I would like to know if there is a way to use an order by clause when updating a table. I am updating a table and setting a consecutive number, that's why the order of the update is important. Using the following sql statement, I was able to solve it without using a cursor:
DECLARE #Number INT = 0
UPDATE Test
SET #Number = Number = #Number +1
now what I'd like to to do is an order by clause like so:
DECLARE #Number INT = 0
UPDATE Test
SET #Number = Number = #Number +1
ORDER BY Test.Id DESC
I've read: How to update and order by using ms sql The solutions to this question do not solve the ordering problem - they just filter the items on which the update is applied.
Take care,
Martin
No.
Not a documented 100% supported way. There is an approach sometimes used for calculating running totals called "quirky update" that suggests that it might update in order of clustered index if certain conditions are met but as far as I know this relies completely on empirical observation rather than any guarantee.
But what version of SQL Server are you on? If SQL2005+ you might be able to do something with row_number and a CTE (You can update the CTE)
With cte As
(
SELECT id,Number,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY id DESC) AS RN
FROM Test
)
UPDATE cte SET Number=RN
You can not use ORDER BY as part of the UPDATE statement (you can use in sub-selects that are part of the update).
UPDATE Test
SET Number = rowNumber
FROM Test
INNER JOIN
(SELECT ID, row_number() OVER (ORDER BY ID DESC) as rowNumber
FROM Test) drRowNumbers ON drRowNumbers.ID = Test.ID
Edit
Following solution could have problems with clustered indexes involved as mentioned here. Thanks to Martin for pointing this out.
The answer is kept to educate those (like me) who don't know all side-effects or ins and outs of SQL Server.
Expanding on the answer gaven by Quassnoi in your link, following works
DECLARE #Test TABLE (Number INTEGER, AText VARCHAR(2), ID INTEGER)
DECLARE #Number INT
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES (1, 'A', 1)
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES (2, 'B', 2)
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES (1, 'E', 5)
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES (3, 'C', 3)
INSERT INTO #Test VALUES (2, 'D', 4)
SET #Number = 0
;WITH q AS (
SELECT TOP 1000000 *
FROM #Test
ORDER BY
ID
)
UPDATE q
SET #Number = Number = #Number + 1
The row_number() function would be the best approach to this problem.
UPDATE T
SET T.Number = R.rowNum
FROM Test T
JOIN (
SELECT T2.id,row_number() over (order by T2.Id desc) rowNum from Test T2
) R on T.id=R.id
update based on Ordering by the order of values in a SQL IN() clause
Solution:
DECLARE #counter int
SET #counter = 0
;WITH q AS
(
select * from Products WHERE ID in (SELECT TOP (10) ID FROM Products WHERE ID IN( 3,2,1)
ORDER BY ID DESC)
)
update q set Display= #counter, #counter = #counter + 1
This updates based on descending 3,2,1
Hope helps someone.
I had a similar problem and solved it using ROW_NUMBER() in combination with the OVER keyword. The task was to retrospectively populate a new TicketNo (integer) field in a simple table based on the original CreatedDate, and grouped by ModuleId - so that ticket numbers started at 1 within each Module group and incremented by date. The table already had a TicketID primary key (a GUID).
Here's the SQL:
UPDATE Tickets SET TicketNo=T2.RowNo
FROM Tickets
INNER JOIN
(select TicketID, TicketNo,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY ModuleId ORDER BY DateCreated) AS RowNo from Tickets)
AS T2 ON T2.TicketID = Tickets.TicketID
Worked a treat!
I ran into the same problem and was able to resolve it in very powerful way that allows unlimited sorting possibilities.
I created a View using (saving) 2 sort orders (*explanation on how to do so below).
After that I simply applied the update queries to the View created and it worked great.
