Recently I fixed the some bug: there was rownum in the join condition.
Something like this: left join t1 on t1.id=t2.id and rownum<2. So it was supposed to return only one row regardless of the “left join”.
When I looked further into this, I realized that I don’t understand how Oracle evaluates rownum in the "left join" condition.
Let’s create two sampe tables: master and detail.
create table MASTER
(
ID NUMBER not null,
NAME VARCHAR2(100)
)
;
alter table MASTER
add constraint PK_MASTER primary key (ID);
prompt Creating DETAIL...
create table DETAIL
(
ID NUMBER not null,
REF_MASTER_ID NUMBER,
NAME VARCHAR2(100)
)
;
alter table DETAIL
add constraint PK_DETAIL primary key (ID);
alter table DETAIL
add constraint FK_DETAIL_MASTER foreign key (REF_MASTER_ID)
references MASTER (ID);
prompt Disabling foreign key constraints for DETAIL...
alter table DETAIL disable constraint FK_DETAIL_MASTER;
prompt Loading MASTER...
insert into MASTER (ID, NAME)
values (1, 'First');
insert into MASTER (ID, NAME)
values (2, 'Second');
commit;
prompt 2 records loaded
prompt Loading DETAIL...
insert into DETAIL (ID, REF_MASTER_ID, NAME)
values (1, 1, 'REF_FIRST1');
insert into DETAIL (ID, REF_MASTER_ID, NAME)
values (2, 1, 'REF_FIRST2');
insert into DETAIL (ID, REF_MASTER_ID, NAME)
values (3, 1, 'REF_FIRST3');
commit;
prompt 3 records loaded
prompt Enabling foreign key constraints for DETAIL...
alter table DETAIL enable constraint FK_DETAIL_MASTER;
set feedback on
set define on
prompt Done.
Then we have this query :
select * from master t
left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id
The result set is predictable: we have all the rows from the master table and 3 rows from the detail table that matched this condition d.ref_master_id=t.id.
Result Set
Then I added “rownum=1” to the join condition and the result was the same
select * from master t
left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id and rownum=1
The most interesting thing is that I set “rownum<-666” and got the same result again!
select * from master t
left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id and rownum<-666.
Due to the result set we can say that this condition was evaluated as “True” for 3 rows in the detail table. But if I use “inner join” everything goes as supposed to be.
select * from master t
join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id and rownum<-666.
This query doesn’t return any row,because I can't imagine rownum to be less then -666 :-)
Moreover, if I use oracle syntax for outer join, using “(+)” everything goes well too.
select * from master m ,detail t
where m.id=t.ref_master_id(+) and rownum<-666.
This query doesn’t return any row too.
Can anyone tell me, what I misunderstand with outer join and rownum?
ROWNUM is a pseudo-attribute of result sets, not of base tables. ROWNUM is defined after rows are selected, but before they're sorted by an ORDER BY clause.
edit: I was mistaken in my previous writeup of ROWNUM, so here's new information:
You can use ROWNUM in a limited way in the WHERE clause, for testing if it's less than a positive integer only. See ROWNUM Pseudocolumn for more details.
SELECT ... WHERE ROWNUM < 10
It's not clear what value ROWNUM has in the context of a JOIN clause, so the results may be undefined. There seems to be some special-case handling of expressions with ROWNUM, for instance WHERE ROWNUM > 10 always returns false. I don't know how ROWNUM<-666 works in your JOIN clause, but it's not meaningful so I would not recommend using it.
In any case, this doesn't help you to fetch the first detail row for each given master row.
To solve this you can use analytic functions and PARTITION, and combine it with Common Table Expressions so you can access the row-number column in a further WHERE condition.
WITH numbered_cte AS (
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY t.id ORDER BY d.something) AS rn
FROM master t LEFT OUTER JOIN detail d ON d.ref_master_id = t.id
)
SELECT *
FROM numbered_cte
WHERE rn = 1;
if you want to get the first three values from the join condition change the select statement like this.
select *
from (select *
from master t left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id)
where rownum<3;
You will get the required output. Take care on unambigiously defined column names when using *
Let me give an absolute answer which u can run directly with out making any changes to the code.
select *
from (select t.id,t.name,d.id,d.ref_master_id,d.name
from master t left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id)
where rownum<3;
A ROWNUM filter doesn't make any sense in a join, but it isn't being rejected as invalid.
The explain plan will either include the ROWNUM filter or exclude it. If it includes it, it will apply the filter to the detail table after applying the other join condition(s). So if you put in ROWNUM=100 (which will never be satisfied) all the detail rows are excluded and then the outer join kicks in.
If you put in ROWNUM=1 it seems to drop the filter.
