we're having a few tables which queries about 10.000 articles. As we don't show them all at once we are using pagination and use the rownum to show only a limited number of the results.
Now as these queries are pretty complex we have to optimize them and since we use pagination we have to call our query twice (first we make a count(*) and then we call the small resultset of a few rows). Ofcourse we are looking for a solution to call it only once and still use the pagination. We could load the whole resultset of 10.000 results and let java show only a few but that makes our line between the oracle and webserver pretty heavy. Is there a way to call the total number of results and give back only a small resultset just in one query?
I am working on this assignment question for class:
Write a SELECT statement that returns a single value that represents the sum of the largest unpaid invoices for each vendor (just one for each vendor). Use an inline view that returns MAX(invoice_total) grouped by vendor_id, filtering for invoices with a balance due
What I have coded so far is below SELECT i.vendor_id, To_char(SUM(invoice_total), '$9,999,999.99') AS sum_invoice_total FROM invoices i join (SELECT vendor_id,
[code]...
I am getting some results which I have attached. I'm not sure if I'm capturing the "largest unpaid invoices for each vendor" part of the question. Yielding to the knowledge the group and trying to use the proper posting etiquette. I have attached my output screen as well.
the execution steps of inline view?importance&advantage of inline view?.Also reference link where i can get more information about inline view(i.e. basics to advanced),exercises and interview questions.
there is a diff. problem for me.when i create table through inline view then it shows 2246 records but if i check these records only in select statement then it shows 124 records. i cant understand how table shows 2246 records even then atual records in inline view shows only 124 records.
following is a query
create table sam as select * from (( select distinct stck.item_code from ( select item_code,bal
I am working on Oracle 10g and Below is my query which is taking 30min. to execute. I am using two inline view and then make joins on these inline view because of i think it Degrade Performance.
(select * from surveys s join answers a on s.survey_id = a.survey_seq_id where month = 201212 and qa = 1 and main_group_id = 55) a, (select * from surveys s join answers a on s.survey_id = a.survey_seq_id where month = 201212 and qa = 1 and main_group_id = 3) b where a.survey_id = b.survey_id and substr(a.question_uid , 3) = substr(b.question_uid, 2))
set b.answer = a.answer;
My second question is: The following query is giving error. What can I do?
update answers ans set (ans.answer) = (with a as (select * from surveys s join answers a on s.survey_id = a.survey_seq_id where month = 201212 and qa = 1 and main_group_id = 55), b as (select * from surveys s join answers a on s.survey_id = a.survey_seq_id where month = 201212 and qa = 1 and main_group_id = 3) select a.answer from a join b on a.survey_id = b.survey_id and substr(a.question_uid , 3) = substr(b.question_uid, 2) and b.answer_id = ans.answer_id) where ans.main_group_id = 3;
Attached query is running fine if inline view B (Marked in Comments) returning value. If inline view B returns NULL then it fails to return result. I want if Inline view B is returning NULL then it should pass ZERO to main query.
how joins work with in-line views.I have a query and its explain plan as below:
SELECT e.ename,e.deptno,d.dname FROM dept d, emp e WHERE e.deptno=d.deptno AND e.deptno=20 [code]....
I do not find any difference in both the explain plans. Both are same. In my second query, the filtered rows will be joined to dept table. And hence the baggage will reduce.But how can I verify that in-line view has worked better?
I have been using With for many queries for readability. This most recent query seemed to be taking a bit longer to run and I didn't think much of it until a colleague showed me their version (totally different sql statement) which ran faster, but seemed more complicated and had more lines of code. I noticed that the other version did not use with. I moved the sql of the with into the join and the query ran faster dropping from 30 seconds to 798 msecs. The question is am I sacrificing speed for readability by using With, or it really depends on the overall sql statement.
