Related
I am wondering if there is away (possibly a better way) to order by the order of the values in an IN() clause.
The problem is that I have 2 queries, one that gets all of the IDs and the second that retrieves all the information. The first creates the order of the IDs which I want the second to order by. The IDs are put in an IN() clause in the correct order.
So it'd be something like (extremely simplified):
SELECT id FROM table1 WHERE ... ORDER BY display_order, name
SELECT name, description, ... WHERE id IN ([id's from first])
The issue is that the second query does not return the results in the same order that the IDs are put into the IN() clause.
One solution I have found is to put all of the IDs into a temp table with an auto incrementing field which is then joined into the second query.
Is there a better option?
Note: As the first query is run "by the user" and the second is run in a background process, there is no way to combine the 2 into 1 query using sub queries.
I am using MySQL, but I'm thinking it might be useful to have it noted what options there are for other DBs as well.
Use MySQL's FIELD() function:
SELECT name, description, ...
FROM ...
WHERE id IN([ids, any order])
ORDER BY FIELD(id, [ids in order])
FIELD() will return the index of the first parameter that is equal to the first parameter (other than the first parameter itself).
FIELD('a', 'a', 'b', 'c')
will return 1
FIELD('a', 'c', 'b', 'a')
will return 3
This will do exactly what you want if you paste the ids into the IN() clause and the FIELD() function in the same order.
See following how to get sorted data.
SELECT ...
FROM ...
WHERE zip IN (91709,92886,92807,...,91356)
AND user.status=1
ORDER
BY provider.package_id DESC
, FIELD(zip,91709,92886,92807,...,91356)
LIMIT 10
Two solutions that spring to mind:
order by case id when 123 then 1 when 456 then 2 else null end asc
order by instr(','||id||',',',123,456,') asc
(instr() is from Oracle; maybe you have locate() or charindex() or something like that)
If you want to do arbitrary sorting on a query using values inputted by the query in MS SQL Server 2008+, it can be done by creating a table on the fly and doing a join like so (using nomenclature from OP).
SELECT table1.name, table1.description ...
FROM (VALUES (id1,1), (id2,2), (id3,3) ...) AS orderTbl(orderKey, orderIdx)
LEFT JOIN table1 ON orderTbl.orderKey=table1.id
ORDER BY orderTbl.orderIdx
If you replace the VALUES statement with something else that does the same thing, but in ANSI SQL, then this should work on any SQL database.
Note:
The second column in the created table (orderTbl.orderIdx) is necessary when querying record sets larger than 100 or so. I originally didn't have an orderIdx column, but found that with result sets larger than 100 I had to explicitly sort by that column; in SQL Server Express 2014 anyways.
SELECT ORDER_NO, DELIVERY_ADDRESS
from IFSAPP.PURCHASE_ORDER_TAB
where ORDER_NO in ('52000077','52000079','52000167','52000297','52000204','52000409','52000126')
ORDER BY instr('52000077,52000079,52000167,52000297,52000204,52000409,52000126',ORDER_NO)
worked really great
Ans to get sorted data.
SELECT ...
FROM ...
ORDER BY FIELD(user_id,5,3,2,...,50) LIMIT 10
The IN clause describes a set of values, and sets do not have order.
Your solution with a join and then ordering on the display_order column is the most nearly correct solution; anything else is probably a DBMS-specific hack (or is doing some stuff with the OLAP functions in standard SQL). Certainly, the join is the most nearly portable solution (though generating the data with the display_order values may be problematic). Note that you may need to select the ordering columns; that used to be a requirement in standard SQL, though I believe it was relaxed as a rule a while ago (maybe as long ago as SQL-92).
Use MySQL FIND_IN_SET function:
SELECT *
FROM table_name
WHERE id IN (..,..,..,..)
ORDER BY FIND_IN_SET (coloumn_name, .., .., ..);
For Oracle, John's solution using instr() function works. Here's slightly different solution that worked -
SELECT id
FROM table1
WHERE id IN (1, 20, 45, 60)
ORDER BY instr('1, 20, 45, 60', id)
I just tried to do this is MS SQL Server where we do not have FIELD():
SELECT table1.id
...
INNER JOIN
(VALUES (10,1),(3,2),(4,3),(5,4),(7,5),(8,6),(9,7),(2,8),(6,9),(5,10)
) AS X(id,sortorder)
ON X.id = table1.id
ORDER BY X.sortorder
Note that I am allowing duplication too.
