Characters allowed inside LIKE operator

Hi,
DB: Oracle 10g
SELECT   count(*)
FROM   mytable
WHERE   LOWER(mycolumn) LIKE LOWER('%<th sc="row">Havana</th>%')I am not sure if this pattern will be matched by LIKE operator because it has all sorts of
characters as you can see -> <, = ", /.
So, my questions
1. What characters are allowed inside LIKE?
2. Any other way of doing the same query?
3. Index on column "mycolumn" will be invalidated by %. right?
Please advise.
Thanks.
Edited by: abyss on Sep 23, 2010 3:50 PM

even the like statement will do the same(will not use Index) :)
to answer your first question, the char you have inthe SQL should be fine., I think it will work for all char except for
% and _ You can try with the REGEXP as alternate solution
Edited by: Prasath on Sep 23, 2010 1:56 PM

Similar Messages

LIKE operator- change symbol for [all characters]

I have an input parameter which contains symbols "*" (star symbol), example:
i_search_par := 'country * street';
I gonna do query:
select * from SearchTable
where col1 like i_search_par;
I want that the "*" would act the same way as "%"-symbol in LIKE operator.
So i want that query would return such results:
'country 1 street'
'country 200 street'
and so on.
What is the better way to achieve this, that "*" is going to be interpreted as a "any number of any symbols"?
Maybe i can say something like:
SET SESSION ANYCHAR SYMBOL = "*".
And after doing that Oracle understands in LIKE operators that star-symbol is like i want?
Or should i really do string replacement by replacing ""%" to "*" in "i_search_par" and in other 30 such varaibles?

Hi,
Sorry, I don't think there's any way to tell LIKE to use different wildcards.
CharlesRoos wrote:
I have ca 30 input parameters:
i_search_par1 := 'country * street';
i_search_par2 := 'country * street';
i_search_par30 := 'country * street';Wouldn't it be just as easy to say:
i_search_par1 := 'country % street';
i_search_par2 := 'country % street';
i_search_par30 := 'country % street';?
>
And i will use them all like this:
select * from T
where Col1 like i_search_par1
and Col2 like i_search_par2
and
Col30 like i_search_par30You could write a very simple user-defined function. It would be slower, but the query would be a tiny bit simpler:
select * from T
where my_like (Col1, i_search_par1) = 1
and my_like (Col2, i_search_par2) = 1
and my_like (Col30, i_search_par30) = 1
Then you suggest that i sgould do string replacement 30 times for each parameter?Do you mean 1 time for each parameter, or 30 times altogether? Yes.
Isn't there better solution?
Maybe database has instruction that changes interpetation of symbol "*" into "%".It would be handy, but I don't think such a thing exists.

Like operator query

i want example
about like operator
AND N.user_je_category_name LIKE'PAS_%'
and i want to said
AND N.user_je_category_name LIKE'PAS_%' and 'BS_'%
HOW MAKE THAT

