how can i convert a integer to decimal in oracle? Is there any function like TO_CHAR?
I need to put this function on a where clause. Thanks
SELECT IDDS,
ID
FROM T_TABLEONE
WHERE CAST(ID as DECIMAL)='1,301131832E19';
If you apply a function to the column then you can run the risks of:
being unable to use a regular index on that column
obscuring the expected cardinality of the result set, which can cause query optimisation problems.
So it's generally a bad practice, and you'd do better to cast your literal to the same type as the column, in this case using to_number().
However in this case I'm surprised that it's necessary, as Oracle's type conversion in recent releases should be able to cope with comparing an integer column to a number expressed in scientific notation: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!4/336d3/8
Use CAST:
CAST(myInt AS DECIMAL)
Related
Creating a mySomeTable table with 2 fields
create table mySomeTable (
IDRQ VARCHAR2(32 CHAR),
PROCID VARCHAR2(64 CHAR)
);
Creating an index on the table by the PROCID field
create index idx_PROCID on mySomeTable(trunc(PROCID));
Inserting records:
insert into mySomeTable values ('a', '1'); -- OK
insert into mySomeTable values ('b', 'c'); -- FAIL
As you can see, an error has been made in the index construction script and the script will try to build an index on the field using the trunc() function.
trunct() is a function for working with dates or numbers, and the field has the string type
This index building script successfully works out and creates an index without displaying any warnings and errors.
An index is created on the table using the TRUNC(TO_NUMBER(PROCID)) function
When trying to insert or change an entry in the table, if PROCID cannot be converted to a number, I get the error ORA-01722: invalid number, which is actually logical.
However, the understanding that I am working in a table with rows and adding string values to the table, and the error is about converting to a number, was misleading and not understanding what is happening...
Question: Why does Oracle change the index construction function, instead of giving an error? And how can this be avoided in the future?
Oracle version 19.14
Naturally, there was only one solution - to create the right index with the right script
create index idx_PROCID on mySomeTable(PROCID);
however, this does not explain, to me, this Oracle behavior.
Oracle doesn't know if the index declaration is wrong or the column data type is wrong. Arguably (though some may well disagree!) Oracle shouldn't try to second-guess your intentions or enforce restrictions beyond those documented in the manual - that's what user-defined constraints are for. And, arguably, this index acts as a form of pseudo-constraint. That's a decision for the developer, not Oracle.
It's legal, if usually ill-advised, to store a number in a string column. If you actually intentionally chose to store numbers as strings - against best practice and possibly just to irritate future maintainers of your code - then the index behaviour is reasonable.
A counter-question is to ask where it should draw the line - if you expect it to error on your index expression, what about something like
create index idx_PROCID on mySomeTable(
case when regexp_like(PROCID, '^\d.?\d*$') then trunc(PROCID) end
);
or
create index idx_PROCID on mySomeTable(
trunc(to_number(PROCID default null on conversion error))
);
You might actually have chosen to store both numeric and non-numeric data in the same string column (again, I'm not advocating that) and an index like that might then useful - and you wouldn't want Oracle to prevent you from creating it.
Something that obviously doesn't make sense and shouldn't be allowed to you is much harder for software to evaluate.
Interestingly the documentation says:
Oracle recommends that you specify explicit conversions, rather than rely on implicit or automatic conversions, for these reasons:
...
If implicit data type conversion occurs in an index expression, then Oracle Database might not use the index because it is defined for the pre-conversion data type. This can have a negative impact on performance.
which is presumably why it actually chooses here to apply explicit conversion when it creates the index expression (which you can see in user_ind_expressions - fiddle)
But you'd get the same error if the index expression wasn't modified - there would still be an implicit conversion of 'c' to a number, and that would still throw ORA-01722. As would some strings that look like numbers if your NLS settings are incompatible.
I had to make a CHAR(1 CHAR) column wider and I forgot to change the column type to VARCHAR2:
DUPLICADO CHAR(3 CHAR)
I noticed the error when my PHP app would no longer find exact matches, e.g.:
SELECT *
FROM NUMEROS
WHERE DUPLICADO = :foo
... with :foo being #4 didn't find the 3-char padded #4 value. However, I initially hit a red herring while debugging the query in SQL Developer because injecting raw values into the query would find matches!
SELECT *
FROM NUMEROS
WHERE DUPLICADO = '#4'
Why do I get matches with the second query? Why do prepared statements make a difference?
To expand a little on my comments, I found a bit in the documentation that explains difference between blankpadded and nonpadded comparison:
http://docs.oracle.com/database/121/SQLRF/sql_elements002.htm#BABJBDGB
If both values in your comparison (the two sides of the equal sign) have datatype CHAR or NCHAR or are literal strings, then Oracle chooses blankpadded comparison. That means that if the lengths are different, then it pads the short one with blanks until they are the same length.
With the column DUPLICADO being a CHAR(3), the value '#4' is stored in the column as three characters '#4 ' (note the blank as third character.) When you do DUPLICADO = '#4' the rule states Oracle will use blankpadded comparison and therefore blankpad the literal '#4' until it has the same length as the column. So it actually becomes DUPLICADO = '#4 '.
