I have to write an SELECT INTO T-SQL script for a table which has columns acc_number, history_number and note.
How do i facilitate an incremental value of history_number for each record being inserted via SELECT INTO.
Note, that the value for history_number comes off as a different value for each account from a different table.
SELECT history_number = IDENTITY(INT,1,1),
... etc...
INTO NewTable
FROM ExistingTable
WHERE ...
You could use ROW_NUMBER instead of identity i.e. ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY )
SELECT acc_number
,o.historynumber
,note
,o.historynumber+DENSE_RANK() OVER (Partition By acc_number ORDER BY Note) AS NewHistoryNumber
--Or some other order by probably a timestamp...
FROM Table t
INNER JOIN OtherTable o
ON ....
Working Fiddle
The will give you an incremented count starting from history number for each accnum. I suggest you use a better order by in the rank but there was not enough info in the question.
This answer to this question may help you as well
Question
Suppose your SELECT statement is like this
SELECT acc_number,
history_number,
note
FROM [Table]
Try this Query as below.
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY acc_number) ID,
acc_number,
history_number,
note
INTO [NewTable]
FROM [Table]
Related
I need to select 10 random rows from a table, but it has to be done in the where clause, because the query is executed using another aplication that only allows to modify this part.
I searched for a lot of solutions (select top 10, RAND(), ORDER BY NEWID(), ...), but none work in the where clause.
There an option to do that? or some kind of workaround?
Try this:
SELECT *
FROM Test
WHERE Id IN (SELECT TOP 10 Id FROM Test ORDER BY NewId())
If your table has a unique column you can do something like :
SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE PRIMARYCOLUMN IN (SELECT TOP(10) PRIMARYCOLUMN FROM TABLE ORDER BY NEWID())
I've multipe uniond statements in MSSQL Server that is very hard to find a unique column among the result.
I need to have a unique value per each row, so I've used ROW_NUMBER() function.
This result set is being copied to other place (actually a SOLR index).
In the next time I will run the same query, I need to pick only the newly added rows.
So, I need to confirm that, the newly added rows will be numbered afterward the last row_number value of the last time.
In other words, Is the ROW_NUMBER functions orders the results with the insertion order - suppose I don't adding any ORDER BY clause?
If no, (as I think), Is there any alternatives?
Thanks.
Without seeing the sql I can only give the general answer that MS Sql does not guarantee the order of select statements without an order clause so that would mean that the row_number may not be the insertion order.
I guess you can do something like this..
;WITH
cte
AS
(
SELECT * , rn = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY SomeColumn)
FROM
(
/* Your Union Queries here*/
)q
)
INSERT INTO Destination_Table
SELECT * FROM
CTE LEFT JOIN Destination_Table
ON CTE.Refrencing_Column = Destination_Table.Refrencing_Column
WHERE Destination_Table.Refrencing_Column IS NULL
I would suggest you consider 'timestamping' the row with the time it was inserted. Or adding an identity column to the table.
But what it sounds like you want to do is get current max id and then add the row_number to it.
Select col1, col2, mid + row_number() over(order by smt) id
From (
Select col1, col2, (select max(id) from tbl) mid
From query
) t
Here is the setup:
Table 1: table_1
column_id
column_12
column_13
column_14
Table 2: table_2
column_id
column_21
column_22
Select statement:
DECLARE #Variable
INT SET #Variable = 300
SELECT b.column_id,
b.column_12,
SUM(b.column_13) OVER (PARTITION BY b.column_id ORDER BY b.column_12) AS sum_column_13,
#Variable / nullif(SUM(b.column_13) OVER (PARTITION BY b.column_id ORDER BY b.column_12),0) AS divide_var,
(b.column_13*100) / nullif(b.column_14,0) AS divide_column_3
FROM dbo.table_1 b
WHERE b.column_12 IN ('AM','AJ','A-M','A-J','A','B','C','D','E','F','G','H','I','J','K','L','M','N','O','P','Q');
This works great, all the formulas are working and the correct results are shown.
b.column_id is retrieved
b.column_12 is retrieved
sum_column_13 is equal to the sum of all the column_13 values (partitioned by column_id)
divide_var is equal to a variable dived by sum_column_13
divide_column_13 is equal to column_13 divided by column_14
Now however I am trying to retrieve the #Variable from table_2, instead of it being static.
Both tables have a column_id, which could link them together. However this value is not unique.
The actual number for #Variable should come from table_2; by summing all the values of column_21 for each column_id.(Something similar sum_column_13)
I can make both things work separately, but when I try to combine them (with a JOIN, or an extra SELECT class) everything goes wild. For example when using the JOIN statement, the WHERE class is solely applied to the JOIN statement and not to the SELECT statement. How I imagine it should go is to use the column_id results from the current SELECT, then use this to retrieve the required data from table_2.
I understand my explanation is not very clear. So here is an SQLFiddle.
