I'm using SQL Server 2012 and I was wondering if there is a way to select, for example, the third result from a query. I have looked into LIMIT and OFFSET but I'm not 100% sure if it applies to SQL Server, however I've been told that there is something to do what I want in SQL Server 2012.
SELECT *
FROM YourTable
ORDER BY OrderingColumn ASC
OFFSET 2 ROWS /*Skip first 2 rows*/
FETCH NEXT 1 ROWS ONLY
Note: You cannot use OFFSET ... FETCH without doing an ORDER BY first
I would recommend
select * from table ORDER BY OrderingColumn ASC LIMIT n,1
This is a quirk of limit where if you give it a range, it only returns that range. It works in MySQL too.
Can’t you just select the second index? This is the way i would take say the third post in my table.
//index 3
$index3 = DB::query(‘SELECT * from posts’)[2];
Then you will have an array that is ready to go for you.
Related
Is it possible to use a Count() or number from another Select query to SELECT TOP a number of rows in a different query?
Below is a sample of the update query I'm trying to use but would like to take the count from another query to replace "10".
...
WHERE Frames.Package IN (
SELECT TOP 10 Frames
FROM Frames.Package WHERE Package = "100"
ORDER BY Frames.ReferenceNumber
)
So for example, i've tried to do
SELECT TOP SelectQuery.RecordCount Frames
Sample SelectQuery.RecordCount
SELECT COUNT(Frames.Package) AS RecordCount
FROM Frames
HAVING Frames.Package = "100";
Any assistance would be appreciated...
Access does not support using a parameter for SELECT TOP. You must write a literal value into the text of the SQL statement.
From another answer: Select TOP N not working in MS Access with parameter
On that note, your two queries appear to be just interchanging HAVING and WHERE clauses to get the record count. It doesn't seem to be doing anything more, thus why bother with the TOP clause and simply SELECT * FROM Frames WHERE [..]?
Am I missing something?
How can I LIMIT the result returned by a query in Adaptive Server IQ/12.5.0/0306?
The following gives me a generic error near LIMIT:
SELECT * FROM mytable LIMIT 10, 10;
Any idea why? This is my first time with this dbms
Sybase IQ uses row_count to limit the number of rows returned.
You will have to set the row count at the beginning of your statement and decide whether the statement should be TEMPORARY or not.
ROW_COUNT
SET options
LIMIT statement is not supported in Sybase IQ 12. I think there is not simple or clean solution, similarly like in old SQL server. But there are some approches that works for SQL server 2000 and should work also for Sybase IQ 12. I don't promise that queries below will work on copy&paste.
Subquery
SELECT TOP 10 *
FROM mytable
WHERE Id NOT IN (
SELECT TOP 10 Id FROM mytable ORDER BY OrderingColumn
)
ORDER BY OrderingColumn
Basically, it fetches 10 rows but also skips first 10 rows. To get this works, rows must be unique and ordering is important. Id cannot be more times in results. Otherwise you can filter out valid rows.
Asc-Desc
Another workaround depends on ordering. It uses ordering and fetches 10 rows for second page and you have to take care of last page (it does not work properly with simple formula page * rows per page).
SELECT *
FROM
(
SELECT TOP 10 *
FROM
(
SELECT TOP 20 * -- (page * rows per page)
FROM mytable
ORDER BY Id
) AS t1
ORDER BY Id DESC
) AS t2
ORDER BY Id ASC
I've found some info about non working subqueries in FROM statement in ASE 12. This approach maybe is not possible.
Basic iteration
In this scenario you can just iterate through rows. Let's assume id of tenth row is 15. Then it will select next 10 rows after tenth row. Bad things happen when you will order by another column than Id. It is not possible.
SELECT TOP 10 *
FROM mytable
WHERE Id > 15
ORDER BY Id
Here is article about another workarounds in SQL server 2000. Some should also works in similar ways in Sybase IQ 12.
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/6936/Paging-of-Large-Resultsets-in-ASP-NET
All those things are workarounds. If you can try to migrate on newer version.
I'm quite new to SQL Server. Now I came across a query like this:
SELECT country FROM Hovercraft.Orders GROUP BY country ORDER BY ASC
There is no column name given in the order by clause. Is this possible? SSMS says no.
