Order Of Joins And Performance
Jul 23, 2005
Does the order in which Joins are peformed (from left to right) matter
whether inner or outer when it comes to performance. Assuming that all
indexes are the same but the size of the tables is different?
For example let's assume we have 5 tables, TABLE1, TABLE2, TABLE3,
TABLE4, TABLE5.
For example:
SELECT Smth from TABLE1 INNER JOIN TABLE2 on Condition1
INNER JOIN TABLE3 on Condition2
LEFT JOIN TABLE4 on Condition3
INNER JOIN TABLE5 on Condition4.
Does SQL optimize the query and finds the best way to inner join or it
starts doing the JOINS from left to right?
Thank you for your your feedback.
Gent
View 4 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Jan 5, 2007
i have below sql with several joins. Under sql 2000 should it be assumed that sql will create the best plan for however you set the joins or is there an order when using left joins to follow
select p.account_id, p.sex, p.other_id_number,
ltrim(rtrim(upper(p.last_name))) + ', ' + ltrim(rtrim(upper(p.first_name))) as pat_name,
pe.create_timestamp as enc_date, loc.location_name, l.ngn_status, l.sign_off_person,
l.sign_off_date,
ltrim(rtrim(upper(pr.first_name))) + ' ' + ltrim(rtrim(upper(pr.last_name))) as signoff_name,
ltrim(rtrim(upper(prv.first_name))) + ' ' + ltrim(rtrim(upper(prv.last_name))) as prov_name,
r.req_accession, l.ufo_num, r.spec_rcv_date_time, r.date_time_reported,
r.test_desc, x.abnorm_flags, x.obs_id, x.result_desc, x.ref_range, x.units,
x.observ_value, c.comment_text
from patient p
inner join patient_ p1 on p1.account_id = p.account_id
inner join patient_encounter pe on pe.account_id = p.account_id
inner join location loc on loc.location_key = pe.location_id
inner join lab_nor l on l.enc_id = pe.enc_id
inner join provider prv on prv.provider_id = l.ordering_provider
left outer join profile pr on pr.user_id = l.sign_off_person
inner join p_lab_results_obr r on r.ngn_order_num = l.order_num
inner join i_lab_results_obx x on x.unique_obr_num = r.unique_obr_num
left outer join i_lab_results_comm c on c.unique_obr_num = r.unique_obr_num
and c.obr_seq_num = r.seq_num
and c.obx_seq_num = x.obx_seq_num
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jun 2, 2008
Hi -
I have a general question about the order of joins. I have noticed that in some of the queries I am looking at, there are lots of LEFT and RIGHT Joins one after the other. My question is which table is considered the LEFT or RIGHT or original table if there are 9 or so joins after it?
For example, if a query says
select ORD.orderID, ORD.CustomerID, EMP.employeeID, SOX.AugitID
FROM Dbo.employees EMP
INNER JOIN
dbo.orders ORD
On
emp.employeeid=ORD.employeeid
LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.Customers CUST
ON CUST.CustomerID=ORD.CustomerID
RIGHT OUTER JOIN
SOX.Audit.ID
ON ORD.OrderID = SOX.Audit.ID
the query INNER JOINS Employee and Orders table, but for the LEFT and RIGHT joins, is the Original FROM dbo.Employees EMP always considered the original table from which a LEFT JOIN is done, and if so is the RIGHT OUTER JOIN, the SOX table, taking the JOIN on the original FROM Table FROM Dbo.employees EMP, or from the table preceding the RIGHT OUTER JOIN, the Customers table. This is a simple example, but these queries have one table after another for about 9 - 15 joins (RIGHT, LEFT, etc.). Whatever applies to the simple query above, I will take to the more complex ones.
