â
SELECT DISTINCT ChainName from Chains
For each ChainName, there exists 0 or more StoreNames in the Stores. I want to return the result of this select as the second field in each row of the result set.
SELECT DISTINCT StoreName FROM Stores WHERE Stores.ChainName = ChainName
Each row of the result set returned by the stored procedure would contain:
ChainName, Array of StoreNames (or comma separated strings or whatever)
i have a variable which stores some values(ID) with single quote (so that i can use directlt inside the IN Clause of SELECT
Declare @DMSIDs AS VARCHAR(1000) -- variable declare,
Select @DMSIDs = '''DMS00046847'',''DMS00048305''' -- for test putting 2 correct values with escape characters
Select * from issue where id in (@DMSIDs) -- valid statment, but does not return any data Select * from issue where id in ('DMS00046847','DMS00048305') -- same above constant value this returns data, but putting the values in varaible then trying fails.
The reason is i have a master table called issue and have another table [delta] where a particular column will store all the ID's of the issue table comma separated with single quote and i wanted to use something like below in my actual application
Select * from issue where ID in (Select distinct delta_ID from Delta_branch where date = getdate()) but since the above example with variable is not returning any data i wonder if such is possible in any other ways.
Please help I'm trying to do a select command but doesn't return any record I have two tables one is "lists" another one is "list_records" in the liss table I have 4 records and in the list_records I have only one record which is tell who is already visited the site so I created a query to get people who is NOT visited the site
Here is my query (I got 0 record return)
SELECT *FROM lists list_reccords WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM lists, list_records WHERE list_records.is_visited = 1 AND lists.list_id = list_records.list_id)
Hi, I have a question about Insert into ..... Select clause in a SP. I need to insert some rows into a temperary table in a specific order. For example, insert into #TempTable { ....... ........ } Select * from products order by @SortBy @SortDirection. // First of all, the order by clause does not take variables. I have tried to use declare @query varchar (1000) set @query = 'Select * from products order by " + @SortBy + ' ' + @SortDirection exec (@query) // However, I get an error message because I should supply a Select statement. How can I solve this problem??
Here is the first part of a query for MySQL that I am trying to get working on MSSQL:
Code:
SELECT n.*, round((n.rgt-n.lft-1)/2,0) AS childs, count(*)+(n.lft>1) AS level, ((min(p.rgt)-n.rgt-(n.lft>1))/2) > 0 AS lower, (( (n.lft-max(p.lft)>1) )) AS upper FROM table n ...
But, I get this error message:
Server: Msg 170, Level 15, State 1, Line 3 Line 3: Incorrect syntax near '>'.
I have the following stored procedure, I would like to use IF statement or something of the sort in the where clause i.e. The last line in the SP is: AND (category.categoryID = @categoryID), I only want to check this, if @categoryID is not = 12. So can I do something like this:
IF @categoryID <> 12 AND (category.categoryID = @categoryID)
STORED PROCEDURE:
CREATE PROCEDURE sp_get_total_risk_patients @categoryID int AS
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT patient.patientID) AS total_patients FROM patient INNER JOIN patient_record ON patient.patientID = patient_record.patientID INNER JOIN sub_category ON sub_category.sub_categoryID = patient.sub_categoryID INNER JOIN category ON category.categoryID = sub_category.categoryID WHERE risk = 6 AND (completed_date = '' OR completed_date IS NULL) AND (category.categoryID = @categoryID)
I need to dynamically construct the field order of a cursor based on fixed labels from another table, but when I put that resulting query I receive the error:
Server: Msg 16924, Level 16, State 1, Line 78 Cursorfetch: The number of variables declared in the INTO list must match that of selected columns.
