select * from order_info where order_id = 48;
The mysql command show above is a very simple sentence, but the result below seems not to meet my expectation, it is more similar to like condition.
retrieval result
I don't know if the type of field may affect the result as the field 'order_id' is varchar type. When I change the condition to " where order_id = '48' ", It meets my expectation.
Can anyone tell me why is this case? Why conditon 'equal' show unexpected outcomes?
I expect the result should be empty as the table does not have the record whose order_id is equal to 48.
Consider this -
SELECT CAST('48KKKK' AS INT);
You might expect it to fail , it doesn't and the result is 48. Your query is implicitly converting order id before comparison because you are comparing to an integer so the result of your query is correct and it's a gotcha to remember..
Related
Result for query
select * from job_master where job_id='7ss,dsd..'
and
select * from job_master where job_id=7
Resultset of query is the same and job_id is column with type BIGINT(10)
Unfortunately that's how MySQL works folks. MySQL tends to take numeric value first from the value you put in your where clause. In simple words, It scans the value in where clause. Once it finds any such value, it considers that value as the final one. For instance,
'abc' => MySQL would read it as 0
'1abc' => MySQL would read it as 1
'a1bc' => MySQL would read it as 0
You can try and come across some more new things in MySQL.
Consider the following table:
SELECT id, Bill_Freq, Paid_From, Paid_To, Paid_Dt, rev_code FROM psr_20160708091408;
The requirement is to fetch the row which has rev_code populated with the string **SUM**.
I've also noticed that for every row with rev_code populated as **SUM** its Bill_Freq won't be either null or zero.
So I wrote two queries to fetch the row with the lowest id
Query based on string check in where clause:
select
min(id) as head_id,
bill_freq,
Paid_From,
Paid_To,
Paid_Dt
from
`psr_20160708091408` where rev_code = "**SUM**";
Query based on true condition:
select
min(id) as head_id,
bill_freq,
Paid_From,
Paid_To,
Paid_Dt
from
`psr_20160708091408` where bill_freq;
I haven't seen anyone use the second type, would like to know its reliability and circumstance of failure.
If by "second type" you mean a where clause with no explicit condition, then there is a good reason why you do not see it.
The SQL standard -- and most databases -- require explicit conditions in the where. MySQL allows the shorthand that you use but it really means:
where not billing_freq <=> 0
or equivalently:
where billing_freq <> 0 or billing_freq is null
(The <=> is the null-safe comparison operator.
The more important issue with your query is the min(). I presume that you actually want this:
select p.*
from psr_20160708091408 p
where rev_code = '**SUM**'
order by id
limit 1;
Also, you should use single quotes as string delimiters. That is the ANSI standard and there is rarely any reason to use double quotes.
Actually you can use the second type of query, but as your requirement is based on rev_code, it is always good to have condition with rev_code, because of 2 reasons
Bill_Freq having no NUlls or Zeros might be assumption based on current data
Even if it is true, in future, your application logic might change and it might have a scenario having NULL or zero, which will break your logic in future.
So my suggestion is to use first query with Rev_code
Please try to use below query
select
id,
bill_freq,
Paid_From,
Paid_To,
Paid_Dt
from
`psr_20160708091408` where rev_code = "**SUM**" ORDER BY ASC LIMIT 0,1;
Thanks.
The requirement says it itself.
The requirement is to fetch the row which has rev_code populated with
the string '**SUM**'
In the scenario that bill_freq IS NOT NULL and rev_code is populated with
the string '**SUM**' then your logic will obviously fail.
Go for
where rev_code = "**SUM**";
I have a table with the nullable fields that I use as search criteria, and a creation_date for sorting by.
I'm trying to write a query to find the newest record based on those search criteria, but if one of them is missing I'd like to still match it.
So I tried doing fieldname = ? or null for each field and used order by creation_date limit 1, but if I do this then if there were a row where all of the fields were null, it would return that one instead of an older record where they are not all null.
How can I make it prefer results with more matching fields, but not require that every field exists?
Please try something like the following:
SELECT
{field list}
FROM
{your table}
WHERE
IFNULL(field1, #par1) = #par1
AND IFNULL(field2, #par2) = #par2
.....
ORDER BY
creation_date DESC
limit 1
In the above case if i.e. field1 had a NULL value for a particular record, IFNULL function would return the second parameter given, so the real comparison in that case would be #par1 = #par1 which is always-true. Thus in case of NULL-valued field, the part doesn't affect the search results.
I hope it helps some way.
This case is similar to: S.O Question; mySQL returns all rows when field=0, and the Accepted answer was a very simple trick, to souround the ZERO with single quotes
FROM:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE email=0
TO:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE email='0'
However, my case is slightly different in that my Query is something like:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE email=(
SELECT my_column_value FROM myTable WHERE my_column_value=0 AND user_id =15 LIMIT 1 )
Which in a sense, becomes like simply saying: SELECT * FROM table WHERE email=0, but now with a Second Query.
