I have two tables
1- Table of TestModules
TestModules
2- Table of TestModule_Results
TestModule_Results
in order to get the required information for each TestModule, I am using FULL OUTER JOIN and it works fine.
FULL OUTER JOIN result
But what is required is slightly different. The above picture shows that TestModuleID = 5 is listed twice, and the requirement is to list the 'up-to-date' results based on time 'ChangedAt'
Of course, I can do the following:
SELECT TOP 1 * FROM TestModule_Results
WHERE DeviceID = 'xxx' and TestModuleID = 'yyy'
ORDER BY ChangedAt DESC
But this solution is for a single row and I want to do it in a Stored Procedure.
Expected output should be like:
ExpectedOutput
Any advise how can I implement it in a SP?
Use a Common Table Expression and Row_Number to add a field identifying the newest results, if any, and select for just those
--NOTE: a Common Table Expression requires the previous command
--to be explicitly terminiated, prepending a ; covers that
;WITH cteTR as (
SELECT *
, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY DeviceID, TestModuleID
ORDER BY ChangedAt DESC) AS ResultOrder
FROM TestModule_Results
--cteTR is now just like TestModule_Results but has an
--additional field ResultOrder that is 1 for the newest,
--2 for the second newest, etc. for every unique (DeviceID,TestModuleID) pair
)
SELECT *
FROM TestModules as M --Use INNER JOIN to get only modules with results,
--or LEFT OUTER JOIN to include modules without any results yet
INNER JOIN cteTR as R
ON M.DeviceID = R.DeviceID AND M.TestModuleID = R.TestModuleID
WHERE R.ResultOrder = 1
-- OR R.ResultOrder IS NULL --add if Left Outer Join
You say "this solution is for a single row"? Excellent. Use CROSS APPLY and change the WHERE clause from hand-input literal to the fields of the original table. APPLY operates at row level.
SELECT *
FROM TestModules t
CROSS APPLY
(
SELECT TOP 1 * FROM TestModule_Results
WHERE TestModule_Results.DeviceID = TestModules.DeviceID -- put the connecting fields here
ORDER BY ChangedAt DESC
)tr
Related
I currently have the below query written within Query Designer. I asked a question yesterday and it worked on its own but I would like to incorporate it into my existing report.
SELECT Distinct
i.ProductNumber
,i.ProductType
,i.ProductPurchaseDate
,ih.SalesPersonComputerID
,ih.SalesPerson
,ic2.FlaggedComments
FROM [Products] i
LEFT OUTER JOIN
(SELECT Distinct
MIN(c2.Comments) AS FlaggedComments
,c2.SalesKey
FROM [SalesComment] AS c2
WHERE(c2.Comments like 'Flagged*%')
GROUP BY c2.SalesKey) ic2
ON ic2.SalesKey = i.SalesKey
LEFT JOIN [SalesHistory] AS ih
ON ih.SalesKey = i.SalesKey
WHERE
i.SaleDate between #StartDate and #StopDate
AND ih.Status = 'SOLD'
My question yesterday was that I wanted a way to select only the first comment made for each sale. I have a query for selecting the flagged comments but I want both the first row and the flagged comment. They would both be pulling from the same table. This was the query provided and it worked on its own but I cant figure out how to make it work with my existing query.
SELECT a.DateTimeCommented, a.ProductNumber, a.Comments, a.SalesKey
FROM (
SELECT
DateTimeCommented, ProductNumber, Comments, SalesKey,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY ProductNumber ORDER BY DateTimeCommented) as RowN
FROM [SalesComment]
) a
WHERE a.RowN = 1
Thank you so much for your assistance.
You can use a combination of row-numbering and aggregation to get both the Flagged% comments, and the first comment.
You may want to change the PARTITION BY clause to suit.
DISTINCT on the outer query is probably spurious, on the inner query it definitely is, as you have GROUP BY anyway. If you are getting multiple rows, don't just throw DISTINCT at it, instead think about your joins and whether you need aggregation.
The second LEFT JOIN logically becomes an INNER JOIN due to the WHERE predicate. Perhaps that predicate should have been in the ON instead?
