When submitting a query via NotesDatabase.FTSearch I get the error message:
Notes Error: Query is not understandable
(FIELD Form="Contact" AND ( FIELD CUSTOMER_ID <> 1)) (262)
The same query with an equals performs normal (same with <= and >=):
(FIELD Form="Contact" AND ( FIELD CUSTOMER_ID = 1))
Therefore I think there is an error on the "not equal" operator.
The documentation explains various operators on numeric values except the "not equals" operation.
Even worse it states, that
You cannot put NOT after the math symbols =, <, >, <=, or >=; and before a date or number
So whats the proper way to do it? <> and != didn't work.
Thanks for your help!
This works at least for text fields:
![CUSTOMER_ID]=1
Giive it a try, I'm not sure about numeric. If it does not work you can do this:
[CUSTOMER_ID]>1 OR [CUSTOMER_ID]<1
Simon's suggestion might work also (without the first underscore).
Related
I am writing a query, where I am using the division operator. For some reason I can't get it to work properly, and I can't see why.
pol = pi allergen (sigma allergy_type = 'pollen' (allergies))
tmp = (patient_allergies/pol)
tmp
The above is my query. In pol I am retrieving all allergens, who has the allergy type pollen. This gives me a 1 column, two rows table, which content is the two allergens who has allergy_type pollen.
tmp:
Patient_allergies is a 2 column, 23 row table. The first column is allergens, second column is ssn for the people with those allergens.
What I am trying to do, is to get everyone in patient_allergies, who has the two allergens I found in pol. I'm pretty sure I need to division operator for this, but it returns an empty list, which is incorrect for what I am trying to do.
EDIT: I am using this relational algebra calc, provided by our university: dbis-uibk.github.io/relax/calc/local/uibk/local/0 There is a division operator with another symbol, but yields the same result
I have an SSRS report where there is a parameter that asks the user to include records where revenue is greater than zero, or records with revenue values that are just zero.
Since the query is not a stored procedure and it is not an option to put it into a procedure, I need to use some case logic for the embedded query. I need to do this in the where clause in the end.
I am trying to do something like this:
SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE MY_DATE BETWEEN D_START AND D_END
AND
CASE
WHEN :REVENUE = 1 THEN REV != 0
WHEN :REVENUE = 2 THEN REV = 0
END
However, when I run this query I get the following error:
ORA-00905: missing keyword
Is what I am doing not possible? Or is there an error that someone can see and help me with?
Please help. Thanks!
UPDATE: Just to clarify, the user is passing a value of 1 or 2. And the query should filter the data according to what value is passed to it. If 1 is passed in the parameter, then filter out all revenue not equal to zero. Else if two is passed, then filter so that only records where revenue is zero is returned.
You can write it better with a bit of boolean logic:
SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE MY_DATE BETWEEN D_START AND D_END
AND (
(:REVENUE = 1 AND REV != 0)
OR
(:REVENUE = 2 AND REV = 0 )
)
CASE is meant to extract different values based on conditions, so you can use it to check conditions, but you need to use it as a value to check against a condition
It's not necessary to use a CASE expression to get this particular result.
But it is possible to make use of one.
The problem in the original query is that Oracle is more strict than other databases (like MySQL) in that Oracle doesn't implicitly convert a boolean expression to a value, or convert a value into boolean.
I suspect that Oracle is choking in a couple of places. The error message is only showing us one of those.
The CASE expression returns a value, and Oracle is balking that he won't evaluate the value as a boolean.
To get that value evaluated as a boolean, we could do a comparison of the value to some other value.
If we fix that, I think Oracle is still going to choke on the expression following THEN. Oracle is expecting to return a value, and it's finding a comparison, which evaluates to a boolean.
Okay, so we know the CASE expression needs to return a value, and we need to use that in a boolean expression. If we move that conditional test into the WHEN part, and specify a value to be returned in the THEN, we can compare the return from the CASE expression to another value.
