I am not an oracle expert. I faced a very strange problem but do not know why this occur.
My query is
SELECT hc.id, hc.owner_name, hc.national_id, hc.phone_no, hc.location, hc.status, hc.expiry_status, od.office_title AS issuer, hc.create_date, hc.email, hc.LATTITUDE, hc.LONGITUDE, hc.HASAD_NO, hc.NUMBERATION, hc.BREEDING_TYPE, hc.PROGENY, hc.office_id, hc.issuer_id, hc.expiry_status, hc.status FROM health_cards hc
LEFT JOIN office_details od ON od.office_id = hc.issuer_id AND od.lang = :lang
WHERE hc.id = :search_data_num OR hc.national_id = :search_data_num or hc.phone_no = :search_data_num OR hc.owner_name LIKE :search_data ORDER BY hc.create_date DESC, hc.id desc OFFSET 0 ROWS FETCH NEXT 50 ROWS ONLY
When i m running this query i m getting following error
ORA-00918: column ambiguously defined
00918. 00000 - "column ambiguously defined"
But if i remove OFFSET 0 ROWS FETCH NEXT 50 ROWS ONLY from my query it work perfectly.
I want to know the reason why this query not working with offset statement.
You have repeated column hc.status.
`select 1 as "A" as "A" from dual` - execute OK;
`select * from (select 1 as "A"
, 2 as "A"
from dual);` - ORA-00918: column ambiguously defined
If you and offset, oracle probably does something similar.
You have the column hc.expiry_status twice in your select list.
The problem is that we allow this in a select list, but not within an inline view. When you add the row limiting clause, Oracle transforms the query and the transformation uses an inline view. There is a bug, 13687511 which is marked as fixed.
Meanwhile, the workaround is to either not select it twice, or alias the column(s).
Related
i have two tables master and other is child. suddenly i have lost voucher_date in master table. now how can i update it from child table where many record inserted against one voucher_number.
i have tried the query
update salem set (vch_date,vch_temp)=(
SELECT
vch_date,
vch_no
FROM sale where salem.vch_no=sale.vch_no GROUP BY vch_no,vch_date);
but i got message
SQL Error: ORA-01427: single-row subquery returns more than one row
01427. 00000 - "single-row subquery returns more than one row"
Regard.
GROUP BY you used is, actually, DISTINCT applied to selected column list. It appears that - for a certain vch_no which establishes relation between those two tables - you don't have a distinct vch_date + vch_no combination, which also means that there are several vch_date values for each vch_no. What to do? Pick one, for example maximum.
Also, you're setting salem.vch_temp to sale.vch_no which is pointless as vch_no from sale is equal to vch_no from salem so you can set salem.vch_temp to salem.vch_no.
UPDATE salem m SET
m.vch_date = (SELECT MAX(s.vch_date)
FROM sale s
WHERE m.vch_no = s.vch_no
),
m.vch_temp = m.vch_no;
I have question about "Subquery in Order by clause". The below request returns the error. Is it means that Subquery in Order by clause must be scalar?
select *
from employees
order by (select * from employees where first_name ='Steven' and last_name='King');
Error:
ORA-00913: too many values
00913. 00000 - "too many values"
Yes, it means that if you use a subquery in ORDER BY it must be scalar.
With select * your subquery returns multiple columns and the DBMS would not know which of these to use for the sorting. And if you selected one column only, you would still have to make sure you only select one row of course. (The difference is that Oracle sees the too-many-columns problem immediately, but detect too many rows only when fetching the data.)
This would be allowed:
select * from employees
order by (select birthdate from employees where employee_id = 12345);
This is a scalar query, because it returns only one value (one column, one row). But of course this still makes as little sense as your original query, because the subquery result is independent from the main query, i.e. it returns the same value for every row in the table and thus no sorting takes effect.
A last remark: A subquery in ORDER BY makes very seldomly sense, because that would mean you order by something you don't display. The exception is when looking up a sortkey. E.g.:
select *
from products p
where type = 'shirt' and color = 'blue' and size in ('S', 'M', 'L', 'XL')
order by (select sortkey from sizes s where s.size = p.size);
It means that valid options for ORDER BY clause can be
expression,
position or
column alias
A subquery is neither of these.