SELECT
i.ProductNumber
,i.ProductType
,i.ProductPurchaseDate
,ih.SalesPersonComputerID
,ih.SalesPerson
,ic2.FlaggedComments
,ic2.FirstComments
FROM [Products] i
LEFT OUTER JOIN
(SELECT
MIN(CASE WHEN c2.RowN = 1 THEN c2.Comments) AS FirstComments
,c2.SalesKey
,MIN(CASE WHEN c2.Comments like 'Flagged*%' THEN c2.Comments) AS FlaggedComments
FROM (
SELECT *,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY ProductNumber ORDER BY DateTimeCommented) as RowN
FROM [SalesComment]
) AS c2
GROUP BY c2.SalesKey
) ic2 ON ic2.SalesKey = i.SalesKey
JOIN [SalesHistory] AS ih
ON ih.SalesKey = i.SalesKey
WHERE
i.SaleDate between #StartDate and #StopDate
AND ih.Status = 'SOLD'
I'm having some difficulty combining the following queries, so that the results display in one row rather than in multiple rows:
SELECT value FROM dbo.parameter WHERE name='xxxxx.name'
SELECT dbo.contest.name AS Event_Name
FROM contest
INNER JOIN open_box on open_box.contest_id = contest.id
GROUP BY dbo.contest.name
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM open_option AS total_people
SELECT SUM(scanned) AS TotalScanned,SUM(number) AS Totalnumber
FROM dbo.open_box
GROUP BY contest_id
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM open AS reff
WHERE refer = 'True'
I would like to display data from the fields in each column similar to what is shown in the image below. Any help is appreciated!
Tab's solution is fine, I just wanted to show an alternative way of doing this. The following statement uses subqueries to get the information in one row:
SELECT
[xxxx.name]=(SELECT value FROM dbo.parameter WHERE name='xxxxx.name'),
[Event Name]=(SELECT dbo.contest.name
FROM contest
INNER JOIN open_box on open_box.contest_id = contest.id
GROUP BY dbo.contest.name),
[Total People]=(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM open_option),
[Total Scanned]=(SELECT SUM(scanned)
FROM dbo.open_box
GROUP BY contest_id),
[Total Number]=(SELECT SUM(number)
FROM dbo.open_box
GROUP BY contest_id),
Ref=(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM open WHERE refer = 'True');
This requires the Total Scanned and Total Number to be queried seperately.
Update: if you then want to INSERT that into another table there are essentially two ways to do that.
Create the table directly from the SELECT statement:
SELECT
-- the fields from the first query
INTO
[database_name].[schema_name].[new_table_name]; -- creates table new_table_name
Insert into a table that already exists from the INSERT
INSERT INTO [database_name].[schema_name].[existing_table_name](
-- the fields in the existing_table_name
)
SELECT
-- the fields from the first query
Just CROSS JOIN the five queries as derived tables:
SELECT * FROM (
Query1
) AS q1
CROSS JOIN (
Query2
) AS q2
CROSS JOIN (...
Assuming that each of your individual queries only returns one row, then this CROSS JOIN should result in only one row.
I have a table on SQL Server, with the following structure:
ID int identity not null,
Name_English nvarchar(max),
Name_Spanish nvarchar(max),
Due to migrations, the current data on the table looks something like this:
ID Name_English Name_Spanish
1 'Architecture' null
2 null 'Arquitectura'
3 'Music' null
4 'Sculpture' null
5 null 'Música'
6 null 'Escultura'
I would like to merge them, so that they look this way:
ID Name_English Name_Spanish
1 'Architecture' 'Arquitectura'
3 'Music' 'Música'
4 'Sculpture' 'Escultura'
The exact ID is not important, but it is used for the order (that's why Architecture shouldn't get merged with Música). Also, they're not guaranteed to be alternating one by one. The original data was updated in blocks.
I was thinking of using MERGE and sorting by ROW_NUMBER(), but I don't quite know how to create the query using them.
Here's a revised query based on the updated sample data. As proposed, this does leverage ROW_NUMBER().
We start with the full table, inner joining to all the English words sorted, then outer join to all the Spanish words sorted in the proper order. Note that we join from the main YourTable to the EnglishSorted based on the original ID, then use the ROW_NUMBER() to join up the EnglishSorted and SpanishSorted sets. This lets us ultimately update all the English rows to get the corresponding Spanish row's Name_Spanish data.
Finally, we run the DELETE statement to wipe out all the original Spanish rows, as they are now redundant.
