I am trying to convert my query result to and order them according to lowercase in asc order. But while displaying I need to preserve all the original case (lower and upper case).
My query looks like this -
SELECT distinct (p.product_id) as product_id ,lcase(p.product_name) as product_name
from library TL, product p
WHERE TL.id = PL.id
AND pL.product_id = p.product_id
AND pL.product_id NOT IN (0)
order by lcase(product_name) asc;
But when I display it changes the entire dropdown values to lowercase. This is not what i want. I just want it to be displaying according to the order by lowercase.
How can I do it?
As far as I know, my orderby should have the same condition as the select isnt it?
How to make sort case insensitive while displaying the lower+upper case of values in the dropdown
You can try this,
SELECT product_id, product_name FROM (
SELECT distinct (p.product_id) as product_id ,(p.product_name) as product_name,
lcase(p.product_name) as pname
from unified.techlibrary TL, unified.techlibraryprod PL, unified.product p, unified.contenttype CT
WHERE TL.id = PL.id
AND pL.product_id = p.product_id
AND tl.contenttype_id in (1,3)
AND pL.product_id NOT IN (0)
) AS x order by x.pname
Hope it will help.
Related
Can someone see where I am going wrong in the below query? I am getting the error message that the GROUP BY column doesn't exist, but it clearly does as I see that column name in the output when I don't use the GROUP BY.
SELECT
(SELECT customer_address.post_code FROM customer_address WHERE customer_address.address_type = 0 AND customer_address.customer_no = orders.customer_no) postcode, SUM(orders.order_no) orders
FROM
orders, customer_address
WHERE
orders.delivery_date = '27-MAY-15'
GROUP BY
postcode;
The answer is: You cannot use an alias name in GROUP BY.
So:
GROUP BY (SELECT customer_address.post_code ...);
Or:
select postcode, sum(order_no)
from
(
SELECT
(SELECT customer_address.post_code FROM customer_address WHERE customer_address.address_type = 0 AND customer_address.customer_no = orders.customer_no) postcode,
orders.order_no
FROM orders, customer_address
WHERE orders.delivery_date = '27-MAY-15'
)
GROUP BY postcode;
EDIT:
However, your query seems wrong. Why do you cross-join orders and customer_address? By mistake I guess. Use explicit joins (INNER JOIN customer_address ON ...), when using joins to avoid such errors. But here I guess you'd just have to remove , customer_address.
Then why do you add order numbers? That doesn't seem to make sense.
I have two table- 'Order' and 'Order Item'.
Order table contains-
Order Number, Order Date, etc.
Order Item table contains-
Order Number, Order Item Number, Product Name, etc.
The joining condition between these two tables is on Order Number.
In my target table I need orders and a flag. The flag should tell, if there is a predefined set of products which has been ordered as part of that order then it should be set to 'Yes'.
E.g., Suppose an order 'ORD-01' contains three products in Order Item table - 'Mobile', 'PC' and 'Tablet', then my resulting table should contain Order Number as ORD-01 and Flag as 'Yes'.
In the same way, if order 'ORD-02' contains only two prods 'Mobile' an 'Tablet', then the resulting table should contains 'ORD-02' and Flag 'No'.
Similarly, if order 'ORD-03' contains three different prods 'Notebook', 'PC' an 'Tablet', then the resulting table should contains 'ORD-03' and Flag 'No'.
As per my understanding, I have written below query-
SELECT order_number,(SELECT CASE WHEN COUNT(DISTINCT product_name)>=3
THEN 'Yes' ELSE 'No' END Prod_Flag
FROM order_item b
WHERE a.order_number=b.order_number
AND b.product_name IN ('Mobile','PC','Tablet'))
FROM order a
WHERE order_date>last_run_date;
But it takes too much of time, as the order item is a very big table (>1 Billion rows). However I need incremental data based upon order date from Order table. Even if there is an index of order number in both tables, it takes time.
Would a query like this get you to your result any quicker?