And if you query
with
a as (select rownum a_val from dual connect by level < 10),
b as (select rownum*2 b_val from dual connect by level < 10)
select * from a left join b on a_val < b_val and rownum in (1,3);
you get something totally weird.
It probably should be rejected as an error, so expect nonsensical things to happen
Related
I have an oracle query that uses a created table as part of the code. Every time I need to run a report I delete current data and import the new data I receive. This is one column of id's. I need to create a report on SSRS in which the user can input this data into said table as a parameter. I have designed a simple report that they can enter some of the id's into a parameter, but there may be times when they need to enter in a few thousand id's, and the report already runs long. Here is what the SSRS code currently says:
select distinct n.id, n.notes
from notes n
join (
select max(seq_num) as seqnum, id from notes group by id) maxresults
on n.id = maxresults.ID
where n.seq_num = maxresults.seqnum
and n.id in (#MyParam)
Is there a way to have MyParam insert data into a table I would join called My_ID, joining as Join My_Id id on n.id = id.id
I do not have permissions to create functions or procedures in the database.
Thank you
You may try the trick with MATERIALIZE hint which normally forces Oracle to create a temporary table :
WITH cte1 AS
( SELECT /*+ MATERIALIZE */ 1 as id FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT 2 DUAL
)
SELECT a.*
FROM table1 a
INNER JOIN cte1 b ON b.id = a.id
I have this table F_Flight which I am trying to insert into from 3 different tables. The first, fourth and fifth columns are from the same, and the second and third columns from different tables. When I execute the code, I get a "single-row subquery returns more than one row" error.
insert when 1 = 1 then into F_Flight (planeid, groupid, dateid, flightduration, kmsflown) values
(planeid, (select b.groupid from BridgeTable b where exists (select p.p1id from pilotkeylookup p where b.pilotid = p.p1id)),
(select dd.id from D_Date dd where exists (select p.launchtime from PilotKeyLookup p where dd."Date" = p.launchtime)),
flightduration, kmsflown) select * from PilotKeyLookup p;
Your subqueries get multiple rows back, which is what the error message says. There is no correlation between the various bits of data and subqueries you're trying to insert into a single row.
This can be done as a much simpler insert...select with joins, something like:
insert into f_flight (planeid, groupid, dateid, flightduration, kmsflown)
select pkl.planeid, bt.groupid, dd.id, pkl.flightduration, pkl.kmsflown
from pilotkeylookup pkl
join bridgetable bt on bt.pilotid = pkl.p1id
join d_date dd on dd."Date" = pkl.launchtime;
This joins the main PilotKeyLookup table to the other two on the keys you used in your subqueries.
Storing an ID value instead of an actual date is unusual, and if launchtime has a time component - which seems likely from the name - and your d_date entries are just dates (i.e. all with time at midnight) then you won't find matches; you might need to do:
join d_date dd on dd."Date" = trunc(pkl.launchtime);
It also seems like this could be a view, as you're storing duplicate data - everything in f_flight could, obviously, be found from the other tables.
Think of my two tables have the same columns. One column is the ID, and the other one is the text. Is it possible to implement the following pseudo code in PLSQL?
Compare each row (They will have the same ID)
If anything is different about them
Run a couple of queries: an Update, and an Insert
ElseIf they are the same
Do nothing
Else the row does not exist
So add the row to the table compared on
Is it easy to do this using PLSQL or should I create a standalone application to do do this logic.
As your table have the same columns, by using NATURAL JOIN you can easily check if two corresponding rows are identical -- without need to update your code if a column is added to your table.
In addition, using OUTER JOIN allow you to find the rows present in one table but not in the other.
So, you can use something like that to achieve your purpose:
for rec in (
SELECT T.ID ID1,
U.ID ID2,
V.EQ
FROM T
FULL OUTER JOIN U ON T.ID = U.ID
FULL OUTER JOIN (SELECT ID, 1 EQ FROM T NATURAL JOIN U) V ON U.ID = V.ID)
loop
if rec.id1 is null
then
-- row in U but not in T
elsif rec.id2 is null
then
-- row in T but not in U
elsif rec.eq is null
-- row present in both tables
-- but content mismatch
end if
end loop
Else the row does not exist
So add the row to the table compared on
Is this condition means that rows can be missed in both tables? If only in one, then:
insert into t1 (id, text)
select id, text
from t2
minus
select id, text
from t1;
If missed records can be in both tables, you need the same query that inserts into table t2 rows from t1.