Hi,
Usama Hashem wrote:
THANX FOR U BUT HOW USE GROUP BY IN THIS QUERY What makes you think there's anything wrong with it?
Are you getting an error message? If so, post the error message.
Are you getting the wrong results? If so, describe.
Whenever you post any code, format it to show the extent of major sections (sub-queries, nested functions, nested anything, multi-part concats, ...
Whenever there's a lot of code between a '(' and its matching ')', put them on separate lines, indent them the same amount, and indent everything in between them at least that much.
Type these 6 characters:
{code}
(all small letters, inside curly brackets) before and after sections of formatted text.
The longer the code is, the more important it is to do this.
It looks like you're doing something like this:
Select sum (debt)     debt
,     sum (credit)     credit
from     (
     Select ( SUM (l.ENTERED_DR)
          - SUM (l.ENTERED_CR)
          )               Debt,
          SUM (l.ENTERED_CR)
           - SUM (l.ENTERED_CR)     Credit
     from      gl_code_combinations M,
     where     ...
     AND      H.DEFAULT_EFFECTIVE_DATE BETWEEN :FROM_DATE AND :TO_DATE
     AND     (     N.user_je_category_name   NOT LIKE 'PAS_%'
          AND     N.user_je_category_name   NOT LIKE 'WS_%'
          OR     N.user_je_category_name   LIKE     'RE_%'
GROUP BY M.SEGMENT2
,            (    M.segment1   || '.'
         || M.segment2   || '.'
         || M. segment3 || '.'
         || M.segment4   || '.'
         || M. segment5 || '.'
         || M.segment6
-- Need   ) here?That is, the main query is based on an in-line view.
The only columns in that in-line view are debt and credit.
If you want to reference columns like segment1, segemnt2, ... in the main query, then you have to include them in the SELECT clause of the in-line view.
(Since the in-line view is a UNION, remember to include them in both SELECT clauses.)
Table alias M is only defined inside each branch of the UNION. In the main query, you'll reference the columns as segment1, segment2, ...
The following two items may be giving you the right results now, but even if so, they are accidents waiting to happen, and should be fixed.
(1) What is the data type of gl_je_headers.default_effective_date?
If it's a DATE then only compare it to other DATEs. Unfortunately, bind variables can't be DATEs, so you'll have to do something like:
...     AND      H.DEFAULT_EFFECTIVE_DATE BETWEEN TO_DATE (:FROM_DATE, 'DD-MON-YYYY')
                           AND        TO_DATE (:TO_DATE,   'DD-MON-YYYY')(2) Never mix AND and OR.
You probably need another layer of parentheses somewhere around:
...     AND     (     N.user_je_category_name   NOT LIKE 'PAS_%'
          AND     N.user_je_category_name   NOT LIKE 'WS_%'
          OR     N.user_je_category_name   LIKE     'RE_%'
          )Maybe
...     AND     (   (     N.user_je_category_name   NOT LIKE 'PAS_%'
              AND     N.user_je_category_name   NOT LIKE 'WS_%'
          OR     N.user_je_category_name   LIKE     'RE_%'
          )It looks like credit will always be 0 (or NULL) in the first branch of the UNION. Is that what you meant?

Like operator functionality

We have a simple select query which is using the 'Like' operator on a char(4) column.
In a oracle windows environment when we have a query such as:
select col1, col2, col3
from table1
where col1 like 'AB'
it returns everything which is = to 'AB' and doesn't seem to be including the trailing 2 spaces as would be stored becasue the column is char(4)
In a oracle unix environment when we the same query:
select col1, col2, col3
from table1
where col1 like 'AB'
it returns nothing...
It appears as if the version running on a windows environment is truncating the trailing 2 spaces when using the like expression but in a unix environment, it is not. Does anybody have any idea or clue what could be occuring or if there is some database setting which could cause this to occur?

Quote from Oracle Doc:
Character Values
Character values are compared using one of these comparison rules:
Blank-padded comparison semantics
Nonpadded comparison semantics
The following sections explain these comparison semantics.
Blank-Padded Comparison Semantics If the two values have different lengths, then Oracle first adds blanks to the end of the shorter one so their lengths are equal. Oracle then compares the values character by character up to the first character that differs. The value with the greater character in the first differing position is considered greater. If two values have no differing characters, then they are considered equal. This rule means that two values are equal if they differ only in the number of trailing blanks. Oracle uses blank-padded comparison semantics only when both values in the comparison are either expressions of datatype CHAR, NCHAR, text literals, or values returned by the USER function.
Nonpadded Comparison Semantics Oracle compares two values character by character up to the first character that differs. The value with the greater character in that position is considered greater. If two values of different length are identical up to the end of the shorter one, then the longer value is considered greater. If two values of equal length have no differing characters, then the values are considered equal. Oracle uses nonpadded comparison semantics whenever one or both values in the comparison have the datatype VARCHAR2 or NVARCHAR2.
"

