If I have a table MyTable with columns a,b and c, which are ints. Given that I want to update all 'a's based on the values of b and c.
Update MyTable set a = 2 where b = 1 and c = 1
It's far too late, and I cannot for the life of me see why this statement doesn't work, am I missing something silly?
Edit, woops, forgot the error.
"Subquery returned more than 1 value. This is not permitted when the subquery follows =, !=, <, <= , >, >= or when the subquery is used as an expression."
Edit2: That was the exact query I was using (different column names). Turns out there was a trigger on the table which was broken. I feel a little silly now, but thanks for the help anyway :)
There's nothing wrong with the statement you posted. The error is elsewhere.
Could you have posted the wrong query? Or perhaps you over-simplified it? A subquery looks something like this:
UPDATE MyTable
SET a = 2
WHERE b = 1 AND c = (SELECT c FROM MyTable2 WHERE id = 5)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <--- subquery
An invalid query that could give the error message you get could look like this:
UPDATE MyTable
SET a = 2
WHERE b = 1 AND c = (SELECT c, d FROM MyTable2 WHERE id = 5)
The second query is invalid because it returns two values but the = operator only allows comparison to a single value.
The solution is to ensure that all subqueries used in equality comparisons only return a single row consisting of a single column.
Related
In Postgres if one of your columns is a big complicated expression you can just say ORDER BY 3 DESC where 3 is the order of the column where the complicated expression is. Is there anywhere to do this in SQLAlchemy?
As Gord Thompson observes in this comment, you can pass the column index as a text object to group_by or order_by:
q = sa.select(sa.func.count(), tbl.c.user_id).group_by(sa.text('2')).order_by(sa.text('2'))
serialises to
SELECT count(*) AS count_1, posts.user_id
FROM posts GROUP BY 2 ORDER BY 2
There are other techniques that don't require re-typing the expression.
You could use the selected_columns property:
q = sa.select(tbl.c.col1, tbl.c.col2, tbl.c.col3)
q = q.order_by(q.selected_columns[2]) # order by col3
You could also order by a label (but this will affect the names of result columns):
q = sa.select(tbl.c.col1, tbl.c.col2, tbl.c.col3.label('c').order_by('c')
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
Forgive me, I don't know how to ask this question and google for an answer. May have already been answered elsewhere on Stack, let me know if it is.
I want to use postgresql to join one table, Table A, with Table B such that the values in one set of columns in Table A are joined and multiplied (one-to-many join) by the corresponding values in a set of columns in Table B, based on whether the values in the set of columns in Table B are within the range of the values in the set of columns in Table A.
Basically:
Where Start_A >= Start_B AND End_A <= End_B
Like so:
i think this can help you. But in your quest and result where you question "Basically: Where Start_A >= Start_B AND End_A <= End_B", I think this your mistake because in result i saw Start_A <= Start_B AND End_A >= End_B. And id write the query for you:
SELECT *
FROM a LEFT JOIN b ON startA <= startB
WHERE endA >= endB
I'm trying to decipher another programmer's code who is long-gone, and I came across a select statement in a stored procedure that looks like this (simplified) example:
SELECT #Table2.Col1, Table2.Col2, Table2.Col3, MysteryColumn = CASE WHEN y.Col3 IS NOT NULL THEN #Table2.MysteryColumn - y.Col3 ELSE #Table2.MysteryColumn END
INTO #Table1
FROM #Table2
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT Table3.Col1, Table3.Col2, Col3 = SUM(#Table3.Col3)
FROM Table3
INNER JOIN #Table4 ON Table4.Col1 = Table3.Col1 AND Table4.Col2 = Table3.Col2
GROUP BY Table3.Col1, Table3.Col2
) AS y ON #Table2.Col1 = y.Col1 AND #Table2.Col2 = y.Col2
WHERE #Table2.Col2 < #EnteredValue
My question, what does the fourth column of the primary selection do? does it produce a boolean value checking to see if the values are equal? or does it set the #Table2.MysteryColumn equal to some value and then inserts it into #Table1? Or does it just update the #Table2.MysteryColumn and not output a value into #Table1?
This same thing seems to happen inside of the sub-query on the third column, and I am equally at a loss as to what that does as well.
MysteryColumn = gives the expression a name also called a column alias. The fact that a column in the table#2 also has the same name is besides the point.
Since it uses INTO syntax it also gives the column its name in the resulting temporary table. See the SELECT CLAUSE and note | column_alias = expression and the INTO CLAUSE
In the table below I am storing some conditions like this:
Then, generally, in second table, I am having the following records:
and what I need is to compare these values using the right condition and store the result ( let's say '0' for false, and '1' for true in additional column).
I am going to do this in a store procedure and basically I am going to compare from several to hundreds of records.
What of the possible solution is to use sp_executesql for each row building dynamic statements and the other is to create my own scalar function and to call it for eacy row using cross apply.
Could anyone tell which is the more efficient way?
Note: I know that the best way to answer this is to make the two solutions and test, but I am hoping that there might be answered of this, based on other stuff like caching and SQL internal optimizations and others, which will save me a lot of time because this is only part of a bigger problem.
I don't see the need in use of sp_executesql in this case. You can obtain result for all records at once in a single statement:
select Result = case
when ct.Abbreviation='=' and t.ValueOne=t.ValueTwo then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='>' and t.ValueOne>t.ValueTwo then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='>=' and t.ValueOne>=t.ValueTwo then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='<=' and t.ValueOne<=t.ValueTwo then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='<>' and t.ValueOne<>t.ValueTwo then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='<' and t.ValueOne<t.ValueTwo then 1
else 0 end
from YourTable t
join ConditionType ct on ct.ID = t.ConditionTypeID
and update additional column with something like:
;with cte as (
select t.AdditionalColumn, Result = case
when ct.Abbreviation='=' and t.ValueOne=t.ValueTwo then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='>' and t.ValueOne>t.ValueTwo then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='>=' and t.ValueOne>=t.ValueTwo then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='<=' and t.ValueOne<=t.ValueTwo then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='<>' and t.ValueOne<>t.ValueTwo then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='<' and t.ValueOne<t.ValueTwo then 1
else 0 end
from YourTable t
join ConditionType ct on ct.ID = t.ConditionTypeID
)
update cte
set AdditionalColumn = Result
If above logic is supposed to be applied in many places, not just over one table, then yes you may think about function. Though I would used rather inline table-valued function (not scalar), because of there is overhead imposed with use of user defined scalar functions (to call and return, and the more rows to be processed the more time wastes).
create function ftComparison
(
#v1 float,
#v2 float,
#cType int
)
returns table
as return
select
Result = case
when ct.Abbreviation='=' and #v1=#v2 then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='>' and #v1>#v2 then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='>=' and #v1>=#v2 then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='<=' and #v1<=#v2 then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='<>' and #v1<>#v2 then 1
when ct.Abbreviation='<' and #v1<#v2 then 1
else 0
end
from ConditionType ct
where ct.ID = #cType
which can be applied then as:
select f.Result
from YourTable t
cross apply ftComparison(ValueOne, ValueTwo, t.ConditionTypeID) f
or
select f.Result
from YourAnotherTable t
cross apply ftComparison(SomeValueColumn, SomeOtherValueColumn, #someConditionType) f