I'm trying to update a table in SQL Server 2012 Management Studio. Rather than writing four separate Update statements, I'm attempting to see if it is possible to write one query that will update the same table for one column in four different ways depending on what the value of a column stores.
Assume I have a table called table_food with the following structure
|Customer|Preference|
+--------+----------+
|John |McDs |
|Div |KFC |
|Paul |KFC |
|Pablo |Wasabi |
My idea is to update the Preference column to new values and the query I had written was:
UPDATE table_food
SET Preference =
CASE WHEN Preference = 'McDs' Then 'Burger'
WHEN Preference = 'KFC' Then 'KingsMeal'
END
Now on my actual table, there are only 8 different options selected for preference and I just need two update 4. (I've just done two as an example above but I have four when statements...so just another two lines)
When I run the query it shows far more rows being affected and checking the results after I notice now there's only one option shown "Burger" with a count of 8 and all the other rows have been set to null. Is there something I'm missing?
That query will update every row on your table since it lacks a WHERE clause. And a CASE WHEN expression returns NULL if none of the WHEN conditions are true. You might want a query like:
UPDATE table_food
SET Preference =
CASE WHEN Preference = 'McDs' Then 'Burger'
WHEN Preference = 'KFC' Then 'KingsMeal'
END
WHERE Preference in ('McDs','KFC')
add else on your case statement.
UPDATE table_food
SET Preference =
CASE WHEN Preference = 'McDs' Then 'Burger'
WHEN Preference = 'KFC' Then 'KingsMeal'
ELSE Preference
END
or if you only want to update affected rows, you do update from
UPDATE table_food
SET Preference = t2.newPreference
FROM
(SELECT CASE WHEN Preference = 'McDs' Then 'Burger'
WHEN Preference = 'KFC' Then 'KingsMeal'
WHEN Preference = 'KFC1' Then 'KingsMeal1'
WHEN Preference = 'KFC'2 Then 'KingsMeal2'
END as newPreference, Preference
FROM table_food) t2
WHERE t2.Preference = table_food.Preference and coalesce(t2.newPreference, '') != ''
Related
I would like to create a historical view of alerts in an application. To do this, I am grabbing all events and timestamping them, then uploading them into a MS SQL table. I would also like to be able to exempt certain objects from the total count by flagging either the finding (to exclude the finding across all systems) or the object in the finding (to exclude the object from all findings).
The idea is, I will have all previous alerts in the main table, then I will set an 'exemptobject' or 'exemptfinding' bit column in the row. When I re-run the script weekly, I will upload the results directly into a temporary table and then I would like to compare either the object or the finding for each object in the temporary table to the main database's 'object' or 'finding' and set the respective 'exemptobject' or 'exemptfinding' bit. Once all the temporary table's objects have any exemption bits set, insert the temporary table into the main table and drop the temporary table to keep a historical record.
This will give me duplicate findings and objects, so I am having difficulty with the merge command:
BEGIN TRANSACTION
MERGE INTO [dbo].[temp_table]
USING [dbo].[historical]
ON [dbo].[temp_table].[object] = [dbo].[historical].[object] OR
[dbo].[temp_table].[finding] = [dbo].[historical].[finding]
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE
SET [exemptfinding] = [dbo].[historical].[exemptfinding]
,[exemptobject] = [dbo].[historical].[exemptobject]
,[exemptdate] = [dbo].[historical].[exemptdate]
,[comments] = [dbo].[historical].[comments];
COMMIT
This seems to do what I want, but I see that the results are going to grow exponentially and I think it won't be sustainable for long.
BEGIN TRANSACTION
UPDATE [dbo].[temp]
SET [dbo].[temp].[exemptfinding] = [historical].[exemptfinding]
,[dbo].[temp].[exemptobject] = [historical].[exemptobject]
,[dbo].[temp].[exemptdate] = [historical].[exemptdate]
,[dbo].[temp].[comments] = [historical].[comments]
FROM [dbo].[temp] temp
INNER JOIN [dbo].[historical] historical
ON (
[temp].[finding] = [sci].[finding] OR
[temp].[object] = [sci].[object] OR
) AND
(
[historical].[exemptfinding] = 1 OR
[historical].[exemptobject] = 1
)
COMMIT
I feel like I need to normalize the database, but I can't think of a way to separate things out and be able to:
See a count of each finding based on date the script was run
Be able to drill down into each day and see all the findings, objects and recommendations for each
Control the count shown for each finding by removing 'exempted' findings OR objects.
I feel like there's something obvious I'm missing or I'm thinking about this incorrectly. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
EDIT - The following seems to do what I want, but as soon as I add an additional WHERE condition to the final result, the query time goes from 7 seconds to 90 seconds, so I fear it will not scale.