Thanks -
View 8 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
I am writing a download process in which i have a condition where ineed to join four tables. Each table have lot of data say around300000 recs.my question is when i am doing the joins on the columns is there anyspecific order i need to follow.for exampleMy original query looks like thisselect a.col1,a.col2from ainner join bon a.id1=b.id1and a.id2=b.id2inner join con c.id1=b.id1and c.id2=b.id2inner join don d.id1=c.id1and d.id2=c.id2If i change the query like below... does it make any differenceselect a.col1,a.col2from ainner join bon b.id1=a.id1and b.id2=a.id2inner join con c.id1=a.id1and c.id2=a.id2inner join don d.id1=a.id1and d.id2=a.id2Any help is appreciated.ThanksSri
View 4 Replies
View Related
Sep 29, 2015
Will the order of inner joins and cross apply effect the results of a query?
Example:
FROM dbo.vw_Info v
CROSS APPLY dbo.usf_LastFee(v.StoreID, v.AgreementID, v.CustomerID, ABS(v.PrePaymentBalance), cp.ConfirmationNo) lf
INNER JOIN dbo.Customers c
[Code] ....
I want to change the position of doing "CROSS APPLY". Will it effects query results?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Nov 13, 2003
Other than being much less readable, is there a downside to combining left and right outer joins in the same SELECT? I'm reviewing some generally poor code done by a contractor and it's peppered with queries with both left and right joins. I've always thought it was just a semantic difference, but I was just wondering if, other than readability, there were any performance issues.
Thanks,
Pete
View 1 Replies
View Related
Dec 5, 2006
Hi There !!
To finetune performance for some of our queries,
I have come across suggestions to use
- JOINS instead of WHERE clause wherever possible
- and avoid using Aliases
Although Avoiding aliases looks reasonable I am yet to be convinced about JOINS replacing the WHERE CLAUSE . What is the experts take on this one ????
Also,
I checked the estimated plan in SQL server by running the following 2 queries into my Query Designer
tables : dba ( empid, empname )
project ( project_empid references dba.empid, project_name )
USING A WHERE CLAUSE and Alias
-------------------------
select a.emp_name from dbo.dba a, dbo.project b
where
a.empid =b.project_emp
and b.project_name is not null
USING A JOIN
-----------------
select emp_name from dbo.dba
as
a inner JOIN dbo.project
ON empid = dbo.project.project_emp
AND dbo.project.project_name is not NULL
******
I find from the Estimated plan that both the queries give the same amount of cost ( I/O, CPU, et all ) :shocked:
Any comments/ suggestions.
Thanks,
Have a great time
-Ranjit.
-------------------------------------
It pays to be honest to your DBA
View 4 Replies
View Related
Sep 27, 2006
The code below is from a nested view, which I've read should be avoided. I've also noticed GETDATE() is used, which I believe causes GETDATE() to be executed for every record selected (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm also guessing a JOIN containing a UNION against a SELECT statement is not a good idea. What other problems do you notice?
SELECT trans.Entry_Code, trans.D_C, trans.ADP_Security_# ,
trans.TRID, trans.Batch_Code, trans.Last_Money,
null as Shares, Settle_date as Process_Date,
null as Closing_Price, trans.Dwnld_Date, trans.Acnt,
null as Mktval,
cast(Null as varchar(20)) as Cusip_#,
ACT.dbo.account.account_key AS account_key
FROM (SELECT * FROM ADPDBBOOK.dbo.YTD05B
WHERE (DATEDIFF(mm, Process_Date, GETDATE()) <= 15)
UNION
SELECT * FROM ADPDBBOOK.dbo.YTD06B) trans
INNER JOIN ACT_DATA.dbo.account
ON ACT_DATA.dbo.account.account_key = RIGHT(trans.Acnt, 5)
INNER JOIN tbl_Accounts_TransactionalData
ON trans.Acnt = tbl_Accounts_TransactionalData.Acnt
Thanks, Dave
View 9 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
Hi all,Just wondering if anyone can tell me if an order by clause on a selectquery would have any impact on the time it takes to retrieve results?Essentially I'm selecting Top 1 out of a table via various criteriaand currently getting it back without an order by clause. The order bywould only include the column that has the clustered primary index onit.Can anyone tell me if in theory this will slow the query down?Many thanks in advance!Much warmth,Murrau
View 1 Replies
View Related
Nov 28, 2007
Hi.
