Result are different after adding the Order By clause in below query.
Query
select sum(wpsv1.primary_qty) detail_qty,
wpsv1.from_subinventory subinventory,
wdd.revision revision,
[Code]....
I want to confirm the order of the data in results of two sql queries.
For example, in my table 5 columns are there.c1 to c5.
c1 c2 c3 c4 c5
--------------------------------------------------
test100 1 A 1-Jan-2006 2-Jan-2006
test100 2 B 3-jan-2006 4-Jan-2006
test101 1 A 01-Jan-2006 2-Jan-2006
test101 2 B 03-Jan-2006 4-Jan-2006
test101 3 c 05-Jan-2006 06-Jan-2006
In this table if you order by c2,
select c3
from tab1
where c1='test101'
order by c2;
c3
---------
A
B
C
If you order by c4,
select c1,c2,c3
from tab1
where c1='test101'
order by c4;
c3
------
A
B
C
Sometimes order of these data may change like. the result of the 2nd query may change (bcos of c4 date column changes)
C3
--
A
C
B
So,@ run time i want to check the order of these 2 results should match....if not,i need to display the corresponding c1 column.
I have requirement to create an XML structure through stored procedure. I need to Order some of the columns in ascending order before I format them into the xml structure. I am pretty novice to creating an output into XML format, but attached is the query I came up with (without order by). This works perfect, but now the requirement is to order by - cls_cd, and within cls_cd, again order by - cat_cd. I am not able to do this.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a requirement where I need to display a list of employees, performance rating and manager id. I want to display the employees first whose manager is as manager_id as input parameter. So lets say a manager logs in, he should see his reporters first and then the rest. How can I implement this in SQL? I am trying first clause with order by but not sure how to do that here.
procedure
display_list(manager_id in varchar2)
Output is:
emp_id
manager_id
performance_rating
I know that order by clause in normal query is used to order the result set based on the key. significance of order by clause in analytical functions.
with data as
(select empno,
sal,
case
[Code]...
In case of min, max analytical functions order by clause have importance. But how it will work for a COUNT function ?
I have got the following error while executing below Query.
ORA-01791 'Not a SELECTed expression'
select distinct sgbstdn_levl_code
from sgbstdn,spriden
where spriden_pidm = sgbstdn_pidm
and spriden_id = '200076543'
order by sgbstdn_term_code_eff desc;
The above Query is not working with Distinct & Order By clause are present and by joining two tables. I need the distinct values of levels in Descending order of Terms.
explain the difference in the VALUE column when DESCRIPTION = 'dept' when the query is run with and without the order by clause.
SELECT * FROM
(
SELECT * FROM emp
--ORDER BY job
)UNPIVOT (VALUE FOR DESCRIPTION IN (sal AS 'salary', deptno AS 'dept'));
When i try to execute a query, which is organised as the below example, it retrieves data..
select * from (
select col1, col2, col3, col4....coln
from TABLE_ONE left outer join TABLE_TWO
-- some conditions and group by clause
order by 1 asc
)
where rownum <=1000;
Again if I use Column alias in the ORDER BY clause col1, the query won't retrieve data.
Also If I use ORDER BY 4 instead of ORDER BY 1, the query wont return data...
select * from (
select col1, col2, col3, col4....coln
from TABLE_ONE left outer join TABLE_TWO
-- some conditions and group by clause
order by 4 asc
)
where rownum <=1000;
The whole issue revolves around the inner ORDER BY Clause and external ROWNUM condition..If I eliminate any of the two, the query works fine...I am not sure if indexes have some role to play in it...
I have a query, running the query with order by and without orderby clasue casues big performance difference.
here without order by it takes 5 sec
.
SELECT
audit_number,
formatted_audit_number,
ag.sys_audit_id,
audit_begin_date,
audit_end_date,
[Code]....
here with order by it takes 2 min
SELECT
audit_number,
formatted_audit_number,
ag.sys_audit_id,
audit_begin_date,
audit_end_date,
auditee_name,
ein,
[Code]....