Here is the query using WITH:
with prev as ( select person_uid, id, name, academic_period, case when enrolled_ind = 'Y' and registered_ind = 'N' and student_status = 'AS' then 0 else 1 end as enreg_stat,
I have created a few flash charts using APEX4.2. Is there a way for the user to view the chart and then email it as an inline image to someone? I know that the user can save the chart as PDF file, then send it as an attachment via Outlook ( or similar system), but can I integrate these manual steps to one ( template), similar to the IR report's download feature ?
difference between count(1) and count(*). As i know count(*) will give number of rows irrespective of null and count(1) will not count the null.My Oracle version is 10 g.
SQL> select * from t1;
A B C ---------- -------------------- -------------------- 1 2 3 2 5
SQL> select rownum,a.* from t1 a;
ROWNUM A B C ---------- ---------- -------------------- -------------------- 1 1 2 3 2 2 3 5 4 [code]....
I'm using this code, and it performs fine, but I'm wondering if there is a more elegant way to do it--maybe with "ROLLBACK". Basically (as you can see) I need to get a normal count for each group but also for each group take a percentage of the total count (so all groups pct adds up to 100 (oh yeah, don't test for zero below, but just a test... )
select c.Event, c.code, count(1) as calls, total.total_count, count(1) / total.total_count * 100 as pct_of_total from table1 c
[Code]....
[Edit MC: add code tags, do it yourself next time]
Reg. Area Age <=19 20 <= Age <= 24 25 <=Age <= 29 Total No. of Voters xxxx 10 15 7 32 yyyy 5 7 3 15
I have work out a script but the age is not in a range
select * FROM (select rgs_id_reg_area, count(decode(fbd_age,19,fbd_age)) Age19, count(decode(fbd_age,20,fbd_age)) Age20 FROM rubyvoterstat where vote ='Y' GROUP by rgs_id_reg_area) order by rgs_id_reg_area
I am running this query but am not getting data that is correct.
SELECT a.prod_id, a.prod_name, a.artist_name, COUNT(*) FROM po_my_purchase_tb a, cm_track_tb b WHERE a.prod_id = b.prod_id and b.GNR_CD = 'GR000017' AND a.purchase_date > '10-FEB-10' AND ROWNUM<50 GROUP BY a.prod_id, a.prod_name, a.artist_name, a.buy_seq ORDER BY COUNT(*) desc
I need to get an accumulated value for a count. E.g. The table has purchased date, purchased item, purchased item type. The count of purchased item groyup by purchased type on every purchased date. Now, we got the count value (purchased item). But, I want the accumulated count value on every purchased date. So that I will get that how many items has been purchased on a particular date.
I pulled in 1121 SSN's into a table and am using that table as the basis for returning data from other tables...including how many documents a user has in their folder.
My query; however, is only returning 655 rows...it is returning only those rows that have documents in their folders. I want to return ALL rows...WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE A DOCUMENT COUNT (count(*)). How can I get all 1,121 rows to return? I would like the output to look like:
SSN LOCATION EMP_STATUS FOL_STATUS COUNT(*) -- For those folders containing documents: XXX-XX-XXXX WHATEVER WHATEVER WHATEVER 12
-- For those folders containing 0 documents: XXX-XX-XXXX WHATEVER WHATEVER WHATEVER NULL
Here is the query in it's current state:
-- Get User/Folder/Doc Count Information SELECT b.ssn, b.location, b.emp_status, c.fol_status, COUNT (*)
[Code]....
So again, my problem here is that...not all FOLDERS contain DOCUMENTS...but I still want the folder data lised...I just need it listed with either a zero count (0), or a NULL in the COUNT(*) column.
I'm trying the various joins, but none of them seem to be working.
I've tried the old 8i (+) join as follows:
AND c.fol_id = d.doc_fol_id(+)
I've tried the inner join:
AND c.fol_id(+) = d.doc_fol_id
...and I've tried the 9i method (left outer and full outer) using the following types of notations:
folder c full outer join documend d on c.fol_id = d.doc_fol_id
...so far, no luck. I'm still having only 655 rows returned (the 655 are those folders that HAVE document count > 0. Any folder that has zero documents in the document table just aren't being returned in the query.)