Here are the 2 queries I used on the view:
1st Query:
Update MyView
Set SortID=0
2nd Query:
DECLARE #sortID int
SET #sortID = 0
UPDATE MyView
SET #sortID = sortID = #sortID + 1
*To be able to save the sorting on the View I put TOP into the SELECT statement. This very useful workaround allows the View results to be returned sorted as set when the View was created when the View is opened. In my case it looked like:
(NOTE: Using this workaround will place an big load on the server if using a large table and it is therefore recommended to include as few fields as possible in the view if working with large tables)
SELECT TOP (600000)
dbo.Items.ID, dbo.Items.Code, dbo.Items.SortID, dbo.Supplier.Date,
dbo.Supplier.Code AS Expr1
FROM dbo.Items INNER JOIN
dbo.Supplier ON dbo.Items.SupplierCode = dbo.Supplier.Code
ORDER BY dbo.Supplier.Date, dbo.Items.ID DESC
Running: SQL Server 2005 on a Windows Server 2003
Additional Keywords: How to Update a SQL column with Ascending or Descending Numbers - Numeric Values / how to set order in SQL update statement / how to save order by in sql view / increment sql update / auto autoincrement sql update / create sql field with ascending numbers
SET #pos := 0;
UPDATE TABLE_NAME SET Roll_No = ( SELECT #pos := #pos + 1 ) ORDER BY First_Name ASC;
In the above example query simply update the student Roll_No column depending on the student Frist_Name column. From 1 to No_of_records in the table. I hope it's clear now.
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#TAB') IS NOT NULL
BEGIN
DROP TABLE #TAB
END
CREATE TABLE #TAB(CH1 INT,CH2 INT,CH3 INT)
DECLARE #CH2 INT = NULL , #CH3 INT=NULL,#SPID INT=NULL,#SQL NVARCHAR(4000)='', #ParmDefinition NVARCHAR(50)= '',
#RET_MESSAGE AS VARCHAR(8000)='',#RET_ERROR INT=0
SET #ParmDefinition='#SPID INT,#CH2 INT OUTPUT,#CH3 INT OUTPUT'
SET #SQL='UPDATE T
SET CH1=#SPID,#CH2= T.CH2,#CH3= T.CH3
FROM #TAB T WITH(ROWLOCK)
INNER JOIN (
SELECT TOP(1) CH1,CH2,CH3
FROM
#TAB WITH(NOLOCK)
WHERE CH1 IS NULL
ORDER BY CH2 DESC) V ON T.CH2= V.CH2 AND T.CH3= V.CH3'
INSERT INTO #TAB
(CH2 ,CH3 )
SELECT 1,2 UNION ALL
SELECT 2,3 UNION ALL
SELECT 3,4
BEGIN TRY
WHILE EXISTS(SELECT TOP 1 1 FROM #TAB WHERE CH1 IS NULL)
BEGIN
EXECUTE #RET_ERROR = sp_executesql #SQL, #ParmDefinition,#SPID =##SPID, #CH2=#CH2 OUTPUT,#CH3=#CH3 OUTPUT;
SELECT * FROM #TAB
SELECT #CH2,#CH3
END
END TRY
BEGIN CATCH
SET #RET_ERROR=ERROR_NUMBER()
SET #RET_MESSAGE = '#ERROR_NUMBER : ' + CAST(ERROR_NUMBER() AS VARCHAR(255)) + '#ERROR_SEVERITY :' + CAST( ERROR_SEVERITY() AS VARCHAR(255))
+ '#ERROR_STATE :' + CAST(ERROR_STATE() AS VARCHAR(255)) + '#ERROR_LINE :' + CAST( ERROR_LINE() AS VARCHAR(255))
+ '#ERROR_MESSAGE :' + ERROR_MESSAGE() ;
SELECT #RET_ERROR,#RET_MESSAGE;
END CATCH
Related
One of my table column stores ~650,000 characters (each value of the column contains entire table). I know its bad design however, Client will not be able to change it.
I am tasked to convert the column into multiple columns.
I chose to use dbo.DelimitedSplit8K function
Unfortunately, it can only handle 8k characters at max.
