I have two tables called 'teacher' and 'courses'. Table 'teachers' has four columns i.e. teacher_id, teacher_name, teacher_work_hours and course_id. Table 'courses' has two columns i.e. course_id and course_name. I want to select two columns from table 'teacher' and count the number of instances in table 'courses' for which teacher.course_id = course.course_id. The query should discard the rows where the count() for table course is zero i.e. the the rows for which count() is zero should not show up in the resultset. How do I do that?
I have this query.
select t.teacher_name, t.teacher_work_hours, (select count(*)
from course where course_id = t.course_id
having count(*) > 0) as COURSES
from teacher t
where teacher_work_hours > 5
AND COURSES IS NOT NULL
The query is incorrect as it doesn't let me put IS NOT NULL operator on COURSES.
ROLES is a table rather than a column, and anyway it only appears within the subquery. Would this not make more sense? (This still won't work, because you can't use the alias in the WHERE clause, but it is closer to making sense.)
SELECT name, class, (SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM xyz
-- HAVING COUNT(*) > 0
-- Doesn't make sense without a GROUP BY
) AS ROLES
FROM abc
WHERE class > 5
AND ROLES IS NOT NULL
I don't think this is what you actually want to do, though, because the subquery doesn't depend upon the current row of abc. You probably need to change the query to use a join and a GROUP BY instead of a subquery.
Query is not clear. But I just wanted to share the following query for your reference. Please do check the query whether it is useful...
SELECT class, ROLES.Total
FROM abc
CROSS APPLY
(SELECT COUNT(*) AS Total FROM xyz WHERE abc.class = xyz.class) ROLES
WHERE class > 5
Related
I run the following query:
SELECT
orderdetails.sku,
orderdetails.mf_item_number,
orderdetails.qty,
orderdetails.price,
supplier.supplierid,
supplier.suppliername,
supplier.dropshipfees,
cost = (SELECT supplier_item.price
FROM supplier_item,
orderdetails,
supplier
WHERE supplier_item.sku = orderdetails.sku
AND supplier_item.supplierid = supplier.supplierid)
FROM orderdetails,
supplier,
group_master
WHERE invoiceid = '339740'
AND orderdetails.mfr_id = supplier.supplierid
AND group_master.sku = orderdetails.sku
I get the following error:
Msg 512, Level 16, State 1, Line 2
Subquery returned more than 1 value. This is not permitted when the subquery follows =, !=, <, <= , >, >= or when the subquery is used as an expression.
Any ideas?
Try this:
SELECT
od.Sku,
od.mf_item_number,
od.Qty,
od.Price,
s.SupplierId,
s.SupplierName,
s.DropShipFees,
si.Price as cost
FROM
OrderDetails od
INNER JOIN Supplier s on s.SupplierId = od.Mfr_ID
INNER JOIN Group_Master gm on gm.Sku = od.Sku
INNER JOIN Supplier_Item si on si.SKU = od.Sku and si.SupplierId = s.SupplierID
WHERE
od.invoiceid = '339740'
This will return multiple rows that are identical except for the cost column. Look at the different cost values that are returned and figure out what is causing the different values. Then ask somebody which cost value they want, and add the criteria to the query that will select that cost.
Check to see if there are any triggers on the table you are trying to execute queries against. They can sometimes throw this error as they are trying to run the update/select/insert trigger that is on the table.
You can modify your query to disable then enable the trigger if the trigger DOES NOT need to be executed for whatever query you are trying to run.
ALTER TABLE your_table DISABLE TRIGGER [the_trigger_name]
UPDATE your_table
SET Gender = 'Female'
WHERE (Gender = 'Male')
ALTER TABLE your_table ENABLE TRIGGER [the_trigger_name]
SELECT COLUMN
FROM TABLE
WHERE columns_name
IN ( SELECT COLUMN FROM TABLE WHERE columns_name = 'value');
note: when we are using sub-query we must focus on these points:
if our sub query returns 1 value in this case we need to use (=,!=,<>,<,>....)
else (more than one value), in this case we need to use (in, any, all, some )
cost = Select Supplier_Item.Price from Supplier_Item,orderdetails,Supplier
where Supplier_Item.SKU=OrderDetails.Sku and
Supplier_Item.SupplierId=Supplier.SupplierID
This subquery returns multiple values, SQL is complaining because it can't assign multiple values to cost in a single record.
