I am using where in condition in SQL Server. I want to get result without order, because I gave a list into the 'where in' condition.
For example
select * from blabla where column in ('03.01.KO61.01410',
'03.02.A081.15002',
'03.02.A081.15016',
'03.02.A081.15003',
'02.03.A081.57105')
How can I do?
If you want the rows returned such that they're in the same order as the items in your IN, you need to find some way to specify that in an ORDER BY clause - the only way to get SQL Server to define an order. E.g.:
select * from blabla where column in ('03.01.KO61.01410',
'03.02.A081.15002',
'03.02.A081.15016',
'03.02.A081.15003',
'02.03.A081.57105')
order by
CASE column
when '03.01.KO61.01410' then 1
when '03.02.A081.15002' then 2
when '03.02.A081.15016' then 3
when '03.02.A081.15003' then 4
when '02.03.A081.57105' then 5
end
Due to my experience, SQL Server randomly order the result set for WHERE-IN Clause if you does not specify how to order it.
So, if you want to order by your WHERE-IN conditions, you must define some data item to order it as you passed. Otherwise, SQL Server will randomly order your resultset.
You're already doing it - if you don't explicitly specify an order by using ORDER BY, then there is no implied order.
If you want to totally randomize the output, you could add an ORDER BY NEWID() clause:
SELECT (list of columns)
FROM dbo.blabla
WHERE column IN ('03.01.KO61.01410', '03.02.A081.15002',
'03.02.A081.15016', '03.02.A081.15003', '02.03.A081.57105')
ORDER BY NEWID()
If you have an autoincrement id in your table, use it in an order clause. And if you don't, consider adding one...
Try this:
CREATE TYPE varchar20_list_type AS TABLE (
id INT IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY,
val VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL UNIQUE
)
DECLARE #mylist varchar20_list_type
INSERT #mylist (val) VALUES
('03.01.KO61.01410'),
('03.02.A081.15002'),
('03.02.A081.15016'),
('03.02.A081.15003'),
('02.03.A081.57105')
SELECT
*
FROM
blabla
JOIN #mylist AS t
ON
blabla.col = t.val
ORDER BY
t.id
More information from http://www.sommarskog.se/arrays-in-sql-2008.html
By the way, this can be easily done in PostgreSQL with VALUES: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/queries-values.html
Related
Actually I am building a Skype like tool wherein I have to show last 10 distinct users who have logged in my web application.
I have maintained a table in sql-server where there is one field called last_active_time. So, my requirement is to sort the table by last_active_time and show all the columns of last 10 distinct users.
There is another field called WWID which uniquely identifies a user.
I am able to find the distinct WWID but not able to select the all the columns of those rows.
I am using below query for finding the distinct wwid :
select distinct(wwid) from(select top 100 * from dbo.rvpvisitors where last_active_time!='' order by last_active_time DESC) as newView;
But how do I find those distinct rows. I want to show how much time they are away fromm web apps using the diff between curr time and last active time.
I am new to sql, may be the question is naive, but struggling to get it right.
If you are using proper data types for your columns you won't need a subquery to get that result, the following query should do the trick
SELECT TOP 10
[wwid]
,MAX([last_active_time]) AS [last_active_time]
FROM [dbo].[rvpvisitors]
WHERE
[last_active_time] != ''
GROUP BY
[wwid]
ORDER BY
[last_active_time] DESC
If the column [last_active_time] is of type varchar/nvarchar (which probably is the case since you check for empty strings in the WHERE statement) you might need to use CAST or CONVERT to treat it as an actual date, and be able to use function like MIN/MAX on it.
In general I would suggest you to use proper data types for your column, if you have dates or timestamps data use the "date" or "datetime2" data types
Edit:
The query aggregates the data based on the column [wwid], and for each returns the maximum [last_active_time].
The result is then sorted and filtered.
In order to add more columns "as-is" (without aggregating them) just add them in the SELECT and GROUP BY sections.
