I have a checkbox on my page P3_Checkbox1 that is populated from the database. How can I loop through all the checked values of my checkbox in PL/SQL code?
I assume that APEX_APPLICATION.G_F01 is used only by sql generated checkboxes and I cannot use it for regular checbox as it would not populate G_Fxx array.
I think I understand now what you're saying.
For example, suppose that the P3_CHECKBOX1 checkbox item allows 3 values (display/return):
Absent: -1
Unknown: 0
Here: 1
I created a button (which will just SUBMIT the page) and two text items which will display checked values: P3_CHECKED_VALUES and P3_CHECKED_VALUES_2.
Then I created a process which fires when the button is pressed. The process looks like this (read the comments as well, please):
begin
-- This is trivial; checked (selected) values are separated by a colon sign,
-- just like in a Shuttle item
:P3_CHECKED_VALUES := :P3_CHECKBOX1;
-- This is what you might be looking for; it uses the APEX_STRING.SPLIT function
-- which splits selected values (the result is ROWS, not a column), and these
-- values can then be used in a join or anywhere else, as if it was result of a
-- subquery. The TABLE function is used as well.
-- LISTAGG is used just to return a single value so that I wouldn't have to worry
-- about TOO-MANY-ROWS error.
with
description (code, descr) as
(select -1, 'Absent' from dual union all
select 0 , 'Unknown' from dual union all
select 1 , 'Here' from dual),
desc_join as
(select d.descr
from description d join (select * from table(apex_string.split(:P3_CHECKED_VALUES, ':'))) s
on d.code = s.column_value
)
select listagg(j.descr, ' / ') within group (order by null)
into :P3_CHECKED_VALUES_2
from desc_join j;
end;
Suppose that the Absent and Unknown values have been checked. The result of that PL/SQL process is:
P3_CHECKED_VALUES = -1:0
P3_CHECKED_VALUES_2 = Absent / Unknown
You can rewrite it as you want; this is just one example.
Keywords:
APEX_STRING.SPLIT
TABLE function
I hope it'll help.
[EDIT: loop through selected values]
Looping through those values isn't difficult; you'd do it as follows (see the cursor FOR loop):
declare
l_dummy number;
begin
for cur_r in (select * From table(apex_string.split(:P3_CHECKED_VALUES, ':')))
loop
select max(1)
into l_dummy
from some_table where some_column = cur_r.column_value;
if l_dummy is null then
-- checked value does not exist
insert into some_table (some_column, ...) valued (cur_r.column_value, ...);
else
-- checked value exists
delete from some_table where ...
end if;
end loop;
end;
However, I'm not sure what you meant by saying that a "particular combination is in the database". Does it mean that you are storing colon-separated values into a column in that table? If so, the above code won't work either because you'd compare, for example
-1 to 0:-1 and then
0 to 0:-1
which won't be true (except in the simplest cases, when checked and stored values have only one value).
Although Apex' "multiple choices" look nice, they can become a nightmare when you have to actually do something with them (like in your case).
Maybe you should first sort checkbox values, sort database values, and then compare those two strings.
It means that LISTAGG might once again become handy, such as
listagg(j.descr, ' / ') within group (order by j.descr)
Database values could be sorted this way:
SQL> with test (col) as
2 (select '1:0' from dual union all
3 select '1:-1:0' from dual
4 ),
5 inter as
6 (select col,
7 regexp_substr(col, '[^:]+', 1, column_value) token
8 from test,
9 table(cast(multiset(select level from dual
10 connect by level <= regexp_count(col, ':') + 1
11 ) as sys.odcinumberlist))
12 )
13 select
14 col source_value,
15 listagg(token, ':') within group (order by token) sorted_value
16 from inter
17 group by col;
SOURCE SORTED_VALUE
------ --------------------
1:-1:0 -1:0:1
1:0 0:1
SQL>
Once you have them both sorted, you can compare them and either INSERT or DELETE a row.
Related
I have a query that gets contract_types 1 to 10. This query is being used in an SSRS report to filter out a larger dataset. I am using -1 for nulls and -2 for all.
I would like to know how we would allow multiple values - does oracle concatenate the inputs together so '1,2,3' would be passed in? Say we get select -1,0,1 in SSRS, how could we alter the bottom query to return values?
