In conjunction with the fn_split function, I'm returning a list of results from a table based on comma separated values.
The Stored Procedure T-SQL is as follows:
SELECT ProductCode, ProductDesc, ImageAsset, PriceEuros, PriceGBP, PriceDollars,
replace([FileName],' ','\_') as [filename],
ID as FileID, weight
from Products
LEFT OUTER JOIN Assets on Assets.ID = Products.ImageAsset
where ProductCode COLLATE DATABASE_DEFAULT IN
(select [value] from fn\_split(#txt,','))
and showOnWeb = 1
I pass in to the #txt param the following (as an example):
ABC001,ABC009,ABC098,ABC877,ABC723
This all works fine, however the results are not returned in any particular order - I need the products returning in the 'SAME ORDER' as the input param.
Unfortunately this is a live site with a built schema, so I can't change anything on it (but I wish I could) - otherwise I would make it more sensible.
If all of the references that are passed in on the #txt param are unique you could use CharIndex to find their position within the param e.g.
order by charindex(ProductCode, #txt)
In the stored procedure, I would create a table which has a numeric key which is the PK for the temp table and set to auto-increment. Then, I would insert the results of fn_split into that table, so that you have the parameters as they are ordered in the list (the auto-increment will take care of that).
Then, join the result set to this temp table, ordering by the numeric key.
If the entries in the parameter list are not unique, then after inserting the records into the temp table, I would delete any duplicates, except for the record where the id is the minimum for that particular parameter.
Related
I have a table that I need to add the same values to a whole bunch of items
(in a nut shell if the item doesn't have a UNIT of "CTN" I want to add the same values i have listed to them all)
I thought the following would work but it doesn't :(
Any idea what i am doing wrong ?
INSERT INTO ICUNIT
(UNIT,AUDTDATE,AUDTTIME,AUDTUSER,AUDTORG,CONVERSION)
VALUES ('CTN','20220509','22513927','ADMIN','AU','1')
WHERE ITEMNO In '0','etc','etc','etc'
If I understand correctly you might want to use INSERT INTO ... SELECT from original table with your condition.
INSERT INTO ICUNIT (UNIT,AUDTDATE,AUDTTIME,AUDTUSER,AUDTORG,CONVERSION)
SELECT 'CTN','20220509','22513927','ADMIN','AU','1'
FROM ICUNIT
WHERE ITEMNO In ('0','etc','etc','etc')
The query you needs starts by selecting the filtered items. So it seems something like below is your starting point
select <?> from dbo.ICUNIT as icu where icu.UNIT <> 'CTN' order by ...;
Notice the use of schema name, terminators, and table aliases - all best practices. I will guess that a given "item" can have multiple rows in this table so long as ICUNIT is unique within ITEMNO. Correct? If so, the above query won't work. So let's try slightly more complicated filtering.
select distinct icu.ITEMNO
from dbo.ICUNIT as icu
where not exists (select * from dbo.ICUNIT as ctns
where ctns.ITEMNO = icu.ITEMNO -- correlating the subquery
and ctns.UNIT = 'CTN')
order by ...;
There are other ways to do that above but that is one common way. That query will produce a resultset of all ITEMNO values in your table that do not already have a row where UNIT is "CTN". If you need to filter that for specific ITEMNO values you simply adjust the WHERE clause. If that works correctly, you can use that with your insert statement to then insert the desired rows.
insert into dbo.ICUNIT (...)
select distinct icu.ITEMNO, 'CTN', '20220509', '22513927', 'ADMIN', 'AU', '1'
from ...
;
I need to create function in SQL to check data in variables or parameters as below
#Category as varchar(50)='ABC,DEF'
#Value as varchar(50)='1,2'
And compare #Category value with Category in table then return value matching from parameter
JOB TABLE ---
JOB CATEGORY
123 ABC
234 DEF
234 SSS
Select JobNo,FUNCTION(#Category,#Value,CATEGORY) from JOB
FINAL RESULTS
JOB VALUE
123 1
234 2
234 0
If category match then return value from parameter else return 0.
If you can't use a static lookup table as mentioned in the comments (for example, perhaps the mapping needs to be dynamic based on data supplied by the application), then this looks like a job for a table valued parameter.
