I my query dosn't pull any data for this query in Oracle SQL developer can someone help?
SELECT * FROM Customers
WHERE City NOT LIKE '[bsp]%';
You can either use regular expression (advised to avoid for decent size of data as it tends to be considerably slower than the alternate solution using simple like which can even be Sargable sometimes) or use multiple conditions.
Using multiple conditions:
SELECT * FROM Customers
WHERE City NOT LIKE 'b%'
and city not like 's%'
and city not like 'p%';
or using regexp_like:
select *
from customers
where not regexp_like(city, '^[bsp]');
Related
I need someone who can explain me about "group function is not allowed here" because I don't understand it and I would like to understand it.
I have to get the product name and the unit price of the products that have a price above the average
I initially tried to use this, but oracle quickly told me that it was wrong.
SELECT productname,unitprice
FROM products
WHERE unitprice>(AVG(unitprice));
search for information and found that I could get it this way:
SELECT productname,unitprice FROM products
WHERE unitprice > (SELECT AVG(unitprice) FROM products);
What I want to know is why do you put two select?
What does group function is not allowed here mean?
More than once I have encountered this error and I would like to be able to understand what to do when it appears
Thank you very much for your time
The phrase "group function not allowed here" is referring to anything that is in some way an "aggregation" of data, eg SUM, MIN, MAX, etc et. These functions must operate on a set of rows, and to operate on a set of rows you need to do a SELECT statement. (I'm leaving out UPDATE/DELETE here)
If this was not the case, you would end up with ambiguities, for example, lets say we allowed this:
select *
from products
where region = 'USA'
and avg(price) > 10
Does this mean you want the average prices across all products, or just the average price for those products in the USA? The syntax is no longer deterministic.
Here's another option:
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT productname,unitprice,AVG(unitprice) OVER (PARTITION BY 1) avg_price
FROM products)
WHERE unitprice > avg_price
The reason your original SQL doesn't work is because you didn't tell Oracle how to compute the average. What table should it find it in? What rows should it include? What, if any, grouping do you wish to apply? None of that is communicated with "WHERE unitprice>(AVG(unitprice))".
Now, as a human, I can make a pretty educated guess that you intend the averaging to happen over the same set of rows you select from the main query, with the same granularity (no grouping). We can accomplish that either by using a sub-query to make a second pass on the table, as your second SQL did, or the newer windowing capabilities of aggregate functions to internally make a second pass on your query block results, as I did in my answer. Using the OVER clause, you can tell Oracle exactly what rows to include (ROWS BETWEEN ...) and how to group it (PARTITION BY...).
I have a BigQuery table with point registers along a whole country, and I need to assign a "censal zone" to each one of them, which polygons are contained in another table. I've been trying to do so using a query like this one:
SELECT id_point, code_censal_zone
FROM `points_table`
JOIN `zones_table`
ON ST_CONTAINS(zone_polygon, point_geo)
The first table is quite large, so the query performes very inefficiently as it is comparing each possible pairs of (point, censal zone). However, both tables have a column identifier for the municipality in which they are in, so the question is, can rewrite my query in some way that ST_CONTAINS(*) is performed for each (point, censal zone) pair that belongs to the same municipality, hence not comparing all posible censal zones within the country for each point? Can I do this without having to read points_table multiple times?
SELECT id_point, code_censal_zone
FROM `points_table`
JOIN `zones_table`
ON 1.municipality = 2.municipality
AND ST_CONTAINS(zone_geo, point_geo)
I'm quite new to BigQuery so I don't really know if a query like this would actually do what I'am expecting, as I couldn't find anything in the documentation.
Thanks!
SELECT id_point, code_censal_zone
FROM `points_table`
JOIN `zones_table`
ON 1.municipality = 2.municipality
AND ST_CONTAINS(zone_geo, point_geo)
I am using IBM BPM V8.5.7. I want to use a single select to select an item which are retrieved via a service. The problem is that the service returns 10k+ items and I currently use a search function. What I want to achieve basically is to search in the single select dropdown and whilst doing that it must fire the service and return the search results.
I have managed to get the search function working properly but searching through so many items slows down BPM. I've tried using a piece of code but that just cleared the items once the service was called
Your DB-Select probably looks somewhat like this:
SELECT name, value FROM YOURTABLE
This will stress your ibm-control (are you using the classic controls or something else like apex)?