I have like 10,000 records.
Oracle version : 11.2.0.2 Linux EL6 server
I have a query like below:
select col1, col2, col3, col4
from tab1, tab2, tab3
where conditions
union
[Code]...
Now, the col4 is a date column and I have to order by the entire result sets on it. I know I can do it by (order by col4) or by (order by 4) at the end of the entire query.
But the problem is that, the output is coming in dd-Mon-yyyy (i.e 31-Nov-2012).
I want every output in dd/mm/yyyy format so I need to use to_char function.
But in that case, I cant use the order by clause, because in that case it is getting arranged by character i.e by 1,2,3,4,5 like this.
currently i m going through some dumps for my OCA-11g prep.I came across one sentence :A view cannot have an ORDER BY clause in the SELECT statement.well this statement is false and the explanation given was :
Query operations containing ORDER BY clause are also permitted, so long as the ORDER BY clause appears outside the parentheses.
The following is an example of what I mean: CREATE VIEW my_view AS (SELECT*FROM emp) ORDER BYempno.
but when i tried running the query like this :CREATE VIEW my_view AS SELECT*FROM emp ORDER BYempno ,it worked w/o giving parentheses.
I have a real problem with form, specifically one of its data blocks. In the order by property of the block i specify it to sort on a branch in ascending order(i tried descending as well) but for some reason the form ignores that and sorts it on the ROWNUM. I even removed the where clause, the order by clause and changed the query data source type to FROM clause and changed the data source name to pre-query. I then created the query string in the block's pre-query trigger and set query_data_source_name property to that query string and still the data in the block is not being sorted on the branch number but instead on the ROWNUM.
View 6 Replies View RelatedHow to avoid sort operation by an order by clause without changing the sort area size.what hints or changes should be done in query so that order by clause work faster.
View 10 Replies View RelatedI came across situation where a Nullable column is not using index for 'order by' clause. I added Not Null condition in the 'where' condition but it wasn't useful. I don't wanted to make composite index with not nullable column or with constant or modify column to 'Not Null'
So I carried out test cases and during which I found that in one case the sql statement does 'fast full scan' for data access but does not use index for 'order by' sorting
here are the steps
Initially I kept the column Nullable
SQL> create sequence s5;
Sequence created.
SQL> create table t5 as select s5.nextval id,a.* from dba_objects a where rownum<1001;
Table created.
SQL> set pages 100
SQL> select column_name,nullable from user_tab_columns where table_name='T5';
SQL> create index i5 on t5(id);
Index created.
SQL> exec dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(user,'T5',cascade=>true);
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
exit
SQL> alter session set events '10046 trace name context forever, level 12';
select *
from
t5 where id is not null order by id
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 16 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.01 0.00 0 16 0 1000
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT ORDER BY (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=4771 us)
1000 TABLE ACCESS FULL T5 (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=1157 us)
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 49.49 49.72
********************************************************************************
select /*+ index(t i5) */ *
from
t5 t where id is not null order by id
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID T5 (cr=150 pr=0 pw=0 time=5167 us)
1000 INDEX FULL SCAN I5 (cr=71 pr=0 pw=0 time=3141 us)(object id 4673065)
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 69 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 69 22.89 28.04
Now I modified the 'id' column to Not Null
SQL> alter table t5 modify id not null;
SQL> set pages 100
SQL> select column_name,nullable from user_tab_columns where table_name='T5';
COLUMN_NAME N
------------------------------ -
ID N
OWNER Y
OBJECT_NAME Y
SUBOBJECT_NAME Y
OBJECT_ID Y
DATA_OBJECT_ID Y
OBJECT_TYPE Y
CREATED Y
LAST_DDL_TIME Y
TIMESTAMP Y
STATUS Y
TEMPORARY Y
GENERATED Y
SECONDARY Y
14 rows selected.
