I have a number of queries that are run at the same time but now I want the result to populate a permanent table that I've created.
Each of the queries will have a column called 'Descript' which is what I want all the results to join to so i want to make sure that if the Descript column is out of order (or null) on one of the queries it will link the figures to the correct Descript.
I performed an INTO after the end of each query being run but this didn't work.
The first level of data went in but the second level just went underneath the first (if that makes sense) creating more rows.
INSERT INTO dbo.RESULTTABLE (Descript, Category, DescriptCount)
SELECT Descript, Category, DescriptCount
FROM #Query1
I have around 15 queries to join into 1 table so any help to understand the logic is appreciated.
Thanks
If I understood your question clearly, you want to insert query results which is not stored in the Temptable and update already existing records in the table.
update R set Category = Q.Category, DescriptCount = Q.DescriptCount,
from #ResultTable R inner join #Query1 Q ON R.Descript = Q.Descript
INSERT INTO dbo.RESULTTABLE (Descript, Category, DescriptCount)
SELECT Descript, Category, DescriptCount FROM #Query1 where Descript NOT IN (select Descript from #ResultTable)
Then you can process the same approach for other queries.
Related
I need to clean up some observations in a table that are inaccurate prior to joining to the after mentioned table, this will avoid duplicate observation output.
I validated that the max(date_value) removes the 9K inaccurate transactions ..... newer transaction were completed which fixed the problem.
The code below, without into #temp, fixes the issue but as soon as I add a temp table, I get a syntax error will not execute, I need like 20 variables out of the table and really don't feel like listing them all, must be a simple syntax or alternative method.
SELECT * INTO #temp FROM db.dbo.table WHERE MAX(date_value);
SELECT a.* INTO #temp
FROM table a
inner join (select id, max(created_at) as max_created
from db.table
group by id) b
on a.id = b.id
I've created a query from a fairly large database.
At the moment each single procedure undertaken by an employee appears as 3 identical timed rows Each row informs the site where procedure occurred, equipment part used and whether day or night.
I want to combine the rows with matching name and time together to create a single row containing all the other fields.
I then want to be able to create a log for the employee to show how many of each procedure has been undertaken and the site and technique used.
I figure an inner join may be the best way to do this but would be grateful for further help as to how to set this up on a sub-query.
Current query:
SELECT procedure, employee, chart_time, form,
FROM cust.records
WHERE employeeID IN () AND procedurelabel LIKE 'rad1'
Really appreciate the help
Your question could use a little clarification... not least being the DDL for your table and a few notes on what each column is. Nonetheless, assuming these rows are all in the cust.records table and that each set of 3 rows have a unique combination of name and time, you could do something like this...
SELECT -- first select fields common to all rows... may as well take these from the first table
records1.procedure, records1.employee, records1.chart_time,
-- ... then select records from your joins
records2.some_column,
records3.some_column
FROM cust.records records1
INNER JOIN WHERE cust.records records2 on records1.chart_time = records2.chart_time
and records1.procedure = record2.procedure
and records1.employee = records2.employee
-- Possible condition required here to not join this row to itself
-- or to explicitly join to a specific type of row
INNER JOIN WHERE cust.records records3 on records1.chart_time = records3.chart_time
and records1.procedure = record3.procedure
and records1.employee = records3.employee
-- Possible condition required here to not join this row to itself
-- or to explicitly join to a specific type of row
WHERE employeeID IN ()
AND procedurelabel LIKE 'rad1'
-- Possible condition required here specify the row to select for records1.
Might also be worth considering a table re-design since what you've described doesn't sound normalised.
I have an insert Query and inserting data using SELECT query and certain joins between tables.
While running that query, it is giving error "String or binary data would be truncated".
There are thousands of rows and multiple columns I am trying to insert in that table.
So it is not possible to visualize all data and see what data is throwing this error.
Is there any specific way to identify which column is throwing this error? or any specific record not getting inserted properly and resulted into this error?
I found one article on this:
RareSQL
But this is when we insert data using some values and that insert is one by one.
I am inserting multiple rows at the same time using SELECT statements.