UPDATE
YourTable
SET
Name_Spanish = SpanishSorted.Name_Spanish
FROM
YourTable
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY [YourTable].[ID] ASC) AS [TempID],
YourTable.[ID],
YourTable.Name_English
FROM
YourTable
WHERE
YourTable.Name_English IS NOT NULL
) EnglishSorted ON YourTable.[ID] = EnglishSorted.[ID]
LEFT OUTER JOIN
(
SELECT
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY [YourTable].[ID] ASC) AS [TempID],
YourTable.[ID],
YourTable.Name_Spanish
FROM
YourTable
WHERE
YourTable.Name_Spanish IS NOT NULL
) SpanishSorted ON EnglishSorted.[TempID] = SpanishSorted.[TempID]
;
DELETE YourTable WHERE YourTable.Name_English IS NULL;
SELECT * FROM YourTable;
This is available as a fiddle to play with.
The following is the original answer, which just leverages the "every other" structure of the original question sample date. I'm leaving it here so the comments below make sense.
I don't think you need MERGE or to utilize ROW_NUMBER() here. Given your sample data...
UPDATE
EnglishOnly
SET
EnglishOnly.Name_Spanish = SpanishOnly.Name_Spanish
FROM
YourTable EnglishOnly
LEFT OUTER JOIN YourTable SpanishOnly ON EnglishOnly.[ID] + 1 = SpanishOnly.[ID]
WHERE
EnglishOnly.Name_English IS NOT NULL
To remove the redundant rows...
DELETE Your_Table WHERE YourTable.Name_English IS NULL;
I have a CTE query filtering a table Student
Student
(
StudentId PK,
FirstName ,
LastName,
GenderId,
ExperienceId,
NationalityId,
CityId
)
Based on a lot filters (multiple cities, gender, multiple experiences (1, 2, 3), multiple nationalites), I create a CTE by using dynamic sql and joining the student table with a user defined tables (CityTable, NationalityTable,...)
After that I have to retrieve the count of student by each filter like
CityId City Count
NationalityId Nationality Count
Same thing the other filter.
Can I do something like
;With CTE(
Select
FROM Student
Inner JOIN ...
INNER JOIN ....)
SELECT CityId,City,Count(studentId)
FROm CTE
GROUP BY CityId,City
SELECT GenderId,Gender,Count
FROM CTE
GROUP BY GenderId,Gender
I want to something like what LinkedIn is doing with search(people search,job search)
http://www.linkedin.com/search/fpsearch?type=people&keywords=sales+manager&pplSearchOrigin=GLHD&pageKey=member-home
It's so fast and do the same thing.
You can not use multiple select but you can use more than one CTE like this.
WITH CTEA
AS
(
SELECT 'Coulmn1' A,'Coulmn2' B
),
CETB
AS
(
SELECT 'CoulmnX' X,'CoulmnY' Y
)
SELECT * FROM CTEA, CETB
For getting count use RowNumber and CTE some think like this.
ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( ORDER BY COLUMN NAME )AS RowNumber,
Count(1) OVER() AS TotalRecordsFound
Please let me know if you need more information on this.
Sample for your reference.
With CTE AS (
Select StudentId, S.CityId, S.GenderId
FROM Student S
Inner JOIN CITY C
ON S.CityId = C.CityId
INNER JOIN GENDER G
ON S.GenderId = G.GenderId)
,
GENDER
AS
(
SELECT GenderId
FROM CTE
GROUP BY GenderId
)
SELECT * FROM GENDER, CTE
It is not possible to get multiple result sets from a single CTE.
You can however use a table variable to cache some of the information and use it later instead of issuing the same complex query multiple times:
declare #relevantStudent table (StudentID int);
insert into #relevantStudent
select s.StudentID from Students s
join ...
where ...
-- now issue the multiple queries
select s.GenderID, count(*)
from student s
join #relevantStudent r on r.StudentID = s.StudentID
group by s.GenderID
select s.CityID, count(*)
from student s
join #relevantStudent r on r.StudentID = s.StudentID
group by s.CityID
The trick is to store only the minimum required information in the table variable.
As with any query whether this will actually improve performance vs. issuing the queries independently depends on many things (how big the table variable data set is, how complex is the query used to populate it and how complex are the subsequent joins/subselects against the table variable, etc.).
Do a UNION ALL to do multiple SELECT and concatenate the results together into one table.
;WITH CTE AS(
SELECT
FROM Student
INNER JOIN ...
INNER JOIN ....)
SELECT CityId,City,Count(studentId),NULL,NULL
FROM CTE
GROUP BY CityId,City
UNION ALL
SELECT NULL,NULL,NULL,GenderId,Gender,Count
FROM CTE
GROUP BY GenderId,Gender
Note: The NULL values above just allow the two results to have matching columns, so the results can be concatenated.