Problem in JDBC , when using LIKE operator. - VERY URGENT

Problem in JDBC , when using LIKE operator.
LINE 1 : String temp = "AA";
LINE 2 : String query = "select * from emp where EMPNAME like '*temp*' ";
LINE 3 : Staement st = con.createStaement();
LINE 4 : ResultSet rs = st.executeQuery(query);
'*' character is not getting evaluated. In MS ACCESS2000 only * is accepted instead of '%'. Moreover in MS ACCESS the like operator has to be used within double quotes as a String. whereas in other databases, it accepts single quotes as a String.
Ex:
In MS ACCESS
     select * from emp where ename like "*aa*";
Other Databases
     select * from emp where ename like '%aa%';
In my situation iam passing a Variable inside a like operator and '*' is used.
For the above Scenario, Please help me out.
If possible Kindly let me know the exact Syntax.
Please give me the answer as LINE1,LINE2,LINE3,LINE4,
I have verified in JDBC Spec also, it has been specified to use escape sequence.that too did not work.
Due to this, My project is in hold for about 4 days. I could not find a suitable solution.
Please help me out.

I made a LIKE clause work with M$ Access, using PreparedStatement and the % wildcard:
            escapeStr                   = "%";
            String sql                  = "SELECT USERNAME, PASSWORD FROM USERS WHERE USERNAME LIKE ?";
            PreparedStatement statement = connection.prepareStatement(sql);
            statement.setString(1, ("user" + escapeStr));
            ResultSet resultSet         = statement.executeQuery();
            while (resultSet.next())
                System.out.println("username: " + resultSet.getObject("USERNAME") + " password: " + resultSet.getObject("PASSWORD"));

How does this LIKE operator work ?

Values JOHN and KEITH have spaces in the string.
create table string_test ( test_str varchar2(15));
insert into string_test values ('JO HN');
insert into string_test values ('JOHN');
insert into string_test values ('RAM');
insert into string_test values ('KEITH ');
SQL> select * from string_test;
TEST_STR
JO HN
JOHN
RAM
KEITHFrom OTN , i found the query to find all string values which has a white space in it.
select * from string_test where test_str like '%' || chr(32) || '%';But, i don't understand how this works. Won't the percent sign in single quotes ('%') be considered a literal ?

GarryB wrote:
Values JOHN and KEITH have spaces in the string.
create table string_test ( test_str varchar2(15));
insert into string_test values ('JO HN');
insert into string_test values ('JOHN');
insert into string_test values ('RAM');
insert into string_test values ('KEITH ');
SQL> select * from string_test;
TEST_STR
JO HN
JOHN
RAM
KEITHFrom OTN , i found the query to find all string values which has a white space in it.
select * from string_test where test_str like '%' || chr(32) || '%';But, i don't understand how this works. Won't the percent sign in single quotes ('%') be considered a literal ?No, because the "%" sign has special meaning to the LIKE operator. It's a wildcard meaning any characters.

How to use LIKE operator with PreparedStatement

Hi, I need to execute a query with the LIKE operator, but using a PreparedStatement. Can I do this, and if so what must my SQL look like with the wildcard characters '%' or '_'?
normal PS example: conn.prepareStatement("select * from mytable where name like ?");
If I try: conn.prepareStatement("select * from mytable where name like ?%");
I get: ORA-00911: invalid character
If I try: conn.prepareStatement("select * from mytable where name like '?%'");
I get: ORA-01006: bind variable does not exist
I must use a PreparedStatement, as my variable may contain illegal characters (like '), and using PreparedStatement.setString(1, var) will automatically escape it for me.
I could also use a normal Statement, but I need to escape my var ... is there a utility that will safely escape a String for an Oracle VARCHAR2??
Thanks in advance,
Stu Miller

Hmm, it seems you are right...
when my variable contains a '%' symbol, the PreparedStatement will NOT escape it, and thus it is treated like a wildcard. Therefore, I can just do
pstmt.setString(1, var+"%");
But, that may return more results than I'm asking for, as when 'var' contains a '%' symbol it is taken as a wildcard too.
I need each character in my variable to be taken literally, and only add a wildcard at the end. Basically, I need a STARTSWITH operator ;-)
It seems to me that escaping the sensitive characters in a String (which will differ depending on which operator is used), should be possible. I could write this, but I was hoping Oracle had already done it for me in some utility class.

