I am trying to figure out why one can figure out the number of columns from using 'union SELECT'
For example, if you have a webpage http://www.vulnerable-site.com/index.php?firstArg=1
I learned that you can put
http://www.vulnerable-site.com/index.php?firstArg=1 union SELECT 1,2,3,4 --
to find out the number of columns in the table. Basically, you keep adding numbers to till you stop getting errors. Why is that?
Can anyone please help me with this basic question.
Thanks
I came to know that the number of columns on both sides of the UNION statement must match. So, this command can be used to find out the number of columns in a table.
UNION keyword can be used to retrieve data from other tables within the database. This results in an SQL injection UNION attack. so Determining the number of columns required in an SQL injection UNION attack. there are two effective methods to determine how many columns are being returned from the original query. "ORDER BY" and "UNION SELECT"
Related
I have been trying to do an outer join across two different tables in two different schemas. I am trying to filter out before from the table variants the character that are smaller than 4 and bigger than 5 digits. The join was not working with a simply where clause in the end, hence this decision.
The problem is if I do not put the quotes, Snowflake will say that I put invalid identifiers. However, when I run this with the quotes, it works but I get as values in the fields of the column raw.stitch_heroku.spree_variants.SKU only named as the column name, all across the table!
SELECT
analytics.dbt_lcasucci.product_category.product_description,
'raw.stitch_heroku.spree_variants.SKU'
FROM analytics.dbt_lcasucci.product_category
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT * FROM raw.stitch_heroku.spree_variants
WHERE LENGTH('raw.stitch_heroku.spree_variants.SKU')<=5
and LENGTH('raw.stitch_heroku.spree_variants.SKU')>=4
) ON 'analytics.dbt_lcasucci.product_category.product_id'
= 'raw.stitch_heroku.spree_variants.SKU'
Is there a way to work this around? I am confused and have not found this issue on forums yet!
thx in advance
firstly single quote define a string literal 'this is text' where as double quotes are table/column names "this_is_a_table_name"
add alias's to the tables makes the SQL more readable, and the duplicate length command can be reduced with a between, thus this should work better:
SELECT pc.product_description,
sp.SKU
FROM analytics.dbt_lcasucci.product_category AS PC
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT SKU
FROM raw.stitch_heroku.spree_variants
WHERE LENGTH(SKU) BETWEEN 4 AND 5
) AS sp
ON pc.product_id = sp.SKU;
So I reduced the sub-selects results as you only used sku from sp but given you are comparing product_id to sku as your example exists you don't need to join to sp.
the invalid indentifiers implies to me something is named incorrectly, the first step there is to check the tables exist and the columns are named as you expect and the type of the columns are the same for the JOIN x ON y clause via:
describe table analytics.dbt_lcasucci.product_category;
describe table raw.stitch_heroku.spree_variants;
I am converting the following T-SQL statement to Redshift. The purpose of the query is to convert a column in the table with a value containing a comma delimited string with up to 60 values into multiple rows with 1 value per row.
SELECT
id_1
, id_2
, value
into dbo.myResultsTable
FROM myTable
CROSS APPLY STRING_SPLIT([comma_delimited_string], ',')
WHERE [comma_delimited_string] is not null;
In SQL this processes 10 million records in just under 1 hour which is fine for my purposes. Obviously a direct conversation to Redshift isn't possible due to Redshift not having a Cross Apply or String Split functionality so I built a solution using the process detailed here (Redshift. Convert comma delimited values into rows) which utilizes split_part() to split the comma delimited string into multiple columns. Then another query that unions everything to get the final output into a single column. But the typical run takes over 6 hours to process the same amount of data.
I wasn't expecting to run into this issue just knowing the power difference between the machines. The SQL Server I was using for the comparison test was a simple server with 12 processors and 32 GB of RAM while the Redshift server is based on the dc1.8xlarge nodes (I don't know the total count). The instance is shared with other teams but when I look at the performance information there are plenty of available resources.
I'm relatively new to Redshift so I'm still assuming I'm not understanding something. But I have no idea what am I missing. Are there things I need to check to make sure the data is loaded in an optimal way (I'm not an adim so my ability to check this is limited)? Are there other Redshift query options that are better than the example I found? I've searched for other methods and optimizations but unless I start looking into Cross Joins, something I'd like to avoid (Plus when I tried to talk to the DBA's running the Redshift cluster about this option their response was a flat "No, can't do that.") I'm not even sure where to go at this point so any help would be much appreciated!
Thanks!
I've found a solution that works for me.
You need to do a JOIN on a number table, for which you can take any table as long as it has more rows that the numbers you need. You need to make sure the numbers are int by forcing the type. Using the funcion regexp_count on the column to be split for the ON statement to count the number of fields (delimiter +1), will generate a table with a row per repetition.
Then you use the split_part function on the column, and use the number.num column to extract for each of the rows a different part of the text.
