Problem with for all entries in select querry

hi,
Hi,
I am using select queery like this
SELECT version COUNT( * )
from ztbi_default_va4
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE   lit_new
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN lit_new1
WHERE network = lit_new1-network GROUP BY version.
this is not working showing error as:
The addition "FOR ALL ENTRIES" excludes all aggregate functions with
the exception of "COUNT( * )" as the single element of the SELECT     clause.
I am using only count(*) ,not using othes like max,min etc,,,,,,,,,
please suggest any missing in syntax,,,,attach relavant code using count(*) with for all entreis
any help appriciated,,,,,
Thanks in advance,,,,

Hi,
Try this -
TYPES: begin of t_data,
             version TYPE version,
             count    type i,
             end of t_data.
DATA: i_data TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF t_data,
           wa_data TYPE t_data.
DATA: l_version TYPE version,
           l_count TYPE i.
SELECT version COUNT( * )
from ztbi_default_va4
INTO CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE   lit_new
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN lit_new1
WHERE network = lit_new1-network.
SORT lit_new.
LOOP AT lit_new INTO lwa_new.
    IF lwa_new EQ l_version.
      l_count = l_count + 1.
    ELSE.
      wa_data-version = l_version.
      wa_data-count = l_count + 1.
      APPEND wa_data TO i_data.
      CLEAR: wa_data.
      CLEAR: l_count.
    ENDIF.
    l_version = lwa_new-version.
    CLEAR: lwa_new.
I hope this will do.
Make any necessary changes.
Regards,
Harsh Bansal

Similar Messages

Alternative for / Problems with: "For all entries in data_package"

Hi Guys
I doing some ABAP in a Start Rotine in BW and would like to do the following:
select * from /BI0/PMATERIAL into table 0mat
for all entries in DATA_PACKAGE
where material = DATA_PACKAGE-/bic/zmaterial.
But I get the following error:
E:When using the addition "FOR ALL ENTRIES IN itab", the fields "MATERIAL" and "DATA_PACKAGE-/BIC/ZMATERIAL" must have the same type and length. and length.
ZMATERIAL:
- Length: 28
- Type: CHAR - Character String
ZMATERIAL:
- Length: 18
- Type: CHAR - Character String
According to the error message "For all entries" cannot be used in this case since the lengths are not identical, but is there an alternative way to do what I would like to do?
Thanks in advance, kind regards,
Torben

Hi
one thing you can try like this define one variable in other itab of same type
then loop at the first table and assign it to new field and modify the itab
then use this field with for all entries
Regards
Shiva

Performance Problems with "For all Entries" and a big internal table

We have big Performance Problems with following Statement:
SELECT * FROM zeedmt_zmon INTO TABLE gt_zmon_help
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN gt_zmon_help
    WHERE
    status = 'IAI200' AND
    logdat IN gs_dat AND
    ztrack = gt_zmon_help-ztrack.
In the internal table gt_zmon_help are over 1000000 entries.
Anyone an Idea how to improve the Performance?
Thank you!

>
Matthias Weisensel wrote:
> We have big Performance Problems with following Statement:
>
>
SELECT * FROM zeedmt_zmon INTO TABLE gt_zmon_help
>   FOR ALL ENTRIES IN gt_zmon_help
>     WHERE
>     status = 'IAI200' AND
>     logdat IN gs_dat AND
>     ztrack = gt_zmon_help-ztrack.
>
> In the internal table gt_zmon_help are over 1000000 entries.
> Anyone an Idea how to improve the Performance?
>
> Thank you!
You can't expect miracles. With over a million entries in your itab any select is going to take a bit of time. Do you really need all these records in the itab? How many records is the select bringing back? I'm assuming that you have got and are using indexes on your ZEEDMT_ZMON table.
In this situation, I'd first of all try to think of another way of running the query and restricting the amount of data, but if this were not possible I'd just run it in the background and accept that it is going to take a long time.