If you need more aggregated columns add them in the SELECT with the appropriate aggregation function (MIN/MAX/SUM/etc)
I suggest you have a look at GROUP BY on W3
To know more about the "execution order" of the instruction you can have a look here
You can solve problem like this by rank ordering the results by a key and finding the last x of those items, this removes duplicates while preserving the key order.
;
WITH RankOrdered AS
(
SELECT
*,
wwidRank = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY wwid ORDER BY last_active_time DESC )
FROM
dbo.rvpvisitors
where
last_active_time!=''
)
SELECT TOP(10) * FROM RankOrdered WHERE wwidRank = 1
If my understanding is right, below query will give the desired output.
You can have conditions according to your need.
select top 10 distinct wwid from dbo.rvpvisitors order by last_active_time desc
I want to create a Select statement that ranks the column as is without ordering.
Currently, the table is in the following order:
ITEM_Description1
ITEM_Description2
ITEM_StockingType
ITEM_RevisionNumber
I do not want the results to be numerical in any way, nor depend on the VariableID numbers, but with ROW_Number(), I have to choose something. Does anyone know how I can have the results look like this?
Row| VariableName
---------------------
1 | ITEM_Description1
2 | ITEM_Description2
3 | ITEM_StockingType
4 | ITEM_RevisionNumber
My code for an example is shown below.
SELECT
VariableName,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY VariableID) AS RowNumber
FROM
SeanVault.dbo.TempVarIDs
Using ORDER BY (SELECT NULL) will give you the results your looking for.
SELECT
VariableName,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) AS rownum
FROM
SeanVault.dbo.TempVarIDs
Your problem seems to be with this sentence:
Currently, the table is in the following order:
No, your table is NOT implicitly ordered!!
Although it might look like this...
The only way to enforce the resultset's sort order is an ORDER BY-clause at the outer most SELECT.
If you want to maintain the sort order of your inserts you can use
a column like ID INT IDENTITY (which will automatically increase a sequence counter)
Using GETDATE() on insert will not solve this, as multiple row inserts might get the same DateTime value.
You do not have to show this in your output of course...
Your table has no inherent order. Even if you get that order a 100 times in a row is no guarantee it will be that order on the 101 time.
You can add an identity column to the table.
My question needs little explanation so I'd like to explain this way:
I've got a table (lets call it RootTable), it has one million records, and not in any proper order. What I'm trying to do is to get number of rows(#ParamCount) from RootTable and at the same time these records must be sorted and also have an additional column(with unique data) added on the fly to maintain a key for row identification which will be used later in the program. It can take any number of parameters but my basic parameters are the two which mentioned below.
It's needed for SQL SERVER environment.
e.g.
RootTable
ColumnA ColumnB ColumnC
ABC city cellnumber
ZZC city1 cellnumber
BCD city2 cellnumber
BCC city3 cellnumber
Passing number of rows to return #ParamCount and columnA startswith
#paramNameStartsWith
<b>#paramCount:2 <br>
#ParamNameStartsWith:BC</b>
desired result:
Id(added on the fly) ColumnA ColumnB ColumnC
101 BCC city3 cellnumber
102 BCD city2 cellnumber
Here's another point about Id column. Id must maintain its order, like in the above result it's starting from 101 because 100 is already assigned to the first row when sorted and added column on the fly, and because it starts with "ABC" so obviously it won't be in the result set.
Any kind of help would be appreciated.
NOTE: My question title might not reflect my requirement, but I couldn't get any other title.