Give this a shot:
SELECT name, description, ...
WHERE id IN
(SELECT id FROM table1 WHERE...)
ORDER BY
(SELECT display_order FROM table1 WHERE...),
(SELECT name FROM table1 WHERE...)
The WHEREs will probably take a little tweaking to get the correlated subqueries working properly, but the basic principle should be sound.
My first thought was to write a single query, but you said that was not possible because one is run by the user and the other is run in the background. How are you storing the list of ids to pass from the user to the background process? Why not put them in a temporary table with a column to signify the order.
So how about this:
The user interface bit runs and inserts values into a new table you create. It would insert the id, position and some sort of job number identifier)
The job number is passed to the background process (instead of all the ids)
The background process does a select from the table in step 1 and you join in to get the other information that you require. It uses the job number in the WHERE clause and orders by the position column.
The background process, when finished, deletes from the table based on the job identifier.
I think you should manage to store your data in a way that you will simply do a join and it will be perfect, so no hacks and complicated things going on.
I have for instance a "Recently played" list of track ids, on SQLite i simply do:
SELECT * FROM recently NATURAL JOIN tracks;
I have a table like;
tablea
4c4fedf7 OMoy3Hoa
4c4fedf7 yiWDGB4D
broe4AMb A9rLRawV
broe4AMb mi9rLmZW
nhrtK9ce yEsBoYLj
rEEtK9gt A9rLRawV
rEEtK9gt mi9rLmZW
rEEtK9Hh A9rLRawV
rEEtK9Hh msBWz8CQ
If I give the input like A9rLRawV,mi9rLmZW. I want an output like;
broe4AMb
rEEtK9gt
The output is generated as a result of A9rLRawV,mi9rLmZW combination. Here, broe4AMb and rEEtK9gt both have A9rLRawV and mi9rLmZW associated in tablea. I made a query, but I get output like;
broe4AMb
rEEtK9gt
rEEtK9Hh
My query is like;
SELECT DISTINCT prodid
FROM tablea
WHERE tagid IN ('A9rLRawV','mi9rLmZW');
The output is like this because I think, reetK9Hh has A9rLRawV associated with it in tablea. But i don't want that entry to appear because it doesn't have mi9rLmZW associated with it.
Here is the SQL fiddle http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/12223/2/0
Does it require a SELF JOIN. What will be the most 'efficient' method? Is it possible to achieve this with MySQL alone or with support of PHP? How can I do this / fix this?
I firmly believe this can be resolved by SQL alone. Get the data you need from the database. Have PHP do the presentation. Why? Typically the Database can parse data much faster than you can through code on a webserver/middleware server.
As to how... Read up on having clauses and group by:
What I've done here is group by prodID to ensure all prodIDs are returned. mySQL extends the group by clause and while it may allow a having clause to exist without a group by, you will not get the desired results without grouping by prodid. The having a gets a distinct count of both tags requested in the where. Note: I added distinct to the count on tagID as I was unsure if your overall data could have duplicate tagIds for each prodid. we could eliminate it if we know values are distinct.
The # can be dynamically set based on the number of TagIDs provided if needed.
SELECT prodid
FROM tablea
WHERE tagID in ('A9rLRawV','mi9rLmZW')
GROUP BY prodid
HAVING count(distinct tagID)=2
SQL FIddle
I prefer this approach as it scales better than a self join as you indicated might be needed. Pass in two parameters: one for the tags one for the number of tags. (I do so hope you're using paramaterized queries with your PHP) With self joins you have to write dynamic SQL to handle each additional tag so if you have 3, 4,5 more joins. This way you just pass in the 5 values and the number 5; and get a list back of all those that match.
Like you assumed, a self join helps. Use this query
SELECT a.prodid
FROM tablea AS a
INNER JOIN tablea AS b
ON a.prodid = b.prodid
WHERE a.tagid = 'A9rLRawV' and b.tagid = 'mi9rLmZW'
This here you join the table with itself and the matching pairs have both A9rLRawV (in the main table a) and mi9rLmZW (in the joined table b).
Here's your updated SQL fiddle: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/12223/13
The results are as wished:
broe4AMb
rEEtK9gt
I want per day sales item count so for that one i already created query but it takes to much around 55.585s and query is
Query :
SELECT
td.db_date,
(
select count(*) from order as order where DATE(order.created_on) = td.db_date
)as day_contribute
FROM time_dimension as td
So can any one please let me know how may i optimized this query and reduce execution time.?