Problem with FOR ALL ENTRIES statement

Hi all
please find the problem in the select statement.
SELECT vbbe~vbeln
         vbap~vstel
         marc~dispo
         vbbe~matnr
         vbbe~kunnr
         vbbe~werks
         vbbe~mbdat
         vbbe~omeng
INTO TABLE l_t_dvbeln
FROM vbbe
INNER JOIN vbak
ON
vbbe~vbeln = vbak~vbeln
inner join vbap
on
vbbe~vbeln = vbap~vbeln and
vbbe~matnr = vbap~matnr
inner join marc
on
vbbe~matnr = marc~matnr and
vbbe~werks = marc~werks
FOR ALL entries IN g_t_stock
WHERE vbbe~matnr = g_t_stock-matnr
AND   vbbe~werks = g_t_stock-werks
AND   vbak~vkorg = g_t_stock-vkorg
AND   vbak~vtweg = g_t_stock-vtweg
AND   vbbe~kunnr = g_t_stock-kunnr
AND   vbbe~mbdat IN r_mbdat.
g_t_stock is having only one record i.e.,
g_t_stock-vstel = 'DF01'.
g_t_stock-dispo = 'DEI'.
g_t_stock-matnr = '00100833'.
g_t_stock-maktx = 'SAC (300X400)'.
g_t_stock-kunnr = '0000600431'.
g_t_stock-werks = 'PF71'.
g_t_stock-labst = '7727'.
g_t_stock-vkorg = 'SF71'.
g_t_stock-vtweg = 'IC'.
and r_mbdat has the date range as
r_mbdat-sign = I
r_mbdat-option = BT
r_mbdat-low = 15.05.2008
r_mbdat-high = 08.06.2008
In vbak vbap & marc tables i have only one record as per the above selection criteria.
in VBBE table i have 7 records which satisfies the above criteria. But the select staement retrieves only 5 records.
if we remove for all entries and hardcode the values in the select statement then it retrieves all 7 records.
can anybody help me.
what is the reason it is showing only 5 records.

Hi all
actually it has to retrieve the following records
VBELN      MATNR    KUNNR WERKS MBDAT    LABST
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   15.05.2008   20.000
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   15.05.2008   20.000
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   22.05.2008   5.000
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   22.05.2008   7.000
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   27.05.2008 10.000
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   27.05.2008 10.000
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   29.05.2008 10.000
But it is retrieving only 5 records as below
VBELN      MATNR    KUNNR WERKS MBDAT    LABST
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   15.05.2008   20.000
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   22.05.2008   5.000
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   22.05.2008   7.000
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   27.05.2008 10.000
30001417     00100833     600431 PF71   29.05.2008 10.000
Please give the reason

Problem with FOR ALL ENTRIES IN

This is my simple source code.
TABLES: stpo.
DATA: t_stpo LIKE stpo OCCURS 0 WITH HEADER LINE,
t_stpo_itm LIKE stpo OCCURS 0 WITH HEADER LINE,
t_stpo-stlnr = '00000058'.
t_stpo-stlkn = '00000003'.
append t_stpo.
t_stpo-stlnr = '00000058'.
t_stpo-stlkn = '00000007'.
append t_stpo.
SELECT * FROM stpo INTO TABLE t_stpo_itm
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN t_stpo
WHERE stlnr = t_stpo-stlnr " BOM No.
AND stlkn <> t_stpo-stlkn. " BOM item node number
The output from this source including BOM item node number 00000003, 00000007 but at SQL stlkn <> t_stpo-stlkn doesn't effected.
Could Anyone please tell me why?
Are there something wrong?
Thank you in advance.

Hi,
You can also Use ranges for Stlnr and Stlkn fields, instead of int table.
TABLES: stpo.
DATA: begin of t_stpo OCCURS 0.
 stlnr like stpo-stlnr,
 stlkn like stpo-stlkn,
 end of t_stpo.
data t_stpo_itm LIKE stpo OCCURS 0 WITH HEADER LINE.
t_stpo-stlnr = '00000058'.
t_stpo-stlkn = '00000003'.
append t_stpo.
clear t_stpo.
t_stpo-stlnr = '00000058'.
t_stpo-stlkn = '00000007'.
append t_stpo.
clear t_stpo.
if not t_stpo[] is initial.
SELECT * FROM stpo INTO TABLE t_stpo_itm
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN t_stpo
WHERE stlnr = t_stpo-stlnr " BOM No.
AND stlkn <> t_stpo-stlkn. " BOM item node number
endif.
or you can simply write a select for STPO like this:
SELECT * FROM stpo INTO TABLE t_stpo_itm
WHERE stlnr = '00000058' " BOM No.
AND ( stlkn <> '00000007' or stlkn <> '00000003' ). " BOM item node number
regards,
Anji