select *
from
t5 order by id
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.01 0 29 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 16 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.01 0.01 0 45 0 1000
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT ORDER BY (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=2398 us)
1000 TABLE ACCESS FULL T5 (cr=16 pr=0 pw=0 time=1152 us)
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 37.74 37.91
********************************************************************************
select /*+ index(t i5) */ *
from
t5 t order by id
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.00 0.00 0 150 0 1000
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID T5 (cr=150 pr=0 pw=0 time=4166 us)
1000 INDEX FULL SCAN I5 (cr=71 pr=0 pw=0 time=3142 us)(object id 4673065)
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 8.28 8.45
select id
from
t5 order by id
call count cpu elapsed disk query current rows
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Parse 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Execute 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0
Fetch 68 0.00 0.00 0 6 0 1000
------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
total 70 0.00 0.00 0 6 0 1000
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 5
Rows Row Source Operation
------- ---------------------------------------------------
1000 SORT ORDER BY (cr=6 pr=0 pw=0 time=1342 us)
1000 INDEX FAST FULL SCAN I5 (cr=6 pr=0 pw=0 time=1093 us)(object id 4673065)
Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
Event waited on Times Max. Wait Total Waited
---------------------------------------- Waited ---------- ------------
SQL*Net message to client 68 0.00 0.00
SQL*Net message from client 68 1.88 1.89
Questions are
1) Why adding 'where id is not null wasn't enough for the index to get used in 'order by'?
2) While we got 'fast full scan' why index wasn't used for 'order by' clause?
3) Do we need the indexed column in where clause for being used in 'order by clause' too?
4) Do we need 'order by' clause if we are selecting only the indexed column with sequence generated values?
Which step in the following plan is the first step of execution
I reckon it is "TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| BANK_BATCH_STATE"
Is that correct?
In the "Predicate Information (identified by operation id):"
section the predicates - access and filter for the step "TABLE ACCESS FULL | PYMNT_DUES" are displayed first
Isn't there any relation between the order of execution steps and the order in which predicates are displayed?
Execution Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Plan hash value: 538700484
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 2364 | 15 (14)| 00:00:01 |
|* 1 | FILTER | | | | | |
| 2 | HASH GROUP BY | | 1 | 2364 | 15 (14)| 00:00:01 |
| 3 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 2364 | 14 (8)| 00:00:01 |
| 4 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 2313 | 13 (8)| 00:00:01 |
| 5 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 2281 | 12 (9)| 00:00:01 |
| 6 | NESTED LOOPS OUTER | | 1 | 2255 | 11 (10)| 00:00:01 |
|* 7 | HASH JOIN | | 1 | 175 | 6 (17)| 00:00:01 |
|* 8 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 12 | 612 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 9 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | PYMNT_DUES | 43 | 5332 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 10 | VIEW PUSHED PREDICATE | | 1 | 2080 | 5 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 11 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 154 | 5 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 12 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 103 | 4 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 13 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| BANK_BATCH_STATE | 1 | 32 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 14 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_BBS_1 | 3 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 15 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| DAILY_CHECK | 1 | 71 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 16 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_SEARCH | 1 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 17 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 1 | 51 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 18 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_IAM_SR_NO | 1 | 26 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 19 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 1 | 32 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 20 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | INDX_2 | 1 | 51 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I have below tables,
describe rpthead
Name Null Type
--------------------------- -------- -------------
RPTNO NOT NULL NUMBER
RPTDATE NOT NULL DATE
RPTD_BY NOT NULL VARCHAR2(25)
PRODUCT_ID NOT NULL NUMBER
describe rptbody
Name Null Type
------------- -------- -------------
RPTNO NOT NULL NUMBER
LINENO NOT NULL NUMBER
COMMENTS VARCHAR2(240)
UPD_DATE DATE
The fact is that we store some header in RPTHEAD and store real data in RPTBODY, the question is that if I use below SQL to query all data for a 'PRODUCT_ID'.