Some ideas:
Fix the data such that the existing subquery returns only 1 record
Fix the subquery such that it only returns one record
Add a top 1 and order by to the subquery (nasty solution that DBAs hate - but it "works")
Use a user defined function to concatenate the results of the subquery into a single string
The fix is to stop using correlated subqueries and use joins instead. Correlated subqueries are essentially cursors as they cause the query to run row-by-row and should be avoided.
You may need a derived table in the join in order to get the value you want in the field if you want only one record to match, if you need both values then the ordinary join will do that but you will get multiple records for the same id in the results set. If you only want one, you need to decide which one and do that in the code, you could use a top 1 with an order by, you could use max(), you could use min(), etc, depending on what your real requirement for the data is.
I had the same problem , I used in instead of = , from the Northwind database example :
Query is : Find the Companies that placed orders in 1997
Try this :
SELECT CompanyName
FROM Customers
WHERE CustomerID IN (
SELECT CustomerID
FROM Orders
WHERE YEAR(OrderDate) = '1997'
);
Instead of that :
SELECT CompanyName
FROM Customers
WHERE CustomerID =
(
SELECT CustomerID
FROM Orders
WHERE YEAR(OrderDate) = '1997'
);
Either your data is bad, or it's not structured the way you think it is. Possibly both.
To prove/disprove this hypothesis, run this query:
SELECT * from
(
SELECT count(*) as c, Supplier_Item.SKU
FROM Supplier_Item
INNER JOIN orderdetails
ON Supplier_Item.sku = orderdetails.sku
INNER JOIN Supplier
ON Supplier_item.supplierID = Supplier.SupplierID
GROUP BY Supplier_Item.SKU
) x
WHERE c > 1
ORDER BY c DESC
If this returns just a few rows, then your data is bad. If it returns lots of rows, then your data is not structured the way you think it is. (If it returns zero rows, I'm wrong.)
I'm guessing that you have orders containing the same SKU multiple times (two separate line items, both ordering the same SKU).
The select statement in the cost part of your select is returning more than one value. You need to add more where clauses, or use an aggregation.
The error implies that this subquery is returning more than 1 row:
(Select Supplier_Item.Price from Supplier_Item,orderdetails,Supplier where Supplier_Item.SKU=OrderDetails.Sku and Supplier_Item.SupplierId=Supplier.SupplierID )
You probably don't want to include the orderdetails and supplier tables in the subquery, because you want to reference the values selected from those tables in the outer query. So I think you want the subquery to be simply:
(Select Supplier_Item.Price from Supplier_Item where Supplier_Item.SKU=OrderDetails.Sku and Supplier_Item.SupplierId=Supplier.SupplierID )
I suggest you read up on correlated vs. non-correlated subqueries.
As others have suggested, the best way to do this is to use a join instead of variable assignment. Re-writing your query to use a join (and using the explicit join syntax instead of the implicit join, which was also suggested--and is the best practice), you would get something like this:
select
OrderDetails.Sku,
OrderDetails.mf_item_number,
OrderDetails.Qty,
OrderDetails.Price,
Supplier.SupplierId,
Supplier.SupplierName,
Supplier.DropShipFees,
Supplier_Item.Price as cost
from
OrderDetails
join Supplier on OrderDetails.Mfr_ID = Supplier.SupplierId
join Group_Master on Group_Master.Sku = OrderDetails.Sku
join Supplier_Item on
Supplier_Item.SKU=OrderDetails.Sku and Supplier_Item.SupplierId=Supplier.SupplierID
where
invoiceid='339740'
Even after 9 years of the original post, this helped me.