So I decided to split the column into 81 8k batches using while loop and store the same in a variable table (temp or normal table made no improvement)
DECLARE #tab1 table ( serialnumber int, etext nvarchar(1000))
declare #scriptquan int = (select MAX(len (errortext)/8000) from mytable)
DECLARE #Counter INT
DECLARE #A bigint = 1
DECLARE #B bigint = 8000
SET #Counter=1
WHILE ( #Counter <= #scriptquan + 1)
BEGIN
insert into #tab1 select ItemNumber, Item from dbo.mytable cross apply dbo.DelimitedSplit8K(substring(errortext, #A, #B), CHAR(13)+CHAR(10))
SET #A = #A + 8000
SET #B = #B + 8000
SET #Counter = #Counter + 1
END
This followed by using below code
declare #tab2 table (Item nvarchar(max),itemnumber int, Colseq varchar(10)) -- declare table variable
;with cte as (
select [etext] ,ItemNumber, Item from #tab1 -- insert table name
cross apply dbo.DelimitedSplit8K(etext,' ')) -- insert table columns name that contains text
insert into #tab2 Select Item,itemnumber, 'a'+ cast (ItemNumber as varchar) colseq
from cte -- insert values to table variable
;WITH Tbl(item, colseq) AS(
select item, colseq from #tab2
),
CteRn AS(
SELECT item, colseq,
Rn = ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY colseq ORDER BY colseq)
FROM Tbl
)
SELECT
a1 Time,a2 Number,a3 Type,a4 Remarks
FROM CteRn r
PIVOT(
MAX(item)
FOR colseq IN(a1,a2,a3,a4)
)p
where a3 = 'error'
gives the desired output. However, just the loop takes 15 minutes to complete and overall query completes by 27 minutes. Is there any way I can make it faster? Total row count in my table is 2. So I don't think Index can help.
Client uses Azure SQL Database so I can't choose PowerShell or Python to accomplish this either.
Please let me know if more information is needed. I tried my best to mention everything I could.
I have a table [Order] that has records with sequential ID (in odd number only, i.e. 1,3,5,7...989, 991, 993, 995, 997, 999), it is seen that a few records were accidentally deleted and should be inserted back, first thing is to find out what records are missing in the current table, there are hundreds of records in this table
Don't know how to write the query, can anyone kindly help, please?
I am thinking if I have to write a stored procedure or function but would be better if I can avoid them for environment reasons.
Below peuso code is what I am thinking:
set #MaxValue = Max(numberfield)
set #TestValue = 1
open cursor on recordset ordered by numberfield
foreach numberfield
while (numberfield != #testvalue) and (#testvalue < #MaxValue) then
Insert #testvalue into #temp table
set #testvalue = #textvalue + 2
Next
Next
UPDATE:
Expected result:
Order ID = 7 should be picked up as the only missing record.
Update 2:
If I use
WHERE
o.id IS NULL;
It returns nothing:
Since I didn't get a response from you, in the comments, I've altered the script for you to fill in accordingly:
declare #id int
declare #maxid int
set #id = 1
select #maxid = max([Your ID Column Name]) from [Your Table Name]
declare #IDseq table (id int)
while #id < #maxid --whatever you max is
begin
insert into #IDseq values(#id)
set #id = #id + 1
end
select
s.id
from #IDseq s
left join [Your Table Name] t on s.id = t.[Your ID Column Name]
where t.[Your ID Column Name] is null
Where you see [Your ID Column Name], replace everything with your column name and the same goes for [Your Table Name].
I'm sure this will give you the results you seek.
We can try joining to a number table, which contains all the odd numbers which you might expect to appear in your own table.
DECLARE #start int = 1
DECLARE #end int = 1000
WITH cte AS (
SELECT #start num
UNION ALL
SELECT num + 2 FROM cte WHERE num < #end
)
SELECT num
FROM cte t
LEFT JOIN [Order] o
ON t.num = o.numberfield
WHERE
o.numberfield IS NULL;
I have a set of records that need to be validated (searched) in a SQL table. I will call these ValData and SearchTable respectively. A colleague created a SQL query in which a record from the ValData can be copied and pasted in to a string variable, and then it is searched in the SearchTable. The best result from the SearchTable is returned. This works very well.
I want to automate this process. I loaded the ValData to SQL in a table like so:
RowID INT, FirstName, LastName, DOB, Date1, Date2, TextDescription.
I want to loop through this set of data, by RowID, and then create a result table that is the ValData joined with the best match from the SearchTable. Again, I already have a query that does that portion. I just need the loop portion, and my SQL skills are virtually non-existent.
Suedo code would be:
DECLARE #SearchID INT = 1
DECLARE #MaxSearchID INT = 15000
DECLARE #FName VARCHAR(50) = ''
DECLARE #FName VARCHAR(50) = ''
etc...
WHILE #SearchID <= #MaxSearchID
BEGIN
SET #FNAME = (SELECT [Fname] FROM ValData WHERE [RowID] = #SearchID)
SET #LNAME = (SELECT [Lname] FROM ValData WHERE [RowID] = #SearchID)
etc...
Do colleague's query, and then insert(?) search criteria joined with the result from the SearchTable in to a temporary result table.