As you can see the variable right now comes from adding up the two values in table_2.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Here is the sample code, I've not made use of variable instead I'm using the sum of columns directly, also I've made use of CTE:
with tbl_2(col_id, col_sum) as
( select col_id, sum(column_21) col_sum from tbl_2 group by col_id)
SELECT b.column_id,
b.column_12,
SUM(b.column_13) OVER (PARTITION BY b.column_id ORDER BY b.column_12) AS sum_column_13,
col_sum / nullif(SUM(b.column_13) OVER (PARTITION BY b.column_id ORDER BY b.column_12),0) AS divide_var,
(b.column_13*100) / nullif(b.column_14,0) AS divide_column_3
FROM dbo.table_1 b
join tbl_2 on b.col_id=tbl_2.col_id
WHERE b.column_12 IN ('AM','AJ','A-M','A-J','A','B','C','D','E','F','G','H','I','J','K','L','M','N','O','P','Q');
I have a customer transaction table. I need to create a query that includes a serial number pseudo column. The serial number should be automatically reset and start over from 1 upon change in customer ID.
Now, I am familiar with the row_number() function in SQL. This doesnt exactly solve my problem because to the best of my knowledge the serial number will not be reset in case the order of the rows change.
I want to do this in a single query (SQL Server) and without having to go through any temporary table usage etc. How can this be done?
Sometime we might don't want to apply ordering on our result set to add serial number. But if we are going to use ROW_NUMBER() then we have to have a ORDER BY clause. So, for that we can simply apply a tricks to avoid any ordering on the result set.
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY (SELECT 1)) AS ItemNo, ItemName FROM ItemMastetr
For that we don't need to apply order by on our result set. We'll just add ItemNo on our given result set.
select
ROW_NUMBER() Over (Order by CustomerID) As [S.N.],
CustomerID ,
CustomerName,
Address,
City,
State,
ZipCode
from Customers;
I'm not certain, based on your question if you want numbered rows that will remember their numbers even if the underlying data changes (and gives a different ordering), but if you just want numbered rows - that reset on a change in customer ID, then try using the Partition by clause of row_number()
row_number() over(partition by CustomerID order by CustomerID)
Implementing Serial Numbers Without Ordering Any of the Columns
Demo SQL Script-
IF OBJECT_ID('Tempdb..#TestTable') IS NOT NULL
DROP TABLE #TestTable;
CREATE TABLE #TestTable (Names VARCHAR(75), Random_No INT);
INSERT INTO #TestTable (Names,Random_No) VALUES
('Animal', 363)
,('Bat', 847)
,('Cat', 655)
,('Duet', 356)
,('Eagle', 136)
,('Frog', 784)
,('Ginger', 690);
SELECT * FROM #TestTable;
There are ‘N’ methods for implementing Serial Numbers in SQL Server. Hereby, We have mentioned the Simple Row_Number Function to generate Serial Numbers.
ROW_NUMBER() Function is one of the Window Functions that numbers all rows sequentially (for example 1, 2, 3, …) It is a temporary value that will be calculated when the query is run. It must have an OVER Clause with ORDER BY. So, we cannot able to omit Order By Clause Simply. But we can use like below-
SQL Script
IF OBJECT_ID('Tempdb..#TestTable') IS NOT NULL
DROP TABLE #TestTable;
CREATE TABLE #TestTable (Names VARCHAR(75), Random_No INT);
INSERT INTO #TestTable (Names,Random_No) VALUES
('Animal', 363)
,('Bat', 847)
,('Cat', 655)
,('Duet', 356)
,('Eagle', 136)
,('Frog', 784)
,('Ginger', 690);
SELECT Names,Random_No,ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) AS SERIAL_NO FROM #TestTable;
In the Above Query, We can Also Use SELECT 1, SELECT ‘ABC’, SELECT ” Instead of SELECT NULL. The result would be Same.
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ColumnName1) As SrNo, ColumnName1, ColumnName2 FROM TableName
select ROW_NUMBER() over (order by pk_field ) as srno
from TableName
Using Common Table Expression (CTE)
WITH CTE AS(
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY CustomerId) AS RowNumber,
Customers.*
FROM Customers
)
SELECT * FROM CTE
I found one solution for MYSQL its easy to add new column for SrNo or kind of tepropery auto increment column by following this query:
SELECT #ab:=#ab+1 as SrNo, tablename.* FROM tablename, (SELECT #ab:= 0)
AS ab
ALTER function dbo.FN_ReturnNumberRows(#Start int, #End int) returns #Numbers table (Number int) as
begin
insert into #Numbers
select n = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY n)+#Start-1 from (
select top (#End-#Start+1) 1 as n from information_schema.columns as A
cross join information_schema.columns as B
cross join information_schema.columns as C
cross join information_schema.columns as D
cross join information_schema.columns as E) X
return
end
GO
select * from dbo.FN_ReturnNumberRows(10,9999)
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