I have a select statement with calculated columns and I would like to use the value of one calculated column in another. Is this possible? Here is a contrived example to show what I am trying to do.
SELECT [calcval1] = CASE Statement, [calcval2] = [calcval1] * .25
No.
All the results of a single row from a select are atomic. That is, you can view them all as if they occur in parallel and cannot depend on each other.
If you're referring to computed columns, then you need to update the formula's input for the result to change during a select.
Think of computed columns as macros or mini-views which inject a little calculation whenever you call them.
For example, these columns will be identical, always:
-- assume that 'Calc' is a computed column equal to Salaray*.25
SELECT Calc, Salary*.25 Calc2 FROM YourTable
Also keep in mind that the persisted option doesn't change any of this. It keeps the value around which is nice for indexing, but the atomicity doesn't change.
Unfortunately not really, but a workaround that is sometimes worth it is
SELECT [calcval1], [calcval1] * .25 AS [calcval2]
FROM (SELECT [calcval1] = CASE Statement FROM whatever WHERE whatever)
Yes it's possible.
Use the WITH Statement for nested selects:
Two ways I can think of to do that. First understand that the calval1 column does not exist as far as SQL Server is concerned until the statement has run, therefore it cannot be directly used as showning your example. So you can put the calculation in there twice, once for calval1 and once as substitution for calcval1 in the calval2 calculation.
The other way is to make a derived table with calval1 in it and then calculate calval2 outside the derived table something like:
select calcval1*.25 as calval2, calval1, field1, field2
from (select casestament as cavlval1, field1, field2 from my table) a
You'll need to test both for performance.
You should use an outer apply instead of a subselect:
select V.calc,V.calc*0.25 from FOO outer apply (select case Statement as calc) V
You can't "reset" the value of a calculated column in a Select clause, if that's what you're trying to do... The value of a calculated column is based on the calculated column formulae. Which CAN include the value of another calculated column.... but you canlt reset the formulae in a Select clause... if all you want to do is "output" the value based on two calculated columns, (as the syntax in your question reads" Then the
"[calcval2]"
in
SELECT [calcval1] = CASE Statement, [calcval2] = [calcval1] * .25
would just become a column alias in the output of the Select Clause.
or are you asking how to define the formulae for one calculated column to be based on another?
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 ...
;
As far as I am aware, the only way to get a random value in a SELECT statement is by using the newid() function, as the random() function doesn’t generate new values for each row.
This leads to the following awkward construction to get a random number from, say 0 - 9:
abs(checksum(newid())) % 10
If I use this expression in the SELECT clause, it behaves as expected. However, if I try something like the following:
select *
from table
where abs(checksum(newid())) % 10>4;
I should have though that I would get roughly half the rows. Instead I get I get all or none of them. Apparently newid() is only evaluated once, instead of for each row.
The question is, how can I use a random number in the WHERE clause?
More
There is a similar question which asks for fixed number of rows at random. In the above example I could have used:
select top 50 percent from table order by newid();
which will get me what I am looking for.
The question remains, how can I use a random number in the WHERE clause. For example, is it possible to do something like this?
select *
from table
where code={random number};
Here is one way to get around the problem
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT *,
Abs(Checksum(Newid())) % 10 AS ran
FROM yourtable) a
WHERE ran > 4;
for some reason newid() in where clause it is executed only once and it is checked with the constant.
When I check the execution plan your query is missing compute scalar where as my query has compute scalar present in execution plan.
The function newid() is calculate only once in the WHERE clause, not row by row. The trick is to force it to run row by row.
Of course it is possible to include it in a SELECT clause, and, in turn, include that in a CTE or a subquery, as per the other answers.
Microsoft offer a solution here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/sql/sql-server-2008-r2/ms189108(v=sql.105)?redirectedfrom=MSDN
The trick is to force newid() to recalculate by combining it with some row value. This is easily done in the checksum() function.
For example:
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE abs(checksum(newid(),id)) % 10>4;
I should have though that I would get roughly half the rows. Instead I get I get all or none of them
You may get all of the rows or none of them ,since NEWID() is executed once per query when you use it in where clause..This is explained here by Conor Cunnigham and the technical term for this is called RumTimeConstants
You can look at your execution plan and look out for below expression
Const ConstValue
which you can see is calculated once and used throughout and finally you are doing just a boolean comparison,so you will end up with all rows or none
you have to use CTE Like the one stated in another answer or use Top with order by newid() or tablesample to return random rows
you may find Tablesample option more helpfull,since this may not go though all the table data to get only sample set of rows,unlike Newid()
below is one example on a table having 1000000 rows
select * from Orders
TABLESAMPLE (50 PERCENT)
plan
In my select i have a column which is resulting from UDF. Also the same column should be part of where clause. Other than calling UDF two times are there any other options. I have around 15K rows returning based on user search, because of this i would like to call UDF as it is slowing performance any advice on how to achieve this. Would like something similar to this.
SELECT EMP
, SAL
, Location
, dbo.GetCompValue
(EMP, SAL) AS CompValue
FROM tblEmpSal
WHERE CompValue > 5000;
You could use CROSS/OUTER APPLY:
SELECT EMP, SAL,Location, s.CompValue
From tblEmpSal
OUTER APPLY (SELECT dbo.GetCompValue(EMP,SAL) AS CompValue) s
WHERE s.CompValue > 5000
UDFs are always a pig when it comes to Performance , you can change this function logic to make it an In-Line table valued function, Performance will be much better and in some cases it will also make use of the cached execution plans.