SELECT t0.LINENO, t0.COMMENTS, t0.RPTNO, t0.UPD_DATE
FROM RPTBODY t0 , RPTHEAD rpthead
WHERE
(
t0.RPTNO = rpthead.RPTNO
AND
t0.UPD_DATE>=to_date('1970/01/01 00:00:00','YYYY/MM/DD hh24:mi:ss')
AND
rpthead.PRODUCT_ID IN ('4647')
)
I do not want to have 'ORDER by' clause since data set is too large, the sorting takes long time, is there any way to get the result rows in the order sorted by RPTNO? We have the index for RPTNO on RPTBODY.
can we use something like this
"select ... order by emp from emp"
what is to be done? so that this qurey runs. no co-related subquery to be used.
i have a query where i am using the max function to find the most recent record. What i want to do is use that query as part of an insert statement into a different table, however, i don't want to insert the column that i used the max function on. Is there anyway to use the max function without having the column it is being used on showing in the results?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI am getting duplicate results..I have been at it for hours now.This is what I have:
DECLARE
v_course_id classes.course_id%TYPE := :course_id;
v_instr_id classes.instr_id%TYPE := :instructor_id;
[code]...
The output I get is this (There is only 1 of each in the database)
Class ID: 1 Status: Enrolled Name: John O'Reilly
Class ID: 1 Status: Enrolled Name: Natacha Hansen
Class ID: 1 Status: Enrolled Name: Reed Jetto
Class ID: 1 Status: Enrolled Name: Janis Greenberg
Class ID: 1 Status: Enrolled Name: Vishal Singh
Class ID: 1 Status: Enrolled Name: Francis Hamilton
[code] ...
I am testing a supposedly very simple stored procedure in XE. It compiles with no errors but when I enter the following command in the SQL Command window I get an ORA-00911: invalid character.
call get_all_customer_orgs;
The get_all_customer_orgs procedure is defined as.
create or replace procedure get_all_customer_orgs (p_recordset out sys_refcursor)
is
begin
open p_recordset for
select * from customerorgs;
end get_all_customer_orgs;
I don't understand what the invalid character could be.
Is there anyway to pivot the results of a query?
so if i have:
SELECT GROUP, count(*)
FROM GROUP
GROUP BY GROUP
And it give the following output:
A 10
B 50
c 24
Is there anyway to put into this format?
A B C
10 50 24
I am doubting that there is and that i am going to have to handle this in my code later, but it never hurts to ask!
I need to select a count of records where a field (call it widget) is the same, so i need all records where widgets are distinct. So it would be like asking for a distinct in a where clause. Not having much SQL experience this is a difficulty for me.
lets see .. so a count of records where widget = widget or something along those lines.
I would like to give back to the our application user a page of results for a given query along with the total result count, something like: "Showing 1-25 of 650 total results".
Currently I am doing this by submitting a second query:
select count(*) from (<previous query criteria>)
Is there a better performing approach I could be using?
I am trying to create a query that displays the given error message if the result of my COUNT(*) is smaller than 1, but displays the result of my first query (data) if the total count is bigger than 1 (read: the query found data, so it needs to display the rows according to the search).
What do I need to do to display 'data' if 'data2' contains rows?
WITH data
AS (SELECT a.order_id, a.session_id, a.log_id, b.date_of_order, a.operation,
b.funct_prod_code, b.sts_status_code, b.ost_order_situation_code, c.order_situation_oms,
[Code]....
SELECT
pas_code,
pas_profile,
count(sutp_id),
sum(sutp_price),
[code]...