Right now you have two parameters, but it seems to me that the values in the parameters are related. That is to say, right now you have #category = 'ABC,DEF' and #value = '1,2', but I think you intend each "element" in the comma delimited set of "categories" to associate with the "element" in the comma delimiited set of "values" that is in the same position.
Right now the design is brittle, because what would happen if I use parameters like this: #category = 'ABC,DEF,GHI,JKL', #value = '1'?
So, you can make your code more durable, and use the sort of "join-based" lookup table solution being recommended to you in the comments, by using a function that takes a table valued parameter argument. To do this, you first have to create the table valued parameter as a type in your database. We then accept a parameter of that type, and join onto it. In the solution below I have "guessed" at datatypes for category and value that seem reasonable based on the sample data in your question.
Also, I've kept the "structure" of your solution - ie, the function is written in such a way that it can be "applied" against every row in jobs, individually. We don't have to do it this way. We could instead just do the whole query inside the function (ie, including the join to the job table), but perhaps you want to use the function against other tables that also have a cateogry column? I won't try to second guess the overall design here. But I will switch the function to an inline table valued function (which returns one row with one column) rather than a scalar function, for performance reasons.
-- schema and data to match your question
create table dbo.job (job int, category char(3));
insert dbo.job(job, category) values (123, 'ABC'), (234, 'DEF'), (234, 'SSS');
go
-- solution
create type dbo.CategoryValues as table
(
category char(3) unique,
[value] int
);
go
create or alter function dbo.MapCategory(#category char(3), #map dbo.CategoryValues readonly)
returns table as return
(
select [value] from #map where category = #category
);
go
-- to call the function we need to pass a parameter of type
-- dbo.CategoryValues with the mappings we desire
declare #map dbo.CategoryValues;
insert #map values ('ABC', 1), ('DEF', 2)
-- outer apply the function to each row in the job table.
select j.job, [value] = isnull(v.[value], 0)
from dbo.job j
outer apply dbo.MapCategory(j.category, #map) v
This is my table:
DocumentTypeId DocumentType UserId CreatedDtm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2d47e2f8-4 PDF 443f-4baa 2015-12-03 17:56:59.4170000
b4b-4803-a Images a99f-1fd 1997-02-11 22:16:51.7000000
600-0e32 XL e60e07a6b 2015-08-19 15:26:11.4730000
40f8ff9f Word 79b399715 1994-04-23 10:33:44.2300000
8230a07c email 750e-4c3d 2015-01-10 09:56:08.1700000
How can I shift the last entire row (DocumentType=email) on 3rd position,(before DocumentType=XL) without changing table values?
Without wishing to deny the truth of what others have said here, SQL Server does have CLUSTERED indices. For full details on these and the difference between a clustered table and a non-clustered one, please see here. In effect, a clustered table does have data written to disk in index order. However, due to subsequent insertions and deletions, you should never rely on any given record being in a fixed ordinal position.
To get your data showing email third and XL fourth, you simply need to order by CreatedDtm. Thus:
declare #test table
(
DocumentTypeID varchar(20),
DocumentType varchar(10),
UserID varchar(20),
CreatedDtm datetime
)
INSERT INTO #test VALUES
('2d47e2f8-4','PDF','443f-4baa','2015-12-03 17:56:59'),
('b4b-4803-a','Images','a99f-1fd','1997-02-11 22:16:51'),
('600-0e32','XL','e60e07a6b','2015-08-19 15:26:11'),
('40f8ff9f','Word','79b399715','1994-04-23 10:33:44'),
('8230a07c','email','750e-4c3d','2015-01-10 09:56:08')
SELECT * FROM #test order by CreatedDtm
This gives a result set of:
40f8ff9f Word 79b399715 1994-04-23 10:33:44.000
b4b-4803-a Images a99f-1fd 1997-02-11 22:16:51.000
8230a07c email 750e-4c3d 2015-01-10 09:56:08.000
600-0e32 XL e60e07a6b 2015-08-19 15:26:11.000
2d47e2f8-4 PDF 443f-4baa 2015-12-03 17:56:59.000
This maybe what you are looking for, but I cannot stress enough, that it only gives email 3rd and XL 4th in this particular case. If the dates were different, it would not be so. But perhaps, this was all that you needed?
I assumed that you need to sort by DocumentTypecolumn.
