Transact SQL :: Select Seems To Be Ignoring WHERE Conditions
Apr 23, 2015
SQL Version:Â 2008 (not r2)
Problem: My Select statement seems to be unaffected by some of the conditions in the WHERE Clause. For instance
JCCD.Mth >= cutoffs.FiscalYear_FirstMonth (value '20130101')Â AND JCCD.Mth <= @WIPMonthCurrent (value '20130101')AND LTRIM(RTRIM(JCCD.Job)) = '71-' (see output and code below)
SQL Code:
declare @WIPMonthCurrent date = '20130101'
SELECTÂ Â
    JCCD.JCCo, JCCD.Job, JCCD.Mth, JCCD.Source, sum(JCCD.ActualCost) AS CostToDate
I am using the SqlDataSource to access the dB from my page. Basically this is what I do with it ds.SelectParameters.Clear(); ds.SelectParameters("Id", TypeCode.Int32, id.ToString());
DataSourceSelectArguments dssa = new DataSourceSelectArguments(); dssa.MaximumRows = 1; dssa.AddSupportedCapabilities(DataSourceCapabilities.Page);
DataView dv = (DataView)ds.Select(dssa); if (dv.Count > 0) { // collect the information string title = (string)dv[index].Row.ItemArray[0]; } And the SelectCommand attribute of the SqlDataSource is set in design mode to "SELECT * from vw_Items ORDER BY Category". So, since I am trying to retrieve just the item with the given Id I was expecting just one record but when I step through I see that the data view has a count of 9 (all records in the table) !!! What am I doing wrong here? why can't it return just one? as per the select statement which after adding the parameter should be something like "SELECT * FROM vw_Items WHERE ID = 5 ORDER BY Category
col1 Â Â Â col2 Â Â Â col3 1 Â Â Â Â Â 0 Â Â Â Â Â 0 1 Â Â Â Â Â 0 Â Â Â Â Â 1 1 Â Â Â Â Â 1 Â Â Â Â Â 1 0 Â Â Â Â Â 1 Â Â Â Â Â 0
I am expecting output asÂ
col1 Â Â Â col2 Â Â Â col3 Â Â Â NewCol 1 Â Â Â Â Â 0 Â Â Â Â Â 0 Â Â Â Â Â Â SL 1 Â Â Â Â Â 0 Â Â Â Â Â 1 Â Â Â Â Â Â SL,PL 1 Â Â Â Â Â 1 Â Â Â Â Â 1 Â Â Â Â Â Â SL,EL,PL 0 Â Â Â Â Â 1 Â Â Â Â Â 0 Â Â Â Â Â Â EL
condition if col>0 then SL else '', Â if col2>0 EL else '', if col3>0 PL else ''
I am trying to do a simple update in one sql table from another where a certain condition in both tables are met.I am missing something basic and have tried numerous posted examples, without success.Here is my code (that does not update) :
      opdragaliasnaaminsit.Connection = konneksie        opdragaliasnaaminsit.CommandText = "UPDATE vyfjaarontledings " & _        "SET aliasnaam = T2.aliasnaam" & _        " FROM vyfjaarontledings T1" & _        " INNER " & _        "JOIN blokke T2 " & _        " ON T1.plaasno = T2.plaasno " & _         "WHERE T1.plaasno = T2.plaasno" opdragaliasnaaminsit.ExecuteNonQuery()
I am trying to update aliasnaam in vyfjaarontledings from blokke.
I have conducted a thorough search in the forums and cannot quite find my answer. I have a date field called open_date. If the open_date is more than 30 days old, I need to count it. I have started with the following code:
SELECT 'Older_Than_30Days' = CASE WHEN open.date >= 30 THEN '1' ELSE '0" END
I have following query. Now I want to change this in such a way that if Condition 1 satisfies then it should not go to next condition ,if not then should go to next. Similarly the same format till condition 4.