SELECT comma_delimited_string, numbers.num, REGEXP_COUNT(comma_delimited_string , ',')+1 AS nfields, SPLIT_PART(comma_delimited_string, ',', numbers.num) AS field
FROM mytable
JOIN
(
select
(row_number() over (order by 1))::int as num
from
mytable
limit 15 --max num of fields
) as numbers
ON numbers.num <= regexp_count(comma_delimited_string , ',') + 1
Can anyone please help me in writing a single query joining these two queries.
I am using IBM DB2.
(SELECT
TABLE1.COLS,TBLE2.COLS,TABLE3.COLS
FROM
TABLE1,TABLE2,TABLE3,TABLE_PROB
WHERE
TABLE_PROB.COL=TABLE1.COL,OTHER_CLAUSE )
UNION
(SELECT
TABLE1.COLS,TBLE2.COLS,TABLE3.COLS
FROM
TABLE1,TABLE2,TABLE3,TABLE_PROB1
WHERE TABLE_PROB1.COL=TABLE1.COL,OTHER_CLAUSE )
The two queries before and after union are same except that instead of "TABLE_PROB" it is changed to "TABLE_PROB1". There are no columns is to be selected from both the tables, they are only used to filter in the where clause.
Can anyone tell me how to combine both into a single query.
This query can be considered for the following scenario.
There are few employee details table which contains details of all employees.
"TABLE_PROB" contains list of contract employees and "TABLE_PROB1" contains list of permanent employees. I need to get the details of both the contract and not contract employees based on few criteria.
Since the query has big Whereclause and select clause firing two queries by using union,increases the cost of the query. So I need to merge it by making a single query.
Thanks for the help in advance.
You cannot avoid the UNION because you still have to access both TABLE_PROB and TABLE_PROB1. Depending on your DB2 version, platform, and the system configuration this might perform a bit better:
SELECT
TABLE1.COLS,TBLE2.COLS,TABLE3.COLS
FROM
TABLE1,TABLE2,TABLE3
WHERE
OTHER_CLAUSE
AND
EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM TABLE_PROB
WHERE COL=TABLE1.COL
UNION
SELECT 1
FROM TABLE_PROB1
WHERE COL=TABLE1.COL
)
Depending on the contents of TABLE_PROB.COL and TABLE_PROB1.COL UNION ALL instead of UNION might also prove beneficial.
I have a problem with TSQL. I have a number of tables, each table contain different number of fielsds with different names.
I need dynamically take all this tables, read all records and manage each record into string list, where each value separated by commas. And do smth. with this string.
I think that I need to use CURSORS, but I can't FETCH em without knowing A concrete amount of fields with names and types. Maybe I can create a table variable with dynamic number of fields?
Thanks a lot!
Makarov Artem.
I would repurpose one of the many T-SQL scripts written to generate INSERT statements. They do exactly what you require. Namely
Reverse engineer a given table to determine columns names and types
Generate a delimited string of values
The most complete example I've found is here
But just a simple Google search for "INSERT STATEMENT GENERATOR" will yield several examples that you can repurpose to fit your needs.
Best of luck!
SELECT
ORDINAL_POSITION
,COLUMN_NAME
,DATA_TYPE
,CHARACTER_MAXIMUM_LENGTH
,IS_NULLABLE
,COLUMN_DEFAULT
FROM
INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS
WHERE
TABLE_NAME = 'MYTABLE'
ORDER BY
ORDINAL_POSITION ASC;
from http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/joew/archive/2008/04/27/60574.aspx
Perhaps you can do something with this.
select T2.X.query('for $i in *
return concat(data($i), ",")'
).value('.', 'nvarchar(max)') as C
from (
select *
from YourTable
for xml path('Row'),elements xsinil, type
) as T1(X)
cross apply T1.X.nodes('/Row') T2(X)
It will give you one row for each row in YourTable with each value in YourTable separated by a comma in the column C.
This builds an XML for the entire table and then parses that XML. Might get you into trouble if you have tables with a lot of rows.
BTW: I saw from a comment that you can "use only pure SQL". I really don't think this qualifies as "pure SQL" :).
SELECT DISTINCT tblJobReq.JobReqId
, tblJobReq.JobStatusId
, tblJobClass.JobClassId
, tblJobClass.Title
, tblJobReq.JobClassSubTitle
, tblJobAnnouncement.JobClassDesc
, tblJobAnnouncement.EndDate
, blJobAnnouncement.AgencyMktgVerbage
, tblJobAnnouncement.SpecInfo
, tblJobAnnouncement.Benefits
, tblSalary.MinRateSal
, tblSalary.MaxRateSal
, tblSalary.MinRateHour
, tblSalary.MaxRateHour
, tblJobClass.StatementEval
, tblJobReq.ApprovalDate
, tblJobReq.RecruiterId
, tblJobReq.AgencyId
FROM ((tblJobReq
LEFT JOIN tblJobAnnouncement ON tblJobReq.JobReqId = tblJobAnnouncement.JobReqId)
INNER JOIN tblJobClass ON tblJobReq.JobClassId = tblJobClass.JobClassId)
LEFT JOIN tblSalary ON tblJobClass.SalaryCode = tblSalary.SalaryCode
WHERE (tblJobReq.JobClassId in (SELECT JobClassId
from tblJobClass
WHERE tblJobClass.Title like '%Family Therapist%'))
When i try to execute the query it results in the following error.