LIKE Operator to ignore the time part of DATE type?

Hi,
is it allowed to use the LIKE operator on DATE Type to ignore the time-part in the DATE?
Nothing found in the manual, but seems to me that it works.
1. SELECT * FROM test_date WHERE tst_date LIKE to_date('01.01.2003 13:33:33','DD.MM.YYYY HH24:MI:SS') ;
2. SELECT * FROM test_date WHERE tst_date LIKE to_date('01.01.2003','DD.MM.YYYY') ;
3. SELECT * FROM test_date WHERE tst_date LIKE trunc(to_date('01.01.2003 00:00:00','DD.MM.YYYY HH24:MI:SS'));
4. SELECT * FROM test_date WHERE to_date('01.01.2003 13:33:33','DD.MM.YYYY HH24:MI:SS') LIKE tst_date;
5. SELECT * FROM test_date WHERE tst_date BETWEEN to_date('01.01.2003 00:00:00','DD.MM.YYYY HH24:MI:SS') AND to_date('01.01.2003 23:23:59','DD.MM.YYYY HH24:MI:SS');
6. SELECT * FROM test_date WHERE tst_date >= TO_DATE('01.01.2003 00:00:00','DD.MM.YYYY HH24:MI:SS') AND tst_date < TO_DATE('01.01.2003')+1;
7. SELECT * FROM test_date WHERE TRUNC(tst_date) = TRUNC(TO_DATE('01.01.2003 00:00:00','DD.MM.YYYY HH24:MI:SS'));
Result for 1-7 is the same.
What is the preferred Solution?
Solution 5 is bad, because index on TST_DATE column could not be used.
Solution 1 - 3 is the same using the LIKE operator.
Any comments?
Thanks, Markus
GEMS IT

Oh, sorry, LIKE-Operator solutions do also not use an Index :-(. Only 5. and 6.
Sample-Script:
CREATE TABLE TEST_DATE
TST_DATE DATE
CREATE INDEX MEDVIEW.TEST_DATE_IDX
ON MEDVIEW.TEST_DATE(TST_DATE);
INSERT INTO TEST_DATE ( TST_DATE ) VALUES (
TO_Date( '01/01/2003 12:00:00 AM', 'MM/DD/YYYY HH:MI:SS AM'));
INSERT INTO TEST_DATE ( TST_DATE ) VALUES (
TO_Date( '01/01/2003 12:45:13 PM', 'MM/DD/YYYY HH:MI:SS AM'));
INSERT INTO TEST_DATE ( TST_DATE ) VALUES (
TO_Date( '01/01/2003 08:11:55 AM', 'MM/DD/YYYY HH:MI:SS AM'));
INSERT INTO TEST_DATE ( TST_DATE ) VALUES (
TO_Date( '01/01/2003 12:00:00 AM', 'MM/DD/YYYY HH:MI:SS AM'));
INSERT INTO TEST_DATE ( TST_DATE ) VALUES (
TO_Date( '01/01/2003 09:33:16 AM', 'MM/DD/YYYY HH:MI:SS AM'));
INSERT INTO TEST_DATE ( TST_DATE ) VALUES (
TO_Date( '01/02/2003 07:45:00 AM', 'MM/DD/YYYY HH:MI:SS AM'));
INSERT INTO TEST_DATE ( TST_DATE ) VALUES (
TO_Date( '01/02/2003 07:33:00 PM', 'MM/DD/YYYY HH:MI:SS AM'));
COMMIT;

Select Performance problems using the 'like' operator

I have a PL/SQL procedure that uses a cursor which contains a 'like' operator in the where clause. I have two database instances that are theoretically the same, however this code processes about 100,000 rows in 5 minutes on one database and 100,000 rows in several weeks on the other database. I know it is the 'like' operator that is causing the problem, but I don't know where to look in the database setup parameters as to what could be different between the two. Can someone point me in the right direction?

