In PostgreSQL you can use an expression which is able to make use of the column values for the given row to define the value in the set statement i.e
UPDATE some_table
SET col_a = (col_b != 1)
WHERE col_c = 'some val'
Is there a way to do this in JOOQ? - I've looked through the JOOQ documentation, but I can't see any reference to it
I'm assuming col_a is a Field<Boolean>, in case of which, you can wrap a Condition in a Field<Boolean> expression using DSL.field(Condition)
// As always, assuming you have this static import:
import static org.jooq.impl.DSL.*;
ctx.update(SOME_TABLE)
.set(SOME_TABLE.COL_A, field(SOME_TABLE.COL_B.ne(1)))
.where(SOME_TABLE.COL_C.eq("some val"))
.execute();
Following https://www.jooq.org/doc/3.13/manual/sql-building/sql-statements/update-statement/#N6ABB6, I think you would do
update(SOME_TABLE)
.set(row(SOME_TABLE.A),
row(SOME_TABLE.B.neg()))
.where(SOME_TABLE.C.eq("some val"));
Related
original query looks like this :
UPDATE reponse_question_finale t1, reponse_question_finale t2 SET
t1.nb_question_repondu = (9-(ISNULL(t1.valeur_question_4)+ISNULL(t1.valeur_question_6)+ISNULL(t1.valeur_question_7)+ISNULL(t1.valeur_question_9))) WHERE t1.APPLICATION = t2.APPLICATION;
I know you cannot update 2 tables in a single query so i tried this :
UPDATE reponse_question_finale t1
SET nb_question_repondu = (9-(COALESCE(t1.valeur_question_4,'')::int+COALESCE(t1.valeur_question_6,'')::int+COALESCE(t1.valeur_question_7)::int+COALESCE(t1.valeur_question_9,'')::int))
WHERE t1.APPLICATION = t1.APPLICATION;
But this query gaves me an error : invalid input syntax for integer: ""
I saw that the Postgres equivalent to MySQL is COALESCE() so i think i'm on the good way here.
I also know you cannot add varchar to varchar so i tried to cast it to integer to do that. I'm not sure if i casted it correctly with parenthesis at the good place and regarding to error maybe i cannot cast to int with coalesce.
Last thing, i can certainly do a co-related sub-select to update my two tables but i'm a little lost at this point.
The output must be an integer matching the number of questions answered to a backup survey.
Any thoughts?
Thanks.
coalesce() returns the first non-null value from the list supplied. So, if the column value is null the expression COALESCE(t1.valeur_question_4,'') returns an empty string and that's why you get the error.
But it seems you want something completely different: you want check if the column is null (or empty) and then subtract a value if it is to count the number of non-null columns.
To return 1 if a value is not null or 0 if it isn't you can use:
(nullif(valeur_question_4, '') is null)::int
nullif returns null if the first value equals the second. The IS NULL condition returns a boolean (something that MySQL doesn't have) and that can be cast to an integer (where false will be cast to 0 and true to 1)
So the whole expression should be:
nb_question_repondu = 9 - (
(nullif(t1.valeur_question_4,'') is null)::int
+ (nullif(t1.valeur_question_6,'') is null)::int
+ (nullif(t1.valeur_question_7,'') is null)::int
+ (nullif(t1.valeur_question_9,'') is null)::int
)
Another option is to unpivot the columns and do a select on them in a sub-select:
update reponse_question_finale
set nb_question_repondu = (select count(*)
from (
values
(valeur_question_4),
(valeur_question_6),
(valeur_question_7),
(valeur_question_9)
) as t(q)
where nullif(trim(q),'') is not null);
Adding more columns to be considered is quite easy then, as you just need to add a single line to the values() clause
I have this query:
some_id = 1
cursor.execute('
SELECT "Indicator"."indicator"
FROM "Indicator"
WHERE "Indicator"."some_id" = %s;', some_id)
I get the following error:
TypeError: 'int' object does not support indexing
some_id is an int but I'd like to select indicators that have some_id = 1 (or whatever # I decide to put in the variable).
cursor.execute('
SELECT "Indicator"."indicator"
FROM "Indicator"
WHERE "Indicator"."some_id" = %s;', [some_id])
This turns the some_id parameter into a list, which is indexable. Assuming your method works like i think it does, this should work.
The error is happening because somewhere in that method, it is probably trying to iterate over that input, or index directly into it. Possibly like this: some_id[0]
By making it a list (or iterable), you allow it to index into the first element like that.
You could also make it into a tuple by doing this: (some_id,) which has the advantage of being immutable.
