I'm looking to use the following query to find the last tender id.
FOR EACH tender-table NO-LOCK WHERE tender-table.kco = 1 BY tender-table.id:
DISPLAY tender-table.id.
END.
This query looks at all the tender id's and brings back all the results of all the id's in ascending order. The results i get are
1,035
1.036
......
1,060
1,061
1,062
1,063
1,064
1,065
1,066
FOR LAST tender-table NO-LOCK WHERE tender-table.kco = 1 BY tender-table.id:
DISPLAY tender-table.id.
END.
However when i use this query to find the last id, i get the result,
1,061
When I should be seeing the result 1,066. Can anyone suggest why this is happening?
FOR LAST is a very deceptive statement. (So is FOR FIRST.) It does not behave in an intuitive manner. The sort order is NOT specified by the BY statement. You will get the LAST record according to the index which is used and no sorting will take place. When the BY refers to an unindexed field (or one which does not sort in the order of the index actually used) or when the WHERE clause does not obviously map to an index in the order that you are hoping for you will have mysterious records chosen.
Personally, I strongly suggest that you forget about using FOR FIRST & FOR LAST. A better option, which always sorts as expected, would be:
FOR EACH tableName WHERE someCriteria BREAK BY sortOrder:
LEAVE.
END.
DISPLAY whatEver.
(Add "DESCENDING" to flip from FIRST to LAST...)
Just in case anyone needs convincing -- try this with the "sports" database:
for first customer no-lock by discount:
display name discount.
end.
Sorry I have managed to figure it out that the 1,066 values didn't have tender-table.kco = 1. this solves the problem. thanks your time.
Related
Is it possible, in SQL Server 2008, using the full text index syntax, to run a query such as this one?
SELECT *
FROM TABLE_TO_SEARCH S,
TABLE_WITH_STRINGS_TO_SEARCH SS
WHERE
CONTAINS(S.WHOLE_NAME,SS.FIRST_NAME)
OR CONTAINS(S.WHOLE_NAME,SS.LAST_NAME)
I need to search for the FIRST_NAME in table TABLE_TO_SEARCH, column WHOLE_NAME that has an full text index on it. It doesn't seem to be a valid query though... Is there any workaround to it by using the full text index search?
LATER EDIT:
Here is the business case: each night I am downloading from several websites information about "blacklisted" individuals and insert it into a table in this format: WholeName, LastName, FirstName, MiddleName. But the data is chaotic as WholeName does not necessarily contain either the last, first or middle name or the WholeName is null while the other 3 fields have values, or every of these 4 fields is null and so on. Also, the data may repeat itself as one blacklisted individual may come from 2+ of these websites. What I need to do is to compare this data, as chaotic as it is, against our customer data based on our customer's First and Last name and give it a matching score (rank) against the files we download from these websites.
First I tried with charindex or like operators but I couldn't create a scoring algorithm based on this and also it took 6 hours to compare just our customer's first and last name with only the WholeName column from the TABLE_TO_SEARCH table. I thought that perhaps implementing the full_text index it would get easier and faster but ... apparently I was wrong.
Has anyone dealt with a task like this? And if so, what was the best approach?
After skimming http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187787.aspx and http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms142571.aspx I don't think it is possible to do your search in this way. Not only that, but it seems this type of index wouldn't work well with names anyway.
If you care about checking one name then all you have to do is set those values to variables. This method would allow you to use the full-text index.
Otherwise, I would suggest splitting the WHOLE_NAME column (if there is a space or unique character between the first and last name) and comparing each part to those other columns. If you are working with a huge data set, you may want to experiment with doing this at a temp table level and creating an index.
Good luck!
I am receiving a syntax error in a form that I have created over a query. I created the form to restrict access to changing records. While trying to set filters on the form, I receive syntax errors for all attributes I try to filter on. I believe this has something to do with the lack of () around the inner join within the query code, but what is odd to me is that I can filter the query with no problem. Below is the query code:
SELECT CUSTOMER.[Product Number], SALESPERSON.[Salesperson Number],
SALESPERSON.[Salesperson Name], SALESPERSON.[Email Address]
FROM SALESPERSON INNER JOIN CUSTOMER ON
SALESPERSON.[Salesperson Number] = CUSTOMER.[Salesperson Number];
Any ideas why only the form would generate the syntax error, or how to fix this?
I was able to quickly fix it by going into Design View of the Form and putting [] around any field names that had spaces. I am now able to use the built in filters without the annoying popup about syntax problems.
I had this same problem.