Problem with for all entries

Hi all,
When i was trying to use for all entries, i am not able to pull records inside my internal table. Though both of the tables have the common key fields between them(and ofcourse have entries in that). Now what i have analyzed was, the first table is having 7 primary keys and the one i am using for 'for all entries' comes 6th. Does this gives any impact in pulling records inside my internal table?.Else please give me a possible solution for this. The alternate statement(a normal select query with * ) that i had used for this reserved my dialog processor for a while. Which resulted in 'time exceeded' short dump.

Hi,
The WHERE clause of the SELECT statement has a special variant that allows you to derive conditions from the lines and columns of an internal table:
SELECT ... FOR ALL ENTRIES IN <itab> WHERE <cond> ...
<cond> may be formulated as described above. If you specify a field of the internal table <itab> as an operand in a condition, you address all lines of the internal table. The comparison is then performed for each line of the internal table. For each line, the system selects the lines from the database table that satisfy the condition. The result set of the SELECT statement is the union of the individual selections for each line of the internal table. Duplicate lines are automatically eliminated from the result set. If <itab> is empty, the addition FOR ALL ENTRIES is disregarded, and all entries are read.
The internal table <itab> must have a structured line type, and each field that occurs in the condition <cond> must be compatible with the column of the database with which it is compared. Do not use the operators LIKE, BETWEEN, and IN in comparisons using internal table fields. You may not use the ORDER BY clause in the same SELECT statement.
You can use the option FOR ALL ENTRIES to replace nested select loops by operations on internal tables. This can significantly improve the performance for large sets of selected data.
Hope this is useful
Reema