END
SELECT * FROM FinalResultTable;
My biggest lack of knowledge comes in how do I create a temporary result table that is ValData's fields + SearchTable's fields, and during the loop iterations how do I add one row at a time to this temporary result table that includes the ValData joined with the result from the SearchTable?
If it helps, I'm using/wanting to join all fields from ValData and all fields from SearchTable.
Wouldn't this be far easier with a query like this..?
SELECT FNAME,
LNAME
FROM ValData
WHERE (FName = #Fname
OR LName = #Lname)
AND RowID <= #MaxSearchID
ORDER BY RowID ASC;
There is literally no reason to use a WHILE other than to destroy performance of the query.
With a bit more trial and error, I was able to answer what I was looking for (which, at its core, was creating a temp table and then inserting rows in to it).
CREATE TABLE #RESULTTABLE(
[feedname] VARCHAR(100),
...
[SCORE] INT,
[Max Score] INT,
[% Score] FLOAT(4),
[RowID] SMALLINT
)
SET #SearchID = 1
SET #MaxSearchID = (SELECT MAX([RowID]) FROM ValidationData
WHILE #SearchID <= #MaxSearchID
BEGIN
SET #FNAME = (SELECT [Fname] FROM ValidationData WHERE [RowID] = #SearchID)
...
--BEST MATCH QUERY HERE
--Select the "top" best match (order not guaranteed) in to the RESULTTABLE.
INSERT INTO #RESULTTABLE
SELECT TOP 1 *, #SearchID AS RowID
--INTO #RESULTTABLE
FROM #TABLE3
WHERE [% Score] IN (SELECT MAX([% Score]) FROM #TABLE3)
--Drop temp tables that were created/used during best match query.
DROP TABLE #TABLE1
DROP TABLE #TABLE2
DROP TABLE #TABLE3
SET #SearchID = #SearchID + 1
END;
--Join the data that was validated (searched) to the results that were found.
SELECT *
FROM ValidationData vd
LEFT JOIN #RESULTTABLE rt ON rt.[RowID] = vd.[RowID]
ORDER BY vd.[RowID]
DROP TABLE #RESULTTABLE
I know this could be approved by doing a join, probably with the "BEST MATCH QUERY" as an inner query. I am just not that skilled yet. This takes a manual process which took hours upon hours and shortens it to just an hour or so.
I'm trying to read the top 100 items of a database table that is being used like a queue. As I do this I'm trying to mark the items as done like this:
UPDATE TOP(#qty)
QueueTable WITH (READPAST)
SET
IsDone = 1
OUTPUT
inserted.Id,
inserted.Etc
FROM
QueueTable
WHERE
IsDone = 0
ORDER BY
CreatedDate ASC;
The only problem is, according to UPDATE (Transact-SQL) on MSDN, the ORDER BY is not valid in an UPDATE and:
The rows referenced in the TOP expression used with INSERT, UPDATE, or
DELETE are not arranged in any order.
How can I achieve what I need which is to update the items at the top of the queue while also selecting them?
SQL Server allows you to update a derived table, CTE or view:
UPDATE x
SET
IsDone = 1
OUTPUT
inserted.Id,
inserted.Etc
FROM (
select TOP (N) *
FROM
QueueTable
WHERE
IsDone = 0
ORDER BY
CreatedDate ASC;
) x
No need to compute a set of IDs first. This is faster and usually has more desirable locking behavior.
Tested in SSMS, it works fine. You may need to do some modification accordingly.
--create table structure
create table #temp1 (
id int identity(1,1),
value int
)
go
--insert sample data
insert #temp1 values (1)
go 20
--below is solution
declare #qty int = 10
declare #cmd nvarchar(2000) =
N'update #temp1
set value= 100
output inserted.value
where id in
(
select top '+ cast(#qty as nvarchar(5)) +' id from #temp1
order by id
)';
execute sp_executesql #cmd
You can use ranking function (for example row_number).
update top (100) q
set IsDone = 1
output
inserted.Id,
inserted.Etc
from (
select *, row_number() over(order by CreatedDate asc, (select 0)) rn
from QueueTable) q
where rn <= 100
I want to make a database query with pagination. So, I used a common-table expression and a ranked function to achieve this. Look at the example below.