PLEASE NOTE: It is a MUST that I use the SECOND QUERY.
When I tried: SELECT * FROM table WHERE email='( SELECT my_column_value FROM myTable WHERE my_column_value=0 LIMIT 1 )' (Notice the Single Quotes on the second query)
MySql SCREAMED Errors near '(.
How can this be achieved
Any Suggestion is highly honored
EDIT1: For a visual perspective of the Query
See the STEN_TB here: http://snag.gy/Rq8dq.jpg
Now, the main aim is to get the sten_h where rawscore_h = 0;
The CURRENT QUERY as a whole.
SELECT sten_h
FROM sten_tb
WHERE rawscore_h = (
SELECT `for_print_stens_rowscore`
FROM `for_print_stens_tb`
WHERE `for_print_stens_student_id` =3
AND `for_print_stens_factor_name` = 'Factor H' )
The result of the Second Query can be any number including ZERO.
Any number from >=1 Works and returns a single corresponding value from sten_h. Only =0 does not Work, it returns all rows
That's the issue.
CORRECT ANSWER OR SOLUTION FOR THIS
Just in case someone ends up in this paradox, the Accepted answer has it all.
SEE STEN_TB: http://snag.gy/Rq8dq.jpg
SEE The desired Query result here: http://snag.gy/wa4yA.jpg
I believe your issue is with implicit datatype conversions. You can make those datatype conversions explicit, to gain control.
(The "trick" with wrapping a literal 0 in single quotes, that makes the literal a string literal, rather than a numeric.)
In the more general case, you can use a CAST or CONVERT function to explicitly specify a datatype conversion. You can use an expression in place of a column name, wherever you need to...
For example, to get the value returned by my_column_value to match the datatype of the email column, assuming email is character type, something like:
... email = (SELECT CONVERT(my_column_value,CHAR(255)) FROM myTable WHERE ...
or, to get the a literal integer value to be a string value:
... FROM myTable WHERE my_column_value = CONVERT(0,CHAR(30)) ...
If email and my_column_value are just indicating true or false then they should almost certainly be both BIT NOT NULL or other two-value type that your schema uses for booleans. (Your ORM may use a particular one.) Casting is frequently a hack made necessary by a poor design.
If it should be a particular user then you shouldn't use LIMIT because tables are unordered and that doesn't return a particular user. Explain in your question what your query is supposed to return including exactly what you mean by "15th".
(Having all those similar columns is bad design: rawscore_a, sten_a, rawscore_b, sten_b,... . Use a table with two columns: rawscore, sten.)
I'm storing a list of numbers inside a table as a varchar(255) and want to use this list in another query's "IN() clause.
Here's what I mean:
Table Data:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `session_data` (
`visible_portf_ids` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
INSERT INTO `session_data` (`visible_portf_ids`) VALUES
('45,44,658,659,661,45,44,658,659,661')
I want to run a query like this to return a list of portfolio's "QUERY #1":
SELECT portfolio_hierarchy_id, account_id, name, leaf_node_portf_id
FROM portfolio_hierarchy
WHERE account_id = 1
AND leaf_node_portf_id IN
(
(SELECT visible_portf_ids
FROM session_data
WHERE username = 'ronedog')
)
ORDER BY name ASC
The result of the query above returns only 1 row, when there are a total of 3 that should have been returned.
If I run the subquery alone like this:
(SELECT visible_portf_ids
FROM session_data
WHERE username = 'ronedog')
it will return a list like this:
45,44,658,659,661,45,44,658,659,661
But, when I run Query #1 above, only one row of data, which is associated with the "visible_portf_ids" of "45" is returned.
If I replace the subquery with hard coded values like this:
SELECT portfolio_hierarchy_id, account_id, name, leaf_node_portf_id
FROM portfolio_hierarchy
WHERE account_id = 1
AND leaf_node_portf_id IN (45,44,658,659,661,45,44,658,659,661)
ORDER BY name ASC
then I get all 3 rows I'm expecting.
I'm guessing that MySql is returning the list as a string because its stored as a varchar() and so it stops processing after the first "visible_portf_ids" is found, which is "45", but I'm not really sure.
Anyone got any ideas how I can fix this?
Thanks in advance.
You should think about restructuring your tables storing each value in a new row, instead of concatenating them.
Until then, you can use the FIND_IN_SET() function:
AND FIND_IN_SET(leaf_node_portf_id,
(SELECT visible_portf_ids
FROM session_data
WHERE username = 'ronedog'
LIMIT 1)
) > 0
Unfortunately MySQL does not have a function to split a delimited string. Your IN argument is a single string with the result of your subquery. The reason it works when you hard-code it is that MySQL is parsing the values.
I suggest that you redesign your data base to store the visible ports list as separate rows in a separate table. Then you can retrieve them and use them in subqueries like you tried.