We are now working with SQL2000sp4, planning migration to SQL2005 in few months though.
I've faced performance issues with large tables (200-500 mln rows, 50-100Gb of data+indexes)
New data are uploaded into tables once a day, around 1mln rows. Thats the only time of inserting data, during daytime tables are used for SELECTs only.
The problem that daily INSERTs are taking too much time now, because of rebuilding few indexes for the table.
I noticed that partitioning solution looks like solving this problem well. So i splitted master data table into 4 tables:
old master table:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[DTB] (
[report_date] [smalldatetime] NOT NULL ,
[param] [char] (10) COLLATE Cyrillic_General_CI_AS NOT NULL ,
[param_value1] [decimal](18, 2) NULL ,
[param_value2] [decimal](18, 2) NULL ,
[param_value3] [smallint] NULL
)
CREATE INDEX [IX_DTB_DT_ACC] ON [dbo].[DTB]([report_date], [param])
new partition1:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1] (
[report_date] [smalldatetime] NOT NULL ,
[param] [char] (10) COLLATE Cyrillic_General_CI_AS NOT NULL ,
[param_value1] [decimal](18, 2) NULL ,
[param_value2] [decimal](18, 2) NULL ,
[param_value3] [smallint] NULL ,
CONSTRAINT [CK_be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1_report_date] CHECK ([report_date] >= '2007-Jan-01' and [report_date] <= '2007-Mar-31')
)
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [idc_be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1_report_date_param] ON [dbo].[be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1]([report_date], [param])
Similar are definitons for other partitions - q2, q3 and q4.
And here is partitioned view itself:
create view dbo.data_DTB
as
select * from dbo.be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1
union all
select * from dbo.be_data_DTB_part_2007_q2
union all
select * from dbo.be_data_DTB_part_2007_q3
union all
select * from dbo.be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4
I want users to access data SELECTing from view data_DTB, while I perform daily inserts right into be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4.
In general, this solution works well. For example:
Code Block
set statistics profile on
go
select * from data_DTB where report_date = '2007-Apr-16'
go
set statistics profile off
go
1290674 1 SELECT * FROM [data_DTB] WHERE [report_date]=@1
1290674 1 |--Concatenation
0 1 |--Filter(WHERE:(STARTUP EXPR(Convert([@1])<='Mar 31 2007 12:00AM' AND Convert([@1])>='Jan 1 2007 12:00AM')))
0 0 | |--Clustered Index Seek(OBJECT:([MYDB].[dbo].[be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1].[idc_be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1_report_date_param]), SEEK:([be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1].[report_date]=Convert([@1])) ORDERED FORWARD)
1290674 1 |--Filter(WHERE:(STARTUP EXPR(Convert([@1])<='Jun 30 2007 12:00AM' AND Convert([@1])>='Apr 1 2007 12:00AM')))
1290674 1 | |--Clustered Index Seek(OBJECT:([MYDB].[dbo].[be_data_DTB_part_2007_q2].[idc_be_data_DTB_part_2007_q2_report_date_param]), SEEK:([be_data_DTB_part_2007_q2].[report_date]=Convert([@1])) ORDERED FORWARD)
0 1 |--Filter(WHERE:(STARTUP EXPR(Convert([@1])<='Sep 30 2007 12:00AM' AND Convert([@1])>='Jul 1 2007 12:00AM')))
0 0 | |--Clustered Index Seek(OBJECT:([MYDB].[dbo].[be_data_DTB_part_2007_q3].[idc_be_data_DTB_part_2007_q3_report_date_param]), SEEK:([be_data_DTB_part_2007_q3].[report_date]=Convert([@1])) ORDERED FORWARD)
0 1 |--Filter(WHERE:(STARTUP EXPR(Convert([@1])<='Dec 31 2007 12:00AM' AND Convert([@1])>='Oct 1 2007 12:00AM')))
0 0 |--Clustered Index Seek(OBJECT:([MYDB].[dbo].[be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4].[idc_be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4_report_date_param]), SEEK:([be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4].[report_date]=Convert([@1])) ORDERED FORWARD)
As far as i see it checks filter parameter fitting CHECK constraint for each partition. Then it peforms clustered index seek for partition actually containing data and avoids using 3 other partitions. Thats great! This example just illustraits that partitioning actually works for me.