How does select stmt with for all entries uses Indexes

Hello all,
I goes through a number of documents but still confused how does select for all entries uses indexes if fields are not in sequences. i got pretty much the same results if i take like two cases on Hr tables HRP1000 and HRP1001(with for all entries based upon hrp1000). Here is the sequence of index fields on hrp1001 (MANDT, OTYPE, OBJID, PLVAR, RSIGN, RELAT, ISTAT, PRIOX, BEGDA, ENDDA, VARYF, SEQNR). in second case objid field is in sequence as in defined Index but i dont see significant increase in field even though the number of records are around 30000. My question is does it make a differrence to use field sequence (same as in table indexes) in comparison to redundant field sequence (not same as defined in table indexes), secondly how we can ge tto know if table index is used in Select for entries query i tried Explain in ST05 but its not clear if it uses any index at all in hrp1001 read.
here is the sample code i use to get test results.
test case 1
REPORT zdemo_perf_select.
DATA: it_hrp1000 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1000 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_hrp1001 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1001 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_hrp1007 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1007 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0000 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0000 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0001 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0001 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0002 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0002 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0105_10 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0105 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0105_20 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0105 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: t1 TYPE timestampl,
 t2 TYPE timestampl,
 t3 TYPE timestampl
SELECT * FROM hrp1000 CLIENT SPECIFIED INTO TABLE it_hrp1000 bypassing buffer
 WHERE mandt EQ sy-mandt AND
 plvar EQ '01' AND
 otype EQ 'S'AND
 istat EQ '1' AND
 begda <= sy-datum AND
 endda >= sy-datum AND
 langu EQ 'EN'.
GET TIME STAMP FIELD t1.
SELECT * FROM hrp1001 CLIENT SPECIFIED INTO TABLE it_hrp1001 bypassing buffer
 FOR ALL ENTRIES IN it_hrp1000
 WHERE mandt EQ sy-mandt AND
 otype EQ 'S' AND
* objid EQ it_hrp1000-objid and
 plvar EQ '01' AND
 rsign EQ 'B' AND
 relat EQ '007' AND
 istat EQ '1' AND
 begda LT sy-datum AND
 endda GT sy-datum and
 sclas EQ 'C' and
 objid EQ it_hrp1000-objid.
* %_hints mssqlnt 'INDEX(HRP1001~0)'.
*delete it_hrp1001 where sclas ne 'C'.
GET TIME STAMP FIELD t2.
t3 = t1 - t2.
WRITE: 'Time taken - ', t3.
test case 2
REPORT zdemo_perf_select.
DATA: it_hrp1000 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1000 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_hrp1001 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1001 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_hrp1007 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF hrp1007 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0000 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0000 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0001 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0001 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0002 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0002 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0105_10 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0105 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: it_pa0105_20 TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF pa0105 WITH HEADER LINE.
DATA: t1 TYPE timestampl,
 t2 TYPE timestampl,
 t3 TYPE timestampl
SELECT * FROM hrp1000 CLIENT SPECIFIED INTO TABLE it_hrp1000 bypassing buffer
 WHERE mandt EQ sy-mandt AND
 plvar EQ '01' AND
 otype EQ 'S'AND
 istat EQ '1' AND
 begda <= sy-datum AND
 endda >= sy-datum AND
 langu EQ 'EN'.
GET TIME STAMP FIELD t1.
SELECT * FROM hrp1001 CLIENT SPECIFIED INTO TABLE it_hrp1001 bypassing buffer
 FOR ALL ENTRIES IN it_hrp1000
 WHERE mandt EQ sy-mandt AND
 otype EQ 'S' AND
 objid EQ it_hrp1000-objid and
 plvar EQ '01' AND
 rsign EQ 'B' AND
 relat EQ '007' AND
 istat EQ '1' AND
 begda LT sy-datum AND
 endda GT sy-datum and
 sclas EQ 'C'." and
* objid EQ it_hrp1000-objid.
* %_hints mssqlnt 'INDEX(HRP1001~0)'.
*delete it_hrp1001 where sclas ne 'C'.
GET TIME STAMP FIELD t2.
t3 = t1 - t2.
WRITE: 'Time taken - ', t3.

Mani wrote:
Thank you for your answer, its very helpful but i am still nor sure how does parameter rsdb/max_blocking_factor affect records size.
Hi,
The blocking affects the size of the statement and the memory structures for returning the result.
So if your itab has 500 rows and your blocking is 5, the very same statement will be executed 100 times.
Nothing good or bad about this so far.
Assume, your average result for an inlist 5 statement is 25 records with an average size of 109 bytes.
You average result size will be 2725 byte plus overhead which will nearly perfectly fit into two 1500 byte ethernet frames.
Nothing to do in this case.
Assume your average result for an inlist 5 statement is 7 records with an average size of 67 bytes.
You average result size will be ~ 470 byte plus overhead which will only fill 1/3 of a 1500 byte ethernet frame.
In this case, setting the blocking to 12 ... 15 will give you 66% network transfer performance gain,
and reduces the number of calls to the DB by 50%, giving additional benefit.
Now this is an extreme example. The longer the average row length is, the lower will be the average loss in the network.
You have the same effects in memory structures, but on that layer you are fighting single micro seconds instead of
hundreds of these, so in real life it is rarely measurable.
Depending on table-statistics, oracle might decide for short inlists to use a concatanation instead of an inlist.
This is supposed to be more costy, but I never had a case where I could proove a big difference.
Values from 5 to 15 for blocking seem to be ok for me. If you have special statements in customer coding,
it #might# be benefitial to do the mentioned calculations and do some network tracing to see if you can squeeze your
network efficiency by tuning the blocking.
If you have jumbo frames enabled, it might be worth to be analyzed as well.
If you are only on a DB-CI system that is loopback connected to the DB, I doubt there might be a big outcome.
Hope this helps
Volker