Joining with a temp table, which may contain virtually DocumenTypes with desired SortOrder, you can achieve the result you want.
declare #tbl table(
DocumentTypeID varchar(50),
DocumentType varchar(50)
)
insert into #tbl(DocumentTypeID, DocumentType)
values
('2d47e2f8-4','PDF'),
('b4b-4803-a','Images'),
('600-0e32','XL'),
('40f8ff9f','Word'),
('8230a07c','email')
;
--this will give you original output
select * from #tbl;
--this will output rows with new sort order
select t.* from #tbl t
inner join
(
select *
from
(values
('PDF',1, 1),
('Images',2, 2),
('XL',3, 4),
('Word',4, 5),
('email',5, 3) --here I put new sort order '3'
) as dt(TypeName, SortOrder, NewSortOrder)
) dt
on dt.TypeName = t.DocumentType
order by dt.NewSortOrder
The row positions don't really matter in SQL tables, since it's all unordered sets of data, but if you really want to switch the rows I'd suggest you send all your data to temp table e.g,
SELECT * FROM [tablename] INTO #temptable
then delete/truncate the data from that table (if it won't mess the other tables it's connected to) and use the temp table you made to insert into it as you like, since it'll have all the same fields with the same data from the original.
I'm using MS SqlServer 2008. And I have a table 'Users'. This table has the key field ID of bigint. And also a field Parents of varchar which encodes all chain of user's parent IDs.
For example:
User table:
ID | Parents
1 | null
2 | ..
3 | ..
4 | 3,2,1
Here user 1 has no parents and user 4 has a chain of parents 3->2->1. I created a function which parses the user's Parents field and returns result table with user IDs of bigint.
Now I need a query which will select and join IDs of some requested users and theirs parents (order of users and theirs parents is not important). I'm not an SQL expert so all I could come up with is the following:
WITH CTE AS(
SELECT
ID,
Parents
FROM
[Users]
WHERE
(
[Users].Name = 'John'
)
UNION ALL
SELECT
[Users].Id,
[Users].Parents
FROM [Users], CTE
WHERE
(
[Users].ID in (SELECT * FROM GetUserParents(CTE.ID, CTE.Parents) )
))
SELECT * FROM CTE
And basically it works. But performance of this query is very poor. I believe WHERE .. IN .. expression here is a bottle neck. As I understand - instead of just joining the first subquery of CTE (ID's of found users) with results of GetUserParents (ID's of user parents) it has to enumerate all users in the Users table and check whether the each of them is a part of the function's result (and judging on execution plan - Sql Server does distinct order of the result to improve performance of WHERE .. IN .. statement - which is logical by itself but in general is not required for my goal. But this distinct order takes 70% of execution time of the query). So I wonder how this query could be improved or perhaps somebody could suggest some another approach to solve this problem at all?
Thanks for any help!
The recursive query in the question looks redundant since you already form the list of IDs needed in GetUserParents. Maybe change this into SELECT from Users and GetUserParents() with WHERE/JOIN.
select Users.*
from Users join
(select ParentId
from (SELECT * FROM Users where Users.Name='John') as U
cross apply [GetDocumentParents](U.ID, U.Family, U.Parents))
as gup
on Users.ID = gup.ParentId
Since GetDocumentParents expects scalars and select... where produces a table, we need to apply the function to each row of the table (even if we "know" there's only one). That's what apply does.
I used indents to emphasize the conceptual parts of the query. (select...) as gup is the entity Users is join'd with; (select...) as U cross apply fn() is the argument to FROM.
The key knowledge to understanding this query is to know how the cross apply works:
it's a part of a FROM clause (quite unexpectedly; so the syntax is at FROM (Transact-SQL))
it transforms the table expression left of it, and the result becomes the argument for the FROM (i emphasized this with indent)
The transformation is: for each row, it
runs a table expression right of it (in this case, a call of a table-valued function), using this row
adds to the result set the columns from the row, followed by the columns from the call. (In our case, the table returned from the function has a single column named ParentId)
So, if the call returns multiple rows, the added records will be the same row from the table appended with each row from the function.
This is a cross apply so rows will only be added if the function returns anything. If this was the other flavor, outer apply, a single row would be added anyway, followed by a NULL in the function's column if it returned nothing.
This "parsing" thing violates even the 1NF. Make Parents field contain only the immediate parent (preferably, a foreign key), then an entire subtree can be retrieved with a recursive query.
