Sorting column #7 as an example -
This code does not sort data at all:
ORDER BY CASE WHEN '1'='2' THEN 5
WHEN '1'='1' THEN 7
ELSE 13 END
If I change it to a hard-coded ordinal it works:
ORDER BY 7
As long as the respective expressions in the SELECT list are of the same type, you can do it by using the expressions themselves instead of the SELECT list number:
SELECT expression1, expression2, ...
...
ORDER BY CASE
WHEN 1=2
THEN expression5
WHEN 1=1
THEN expression7
ELSE expression13
END;
If the data types are not the same, season with type casts.
Your query does not work because only integer literals can be used as column numbers in ORDER BY. In all other cases, an integer just stands for its constant value.
If it were not like this, ORDER BY expressions could easily become ambiguous. Look at the following:
... ORDER BY intcol + 3;
Should that mean “add three” or “add expression number three from the SELECT list”?
Related
I need to create a function that returns the string 'fall' or 'spring' depending on the month of the year. If the function was named getterm and took no parameters I would like to use it in a select statement like this:
select name, classname, getterm from classtable
where classtable holds the names of the classes we offer. The result set would include the columns as follows:
-Jack, Data Systems, Sp2022
-Jill, Web Stuff, F2023
I have used the now() function. I can also use extract(quarter from now()) to get my current quarter. It would seem simple then to use an 'if' or 'case' clause to return 'spring' or 'fall' based upon the quarters. I just haven't found any examples of a function like this.
Can anyone suggest some sample code ?
Per documentation from here CASE:
There is a “simple” form of CASE expression that is a variant of the general form above:
CASE expression
WHEN value THEN result
[WHEN ...]
[ELSE result]
END
The first expression is computed, then compared to each of the value expressions in the WHEN clauses until one is found that is equal to it. If no match is found, the result of the ELSE clause (or a null value) is returned. This is similar to the switch statement in C.
This translates in your case to:
SELECT
CASE extract('quarter' FROM now())
WHEN 1 THEN
'winter'
WHEN 2 THEN
'spring'
WHEN 3 THEN
'summer'
WHEN 4 THEN
'fall'
END;
case
--------
spring
Thank you to Adrian.. I now have the working function:
create function getTermString() returns text as $$
select case extract(quarter from now())
when 1 then 'sp'
when 2 then 'sp'
when 3 then 'f'
when 4 then 'f'
end ;
$$ language SQL;
I get the following error for this query: [22P02] ERROR: invalid input syntax for type numeric: "."
select
date,
row_number () over () as RN,
case when (row_number() over ()) ='8' then '.' else (success/trials) end as "After_1M"
from trials
groupy by date;
Is there another way to indicate that a certain value in a ROWxCOLUMN combination should be adjusted?
Well your description certainly leaves a lot to be desired. But your query only needs slight modification to actually run. First off "groupy by date". I will assume it's just a typo. But a group by without an aggregate function generally doesn't do anything - and this is one of those. But I believe your attempting to get a row count by date. If so the you need the partition by and order by clauses in the in the row_number function. The other issue is in the expression. Each entry in the expression must return the same data type but in case it doesn't. The THEN condition returns character (.) while the ELSE returns a numeric (success/trials) which must define 2 numeric columns to be valid. So which needs to change? I will assume the later. Given this we wind up with:
select date
, row_number() over(partition by date order by trl_date) rn
, case when (row_number() over(partition by date order by trl_date)) = 8
then '.'
else (success/trials)::text
end as "After_1M"
from trials;
Note: Date is a very poor date is a very poor column name. It's a reserved word, as well as a data type.
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 the following case statement to prepare as a dynamic as shown below:
Example:
I have the case statement:
case cola
when cola between '2001-01-01' and '2001-01-05' then 'G1'
when cola between '2001-01-10' and '2001-01-15' then 'G2'
when cola between '2001-01-20' and '2001-01-25' then 'G3'
when cola between '2001-02-01' and '2001-02-05' then 'G4'
when cola between '2001-02-10' and '2001-02-15' then 'G5'
else ''
end
Note: Now I want to create dynamic case statement because of the values dates and name passing as a parameter and it may change.
Declare
dates varchar = '2001-01-01to2001-01-05,2001-01-10to2001-01-15,
2001-01-20to2001-01-25,2001-02-01to2001-02-05,
2001-02-10to2001-02-15';
names varchar = 'G1,G2,G3,G4,G5';
The values in the variables may change as per the requirements, it will be dynamic. So the case statement should be dynamic without using loop.
You may not need any function for this, just join to a mapping data-set:
with cola_map(low, high, value) as (
values(date '2001-01-01', date '2001-01-05', 'G1'),
('2001-01-10', '2001-01-15', 'G2'),
('2001-01-20', '2001-01-25', 'G3'),
('2001-02-01', '2001-02-05', 'G4'),
('2001-02-10', '2001-02-15', 'G5')
-- you can include as many rows, as you want
)
select table_name.*,
coalesce(cola_map.value, '') -- else branch from case expression
from table_name
left join cola_map on table_name.cola between cola_map.low and cola_map.high
If your date ranges could collide, you can use DISTINCT ON or GROUP BY to avoid row duplication.
Note: you can use a simple sub-select too, I used a CTE, because it's more readable.
Edit: passing these data (as a single parameter) can be achieved by passing a multi-dimensional array (or an array of row-values, but that requires you to have a distinct, predefined composite type).
Passing arrays as parameters can depend on the actual client (& driver) you use, but in general, you can use the array's input representation:
-- sql
with cola_map(low, high, value) as (
select d[1]::date, d[2]::date, d[3]
from unnest(?::text[][]) d
)
select table_name.*,
coalesce(cola_map.value, '') -- else branch from case expression
from table_name
left join cola_map on table_name.cola between cola_map.low and cola_map.high
// client pseudo code
query = db.prepare(sql);
query.bind(1, "{{2001-01-10,2001-01-15,G2},{2001-01-20,2001-01-25,G3}}");
query.execute();
Passing each chunk of data separately is also possible with some clients (or with some abstractions), but this is highly depends on your driver/orm/etc. you use.
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.]%'