Replacing a inner join with for all entries

Hi Team,
   In a already developed program I am replacing a inner join with select query follow up with for-all-entris and passing the data to final internal table but in both the case the result should be same then only my replacement will be correct. But my no records in both cases differs. This happening because when i am selecting data from first data base table is 32 lines. then I am doing fo-all-entries moving all the duplicate entries then the no records are four. but in final internal table i am looping the first internal table. So in final internal table the no of records are 32. But in inner join query the records are 16.So please let me know how resolve this issue?
Thanks and REgards
Deepa

Hi Thomas,
Thanks for ur suggestion.
The solved that in below.
In select query I did not change anything The way I had written the code was correct.
I think many of us know how to write that how to make the performance better in that way.
I made the change when I transfered the to final internal table.
The original Inner join code:
select a~field1 a~field2 a~field3 b~field2 b~field3 b~field4
           from dbtab1 as a inner join dbtab2 as b
          on a~field1 = b~field1 into it_final where
          a~field1 in s_field1. [Field1 in both the table are key field]
Before code:
Sort itab1 by key-fields.
sort itab2 by keyfields.
loop at itab1 into wa1.
move: wa1-field1 to wa_final-field1,
           wa1-field2 to wa_final-field2,
           wa1-field3 to wa_final-field3.
read table itab2 into wa2 witk key field1 = wa1-field1 binary search.
if sy-subrc = 0.
move : wa2-field2 to wa_final-field4,
             wa2-field3 to wa_final-field5,
             wa2-field4 to wa_final-field6.
append wa_final to it_final.
endif.
Clear : wa1, wa2, wa_final.
endloop.
In this case if the one key fieild value is not present there in second internal table but its there in first internal table still it will read that row with 2nd internal values having zeroes. Normally what does not happen in inner join case if the key field value will same in both the case ,then that will fetch only those rows.
Changed Code
loop at itab1 into wa1.
read table itab2 into wa2 witk key field1 = wa1-field1 binary search.
if sy-subrc = 0.
move: wa1-field1 to wa_final-field1,
           wa1-field2 to wa_final-field2,
           wa1-field3 to wa_final-field3.
move : wa2-field2 to wa_final-field4,
             wa2-field3 to wa_final-field5,
             wa2-field4 to wa_final-field6.
append wa_final to it_final.
endif.
Clear : wa1, wa2, wa_final.
endloop.
In this case the values will read to final internal table if both key field matches.
With Regards
Deepa

Group by with for all entries

Hi,
   SELECT max( VBELN ) VGBEL VGPOS POSNR FKIMG VRKME NTGEW MATNR ARKTX WERKS MVGR3
       FROM VBRP
       INTO TABLE T_INVIT
       FOR ALL ENTRIES IN T_INVHD
       WHERE VBELN = T_INVHD-VBELN
       AND    SPART = T_INVHD-SPART
       AND    werks IN swerks
       AND    mvgr3 IN smvgr3
       group by VBELN VGBEL VGPOS POSNR FKIMG VRKME NTGEW MATNR ARKTX WERKS MVGR3.
i want to (max) invoice no against a delivery i.e vgbel but in this query i am getting error that with for all entries only count * is allowed.
regards
Fozia

Hi Do this way..
IF NOT T_INVHD[] is initial.
LOOP AT T_INVHD
SELECT max( VBELN ) VGBEL VGPOS POSNR FKIMG VRKME NTGEW MATNR ARKTX WERKS MVGR3
FROM VBRP
INTO T_INVIT
WHERE VBELN = T_INVHD-VBELN
AND SPART = T_INVHD-SPART
AND werks IN swerks
AND mvgr3 IN smvgr3
group by VGBEL VGPOS POSNR FKIMG VRKME NTGEW MATNR ARKTX WERKS MVGR3.
IF SY-SUBRC = 0.
APPEND T_INVIT.
CLEAR T_INVIT
ENDIF.
endselect.
endloop.
endif.
EVEN NO EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE
RGDS
RAJESH

INNER JOIN with FOR ALL ENTRIES IN Performance ?