Unfortunately, there is another query with just awful performance on partitions comparing to single table. Lets try to get few rows entered last day:
Code Block
set showplan_text on
go
select top 10 * from DTB order by report_date desc
go
set showplan_text off
go
|--Top(10)
|--Bookmark Lookup(BOOKMARK:([Bmk1000]), OBJECT:([MYDB].[dbo].[DTB]))
|--Index Scan(OBJECT:([MYDB].[dbo].[DTB].[IX_DTB_DT_ACC]), ORDERED BACKWARD)
Excellent! It runs just for only few seconds. But using partitions:
Code Block
set showplan_text on
go
select top 10 * from data_DTB order by report_date
go
set showplan_text off
go
|--Top(10)
|--Merge Join(Concatenation)
|--Merge Join(Concatenation)
| |--Merge Join(Concatenation)
| | |--Sort(ORDER BY:([be_data_ DTB_part_2007_q1].[report_date] ASC, [be_data_ DTB_part_2007_q1].[param] ASC, [be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1].[param_value1] ASC, [be_data_ DTB_part_2007_q1].[param_value2] ASC, [be_
| | | |--Clustered Index Scan(OBJECT:([MYDB].[dbo].[be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1].[idc_be_data_DTB_part_2007_q1_report_date_param]))
| | |--Sort(ORDER BY:([be_data_DTB_part_2007_q2].[report_date] ASC, [be_data_ DTB_part_2007_q2].[param] ASC, [be_data_DTB_part_2007_q2].[prama_value1] ASC, [be_data_DTB_part_2007_q2].[param_value2] ASC, [be_
| | |--Clustered Index Scan(OBJECT:([MYDB].[dbo].[be_data_DTB_part_2007_q2].[idc_be_data_DTB_part_2007_q2_report_date_param]))
| |--Sort(ORDER BY:([be_data_DTB_part_2007_q3].[report_date] ASC, [be_data_DTB_part_2007_q3].[param] ASC, [be_data_DTB_part_2007_q3].[param_value1] ASC, [be_data_DTB_part_2007_q3].[param_value2] ASC, [be_data_
| |--Clustered Index Scan(OBJECT:([MYDB].[dbo].[be_data_DTB_part_2007_q3].[idc_be_data_DTB_part_2007_q3_report_date_param]))
|--Sort(ORDER BY:([be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4].[report_date] ASC, [be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4].[param] ASC, [be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4].[param_value1] ASC, [be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4].[param_value2] ASC, [be_data_
|--Clustered Index Scan(OBJECT:([MYDB].[dbo].[be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4].[idc_be_data_DTB_part_2007_q4_report_date_param]))
As one can see that€™s just awful . When I make graphical execution plan with Ctrl+L it says costs for Sort operations are thousands. I didn€™t run this query to check statistics profile, because on our server it will run for hours.
I found a topic regarding this problem: http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1270479&SiteID=17
Mostafa Elhemali describes exactly my problem in the last post. I also though that getting top 10 * from partitioned view shouldn€™t be a problem €“ it€™s quite obvious just to grab top 10 from each partition and then find top 10 amongst them. Looks like it doesn€™t work this way though.
So the question is. Is there any new workarounds for this problem? Or maybe it is already solved in latest patches for SQL2005? I know that SQL2005 introduces new way of partitioning tables, maybe the problem will go if using SQL2005 partitioned tables instead of oldstyle partitioned views?