Try to limit the result-set from your SQL-Query. One example could be:
SELECT name, value FROM YOURTABLE FETCH FIRST 100 ROWS ONLY
(be aware this is DB2 style) - in MS SQL this looks like this:
SELECT TOP(100) name, value FROM YOURTABLE
my question is that currently if i want to query for multiple wildcarded values. I need to do something like this.
select customername from customers where customername like '%smith' or customername like '%potter' or customer name like '%harris' or customername like '%williams';
So I wanna ask from the experts, is there any easier way to do this?
Regards,
Sanjan
Create a table of your 100 names
select customername from customers c inner join customersames cn on(c.customernamename like '%'+cn.searchForname)
Can be a table variable if that helps.
you can use regular expressions
EDIT: You can find plenty of resources online. take http://66.221.222.85/reference/regexp.html for example.
Regular expressions are really powerful but can be very SLOW if applied carelessly. For your case they may not squeeze your syntax much because you need to type those names anyway and that's the bulky part.
I have an Oracle database with all the "data", and a Solr index where all this data is indexed. Ideally, I want to be able to run queries like this:
select * from data_table where id in ([solr query results for 'search string']);
However, one key issue arises:
Oracle WILL NOT allow more than 1000 items in the array of items in the "in" clause (BIG DEAL, as the list of objects I find is very often > 1000 and will usually be around the 50-200k items)
I have tried to work around this using a "split" function that will take a string of comma-separated values, and break them down into array items, but then I hit the 4000 char limit on the function parameter using SQL (PL/SQL is 32k chars, but it's still WAY too limiting for 80,000+ results in some cases)
I am also hitting performance issues using a WHERE IN (....), I am told that this causes a very slow query, even when the field referenced is an indexed field?
I've tried making recursive "OR"s for the 1000-item limit (aka: id in (1...1000 or (id in (1001....2000) or id in (2001....3000))) - and this works, but is very slow.
I am thinking that I should load the Solr Client JARs into Oracle, and write an Oracle Function in Java that will call solr and pipeline back the results as a list, so that I can do something like:
select * from data_table where id in (select * from table(runSolrQuery('my query text')));
This is proving quite hard, and I am not sure it's even possible.
Things that I can't do:
Store full data in Solr (security +
storage limits)
User Solr as
controller of pagination and ordering
(this is why I am fetching data from
the DB)
So I have to cook up a hybrid approach where Solr really act like the full-text search provider for Oracle. Help! Has anyone faced this?
Check this out:
http://demo.scotas.com/search-sqlconsole.php
This product seems to do exactly what you need.
cheers
I'm not a Solr expert, but I assume that you can get the Solr query results into a Java collection. Once you have that, you should be able to use that collection with JDBC. That avoids the limit of 1000 literal items because your IN list would be the result of a query, not a list of literal values.
Dominic Brooks has an example of using object collections with JDBC. You would do something like
Create a couple of types in Oracle
CREATE TYPE data_table_id_typ AS OBJECT (
id NUMBER
);
CREATE TYPE data_table_id_arr AS TABLE OF data_table_id_typ;
In Java, you can then create an appropriate STRUCT array, populate this array from Solr, and then bind it to the SQL statement
SELECT *
FROM data_table
WHERE id IN (SELECT * FROM TABLE( CAST (? AS data_table_id_arr)))
Instead of using a long BooleanQuery, you can use TermsFilter (works like RangeFilter, but the items doesn't have to be in sequence).
Like this (first fill your TermsFilter with terms):
TermsFilter termsFilter = new TermsFilter();
// Loop through terms and add them to filter
Term term = new Term("<field-name>", "<query>");
termsFilter.addTerm(term);
then search the index like this:
DocList parentsList = null;
parentsList = searcher.getDocList(new MatchAllDocsQuery(), searcher.convertFilter(termsFilter), null, 0, 1000);
Where searcher is SolrIndexSearcher (see java doc for more info on getDocList method):
http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/search/SolrIndexSearcher.html
Two solutions come to mind.
First, look into using Oracle specific Java extensions to JDBC. They allow you to pass in an actual array/list as an argument. You may need to create a stored proc (it has a been a while since I had to do this), but if this is a focused use case, it shouldn't be overly burdensome.
Second, if you are still running into a boundary like 1000 object limits, consider using the "rows" setting when querying Solr and leveraging it's inherent pagination feature.
I've used this bulk fetching method with stored procs to fetch large quantities of data which needed to be put into Solr. Involve your DBA. If you have a good one, and use the Oracle specific extensions, I think you should attain very reasonable performance.