Jörg
It's probably a misprint - you have to specify what you are ordering by; this can be a column name, an expression or the number of a column in the output. It's most likely that the query you have seen was one of the latter, that simply omitted the column number 1 - like so:
SELECT country FROM Hovercraft.Orders GROUP BY country ORDER BY 1 ASC
- so this would order by the contents of the first column of output (ie. country).
I agree with #Mahmoud Gamal. But, also, it's possible to write such hack like this -
SELECT o.country, const_column = 1
FROM Hovercraft.Orders o
GROUP BY o.country
ORDER BY const_column ASC
In this case, sorting will be performed, but rows' order will not be changed.
On MS SQL 2005:
On MS SQL 2012:
This is not possible !..
Order by clause always require column name or column number .
Would you please response me why you want this kind of situation , I think you are working with dynamic query or else please let me know.
As per SQL Standard this not possible.
Thanks.
I have a view that may contain more than one row, looking like this:
[rate] | [vendorID]
8374 1234
6523 4321
5234 9374
In a SPROC, I need to set a param equal to the value of the first column from the first row of the view. something like this:
DECLARE #rate int;
SET #rate = (select top 1 rate from vendor_view where vendorID = 123)
SELECT #rate
But this ALWAYS returns the LAST row of the view.
In fact, if I simply run the subselect by itself, I only get the last row.
With 3 rows in the view, TOP 2 returns the FIRST and THIRD rows in order. With 4 rows, it's returning the top 3 in order. Yet still top 1 is returning the last.
DERP?!?
This works..
DECLARE #rate int;
CREATE TABLE #temp (vRate int)
INSERT INTO #temp (vRate) (select rate from vendor_view where vendorID = 123)
SET #rate = (select top 1 vRate from #temp)
SELECT #rate
DROP TABLE #temp
.. but can someone tell me why the first behaves so fudgely and how to do what I want? As explained in the comments, there is no meaningful column by which I can do an order by. Can I force the order in which rows are inserted to be the order in which they are returned?
[EDIT] I've also noticed that: select top 1 rate from ([view definition select]) also returns the correct values time and again.[/EDIT]
That is by design.
If you don't specify how the query should be sorted, the database is free to return the records in any order that is convenient. There is no natural order for a table that is used as default sort order.
What the order will actually be depends on how the query is planned, so you can't even rely on the same query giving a consistent result over time, as the database will gather statistics about the data and may change how the query is planned based on that.
To get the record that you expect, you simply have to specify how you want them sorted, for example:
select top 1 rate
from vendor_view
where vendorID = 123
order by rate
I ran into this problem on a query that had worked for years. We upgraded SQL Server and all of a sudden, an unordered select top 1 was not returning the final record in a table. We simply added an order by to the select.
My understanding is that SQL Server normally will generally provide you the results based on the clustered index if no order by is provided OR off of whatever index is picked by the engine. But, this is not a guarantee of a certain order.
If you don't have something to order off of, you need to add it. Either add a date inserted column and default it to GETDATE() or add an identity column. It won't help you historically, but it addresses the issue going forward.
While it doesn't necessarily make sense that the results of the query should be consistent, in this particular instance they are so we decided to leave it 'as is'. Ultimately it would be best to add a column, but this was not an option. The application this belongs to is slated to be discontinued sometime soon and the database server will not be upgraded from SQL 2005. I don't necessarily like this outcome, but it is what it is: until it breaks it shall not be fixed. :-x
select * from table where category=#categoryid
I'm not sure how easy is this but I couldn't get my head around it. I want to be able to change where clause on above query so that if use 0 instead of 1-2-3 or 4 as #categoryid it would select all categories. i don't have any category with 0 in database.
Simple.
select * from table where (category=#categoryid) OR (#categoryid = 0)
This should probably be divided into 2 separate queries unless you actually want the same execution plan of a full clustered index scan to be used both in the case that #categoryid=0 and #categoryid<>0
By dividing into 2 separate queries you will potentially allow the ones where #categoryid is not zero to be satisfied by an index seek rather than the full scan.
If the table is small or #categoryid is not very selective it might not be an issue however.
You can set it to NULL when you want to select all categories an just modify select like this
select * from table where category= ISNULL( #categoryid, category )
select * from table where
category BETWEEN #mincategoryid AND #maxcategoryid
Min and max will one of
both be 1 (or 2 or 3 or 4)
respectively 0 and a high number
This will use an index too..
This is SQL not PL/SQL.
You need to test the value before sending the request you can not ask to SQL test it for you.