You should pass query parameters to execute() as a tuple (an iterable, strictly speaking), (some_id,) instead of some_id:
cursor.execute('
SELECT "Indicator"."indicator"
FROM "Indicator"
WHERE "Indicator"."some_id" = %s;', (some_id,))
Your id needs to be some sort of iterable for mogrify to understand the input, here's the relevant quote from the frequently asked questions documentation:
>>> cur.execute("INSERT INTO foo VALUES (%s)", "bar") # WRONG
>>> cur.execute("INSERT INTO foo VALUES (%s)", ("bar")) # WRONG
>>> cur.execute("INSERT INTO foo VALUES (%s)", ("bar",)) # correct
>>> cur.execute("INSERT INTO foo VALUES (%s)", ["bar"]) # correct
This should work:
some_id = 1
cursor.execute('
SELECT "Indicator"."indicator"
FROM "Indicator"
WHERE "Indicator"."some_id" = %s;', (some_id, ))
Slightly similar error when using Django:
TypeError: 'RelatedManager' object does not support indexing
This doesn't work
mystery_obj[0].id
This works:
mystery_obj.all()[0].id
Basically, the error reads Some type xyz doesn't have an __ iter __ or __next__ or next function, so it's not next(), or itsnot[indexable], or iter(itsnot), in this case the arguments to cursor.execute would need to implement iteration, most commonly a List, Tuple, or less commonly an Array, or some custom iterator implementation.
In this specific case the error happens when the classic string interpolation goes to fill the %s, %d, %b string formatters.
Related:
How to implement __iter__(self) for a container object (Python)
Pass parameter into a list, which is indexable.
cur.execute("select * from tableA where id =%s",[parameter])
I had the same problem and it worked when I used normal formatting.
cursor.execute(f'
SELECT "Indicator"."indicator"
FROM "Indicator"
WHERE "Indicator"."some_id" ={some_id};')
Typecasting some_id to string also works.
cursor.execute(""" SELECT * FROM posts WHERE id = %s """, (str(id), ))
What is the argument type for the order by clause in Postgresql?
I came across a very strange behaviour (using Postgresql 9.5). Namely, the query
select * from unnest(array[1,4,3,2]) as x order by 1;
produces 1,2,3,4 as expected. However the query
select * from unnest(array[1,4,3,2]) as x order by 1::int;
produces 1,4,3,2, which seems strange. Similarly, whenever I replace 1::int with whatever function (e.g. greatest(0,1)) or even case operator, the results are unordered (on the contrary to what I would expect).
So which type should an argument of order by have, and how do I get the expected behaviour?
This is expected (and documented) behaviour:
A sort_expression can also be the column label or number of an output column
So the expression:
order by 1
sorts by the first column of the result set (as defined by the SQL standard)
However the expression:
order by 1::int
sorts by the constant value 1, it's essentially the same as:
order by 'foo'
By using a constant value for the order by all rows have the same sort value and thus aren't really sorted.
To sort by an expression, just use that:
order by
case
when some_column = 'foo' then 1
when some_column = 'bar' then 2
else 3
end
The above sorts the result based on the result of the case expression.
Actually I have a function with an integer argument which indicates the column to be used in the order by clause.
In a case when all columns are of the same type, this can work: :
SELECT ....
ORDER BY
CASE function_to_get_a_column_number()
WHEN 1 THEN column1
WHEN 2 THEN column2
.....
WHEN 1235 THEN column1235
END
If columns are of different types, you can try:
SELECT ....
ORDER BY
CASE function_to_get_a_column_number()
WHEN 1 THEN column1::varchar
WHEN 2 THEN column2::varchar
.....
WHEN 1235 THEN column1235::varchar
END
But these "workarounds" are horrible. You need some other approach than the function returning a column number.
Maybe a dynamic SQL ?
I would say that dynamic SQL (thanks #kordirko and the others for the hints) is the best solution to the problem I originally had in mind:
create temp table my_data (
id serial,
val text
);
insert into my_data(id, val)
values (default, 'a'), (default, 'c'), (default, 'd'), (default, 'b');
create function fetch_my_data(col text)
returns setof my_data as
$f$
begin
return query execute $$
select * from my_data
order by $$|| quote_ident(col);
end
$f$ language plpgsql;
select * from fetch_my_data('val'); -- order by val
select * from fetch_my_data('id'); -- order by id
In the beginning I thought this could be achieved using case expression in the argument of the order by clause - the sort_expression. And here comes the tricky part which confused me: when sort_expression is a kind of identifier (name of a column or a number of a column), the corresponding column is used when ordering the results. But when sort_expression is some value, we actually order the results using that value itself (computed for each row). This is #a_horse_with_no_name's answer rephrased.
So when I queried ... order by 1::int, in a way I have assigned value 1 to each row and then tried to sort an array of ones, which clearly is useless.
There are some workarounds without dynamic queries, but they require writing more code and do not seem to have any significant advantages.
I have a table with a varchar column, and I want to find values that match a certain number. So lets say that column contains the following entries (except with millions of rows in real life):
123456789012
2345678
3456
23 45
713?2
00123456789012
So I decide I want all the rows which are numerically 123456789012 write a statement that looks something like this:
SELECT * FROM MyTable WHERE CAST(MyColumn as bigint) = 123456789012
It should return the first and last row, but instead the whole query blows up because it can't convert the "23 45" and "713?2" to bigint.
Is there another way to do the conversion that will return NULL for values that can't convert?
