I'm running this simple check:
select * from mytable
where field_name = any(array['2']::_varchar);
field_name is _varcharso it's an array
but I'm getting this:
ERROR: operator does not exist: character varying[] = character varying
What am I missing?
Thanks!
=ANY unwraps it RHS and compares them individually to the LHS, so it would be the same thing as field_name = '2'::varchar. You can't compare an array to a scalar like that. You want an operator that doesn't unwrapped the argument but compares arrays to each other:
field_name #> array['2']::_varchar
or
field_name && array['2']::_varchar
Or you want to leave the literal as a scalar, and then unwrap the other side which is already an array so it too becomes a scalar:
'2' =ANY (field_name)
Related
I have a Postgres function that accepts a text[] as input. For example
create function temp1(player_ids text[])
returns void
language plpgsql
as
$$
begin
update players set player_xp = 0
where id in (player_ids);
-- the body is actually 20 lines long, updating a lot of tables
end;
$$;
and I'm trying to call it, but I keep getting
[42883] ERROR: operator does not exist: text = text[] Hint: No operator matches the given name and argument types. You might need to add explicit type casts. Where: PL/pgSQL function temp1(text[]) line 3 at SQL statement
I have tried these so far
select temp1('{F7AWLJWYQ5BMPKGXLMDNQKQ4NY,AQPBAFKQONGLBKIMCSOD747GY4}');
select temp1('{F7AWLJWYQ5BMPKGXLMDNQKQ4NY,AQPBAFKQONGLBKIMCSOD747GY4}'::text[]);
select temp1(array['F7AWLJWYQ5BMPKGXLMDNQKQ4NY,AQPBAFKQONGLBKIMCSOD747GY4']);
select temp1(array['F7AWLJWYQ5BMPKGXLMDNQKQ4NY,AQPBAFKQONGLBKIMCSOD747GY4']::text[]);
I have to be missing something obvious...how do I call this function with an array literal?
Use = any instead of in:
...
update players set player_xp = 0
where id = any(player_ids);
...
The IN operator acts on an explicit list of values.
expression IN (value [, ...])
When you want to compare a value to each element of an array, use ANY instead.
expression operator ANY (array expression)
Note that there are variants of both constructs for subqueries expression IN (subquery) and expression operator ANY (subquery). The first one was properly used in the other answer though a subquery seems excessive in this case.
You can use unnest function, this function is very easy and same time best performanced. Unnest using for converting array elements to rows. Example:
create function temp1(player_ids text[])
returns void
language plpgsql
as
$$
begin
update players set player_xp = 0
where id in (select pl.id from unnest(player_ids) as pl(id));
-- the body is actually 20 lines long, updating a lot of tables
end;
$$;
And you can easily cast array elements to another type for using unnest.
Example:
update players set player_xp = 0
where id in (select pl.id::integer from unnest(player_ids) as pl(id));
I am trying to convert the result of a linq statement into string[] array
like below
string[] g = from p in db.np_user_security where
p.user_id == user_id select p.group_id.Distinct().ToArray();
but giving me an error as below
Cannot implicitly convert type 'System.Linq.IQueryable' to
'string[]'
The query return a list of ids and I need to save it in array of string or long. What Am I missing?
By doing p.group_id.Distinct().ToArray() you split each group_id into array of distinct characters. So in fact, the entire query returns IQueryable of array of characters, not ids.
I believe you want to wrap the query with parens first before calling Distinct().ToArray() :
string[] g = (from p in db.np_user_security
where p.user_id == user_id
select p.group_id
).Distinct().ToArray();
I have a table with 4 array columns.. the results are like:
ids signed_ids new_ids new_ids_signed
{1,2,3} | {2,1,3} | {4,5,6} | {6,5,4}
Anyway to compare ids and signed_ids so that they come out equal, by ignoring the order of the elements?
You can use contained by operator:
(array1 <# array2 and array1 #> array2)
The additional module intarray provides operators for arrays of integer, which are typically (much) faster. Install once per database with (in Postgres 9.1 or later):
CREATE EXTENSION intarray;
Then you can:
SELECT uniq(sort(ids)) = uniq(sort(signed_ids));
Or:
SELECT ids #> signed_ids AND ids <# signed_ids;
Bold emphasis on functions and operators from intarray.