select * from table where IND = 'Y' and ( (STATE = @STATE and LOB =@LOB and COMPANY=@COMPANY)--Condition 1 OR (STATE = @STATE and LOB =@LOB)--Condition 2 OR (STATE = @STATE and COMPANY=@COMPANY)--Condition 3 OR (STATE = @STATE)--Condition 4 )
I need to update many rows in some table. Â I've made such SQL query:
UPDATE [%TableName%] SET [%FieldName%] = CASE Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â WHEN ID = 1Â THEN '1' Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â WHEN ID =2Â THEN '2' Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â .... Â Â Â Â Â Â END; Â Â Â Â Â Â [%FieldName2%] = CASE Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â WHEN ID = 1Â THEN '1' Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â WHEN ID = 2Â THEN '2' Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â .... Â Â Â Â Â Â END; WHERE ID IN {1, 2, ...}
Are there some limitations for CASE operator? How many "when - then" conditions can I include in query?
ID1   ID2    Date           Action 100  500    09/08/14    Open 100  500    09/24/14    Close 101  510    07/10/15    Open 101  510    07/19/15    Close
The output I want in a single result set is -
ID1   ID2    Open_Date  Close_Date 100   500   09/08/14     09/24/14 101   510   07/10/15     07/19/15
Hi All, This is my problem. I need the out put of a sql select statement to be "true" or "false" depending on the actual columns value is positive or negative. Does any one how to do this. Thanks in advance, -VJ
I can't figure this out for the life of me. Wanted to know if it's possible to select certain date conditions in a query, then later reference those conditions and to only select the max of them.
I need to do this dynamically as I do not know what the max value is. I've provided an example below:
Select var1 From table1 where ( (Date1 = '11/30/2005') OR (Date1 = '12/31/2005') ) and Date1 = (Max of previously selected values e.g. '12/31/2005')
What I can't figure out is how to dynamically retrieve the max of 11/31/2005 and 12/31/2005. Any ideas are greatly appreciated.
Select c.Plan, c.ClaimNumber from tbFLags c inner join tbMembers m On c.Claim = m.HistoryNum where c.Plan = 'J318' and c.Paymon = c.Rmon and c.Rmon = '2008-03-01'
Now I want to add these into this statement, what should be done.
Members meeting any of the 3 sets of criteria should not be selected
1) tbFlags.Hosp='1'
2) tbFlags.RD='1' OR tbCMSFlags.RAType in ('D', 'I2')
I have Table1 and Table2 which are inner joined with an ID. Each record in Table1 may have up to two corresponding values in Table2, which are Type and Name.
req1- I want to select Table2.Name twice (or more), with each selection conditioned on a specific Type. req2- I also want all information pertaining to the same ID to be returned in each row req3- I want all IDs to be returned, even if Table2.Name are empty for Type1 and/or Type2.
How can i insert a if-else condition in a select statement or is there a way to specify a condition within a select statement? Any reply is really appreciated..thank you..
This is an exact matching record and straight forward
Is it possible to identify the record using T SQL query based on the following scenarios
1) return the record - If all the three where conditions match 2) if record not found check and return the record where 2 columns values in the where condition match
-- Expected Result for below query: 'Orange', because 2 of the columns in where condition have matching values
SELECT Productname FROM @MappingTable where identification_key1=1 or identification_key2 =2 or identification_key3 =1
Select DISTINCT p.dbPatID, p.dbpatfirstname, p.dbPatLastName, s.dbSchTypeCnt as SchDetailType, t.dbSchTypeCnt as SchTypeType, ISNULL(r.dbStatusDesc, 'No Ref') AS dbStatusDesc, ISNULL(t.dbSchTypeCode, 'No Ref') AS dbSchTypeCode, ISNULL(t.dbSchTypeDesc, 'No Ref') AS dbSchTypeDesc,
[code]....
however, I only want the lastest a.dbPatApptTime and only when a.dbPFStatus = 1 and a.ClientRef = 'EPS'
So the stand alone sql could be....
Select Top(1) dbPatApptTime as LastVisitDate, dbSchTypeDesc as LastVisitDesc from appointments where dbPFStatus = 1 and clientref = 'EPS' order by dbPatApptTime desc
I'm just not sure how to incorporate that into my sql or whether there is a better way,
Hi, I have 1 table with 5 rows. One of the rows has dateTime values. I want to know how many rows there are with a value in that column < today AND how many rows there are with a value in that column > today. I'm not sure how to do this.