As Dedren says, the problem is not the query, but the form object's control source. Put [] around each objects Control Source. eg: Contol Source: [Product number], Control Source: Salesperson.[Salesperson number], etc.
Makita recomends going to the original table that you are referencing in your query and rename the field so that there are no spaces eg: SalesPersonNumber, ProductNumber, etc. This will solve many future problems as well. Best of Luck!
Try making the field names legal by removing spaces. It's a long shot but it has actually helped me before.
No, no, no.
These answers are all wrong. There is a fundamental absence of knowledge in your brain that I'm going to remedy right now.
Your major issue here is your naming scheme. It's verbose, contains undesirable characters, and is horribly inconsistent.
First: A table that is called Salesperson does not need to have each field in the table called Salesperson.Salesperson number, Salesperson.Salesperson email. You're already in the table Salesperson. Everything in this table relates to Salesperson. You don't have to keep saying it.
Instead use ID, Email. Don't use Number because that's probably a reserved word. Do you really endeavour to type [] around every field name for the lifespan of your database?
Primary keys on a table called Student can either be ID or StudentID but be consistent. Foreign keys should only be named by the table it points to followed by ID. For example: Student.ID and Appointment.StudentID. ID is always capitalized. I don't care if your IDE tells you not to because everywhere but your IDE will be ID. Even Access likes ID.
Second: Name all your fields without spaces or special characters and keep them as short as possible and if they conflict with a reserved word, find another word.
Instead of: phone number use PhoneNumber or even better, simply, Phone. If you choose what time user made the withdrawal, you're going to have to type that in every single time.
Third: And this one is the most important one: Always be consistent in whatever naming scheme you choose. You should be able to say, "I need the postal code from that table; its name is going to be PostalCode." You should know that without even having to look it up because you were consistent in your naming convention.
Recap: Terse, not verbose. Keep names short with no spaces, don't repeat the table name, don't use reserved words, and capitalize each word. Above all, be consistent.
I hope you take my advice. This is the right way to do it. My answer is the right one. You should be extremely pedantic with your naming scheme to the point of absolute obsession for the rest of your lives on this planet.
NOTE:You actually have to change the field name in the design view of the table and in the query.
Put [] around any field names that had spaces (as Dreden says) and save your query, close it and reopen it.
Using Access 2016, I still had the error message on new queries after I added [] around any field names... until the Query was saved.
Once the Query is saved (and visible in the Objects' List), closed and reopened, the error message disappears. This seems to be a bug from Access.
I did quickly fix it by going into "Design View" of the main Table of same Form and putting underline (_) between any field names that had spaces. I am now able to use the built in filters without the annoying popup about syntax problems.
Extra ( ) brackets may create problems in else if flow. This also creates Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression.
I had this on a form where the Recordsource is dynamic.
The Sql was fine, answer is to trap the error!
Private Sub Form_Error(DataErr As Integer, Response As Integer)
' Debug.Print DataErr
If DataErr = 3075 Then
Response = acDataErrContinue
End If
End Sub
I'm trying to optimize a product search to be used on mobile devices using Coldfusion8/MySQL.
Right now the following happens:
1. user searches for "FOO"
2. Q1: search database for no of results
3. Q2: search again to get actual data for results FROM TO depending on pagination
4. user clicks details for a product
5. redo Q1 to get no of results
6. redo Q2 to get single result
7. use single result to query for product details (sizes, colors, pricings...)
I'm looking for a way to skip redoing Q1 and Q2, because the user picked a result from the resultset, so why should I rebuild the resultset again just to get a single result.
Question:
I guess the way would be to pass a variable indicating I'm only needing details of a record in an exinsting query. Say I have results 1-20 and I pass a variable "DETAIL" and an articlenumber "123", how would I select the matching record from an existing resultset = how can I select a specific record from a resultset?uery
EDIT:
So I think the only way for my case is to run the query the first time, store the results in Session.storage and then pick the respective record from the storage vs. re-running my initial search.
Query of Queries does not work, because my initial query is inside an cfinvoke method, so when it's done, it's gone and on the next pass through I cannot query the results of the last cfinvoke.
I also tried to store into my cfc variables scope. Also does not work, I guess for the same reason. I don't want to start using cfobject, because I'm still running CF8 and I'm reading a lot on how cfobject hampers performance.
Anyway. On my first query called "results", I'm now storing
<cfset Session.storate = results>
When I dump session storage I get:
catch - query
CACHED: false
EXECUTIONTIME: 2031
SQL: SELECT a.*, p.ek, p.vk, p.x, p.y
FROM arts a
LEFT JOIN p ON
...