So first you need your on-the-fly-ID. This one is created by the ROW_NUMBER() function which is available from SQL Server 2005 onwards. What ROW_NUMBER() will do is pretty self-explaining i think. However it works only on a partition. The Partition is specified by the OVER clause. If you include GROUP BY within the OVER clause, you will have multiple partitions. In your case, there is only one partition which is the whole table, therefor GROUP BY is not necessary. However an ORDER BY is required so that the system knows which record should get which row number in the partition. The query you get is:
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ColumnA) ID, ColumnA,ColumnB,ColumnC
FROM RootTable
Now you have a row number for your whole table. You cannot include any condition like your #ParamNameStartsWith parameter here because you wanted a row number set for the whole table. The query above has to be a subquery which provides the set on which the condition can be applied. I use a CTE here, i think that is better for readability:
;WITH OrderedList AS (
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ColumnA) ID, ColumnA,ColumnB,ColumnC
FROM RootTable
)
SELECT *
FROM OrderedList
WHERE ColumnA LIKE #ParamNameStartsWith+'%'
Please note that i added the wildcard % after the parameter, so that the condition is basically "starts with" #ParamNameStartsWith.
Finally,if i got you right you wanted only #ParamCount rows. You can use your parameter directly with the TOP keyword which is also only possible with SQL Server 2005 or later.
;WITH OrderedList AS (
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY ColumnA) ID, ColumnA,ColumnB,ColumnC
FROM RootTable
)
SELECT TOP (#ParamCount) *
FROM OrderedList
WHERE ColumnA LIKE #ParamNameStartsWith+'%'
I have a T-SQL query that takes data from one table and copies it into a new table but only rows meeting a certain condition:
SELECT VibeFGEvents.*
INTO VibeFGEventsAfterStudyStart
FROM VibeFGEvents
LEFT OUTER JOIN VibeFGEventsStudyStart
ON
CHARINDEX(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(logName, 'MyVibe ', ''), ' new laptop', ''), ' old laptop', ''), excelFilename) > 0
AND VibeFGEventsStudyStart.MIN_TitleInstID <= VibeFGEvents.TitleInstID
AND VibeFGEventsStudyStart.MIN_WinInstId <= VibeFGEvents.WndInstID
WHERE VibeFGEventsStudyStart.excelFilename IS NOT NULL
ORDER BY VibeFGEvents.id
The code using the table relies on its order, and the copy above does not preserve the order I expected. I.e. the rows in the new table VibeFGEventsAfterStudyStart are not monotonically increasing in the VibeFGEventsAfterStudyStart.id column copied from VibeFGEvents.id.
In T-SQL how might I preserve the ordering of the rows from VibeFGEvents in VibeFGEventsStudyStart?
I know this is a bit old, but I needed to do something similar. I wanted to insert the contents of one table into another, but in a random order. I found that I could do this by using select top n and order by newid(). Without the 'top n', order was not preserved and the second table had rows in the same order as the first. However, with 'top n', the order (random in my case) was preserved. I used a value of 'n' that was greater than the number of rows. So my query was along the lines of:
insert Table2 (T2Col1, T2Col2)
select top 10000 T1Col1, T1Col2
from Table1
order by newid()
What for?
Point is – data in a table is not ordered. In SQL Server the intrinsic storage order of a table is that of the (if defined) clustered index.
The order in which data is inserted is basically "irrelevant". It is forgotten the moment the data is written into the table.
As such, nothing is gained, even if you get this stuff. If you need an order when dealing with data, you HAVE To put an order by clause on the select that gets it. Anything else is random - i.e. the order you et data is not determined and may change.
So it makes no sense to have a specific order on the insert as you try to achieve.
SQL 101: sets have no order.
Just add top to your sql with a number that is greater than the actual number of rows:
SELECT top 25000 *
into spx_copy
from SPX
order by date
I've found a specific scenario where we want the new table to be created with a specific order in the columns' content:
Amount of rows is very big (from 200 to 2000 millions of rows), so we are using SELECT INTO instead of CREATE TABLE + INSERT because needs to be loaded as fast as possible (minimal logging). We have tested using the trace flag 610 for loading an already created empty table with a clustered index but still takes longer than the following approach.