I tried to think of another way to write the query, but I really need to use the wildcard option on the data I'm searching for. The system I'm working with attaches a suffix to the end of every ID (ie. '214-222-1234-0') The suffix ('-0') increments but the rest of the ID stays the same ('-1','-2',etc...), but I want to find all of the rows where the first 12 characters are the same, so I strip off the suffix and use a wildcard '%' in its place. I tried adding the SUBSTR() function to the left hand column of the where clause, but it was even slower than using the 'like' operator. I know its a sound query, I just can't figure out why it works fine on one database and not the other.

Problem in using like Operator

Hi, can any one help me in finding out if we can use a column name in the like operator...
for example i want to compare a column with another column in the same table...
column1 has a value as omer123
and cloumn2 has a value as omer
i just want to find out those records in which column2 contains in column1
column1 column2 column3
omer12 omer This is the one
12jack sda asds
1233 asd asd
12Aug212 dasd adsasd
i want to write a query which will return ' This is the one ' as its col2 is in col1
This is what i wrote but the problem is in the like operator
select t1.cloumn3
from table_name t1,table_name t2
where t1.id = t2.id
and t1.column1 like %t2.column2%
plz help..
thankz

Your wildcard characters need to be quoted, thus:
SELECT t1.column3
FROM table_name t1,
table_name t2
WHERE t1.id = t2.id
AND t1.column1 LIKE '%'||t2.column2||'%' ;

Can I use a LIKE operator in an IF statement in a column formula

This is what I have so far.
CASE WHEN Opportunity."Sales Type" LIKE '*New Acct' THEN 'Sale to NEW Customer' END
I want to display 'Sale to NEW Customer' if opportunity type contains the terms New Acct.

Try this:
CASE WHEN Opportunity."Sales Type" LIKE '%New Acct' THEN 'Sale to NEW Customer' END
The LIKE operator requires a % wildcard rather than the * wildcard.
Mike L.

Why the 'LIKE' operator takes so much time to run?

I have a table T with 3 columns and 3 indexes:
CREATE TABLE T
id VARCHAR2(38) NOT NULL,
fid VARCHAR2(38) NOT NULL,
val NVARCHAR2(2000) NOT NULL
ALTER TABLE T ADD (CONSTRAINT pk_t PRIMARY KEY (id,fid));
CREATE INDEX t_fid ON T(fid);
CREATE INDEX t_val ON T(val);
Then I have the following two queries which differ in only one place - the 1st one uses the '=' operator whereas the 2nd uses 'LIKE'. Both queries have the identical execution plan and return one identical row. However, the 1st query takes almost 0 second to execute, and the 2nd one takes more than 12 seconds, on a pretty beefy machine. I had played with the target text, like placing '%' here and/or there, and observed the similar timing every time.
So I am wondering what I should change to make the 'LIKE' operator run as fast as the '=' operator. I know CONTEXT/CATALOG index is a viable approach, but I am just trying to find out if there is a simpler alternative, such as a better use of the index t_val.
1) Query with '=' operator
SELECT id
FROM T
WHERE fid = '{999AE6E4-1ED9-459B-9BB0-45C913668C8C}'
AND val = '3504038055275883124';
2) Query with 'LIKE' operator
SELECT id
FROM T
WHERE fid = '{999AE6E4-1ED9-459B-9BB0-45C913668C8C}'
AND val LIKE '3504038055275883124';
Execution Plan
0 SELECT STATEMENT Optimizer=ALL_ROWS (Cost=1 Card=1 Bytes=99)
1 0 TABLE ACCESS (BY INDEX ROWID) OF 'T' (Cost=1 Card=1 Bytes=99)
2 1 INDEX (RANGE SCAN) OF 'T_VAL' (NON-UNIQUE) (Cost=4 Card=12)

I will for sure try to change the order of the PK and see whether there will be any impact to the performance.
In our application, val is much closer to a unique value than fid. In the example query, the execution plan showed that the index on val was indeed used in the execution of the query. That's why the 1st query took almost no time to return (our table T has more than 6 million rows).
I was hoping the 'LIKE' operator would utilize the t_val index effectively and provide similar performance to the '=' operator. But apparently that's not the case, or needs some tricks.