BEGIN TRANSACTION
UPDATE [dbo].[temp]
SET [dbo].[temp].[exemptrecommendation] = [historical].[exemptrecommendation]
,[dbo].[temp].[exemptfinding] = [historical].[exemptfinding]
,[dbo].[temp].[exemptobject] = [historical].[exemptobject]
,[dbo].[temp].[exemptdate] = [historical].[exemptdate]
,[dbo].[temp].[comments] = [historical].[comments]
FROM (
SELECT *
FROM historical h
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT id
,recommendation
FROM temp t
WHERE (
t.id = s.id OR
t.recommendation = s.recommendation
)
)
) historical
WHERE [dbo].[temp].[recommendation] = [historical].[recommendation] OR
[dbo].[temp].[id] = [historical].[id]
COMMIT
I've got a question in terms of processing and making a query more efficient whilst maintaining its accuracy. Before I display the query I'd like to point out some basics of it.
I've got a case that manipulates the where-clause to get all childs of the parent. Basically I've got two types of data that I need to display; a red and a green type. The red type has a column (TRK_TrackerGroup_LKID2) set to NULL by default, whereas the green data has a value in said column (ranging from 5-7).
My problem is that I need to extract both types of data to accurately get a count of outstanding issues in a view, but doing so (by adding the case) the execution time goes from < 1 second to well over 15 seconds.
This is the query (with the mentioned case):
SELECT TS.id AS TrackerStartDateID,
TSM.mappingtypeid,
TSM.maptoid,
TFLK.trk_trackergroup_lkid,
Count(TF.id) AS Cnt
FROM [dbo].[trk_startdate] TS
INNER JOIN [dbo].[trk_startdatemap] TSM
ON TS.id = TSM.trk_startdateid
AND TSM.deletedflag = 0
INNER JOIN [dbo].[trk_trackerfeatures] TF
ON TF.trk_startdateid = TS.id
AND TF.deletedflag = 0
INNER JOIN [dbo].[trk_trackerfeatures_lk] TFLK
ON TFLK.id = TF.trk_feature_lkid
WHERE TS.deletedflag = 0
AND TF.applicabletoproject = 1
AND TF.readyforwork = CASE -- HERE IS THE PROBLEM
WHEN TF.trk_trackerstatus_lkid2 IS NULL THEN 0
ELSE 1
END
AND TF.datestamp = (SELECT Max(TF2.datestamp)
FROM [dbo].[trk_trackerfeatures] TF2
INNER JOIN [dbo].[trk_trackerfeatures_lk] TFLK2
ON TFLK2.id = TF2.trk_feature_lkid
WHERE TF.trk_startdateid = TF2.trk_startdateid
AND TFLK2.trk_trackergroup_lkid = TFLK.trk_trackergroup_lkid)
GROUP BY TS.id,
TSM.mappingtypeid,
TSM.maptoid,
TFLK.trk_trackergroup_lkid,
TF.datestamp
It functions as a 'parent' in the sense that it grabs the latest inserted data-set (using DateStamp) from every single child-group. This is necessary to produce a parent-report in SSRS report at a later time, but at the moment my problem (as mentioned above) is the execution time.
I'd like to hear if there are any suggestions on how to decrease the execution time whilst maintaining the accuracy of the query.
Expected output:
Without the case I get this:
Your problem is this condition cant use INDEX
AND TF.readyforwork = CASE -- HERE IS THE PROBLEM
WHEN TF.trk_trackerstatus_lkid2 IS NULL THEN 0
ELSE 1
END
Try to change it to
AND ( TF.readyforwork = 0 and TF.trk_trackerstatus_lkid2 IS NULL
OR TF.readyforwork = 1 and TF.trk_trackerstatus_lkid2 IS NOT NULL
)
But again you should check with EXPLAIN ANALIZE to test if your query is using index or not.
The most problematic bit of your query seems to be the correlated subquery, because you must call it for every possible row.
You should optimize this first. To do so you can add indexes that the engine could use to quickly calculate that value on each row.
Based on your query I would add these two indexes multiples :
On Table trackerfeatures, index fields : trk_startdateid, datestamp
On Table trk_trackerfeatures_lk, index fields : id, trk_trackergroup_lkid
I need some help from a MS SQL Master...
Short version:
When I execute a Conditional Where followed by a Contains, my query delays 1 minute (In its normal execution, it takes 200 milliseconds).
With this query, everything works fine:
Where
Contains(table.product_name, #search_word)
But with a Conditional Where, it takes 1 minute to execute:
Where
(#ExecuteWhereStatement = 0 Or (Contains(table.product_name, #search_word))
Long Version:
I'm using a stored procedure that receives some parameters. This Stored Procedure query a really large table, but everything is indexed properly and the query goes very well so far.
The main query is a little big, so I want to make the WHERE clause more smart possible, to avoid repeat multiple times the same statement.