Thank you.
p.s. Upon reviewing my post i noticed that issued ORDER BY report_date DESC against unpartitioned table, and ORDER BY report_date against partitioned view. Well, specifying ORDER BY report_date DESC for partitioned view gives similar results, except for few ASCs are replaced with DESCs.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 27, 2015
For example in a Select Statement we have many tables and we have Where Clause with many conditions with AND operations. Do the SQL SERVER would apply the Where clause after all fetch or can dynamically decide about to include the related Tables from Select Statement Orderly with respect to where clause predicates? (SQL SERVER would not fetch data of those tables for its Select, where the AND condition in Where clause fails or by logic would be fruitless/not-related.)
View 5 Replies
View Related
Nov 3, 2000
We find that a delete command on a table where the rows to be deleted involve an inner join between the table and a view formed with an outer join sometimes works, sometimes gives error 625.
If the delete is recoded to use the join key word instead of the = sign
then it alway gives error 4425.
625 21 0 Could not retrieve row from logical page %S_PGID by RID because the entry in the offset table (%d) for that RID (%d) is less than or equal to 0. 1033
4425 16 0 Cannot specify outer join operators in a query containing joined tables. View '%.*ls' contains outer join operators.
The delete with a correleted sub query instead of a join works.
Error 4425 text would imply that joins with view formed by outer joins should be avoided.
Any ideas on the principles involved here.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 11, 2005
SQL Server 2000Howdy All.Is it going to be faster to join several tables together and thenselect what I need from the set or is it more efficient to select onlythose columns I need in each of the tables and then join them together?The joins are all Integer primary keys and the tables are all about thesame.I need the fastest most efficient method to extract the data as thisquery is one of the most used in the system.Thanks,Craig
View 3 Replies
View Related
Oct 12, 1999
Hi,
Why is it that SQL joins (*=) run a little faster as opposed to ANSI joins(LEFT JOIN...)? Aren't they supposed to be almost identical?
The issue is this: we are promoting using ANSI syntax for the obvious reason (future versions of SQL Server may not support SQL Server syntax; portability, etc.)
However, the problem is the speed. What have others done about this? Do you use ANSI syntax or SQL syntax? HOw true is it that future SQL Server versions may discontinue support for the '*=" and "=*' join operators.
Angel
View 1 Replies
View Related
Feb 29, 2008
I have four tables which I want to return results for an advanced search function, the tables contain different data, but can be quite easily joined,
Table A Contains a Main Image, this image is displayed in the results
Table B Contains an Icon, this image is displayed in the results
Table C doesn't have an image in it but has a child table with a number of images associated to the table, in the UNION ALL statement I would Like to do a Join to get say the top Image from this child and print it for the row associated with table C.
Select title, description, image from tableA
UNION ALL
Select title, description, icon as image from tableB
UNION ALL
title, description, ( inner Join SELECT top(1)
from imageTableC where imagetableC.FK = tableC.PK)
as image from tableC
Could someone show me the syntax to do this, I have all the information printing to the screen, bar this table C image.
View 14 Replies
View Related
Sep 1, 2005
Hi All,
Im having a problem with a statement i cannot seem to get 2 left joins working at the same time 1 works fine but when i try the second join i get this error:-
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e14'
[Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression 'children_tutorial.school_id=schools.idx LEFT JOIN regions ON children_tutorial.region_id=region.idx'.
My SQL statment is as follows :-
SELECT children_tutorial.*,schools.schoolname,regions.rname FROM children_tutorial LEFT JOIN schools ON children_tutorial.school_id=schools.idx LEFT JOIN regions ON children_tutorial.region_id=region.idx
I am using an Access database i have tried all sorts to get it working and its driving me mad!! any help would be really appreciated.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jan 7, 2007
Finding the "pieces of information" I need to successfully install the SQL Server Express edition is so complex. Uninstalls do "not" really uninstall completely, leading to failure of SQL install. Can you suggest a thorough, one-stop site for directions for the order of app uninstalls and then the order for app installs for the following...