You can modify your query to join like:
SELECT
td.db_date, count(order.id) as day_contribute
FROM time_dimension as td
LEFT JOIN order ON DATE(order.created_on) = td.db_date
GROUP BY td.db_date;
I do not know your primary id key for table order - so used just "order.id". Replace it with your.
Also it is very important - test if you have index on td.db_date field.
And one more important thing - better to avoid using DATE(order.created_on). Because it is mean that DATE() method will be called each time when DB will compare dates. If it is possible - convert order.created_on to same format as td.db_date. Or join by other fields. That will add speed too.
First you should make sure you have index on created_on column in order table.
However if you have many records in time_dimension and many records in order table it might be hard to optimize the query, because for each record from time_dimension you need to search in order table.
You can also change count(*) into count(order_id) (assuming primary key in order table is order_id) or add extra column with date only in order table (created_on_date with date only and index on this column) so your query could look like this:
SELECT
td.db_date,
(
select count(order_id) from order where order.created_on_date = td.db_date
)as day_contribute
FROM time_dimension as td
However it's possible the execution time might be too high if you have many records in both tables, so it might be necessary to create one extra table where you hold number of orders for each day and update it in cron or when adding/updating/deleting records in order table
So I think I completely misunderstood how FIND_IN_SET work
SELECT
u.*, p.*
FROM
users u
INNER JOIN profiles p ON p.user_id = u.id
WHERE
FIND_IN_SET('1,4,7', p.fruits)
This is not working as I thought it would.
1,4,7 represent the fruits selected by the user to search
p.fruits can look something like this 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 or 5,6,7 or 1,6,7 etc
Basically I want to find the records if any of the values in the first argument match any of the values in the second argument.
Is this possible?
if your p.fruits column is a varchar (which is not ideal for this situation, but if it is so) your query will be like
where … ( concat(',', p.fruits , ‘,’) like ‘%,1,%’
or concat(',', p.fruits , ‘,’) like ‘%,4,%’ or concat(',',p.fruits , ‘,’) like ‘%,7,%’ ) ...
this won't be good for indexes since concatenation will disable usage of indexes ..
better solution would be turn the column into a set and do the query like Michael's above ..
or you can create a new table called user_fruits(fk_user_id int, fruit_id int) and create unique index on both fields and do the search in user_fruits table
Use FIELD instead of that.
FIELD(p.fruits, 1,4,7)
You should refer to this article:
10 things in MySQL (that won’t work as expected)
I have a column in one of my table where I store multiple ids seperated by comma's.
Is there a way in which I can use this column's value in the "IN" clause of a query.
The column(city) has values like 6,7,8,16,21,2
I need to use as
select * from table where e_ID in (Select city from locations where e_Id=?)
I am satisfied with Crozin's answer, but I am open to suggestions, views and options.
Feel free to share your views.
Building on the FIND_IN_SET() example from #Jeremy Smith, you can do it with a join so you don't have to run a subquery.
SELECT * FROM table t
JOIN locations l ON FIND_IN_SET(t.e_ID, l.city) > 0
WHERE l.e_ID = ?
This is known to perform very poorly, since it has to do table-scans, evaluating the FIND_IN_SET() function for every combination of rows in table and locations. It cannot make use of an index, and there's no way to improve it.
I know you said you are trying to make the best of a bad database design, but you must understand just how drastically bad this is.
Explanation: Suppose I were to ask you to look up everyone in a telephone book whose first, middle, or last initial is "J." There's no way the sorted order of the book helps in this case, since you have to scan every single page anyway.
The LIKE solution given by #fthiella has a similar problem with regards to performance. It cannot be indexed.
Also see my answer to Is storing a delimited list in a database column really that bad? for other pitfalls of this way of storing denormalized data.
If you can create a supplementary table to store an index, you can map the locations to each entry in the city list:
CREATE TABLE location2city (
location INT,
city INT,
PRIMARY KEY (location, city)
);
Assuming you have a lookup table for all possible cities (not just those mentioned in the table) you can bear the inefficiency one time to produce the mapping:
INSERT INTO location2city (location, city)
SELECT l.e_ID, c.e_ID FROM cities c JOIN locations l
ON FIND_IN_SET(c.e_ID, l.city) > 0;
Now you can run a much more efficient query to find entries in your table:
SELECT * FROM location2city l
JOIN table t ON t.e_ID = l.city
WHERE l.e_ID = ?;
This can make use of an index. Now you just need to take care that any INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE of rows in locations also inserts the corresponding mapping rows in location2city.