I am using following the following Select using Inner join with For All Entries in.
 SELECT kebeln kebelp kvbeln kvbelp
 FROM ekkn AS k INNER JOIN ekbe AS b ON kebeln = bebeln
 AND kebelp = bebelp
 INTO TABLE gi_purchase
 FOR ALL ENTRIES
 IN gi_sales
 WHERE k~mandt EQ sy-mandt
 AND k~vbeln EQ gi_sales-vbeln
 AND k~vbelp EQ gi_sales-posnr
 AND b~budat EQ p_date.
If i am not doing inner join then I will have to do 2 select with for all entries in on ekkn and ekbe tables and then compare them.
I want to know which one has better performance
Inner join with for all entries in
 or
2 Selects with for all entries in

the join is almost aways faster:
<a href="/people/rob.burbank/blog/2007/03/19/joins-vs-for-all-entries--which-performs-better">JOINS vs. FOR ALL ENTRIES - Which Performs Better?</a>
<a href="http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/sap/db2/archives/for-all-entries-vs-db2-join-8912">FOR ALL ENTRIES vs DB2 JOIN</a>
Rob

Inner Join with For All Entries - Performance ?

I am using following the following Select using Inner join with For All Entries in.
 SELECT kebeln kebelp kvbeln kvbelp
 FROM ekkn AS k INNER JOIN ekbe AS b ON kebeln = bebeln
 AND kebelp = bebelp
 INTO TABLE gi_purchase
 FOR ALL ENTRIES
 IN gi_sales
 WHERE k~mandt EQ sy-mandt
 AND k~vbeln EQ gi_sales-vbeln
 AND k~vbelp EQ gi_sales-posnr
 AND b~budat EQ p_date.
If i am not doing inner join then I will have to do 2 select with for all entries in on ekkn and ekbe tables and then compare them.
I want to know which one has better performance
Inner join with for all entries in
 or
2 Selects with for all entries in

An Inner Join with for all entries should be done if you add this....
IF NOT gi_sales[] IS INITIAL.
SELECT k~ebeln k~ebelp k~vbeln k~vbelp
FROM ekkn AS k INNER JOIN ekbe AS b ON k~ebeln = b~ebeln
AND k~ebelp = b~ebelp
INTO TABLE gi_purchase
FOR ALL ENTRIES
IN gi_sales
WHERE k~mandt EQ sy-mandt
AND k~vbeln EQ gi_sales-vbeln
AND k~vbelp EQ gi_sales-posnr
AND b~budat EQ p_date.
ENDIF.
Also, while you use an index or the complete key for the SELECT, your not going to suffer from lack of performance -;)
Greetings,
Blag.

Using aggregate function along with for all entries: sugest alternative

My requirement:
For each record in i_vbap for which 'charg' is initial, need to determine batch using the following logic:
For the material (MATNR) in i_vbap, select the batch (CHARG) which has the largest (MAX) unrestricted inventory quantity (CLABS) from MCHB table.
How do I implement this logic without using select statement inside a loop as I cannot use MAX ( CLABS ) function along with FOR ALL ENTRIES in a SELECT?
Suggest an alternative.

For each record in i_vbap for which 'charg' is initial ,fetch all the existing 'clabs' value.
[ Remember to include all the key fields in selct ]
Sort the new table .
Put a loop,use at end of 'charg' and append to another table. U get ur solution
I think this should be the most economic way to do so.