If you are receiving these types of errors without any clue, there should be a trigger, function related to the table, and obviously it should end up with an SP, or function with selecting/filtering data NOT USING Primary Unique column. If you are searching/filtering using the Primary Unique column there won't be any multiple results. Especially when you are assigning value for a declared variable. The SP never gives you en error but only an runtime error.
"System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException (0x80131904): Subquery returned more than 1 value. This is not permitted when the subquery follows =, !=, <, <= , >, >= or when the subquery is used as an expression.
The statement has been terminated."
In my case obviously there was no clue, but only this error message. There was a trigger connected to the table and the table updating by the trigger also had another trigger likewise it ended up with two triggers and in the end with an SP. The SP was having a select clause which was resulting in multiple rows.
SET #Variable1 =(
SELECT column_gonna_asign
FROM dbo.your_db
WHERE Non_primary_non_unique_key= #Variable2
If this returns multiple rows, you are in trouble.
I have SQL statement which takes really a lot of time to execute and I really had to improve it somehow.
select * from table where ID=1 and GROUP in
(select group from groupteam where
department= 'marketing' )
My question is if I should create index on columns ID and GROUP would it help?
Or if not should I create index on second table on column DEPARTMENT?
Or I should create two indexes for both tables?
First table has 249003.
Second table has in total 900 rows while query in that table returns only 2 rows.
That is why I am surprised that response is so slow.
Thank you
You can also use EXISTS, depending on your database like so:
select * from table t
where id = 1
and exists (
select 1 from groupteam
where department = 'marketing'
and group = t.group
)
Create a composite index on individual indexes on groupteam's department and group
Create a composite index or individual indexes on table's id and group
Do an explain/analyze depending on your database to review how indexes are being used by your database engine.
Try a join instead:
select * from table t
JOIN groupteam gt
ON d.group = gt.group
where ID=1 AND gt.department= 'marketing'
Index on table group and id column and table groupteam group column would help too.
I need to retrieve all rows from a table where 2 columns combined are all different. So I want all the sales that do not have any other sales that happened on the same day for the same price. The sales that are unique based on day and price will get updated to an active status.
So I'm thinking:
UPDATE sales
SET status = 'ACTIVE'
WHERE id IN (SELECT DISTINCT (saleprice, saledate), id, count(id)
FROM sales
HAVING count = 1)
But my brain hurts going any farther than that.
SELECT DISTINCT a,b,c FROM t
is roughly equivalent to:
SELECT a,b,c FROM t GROUP BY a,b,c
It's a good idea to get used to the GROUP BY syntax, as it's more powerful.
For your query, I'd do it like this:
UPDATE sales
SET status='ACTIVE'
WHERE id IN
(
SELECT id
FROM sales S
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT saleprice, saledate
FROM sales
GROUP BY saleprice, saledate
HAVING COUNT(*) = 1
) T
ON S.saleprice=T.saleprice AND s.saledate=T.saledate
)
If you put together the answers so far, clean up and improve, you would arrive at this superior query:
UPDATE sales
SET status = 'ACTIVE'
WHERE (saleprice, saledate) IN (
SELECT saleprice, saledate
FROM sales
GROUP BY saleprice, saledate
HAVING count(*) = 1
);
Which is much faster than either of them. Nukes the performance of the currently accepted answer by factor 10 - 15 (in my tests on PostgreSQL 8.4 and 9.1).
But this is still far from optimal. Use a NOT EXISTS (anti-)semi-join for even better performance. EXISTS is standard SQL, has been around forever (at least since PostgreSQL 7.2, long before this question was asked) and fits the presented requirements perfectly:
UPDATE sales s
SET status = 'ACTIVE'
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT FROM sales s1 -- SELECT list can be empty for EXISTS
WHERE s.saleprice = s1.saleprice
AND s.saledate = s1.saledate
AND s.id <> s1.id -- except for row itself
)
AND s.status IS DISTINCT FROM 'ACTIVE'; -- avoid empty updates. see below
db<>fiddle here
Old sqlfiddle
Unique key to identify row
If you don't have a primary or unique key for the table (id in the example), you can substitute with the system column ctid for the purpose of this query (but not for some other purposes):
AND s1.ctid <> s.ctid
Every table should have a primary key. Add one if you didn't have one, yet. I suggest a serial or an IDENTITY column in Postgres 10+.