[Microsoft][SQL Server Native Client 11.0][SQL Server]The text, ntext, and image data types cannot be compared or sorted, except when using IS NULL or LIKE operator. 'Items' (OITM) (OITM)

Dear Experts,
i am getting the below error when i was giving * (Star) to view all the items in DB
[Microsoft][SQL Server Native Client 11.0][SQL Server]The text, ntext, and image data types cannot be compared or sorted, except when using IS NULL or LIKE operator. 'Items' (OITM) (OITM)
As i was searching individually it is working fine
can any one help me how to find this..
Regards,
Meghanath.S

Dear Nithi Anandham,
i am not having any query while finding all the items in item master data i am giving find mode and in item code i was trying to type *(Star) and enter while typing enter the above issue i was facing..
Regards,
Meghanath

Error in SQL Query The text, ntext, and image data types cannot be compared or sorted, except when using IS NULL or LIKE operator. for the query

hi Experts,
while running SQL Query i am getting an error as
The text, ntext, and image data types cannot be compared or sorted, except when using IS NULL or LIKE operator. for the query
select T1. Dscription,T1.docEntry,T1.Quantity,T1.Price ,
T2.LineText
from OQUT T0 INNER JOIN QUT1 T1 ON T0.DocEntry = T1.DocEntry INNER JOIN
QUT10 T2 ON T1.DocEntry = T2.DocEntry where T1.DocEntry='590'
group by T1. Dscription,T1.docEntry,T1.Quantity,T1.Price
,T2.LineText
how to resolve the issue

Dear Meghanath,
Please use the following query, Hope your purpose will serve.
select T1. Dscription,T1.docEntry,T1.Quantity,T1.Price ,
CAST(T2.LineText as nvarchar (MAX))[LineText]
from OQUT T0 INNER JOIN QUT1 T1 ON T0.DocEntry = T1.DocEntry LEFT OUTER JOIN
QUT10 T2 ON T1.DocEntry = T2.DocEntry --where T1.DocEntry='590'
group by T1. Dscription,T1.docEntry,T1.Quantity,T1.Price
,CAST(T2.LineText as nvarchar (MAX))
Regards,
Amit

Sony, please tell me how you allow something like this to happen? Horrific Support Experience