My query to get ContractTypes:
SELECT
ContractType,
CASE WHEN ContractType = -2 THEN 'All'
WHEN ContractType = -1 THEN'Null'
ELSE to_Char(ContractType)
END AS DisplayFigure
FROM ContractTypes
which returns
ContractType DisplayFig
-1 Null
0 0
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
This currently is only returning single values or all, not muliple values:
SELECT *
FROM Employee
WHERE NVL(CONTRACT_TYPE, -1) = :contract_type or :contract_type = -2
I'm assuming we want to do something like:
WHERE NVL(CONTRACT_TYPE, -1) IN (:contract_type)
But this doesn't seem to work.
Data in Employee
Name ContractType
Bob 1
Sue 0
Bill Null
Joe 2
In my report, I want to be able to select contract_type as -1(null),0,1 using the 'allow muliple values' checkbox. At the moment, I can only select either 'all' using my -2 value, or single contract types.
My input would be: contract type = -1,1,2
My output would be Bill, Bob, Joe.
This is how I'm executing my code
I use SSRS with Oracle a lot so I see where you're coming from. Thankfully, they work pretty well together.
First make sure the parameter is set to allow multiple values. This adds a Select All option to your dropdown so you don't have to worry about adding a special case for "All". You'll want to make sure the dataset for the parameter has a row with -1 as the Value and a friendly description for the Label.
Next, the WHERE clause would be just as you mentioned:
WHERE NVL(CONTRACT_TYPE, -1) IN (:contract_type)
SSRS automatically populates the values. There is no XML or string manipulation needed. Keep in mind that this will not work with single-value parameters.
If for some reason this still doesn't work as expected in your environment, there is another workaround you can use which is more universal and works even with ODBC connections.
In the dataset parameter properties, use an expression like this to concatenate the values into a single, comma-separated string:
="," + Join(Parameters!Parameter.Value, ",") + ","
Then use an expression like this in your WHERE clause:
where :parameter like '%,' + Column + ',%'
Obviously, this is less efficient because it most likely won't be using an index, but it works.
I don't know SSRS, but - if I understood you correctly, you'll have to split that comma-separated values list into rows. Something like in this example:
SQL> select *
2 from dept
3 where deptno in (select regexp_substr('&&contract_type', '[^,]+', 1, level)
4 from dual
5 connect by level <= regexp_count('&&contract_type', ',') + 1
6 );
Enter value for contract_type: 10,20,40
DEPTNO DNAME LOC
---------- -------------------- --------------------
20 RESEARCH DALLAS
10 ACCOUNTING NEW YORK
40 OPERATIONS BOSTON
SQL>
Applied to your code:
select *
from employee
where nvl(contract_type, -1) in (select regexp_substr(:contract_type, '[^,]+', 1, level)
from dual
connect by level <= regexp_substr(:contract_type, ',') + 1
)
If you have the comma separated list of numbers and then if you like to split it then, the below seems simple and easy to maintain.
select to_number(column_value) from xmltable(:val);
Inputs: 1,2,3,4
Output:
I guess I understood your problem. If I am correct the below should solve your problem:
with inputs(Name, ContractType) as
(
select 'Bob', 1 from dual union all
select 'Sue', 0 from dual union all
select 'Bill', Null from dual union all
select 'Joe', 2 from dual
)
select *
from inputs
where decode(:ContractType,'-2',-2,nvl(ContractType,-1)) in (select to_number(column_value) from xmltable(:ContractType))
Inputs: -1,1,2
Output:
Inputs: -2
Output:
I'm trying to output a list of the courses a professor teaches, by receiving the prof's id by parameter to my function, and showing all courses, each separated by a comma. For example, if a Professor teaches Humanities, Science and Math, I want the output to be: 'Humanities, Science, Math'. However, I'm getting just 'Math,'. It only shows the last field that it found that matched with the prof's id.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION listar_cursos(prof NUMBER) RETURN VARCHAR
IS
CURSOR C1 IS
SELECT subject.name AS name FROM subject
INNER JOIN course_semester
ON subject.id = course_semester.id_subject
WHERE course_semester.id_profesor = prof
ORDER BY subject.name;
test VARCHAR(500);
BEGIN
FOR item IN C1
LOOP
test:= item.name ||',';
END LOOP;
RETURN test;
END;
/
I am aware that listagg exists, however I do not wish to use it.
In your loop, you re-assign to the test variable, instead of appending to it. This is why, at the end of the loop, it will just hold the last value of item.name.
The assignment should instead be something like
test := test || ',' || item.name
Note also that this will leave a comma at the beginning of the string. Instead of returning test, you may want to return ltrim(test, ',').
