i am converting multiple rows in to a array using array_agg() function,
and i need to give that array to a select statements where condition.
My query is,
SELECT * FROM table WHERE id =
ALL(SELECT array_agg(id) FROM table WHERE some_condition)
but it gives error, how can i over come it..
the error has been cleared by type casting the array, using my query like this
SELECT * FROM table WHERE id =
ALL((SELECT array_agg(id) FROM table WHERE some_condition)::bigint[])
reference link
It seems like you are over-complicating things. As far as I can tell, your query should be equivalent to simple:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE some_condition
Or, if you are selecting from 2 different tables, use join:
SELECT table1.*
FROM table1
JOIN table2 ON table1.id = table2.id
WHERE some_condition
Not only this is simpler, it is also faster than fiddling with arrays.
Related
We have a PostgreSQL database where I have two tables with column text[] datatype. When I use an inner join to get details I do not see it is matching with any row.
for e.g.
create table test{
names text[],
id
}
create table test_b{
names text[],
id
}
now when I run below query,
SELECT t.* from test t inner join test_b tt
where t.names=tt.names;
I don't see any results. I even tried normal query with
SELECT * FROM test where names='{/test/test}';
It also did not work.
Any suggestions?
I suspect that you want array overlap operator &&. Also, since you don't need to return anything from test_b, using exists with a correlated subquery is more relevant than a join:
select t.*
from test t
where exists (select 1 from test_b b where t.names && b.names)
Can you set multiple column names from a SQL table as a macro in SQL to query against?
For example I have multiple columns I am hitting against multiple times, can I use a macro or some type of reference to identify them ONCE to avoid displaying them repetitively and cluttering up the code?
The current code works, I am just looking for a cleaner/streamlined option.
Current Code:
WHERE ('ABC') IN
([CODE1],[CODE2],[CODE3],[CODE4],[CODE5],[CODE6],[CODE7],[CODE8]
,[CODE9],[CODE10],[CODE11],[CODE12],[CODE13],[CODE14],[CODE15]
,[CODE16],[CODE17],[CODE18],[CODE19],[CODE20],[CODE21],[CODE22]
,[CODE23],[CODE24],[CODE25]
AND ('CFS') IN
([CODE1],[CODE2],[CODE3],[CODE4],[CODE5],[CODE6],[CODE7],[CODE8]
,[CODE9],[CODE10],[CODE11],[CODE12],[CODE13],[CODE14],[CODE15]
,[CODE16],[CODE17],[CODE18],[CODE19],[CODE20],[CODE21],[CODE22]
,[CODE23],[CODE24],[CODE25]
ect...(20 more times)
Goal:
WHERE 'ABC' IN (&columnsmentionedabove)
OR 'FGS' in (&columnsmentionedabove)
OR 'g6s' in (&columnsmentionedabove)
etc.....
This is inherited code and just seems very clunky.
Thank you
Numbered columns like this are almost always a sign you should have an additional table. So if your existing table structure is like this:
Table1
Table1ID, OtherFields, Code1, Code2, Code3.... Code25
You really want something more like this:
Table1
Table1ID, OtherFields
Table1Codes
Table1ID, Code
Where each entry in Table1 will have many entries in Table1Codes. Then you write JOIN statements to show the two sets side-by-side when needed.
FROM Table1 t
INNER JOIN Table1Codes tc1 ON tc.Table1ID = t.Table1ID AND tc.Code = 'ABC'
INNER JOIN Table1Codes tc2 ON tc.Table1ID = t.Table1ID AND tc.Code = 'CFS'
Or
FROM Table1 t
INNER JOIN Table1Codes tc1 ON tc.Table1ID = t.Table1ID AND tc.Code IN ('ABC','FGS','g6s')
If you can't change the table's schema, as in often the case, you can UNPIVOT it. For example, assuming CODE1...CODE25 come from MyTable, wrap the UNPIVOT operation inside a CTE:
;WITH
cte AS
(
SELECT upvt.*
FROM MyTable
UNPIVOT (
CodeValue FOR CodeLabel IN ([CODE1], [CODE2], ..., [CODE25])
) upvt
)
SELECT *
FROM cte
WHERE CodeValue IN ('ABC', 'DEF', ...)