declare #table table (name varchar(30));
insert into #table values ('Jeanna Hackman');
insert into #table values ('Han Fackler');
insert into #table values ('Tiera Wetherbee');
insert into #table values ('Hilario Mccray');
insert into #table values ('Mariela Edinger');
insert into #table values ('Darla Tremble');
insert into #table values ('Mammie Cicero');
insert into #table values ('Raisa Harbour');
insert into #table values ('Nicholas Blass');
insert into #table values ('Heather Hayashi');
declare #pagenumber int = 2;
declare #pagesize int = 3;
declare #total int;
with query as
(
select name, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY name ASC) as line from #table
)
select top (#pagesize) name from query
where line > (#pagenumber - 1) * #pagesize
Here, I can specify the #pagesize and #pagenumber variables to give me just the records that I want. However, this example (that comes from a stored procedure) is used to make a grid pagination in a web application. This web application requires to show the page numbers. For instance, if a have 12 records in the database and the page size is 3, then I'll have to show 4 links, each one representing a page.
But I can't do this without knowing how many records are there, and this example just gives me the subset of records.
Then I changed the stored procedure to return the count(*).
declare #pagenumber int = 2;
declare #pagesize int = 3;
declare #total int;
with query as
(
select name, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY name ASC) as line, total = count(*) over()from #table
)
select top (#pagesize) name, total from query
where line > (#pagenumber - 1) * #pagesize
So, along with each line, it will show the total number of records. But I didn't like it.
My question is if there's a better way (performance) to do this, maybe setting the #total variable without returning this information in the SELECT. Or is this total column something that won't harm the performance too much?
Thanks
Assuming you are using MSSQL 2012, you can use Offset and Fetch which cleans up server-side paging greatly. We've found performance is fine, and in most cases better. As far as getting the total column count, just use the window function below inline...it will not include the limits imposed by 'offset' and 'fetch'.
For Row_Number, you can use window functions the way you did, but I would recommend that you calculate that client side as (pagenumber*pagesize + resultsetRowNumber), so if you're on the 5th page of 10 results and on the third row you would output row 53.
When applied to an Orders table with about 2 million orders, I found the following:
FAST VERSION
This ran in under a second. The nice thing about it is that you can do your filtering in the common table expression once and it applies both to the paging process and the count. When you have many predicates in the where clause, this keeps things simple.
declare #skipRows int = 25,
#takeRows int = 100,
#count int = 0
;WITH Orders_cte AS (
SELECT OrderID
FROM dbo.Orders
)
SELECT
OrderID,
tCountOrders.CountOrders AS TotalRows
FROM Orders_cte
CROSS JOIN (SELECT Count(*) AS CountOrders FROM Orders_cte) AS tCountOrders
ORDER BY OrderID
OFFSET #skipRows ROWS
FETCH NEXT #takeRows ROWS ONLY;
SLOW VERSION
This took about 10 sec, and it was the Count(*) that caused the slowness. I'm surprised this is so slow, but I suspect it's simply calculating the total for each row. It's very clean though.
declare #skipRows int = 25,
#takeRows int = 100,
#count int = 0
SELECT
OrderID,
Count(*) Over() AS TotalRows
FROM Location.Orders
ORDER BY OrderID
OFFSET #skipRows ROWS
FETCH NEXT #takeRows ROWS ONLY;
CONCLUSION
We've gone through this performance tuning process before and actually found that it depended on the query, predicates used, and indexes involved. For instance, the second we introduced a view it chugged, so we actually query off the base table and then join up the view (which includes the base table) and it actually performs very well.
I would suggest having a couple of straight-forward strategies and applying them to high-value queries that are chugging.
DECLARE #pageNumber INT = 1 ,
#RowsPerPage INT = 20
SELECT *
FROM TableName
ORDER BY Id
OFFSET ( ( #pageNumber - 1 ) * #RowsPerPage ) ROWS
FETCH NEXT #RowsPerPage ROWS ONLY;
What if you calculate the count beforehand?
declare #pagenumber int = 2;
declare #pagesize int = 3;
declare #total int;
SELECT #total = count(*)
FROM #table
with query as
(
select name, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY name ASC) as line from #table
)
select top (#pagesize) name, #total total from query
where line > (#pagenumber - 1) * #pagesize
Another way, is to calculate max(line). Check the link
Return total records from SQL Server when using ROW_NUMBER
UPD:
For single query, check marc_s's answer on the link above.
with query as
(
select name, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY name ASC) as line from #table
)
select top (#pagesize) name,
(SELECT MAX(line) FROM query) AS total
from query
where line > (#pagenumber - 1) * #pagesize
#pagenumber=5
#pagesize=5
Create a common table expression and write logic like this
Between ((#pagenumber-1)*(#pagesize))+1 and (#pagenumber *#pagesize)
There are many way we can achieve pagination: I hope this information is useful to you and others.