The whole idea of the DataBase, is a history of purchases made by the State. So this query involves 3 tables:
Table 1 (table_purchase) - The purchase itself
id_purchase int (PK)
date_purchase datetime
buyer_code int (Nullable)
Table 2 (table_purchase_product) - The Items of a Purchase
id_product int (PK)
id_purchase int (FK of table_purchase)
product_quantity int (Nullable)
product_name varchar(255) (Nullable) (Full-Text-Indexed)
product_description varchar(2000) (Nullable) (Full-Text-Indexed)
id_product_bid_winner int (FK of table_product_bid)
Table 3 (table_product_bids) - The Bids for Each product of a Purchase
id_product_bid int (PK)
id_product int (FK of table_purchase_product)
product_brand varchar(255) (Nullable) (Full-Text-Indexed)
bid_value decimal (20,6)
So basicly, We have a "Purchase", that has several "Products (or Items)", and each "Product" has some "Bids (or Prices)"
And there is the Bad Girl (The SQL Stored Procedure):
ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[procPesquisaFullText]
#search_date datetime,
#search_word varchar(8000),
#search_brand varchar(255),
#only_one_bid bit = 0,
#search_buyer_code int = 0,
#quantityFrom decimal(20,6) = 0,
#quantityTo decimal(20,6) = 0
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;
Declare #ExecuteWordSearch AS bit;
if (#uasg != 0 And #search_word = '')
begin
Set #ExecuteWordSearch = 0;
Set #search_word = 'nothing';
end
else
begin
Set #ExecuteWordSearch = 1;
end
Declare #ExecuteBrandSearch AS bit;
if (#search_brand = '')
begin
Set #ExecuteBrandSearch = 0;
Set #search_brand = 'nothing';
end
else
begin
Set #ExecuteMarcaSearch = 1;
end
begin
SELECT
pp.id_product,
pp.id_purchase,
pp.description
FROM
table_purchase_product pp
inner join table_purchase p on p.id_purchase = pp.id_purchase
WHERE
(p.date_purchase >= #search_date)
and (#search_buyer_code = 0 or (l.buyer_code = #search_buyer_code))
and (#quantityFrom = 0 or (li.product_quantity >= #QuantityFrom))
and (#quantityTo = 0 or (li.product_quantity <= #QuantityTo))
and (contains(pp.product_description, #search_word) or contains(pp.product_name, #search_word))
and (#only_one_bid = 0
or ((Select COUNT(*) From table_product_bid Where table_product_bid.id_product = pp.id_product) = 1))
and (#ExecuteBrandSearch = 0 Or (exists(
select 1
from table_product_bid ppb
where ppb.id_product_bid = pp.id_product_bid_winner
and contains(ppb.product_brand, #search_brand)
)
))
ORDER BY p.date_purchase DESC
end
END
So far, so good...
In the beginning I set two variables, used inside the query.
The first, verify if the user specified a "Buyer Code" AND didn't specify a "Search Word" (So, not the Product's description nor the Product's name is verified)
The second, verify if the user specified a "Specific Brand". If so, then the Winning Bid's BRAND is verified to match the users one.
Observation: You'll notice that when the "Search Words" is empty, I set them to "nothing". I do it because if the search term in the Contains is empty, it throws me a exception, even when it's not executed (I tested it in another query, absolutely isolated too)
As You can see, my user is able to search for:
- "Products" of Some Distinct Buyer "Purchase" (passing the #search_buyer_code parameter)
- A "Product" that contains a distinct word in its name or description
- A "Product" that has the Winner Bid of a specific Brand
- A "Product" that has only 1 bid at all
- A "Product" with a maximum and minimum quantity
And You'll notice that I used a lot of Conditions INSIDE the Where, producing a very dynamic Where, instead of using a "BIG If Else" statement, and repeating a lot of code. (I guess some "Googlers" will land here looking for Conditionally Wheres, and If so, I'm glad to help!)
Ok, so everything works veeery great at all. The query executes flawless. But here is the strange, damn, tricky issue:
If I want the user to be able to specify only a "Buyer Code" for Purchase, but No Word to Search of the Product using the code above (which is the first piece of code in the stored procedure does):
Changing from:
and (contains(pp.product_description, #search_word) or contains(pp.product_name, #search_word))
To:
and (#ExecuteWordSearch = 0 Or (contains(pp.product_description, #search_word) or contains(pp.product_name, #search_word)))
The query delays near 1 minute! (the execution is about 200 milliseconds for the query above).
But WHY??? I Use the same Logic of in all "Conditionally Wheres". I also use the same logic of having a flag/variable to indicate when execute the Where clause in the Word Search and the Brand Search, but the Brand Search works PERFECTLY! So Why, WHY only when I use the condition followed by a Contains my query delays 1 minute????
And this issue is not related with the amount of data, because I tried removing the entire Contains condition, allowing a lot of data to return, and it takes 1 second maximum...
