I'm wondering if it's possible to pass one or more parameters to a WITH clause query; in a very simple way, doing something like this (taht, obviously, is not working!):
with qq(a) as (
select a+1 as increment
from dual
)
select qq.increment
from qq(10); -- should get 11
Of course, the use I'm going to do is much more complicated, since the with clause should be in a subquery, and the parameter I'd pass are values taken from the main query....details upon request... ;-)
Thanks for any hint
OK.....here's the whole deal:
select appu.* from
(<quite a complex query here>) appu
where not exists
(select 1
from dual
where appu.ORA_APP IN
(select slot from
(select distinct slots.inizio,slots.fine from
(
with
params as (select 1900 fine from dual)
--params as (select app.ora_fine_attivita fine
-- where app.cod_agenda = appu.AGE
-- and app.ora_fine_attivita = appu.fine_fascia
--and app.data_appuntamento = appu.dataapp
--)
,
Intervals (inizio, EDM) as
( select 1700, 20 from dual
union all
select inizio+EDM, EDM from Intervals join params on
(inizio <= fine)
)
select * from Intervals join params on (inizio <= fine)
) slots
) slots
where slots.slot <= slots.fine
)
order by 1,2,3;
Without going in too deep details, the where condition should remove those records where 'appu.ORA_APP' match one of the records that are supposed to be created in the (outer) 'slots' table.
The constants used in the example are good for a subset of records (a single 'appu.AGE' value), that's why I should parametrize it, in order to use the commented 'params' table (to be replicated, then, in the 'Intervals' table.
I know thats not simple to analyze from scratch, but I tried to make it as clear as possible; feel free to ask for a numeric example if needed....
Thanks
i am trying to better a query. I have a dataset of ticket opened. Every ticket has different rows, every row rappresent an update of the ticket. There is a field (dt_update) that differs it every row.
I have this indexs in the st_remedy_full_light.
IDX_ASSIGNMENT (ASSIGNMENT)
IDX_REMEDY_INC_ID (REMEDY_INC_ID)
IDX_REMDULL_LIGHT_DTUPD (DT_UPDATE)
Now, the query is performed in 8 second. Is high for me.
WITH last_ticket AS
( SELECT *
FROM st_remedy_full_light a
WHERE a.dt_update IN
( SELECT MAX(dt_update)
FROM st_remedy_full_light
WHERE remedy_inc_id = a.remedy_inc_id
)
)
SELECT remedy_inc_id, ASSIGNMENT FROM last_ticket
This is the plan
How i could to better this query?
P.S. This is just a part of a big query
Additional information:
- The table st_remedy_full_light contain 529.507 rows
You could try:
WITH last_ticket AS
( SELECT remedy_inc_id, ASSIGNMENT,
rank() over (partition by remedy_inc_id order by dt_update desc) rn
FROM st_remedy_full_light a
)
SELECT remedy_inc_id, ASSIGNMENT FROM last_ticket
where rn = 1;
The best alternative query, which is also much easier to execute, is this:
select remedy_inc_id
, max(assignment) keep (dense_rank last order by dt_update)
from st_remedy_full_light
group by remedy_inc_id
This will use only one full table scan and a (hash/sort) group by, no self joins.
Don't bother about indexed access, as you'll probably find a full table scan is most appropriate here. Unless the table is really wide and a composite index on all columns used (remedy_inc_id,dt_update,assignment) would be significantly quicker to read than the table.
I have two hive tables (t1 and t2) that I would like to compare. The second table has 5 additional columns that are not in the first table. Other than the five disjoint fields, the two tables should be identical. I am trying to write a query to check this. Here is what I have so far:
SELECT * FROM t1
UNION ALL
select * from t2
GROUP BY some_value
HAVING count(*) == 2
If the tables are identical, this should return 0 records. However, since the second table contains 5 extra fields, I need to change the second select statement to reflect this. There are almost 60 column names so I would really hate to write it like this:
SELECT * FROM t1
UNION ALL
select field1, field2, field3,...,fieldn from t2
GROUP BY some_value
HAVING count(*) == 2
I have looked around and I know there is no select * EXCEPT syntax, but is there a way to do this query without having to explicity name each column that I want included in the final result?
You should have used UNION DISTINCT for the logic you are applying.
However, the number and names of columns returned by each select_statement have to be the same otherwise a schema error is thrown.
You could have a look at this Python program that handles such comparisons of Hive tables (comparing all the rows and all the columns), and would show you in a webpage the differences that might appear: https://github.com/bolcom/hive_compared_bq
To skip the 5 extra fields, you could use the "--ignore-columns" option.
In an algorithm the users passes a query, for instance:
SELECT o_orderdate, o_orderpriority FROM h_orders WHERE rownum <= 5
The query returns the following:
1996-01-02 5-LOW
1996-12-01 1-URGENT
1993-10-14 5-LOW
1995-10-11 5-LOW
1994-07-30 5-LOW
The algorithm needs the count for the select attributes (o_orderdate, o_orderpriority in the above example) and therefore it rewrites the query to:
SELECT o_orderdate, count(o_orderdate) FROM
(SELECT o_orderdate, o_orderpriority FROM h_orders WHERE rownum <= 5)
GROUP BY o_orderdate
This query returns the following:
1992-01-01 5
However the intended result is:
1996-12-01 1
1995-10-11 1
1994-07-30 1
1996-01-02 1
1993-10-14 1
Any idea how I could rewrite the parsing stage or how the user could pass a syntactically different query to receive the above results?
The rows returned by the inner query are essentially non-deterministic, as they depend on the order in which the optimiser identifies rows as part of the required data set. A change in execution plan due to modified predicates might change the order in which the rows come back, and new rows added to the table can also change which rows are included.
If you always want n rows then either use distinct(o_orderdate) in the innerquery, which will render the GROUP BY useless.
Or you can add another outer select with rownum to get n of the grouped rows, like this:
select o_orderdate, counter from
(
SELECT o_orderdate, count(o_orderdate) as counter FROM
(SELECT o_orderdate, o_orderpriority FROM h_orders)
GROUP BY o_orderdate
)
WHERE rownum <= 5
Although the results will most likely be useless as they will be undeterministic (as mentioned by David Aldridge).
As your outer query makes no use of "o_orderpriority", why not just get rid of the subquery and simply query like this:
SELECT o_orderdate, count(o_orderdate) AS order_count
FROM h_orders
WHERE rownum <= 5
GROUP BY o_orderdate
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