SELECT Count(*) WHERE dateColumn <= today AND dateColumn > today gives me everything. I like to end up with a column containing the count of rows <= today and a column with rows where date > today.
Is this possible in SQL or do I have to retrieve all rows and then loop over the resultset and check each row?
My question is fairly simple. When I join between two tables, I always use the ON syntax. For example:
SELECT
* FROM
Users
JOIN UserRoles
ON (Users.UserRoleId = UserRoles.UserRoleId)
No problems there. However, if I then decide to further filter the selection based on some trait of the UserRole, I have two options: I can add the condition as a WHERE statement, or I can add the condition within the ON block.
--Version 1:
SELECT
* FROM
Users
JOIN UserRoles
ON (Users.UserRoleId = UserRoles.UserRoleId) WHERE
UserRoles.Active = 'TRUE'
-- Version 2
SELECT
* FROM
Users
JOIN UserRoles
ON (Users.UserRoleId = UserRoles.UserRoleId
AND UserRoles.Active = 'TRUE')
So, the question is, which is faster/better, if either? The Query Analyzer shows the two queries have the exact same execution plan, which makes sense, since they're both joining the same tables. However, I'm wondering if adding the condition in the ON statement results in fewer rows the JOIN statement initially needs to join up, thus reducing the overall initial size of the results table before the WHERE conditions are applied.
So is there a difference, performance wise? I imagine that if Users had a thousand records, and UserRoles had 10 records, then the JOIN would create a cartesian product of the two tables, resulting in 10,000 records in the table before the WHERE conditions are applied. However, if only three of the UserRoles is set to Active, would that mean that the resulting table, before applying WHERE conditions, would only contain 3000 records?
The select command below will output one patient’s information in 1 row:
Patient id Last name First name Address 1 OP Coverage Plan 1 OP Policy # 1 OP Coverage Plan 2
[code]...
This works great if there is at least one OP coverage.  There are 3 tables in which to get information which are the patient table, the coverage table, and the coverage history table.  The coverage table links to the patient table via pat_id and it tells me the patient's coverage plan and in which priority to bill.  The coverage history table links to the patient and coverage table via patient id and coverage plan and it gives me the effective date. Â
select src.pat_id, lname, fname, addr1, max(case when rn = 1 then src.coverage_plan_ end) as OP_Coverage1, max(case when rn = 1 then src.policy_id end) as OP_Policy1,
select computer, count(*) as MissedCount from WInUpdates_Neededreq WHERE LoggedDate BETWEEN DATEADD (DAY, - 5, GETDATE()) AND GETDATE() and LastReportTime !< DATEADD (DAY, -5, GETDATE()) group by computer
I need to make a join onto another table but don't want to lose the coutn(*) as MissedCount.
How can I join to another table and still keep the count form the original table. I want ot join to tblogons.workstationname and return computer from the original query...
I'm importing from an Excel spreadsheet into an SQL Table using DTS.
Two things:
1. I don't want anything imported into Column 1 of the table as this has been designed to automatically increment (creating a primary key). I haven't worked out how to do this.
2. How can I get the DTS package to ignore the top 2 rows of the Excel spreadsheet (header information)?
An answer to one will be great but both will be tremendous!!