LEFT JOIN f ON
...
WHERE a.aktiv = "ja"
AND
... 20 conditions ...
SQLPARAMETERS: [array]
1) %402%
... 20 parameters
RESULTSET:
[Record # 1]
a: true
style: 402
price: 2.3
currency: CHF
...
[Record # 2]
a: true
style: 402abc
...
My question would now be:
How can loop over session.storage and check for style? If found, this is my result, which I will build the detail view from.
I'm not sure if I follow, but if I am you could do a Query of Queries, which allows you query an existing query that ran on your page.
<cfquery name="getOneRecord" dbtype="query">
SELECT record
FROM originalqueryname
WHERE articlenumber = 123
</cfquery>
If you only need to retrieve one result this is probably the fastest way.
I am not sure I understand why you would redo the search to get a single record. If the user clicked on a details link that link should have some identifier back to the item selected. I would then use that id to query the database and get product detail. The original search query should only return relavent data to the results display.
Another thing to consider is cachedwithin attribute.
I am using CouchDB 1.1.1 for my web app-- everything has worked great so far (saving/retrieving documents, saving/querying views, etc) but I am stuck on a querying a view for a particular key at a particular group level.
The map function in my view outputs keys with the following format: ["Thing 1" "Thing 2"]. I have a reduce function which works fine and outputs correct values for group level 1 (ie by "thing 1") and by group level 2 (ie by "thing 2").
Now-- when I query couchdb I CAN grab just one particular key when I set reduce = true (default), group_level=2 (or group=true, which are the same in this case since I only have 2 levels) and key = "desiredkeyhere." I can also query multiple keys with keys = ["key1" "key2"].
HOWEVER-- I really want to be able to grab a particular key for group_level=1, and I cannot get that to work. It seems to return nothing, or if use a post request, it returns everything. Never just the one key that I need.
Heres a link the the couchdb http view api (querying options) that I've been using:
http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/HTTP_view_API#Querying_Options
It contains the following sentence:
"Note: Multiple keys request to a reduce function only supports group=true and NO group_level (identical to group_level=exact). The resulting error is "Multi-key fetchs for reduce view must include group=true""
Im not sure if this means that I cannot do what I have described above (grab a particular key for a particular group_level). That would seem like a huge problem with couchdb, so Im assuming Im doing something wrong.
Any ideas? Thanks
I have hit this too. I am not sure if it is a bug, though.
Try using your startkey and endkey in the normal (2-item) format. You want a result for ["Thing 1", *] (obviously pseudocode, the star represents anything). Reducing with group_level=1 will boil all of that down to one row.
So, query basically everything in the Thing 1 "namespace," so to speak. Since the "smallest" value to collate is null and the "greatest" value is the object {}, those make good bookends for your range.
?group_level=1&startkey=["Thing 1",null]&endkey=["Thing 1",{}]
Does that give you the result you need?
I need to setup worldship to pull from one of our postgres databases. I need to have it so that the packages are sorted by id. I have no way (that i am aware of) of having worldship send the order by clause so I need to have the default for the records returned to be returned by id.
On a second note I have no idea how postgres default sorts it looks like it by the last time the record was changed so if i write a two records id 1,2 then change record 2 when I run the query it returns them with record 2 being first.
Rows are returned in an unspecified order, per sql specs, unless you add an order by clause. In Postgres, that means you'll get rows in, basically, the order that live rows read on the disk.
If you want a consistent order without needing to add an order by clause, create a view as suggested in Jack's comment.
There is no such thing as a "default sort". Rows in a table are not sorted.
You could fake this with a view (as suggested by Jack Maney) there is no way you can influence the order of the rows that are returned.
But if you do that, be aware that adding an additional ORDER BY to a SELECT based on that view will sort the data twice.
Another option might be to run the CLUSTER command on that table to physically order the rows on the disk according to the column you want. But this sill does not guarantee that the rows are returned in that order. Not even with a plain SELECT * FROM your_table (but chances are reasonably high for that).
You will need to re-run this statement on a regular basis because the order created by the CLUSTER command is not automatically maintained.
For what it's worth, which probably isn't much, from my testing, it appears that PostgreSQL's "default" ordering is based on the time the records were last updated. The most recently updated records will appear last. Note that I couldn't find any documentation to support this. It's just what I've found from my own testing.
You could eventually use a sorted index, which should guarantee you order of retrieved rows in case the query plan hits the index, or if you force it, but this approach will be more than circuitous :). ORDER BY clause is the way to go as mentioned already.