From MySQL's point of view you're not storing multiple ids separated by comma - you're storing a text value, which has the exact same meaing as "Hello World" or "I like cakes!" - i.e. it doesn't have any meaing.
What you have to do is to create a separated table that will link two objects from the database together. Read more about many-to-many or one-to-many (depending on your requirements) relationships in SQL-based databases.
Rather than use IN on your query, use FIND_IN_SET (docs):
SELECT * FROM table
WHERE 0 < FIND_IN_SET(e_ID, (
SELECT city FROM locations WHERE e_ID=?))
The usual caveats about first form normalization apply (the database shouldn't store multiple values in a single column), but if you're stuck with it, then the above statement should help.
This does not use IN clause, but it should do what you need:
Select *
from table
where
CONCAT(',', (Select city from locations where e_Id=?), ',')
LIKE
CONCAT('%,', e_ID, ',%')
but you have to make sure that e_ID does not contain any commas or any jolly character.
e.g.
CONCAT(',', '6,7,8,16,21,2', ',') returns ',6,7,8,16,21,2,'
e_ID=1 --> ',6,7,8,16,21,2,' LIKE '%,1,%' ? FALSE
e_ID=6 --> ',6,7,8,16,21,2,' LIKE '%,6,%' ? TRUE
e_ID=21 --> ',6,7,8,16,21,2,' LIKE '%,21,%' ? TRUE
e_ID=2 --> ',6,7,8,16,21,2,' LIKE '%,2,%' ? TRUE
e_ID=3 --> ',6,7,8,16,21,2,' LIKE '%,3,%' ? FALSE
etc.
Don't know if this is what you want to accomplish. With MySQL there is feature to concatenate values from a group GROUP_CONCAT
You can try something like this:
select * from table where e_ID in (Select GROUP_CONCAT(city SEPARATOR ',') from locations where e_Id=?)
this one in for oracle ..here string concatenation is done by wm_concat
select * from table where e_ID in (Select wm_concat(city) from locations where e_Id=?)
yes i agree with raheel shan .. in order put this "in" clause we need to make that column into row below code one do that job.
select * from table where to_char(e_ID)
in (
select substr(city,instr(city,',',1,rownum)+1,instr(city,',',1,rownum+1)-instr(city,',',1,rownum)-1) from
(
select ','||WM_CONCAT(city)||',' city,length(WM_CONCAT(city))-length(replace(WM_CONCAT(city),','))+1 CNT from locations where e_Id=? ) TST
,ALL_OBJECTS OBJ where TST.CNT>=rownum
) ;
you should use
FIND_IN_SET Returns position of value in string of comma-separated values
mysql> SELECT FIND_IN_SET('b','a,b,c,d');
-> 2
You need to "SPLIT" the city column values. It will be like:
SELECT *
FROM table
WHERE e_ID IN (SELECT TO_NUMBER(
SPLIT_STR(city /*string*/
, ',' /*delimiter*/
, 1 /*start_position*/
)
)
FROM locations);
You can read more about the MySQL split_str function here: http://blog.fedecarg.com/2009/02/22/mysql-split-string-function/
Also, I have used the TO_NUMBER function of Oracle here. Please replace it with a proper MySQL function.
IN takes rows so taking comma seperated column for search will not do what you want but if you provide data like this ('1','2','3') this will work but you can not save data like this in your field whatever you insert in the column it will take the whole thing as a string.
You can create a prepared statement dynamically like this
set #sql = concat('select * from city where city_id in (',
(select cities from location where location_id = 3),
')');
prepare in_stmt from #sql;
execute in_stmt;
deallocate prepare in_stmt;
Ref: Use a comma-separated string in an IN () in MySQL
Recently I faced the same problem and this is how I resolved it.
It worked for me, hope this is what you were looking for.
select * from table_name t where (select (CONCAT(',',(Select city from locations l where l.e_Id=?),',')) as city_string) LIKE CONCAT('%,',t.e_ID,',%');
Example: It will look like this
select * from table_name t where ',6,7,8,16,21,2,' LIKE '%,2,%';