SELECT ON.ORDER_NUMBER,
CASE WHEN SET_FOUND.ORDER_NUMBER IS NOT NULL
THEN 'Yes' ELSE 'No' END PROD_FLAG
FROM ORDER ON,
(SELECT ORDER_NUMBER
FROM ORDER_ITEM
WHERE PRODUCT_NAME = 'Mobile'
INTERSECT
SELECT ORDER_NUMBER
FROM ORDER_ITEM
WHERE PRODUCT_NAME = 'PC'
INTERSECT
SELECT ORDER_NUMBER
FROM ORDER_ITEM
WHERE PRODUCT_NAME = 'Tablet') SET_FOUND
WHERE ON.ORDER_NUMBER = SET_FOUND.ORDER_NUMBER (+)
My proposal would be this one:
WITH t AS
(SELECT product_name, order_number
FROM order_item
WHERE product_name IN ('Mobile','PC','Tablet')
GROUP BY order_number, product_name)
SELECT order_number,
CASE WHEN COUNT(DISTINCT product_name) >= 3 THEN 'Yes' ELSE 'No' END
FROM t
JOIN order USING (order_number)
GROUP BY order_number
Is the order number an increasing sequence number? If so the one approach would be to limit data selected from the order_item, which you said is a large table, by putting condition on order_number, which you said is an indexed column. I assume last_run_date signifficantly limits number of concerned orders.
If so you can:
select min(order_number) into order_num_from from Order where order_date>last_run_date
and then make your query
SELECT order_number,(SELECT CASE WHEN COUNT(DISTINCT product_name)>=3
THEN 'Yes' ELSE 'No' END Prod_Flag
FROM order_item b
WHERE a.order_number=b.order_number
AND b.order_number> order_num_from
AND b.product_name IN ('Mobile','PC','Tablet'))
FROM order a
WHERE order_date>last_run_date;
If this runs significantly faster (I didn't see explain plan, so this is just an idea how to avoid full table scan ), put an index on order_date column and eventually make finding order_num_from into subquery to have one single query.
Generally, your query is right. As I understood, you wish to raise it's speed. If so, there are several ways you can try.
You can consider to put these tables into indexed cluster. It will store the data physically joined so querying would require less physical reads.
For this query, server should scan two tables: one for appropriate dates (eigther full table scan or index scan), other for products and joins the results by reading ORDER_NUMBER via rowid. It isn't very fast anyway. The simpliest way is to add (ORDER_DATE, ORDER_NUMBER) index for ORDERs and (ORDER_NUMBER, PRODUCT_NAME) index for ORDER_ITEMs; it will allow to use indexes only.
Maybe it would be suitable to make a fast-refreshable materialized view, something like
create materialized view as
select
a.order_date,
a.order_number,
sum(case when b.product_name = 'Mobile' then 1 else 0 end) cnt_mobiles,
sum(case when b.product_name = 'PC' then 1 else 0 end) cnt_pcs,
sum(case when b.product_name = 'Tablet' then 1 else 0 end) cnt_tablets
from
order a, order_item b
where
a.order_number = b.order_number
group by
a.order_number, a.order_date
If it would be impossible to make this fast-refreshable, you can do equal thing manually using trigger. Anyway, in this case you'll get precalculated data ready to check.
I know the "how to limit" or "how to get 1st row" has been posted many times but I can't find a solution to my specific issue.
I have a inventory balance table that contains bin # with quantities
I want on my row the bin # that contains the highest quantity
The real queries are much bigger and complex than this but this example shows the issue I am facing
I first I did
select itemnumber,
(select binnumber from inventory_balance where current_balance = (select max(current_balance) from inventory_balance where inventory_balance.itemnumber = item_table.itemnumber)) as binnumber
from item_table;
This will work when there is only one "bin" with the highest quantity.
If there are 2 bins for the same item with a quantity of 10 (which is the highest quantity), the sub query will return 2 rows, triggering a oracle error
Then I tried this :
select
itemnumber,
(select binnumber from (select binnumber from inventory_balance where current_balance = (select max(current_balance) from inventory_balance where inventory_balance.itemnumber = item_table.itemnumber)) where rownum =1) as binnumber
from item_table;
Now this will not work because it seems that the references to item_table.itemnumber is invalid when inside the from (...). I get "invalid column name" error when trying to do so.
I can't use ROW_NUMBER() because the "OLAP Window functions" do not seem to be activated on the database.
Something like this:
SELECT t.itemnumber,
MIN( b.binnumber ) KEEP ( DENSE_RANK LAST ORDER BY b.current_balance ASC ) AS binnumber
FROM item_table t
LEFT OUTER JOIN inventory_balance b
ON ( t.itemnumber = b.itemnumber )
GROUP BY t.itemnumber;
Looking at the explain plan then this will only scan inventory_balance once whereas doing nested selects to get the MAX balance and then filter an outer query based on that requires two scans of inventory_balance.