In the second example, operator resolution arrives at the specialized intarray operators if left and right argument are type integer[].
Both expressions will ignore order and duplicity of elements. Further reading in the helpful manual here.
intarray operators only work for arrays of integer (int4), not bigint (int8) or smallint (int2) or any other data type.
Unlike the default generic operators, intarray operators do not accept NULL values in arrays. NULL in any involved array raises an exception. If you need to work with NULL values, you can default to the standard, generic operators by schema-qualifying the operator with the OPERATOR construct:
SELECT ARRAY[1,4,null,3]::int[] OPERATOR(pg_catalog.#>) ARRAY[3,1]::int[]
The generic operators can't use indexes with an intarray operator class and vice versa.
Related:
GIN index on smallint[] column not used or error "operator is not unique"
The simplest thing to do is sort them and compare them sorted. See sorting arrays in PostgreSQL.
Given sample data:
CREATE TABLE aa(ids integer[], signed_ids integer[]);
INSERT INTO aa(ids, signed_ids) VALUES (ARRAY[1,2,3], ARRAY[2,1,3]);
the best thing to do is to if the array entries are always integers is to use the intarray extension, as Erwin explains in his answer. It's a lot faster than any pure-SQL formulation.
Otherwise, for a general version that works for any data type, define an array_sort(anyarray):
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION array_sort(anyarray) RETURNS anyarray AS $$
SELECT array_agg(x order by x) FROM unnest($1) x;
$$ LANGUAGE 'SQL';
and use it sort and compare the sorted arrays:
SELECT array_sort(ids) = array_sort(signed_ids) FROM aa;
There's an important caveat:
SELECT array_sort( ARRAY[1,2,2,4,4] ) = array_sort( ARRAY[1,2,4] );
will be false. This may or may not be what you want, depending on your intentions.
Alternately, define a function array_compare_as_set:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION array_compare_as_set(anyarray,anyarray) RETURNS boolean AS $$
SELECT CASE
WHEN array_dims($1) <> array_dims($2) THEN
'f'
WHEN array_length($1,1) <> array_length($2,1) THEN
'f'
ELSE
NOT EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM unnest($1) a
FULL JOIN unnest($2) b ON (a=b)
WHERE a IS NULL or b IS NULL
)
END
$$ LANGUAGE 'SQL' IMMUTABLE;
and then:
SELECT array_compare_as_set(ids, signed_ids) FROM aa;
This is subtly different from comparing two array_sorted values. array_compare_as_set will eliminate duplicates, making array_compare_as_set(ARRAY[1,2,3,3],ARRAY[1,2,3]) true, whereas array_sort(ARRAY[1,2,3,3]) = array_sort(ARRAY[1,2,3]) will be false.
Both of these approaches will have pretty bad performance. Consider ensuring that you always store your arrays sorted in the first place.
If your arrays have no duplicates and are of the same dimension:
use array contains #>
AND array_length where the length must match the size you want on both sides
select (string_agg(a,',' order by a) = string_agg(b,',' order by b)) from
(select unnest(array[1,2,3,2])::text as a,unnest(array[2,2,3,1])::text as b) A
I'm using Postgres' native array type, and trying to find the records where the ID is not in the array recipient IDs.
I can find where they are IN:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM messages WHERE (3 = ANY (recipient_ids))
But this doesn't work:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM messages WHERE (3 != ANY (recipient_ids))
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM messages WHERE (3 = NOT ANY (recipient_ids))
What's the right way to test for this condition?
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM "messages" WHERE NOT (3 = ANY (recipient_ids))
You can always negate WHERE (condition) with WHERE NOT (condition)
You could turn it around a bit and say "3 is not equal to all the IDs":
where 3 != all (recipient_ids)
From the fine manual:
9.21.4. ALL (array)
expression operator ALL (array expression)
The right-hand side is a parenthesized expression, which must yield an array value. The left-hand expression is evaluated and compared to each element of the array using the given operator, which must yield a Boolean result. The result of ALL is "true" if all comparisons yield true (including the case where the array has zero elements). The result is "false" if any false result is found.