Note that you don't need to declare a cursor explicitly. The code is easier to read (in my opinion) with an implicit cursor, as shown below. I create sample tables and data to test the function, then I show the function code and how it's used.
create table subject as
select 1 id, 'Humanities' name from dual union all
select 2 , 'Science' from dual union all
select 3 , 'Math' from dual
;
create table course_semester as
select 1 id_subject, 201801 semester, 1002 as id_profesor from dual union all
select 2 , 201702 , 1002 as id_profesor from dual union all
select 3 , 201801 , 1002 as id_profesor from dual
;
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION listar_cursos(prof NUMBER) RETURN VARCHAR IS
test VARCHAR(500);
BEGIN
FOR item IN
(
SELECT subject.name AS name FROM subject
INNER JOIN course_semester
ON subject.id = course_semester.id_subject
WHERE course_semester.id_profesor = prof
ORDER BY subject.name
)
LOOP
test:= test || ',' || item.name;
END LOOP;
RETURN ltrim(test, ',');
END;
/
select listar_cursos(1002) from dual;
LISTAR_CURSOS(1002)
-----------------------
Humanities,Math,Science
I have a function that returns a value and displays a similarity between tracks, i want the returned result to be ordered by this returned value, but i cannot figure out a way on how to do it, here is what i have already tried:
CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE proc_list_similar_tracks(frstTrack IN tracks.track_id%TYPE)
AS
sim number;
res tracks%rowtype;
chosenTrack tracks%rowtype;
BEGIN
select * into chosenTrack from tracks where track_id = frstTrack;
dbms_output.put_line('similarity between');
FOR res IN (select * from tracks WHERE ROWNUM <= 10)LOOP
SELECT * INTO sim FROM ( SELECT func_similarity(frstTrack, res.track_id)from dual order by sim) order by sim; //that's where i am getting the value and where i am trying to order
dbms_output.put_line( chosenTrack.track_name || '(' ||frstTrack|| ') and ' || res.track_name || '(' ||res.track_id|| ') ---->' || sim);
END LOOP;
END proc_list_similar_tracks;
/
declare
begin
proc_list_similar_tracks(437830);
end;
/
no errors are given, the list is just presented unsorted, is it not possible to order by a value that was returned by a function? if so, how do i accomplish something like this? or am i just doing something horribly wrong?
Any help will be appreciated
In the interests of (over-)optimisation I would avoid ordering by a function if I could possibly avoid it; especially one that queries other tables. If you're querying a table you should be able to add that part to your current query, which enables you to use it normally.
However, let's look at your function:
There's no point using DBMS_OUTPUT for anything but debugging unless you're going to be there looking at exactly what is output every time the function is run; you could remove these lines.
The following is used only for a DBMS_OUTPUT and is therefore an unnecessary SELECT and can be removed:
select * into chosenTrack from tracks where track_id = frstTrack;
You're selecting a random 10 rows from the table TRACKS; why?
FOR res IN (select * from tracks WHERE ROWNUM <= 10)LOOP
Your ORDER BY, order by sim, is ordering by a non-existent column as the column SIM hasn't been declared within the scope of the SELECT
Your ORDER BY is asking for the least similar as the default sort order is ascending (this may be correct but it seems wrong?)
Your function is not a function, it's a procedure (one without an OUT parameter).
Your SELECT INTO is attempting to place multiple rows into a single-row variable.
Assuming your "function" is altered to provide the maximum similarity between the parameter and a random 10 TRACK_IDs it might look as follows:
create or replace function list_similar_tracks (
frstTrack in tracks.track_id%type
) return number is
sim number;
begin
select max(func_similarity(frstTrack, track_id)) into sim
from tracks
where rownum <= 10
;
return sim;
end list_similar_tracks;
/
However, the name of the function seems to preclude that this is what you're actually attempting to do.
From your comments, your question is actually:
I have the following code; how do I print the top 10 function results? The current results are returned unsorted.
declare
sim number;
begin
for res in ( select * from tracks ) loop
select * into sim
from ( select func_similarity(var1, var2)
from dual
order by sim
)
order by sim;
end loop;
end;
/
The problem with the above is firstly that you're ordering by the variable sim, which is NULL in the first instance but changes thereafter. However, the select from DUAL is only a single row, which means you're randomly ordering by a single row. This brings us back to my point at the top - use SQL where possible.
In this case you can simply SELECT from the table TRACKS and order by the function result. To do this you need to give the column created by your function result an alias (or order by the positional argument as already described in Emmanuel's answer).