SQL Server does NOT guarantee boolean operator short-circuit, see On SQL Server boolean operator short-circuit. So all solution using ISNUMERIC(...) AND CAST(...) are fundamentally flawed (they may work, but hey can arbitrarily fail later dependiong on the generated plan). A better solution is using CASE, as Thomas suggests: CASE ISNUMERIC(...) WHEN 1 THEN CAST(...) ELSE NULL END. But, as gbn pointed out, ISNUMERIC is notoriously finicky in identifying what 'numeric' means and many cases where one would expect it to return 0 it returns 1. So mixing the CASE with the LIKE:
CASE WHEN MyRow NOT LIKE '%[^0-9]%' THEN CAST(MyRow as bigint) ELSE NULL END
But the real problem is that if you have millions of rows and you have to search them like this, you'll always end up scanning end-to-end since the expression is not SARG-able (no matter how we rewrite it). The real issue here is data purity, and should be addressed at the appropriate level, where the data is populated. Another thing to consider is if is possible to create a persisted computed column with this expression and create a filtered index on it which eliminates NULL (ie. non-numeric). That would speed up things a little.
If you are using SQL Server 2012 you can use the 2 new methods:
TRY_CAST()
TRY_CONVERT()
Both methods are equivalent. They return a value cast to the specified data type if the cast succeeds; otherwise, returns null. The only difference is that CONVERT is SQL Server specific, CAST is ANSI. using CAST will make your code more portable (although not sure if any other database provider implements TRY_CAST)
ISNUMERIC will accept empty string and values like 1.23 or 5E-04 so could be unreliable.
And you don't know what order things will be evaluated in so it could still fail (SQL is declarative, not procedural, so the WHERE clause probably won't be evaluated left to right)
So:
you want to accept value that consist only of the characters 0-9
you need to materialise the "number" filter so it's applied before CAST
Something like:
SELECT
*
FROM
(
SELECT TOP 2000000000 *
FROM MyTable
WHERE MyColumn NOT LIKE '%[^0-9]%' --double negative rejects anything except 0-9
ORDER BY MyColumn
) foo
WHERE
CAST(MyColumn as bigint) = 123456789012 --applied after number check
Edit: quick example that fails.
CREATE TABLE #foo (bigintstring varchar(100))
INSERT #foo (bigintstring )VALUES ('1.23')
INSERT #foo (bigintstring )VALUES ('1 23')
INSERT #foo (bigintstring )VALUES ('123')
SELECT * FROM #foo
WHERE
ISNUMERIC(bigintstring) = 1
AND
CAST(bigintstring AS bigint) = 123
SELECT *
FROM MyTable
WHERE ISNUMERIC(MyRow) = 1
AND CAST(MyRow as float) = 123456789012
The ISNUMERIC() function should give you what you need.
SELECT * FROM MyTable
WHERE ISNUMERIC(MyRow) = 1
AND CAST(MyRow as bigint) = 123456789012
And to add a case statement like Thomas suggested:
SELECT * FROM MyTable
WHERE CASE(ISNUMERIC(MyRow)
WHEN 1 THEN CAST(MyRow as bigint)
ELSE NULL
END = 123456789012
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186272.aspx
SELECT *
FROM MyTable
WHERE (ISNUMERIC(MyColumn) = 1) AND (CAST(MyColumn as bigint) = 123456789012)
Additionally you can use a CASE statement in order to get null values.
SELECT
CASE
WHEN (ISNUMERIC(MyColumn) = 1) THEN CAST(MyColumn as bigint)
ELSE NULL
END AS 'MyColumnAsBigInt'
FROM tableName
If you require additional filtering, for numerics which are not valid to be cast to bigint, you can use the following instead of ISNUMERIC:
PATINDEX('%[^0-9]%',MyColumn)) = 0
If you need decimal values instead of integers, cast to float instead and change the regex to '%[^0-9.]%'
I have a query in postgres
insert into c_d (select * from cd where ak = '22019763');
And I get the following error
ERROR: column "region" is of type integer but expression is of type character varying
HINT: You will need to rewrite or cast the expression.
An INSERT INTO table1 SELECT * FROM table2 depends entirely on order of the columns, which is part of the table definition. It will line each column of table1 up with the column of table2 with the same order value, regardless of names.
The problem you have here is whatever column from cd with the same order value as c_d of the table "region" has an incompatible type, and an implicit typecast is not available to clear the confusion.
INSERT INTO SELECT * statements are stylistically bad form unless the two tables are defined, and will forever be defined, exactly the same way. All it takes is for a single extra column to get added to cd, and you'll start getting errors about extraneous extra columns.
If it is at all possible, what I would suggest is explicitly calling out the columns within the SELECT statement. You can call a function to change type within each of the column references (or you could define a new type cast to do this implicitly -- see CREATE CAST), and you can use AS to set the column label to match that of your target column.
If you can't do this for some reason, indicate that in your question.
Check out the PostgreSQL insert documentation. The syntax is:
INSERT INTO table [ ( column [, ...] ) ]
{ DEFAULT VALUES | VALUES ( { expression | DEFAULT } [, ...] ) | query }
which here would look something like:
INSERT INTO c_d (column1, column2...) select * from cd where ak = '22019763'
This is the syntax you want to use when inserting values from one table to another where the column types and order are not exactly the same.