SQL Server Express edition
Visual Studios 2005
Jet 4.0 newest upgrade
.Net Framework 2.0 (or should I use 3.0)
VS2005 Security upgrade
Anything else I need for just creating a database for my VS2005 Visual Basic project?
I was trying to use MS Access as my backend db but would like to try SQL Express
Thank you, Mark
View 7 Replies
View Related
Sep 24, 2012
In SQL sERVER 2008, I have two fields - Depatment and Employees. I need to sort the result set by employee number ascending order, with following exception
1)when department number = 50 - the preferred order is Employee # - 573 followed by 551-572 (employee # belong to Dept 50 = 551-573)
2)When Department number = 20 – the preferred sort order is Employee # 213-220, followed by Employee # 201-213 (employee # belong to Dept 20 = 201-220)
How shall I achieve this?
View 4 Replies
View Related
May 19, 2015
I never paid much attention to this before but I noticed this today in a new table I was creating.
For tables defined in the tabular model the table properties have something like SELECT Blah FROM TableName ORDER BY Blah Then in the tabular model the table's data is in the same order it was ordered by in the data source for the table.
I have a date table I setup and I noticed it is NOT respecting the sort order.
I have it sorted by DateID which sorts with the oldest date first and newest date as last row.However, the table that is imported and stored in the data model is not in that order.
I can of course manually sort the rows in BIDS/DataTools, but I find this discrepancy odd.
Would this have negative impacts on the EARLIER function for example if the data rows are not in the order specified?
View 8 Replies
View Related
Apr 10, 2014
I have a query that calculate the total amount of order details based on a particular order:
Select a.OrderID,SUM(UnitPrice*Quantity-Discount)
From [Order Details]
Inner Join Orders a
On a.OrderID=[Order Details].OrderID
Group by a.OrderID
My question is what if I wanted to create a formula to something like:
UnitPrice * Quantity - DiscountAmount Where DiscountAmount = UnitPrice Quantity * Discount
Do I need to create a function for that? Also is it possible to have m y query as a table variable?
View 7 Replies
View Related
Mar 27, 2008
Hi!
I recently run into a senario when a procedure quiered a table without a order by clause. Luckily it retrived data in the prefered order.
The table returns the data in the same order in SQL Manager "Open Table"
So I started to wonder what deterimins the sort order when there is no order by clause ?
I researched this for a bit but found no straight answers. My table has no PK, but an identiy column.
Peace.
/P
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jan 4, 2008
Hey guys, i need to find out how can i add order items under a Purchase Order number.
My table relationship is PurchaseOrder ->PurchaseOrderItem.
below is a Stored Procedure that i have wrote in creating a PO:
CREATE PROC spCreatePO (@SupplierID SmallInt, @date datetime, @POno SmallInt OUTPUT)
AS
BEGIN
INSERT INTO PurchaseOrder (PurchaseOrderDate, SupplierID) VALUES(@date, @SupplierID)
END
SET @POno = @@IDENTITY
RETURN
However, how do i make it that it will automatically adds item under the POno being gernerated? can i use a trigger so that whenever a Insert for PO is success, it automaticallys proceed to adding the items into the table PurcahseOrderItem?
CREATE TRIGGER trgInsertPOItem
ON PurchaseOrderItem
FOR INSERT
AS
BEGIN
'What do i entered???'
END
RETURN
help is needed asap! thanks!
View 14 Replies
View Related
May 8, 2007
hi basically what i have is 3 text boxes. one for start date, one for end date and one for order id, i also have this bit of SQL
SelectCommand="SELECT [Order_ID], [Customer_Id], [Date_ordered], [status] FROM [tbl_order]WHERE (([Date_ordered] >= @Date_ordered OR @Date_ordered IS NULL) AND ([Date_ordered] <= @Date_ordered2 OR @Date_ordered2 IS NULL OR (Order_ID=ISNULL(@OrderID_ID,Order_ID) OR @Order_ID IS NULL))">
but the problem is it does not seem to work! i am not an SQL guru but i cant figure it out, someone help me please!