So I have this query that is ignoring my date filter and for the life of me I can't figure out why. Was hoping some guru could explain it to me. Here goes:
This query ignores my date filter:
SELECT rcv.Name AS MachineName, r.JobId, j.Name AS JobName, r.CreateTime AS JCreateTime, rsv.Name AS JResultStatus, rpv.Path + rpv.Name AS ResourcePool, rcvv.ResourceConfigurationVal AS Dimension
FROM dbo.Result_View AS r INNER JOIN dbo.ResourceConfiguration_View AS rcv ON r.ResourceConfigurationId = rcv.Id INNER JOIN dbo.Job_View AS j ON r.JobId = j.Id INNER JOIN dbo.ResultStatus_View AS rsv ON r.ResultStatusId = rsv.Id INNER JOIN dbo.Resource_View AS rv ON rcv.ResourceId = rv.Id INNER JOIN dbo.ResourcePool_View AS rpv ON rv.ResourcePoolId = rpv.Id RIGHT JOIN dbo.ResourceConfigurationValue_View AS rcvv ON rv.LatestResourceConfigurationId = rcvv.ResourceConfigurationId LEFT JOIN dbo.Dimension_View AS d ON rcvv.DimensionId = d.Id
WHERE (r.CreateTime > DATEADD(DAY, -15, GETDATE())) AND (rcv.Name LIKE 'PNP%') AND (d.Id = 859) OR (d.Id = 860)
If I comment out the last two joins and associated select/filters, all of the sudden the date filter works again. From everything I have read, the joins are supposed to be processed BEFORE the filters are applied in the virtual table. My DB goes back a number of years and contains millions of records. W/O the date filter, the query takes a very, very long time to run.
I have just transferred my site to a new server with SBS R2 Premium, so the site's database changed from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. I find that searches are now returning results in random order, even though they use a view with an Order By clause to force the order I want. I find that the results are unordered when I test the view with Management Studio, so the issue is unrelated to my VB/ASP Net code. Using my SQL update tool (SQL Compare, from Redgate) I find that there are no differences in the views, or the underlying tables. Using Management Studio to test a number of views, I find that I have a general problem with all views. For example, one of the simpler views is simply a selection of fields from one table, with an Order By clause on the tables primary key: - SELECT TOP (100) PERCENT GDQid, GDQUser, GDQGED, GDQOption, gdqTotalLines, GDQTotalIndi, GDQRestart, GDQCheckpointMessage, GDQStarted, GDQFinished, gdqCheckpointRecordCountr FROM dbo.GEDQueue ORDER BY GDQid DESC If I right-click the view (from Management Studio's Object Explorer pane), select Design from the menu to show the view's design, and then click the Execute SQL icon, the view's results are displayed perfectly, in descending order of GDQid. However, if I select "Open View" the view's results are displayed out of order. When I do this with the SQL 2000 database, both Design/Execute and Open View correctly display the data in the correct order. Is there something that I should check in the SQL 2005 installation - some option that has been set incorrectly? Regards, Robert Barnes
If you have a table called Person and has ID, Age, Gender and Name. And you have a stored procedure: CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[GetName]@Age TINYINT,@Gender TINYINTASBEGIN SELECT Name FROM Person WHERE Age = @Age AND Gender = @Gender END You want some times to send @Age as null to get all ages (or in other words, you are not concerned with the age) or @Gender as null to get all genders. A way to do that is to build your query string dynamically and execute it with EXEC command. However, this is a bad solution because you are losing most of the SP benefits and writting longer and more complicated procedures, specially that you have a lot of parameters! Another solution that I thought of is having your select like this: SELECT Name FROM Person WHERE Age = ISNULL(@Age,Age) AND Gender = ISNULL(@Gender, Gender) However, I noticed that when the value of the column is NULL, you will get false results, obviously because you are using = operator in comparing a value with null while you should be using IS operator, so this method did not work. I am wondering if any one has a good solution for this. Adam Tibi
In our schools we have a number of East-European, Turkish, Scandinavian, ... students. Their names contain "special" characters, like Ö, Ü, Ø, ... Our users want to be able to search for student names without having to enter those special characters. Most often they don't know the exact spelling of the names and they get "no match found" messages as a result.
They want to have persons with the name Ösgür, Osgueld, ... in the result set after entering "osgu" in the search field.
What is the best way to do this? I was thinking about using another collation near the LIKE, but I don't know if that would work and how it should be done. The Database collation is Latin1_General_CI_AS.
Hi, I am using SQL Server 2000. In database i am having one column named Address which contains full address of the customer. While searching i want to ignore starting numeric or alphanumeric values. Kinly guide how I can ignore numeric or alphanumeric values while searching the data.