Ow, It's a Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2.
Thanks already for You read so far!
I cannot find the documentation I had around a very similar issue, but it sounded so familiar, I at least wanted to share what I remembered. Part of the issue is that for Sql Server, the full-text search engine is separate from the regular query execution engine, and so when you mix the two, in some cases, performance can tank. This is particularly true when the condition is an 'OR' rather than and 'AND'. (I remember hitting this exact situation). Conditional ANDs worked fine. But for OR, it's as if each condition gets evaluated repeatedly row by row.
Among the workarounds, one is, as already suggested, create your sql dynamically before execution.
Another would be to break the full-text and non-full text conditions into two search functions (literally UDF's) and then do whatever is needed (INTERSECT, EXCEPT, etc) with the two resultsets.
Try changing your WHERE clause to use a CASE statement, e.g.:
WHERE
CASE
WHEN #ExecuteWhereStatement = 0 THEN 1
WHEN #ExecuteWhereStatement = 1 THEN
CASE
WHEN CONTAINS([table].product_name, #search_word) THEN 1
ELSE 0
END
END = 1;
I have an entity framework query that has this at the heart of it:
SELECT 1 AS dummy
FROM [dbo].[WidgetOrder] AS widgets
WHERE widgets.[SomeOtherOrderId] = N'SOME VALUE HERE'
The execution plan for this chooses an index that is a composite of three columns. This takes 10 to 12 seconds.
However, there is an index that is just [SomeOtherOrderId] with a few other columns in the "include". That is the index that should be used. And when I run the following queries it is used:
SELECT 1 AS dummy
FROM [dbo].[WidgetOrder] AS widgets
WHERE widgets.[SomeOtherOrderId] = CAST(N'SOME VALUE HERE' AS VARCHAR(200))
SELECT 1 AS dummy
FROM [dbo].[WidgetOrder] AS widgets
WHERE widgets.[SomeOtherOrderId] = 'SOME VALUE HERE'
This returns instantly. And it uses the index that is just SomeOtherOrderId
So, my problem is that I can't really change how Entity Framework makes the query.
Is there something I can do from an indexing point of view that could cause the correct index to be selected?
As far as I know, since version 4.0, EF doesn't generate unicode parameters for non-unicode columns. But you can always force non-unicode parameters by DbFunctions.AsNonUnicode (prior to EF6, DbFunctions is EntityFunctions):
from o in db.WidgetOrder
where o.SomeOtherOrderId == DbFunctions.AsNonUnicode(param)
select o
Try something like ....
SELECT 1 AS dummy
FROM [dbo].[WidgetOrder] AS widgets WITH (INDEX(Target_Index_Name))
WHERE widgets.[SomeOtherOrderId] = N'SOME VALUE HERE'
This query hint sql server explicitly what index to use to get resutls.
I have two tables, Hosts, and UnusedHosts. Hosts has 17 columns, and UnusedHosts has 14 columns, where the first 12 is the same as in Hosts, and the 13th is a UserName, who moved a host to UnusedHosts, and the 14th is a date, when he did it. In Hosts there is a Column Unused which is False. I want do the following. If i change in Hosts this value to True, then it should automatically removed to UnusedHosts.
How can i do this? Could someone provide some example?
P.S.: My SQL knowledge is very small, i can use only very simple selects, updates, inserts, and delete commands.
Thanks!
There's two main types of query in SQL Server - the AFTER and the INSTEAD OF. They work, much as they sound - the AFTER performs your original query, and then runs your trigger. The INSTEAD OF runs your trigger in place of the original query. You can use either in this case, though in different ways.
AFTER:
create trigger hosts_unused
on Hosts
after UPDATE
as
insert into UnusedHosts
select h.<<your_columns>>...
from Hosts h
where h.unused = 1 --Or however else you may be denoting True
delete from Hosts
where unused = 0 --Or however else you may be denoting False
GO
INSTEAD OF:
create trigger hosts_unused
on Hosts
instead of UPDATE
as
insert into UnusedHosts
select i.<<your_columns>>...
from inserted i
where i.unused = 1 --Or however else you may be denoting True
delete h
from inserted i inner join
Hosts h on i.host_id = h.host_id
where i.unused = 1 --Or however else you may be denoting True
update h
set hosts_column_1 = i.hosts_column_1,
hosts_column_2 = i.hosts_column_2,
etc
from inserted i inner join
Hosts h on i.host_id = h.host_id
where i.unused = 0 --Or however else you may be denoting False
GO
It's always important to think of performance when applying triggers. If you have a lot of updates on the Hosts table, but only a few of them are setting the unused column, then the AFTER trigger is probably going to give you better performance. The AFTER trigger also has the benefit that you can simply put in , INSERT after the after UPDATE bit, and it'll work for inserts too.
Check out Books Online on the subject.