And the problem is, that when i use sutp_price_proc and pbk_price in grouping, it splits my results by those rows. If i delete them from grouping, sql gives me error about not a single grouping in line 1.
pas_codepas_profilesutp_idsutp_pricex
2664good stuff310069< because pbk_price is like 67 from that period
2664good stuff310071< because pbk_price is like 50 from other period
how to get all results in a single line like:
pas_codepas_profilesutp_idsutp_pricex
2664good stuff6200140
My table structure is like this
CREATE TABLE Tab1(LVL1_NM VARCHAR2(20), LVL2_NM VARCHAR2(20), LVL3_NM VARCHAR2(20), LVL4_NM VARCHAR2(20))
and the values will be for one value of LVL1_NM there will be different LVL2_NM values like wise for each and every value of LVL2_NM column there will different values in LVL3_NM column like wise for LVL4_NM is there any way to get the results as per their relation ships.
I have this table,
Create table TBL_OK_HIST
(
DATE_KEY NUMBER,
A_N VARCHAR2(22 BYTE),
R_DUR VARCHAR2(8 BYTE),
CH_DUR VARCHAR2(8 BYTE),
REV VARCHAR2(20 BYTE)
)
insert into TBL_OK_HIST
values (20101010,123456768,5,20,2);
insert into TBL_OK_HIST
values (20101010,123496568,15,20,2);
insert into TBL_OK_HIST
values (20101012,122235768,25,25,3);
[Code] ......
Thus, applying the following would yeld:
Select * from TBL_OK_HIST
DATE_KEYA_N R_DUR CH_DUR REV
201010101234567685202
2010101012349656815202
2010101212223576825253
201010112345676819202
2010101234567681252527
2010101323456768136365
2010101056768123411202
2010101134681256717202
2010101068123456755559
generate the following results:
range_start_rdur range_end_rdur no_of_an sum_of_rdur sum_of_chdur sum_of_rev
1 5 1 5 20 2
6 10 1 9 20 2
11 15 2 26 40 4
16 20 1 17 20 2
21 25 1 25 25 3
26 30 0 0 0 0
31 35 0 0 0 0
36 40 1 36 36 5
41 45 0 0 0 0
46 50 0 0 0 0
51 55 2 107 107 16
I thought I would make use of the following query, but I am not getting the proper results when applying it to a real table with more than 20 mln records:
SELECT trunc(R_DUR/6)*5+1 as range_start_rdur,
trunc(R_DUR/6)*5+5 range_end_rdur,
sum(noofan) as no_of_an,
sum(sumofrdur) as sum_of_rdur,
sum(sumofchdur) as sum_of_chdur,
[Code] ...........
I'm trying to select from table "A" where value1 and value2 match. If the values are not in table "A", try table "B". If the values exist in BOTH tables - only look at the results from table "A".
Table "A" may or may not have "new" data coming into the system.
Table "B" may or may not have "existing" data.
The code I am writing needs to find the "newest" data row for value1 and value2. Eventually the data in table "A" gets "Merged" into table "B" further on in the process.
Supposedly this can be done in a single query using a left outer join and the NVL function, but the person I inherited this from isn't available.
I've been able to get the row back if it exists in "A" or "B", but end up with two rows or no rows if the row exists in both... Arrrg...
with t1 as
(
select 'eff_date' param_name, 'mb256_type' param_type,'01-01-1970' param_value from dual
union all
select 'disc_date' param_name, 'mb256_type' param_type,'31-12-9999' param_value from dual
union all
select 'initial val' param_name, 'mb256_type' param_type,'30' param_value from dual)
select param_name,param_type,param_value from t1;
desired output:
need output in a row in three different columns
param_value
01-01-1970 31-12-9999 30
I tried below query
SELECT *
FROM (
with t1 as
(
select 'eff_date' param_name, 'mb256_type' param_type,'01-01-1970' param_value from dual
union all
select 'disc_date' param_name, 'mb256_type' param_type,'31-12-9999' param_value from dual
[code]...
and am getting output as
param_type eff_date_param_value disc_date_param_value initial_ignoring_param_value
mbn256_type <null> <null> <null>
I am not getting added hours from results.
SELECT audittimestamp + interval (SELECT EXTRACT(TIMEZONE_HOUR
FROM systimestamp) FROM DUAL) hour from tab1I want to add Timezone_hour to my timestamp.