Example 1: using offset-fetch next clause. introduce in 2005
declare #table table (name varchar(30));
insert into #table values ('Jeanna Hackman');
insert into #table values ('Han Fackler');
insert into #table values ('Tiera Wetherbee');
insert into #table values ('Hilario Mccray');
insert into #table values ('Mariela Edinger');
insert into #table values ('Darla Tremble');
insert into #table values ('Mammie Cicero');
insert into #table values ('Raisa Harbour');
insert into #table values ('Nicholas Blass');
insert into #table values ('Heather Hayashi');
declare #pagenumber int = 1
declare #pagesize int = 3
--this is a CTE( common table expression and this is introduce in 2005)
with query as
(
select ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY name ASC) as line, name from #table
)
--order by clause is required to use offset-fetch
select * from query
order by name
offset ((#pagenumber - 1) * #pagesize) rows
fetch next #pagesize rows only
Example 2: using row_number() function and between
declare #table table (name varchar(30));
insert into #table values ('Jeanna Hackman');
insert into #table values ('Han Fackler');
insert into #table values ('Tiera Wetherbee');
insert into #table values ('Hilario Mccray');
insert into #table values ('Mariela Edinger');
insert into #table values ('Darla Tremble');
insert into #table values ('Mammie Cicero');
insert into #table values ('Raisa Harbour');
insert into #table values ('Nicholas Blass');
insert into #table values ('Heather Hayashi');
declare #pagenumber int = 2
declare #pagesize int = 3
SELECT *
FROM
(select ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY PRODUCTNAME) AS RowNum, * from Products)
as Prodcut
where RowNum between (((#pagenumber - 1) * #pageSize )+ 1)
and (#pagenumber * #pageSize )
I hope these will be helpful to all
I don't like other solutions for being too complex, so here is my version.
Execute three select queries in one go and use output parameters for getting the count values. This query returns the total count, the filter count, and the page rows. It supports sorting, searching, and filtering the source data. It's easy to read and modify.
Let's say you have two tables with one-to-many relationship, items and their prices changed over time so the example query is not too trivial.
create table shop.Items
(
Id uniqueidentifier not null primary key,
Name nvarchar(100) not null,
);
create table shop.Prices
(
ItemId uniqueidentifier not null,
Updated datetime not null,
Price money not null,
constraint PK_Prices primary key (ItemId, Updated),
constraint FK_Prices_Items foreign key (ItemId) references shop.Items(Id)
);
Here is the query:
select #TotalCount = count(*) over()
from shop.Items i;
select #FilterCount = count(*) over()
from shop.Items i
outer apply (select top 1 p.Price, p.Updated from shop.Prices p where p.ItemId = i.Id order by p.Updated desc) as p
where (#Search is null or i.Name like '%' + #Search + '%')/**where**/;
select i.Id as ItemId, i.Name, p.Price, p.Updated
from shop.Items i
outer apply (select top 1 p.Price, p.Updated from shop.Prices p where p.ItemId = i.Id order by p.Updated desc) as p
where (#Search is null or i.Name like '%' + #Search + '%')/**where**/
order by /**orderby**/i.Id
offset #SkipCount rows fetch next #TakeCount rows only;
You need to provide the following parameters to the query:
#SkipCount - how many records to skip, calculated from the page number.
#TakeCount - how many records to return, calculated from or equal to the page size.
#Search - a text to search for in some columns, provided by the grid search box.
#TotalCount - the total number of records in the data source, the output parameter.
#FilterCount - the number of records after the search and filtering operations, the output parameter.
You can replace /**orderby**/ comment with the list of columns and their ordering directions if the grid must support sorting the rows by columns. you get this info from the grid and translate it to an SQL expression. We still need to order the records by some column initially, I usually use ID column for that.
If the grid must support filtering data by each column individually, you can replace /**where**/ comment with an SQL expression for that.
If the user is not searching and filtering the data, but only clicks through the grid pages, this query doesn't change at all and the database server executes it very quickly.