We need the data to be ordered by specific columns for query performances, so we are creating a CLUSTERED INDEX just after the table is loaded. We discarded creating a non-clustered index because it would need another read for the data that's not included in the ordered columns from the index, and we discarded creating a full-covering non-clustered index because it would practically double the amount of space needed to hold the table.
It happens that if you manage to somehow create the table with columns already "ordered", creating the clustered index (with the same order) takes a lot less time than when the data isn't ordered. And sometimes (you will have to test your case), ordering the rows in the SELECT INTO is faster than loading without order and creating the clustered index later.
The problem is that SQL Server 2012+ will ignore the ORDER BY column list when doing INSERT INTO or when doing SELECT INTO. It will consider the ORDER BY columns if you specify an IDENTITY column on the SELECT INTO or if the inserted table has an IDENTITY column, but just to determine the identity values and not the actual storage order in the underlying table. In this case, it's likely that the sort will happen but not guaranteed as it's highly dependent on the execution plan.
A trick we have found is that doing a SELECT INTO with the result of a UNION ALL makes the engine perform a SORT (not always an explicit SORT operator, sometimes a MERGE JOIN CONCATENATION, etc.) if you have an ORDER BY list. This way the select into already creates the new table in the order we are going to create the clustered index later and thus the index takes less time to create.
So you can rewrite this query:
SELECT
FirstColumn = T.FirstColumn,
SecondColumn = T.SecondColumn
INTO
#NewTable
FROM
VeryBigTable AS T
ORDER BY -- ORDER BY is ignored!
FirstColumn,
SecondColumn
to
SELECT
FirstColumn = T.FirstColumn,
SecondColumn = T.SecondColumn
INTO
#NewTable
FROM
VeryBigTable AS T
UNION ALL
-- A "fake" row to be deleted
SELECT
FirstColumn = 0,
SecondColumn = 0
ORDER BY
FirstColumn,
SecondColumn
We have used this trick a few times, but I can't guarantee it will always sort. I'm just posting this as a possible workaround in case someone has a similar scenario.
You cannot do this with ORDER BY but if you create a Clustered Index on VibeFGEvents.id after your SELECT INTO the table will be sorted on disk by VibeFGEvents.id.
I'v made a test on MS SQL 2012, and it clearly shows me, that insert into ... select ... order by makes sense. Here is what I did:
create table tmp1 (id int not null identity, name sysname);
create table tmp2 (id int not null identity, name sysname);
insert into tmp1 (name) values ('Apple');
insert into tmp1 (name) values ('Carrot');
insert into tmp1 (name) values ('Pineapple');
insert into tmp1 (name) values ('Orange');
insert into tmp1 (name) values ('Kiwi');
insert into tmp1 (name) values ('Ananas');
insert into tmp1 (name) values ('Banana');
insert into tmp1 (name) values ('Blackberry');
select * from tmp1 order by id;
And I got this list:
1 Apple
2 Carrot
3 Pineapple
4 Orange
5 Kiwi
6 Ananas
7 Banana
8 Blackberry
No surprises here. Then I made a copy from tmp1 to tmp2 this way:
insert into tmp2 (name)
select name
from tmp1
order by id;
select * from tmp2 order by id;
I got the exact response like before. Apple to Blackberry.
Now reverse the order to test it:
delete from tmp2;
insert into tmp2 (name)
select name
from tmp1
order by id desc;
select * from tmp2 order by id;
9 Blackberry
10 Banana
11 Ananas
12 Kiwi
13 Orange
14 Pineapple
15 Carrot
16 Apple
So the order in tmp2 is reversed too, so order by made sense when there is a identity column in the target table!
The reason why one would desire this (a specific order) is because you cannot define the order in a subquery, so, the idea is that, if you create a table variable, THEN make a query from that table variable, you would think you would retain the order(say, to concatenate rows that must be in order- say for XML or json), but you can't.
So, what do you do?
The answer is to force SQL to order it by using TOP in your select (just pick a number high enough to cover all your rows).