Hi I am using Oracle 12c and I have executed the below query which returns 0 rows merged. Please advise if I am doing something wrong.
The table cons_temp contains two columns,
name, value.
merge into cons_temp tb
using (select 'Freez' as NAME, 'NOI' as VALUE from dual where 1=2) v
on (tb.NAME=v.NAME)
when matched then update set tb.VALUE=v.VALUE
when not matched then insert (NAME,VALUE) values(v.NAME, v.VALUE);
Why have you put this line in the USING query?
where 1=2
That will always evaluate to false (because 1 != 2). Consequently your USING query will return zero rows, so there is nothing to match or unmatch.
If you remove that WHERE clause your statement will do something.
Can any one please help me to solve this issue
Table Name:RW_LN
LN_ID RE_LN_ID RE_PR_ID
LN001 RN001 RN002
LN002 RN002 RN003
LN003 RN003 RN001
LN004 RN001 RN002
MY Update Query is:
update table RW_LN set RE_LN_ID=(
select LN_ID
from RW_LN as n1,RW_LN as n2
where n1.RE_LN_ID = n2.RE_PR_ID)
MY Expected Result is:
LN_ID RE_LN_ID
LN001 LN003
LN002 LN004
LN003 LN002
LN004 LN003
This above query shows error as SUB QUERY RETURNS MULTIPLE ROWS.Can any one provide the solution for this, I am Beginner in Oracle 9i.So Stuck in the logic
you can try to solve this with a distinct
update table RW_LN set RE_LN_ID=(
select distinct LN_ID
from RW_LN as n1,RW_LN as n2
where n1.RE_LN_ID = n2.RE_PR_ID)
if that still returns multiple rows, it means you are missing a join somewhere along the way or potentially have a bad schema that needs to use primary keys.
If you want to take the "biggest" corresponding LN_ID, you could do
update RW_LN r1
set r1.RE_LN_ID = (select MAX(LN_ID)
FROM RW_LN r2
where r1.RE_LN_ID = r2.RE_PR_ID);
see SqlFiddle
But you should explain why you choose (as new RE_LN_ID) LN004 instead of LN001 for LN_ID LN002 (cause you could choose both)
Just guessing, but possibly this is what you want.
update
RW_LN n1
set
RE_LN_ID=(
select n2.LN_ID
from RW_LN n2
where n1.RE_LN_ID = n2.RE_PR_ID)
where exists (
select null
from RW_LN n2
where n1.RE_LN_ID = n2.RE_PR_ID and
n2.ln_id is not null)
At the moment there is no correlation between the rows you are updating and the value being returned in the subquery.
The query reads as follows:
For every row in RW_LN change the value of RE_LN_ID to be:
the value of LN_ID in a row in RW_LN for which:
the RE_PR_ID equals the original tables value of RE_LN_ID
IF there exists at least one row in RW_LN for which:
RE_PR_ID is the same as RE_LN_ID in the original table AND
LN_ID is not null
Hi Guys I have Two tables (MIGADM.CORPMISCELLANEOUSINFO and CRMUSER.PREFERENCES) and Each Has a field called PREFERENCE_ID and ORGKEY. I want to Update the Preference ID for MIGADM.CORPMISCELLANEOUSINFO with Preference_ID from CRMUSER.PREFERENCES for Each Corresponding ORGKEY. SO I wrote this Query;
update migadm.CORPMISCELLANEOUSINFO s set s.PREFERENCE_ID = (
select e.PREFERENCE_ID from crmuser.preferences e where s.ORGKEY = e.ORGKEY)
But I get:
ORA-01427: single-row subquery returns more than one row
What Should I do?
It means the columns you have selected are not unique enough to identify one row in your source table. Your first step would be to identify those columns.
To see the set of rows that have this problem, run this query.
select e.origkey,
count(*)
from crmuser.preferences e
group by e.origkey
having count(*) > 1
eg : for origkey of 2, let's say there are two rows in the preferences table.
orig_key PREFERENCE_ID
2 202
2 201
Oracle is not sure which of these should be used to update the preference_id column in CORPMISCELLANEOUSINFO
identify the row where the subquery returns more than one row (You could use REJECT ERROR clause to do it for instance) or use the condition 'where rownum = 1'.