For instance:
select func_similarity(var1, var2) as function_result
from dual
Putting this together the code becomes:
begin
for res in ( select *
from ( select func_similarity(variable, track_id) as f
from tracks
order by f desc
)
where rownum <= 10 ) loop
-- do something
end loop;
end;
/
You have a query using a function, let's say something like:
select t.field1, t.field2, ..., function1(t.field1), ...
from table1 t
where ...
Oracle supports order by clause with column indexes, i.e. if the field returned by the function is the nth one in the select (here, field1 is in position 1, field2 in position 2), you just have to add:
order by n
For instance:
select t.field1, function1(t.field1) c2
from table1 t
where ...
order by 2 /* 2 being the index of the column computed by the function */
I have a scenario in oracle where i need to be able to reuse the value of a pseudo column which was calculated previously within the same select statement something like:
select 'output1' process, process || '-Output2' from Table1
I don't want to the repeat the first columns logic again in the second column for maintenance purposes, currently it is done as
select 'output1' process, 'output1' || '-Output2' name from Table1
since i have 4 such columns which depend on the previous column output, repeating would be a maintenance nightmare
Edit: i included table name and removed dual, so that no assumptions are made about that this is not a complex process, my actual statement does have 2 to 3 joins on different tables
You could calculate the value in a sub-query:
select calculated_output process, calculated_output || '-Output2' name from
(
select 'output1' calculated_output from dual
)
You can also use the subquery factoring syntax - i think it is more readable myself:
with tmp as
(
select 'output' process from dual
)
select
process, process || '-Output2' from tmp;
very similar to the previous poster, but I prefer the method I show below, it is more readable, thusly more supportable, in my opinion
select val1 || val2 || val3 as val4, val1 from (
select 'output1' as val1, '-output2' as val2, '-output3' as val3 from dual
)
This question already has answers here:
SQL IN Clause 1000 item limit
(5 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Is there any way to get around the Oracle 10g limitation of 1000 items in a static IN clause? I have a comma delimited list of many of IDs that I want to use in an IN clause, Sometimes this list can exceed 1000 items, at which point Oracle throws an error. The query is similar to this...
select * from table1 where ID in (1,2,3,4,...,1001,1002,...)
Put the values in a temporary table and then do a select where id in (select id from temptable)
select column_X, ... from my_table
where ('magic', column_X ) in (
('magic', 1),
('magic', 2),
('magic', 3),
('magic', 4),
...
('magic', 99999)
) ...
I am almost sure you can split values across multiple INs using OR:
select * from table1 where ID in (1,2,3,4,...,1000) or
ID in (1001,1002,...,2000)
You may try to use the following form:
select * from table1 where ID in (1,2,3,4,...,1000)
union all
select * from table1 where ID in (1001,1002,...)
Where do you get the list of ids from in the first place? Since they are IDs in your database, did they come from some previous query?
When I have seen this in the past it has been because:-
a reference table is missing and the correct way would be to add the new table, put an attribute on that table and join to it
a list of ids is extracted from the database, and then used in a subsequent SQL statement (perhaps later or on another server or whatever). In this case, the answer is to never extract it from the database. Either store in a temporary table or just write one query.
I think there may be better ways to rework this code that just getting this SQL statement to work. If you provide more details you might get some ideas.
Use ...from table(... :
create or replace type numbertype
as object
(nr number(20,10) )
/
create or replace type number_table
as table of numbertype
/
create or replace procedure tableselect
( p_numbers in number_table
, p_ref_result out sys_refcursor)
is
begin
open p_ref_result for
select *
from employees , (select /*+ cardinality(tab 10) */ tab.nr from table(p_numbers) tab) tbnrs
where id = tbnrs.nr;
end;
/
This is one of the rare cases where you need a hint, else Oracle will not use the index on column id. One of the advantages of this approach is that Oracle doesn't need to hard parse the query again and again. Using a temporary table is most of the times slower.
edit 1 simplified the procedure (thanks to jimmyorr) + example
create or replace procedure tableselect
( p_numbers in number_table
, p_ref_result out sys_refcursor)
is
begin
open p_ref_result for
select /*+ cardinality(tab 10) */ emp.*
from employees emp
, table(p_numbers) tab
where tab.nr = id;
end;
/
Example:
set serveroutput on
create table employees ( id number(10),name varchar2(100));
insert into employees values (3,'Raymond');
insert into employees values (4,'Hans');
commit;
declare
l_number number_table := number_table();
l_sys_refcursor sys_refcursor;
l_employee employees%rowtype;
begin
l_number.extend;
l_number(1) := numbertype(3);
l_number.extend;
l_number(2) := numbertype(4);
tableselect(l_number, l_sys_refcursor);
loop
fetch l_sys_refcursor into l_employee;
exit when l_sys_refcursor%notfound;
dbms_output.put_line(l_employee.name);
end loop;
close l_sys_refcursor;
end;
/
This will output:
Raymond
Hans
I wound up here looking for a solution as well.