(As an aside... I strongly recommend that you qualify the column references in the SQL statement. That makes the intent more clear. Looking at the statement, it looks like MY_DATE, D_START and D_END are all column references. That's perfectly valid, it just seems a bit odd to me.)
As an example, we could do something like this with the CASE expression:
SELECT t.*
FROM TABLE t
WHERE t.MY_DATE BETWEEN t.D_START AND t.D_END
AND CASE
WHEN ( :REVENUE = 1 AND t.REV != 0 ) THEN 1
WHEN ( :REVENUE = 2 AND t.REV = 0 ) THEN 1
ELSE NULL
END = 1
The parens inside the CASE aren't necessary; I just included them to highlight the part that Oracle is evaluating in a boolean context.
So, does that work? If the value passed in for :REVENUE is 2, the condition in the first WHEN won't evaluate to TRUE (the result of first comparison is guaranteed to be FALSE). The condition in the second WHEN may evaluate to TRUE (first comparison will yield TRUE, the result from second comparison will depend on the value in the REV column.)
That CASE expression is either going to return a value of 1 or NULL. (We could just as easily use a 0 or a -1, or 999 in place of NULL if we wanted.)
Once the CASE expression is evaluated, the value returned will be compared to a literal value, as if we wrote e.g. val = 1. That comparison is evaluated as boolean. If it evaluates to TRUE, the row will be returned...
To get Oracle to behave similarly to other databases (like MySQL), we would need to make the conversion from boolean to value and value to boolean explicit. We would still need the return from the CASE compared to 1, like we did above. In place of REV != 0 we could use another CASE expression. I'm not recommending this, just shown here for illustration, converting a boolean to a value.
WHERE CASE
WHEN ( :REVENUE = 1 )
THEN CASE WHEN ( t.REV != 0 ) THEN 1 ELSE NULL END
WHEN ( :REVENUE = 2 )
THEN CASE WHEN ( t.REV = 0 ) THEN 1 ELSE NULL END
ELSE
NULL
END = 1
Note that the return from the outermost CASE expression is being compared to a value, so we get a boolean (where Oracle expects a boolean.)
All of the ELSE NULL in the statements above can be omitted for an equivalent result, since that's the default when ELSE is omitted.)
Again, it's not necessary to use a CASE expression. You can get equivalent results without it. For example:
SELECT t.*
FROM TABLE t
WHERE t.MY_DATE BETWEEN t.D_START AND t.D_END
AND ( ( :REVENUE = 1 AND t.REV != 0 )
OR ( :REVENUE = 2 AND t.REV = 0 )
)
In these queries that all return an equivalent result, the CASE expression doesn't buy us anything. But in some circumstances, it can have some advantages over a regular OR, because the CASE expression stops evaluation when a condition in a WHEN clause evaluates to TRUE.
The problem is that Oracle SQL does not have the boolean data type, so you cannot have columns of type boolean, pass boolean parameters to a query, have boolean expressions etc. So they have the somewhat unnatural concept of "condition" which is something that goes into logical conditions (like in the WHERE clause). Unfortunately, when they introduced the case EXPRESSION, which can be used wherever any other expression can be used (but this excludes boolean), they DID NOT introduce a "case CONDITION" - which could be used where other conditions can be used. This omission is odd, since the code for a case condition would probably use 95% of the code for the case expression. All the more weird since PL/SQL does have the boolean type, and the case expression there works seamlessly for Booleans.
Pretty simple one.
I want to do the following
Model.where("money_rate > ?", some_other_money_item)
Any ideas?
PG::UndefinedColumn: ERROR: column "money_rate" does not exist
LINE 1: SELECT "jobs".* FROM "jobs" WHERE (money_rate > '--- !ruby/...etc
Seems that you can only do a comparison using the base method, in the above case this would be money_rate_cents
So:
Model.where("money_rate_cents > ?", some_other_money_item_in_cents)
Returns an array of items where the money attribute is higher.