I have an update statement in SQL server where there are four possible values that can be assigned based on the join. It appears that SQL has an algorithm for choosing one value over another, and I'm not sure how that algorithm works.
As an example, say there is a table called Source with two columns (Match and Data) structured as below:
(The match column contains only 1's, the Data column increments by 1 for every row)
Match Data
`--------------------------
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
That table will update another table called Destination with the same two columns structured as below:
Match Data
`--------------------------
1 NULL
If you want to update the ID field in Destination in the following way:
UPDATE
Destination
SET
Data = Source.Data
FROM
Destination
INNER JOIN
Source
ON
Destination.Match = Source.Match
there will be four possible options that Destination.ID will be set to after this query is run. I've found that messing with the indexes of Source will have an impact on what Destination is set to, and it appears that SQL Server just updates the Destination table with the first value it finds that matches.
Is that accurate? Is it possible that SQL Server is updating the Destination with every possible value sequentially and I end up with the same kind of result as if it were updating with the first value it finds? It seems to be possibly problematic that it will seemingly randomly choose one row to update, as opposed to throwing an error when presented with this situation.
Thank you.
P.S. I apologize for the poor formatting. Hopefully, the intent is clear.
It sets all of the results to the Data. Which one you end up with after the query depends on the order of the results returned (which one it sets last).
Since there's no ORDER BY clause, you're left with whatever order Sql Server comes up with. That will normally follow the physical order of the records on disk, and that in turn typically follows the clustered index for a table. But this order isn't set in stone, particularly when joins are involved. If a join matches on a column with an index other than the clustered index, it may well order the results based on that index instead. In the end, unless you give it an ORDER BY clause, Sql Server will return the results in whatever order it thinks it can do fastest.
You can play with this by turning your upate query into a select query, so you can see the results. Notice which record comes first and which record comes last in the source table for each record of the destination table. Compare that with the results of your update query. Then play with your indexes again and check the results once more to see what you get.
Of course, it can be tricky here because UPDATE statements are not allowed to use an ORDER BY clause, so regardless of what you find, you should really write the join so it matches the destination table 1:1. You may find the APPLY operator useful in achieving this goal, and you can use it to effectively JOIN to another table and guarantee the join only matches one record.
The choice is not deterministic and it can be any of the source rows.
You can try
DECLARE #Source TABLE(Match INT, Data INT);
INSERT INTO #Source
VALUES
(1, 1),
(1, 2),
(1, 3),
(1, 4);
DECLARE #Destination TABLE(Match INT, Data INT);
INSERT INTO #Destination
VALUES
(1, NULL);
UPDATE Destination
SET Data = Source.Data
FROM #Destination Destination
INNER JOIN #Source Source
ON Destination.Match = Source.Match;
SELECT *
FROM #Destination;
And look at the actual execution plan. I see the following.
The output columns from #Destination are Bmk1000, Match. Bmk1000 is an internal row identifier (used here due to lack of clustered index in this example) and would be different for each row emitted from #Destination (if there was more than one).
The single row is then joined onto the four matching rows in #Source and the resultant four rows are passed into a stream aggregate.
The stream aggregate groups by Bmk1000 and collapses the multiple matching rows down to one. The operation performed by this aggregate is ANY(#Source.[Data]).
The ANY aggregate is an internal aggregate function not available in TSQL itself. No guarantees are made about which of the four source rows will be chosen.
Finally the single row per group feeds into the UPDATE operator to update the row with whatever value the ANY aggregate returned.
If you want deterministic results then you can use an aggregate function yourself...
WITH GroupedSource AS
(
SELECT Match,
MAX(Data) AS Data
FROM #Source
GROUP BY Match
)
UPDATE Destination
SET Data = Source.Data
FROM #Destination Destination
INNER JOIN GroupedSource Source
ON Destination.Match = Source.Match;
Or use ROW_NUMBER...
WITH RankedSource AS
(
SELECT Match,
Data,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY Match ORDER BY Data DESC) AS RN
FROM #Source
)
UPDATE Destination
SET Data = Source.Data
FROM #Destination Destination
INNER JOIN RankedSource Source
ON Destination.Match = Source.Match
WHERE RN = 1;
The latter form is generally more useful as in the event you need to set multiple columns this will ensure that all values used are from the same source row. In order to be deterministic the combination of partition by and order by columns should be unique.