I just started using MySQL Workbench (6.1). The default limit for queries is 1,000 and that's fine I want to keep that.
But the results from the action output message will therefore always say "1000 rows returned".
Is there a setting to see the number of records that would be returned in the query had their been no limit? For sanity checking query results?
I know this is late by a few years, but I think you're asking for a way to see total row count in the bottom of the results pane, like in SQL Server. In SQL Server, you would also go in the messages pane and it would say how many rows were returned. I was actually looking for exactly what you were asking for as well, and seems like there is no way to find that. If you have an ID in your table that is just numeric and is in numeric order, you could order by ID desc and look at the biggest number there. That is what I've decided to do.
The result is not always "1000 rows returned". If there are less records than that you will get the actual count. If you want to know the total number of rows in a table do a select count(*) from table. Alternatively, you can switch off the automatic limit and have all records returned by MySQL Workbench, but that can be time + memory consuming for large tables.
I think removing the row limit will help. By default, MySQL workbench will limit the result set to 1000 rows but you can always disable the limit. Check out https://superuser.com/questions/240291/how-to-remove-1000-row-limit-in-mysql-workbench-queries on how to do that.
You can run a second query to check that
select count(*) from (your original query) as t;
this will return the total rows in actual result.
You can use the SQL count function. It returns the count of the total number of rows a query returns.
A sample query:
select count(*) from tableName where field1 = value1
In workbench, in the dropdown menu at the top, set it to dont limit Then run the query to extract data from table Then under the output pane below, the total count of the query results will be displayed in the message column
Related
I use knexjs and postgresql. Is it possible in knexjs to get the total of records from the same query in which the limit is used?
For example:
knex.select().from('project').limit(50)
Is it possible to somehow get the total number of records in the same query if there are more than 50?
The question arose due to the fact that my query is much more complex, which uses a lot of subqueries and conditions, and I would not like to make this query twice to get the data in one query and the total number of records (I use the .count() method) from another.
I do not know your obscurification manager (knexjs?) but I would think you should be able to add the window version of the count() function to your select list. In plain SQL something like: Where ... represents your current select list. (see demo)
select ..., count(*) over() total_rows
from project
limit 5;
This works because the window count function counts all rows selected, after all rows selected, but before the LIMIT clause is applied. Note: This adds a column to the result set with the same value in every row.
I'm looking at a postgres system with tables containing 10 or 100's of millions of rows, and being fed at a rate of a few rows per second.
I need to do some processing on the rows of these tables, so I plan to run some simple select queries: select * with a where clause based on a range (each row contains a timestamp, that's what I'll work with for ranges). It may be a "closed range", with a start and an end I know are contained in the table, and I know no new data will fall into the range, or an open range : ie one of the range boundary might not be "in the table yet" and rows being fed in the table might thus fall in that range.
Since the response will itself contains millions of rows, and the processing per row can take some time (10s of ms) I'm fully aware I'll use a cursor and fetch, say, a few 1000 rows at a time. My question is:
If I run an "open range" query: will I only get the result as it was when I started the query, or will new rows being inserted in the table that fall in the range while I run my fetch show up ?
(I tend to think that no I won't see new rows, but I'd like a confirmation...)
updated
It should not happen under any isolation level:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/transaction-iso.html
but Postgres insures it only in Serializable isolation
Well, I think when you make a query, that means you create a new transaction and it will not receive/update data from any other transaction until it commit.
So, basically "you only get the result as it was when you started the query"
If I run this query on large Historical database without specifying a date, will KDB be smart enough to retrive status values from index and not bring database down?
select distinct status from trades
The only way kdb can possibly tell all the distinct status is by reading from every partition. Yes this will take a lot of memory but unless you yourself want to maintain a cache of all distinct status, there is nothing else you can do. As previous mentioned an attribute will speed the query up but the query time will still only scale with the number of partitions.
To retrieve using index, kdb provides 'g#' attribute. Distinct alone can take more time which depends on size of your table(it will be linear search without `g# attribute).
Check this-> http://code.kx.com/q4m3/8_Tables/#88-attributes
Let's look at simple example:
q) a: 10000000#1 2 3 5
q) b:`g#a
q) \ts distinct a
68 134217888
q) \ts distinct b
0 288
Difference shows that g# attribute makes a lot of difference in time and space taken during searching. It is becauseg# attribute creates and maintains index on vector.
I am using Crystal Reports Developer Studio to create a report that reports on two different tables, let them be "ATable" and "BTable". For my simplest task, I would like to report the count of each table by using Total Running Fields. I created one for ATable (Called ATableTRF) and when I post it on my report this is what happens:
1) The SQL Query (Show SQL Query) shows:
SELECT "ATABLE"."ATABLE_KEY"
FROM "DB"."ATABLE" "ATABLE"
2) The total records read is the number of records in ATable.
3) The number I get is correct (total records in ATable).
Same goes for BTableTRF, if I remove ATableTRF I get:
1) The SQL Query (Show SQL Query) shows:
SELECT "BTABLE"."BTABLE_KEY"
FROM "DB"."BTABLE" "BTABLE"
2) The total records read is the number of records in BTable.
3) The number I get is correct (total records in BTable).
The problems starts when I just put both fields on the reports. What happens then is that I get the two queries one after another (since the tables are not linked in crystal reports):
SELECT "ATABLE"."ATABLE_KEY"
FROM "DB"."ATABLE" "ATABLE"
SELECT "BTABLE"."BTABLE_KEY"
FROM "DB"."BTABLE" "BTABLE"
And the number of record read is far larger than each of the tables - it doesn't stop. I would verify it's count(ATable)xcount(BTable) but that would exceed my computer's limitation (probably - one is around 300k rows the other around 900k rows).
I would just like to report the count of the two tables. No interaction is needed - but crystal somehow enforces an interaction.
Can anyone help with that?
Thanks!
Unless there is some join describing the two tables' relationship, then the result will be a Cartesian product. Try just using two subqueries, either via a SQL Command or as individual SQL expressions, to get the row counts. Ex:
select count(distinct ATABLE_KEY) from ATABLE
If you're not interested in anything else in these tables aside from the row counts, then there's no reason to bring all those rows into Crystal - better to do the heavy lifting on the RDBMS.
You could UNION the two queries. This would give you one record set containing rows from each query once.
We use the following pagination technique here:
get count(*) of given filter
get first 25 records of given filter
-> render some pagination links on the page
This works pretty well as long as count(*) is reasonable fast. In our case the data size has grown to a point where a non-indexd query (although most stuff is covered by indices) takes more than a minute. So at this point the user waits for a mostly unimportant number (total records matching filter, number of pages). The first N records are often ready pretty fast.
Therefore I have two questions:
can I limit the count(*) to a certain number
or would it be possible to limit it by time? (no count() known after 20ms)
Or just in general: are there some easy ways to avoid that problem? We would like to keep the system as untouched as possible.
Database: Oracle 10g
Update
There are several scenarios
a) there's an index -> neither count(*) nor the actual select should be a problem
b) there's no index
count(*) is HUGE, and it takes ages to determine it -> rownum would help
count(*) is zero or very low, here a time limit would help. Or I could just dont do a count(*) if the result set is already below the page limit.
You could use 'where rownum < x' to limit the number of rows to count. And if you need to show to your user that you has more register, you could use x+1 in count just to see if there is more than x registers.