I have 6 fields defined in the cursor select, and 6 parameters in the fetch. The results of running the @sql portion returns valid data. Should this be possible to define a parameter containing the select clause of the cursor?
select colnum, coldesc, colname into #ae_defs from ae_adefs select @Sql = (select colname from #ae_defs where coldesc = 'PATIENT NAME') + ', ' + (select colname from #ae_defs where coldesc = 'PATIENT NUMBER') + ', ' + (select colname from #ae_defs where coldesc = 'ACCOUNT NUMBER') + ', ' + (select colname from #ae_defs where coldesc = 'VISIT DATE') + ', ' + (select colname from #ae_defs where coldesc = 'VISIT TYPE') + ', DocID from ae_dtl1'
DECLARE myCursor CURSOR FOR Select @SQL
OPEN myCursor print @@Cursor_rows FETCH NEXT FROM myCursor into @var1, @var2, @var3, @var4, @var5, @DocID
Is there any way of emulating Oracle's capability of passing output of user-defined functions in the select statement or better still in the Where clause in SQL server 7.0? If not then could we hope for it in SQl server 2000?
I have a table 'table_list' which contains two columns, table_name and a record_count. This table stores a list of tables and their corresponding record counts.
What I am trying to do is, to be able to write a select statement, that can read each table name in the 'table_name' column, execute a select count(*) for the same, and update its record_count with the result of select count(*).
This is the code in my procedure..
DECLARE @tab_list CURSOR set @tab_list = CURSOR FOR select * from table_list OPEN @tab_list
DECLARE @tab_name varchar(256) DECLARE @rec_cnt int FETCH NEXT FROM @tab_list INTO @tab_name, @rec_cnt
select count(*) from @tab_name
This select is looping around along with FETCH till all the table names are exhausted and their counts are updated from the cursor back into the table.
Problem is that, I am not able to use select count(*) from @tab_name, and its not accepting a variable there.
Please help me to construct the select statement that is similiar to
x=<table name> select * from x where x is a variable and the table name gets substituted.
I have been doing some development work in a large VB6 application. I have updated the search capabilities of the application to allow the user to search on partial addresses as the existing search routine only allowed you to search on the whole line of the address.
Simple change to the stored procedure (this is just an example not the real stored proc):
From: Select Top 3000 * from TL_ClientAddresses with(nolock) Where strPostCode = ‘W1 ABC’ To: Select Top 3000 * from TL_ClientAddresses with(nolock) Where strPostCode LIKE ‘W1%’
Now this is when things went a bit crazy. I know the implications of using ‘with(nolock)’. But seeing the code is only using the ID field to get the required row, and the database is a live database with hundreds of users at any one time (some updating), I think a dirty read is ok in this routine, as I don’t want SQL to create a shared lock.
Anyway my problem is this. After the change, the search now created a Shared Lock which sometimes locks out some of the live users updating the system. The Select is also extremely SLOW. It took about 5 minutes to search just over a million records (locking the database during the search, and giving my manager good reason to shout abuse at me). So I checked the indexes. I had an index set on:
So I created an index just for the strPostCode (non clustered).
This had no change to the ‘Like select’ what so ever. So I am now stuck.
1)Is there another way to search for part of a text field in SQL. 2)Does ‘Like’ comparison use the index in any way? If so how do I set this index up? 3)Can I stop a ‘Shared Lock’ being created when I do a ‘like select’? 4)Do you have any good comebacks I could tell the boss after his next outburst of abuse (please not so bad that he sacks me).
I need to check the value of a column being pulled from an embedded select in the WHERE clause of a script but can't figure out how to do it. The script looks like this:
SELECT LIST_ID, NAME, ADDRESS (SELECT ANSWER FROM VALID_ANSWER WHERE VALID_ANSWER.LIST_ID = VIEW_LIST.LIST_ID) AS ANSWER
FROM VIEW_LIST
WHERE ANSWER = 'No'
The syntax above works in Oracle but in SQL Server I receive the following error: "Invalid column name 'OHIP'."