Thanks
Jez
View 4 Replies
View Related
Apr 14, 2008
Hi,
We got a problem.
supposing we have a table like this:
CREATE TABLE a (
aId int IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
aName string2 NOT NULL
)
go
ALTER TABLE a ADD
CONSTRAINT PK_a PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (aId)
go
insert into a values ('bank of abcde');
insert into a values ('bank of abcde');
...
... (20 times)
select top 5 * from a order by aName
Result is:
6Bank of abcde
5Bank of abcde
4Bank of abcde
3Bank of abcde
2Bank of abcde
select top 10 * from a order by aName
Result is:
11Bank of abcde
10Bank of abcde
9Bank of abcde
8Bank of abcde
7Bank of abcde
6Bank of abcde
5Bank of abcde
4Bank of abcde
3Bank of abcde
2Bank of abcde
According to this result, user see the first 5 records with id 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 in page 1, but when he tries to view page 2, he still see the records with id 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. This is not correct for users. :eek:
Of course we can add order by aid also, but there are tons of sqls like this, we can't update our application in one shot.
So I ask for your advice here, is there any settings can tell the db use default sort order when the order by column value are the same? Or is there any other solution to resolve this problem in one shot?
View 14 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
Hi,guys!I have a table below:CREATE TABLE rsccategory(categoryid NUMERIC(2) IDENTITY(1,1),categoryname VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,PRIMARY KEY(categoryid))Then I do:INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('url')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('document')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('book')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('software')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('casus')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('project')INSERT rsccategory(categoryname) VALUES('disert')Then SELECT * FROM rsccategory in ,I can get a recordeset with the'categoryid' in order(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)But If I change the table definition this way:categoryname VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL UNIQUE,The select result is in this order (3,5,7,2,6,4,1),and 'categoryname 'in alphabetic.Q:why the recordset's order is not the same as the first time since'categoryid' is clustered indexed.If I change the table definition again:categoryname VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL UNIQUE CLUSTEREDthe result is the same as the first time.Q:'categoryname' is clustered indexed this time,why isn't in alphabeticorder?I am a newbie in ms-sqlserver,or actually in database,and I do havesought for the answer for some time,but more confused,Thanks for yourkind help in advance!
View 2 Replies
View Related
Apr 14, 2008
Hi,
We got a problem.
supposing we have a table like this:
CREATE TABLE a (
aId int IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
aName string2 NOT NULL
)
go
ALTER TABLE a ADD
CONSTRAINT PK_a PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (aId)
go
insert into a values ('bank of abcde');
insert into a values ('bank of abcde');
...
... (20 times)
select top 5 * from a order by aName
Result is:
6 Bank of abcde
5 Bank of abcde
4 Bank of abcde
3 Bank of abcde
2 Bank of abcde
select top 10 * from a order by aName
Result is:
11 Bank of abcde
10 Bank of abcde
9 Bank of abcde
8 Bank of abcde
7 Bank of abcde
6 Bank of abcde
5 Bank of abcde
4 Bank of abcde
3 Bank of abcde
2 Bank of abcde
According to this result, user see the first 5 records with id 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 in page 1, but when he tries to view page 2, he still see the records with id 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. This is not correct for users.
Of course we can add order by aid also, but there are tons of sqls like this, we can't update our application in one shot.
So I ask for your advice here, is there any settings can tell the db use default sort order when the order by column value are the same? Or is there any other solution to resolve this problem in one shot?
View 5 Replies
View Related
May 18, 2006
I have created view by jaoining two table and have order by clause.