SELELCT EMP, SAL,Location, CompValue
FROM (
SELECT EMP, SAL,Location, dbo.GetCompValue(EMP,SAL) AS CompValue
From tblEmpSal
)A
WHERE A.CompValue > 5000
If the UDF's parameters are from a single table, one option (depending on how that table is used and the nature of the UDF) would be to add a persisted computed column to that table and then use that column in your SQL statements instead of repeatedly calling the UDF. This column could also potentially be indexed, although whether that has any benefit will depend on what else your query is doing.
I work with SQL Server 2008, but can use a later version if it would matter.
I have 2 tables with pretty similar data about some people but in different formats (no intersections between these 2 sets of people).
Table 1:
int personID
bit IsOldPerson //this field is indexed
Table 2:
int PersonID
int Age
I want to have a combined view that has the same structure as the Table 1. So I write the following script (a simplified version):
CREATE FUNCTION CombinedView(#date date)
RETURNS TABLE
AS
RETURN
select personID as PID, IsOldPerson as IOP
from Table1
union all
select personID as PID, dbo.CheckIfOld(Age,#date) as IOP
from Table2
GO
The function "CheckIfOld" returns yes/no depending on the input age at the date #date.
So I have 2 questions here:
A. if I try select * from CombinedView(TODAY) where IOP=true, whether the SQL Server will do the following separately: 1) for the Table 1 use the index for the field IsOldPerson and do a "clever" index-based selection of results; 2) for the Table 2 calculate CheckIfOld for all the rows and during the calculation pick up or rejecting rows on the row-by-row basis ?
B. how can I check the execution plan in this particular case to understand whether my guess in the question (A) is correct or not?
Any help is greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Yes, if the query isn't too complex, the query optimizer should "see through" the view into its constituent UNION-ed SELECT statements, evaluate them separately, and concatenate the results. If there is an index on Table1, it should be able to use it. I tested this using tables we had and the same function concepts you presented. I reviewed the query plans of the raw SELECT to Table1 and the SELECT to the inline table-valued function with the UNION and the portion of the query plan relevant to Table1 was the same-- and it used the index.
Now if performance is a concern, I suggest you do one of two things:
If (a) Table2 is read-heavy rather than write-heavy, (b) you have the space, and (c) you can write CheckIfOld as a single CASE statement (as its name and context in your question implies), then you should consider creating a persisted calculated field in Table2 with the calculation from IsOldPerson and applying an index to it.
If Table2 is write-heavy, or you have no space for additional fields, you should at least consider converting CheckIfOld into an inline function. You will likely reap performance gains, depending on how it is used. In your case, it would be used like this:
select personID as PID, IOP.IsOldPerson from Table2 CROSS APPLY dbo.CheckIfOld(Age,#date) AS IOP
I have a sql statement that consists of multiple SELECT statements. I want to limit the total number of rows coming back to let's say 1000 rows. I thought that using the SET ROWCOUNT 1000 directive would do this...but it does not. For example:
SET ROWCOUNT 1000
select orderId from TableA
select name from TableB
My initial thought was that SET ROWCOUNT would apply to the entire batch, not the individual statements within it. The behavior I'm seeing is it will limit the first select to 1000 and then the second one to 1000 for a total of 2000 rows returned. Is there any way to have the 1000 limit applied to the batch as a whole?
Not in one statement. You're going to have to subtract ##ROWCOUNT from the total rows you want after each statement, and use a variable (say, "#RowsLeft") to store the remaining rows you want. You can then SELECT TOP #RowsLeft from each individual query...
And how would you ever see any records from the second query if the first always returns more than 1000 if you were able to do this in a batch?
If the queries are simliar enough you could try to do this through a union and use the rowcount on that as it would only be one query at that point. If the queries are differnt in the columns returned I'm not sure what you would get by limiting the entire group to 1000 rows because the meanings would be different. From a user perspective I'd rather consistently get 500 orders and 500 customer names than 998 orers and 2 names one day and 210 orders and 790 names the next. It would be impossible to use the application especially if you happened to be most interested in the information in the second query.
Use TOP not ROWCOUNT
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189463.aspx
You trying to get 1000 rows MAX from all tables right?
I think other methods may fill up with from the top queries first, and you may never get results from the lower ones.
The requirement sounds odd. Unless you are unioning or joining the data from the two selects, to consider them as one so that you apply a max rows simply does not make sense, since they are unrelated queries at that point. If you really need to do this, try:
select top 1000 from (
select orderId, null as name, 'TableA' as Source from TableA
union all
select null as orderID, name, 'TableB' as Source from TableB
) a order by Source
SET ROWCOUNT applies to each individual query. In your given example, it's applied twice, once to each SELECT statement, since each statement is its own batch (they're not grouped or unioned or anything, and so execute completely separately).
#RedFilter's approach seems the most likely to give you what you want.
Untested and doesn't make use of ROWCOUNT, but could give you an idea?
Assumes col1 in TableA and TableB are the same type.
SELECT TOP 1000 *
FROM (select orderId
from TableA
UNION ALL
select name from TableB) t
The following worked for me:
CREATE PROCEDURE selectTopN
(
#numberOfRecords int
)
AS
SELECT TOP (#numberOfRecords) * FROM Customers
GO
this is your solution :
TOP (Transact-SQL)
and about ##RowCount you can read this Link :
SET ROWCOUNT (Transact-SQL)
Important
Using SET ROWCOUNT will not affect DELETE, INSERT, and UPDATE statements in a future release of SQL Server. Avoid using SET ROWCOUNT with DELETE, INSERT, and UPDATE statements in new development work, and plan to modify applications that currently use it. For a similar behavior, use the TOP syntax. For more information, see TOP (Transact-SQL).
I think two way will work.!