I know this is a very old question, but here's a solution I just used. I have a stored procedure that returns a PAGE of search results, and I also need it to return the total count matching the query parameters.
WITH results AS (...complicated foo here...)
SELECT results.*,
CASE
WHEN #page=0 THEN (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM results)
ELSE -1
END AS totalCount
FROM results
ORDER BY bar
OFFSET #page * #pageSize ROWS FETCH NEXT #pageSize ROWS ONLY;
With this approach, there's a small "hit" on the first results page to get the count, and for the remaining pages, I pass back "-1" to avoid the hit (I assume the number of results won't change during the user session). Even though totalCount is returned for every row of the first page of results, it's only computed once.
My CTE is doing a bunch of filtering based on stored procedure arguments, so I couldn't just move it to a view and query it twice. This approach allows avoid having to duplicate the CTE's logic just to get a count.
I'm working with SQL Server 2005.
My query is:
SELECT (
SELECT COUNT(1) FROM Seanslar WHERE MONTH(tarihi) = 4
GROUP BY refKlinik_id
ORDER BY refKlinik_id
) as dorduncuay
And the error:
The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived
tables, subqueries, and common table expressions, unless TOP or FOR
XML is also specified.
How can I use ORDER BY in a sub query?
This is the error you get (emphasis mine):
The ORDER BY clause is invalid in
views, inline functions, derived
tables, subqueries, and common table
expressions, unless TOP or FOR XML is
also specified.
So, how can you avoid the error? By specifying TOP, would be one possibility, I guess.
SELECT (
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT
COUNT(1) FROM Seanslar WHERE MONTH(tarihi) = 4
GROUP BY refKlinik_id
ORDER BY refKlinik_id
) as dorduncuay
If you're working with SQL Server 2012 or later, this is now easy to fix. Add an offset 0 rows:
SELECT (
SELECT
COUNT(1) FROM Seanslar WHERE MONTH(tarihi) = 4
GROUP BY refKlinik_id
ORDER BY refKlinik_id OFFSET 0 ROWS
) as dorduncuay
Besides the fact that order by doesn't seem to make sense in your query....
To use order by in a sub select you will need to use TOP 2147483647.
SELECT (
SELECT TOP 2147483647
COUNT(1) FROM Seanslar WHERE MONTH(tarihi) = 4
GROUP BY refKlinik_id
ORDER BY refKlinik_id
) as dorduncuay
My understanding is that "TOP 100 PERCENT" doesn't gurantee ordering anymore starting with SQL 2005:
In SQL Server 2005, the ORDER BY
clause in a view definition is used
only to determine the rows that are
returned by the TOP clause. The ORDER
BY clause does not guarantee ordered
results when the view is queried,
unless ORDER BY is also specified in
the query itself.
See SQL Server 2005 breaking changes
Hope this helps,
Patrick
If building a temp table, move the ORDER BY clause from inside the temp table code block to the outside.
Not allowed:
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT A FROM Y
ORDER BY Y.A
) X;
Allowed:
SELECT * FROM (
SELECT A FROM Y
) X
ORDER BY X.A;
You don't need order by in your sub query. Move it out into the main query, and include the column you want to order by in the subquery.
however, your query is just returning a count, so I don't see the point of the order by.
A subquery (nested view) as you have it returns a dataset that you can then order in your calling query. Ordering the subquery itself will make no (reliable) difference to the order of the results in your calling query.
As for your SQL itself:
a) I seen no reason for an order by as you are returning a single value.
b) I see no reason for the sub query anyway as you are only returning a single value.
I'm guessing there is a lot more information here that you might want to tell us in order to fix the problem you have.
Add the Top command to your sub query...
SELECT
(
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT
COUNT(1)
FROM
Seanslar
WHERE
MONTH(tarihi) = 4
GROUP BY
refKlinik_id
ORDER BY
refKlinik_id
) as dorduncuay
:)
maybe this trick will help somebody
SELECT
[id],
[code],
[created_at]
FROM
( SELECT
[id],
[code],
[created_at],
(ROW_NUMBER() OVER (
ORDER BY
created_at DESC)) AS Row
FROM
[Code_tbl]
WHERE
[created_at] BETWEEN '2009-11-17 00:00:01' AND '2010-11-17 23:59:59'
) Rows
WHERE
Row BETWEEN 10 AND 20;
here inner subquery ordered by field created_at (could be any from your table)
In this example ordering adds no information - the COUNT of a set is the same whatever order it is in!