Although all the required output for you minimal working example seems to be contained in the inventory_balance table so you can do (if you are not interested in the itemnumbers where there are no entries in the inventory_balance table):
SELECT itemnumber,
MIN( binnumber ) KEEP ( DENSE_RANK LAST ORDER BY current_balance ASC ) AS binnumber
FROM inventory_balance
GROUP BY itemnumber;
If you want the highest binnumber (instead of the lowest) then you can just change it to:
MAX( binnumber ) KEEP ...
I have a query like below - table names etc. changed for keeping the actual data private
SELECT inv.*,TRUNC(sysdate)
FROM Invoice inv
WHERE (inv.carrier,inv.pro,inv.ndate) IN
(
SELECT carrier,pro,n_dt FROM Order where TRUNC(Order.cr_dt) = TRUNC(sysdate)
)
I am selecting records from Invoice based on Order. i.e. all records from Invoice which are common with order records for today, based on those 3 columns...
Now I want to select Order_Num from Order in my select query as well.. so that I can use the whole thing to insert it into totally seperate table, let's say orderedInvoices.
insert into orderedInvoices(seq_no,..same columns as Inv...,Cr_dt)
(
SELECT **Order.Order_Num**, inv.*,TRUNC(sysdate)
FROM Invoice inv
WHERE (inv.carrier,inv.pro,inv.ndate) IN
(
SELECT carrier,pro,n_dt FROM Order where TRUNC(Order.cr_dt) = TRUNC(sysdate)
)
)
?? - how to do I select that Order_Num in main query for each records of that sub query?
p.s. I understand that trunc(cr_dt) will not use index on cr_dt (if a index is there..) but I couldn't select records unless I omit the time part of it..:(
If the table ORDER1 is unique on CARRIER, PRO and N_DT you can use a JOIN instead of IN to restrict your records, it'll also enable you to select whatever data you want from either table:
select order.order_num, inv.*, trunc(sysdate)
from Invoice inv
join order ord
on inv.carrier = ord.carrier
and inv.pro = ord.pro
and inv.ndate = ord.n_dt
where trunc(order.cr_dt) = trunc(sysdate)
If it's not unique then you have to use DISTINCT to deduplicate your record set.
Though using TRUNC() on CR_DT will not use an index on that column you can use a functional index on this if you do need an index.
create index i_order_trunc_cr_dt on order (trunc(cr_dt));
1. This is a really bad name for a table as it's a keyword, consider using ORDERS instead.
I have 2 tables which in simplified form look like this:
Products(
id: int,
name: varchar
);
ProductSpecs(
product_id: int,
spec_name: varchar,
spec_value: int
);
Now I need to sort products (in linq to sql) by value of some specification item (eg. "price"). So I do something like this
var products = from p in db.Products
from ps in p.ProductsSpecs
where ps.spec_name == "price"
orderby ps.spec_value
select p;
The problem is that if there's no such ProductSpec with spec_name "price" the product is not included at all. I can add these products with Union or Concat but this way the sorting of the first part is not preserved.
What is the best way to deal with this?
Thanks.
First, I would recommend that you either do this in pure SQL as a function or Stored Procedure and then access this through linq, or add a price column to your product table. It seems like price would be a normal attribute to add to all of your products even if that price is NULL.
SQL:
select p.*
from products p
left outer join productspecs ps on
p.id = ps.product_id
and ps.spec_name = 'Price'
order by ps.spec_value
With that said, here's the weird bit of LINQ that should work on your table (I might have some of the column names spelled incorrectly):
var products = from p in db.Products
join ps in (from pss in db.ProductSpecs
where pss.spec_name== "Price"
select pss
) on p.id equals ps.product_id into temp
from t in temp.DefaultIfEmpty()
orderby t.spec_value
select p;
I tested this on some tables setup like above and created 5 products, three with prices in different value orders and this LINQ ordered them just like the SQL above and returned the null result rows as well.
Hope this works!
In ordinary SQL, you'd use an LEFT OUTER JOIN. This preserves rows that appear in the left-hand table (the one listed first), even when there's no matching row in the right-hand table (the second one listed, and the one that is outer joined). You end up with nulls for the values that should be, but weren't, present in the right-hand table. So, the price for those items missing a price would appear as NULL.
What that translates to in LINQ to SQL is another matter.
You might care to think about whether it is reasonable to have products that do not have a price. You're emulating something called EAV - Entity, Attribute, Value - tables, and they are generally regarded as 'not a good thing'.
Can you not just do a simple join?
var products =
from p in db.Products
join ps in db.ProductSpecs on p.id equals ps.product_id
where ps.spec_name == "price"
orderby ps.spec_value
select p;