I'm having this query:SELECTss.subscription_id AS SubscriptionId,s.id AS ScopeId,s.[name] AS ScopeName,s.base AS ScopeBase,dbo.iqGetShapesByScopeAsString(s.id) AS ShapesAsStringFROMsubscription_scope ss,scope sWHEREss.subscription_id = @subscription_idANDss.scope_id = s.idORDER BYs.[name]The select only returns a single row but my database (SQL Server 2005CTP) seems to execute the "iqGetShapesByScopeAsString" function foreach row in the subscription_scope and scope tables. This is a bug,right? The function should be executed only once for each *returned*row in the SELECT, right? I believe that was the case in SQL 2k thoughI can't check it at the moment.// pt
I have a question about a Select over 2 Tables, with the Following Scenario (Not all Products (ARTICULOS) haves CARAC's on the CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS table):
Picture of the tables here: http://www.pci-baleares.com/pantallazoSql.jpg
We have per example 7 Slots (Motherboard, CPU, VGA Card, RAM, TOWER, etc...) When we fill the Slot with a CPU-> Then we open the Slot for VGA CARD, we do the Followin Select:
SELECT dbo.ARTICULOS.* FROM dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS INNER JOIN dbo.ARTICULOS ON dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS.ID_ARTICULO = dbo.ARTICULOS.ID_ARTICULO
Ok it brings up ALL Graphic Cards because they dont depends on CPU
Now we go to the Motherboard Slot And we make the following Select to obtain the compatible Motherboards: SELECT dbo.ARTICULOS.*
FROM dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS INNER JOIN
dbo.ARTICULOS ON dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS.ID_ARTICULO = dbo.ARTICULOS.ID_ARTICULO
WHERE
((dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS.ID_CARAC = 7) AND (dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS.VALOR = 'PCI-E')) AND ((ID_CARAC = 1) AND (VALOR = '775'))
We check the motherboards if they support PCI-E (because we selected a Graphic card of that, and SOCKET 775 because the CPU)
But SQL return 0 Rows, if we do the following Select: SELECT dbo.ARTICULOS.*
FROM dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS INNER JOIN
dbo.ARTICULOS ON dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS.ID_ARTICULO = dbo.ARTICULOS.ID_ARTICULO
WHERE
((dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS.ID_CARAC = 7) AND (dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS.VALOR = 'PCI-E'))
OR
SELECT dbo.ARTICULOS.*
FROM dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS INNER JOIN
dbo.ARTICULOS ON dbo.CFG_CARAC_ARTICULOS.ID_ARTICULO = dbo.ARTICULOS.ID_ARTICULO
WHERE
((ID_CARAC = 1) AND (VALOR = '775'))
It return Rows, it happens just if the Where clause haves more as 1 specifications...
Lets say that Dealers have ZipCodes, and that a Dealer can have more than one zipCode, and we want the list of dealers that have both 90210 and 90211 zip codes. BUT we don't want any dealers that have only one of the two ZipCodes in question
What I want to do is something like this
Select DealerID from DealerZips where Zip = '90210' intersection Select DealerID from DealerZips where Zip = '90211'
but I get this error msg: Line 2: Incorrect syntax near 'intersection'
The following sql is silly, but it does run without error Select DealerID from DealerZips intersection Select DealerID from DealerZips
So I am pretty sure my problem is with the Where clauses.
Hi...I have table who contain words in Hebrew (right to left language), and when i try to select:WHERE (Topic LIKE '%Hebrew word%')I get no rows...Any idea? thanks...
Is there any difference in the way Query Analyser will look at a table when you use a 'select * from table' statement compared to using the Open Table, then Return Top from within Enterprise Manager?
We have a 41MB table which contains 50,000 rows. When I try 'select * ...' in QA it seems to run and run (over 5 mins before I have to stop it). One of my users seems to think that using the Open Table, Return Top 50,000 in EM gives pretty immediate results. I'm not so sure however, since if you then attempt to scroll down to the last row it appears to take just as long as the above select statement.