Cannot sort a row of size 8130, which is greater than the allowable maximum of 8094
I checked and didn't find any solution. The only way is to truncate (substring())the "tblJobAnnouncement.JobClassDesc" in the query which has column size of around 8000.
Do we have any work around so that i need not truncate the values. Or Can this query be optimised? Any setting in SQL Server 2000?
The [non obvious] reason why SQL needs to SORT is the DISTINCT keyword.
Depending on the data and underlying table structures, you may be able to do away with this DISTINCT, and hence not trigger this error.
You readily found the alternative solution which is to truncate some of the fields in the SELECT list.
Edit: Answering "Can you please explain how DISTINCT would be the reason here?"
Generally, the fashion in which the DISTINCT requirement is satisfied varies with
the data context (expected number of rows, presence/absence of index, size of row...)
the version/make of the SQL implementation (the query optimizer in particular receives new or modified heuristics with each new version, sometimes resulting in alternate query plans for various constructs in various contexts)
Yet, all the possible plans associated with a "DISTINCT query" involve *some form* of sorting of the qualifying records. In its simplest form, the plan "fist" produces the list of qualifying rows (records) (the list of records which satisfy the WHERE/JOINs/etc. parts of the query) and then sorts this list (which possibly includes some duplicates), only retaining the very first occurrence of each distinct row. In other cases, for example when only a few columns are selected and when some index(es) covering these columns is(are) available, no explicit sorting step is used in the query plan but the reliance on an index implicitly implies the "sortability" of the underlying columns. In other cases yet, steps involving various forms of merging or hashing are selected by the query optimizer, and these too, eventually, imply the ability of comparing two rows.
Bottom line: DISTINCT implies some sorting.
In the specific case of the question, the error reported by SQL Server and preventing the completion of the query is that "Sorting is not possible on rows bigger than..." AND, the DISTINCT keyword is the only apparent reason for the query to require any sorting (BTW many other SQL constructs imply sorting: for example UNION) hence the idea of removing the DISTINCT (if it is logically possible).
In fact you should remove it, for test purposes, to assert that, without DISTINCT, the query completes OK (if only including some duplicates). Once this fact is confirmed, and if effectively the query could produce duplicate rows, look into ways of producing a duplicate-free query without the DISTINCT keyword; constructs involving subqueries can sometimes be used for this purpose.
An unrelated hint, is to use table aliases, using a short string to avoid repeating these long table names. For example (only did a few tables, but you get the idea...)
SELECT DISTINCT JR.JobReqId, JR.JobStatusId,
tblJobClass.JobClassId, tblJobClass.Title,
JR.JobClassSubTitle, JA.JobClassDesc, JA.EndDate, JA.AgencyMktgVerbage,
JA.SpecInfo, JA.Benefits,
S.MinRateSal, S.MaxRateSal, S.MinRateHour, S.MaxRateHour,
tblJobClass.StatementEval,
JR.ApprovalDate, JR.RecruiterId, JR.AgencyId
FROM (
(tblJobReq AS JR
LEFT JOIN tblJobAnnouncement AS JA ON JR.JobReqId = JA.JobReqId)
INNER JOIN tblJobClass ON tblJobReq.JobClassId = tblJobClass.JobClassId)
LEFT JOIN tblSalary AS S ON tblJobClass.SalaryCode = S.SalaryCode
WHERE (JR.JobClassId in
(SELECT JobClassId from tblJobClass
WHERE tblJobClass.Title like '%Family Therapist%'))
FYI, running this SQL command on your DB can fix the problem if it is caused by space that needs to be reclaimed after dropping variable length columns:
DBCC CLEANTABLE (0,[dbo.TableName])
See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms174418.aspx
This is a limitation of SQL Server 2000. You can:
Split it into two queries and combine elsewhere
SELECT ID, ColumnA, ColumnB FROM TableA JOIN TableB
SELECT ID, ColumnC, ColumnD FROM TableA JOIN TableB
Truncate the columns appropriately
SELECT LEFT(LongColumn,2000)...
Remove any redundant columns from the SELECT
SELECT ColumnA, ColumnB, --IDColumnNotUsedInOutput
FROM TableA
Migrate off of SQL Server 2000