If you were selecting something that did depend on order, you would need to do one of the things the error message tells you - use TOP or FOR XML
Try moving the order by clause outside sub select and add the order by field in sub select
SELECT * FROM
(SELECT COUNT(1) ,refKlinik_id FROM Seanslar WHERE MONTH(tarihi) = 4 GROUP BY refKlinik_id)
as dorduncuay
ORDER BY refKlinik_id
For me this solution works fine as well:
SELECT tbl.a, tbl.b
FROM (SELECT TOP (select count(1) FROM yourtable) a,b FROM yourtable order by a) tbl
Good day
for some guys the order by in the sub-query is questionable.
the order by in sub-query is a must to use if you need to delete some records based on some sorting.
like
delete from someTable Where ID in (select top(1) from sometable where condition order by insertionstamp desc)
so that you can delete the last insertion form table.
there are three way to do this deletion actually.
however, the order by in the sub-query can be used in many cases.
for the deletion methods that uses order by in sub-query review below link
http://web.archive.org/web/20100212155407/http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlcat/archive/2009/05/21/fast-ordered-delete.aspx
i hope it helps. thanks you all
For a simple count like the OP is showing, the Order by isn't strictly needed. If they are using the result of the subquery, it may be. I am working on a similiar issue and got the same error in the following query:
-- I want the rows from the cost table with an updateddate equal to the max updateddate:
SELECT * FROM #Costs Cost
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT Entityname, costtype, MAX(updatedtime) MaxUpdatedTime
FROM #HoldCosts cost
GROUP BY Entityname, costtype
ORDER BY Entityname, costtype -- *** This causes an error***
) CostsMax
ON Costs.Entityname = CostsMax.entityname
AND Costs.Costtype = CostsMax.Costtype
AND Costs.UpdatedTime = CostsMax.MaxUpdatedtime
ORDER BY Costs.Entityname, Costs.costtype
-- *** To accomplish this, there are a few options:
-- Add an extraneous TOP clause, This seems like a bit of a hack:
SELECT * FROM #Costs Cost
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT TOP 99.999999 PERCENT Entityname, costtype, MAX(updatedtime) MaxUpdatedTime
FROM #HoldCosts cost
GROUP BY Entityname, costtype
ORDER BY Entityname, costtype
) CostsMax
ON Costs.Entityname = CostsMax.entityname
AND Costs.Costtype = CostsMax.Costtype
AND Costs.UpdatedTime = CostsMax.MaxUpdatedtime
ORDER BY Costs.Entityname, Costs.costtype
-- **** Create a temp table to order the maxCost
SELECT Entityname, costtype, MAX(updatedtime) MaxUpdatedTime
INTO #MaxCost
FROM #HoldCosts cost
GROUP BY Entityname, costtype
ORDER BY Entityname, costtype
SELECT * FROM #Costs Cost
INNER JOIN #MaxCost CostsMax
ON Costs.Entityname = CostsMax.entityname
AND Costs.Costtype = CostsMax.Costtype
AND Costs.UpdatedTime = CostsMax.MaxUpdatedtime
ORDER BY Costs.Entityname, costs.costtype
Other possible workarounds could be CTE's or table variables. But each situation requires you to determine what works best for you. I tend to look first towards a temp table. To me, it is clear and straightforward. YMMV.
On possible needs to order a subquery is when you have a UNION :
You generate a call book of all teachers and students.
SELECT name, phone FROM teachers
UNION
SELECT name, phone FROM students
You want to display it with all teachers first, followed by all students, both ordered by. So you cant apply a global order by.
One solution is to include a key to force a first order by, and then order the names :
SELECT name, phone, 1 AS orderkey FROM teachers
UNION
SELECT name, phone, 2 AS orderkey FROM students
ORDER BY orderkey, name
I think its way more clear than fake offsetting subquery result.
I Use This Code To Get Top Second Salary
I am Also Get Error Like
The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived tables, subqueries, and common table expressions, unless TOP or FOR XML is also specified.
TOP 100 I Used To Avoid The Error
select * from (
select tbl.Coloumn1 ,CONVERT(varchar, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 1))) AS Rowno from (
select top 100 * from Table1
order by Coloumn1 desc) as tbl) as tbl where tbl.Rowno=2