I have a procedure that throws the error "ORA-01427: single-row subquery returns more than one row". When I use the statemt as a simple SELECT I get 1 row per ID.
I researched the ORA-01427, however I couldn't really apply the answers to my error, since from what I understand I don't have a subquery.
CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE CALC_SLOPE (TBL_NAME IN VARCHAR2) AS
BEGIN
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'ALTER TABLE '||TBL_NAME||' ADD (SLOPE_MEDIAN NUMBER(2,2),
SLOPE_75 NUMBER(2,2),
SLOPE_90 NUMBER(2,2))';
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'UPDATE '||TBL_NAME||' a1 SET(SLOPE_MEDIAN, SLOPE_75, SLOPE_90)
=(
SELECT ROUND(MEDIAN(b.SLOPE),2) AS SLOPE_MEDIAN,
ROUND(PERCENTILE_CONT(0.75) WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY b.slope DESC),2) AS SLOPE_75,
ROUND(PERCENTILE_CONT(0.9) WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY b.slope DESC),2) AS SLOPE_90
FROM '||TBL_NAME||' a2,
bbx_slope b
WHERE SDO_CONTAINS(a2.GEOMETRY, b.POINT) = ''TRUE''
GROUP BY a2.ID
)';
END CALC_SLOPE;
Where lies the reason for the error and how can it be fixed?
I am working on WINDOWS 10 on ORACLE 12c Enterprise Edition.
I think you wanted a correlated update
..
FROM '
|| tbl_name || ' a2 JOIN bbx_slope b
ON SDO_CONTAINS(a2.GEOMETRY, b.POINT) = ''TRUE''
WHERE a2.ID = a1.id --This one
GROUP BY a2.ID
..
Right now You trying to update single row:
SET(SLOPE_MEDIAN, SLOPE_75, SLOPE_90)
with your select result. If your SELECT returns 50 rows, this 50 rows ORACLE tries to put into this single row.
Your missing in WHERE clause some conditions on ID column
I know the right syntax for having a function definition in the WITH clause. I know the right syntax for having a subquery in the WITH clause. But I have been unable to find an example of having a subquery and a function definition in the WITH clause of a SELECT statement.
If I have:
with totals as ( select colum_name from some_table )
select sum(column_name) from totals;
How do I add a function definition in the WITH clause?
Since you can't find much/anything about this from Oracle, I don't think it is a good idea to use it. Anyway, this works in 18.1:
WITH
FUNCTION with_plus(p IN NUMBER) RETURN NUMBER IS
BEGIN
RETURN p + 1;
END;
FUNCTION with_min(p IN NUMBER) RETURN NUMBER IS
BEGIN
RETURN p - 1;
END;
qry1 AS (
SELECT with_plus(10) plus
FROM DUAL
),
qry2 AS (
SELECT plus, with_min(10) min
FROM qry1
)
SELECT *
FROM qry2
;
/
So don't forget the slash / at the end.
If you ever find out how to put this whole block in a subquery, please let me know
I don't think there's any such restriction. However, I suspect that your problem has to do with column aliasing. Here's what worked for me:
with totals as (select sum(column_name) c1 from some_table)
select c1 from totals;
Oracle might have complained because you were trying to do something like:
with totals as (select sum(column_name) from some_table)
select sum(column_name) from totals;
Unfortunately, this is a consequence of name resolution. The subquery's column will get named "sum(column_name)". Since sum is a function, there's no way to reference that column name without Oracle thinking you're referencing the function. You have to give it another name in order to reference it anywhere else.
Edit: It seems that you want to define a function as if you would a view subquery. I don't think anything like this is possible. View subqueries really only perform textual substitution.
PL/SQL functions require a whole different parser, name resolution, compilation process, etc. Having them work in queries alone is hard enough.
Sorry to say, but you'd have to define your packages/procedures/functions normally.
This question already has an answer here:
Oracle: Dynamic query with IN clause using cursor
(1 answer)
Closed 8 years ago.
SELECT * FROM EMPLOYEE
WHERE EMP_NAME IN (:EMP_NAME);
This is my query and now the EMP_NAME parameter I would like to send it as a list of strings.
When I run this query in SQL developer it is asked to send the EMP_NAME as a parameter, Now I want to send 'Kiran','Joshi' (Basically, I want to fetch the details of the employee with employee name either Kiran or Joshi. How should I pass the value during the execution of the query?
It works when I use the value Kiran alone, but when I concatenate with any other string it won't work. Any pointers in this?
I tried the one below
'Kiran','Joshi'
The above way doesn't work as understood this is a single parameter it tries the employee with the name as 'Kiran',Joshi' which won't come. Understandable, but in order to achieve this thing, how can I go ahead?
Any help would be really appreciated.
Thanks to the people who helped me in solving this problem.
I could get the solution using the way proposed, below is the approach
SELECT * FROM EMPLOYEE WHERE EMP_NAME IN (&EMP_NAME)
I have tried in this way and following are the scenarios which I have tested and they are working fine.
Scenario 1:
To fetch details of only "Kiran", then in this case the value of EMP_NAME when sql developer prompts is given as Kiran. It worked.
Scenario 2:
To fetch details of either "Kiran" or "Joshi", then the value of EMP_NAME is sent as
Kiran','Joshi
It worked in this case also.