I have run into the same issue and one reason I have needed to preserve the order is when I try to use ROLLUP to get a weighted average based on the raw data and not an average of what is in that column. For instance, say I want to see the average of profit based on number of units sold by four store locations? I can do this very easily by creating the equation Profit / #Units = Avg. Now I include a ROLLUP in my GROUP BY so that I can also see the average across all locations. Now I think to myself, "This is good info but I want to see it in order of Best Average to Worse and keep the Overall at the bottom (or top) of the list)." The ROLLUP will fail you in this so you take a different approach.
Why not create row numbers based on the sequence (order) you need to preserve?
SELECT OrderBy = ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY 'field you want to count' ORDER BY 'field(s) you want to use ORDER BY')
, VibeFGEvents.*
FROM VibeFGEvents
LEFT OUTER JOIN VibeFGEventsStudyStart
ON
CHARINDEX(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(logName, 'MyVibe ', ''), ' new laptop', ''), ' old laptop', ''), excelFilename) > 0
AND VibeFGEventsStudyStart.MIN_TitleInstID <= VibeFGEvents.TitleInstID
AND VibeFGEventsStudyStart.MIN_WinInstId <= VibeFGEvents.WndInstID
WHERE VibeFGEventsStudyStart.excelFilename IS NOT NULL
Now you can use the OrderBy field from your table to set the order of values. I removed the ORDER BY statement from the query above since it does not affect how the data is loaded to the table.
I found this approach helpful to solve this problem:
WITH ordered as
(
SELECT TOP 1000
[Month]
FROM SourceTable
GROUP BY [Month]
ORDER BY [Month]
)
INSERT INTO DestinationTable (MonthStart)
(
SELECT * from ordered
)
Try using INSERT INTO instead of SELECT INTO
INSERT INTO VibeFGEventsAfterStudyStart
SELECT VibeFGEvents.*
FROM VibeFGEvents
LEFT OUTER JOIN VibeFGEventsStudyStart
ON
CHARINDEX(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(logName, 'MyVibe ', ''), ' new laptop', ''), ' old laptop', ''), excelFilename) > 0
AND VibeFGEventsStudyStart.MIN_TitleInstID <= VibeFGEvents.TitleInstID
AND VibeFGEventsStudyStart.MIN_WinInstId <= VibeFGEvents.WndInstID
WHERE VibeFGEventsStudyStart.excelFilename IS NOT NULL
ORDER BY VibeFGEvents.id`
I am trying to order by date. I want the most recent dates coming in first. That's easy enough, but there are many records that are null and those come before any records that have a date.
I have tried a few things with no success:
ORDER BY ISNULL(Next_Contact_Date, 0)
ORDER BY ISNULL(Next_Contact_Date, 999999999)
ORDER BY coalesce(Next_Contact_Date, 99/99/9999)
How can I order by date and have the nulls come in last? The data type is smalldatetime.
smalldatetime has range up to June 6, 2079 so you can use
ORDER BY ISNULL(Next_Contact_Date, '2079-06-05T23:59:00')
If no legitimate records will have that date.
If this is not an assumption you fancy relying on a more robust option is sorting on two columns.
ORDER BY CASE WHEN Next_Contact_Date IS NULL THEN 1 ELSE 0 END, Next_Contact_Date
Both of the above suggestions are not able to use an index to avoid a sort however and give similar looking plans.