Beware of NULLs
Both ALL:
(some_value != ALL(some_array))
And ANY:
NOT (some_value = ANY(some_array))
Would work as long as some_array is not null. If the array might be null, then you must account for it with coalesce(), e.g.
(some_value != ALL(coalesce(some_array, array[]::int[])))
Or
NOT (some_value = ANY(coalesce(some_array, array[]::int[])))
From the docs:
If the array expression yields a null array, the result of ANY will be null
If the array expression yields a null array, the result of ALL will be null
Augmenting the ALL/ANY Answers
I prefer all solutions that use all or any to achieve the result, appreciating the additional notes (e.g. about NULLs). As another augementation, here is a way to think about those operators.
You can think about them as short-circuit operators:
all(array) goes through all the values in the array, comparing each to the reference value using the provided operator. As soon as a comparison yields false, the process ends with false, otherwise true. (Comparable to short-circuit logical and.)
any(array) goes through all the values in the array, comparing each to the reference value using the provided operator. As soon as a comparison yields true, the process ends with true, otherwise false. (Comparable to short-circuit logical or.)
This is why 3 <> any('{1,2,3}') does not yield the desired result: The process compares 3 with 1 for inequality, which is true, and immediately returns true. A single value in the array different from 3 is enough to make the entire condition true. The 3 in the last array position is prob. never used.
3 <> all('{1,2,3}') on the other hand makes sure all values are not equal 3. It will run through all comparisons that yield true up to an element that yields false (the last in this case), to return false as the overall result. This is what the OP wants.
an update:
as of postgres 9.3,
you can use NOT in tandem with the #> (contains operator) to achieve this as well.
IE.
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM "messages" WHERE NOT recipient_ids #> ARRAY[3];
not (3 = any(recipient_ids))?
Note that the ANY/ALL operators will not work with array indexes. If indexes are in mind:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM "messages" WHERE 3 && recipient_ids
and the negative:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM "messages" WHERE NOT (3 && recipient_ids)
An index can then be created like:
CREATE INDEX recipient_ids_idx on tableName USING GIN(recipient_ids)
Use the following query
select id from Example where NOT (id = ANY ('{1, 2}'))
Query 1:
SELECT ARRAY(select id from contacts where id = 0)::INT[],
ARRAY[]::INT[],
ARRAY(SELECT id FROM contacts WHERE id = 0)::INT[] = ARRAY[]::int[]
Produces this result:
int4 array ?column?
{} {} TRUE
Query 2:
SELECT (ARRAY(SELECT id FROM contacts WHERE id = 0)::INT[]
& ARRAY(select id from contacts where id = 0)::INT[]),
ARRAY[]::INT[],
(ARRAY(SELECT id FROM contacts WHERE id = 0)::INT[]
& ARRAY(SELECT id FROM contacts WHERE id = 0)::INT[]) = ARRAY[]::int[]
Produces a different result:
?column? array ?column?
{} {} FALSE
Why the difference?
Is there any other way to compare an empty integer array with the result of an intersection of two arrays like in the second query?
Standard PostgreSQL does not support the ARRAY intersection operator. You must have installed the additional module intarray.
Your question boils down to this:
The intersection of two empty integer arrays yields an empty integer array. Why does this query yield false?
SELECT ('{}'::int[] & '{}'::int[]) = '{}'::int[]
Or in other syntax, meaning the same:
SELECT (ARRAY[]::int[] & ARRAY[]::int[]) = ARRAY[]::int[]
While this yields true:
SELECT '{}'::int[] = '{}'::int[]
And yes, that is a very good question.
For what it's worth, I can explain the difference:
SELECT array_dims('{}'::int[])
<NULL>
SELECT array_dims('{}'::int[] & '{}'::int[])
[1:0]
In other words, the first one is just an empty array, while the second one is a one-dimensional array with an empty element.
This can be very confusing. For instance see this thread about how to treat string_to_array() with empty output.
I am not sure the & operator does the right thing here.