The unpivot operation is not free. Make sure you filter as much as possible from MyTable before unpivoting the it.
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 ;
Maybe it's because it's Friday but I can't seem to get this and it feels like it should be really really easy.
I have one result set (pulls the data from multiple tables) that gives me the following result set:
Room Type | ImageID | Date
The next query (pulled from separate tables than above) result give me :
ImageID | Date | Tagged
I just want to compare the results to see which imageid's are common between the two results, and which fall into each list separately.
I have tried insert the results from each into temp tables and do a join on imageid but sql server does NOT like that. Ideally I would like a solution that allows me to do this without creating temp tables.
I researched using union but it seems that because the two results don't have the same columns I avoided that route.
Thanks!
You can do this a number of different ways, for instance you can use either a inner join or intersect using the two sets as derived tables.
select ImageID from (your_first_query)
intersect
select ImageID from (your_second_query)
or
select query1.ImageID
from (your_first_query) query1
inner join (your_second_query) query2 on query1.ImageID = query2.ImageID
You don't explain why SQL-Server does not like performing a join on ImageId. Shouldn't be a problem. As to your first question, you need to transform your two queries into subqueries and perform a Full Out Join on them:
Select * from
(Select Room Type, ImageID, Date ...) T1 Full Outer Join
(Select ImageID, Date, Tagged ...) T2 on T1.ImageId = T2.ImageId
The analysis of Null values on both side of the join should give you what you want.
SELECT TableA.ImageID
FROM TableA
WHERE TableA.ImageID
IN (SELECT TableB.ImageID FROM TableB)
select q1.ImageID
from (your_first_query) q1
WHERE EXISTS (select 1
from (your_second_query)
WHERE ImageID = q1.ImageID)
I think my head is muddy or something. I'm trying to figure out how a t-sql update works without a join when updating one table from another. I've always used joins in the past but came across a stored proc where someone else created one without a join. This update is being used in SQL 2008R2 and it works.
Update table1
SET col1 = (SELECT TOP 1 colX FROM table2 WHERE colZ = colY),
col2 = (SELECT TOP 1 colE FROM table2 WHERE colZ = colY)
Obviously, colY is a field in table1. To get the same results in a select statement (not update), a join is required. I guess I don't understand how an update works behind the scenes but it must be doing some kind of join?
SQL Server translates those subqueries into joins. You can look at this by getting the query plan. You can write an equivalent query with UPDATE ... FROM ... JOIN syntax and observe the query plan to be essentially the same.
The sample code shown is unusual, hard to understand, redundant and inflexible. I recommend against using this style.
No it's doing a sub query, well two in this case. Be damn painful if you have another 98 col fields.
You can do something similar for select
select *,
(SELECT TOP 1 colX FROM table2 WHERE colZ = colY) as col1
From table1
A left join would simply be more efficient
Your example unless the dbms optimises it it running the subquery(ies) for each row in table.
Got to say whoever wrote it is less than competent.
These subqueries are what is called correlated subqueries. If you were to write the same query as a SELECT rather than an UPDATE it would look like this.
SELECT col1 = (SELECT TOP 1 table2.colX FROM table2 WHERE table2.colZ = table1.colY),
col2 = (SELECT TOP 1 table2.colE FROM table2 WHERE table2.colZ = table1.colY)
FROM table1
The JOIN is in the fact that you are referencing a column from an outside table on the inside of the subquery. Table1 is referenced in the UPDATE command. You can include a FROM clause but it isn't required for a setup like this.
You can use the same syntax in a SELECT with no join, but you need to alias the table if colY also exists in table2
SELECT (SELECT TOP 1 colX FROM table2 WHERE colZ = T.colY)
, (SELECT TOP 1 colE FROM table2 WHERE colZ = T.colY)
FROM table1 AS T
I only ever use this sort of thing when building up an ad hoc query just for my own infomation. If it's going to be put into any sort of permanent code I'll convert it to a join as it's easier to read and more maintainable.