Related:
In-order sequence generation
Auto increment table column
How is this faster?
The subquery in the EXISTS anti-semi-join can stop evaluating as soon as the first dupe is found (no point in looking further). For a base table with few duplicates this is only mildly more efficient. With lots of duplicates this becomes way more efficient.
Exclude empty updates
For rows that already have status = 'ACTIVE' this update would not change anything, but still insert a new row version at full cost (minor exceptions apply). Normally, you do not want this. Add another WHERE condition like demonstrated above to avoid this and make it even faster:
If status is defined NOT NULL, you can simplify to:
AND status <> 'ACTIVE';
The data type of the column must support the <> operator. Some types like json don't. See:
How to query a json column for empty objects?
Subtle difference in NULL handling
This query (unlike the currently accepted answer by Joel) does not treat NULL values as equal. The following two rows for (saleprice, saledate) would qualify as "distinct" (though looking identical to the human eye):
(123, NULL)
(123, NULL)
Also passes in a unique index and almost anywhere else, since NULL values do not compare equal according to the SQL standard. See:
Create unique constraint with null columns
OTOH, GROUP BY, DISTINCT or DISTINCT ON () treat NULL values as equal. Use an appropriate query style depending on what you want to achieve. You can still use this faster query with IS NOT DISTINCT FROM instead of = for any or all comparisons to make NULL compare equal. More:
How to delete duplicate rows without unique identifier
If all columns being compared are defined NOT NULL, there is no room for disagreement.
The problem with your query is that when using a GROUP BY clause (which you essentially do by using distinct) you can only use columns that you group by or aggregate functions. You cannot use the column id because there are potentially different values. In your case there is always only one value because of the HAVING clause, but most RDBMS are not smart enough to recognize that.
This should work however (and doesn't need a join):
UPDATE sales
SET status='ACTIVE'
WHERE id IN (
SELECT MIN(id) FROM sales
GROUP BY saleprice, saledate
HAVING COUNT(id) = 1
)
You could also use MAX or AVG instead of MIN, it is only important to use a function that returns the value of the column if there is only one matching row.
If your DBMS doesn't support distinct with multiple columns like this:
select distinct(col1, col2) from table
Multi select in general can be executed safely as follows:
select distinct * from (select col1, col2 from table ) as x
As this can work on most of the DBMS and this is expected to be faster than group by solution as you are avoiding the grouping functionality.
I want to select the distinct values from one column 'GrondOfLucht' but they should be sorted in the order as given in the column 'sortering'. I cannot get the distinct values of just one column using
Select distinct GrondOfLucht,sortering
from CorWijzeVanAanleg
order by sortering
It will also give the column 'sortering' and because 'GrondOfLucht' AND 'sortering' is not unique, the result will be ALL rows.
use the GROUP to select the records of 'GrondOfLucht' in the order given by 'sortering
SELECT GrondOfLucht
FROM dbo.CorWijzeVanAanleg
GROUP BY GrondOfLucht, sortering
ORDER BY MIN(sortering)
I have two classic tables (OK, not my real problem). Orders and OrderItems. I want to using a single statement to delete all Orders that have no OrderItems. I can get the list of Orders I want to delete with a query like this:
SELECT COUNT(*),OrderId
FROM OrderItems
GROUP BY OrderId
HAVING COUNT(*) > 0
and what I want to do is something like:
DELETE FROM Orders WHERE Id NOT IN (....)
Where "...." is my SELECT above. The select is giving me two columns and I really don't want the second column, just the first.
I feel like there is some kind of self join, or something like that I can use but I'm read only when it comes to that.
DELETE from Orders Where Id NOT IN (SELECT OrderId
FROM OrderItems
GROUP BY OrderId
HAVING COUNT(*) >0);
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.)