But when you do DUPLICADO = :foo, it will depend on the datatype of the bind variable. If the datatype is CHAR, it will also perform blankpadded comparison. But if the datatype is VARCHAR2, then Oracle will use non-padded comparison and then it will be up to you to ensure to do blankpadding where necessary.
Depending on client or client language you may be able to specify the datatype of the bind variable and thereby get blankpadded or nonpadded comparison as needed.
SQL Developer may be a special case that might not allow you to specify datatype - it just possibly might default to bind variables always being datatype VARCHAR2. I don't know sufficient about SQL Developer to be certain about that ;-)
I want to convert a varchar column into a number using the to_number function however I have some trouble understanding the order in which Oracle attempts to execute my SQL.
The statement looks like this;
select * from table where column is not null and to_number(column, '999.9') > 20
When Oracle executes this it throws an invalid number exception. I understand that Oracle optimized the SQL statement using some kind of relational algebraic formula however can someone tell me how I can safely use the to_number operator to achieve my goal?
can someone tell me how I can safely use the to_number operator to achieve my goal?
Unfortunately, you'll have to first filter out the rows with non-numerical data somehow before you apply to_number. The conversion function itself is "not safe", if you will, it will crash the whole query on a single invalid input.
I'm having trouble with TO_NUMBER function second and third parameters. Does one of them depend on the other one? How does nls_params parameter work? I can't understand how the the result of the query
SELECT TO_NUMBER('17.000,23',
'999G999D99',
'nls_numeric_characters='',.'' ')
REFORMATTED_NUMBER
FROM DUAL;
can be 17000.23. Could somebody please explain the process of the above conversion.
P.S. The above query is taken from an Oracle Database SQL Expert Certificate preparation book.
you are telling the TO_NUMBER function that,
the two characters ,. in nls_numeric_characters represent the decimal and thousand seperator
G (thousands seperator) = .
D (decimal seperator) = ,
so it sees the number as seventeen thousand point twenty three.
see: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B13789_01/olap.101/b10339/x_stddev022.htm#i78653
Now, I'll answer my own question. While using TO_NUMBER function I missed the important point that, whatever I get from TO_NUMBER function is going to be a number. And a number does not include anything else than decimal point and E scientific notation. So 17,788.99 is not actually a number but is rather the string representation of 17788.99.
If we try to subtract 500 from 17,788.99 we'll fail.(Well, Oracle implicitly converts numeric strings to numbers and vice-versa, but principally we can't perform arithmetic operations between strings and numbers). I'm sure that TO_NUMBER function is almost never used to select a column value. It's rather used to be able to make arithmetic operations. Instead, we use TO_CHAR to show a column value or any numeric expression in a neat, easy to read format. The fomat models and nls_params are not only for TO_NUMBER function, but for TO_CHAR as well.
I have a query that has
... WHERE PRT_STATUS='ONT' ...
The prt_status field is defined as CHAR(5) though. So it's always padded with spaces. The query matches nothing as the result. To make this query work I have to do
... WHERE rtrim(PRT_STATUS)='ONT'
which does work.
That's annoying.
At the same time, a couple of pure-java DBMS clients (Oracle SQLDeveloper and AquaStudio) I have do NOT have a problem with the first query, they return the correct result. TOAD has no problem either.
I presume they simply put the connection into some compatibility mode (e.g. ANSI), so the Oracle knows that CHAR(5) expected to be compared with no respect to trailing characters.
How can I do it with Connection objects I get in my application?
UPDATE I cannot change the database schema.
SOLUTION It was indeed the way Oracle compares fields with passed in parameters.
When bind is done, the string is passed via PreparedStatement.setString(), which sets type to VARCHAR, and thus Oracle uses unpadded comparision -- and fails.
I tried to use setObject(n,str,Types.CHAR). Fails. Decompilation shows that Oracle ignores CHAR and passes it in as a VARCHAR again.
The variant that finally works is
setObject(n,str,OracleTypes.FIXED_CHAR);
It makes the code not portable though.
The UI clients succeed for a different reason -- they use character literals, not binding. When I type PRT_STATUS='ONT', 'ONT' is a literal, and as such compared using padded way.
Note that Oracle compares CHAR values using blank-padded comparison semantics.
From Datatype Comparison Rules,
Oracle uses blank-padded comparison
semantics only when both values in the
comparison are either expressions of
datatype CHAR, NCHAR, text literals,
or values returned by the USER
function.
In your example, is 'ONT' passed as a bind parameter, or is it built into the query textually, as you illustrated? If a bind parameter, then make sure that it is bound as type CHAR. Otherwise, verify the client library version used, as really old versions of Oracle (e.g. v6) will have different comparison semantics for CHAR.
If you cannot change your database table, you can modify your query.
Some alternatives for RTRIM:
.. WHERE PRT_STATUS like 'ONT%' ...
.. WHERE PRT_STATUS = 'ONT ' ... -- 2 white spaces behind T
.. WHERE PRT_STATUS = rpad('ONT',5,' ') ...
I would change CHAR(5) column into varchar2(5) in db.
You can use cast to char operation in your query:
... WHERE PRT_STATUS=cast('ONT' as char(5))
Or in more generic JDBC way:
... WHERE PRT_STATUS=cast(? as char(5))
And then in your JDBC code do use statement.setString(1, "ONT");