Depending on the high-end number of items you need to query against, and assuming your items are unique, you could split your query into batches queries of 1000 items, and combine the results on your end instead (pseudocode here):
//remove dupes
items = items.RemoveDuplicates();
//how to break the items into 1000 item batches
batches = new batch list;
batch = new batch;
for (int i = 0; i < items.Count; i++)
{
if (batch.Count == 1000)
{
batches.Add(batch);
batch.Clear()
}
batch.Add(items[i]);
if (i == items.Count - 1)
{
//add the final batch (it has < 1000 items).
batches.Add(batch);
}
}
// now go query the db for each batch
results = new results;
foreach(batch in batches)
{
results.Add(query(batch));
}
This may be a good trade-off in the scenario where you don't typically have over 1000 items - as having over 1000 items would be your "high end" edge-case scenario. For example, in the event that you have 1500 items, two queries of (1000, 500) wouldn't be so bad. This also assumes that each query isn't particularly expensive in of its own right.
This wouldn't be appropriate if your typical number of expected items got to be much larger - say, in the 100000 range - requiring 100 queries. If so, then you should probably look more seriously into using the global temporary tables solution provided above as the most "correct" solution. Furthermore, if your items are not unique, you would need to resolve duplicate results in your batches as well.
Yes, very weird situation for oracle.
if you specify 2000 ids inside the IN clause, it will fail.
this fails:
select ...
where id in (1,2,....2000)
but if you simply put the 2000 ids in another table (temp table for example), it will works
below query:
select ...
where id in (select userId
from temptable_with_2000_ids )
what you can do, actually could split the records into a lot of 1000 records and execute them group by group.
Here is some Perl code that tries to work around the limit by creating an inline view and then selecting from it. The statement text is compressed by using rows of twelve items each instead of selecting each item from DUAL individually, then uncompressed by unioning together all columns. UNION or UNION ALL in decompression should make no difference here as it all goes inside an IN which will impose uniqueness before joining against it anyway, but in the compression, UNION ALL is used to prevent a lot of unnecessary comparing. As the data I'm filtering on are all whole numbers, quoting is not an issue.
#
# generate the innards of an IN expression with more than a thousand items
#
use English '-no_match_vars';
sub big_IN_list{
#_ < 13 and return join ', ',#_;
my $padding_required = (12 - (#_ % 12)) % 12;
# get first dozen and make length of #_ an even multiple of 12
my ($a,$b,$c,$d,$e,$f,$g,$h,$i,$j,$k,$l) = splice #_,0,12, ( ('NULL') x $padding_required );
my #dozens;
local $LIST_SEPARATOR = ', '; # how to join elements within each dozen
while(#_){
push #dozens, "SELECT #{[ splice #_,0,12 ]} FROM DUAL"
};
$LIST_SEPARATOR = "\n union all\n "; # how to join #dozens
return <<"EXP";
WITH t AS (
select $a A, $b B, $c C, $d D, $e E, $f F, $g G, $h H, $i I, $j J, $k K, $l L FROM DUAL
union all
#dozens
)
select A from t union select B from t union select C from t union
select D from t union select E from t union select F from t union
select G from t union select H from t union select I from t union
select J from t union select K from t union select L from t
EXP
}
One would use that like so:
my $bases_list_expr = big_IN_list(list_your_bases());
$dbh->do(<<"UPDATE");
update bases_table set belong_to = 'us'
where id in ($bases_list_expr)
UPDATE
Instead of using IN clause, can you try using JOIN with the other table, which is fetching the id. that way we don't need to worry about limit. just a thought from my side.
Instead of SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE ID IN (1,2,3,4,...,1000);
Use this :
SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE ID IN (SELECT rownum AS ID FROM dual connect BY level <= 1000);
*Note that you need to be sure the ID does not refer any other foreign IDS if this is a dependency. To ensure only existing ids are available then :
SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE ID IN (SELECT distinct(ID) FROM tablewhereidsareavailable);
Cheers