What is the use of for all entries in select statement

what is the use of for all entries in select statement

hi,
FOR ALL ENTRIES is an effective way of doing away with using JOIN on two tables.
You can check the below code -
SELECT BUKRS BELNR GJAHR AUGDT
FROM BSEG
INTO TABLE I_BSEG
WHERE BUKRS = ....
SELECT BUKRS BELNR BLART BLDAT
FROM BKPF
INTO TABLE I_BKPF
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN I_BSEG
WHERE BUKRS = I_BSEG-BUKRS
AND BELNR = I_BSEG-BELNR
AND BLDAT IN SO_BLDAT.
*******************************8
look another example
what is the use of FOR ALL ENTRIES
1. INNER JOIN
DBTAB1 <----
> DBTAB2
It is used to JOIN two DATABASE tables
having some COMMON fields.
2. Whereas
For All Entries,
DBTAB1 <----
> ITAB1
is not at all related to two DATABASE tables.
It is related to INTERNAL table.
3. If we want to fetch data
from some DBTABLE1
but we want to fetch
for only some records
which are contained in some internal table,
then we use for alll entries.
1. simple example of for all entries.
2. NOTE THAT
In for all entries,
it is NOT necessary to use TWO DBTABLES.
(as against JOIN)
3. use this program (just copy paste)
it will fetch data
from T001
FOR ONLY TWO COMPANIES (as mentioned in itab)
4
REPORT abc.
DATA : BEGIN OF itab OCCURS 0,
bukrs LIKE t001-bukrs,
END OF itab.
DATA : t001 LIKE TABLE OF t001 WITH HEADER LINE.
itab-bukrs = '1000'.
APPEND itab.
itab-bukrs = '1100'.
APPEND itab.
SELECT * FROM t001
INTO TABLE t001
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN itab
WHERE bukrs = itab-bukrs.
LOOP AT t001.
WRITE :/ t001-bukrs.
ENDLOOP.
Hope this helps!
Regards,
Anver
if hlped pls mark points

Problem in FOR ALL ENTRIES IN statement

Hi Abaper,
I have a problem in FOR ALL ENTRIES IN statement.
I have a table /ccsht/na_estadi in this table for the particulat date there are 14 records, but my internal table read only 5 record.
Below is my code:
SELECT sociedad
         xhotel_id
    FROM /ccsht/mt_photel
    INTO TABLE it_comp_hotel
   WHERE sociedad IN p_comp
     AND xhotel_id IN p_hotid.
BREAK-POINT.
SORT it_comp_hotel BY sociedad.
SELECT xhotel_id
         xfecha_id
         xocupacion
         tot_habs_hotel
         xnum_pax1
   FROM /ccsht/na_estadi
   INTO TABLE it_estadi "CORRESPONDING FIELDS OF TABLE it_estadi
    FOR ALL ENTRIES IN it_comp_hotel
WHERE xhotel_id EQ it_comp_hotel-xhotel_id
    AND xfecha_id IN p_date.
Can any one help me this issue.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks & Regards,
Amit

Hi Amit,
Try below
SELECT sociedad
xhotel_id
FROM /ccsht/mt_photel
INTO TABLE it_comp_hotel
WHERE sociedad IN p_comp
AND xhotel_id IN p_hotid.
BREAK-POINT.
* SORT it_comp_hotel BY sociedad. "Remove this SORT statement.
SELECT xhotel_id
xfecha_id
xocupacion
tot_habs_hotel
xnum_pax1
FROM /ccsht/na_estadi
INTO TABLE it_estadi
FOR ALL ENTRIES IN it_comp_hotel
WHERE xhotel_id EQ it_comp_hotel-xhotel_id
AND xfecha_id IN p_date.
Note: 1) i didn't find the these tables in my SAP system
         2) If your table is still not fetching the data, tell me is it the Cluster table,. if yes,.. you need to
             maintain the all the primary keys other wise you wont get the data in internal able.
hope this will help you out.
Regards!

Can we use inner joins with for all entries?

Hi,
    Can we use innerjoin on two tables MARA and MAKT against the materials in
    the internal table.
    If so ,please let me know whether there is performance issue.Because if there is
    bad performance issue or something else like thise means,my project manager
    wont allow to include.
    So can one let me know about this.
Thanks,
Balaji

Hi Arunkumar,
                           I think you are not clear.My question is can I use innerjoin with
for all entries.For example below is my code.
SELECT A~MATNR
         B~MAKTX
         A~MTART
         A~MATKL
         FROM MARA AS A INNER JOIN MAKT AS B
         ON AMATNR = BMATNR
         INTO TABLE IT_MARA_MAKT
         FOR ALL ENTRIES IN IT_MATNR
         WHERE A~MATNR = IT_MATNR-MATNR
         AND   A~EXTWG = P_EXTWG
         AND   A~SPART = P_SPART.
Can we use like this for all entries along with innerjoins.
Thanks,
Balaji

Problem with for all entries in select querry

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for