The sql generated is as follows
SELECT TOP (100) PERCENT dbo.UWYearDetail.*, dbo.UWYearGroup.*
FROM dbo.UWYearDetail INNER JOIN
dbo.UWYearGroup ON dbo.UWYearDetail.UWYearGroupId = dbo.UWYearGroup.UWYearGroupId
ORDER BY dbo.UWYearDetail.PlanVersionId, dbo.UWYearGroup.UWFinancialPlanSegmentId, dbo.UWYearGroup.UWYear, dbo.UWYearGroup.MandDFlag,
dbo.UWYearGroup.EarningsMethod, dbo.UWYearGroup.EffectiveMonth
If I run sql the results are displayed in proper order but the view only order by first item in order by clause.
Has somebody experience same thing? How to fix this issue?
Thanks,
View 16 Replies
View Related
Mar 19, 2007
I am getting the resultset sorted differently if I use a column number in the ORDER BY clause instead of a column name.
Product: Microsoft SQL Server Express Edition
Version: 9.00.1399.06
Server Collation: SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS
for example,
create table test_sort
( description varchar(75) );
insert into test_sort values('Non-A');
insert into test_sort values('Non-O');
insert into test_sort values('Noni');
insert into test_sort values('Nons');
then execute the following selects:
select
*
from
test_sort
order by
cast( 1 as nvarchar(75));
select
*
from
test_sort
order by
cast( description as nvarchar(75));
Resultset1
----------
Non-A
Non-O
Noni
Nons
Resultset2
----------
Non-A
Noni
Non-O
Nons
Any ideas?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Mar 27, 2008
I have a DB with items which can have lengths from 0 to 400 meter.In my resultset I want to show the items with length 1-400 meter and then the results with length 0 meterHow to build my SQL?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Jul 5, 2007
I noticed the StockDate is not sorted in proper order, like ascending order...
Code:
select top 1000 CONVERT(char, StockDate, 101) AS StockDate, timestamp from tblpurchaseraw where accountid = '119' order by stockdate desc
I noticed that StockDate is a datetime datatype so why does the month get ordered 1st, then day get ordered 2nd and year get ordered 3rd...
The sample data is MM/DD/YYYY...
So, how do I get it ordered propery by Year, Month then Day??
View 2 Replies
View Related
Nov 17, 2006
Lets say I have a table named [Leadership] and I want to select the field 'leadershipName' from the [Leadership] Table.
My query would look something like this:
Select leadershipName
From Leadership
Now, I would like to order the results of this query... but I don't want to simply order them by ASC or DESC. Instead, I need to order them as follows:
Executive Board Members, Delegates, Grievance Chairs, and Negotiators
My question: Can this be done through MS SQL or do I need to add a field to my [Leadership] table named 'leadershipImportance' or something as an integer to denote the level of importance of the position so that I can order on that value ASC or DESC?
Thanks,
Zoop
View 1 Replies
View Related
Apr 16, 2008
Hi,
I have some hierarchical data in a table. Say for example:
Parent Child
------------------------
NULL 1
1 2
1 3
2 4
2 5
3 6
3 7
5 8
5 9
7 10
7 11
11 12
11 13
Now I want to be able to use CTE's to be able to traverse this tree in
1) level by level order 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10....
2) in order 1,2,4,5,8,9,3,6,7,10,11,12,13...
What would be the aueries for this. Using the following i get: 1,2,3,6,7,10,11,12,13,4,5,8,9 (interesting and potentially useful) but I would like to be able to experiment with the aforementioned orders as well.
with Tree (id)
as
(
select id from WithTest
where parent is null
union all
select a.id
from Tree b join WithTest a
on b.id = a.parent
)
select * from Tree
Any ideas? Thanks.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jan 8, 2008
Hi!
For the Orders table (let's assume for the Northwind database), I'm trying
to get the order id of the latest order for every customer.
That means that the result should be one record per customer and that would
display CustomerID and OrderID.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Assaf
View 1 Replies
View Related