Will leave that in case someone else finds it useful. Or in case I'm missing something and you can do comparisons on the whole number.
I am using this exp to calculate total fees paid on RDLC report:
=Sum(IIf(Fields!ResponseDescription.Value ="Approved Successful",Int(Fields!Amount.Value), 0))
And i get the #ERROR in the resulting column , what can be the issue ? .
And similar Exp above it work fine :
=Sum(IIf(Fields!ResponseDescription.Value <> "",Int(Fields!Amount.Value), 0))
Few notes:
1- Amount is always INTEGER and present.
2- ResponseDescription is always a STRING and present.
Thank you
You can use this expression:
=Sum(CInt(IIf(Fields!ResponseDescription.Value ="Approved Successful", Fields!Amount.Value, 0)))
You have to convert every possible values to the same type before aggregation.
I think the second expression works fine because you are always in the True case (Fields!ResponseDescription.Value <> "") so it always used an expression already converted to Integer.
Using Oracle 11gR2 Expression Edition.
My data looks like following
ordertype
---------
ZOCO
ZOSA
ZOST
We are trying to find out records where the column is not between a certain range of values.
If I run a query with <= and >= operators:
SELECT * FROM table where ordertype <= 'ZAAA' OR ordertype >= 'ZZZZ';
then I get 0 results. This is the right answer.
However, if I use NOT BETWEEN:
SELECT * FROM table where ordertype NOT BETWEEN 'ZAAA' AND 'ZZZZ';
, then it gives multiple hits.
My understanding is that both syntax should give the same result but they are not. What am I missing? Reason I want to use NOT BETWEEN because a lot of our existing code already has this syntax and I do not want to change it without understanding the reasons.
Thank you.
Thanks for all those who posted. I ran the queries again and after fixing the "OR" in the first query, the results are the same. I still have the question of why Oracle character sorting is not recognizing it as expected, but my question which is about difference between NOT BETWEEN and <> was a false alarm. I apologize for confusion.
SELECT * FROM table where ordertype <= 'ZAAA' AND ordertype >= 'ZZZZ';
No string can be <= 'ZAAA' and >= 'ZZZZ'.
You need to use a disjunction instead:
SELECT * FROM table where ordertype < 'ZAAA' OR ordertype > 'ZZZZ';
BTW, given that BETWEEN is inclusive, NOT BETWEEN is exclusive
This is a common pitfall. you have to remember the De Morgan's Laws:
not (A and B) is the same as (not A) or (not B)
Feel free to experiment with this simple live example to convince yourself that those results are quite coherent: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!4/d41d8/38326
That being said, the only way (I can see) for the string like ZOCO for not being between ZAAA and ZZZZ would be:
having some hidden character just behind the Z (i.e.: 'Z'||CHR(0)||'OCO')
or using a locale such as Z-something is actually considered as a different letter, with a collation order outside of the given range. I don't know if such locale exists, but for example, in Welch, LL is considered as a single letter that should be sorted after the plain L. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetical_order#Language-specific_conventions
or having homogplyphs such as 0, 𐒠 or О instead of O in your data.
If it's not between the values, it has to be either < OR >, not AND.
In the first query, you ask for the records that are at the same time less than 'ZAAA' and also greater than 'ZZZZ'. Of course, there is no such value that fullfills both requirements, hence zero records are returned.
In the second query, you ask for records, that are either less than 'ZAAA' or greater than 'ZZZZ' (ie not between those boundaries [not between...]). There is a possibility that such records exist, and as your select statement proves, there are indeed such records, that are returned by the statement.
Your understanding that both statements are same is incorrect. NOT BETWEEN is not evaluated the way you're thinking. It simply returns the results which fall outside evaluation of BETWEEN for the parameters.
IF you check Oracle documentation for BETWEEN, it says -
The value of
expr1 NOT BETWEEN expr2 AND expr3
is the value of the expression
NOT (expr1 BETWEEN expr2 AND expr3)