E.g.,
INSERT INTO TABLE1 VALUES (COLUMN1, COLUMN2,..) SELECT COLUMN1, COLUMN2,.., FROM TABLE2 JOIN TABLE3
Also, in my case, I am having multiple inserts and update statements and even not sure which statement is throwing this error.
You can do a selection like this:
select TABLE2.ID, TABLE3.ID TABLE1.COLUMN1, TABLE1.COLUMN2, ...
FROM TABLE2
JOIN TABLE3
ON TABLE2.JOINCOLUMN1 = TABLE3.JOINCOLUMN2
LEFT JOIN TABLE1
ON TABLE1.COLUMN1 = TABLE2.COLUMN1 and TABLE1.COLUMN2 = TABLE2.COLUMN2, ...
WHERE TABLE1.ID = NULL
The first join reproduces the selection you have been using for the insert and the second join is a left join, which will yield null values for TABLE1 if a row having the exact column values you wanted to insert does not exist. You can apply this logic to your other queries, which were not given in the question.
You might just have to do it the hard way. To make it a little simpler, you can do this
Temporarily remove the insert command from the query, so you are getting a result set out of it. You might need to give some of the columns aliases if they don't come with one. Then wrap that select query as a subquery, and test likely columns (nvarchars, etc) like this
Select top 5 len(Col1), *
from (Select col1, col2, ... your query (without insert) here) A
Order by 1 desc
This will sort the rows with the largest values in the specified column first and just return the rows with the top 5 values - enough to see if you've got a big problem or just one or two rows with an issue. You can quickly change which column you're checking simply by changing the column name in the len(Col1) part of the first line.
If the subquery takes a long time to run, create a temp table with the same columns but with the string sizes large (like varchar(max) or something) so there are no errors, and then you can do the insert just once to that table, and run your tests on that table instead of running the subquery a lot
From this answer,
you can use temp table and compare with target table.
for example this
Insert into dbo.MyTable (columns)
Select columns
from MyDataSource ;
Become this
Select columns
into #T
from MyDataSource;
select *
from tempdb.sys.columns as TempCols
full outer join MyDb.sys.columns as RealCols
on TempCols.name = RealCols.name
and TempCols.object_id = Object_ID(N'tempdb..#T')
and RealCols.object_id = Object_ID(N'MyDb.dbo.MyTable)
where TempCols.name is null -- no match for real target name
or RealCols.name is null -- no match for temp target name
or RealCols.system_type_id != TempCols.system_type_id
or RealCols.max_length < TempCols.max_length ;
I have a SQL query looking something like this:
WITH RES_CTE AS
(SELECT
COLUMN1,
COLUMN2,
[MORE COLUMNS...]
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY R.RANKING DESC) AS RowNum
FROM TABLE1 As R, TABLE2 As A, TABLE3 As U, TABLE4 As S, TABLE5 As T
WHERE R.RID = A.LID
AND S.QRYID = R.QRYID
AND A.AID = U.AID
AND CONDITION1 = 'VALUE'
AND CONDITION2 = 'VALUE'
AND [MORE CONDITIONS...]
),
Results_Cnt AS
(SELECT COUNT(*) CNT FROM Results_CTE)
SELECT * FROM Results_CTE, Results_Cnt WHERE RowNum >= 1 AND RowNum <= 25
Now, this query typically runs under 1 sec and returns the 25 records out of 5000 based on CONDITION1.
Recently though, I added a new column to a TABLE1 and then use its values as a CONDITION2 in the query above. The column is populated going forward but all the values in the past are NULL.
I read something above joining table that have NULL being a reason for slow execution. The table has about 1,300,000 records. 90% of them are NULL in the problematic column. But that column is not being joined on. (The one that is being joined on has an INDEX)
However, I wanted to try that anyway by creating a new column and simply copying the data like so:
ALTER TABLE TABLE1 ADD COL_NEW
UPDATE TABLE1 SET COL_NEW = COL_OLD
My next step was to replace the NULLs with an actual value but first, just for kicks, I changed the query to use as a condition the new field COL_NEW, and the problem went away.
Although I'm happy the problem is gone, I can't explain it to myself. Why was the execution slow in the first place if it had nothing to do with the NULLs?