One other possibility if such an index exists is
SELECT 1 AS Grp, Next_Contact_Date
FROM T
WHERE Next_Contact_Date IS NOT NULL
UNION ALL
SELECT 2 AS Grp, Next_Contact_Date
FROM T
WHERE Next_Contact_Date IS NULL
ORDER BY Grp, Next_Contact_Date
According to Itzik Ben-Gan, author of T-SQL Fundamentals for MS SQL Server 2012, "By default, SQL Server sorts NULL marks before non-NULL values. To get NULL marks to sort last, you can use a CASE expression that returns 1 when the" Next_Contact_Date column is NULL, "and 0 when it is not NULL. Non-NULL marks get 0 back from the expression; therefore, they sort before NULL marks (which get 1). This CASE expression is used as the first sort column." The Next_Contact_Date column "should be specified as the second sort column. This way, non-NULL marks sort correctly among themselves." Here is the solution query for your example for MS SQL Server 2012 (and SQL Server 2014):
ORDER BY
CASE
WHEN Next_Contact_Date IS NULL THEN 1
ELSE 0
END, Next_Contact_Date;
Equivalent code using IIF syntax:
ORDER BY
IIF(Next_Contact_Date IS NULL, 1, 0),
Next_Contact_Date;
order by -cast([Next_Contact_Date] as bigint) desc
If your SQL doesn't support NULLS FIRST or NULLS LAST, the simplest way to do this is to use the value IS NULL expression:
ORDER BY Next_Contact_Date IS NULL, Next_Contact_Date
to put the nulls at the end (NULLS LAST) or
ORDER BY Next_Contact_Date IS NOT NULL, Next_Contact_Date
to put the nulls at the front. This doesn't require knowing the type of the column and is easier to read than the CASE expression.
EDIT: Alas, while this works in other SQL implementations like PostgreSQL and MySQL, it doesn't work in MS SQL Server. I didn't have a SQL Server to test against and relied on Microsoft's documentation and testing with other SQL implementations. According to Microsoft, value IS NULL is an expression that should be usable just like any other expression. And ORDER BY is supposed to take expressions just like any other statement that takes an expression. But it doesn't actually work.
The best solution for SQL Server therefore appears to be the CASE expression.
A bit late, but maybe someone finds it useful.
For me, ISNULL was out of question due to the table scan. UNION ALL would need me to repeat a complex query, and due to me selecting only the TOP X it would not have been very efficient.
If you are able to change the table design, you can:
Add another field, just for sorting, such as Next_Contact_Date_Sort.
Create a trigger that fills that field with a large (or small) value, depending on what you need:
CREATE TRIGGER FILL_SORTABLE_DATE ON YOUR_TABLE AFTER INSERT,UPDATE AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;
IF (update(Next_Contact_Date)) BEGIN
UPDATE YOUR_TABLE SET Next_Contact_Date_Sort=IIF(YOUR_TABLE.Next_Contact_Date IS NULL, 99/99/9999, YOUR_TABLE.Next_Contact_Date_Sort) FROM inserted i WHERE YOUR_TABLE.key1=i.key1 AND YOUR_TABLE.key2=i.key2
END
END
Use desc and multiply by -1 if necessary. Example for ascending int ordering with nulls last:
select *
from
(select null v union all select 1 v union all select 2 v) t
order by -t.v desc
I know this is old but this is what worked for me
Order by Isnull(Date,'12/31/9999')
I think I found a way to show nulls in the end and still be able to use indexes for sorting.
The idea is super simple - create a calculatable column which will be based on existing column, and put an index on it.
ALTER TABLE dbo.Users
ADD [FirstNameNullLast]
AS (case when [FirstName] IS NOT NULL AND (ltrim(rtrim([FirstName]))<>N'' OR [FirstName] IS NULL) then [FirstName] else N'ZZZZZZZZZZ' end) PERSISTED
So, we are creating a persisted calculatable column in the SQL, in that column all blank and null values will be replaced by 'ZZZZZZZZ', this will mean, that if we will try to sort based on that column, we will see all the null or blank values in the end.
Now we can use it in our new index.
Like this:
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Users_FirstNameNullLast] ON [dbo].[Users]
(
[FirstNameNullLast] ASC
)
So, this is an ordinary nonclustered index. We can change it however we want, i.e. include extra columns, increase number of indexes columns, change sorting order etc.
I know this is a old thread, but in SQL Server nulls are always lower than non-null values. So it's only necessary to order by Desc
In your case Order by Next_Contact_Date Desc should be enough.
Source: order by with nulls- LearnSql