If anything is different about them
If you need one action for any amount of different rows, then use something like this:
select count(*)
into a
from t1, t2
where t1.id = t2.id and t1.text <> t2.text;
if a > 0 then
...
otherwise:
for i in (
select *
from t1, t2
where t1.id = t2.id and t1.text <> t2.text) loop
<do something>
end loop;
A 'merge' statement is what u needed.
Here is the syntax:
MERGE INTO TARGET_TABLE
USING SOURCE_TABLE
ON (CONDITION)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET (DO YOUR UPDATES)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
(INSERT YOUR NEW ROWS)
Google MERGE syntax for more about the statement.
Just use MINUS.
query_1
MINUS
query_2
In your case, if you really want to use PL/SQL, then select count into a local variable. Write a logic, if count > 0 then do other stuff.
I want to copy records from one table to another.
The only records from table 1 that will be copied to table 2 are the ones that still dont exist in table 2.
If duplicate records exists in Table 1 then only be copied to table 2 the record with the larger size name.
I could already implement a query that almost does what I want.
The problem I have is when there are names with the same maximum size of characters.
In these cases, my query returns more than one record and I just want to insert one new record in table 2.
Does anyone know how I can fix this?
Here is my code:
For x in (Select distinct xdd.id_t, xdd.name_t
From table1 xdd
Where xdd.id_t not in (Select distinct det.id_t2
From table2 det)
And LENGTH(xdd.name_t) in (Select Max(LENGTH(xdd2.name_t))
From table1 xdd2
Where xdd2.id_t = xdd.id_t)
) Loop
Insert into id_t2 (id_t2, name_t2)
Values (x.id_t, x.name_t);
End loop;
Can you give me an example to solve this?
Sure. If I understood requirements correctly, then the merge statement will look similar to this one:
We use row_number() analytic function to choose a duplicate record with longer name_t
merge into table_two t2
using(
select id_t
, name_t
from (select id_t
, name_t
, row_number() over(partition by id_t
order by length(name_t) desc) as rn
from table_one) q
where q.rn = 1
) t1
on (t2.id_t = t1.id_t)
when not matched then
insert(id_t, name_t)
values(t1.id_t, t1.name_t)
SQLFiddle demo
This is a merge statement that should "upsert" data from table 1 into table 2. Matching keys should update only when the name field in table1 is greater than that of table 2. And inserts should occur when keys from table one are not matched to table 2.
MERGE INTO table2 D
USING (SELECT table1.id_t, table1.name_t FROM table1) S
ON (D.id_t2 = S.id_t)
WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET D.name_t2 = S.name_t
WHERE (LENGTH(S.name_t) > LENGTH(D.name_t2))
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT (D.id_t, D.name_t)
VALUES (S.id_t2, S.name_t2);
I am wondering what determines the order of columns returned in a SQL query.
For example, SELECT * FROM SOMETABLE;
SQ_ID |BUS_TYPE |VOIP |LOCAL_PHONE
--------|-----------|---------|-------------
SQ000001|Business |Y |N
I am guessing the attribute COLUMN_ID determines this. In the case of a table join, for example, SELECT * FROM SOMETABLE LEFT JOIN OTHERTABLE USING (SOME_COL); how is the order now determine.
The order of columns in SELECT * FROM some_table is determined by the column_id of each column, as seen in USER_TAB_COLUMNS.
The order of columns in SELECT * FROM some_table JOIN other_table is all the columns for each table starting with the leftmost table after the FROM clause. In other words, this ...
SELECT * FROM some_table JOIN other_table
... is equivalent to this ...
SELECT some_table.*, other_table.* FROM some_table JOIN other_table
Changing that inner join to LEFT JOIN or RIGHT JOIN won't change the projection.
This is, of course, theoretical. We should never use select * in production code. Explicit column declarations, with table aliases when joining, are always safer. Apart from better expression of intent, explicit projections protect our code from future changes to the tables such as adding a LOB column or a column name which creates ambiguity with a joined table's column.
You can list the order of the colums in the Select statement:
SELECT SOME_COL, SOME_OTHER_COL
FROM SOMETABLE LEFT JOIN OTHERTABLE USING (SOME_COL)
But you also speak of the ID influencing the order and of ordering in general. So I think you could also be looking for ORDER BY to order the rows:
SELECT *
FROM SOMETABLE LEFT JOIN OTHERTABLE USING (SOME_COL)
ORDER BY SOME_COL
What also comes quite handy in this case is the use of aliases. Especally when both tables have coloums with the same name:
SELECT s.some_col, o.some_col
FROM SOMETABLE s LEFT JOIN OTHERTABLE o ON(o.id = s.id)
ORDER BY o.SOME_COL
I use the ON JOIN syntax in this case, because i find this more intuive when using aliases but it should also work with USING.