Thanks Kedarnath for helping me in achieving the solution :)
IN clause would be implicitly converted into multiple OR conditions.. and the limit is 1000.. Also query with bind variable means, the execution plan will be reused.. Supporting bind variables for IN clause will hence affect the bind variable's basic usage, and hence oracle limits it at syntax level itself.
Only way is like name in (:1,:2) and bind the other values..
for this, you might dynamic SQL constructing the in clause bind variables in a loop.
Other way is, calling a procedure or function(pl/sql)
DECLARE
v_mystring VARCHAR(50);
v_my_ref_cursor sys_refcursor;
in_string varchar2='''Kiran'',''Joshi''';
id2 varchar2(10):='123'; --- if some other value you have to compare
myrecord tablename%rowtype;
BEGIN
v_mystring := 'SELECT a.*... from tablename a where name= :id2 and
id in('||in_string||')';
OPEN v_my_ref_cursor FOR v_mystring USING id2;
LOOP
FETCH v_my_ref_cursor INTO myrecord;
EXIT WHEN v_my_ref_cursor%NOTFOUND;
..
-- your processing
END LOOP;
CLOSE v_my_ref_cursor;
END;
IN clause supports maximum of 1000 items. You can always use a table to join instead. That table might be a Global Temporary Table(GTT) whose data is visible to thats particular session.
Still you can use a nested table also for it(like PL/SQL table)
TABLE() will convert a PL/Sql table as a SQL understandable table object(an object actually)
A simple example of it below.
CREATE TYPE pr AS OBJECT
(pr NUMBER);
/
CREATE TYPE prList AS TABLE OF pr;
/
declare
myPrList prList := prList ();
cursor lc is
select *
from (select a.*
from yourtable a
TABLE(CAST(myPrList as prList)) my_list
where
a.pr = my_list.pr
order by a.pr desc) ;
rec lc%ROWTYPE;
BEGIN
/*Populate the Nested Table, with whatever collection you have */
myPrList := prList ( pr(91),
pr(80));
/*
Sample code: for populating from your TABLE OF NUMBER type
FOR I IN 1..your_input_array.COUNT
LOOP
myPrList.EXTEND;
myPrList(I) := pr(your_input_array(I));
END LOOP;
*/
open lc;
loop
FETCH lc into rec;
exit when lc%NOTFOUND; -- Your Exit WHEN condition should be checked afte FETCH iyself!
dbms_output.put_line(rec.pr);
end loop;
close lc;
END;
/
I have a simple INSERT query where I need to use UPDATE instead when the primary key is a duplicate. In MySQL this seems easier, in Oracle it seems I need to use MERGE.
All examples I could find of MERGE had some sort of "source" and "target" tables, in my case, the source and target is the same table. I was not able to make sense of the examples to create my own query.
Is MERGE the only way or maybe there's a better solution?
INSERT INTO movie_ratings
VALUES (1, 3, 5)
It's basically this and the primary key is the first 2 values, so an update would be like this:
UPDATE movie_ratings
SET rating = 8
WHERE mid = 1 AND aid = 3
I thought of using a trigger that would automatically execute the UPDATE statement when the INSERT was called but only if the primary key is a duplicate. Is there any problem doing it this way? I need some help with triggers though as I'm having some difficulty trying to understand them and doing my own.
MERGE is the 'do INSERT or UPDATE as appropriate' statement in Standard SQL, and probably therefore in Oracle SQL too.
Yes, you need a 'table' to merge from, but you can almost certainly create that table on the fly:
MERGE INTO Movie_Ratings M
USING (SELECT 1 AS mid, 3 AS aid, 8 AS rating FROM dual) N
ON (M.mid = N.mid AND M.aid = N.aid)
WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET M.rating = N.rating
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT( mid, aid, rating)
VALUES(N.mid, N.aid, N.rating);
(Syntax not verified.)
A typical way of doing this is
performing the INSERT and catch a DUP_VAL_ON_INDEX and then perform an UPDATE instead
performing the UPDATE first and if SQL%Rows = 0 perform an INSERT
You can't write a trigger on a table that does another operation on the same table. That's causing an Oracle error (mutating tables).
I'm a T-SQL guy but a trigger in this case is not a good solution. Most triggers are not good solutions. In T-SQL, I would simply perform an IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM dbo.Table WHERE ...) but in Oracle, you have to select the count...
DECLARE
cnt NUMBER;
BEGIN
SELECT COUNT(*)
INTO cnt
FROM mytable
WHERE id = 12345;
IF( cnt = 0 )
THEN
...
ELSE
...
END IF;
END;
It would appear that MERGE is what you need in this case:
MERGE INTO movie_ratings mr
USING (
SELECT rating, mid, aid
WHERE mid = 1 AND aid = 3) mri
ON (mr.movie_ratings_id = mri.movie_ratings_id)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET mr.rating = 8 WHERE mr.mid = 1 AND mr.aid = 3
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT (mr.rating, mr.mid, mr.aid)
VALUES (1, 3, 8)
Like I said, I'm a T-SQL guy but the basic idea here is to "join" the movie_rating table against itself. If there's no performance hit on using the "if exists" example, I'd use it for readability.
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