Hi, I'm using the following SQL script to return a list of part number and the order is not what I expect. Perhaps this is a collation problem but I have no idea where to look to modify that.
Thanks in advance, John select part from transactions T where (T.transdate between '20070701' and '20070705') and (T.transtype = 'ISSU' or T.transtype = 'RTRN') order by part
Here is the beginning of the Transactions table create script
CREATE TABLE [Transactions] ( [RecNo] [int] IDENTITY (1,1) NOT NULL, [Part] [nvarchar] (30) NOT NULL , [TransDate] [nvarchar] (8) NOT NULL , [TransType] [nvarchar] (4) NOT NULL , [FromLoc] [nvarchar] (10) ,
The 'Part' column is an alphanumeric field. The problem I am having is that the Order By seems to ignore the hyphen character '-' when the returned rows are ordered by the Part (which can contain hyphens in any column).
Here is an example of what I get.
130909N9 130909N9 130909N9 1-480698-0 * These two should not be here 1-480699-0 * 15-423 164-07700 164-07700 164-07700 1683
I was expecting this ( and I get this in and older database ).
068-03000 068-03000 06A19956 074-03200 077-367-0 08DU08 1-480698-0 * These should be here eariler in the data 1-480699-0 100-364072 100-364072
This may be a silly question out of ignorance, but I'm working in an environment where I am a DBA for a server, but I'm not a local admin on the windows server for the first time, so sorry if it is
Anyway, I have set up some traces that are writing to a file stored in a directory I have full control on. However, the trace files themselves are not inheriting the folder permissions, even though the folder is configured to do so. The only logins with access are the Local System account, the SQL Server service account local group, and the local administrators group.
Is this something that SQL Server does on its own, or would this have to be something the system admins have set up with group policy or something? If its SQL Server, is there some configuration setting I can change to get it to stop doing that so I can stop bugging the admins to give me access every time I run a trace?
I am looking to delete a single row from a relatively small table. Unfortunately, there is a foreign key relationship between this table and a much much larger table. The checking of this foreign key when I am deleting this row seems to significantly impact the performance of the operation. Previously there was an index on this larger table that helped this query run. This index has been dropped to improve the performance of a more frequently executed operation.
Is there a way I can use a hint or something to stop SQL checking this foreign key when deleting the row? I am certain that there are no associated rows in the larger table.
I have read elsewhere that I could disable the foreign key, perform the delete, then enable the foreign key. This delete statement is not a one off process and could happen in the normal operation of the application so I don't really know what the implications of doing this are.
I would like to populate a grid with data from 2 different tables. Table1: [PK]id(int), name(nvarchar), areaID(int) Table2: [PK][FK]areaID(int), areaDescription(nvarchar)
My cerrent query is: SELECT Table1.id, Table1.name, Table2.areaDescription FROM Table1 INNER JOIN Table2 ON Table1.areaID = Table2.areaID
However, sometimes the areaID in Table1 will only be populated at a later stage and therefore will be NULL in Table1. Table2 is used as a lookup table when inserting into Table1. This query therefore ommits any records in Table1 which do not have an areaID. I would like to view ALL records(ones without an areaID as well) as they would be populated in the grid and selected to be updated on web forms because they are incomplete and then subsequently assigned an areaID.
Any help with this query would be much appreciated...
I"m trying to use a BULK INSERT command to insert data into a table from a file. There is a UNIQUE Index that is being violated and the BULK INSERT fails.
I do not want to drop or disable the index, however, i also do not want to load 'duplicate' records so i keep the CHECK_CONSTRAINTS parameter.
Is there a way to have the duplicate records outputed to the ERRORFILE ?
Would like to know if it is possible to calculate the duration of a Datetime Start and End Dates ignoring all overlapps? Eg: 1) StartTime 10:00:00 EndTime 11:00:00 Duration: 01:00:00 2) StartTime 10:30:00 EndTime 11:15:00 Duration: 00:45:00 Total Duration should be 01:15:00 and not 01:45:00