UPDATE: It appears the problem may have resulted from a cached query plan. So the question essentially becomes, how to force a query plan refresh?
UPDATE: Although doing ALTER TABLE may have refreshed the execution plan, the problem returned. How can I find out what is happening?
It sounds like your query plan got cached while the stats for the new column showed it completely full of nulls, forcing a table scan. Following the ALTER TABLE the query plan was refreshed, replcing the table scan with an index lookujp again, and performance returned to normal.
The only way to know for sure if that is what happened would be to examine the query plans for both queries, but those are long gone now.
Hello I'm struggling to get the query below right. What I want is to return rows with unique names and surnames. What I get is all rows with duplicates
This is my sql
DECLARE #tmp AS TABLE (Name VARCHAR(100), Surname VARCHAR(100))
INSERT INTO #tmp
SELECT CustomerName,CustomerSurname FROM Customers
WHERE
NOT EXISTS
(SELECT Name,Surname
FROM #tmp
WHERE Name=CustomerName
AND ID Surname=CustomerSurname
GROUP BY Name,Surname )
Please can someone point me in the right direction here.
//Desperate (I tried without GROUP BY as well but get same result)
DISTINCT would do the trick.
SELECT DISTINCT CustomerName, CustomerSurname
FROM Customers
Demo
If you only want the records that really don't have duplicates (as opposed to getting duplicates represented as a single record) you could use GROUP BY and HAVING:
SELECT CustomerName, CustomerSurname
FROM Customers
GROUP BY CustomerName, CustomerSurname
HAVING COUNT(*) = 1
Demo
First, I thought that #David answer is what you want. But rereading your comments, perhaps you want all combinations of Names and Surnames:
SELECT n.CustomerName, s.CustomerSurname
FROM
( SELECT DISTINCT CustomerName
FROM Customers
) AS n
CROSS JOIN
( SELECT DISTINCT CustomerSurname
FROM Customers
) AS s ;
Are you doing that while your #Tmp table is still empty?
If so: your entire "select" is fully evaluated before the "insert" statement, it doesn't do "run the query and add one row, insert the row, run the query and get another row, insert the row, etc."
If you want to insert unique Customers only, use that same "Customer" table in your not exists clause
SELECT c.CustomerName,c.CustomerSurname FROM Customers c
WHERE
NOT EXISTS
(SELECT 1
FROM Customers c1
WHERE c.CustomerName = c1.CustomerName
AND c.CustomerSurname = c1.CustomerSurname
AND c.Id <> c1.Id)
If you want to insert a unique set of customers, use "distinct"
Typically, if you're doing a WHERE NOT EXISTS or WHERE EXISTS, or WHERE NOT IN subquery,
you should use what is called a "correlated subquery", as in ypercube's answer above, where table aliases are used for both inside and outside tables (where inside table is joined to outside table). ypercube gave a good example.
And often, NOT EXISTS is preferred over NOT IN (unless the WHERE NOT IN is selecting from a totally unrelated table that you can't join on.)
Sometimes if you're tempted to do a WHERE EXISTS (SELECT from a small table with no duplicate values in column), you could also do the same thing by joining the main query with that table on the column you want in the EXISTS. Not always the best or safest solution, might make query slower if there are many rows in that table and could cause many duplicate rows if there are dup values for that column in the joined table -- in which case you'd have to add DISTINCT to the main query, which causes it to SORT the data on all columns.
-- Not efficient at all.
And, similarly, the WHERE NOT IN or NOT EXISTS correlated subqueries can be accomplished (and give the exact same execution plan) if you LEFT OUTER JOIN the table you were going to subquery -- and add a WHERE . IS NULL.
You have to be careful using that, but you don't need a DISTINCT. Frankly, I prefer to use the WHERE NOT IN subqueries or NOT EXISTS correlated subqueries, because the syntax makes the intention clear and it's hard to go wrong.
And you do not need a DISTINCT in the SELECT inside such subqueries (correlated or not). It would be a waste of processing (and for WHERE EXISTS or WHERE IN subqueries, the SQL optimizer would ignore it anyway and just use the first value that matched for each row in the outer query). (Hope that makes sense.)