So, the below happened. Essentialy, Sony sent me four broken TVs, forced me to spend about 20 hours of time replacing those TVs, and has refused to replace my broken television. The below is a chain with one of your reps. I would never have expected such a poor customer service experience from a company of Sony's caliber. It has been very disappointing. You insist that you are giving me an "offer" but you have given me no options whatsoever.
I note that you continue to maintain that there is no viable replacement. However, a simple search on your webpage and online shows that there are multiple 48 inch LED televisions still available. I find your representation to be disengenuous. The below chain is only one point in the long line of frustrating communications with your representatives. All told me different things and made promises that were not kept. I can only imagine how my case file looks.
I would like an explanation from Sony how you could allow something like this to happen? This has been the most frustrating experience I have ever had with a electronics company -- and I have had alot. It has been terrible.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: []
Date: Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [] *Mark*
To: Sony Support USA <>
To be clear, I am not "accepting" your offer as I don't think it is fair or makes me whole. I am telling you to do whatever you have to do. You have given me no real other options.
On Jun 26, 2015, at 7:04 PM, Sony Support USA <> wrote:
Hi [],
Thank you for contacting Sony and for accepting the offer. We apologize that we cannot offer you the regular retail price of the unit since that is not the amount that you paid it for. We will email you a prepaid shipping label which you can use to ship us back your TV and once we determined that it is in transit back to us we will process the check with the amount of $369.99 and you will receive the check in 4-6 weeks. Thank you.
Regards,
Mark C7NO
Sony National Customer Relations
From:[]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 9:20 PM
To: Sony Support USA
Subject: Re: [] *Mark*
How you get away with treating your customers like this is beyond me. I am telling you that I purchased the television at a discounted rate that I am no longer able to obtain. In other words, the amount you are refunding me will not make me whole. I am also telling you that your colleague literally offered me a refurbished TV about two hours ago (apparently your group offers less to customers now). You have already sent me three TVs and wasted about 20 hours of my time. Despite all that, you unapologetically state that your "FINAL" offer gets me to nowhere that I need to be. You have no remorse for the situation and have not gone any extra distance to make a customer whole, which is all that I am asking for.
You have beaten me into submission over the past month with broken TVs, hours wasted shipping, long conversations with support representatives, and failed promises. You guys go ahead and do whatever it is you need to do. There is only so much that I can argue about. No customer should expect this type of treatment from a company like Sony. People purchase Sony so that they DONT have to deal with that type of nonsense. This has honestly been the worst customer service interaction I have ever had.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Sony Support USA <> wrote:
Thank you for contacting Sony. We double checked if there is a same or comparable refurbished unit for replacement but there is none. Your file is being already being handled by our department which is the highest level you can get since our managers and supervisors are not part of the escalation path. The $319.99 is the amount that you paid for the TV and that is what we are going to refund you and the $50 is for compensation. You are getting more than what you paid for the TV so Sony believes it will cut it. Our offer is FINAL. Thank you.
Regards,
Mark C7NO
Sony National Customer Relations
From: []
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 8:38 PM
To: Sony Support USA
Subject: Re: [] *Mark*
Mark,
I just spoke to an individual on the phone who told me that you could send a refurbished model . That conversation is exactly what prompted my email to this email address -- they told me to reach out here because you could provide me a better option rather than the two that were given. Now you are telling me that not only can you not offer me a better option but that you are taking away an option previously given. This is getting more and more ridiculous. I am sorry but this just isnt working for me. I dont understand how there is this much miscommunication between your departments.
I would like to be put in touch with a manager on this case. Your offer to refund me 320 + 50 will not cut it. I am amazed that a company like Sony, which people purchase because of the supposed product support and service, is failing their customer in this way. It's very disappointing.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Sony Support USA <> wrote:
Hi [],
Thank you for contacting Sony. Like we mentioned from our last email, the best and final offer is the buyback. If you don’t like the offer then we don’t have any other option for you. Thank you for choosing Sony.
Regards,
Mark C7NO
Sony National Customer Relations
From: []
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 8:10 PM
To: Sony Support USA
Subject: Re: [] *Mark*
Thanks, Mark. My preference would then be to try a refurbished model one more time. The issue is that I got the TV at Black Friday discount. I wouldnt be able to replace it even if I wanted to. So, I will try one more time and go from there. Please let me know once the TV is shipped.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Sony Support USA <> wrote:
Hi [].
Thank you for contacting Sony. We apologize if you don’t want that option but this is the best Sony can offer since there is no same or comparable model to offer you anymore. If the unit will be replaced it will be the 4th time already and to tell you honestly it will be much cheaper for you to just buyback the unit rather than to pay the shipper deliver the TV every time we replace it and we are not saying that it is your fault just to make it clear. We will buyback the unit for $319.99 and we will add up another $50 as compensation for all the troubles. Please let us know once you have made your decision. Thank you.
Regards,
Mark C7NO
Sony National Customer Relations
From: []
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:16 PM
To: Sony Support USA
Subject: Re: [] *Mark*
I don't want that option. I would take a refurbished model again over the refund.
You are saying that I spend 20 hours of my life dealing with you, driving to and from fed ex three times, mounting and taking down three broken televisions, and you do nothing to compensate me for my time? I would never expect this from a company like Sony.
On Jun 26, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Sony Support USA <> wrote:
Hi [],
Thank you for contacting Sony. As we have mentioned there is no same or comparable model to offer you that is why we offered a buyback for the unit and that is the only option thank you.
Regards,
Mark C7NO
Sony National Customer Relations
From:
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:05 PM
To: Sony Support USA
Subject:
As I said, I don't want a buy back. That is not an option for me.
Are you saying that you have no other 48inch led television?
On Jun 26, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Sony Support USA <> wrote:
Hi [],
Thank you for contacting Sony. We apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused you. Since there is no same or comparable model to send you as a replacement we will buyback the Tv for $319.99. We will email you a prepaid shipping label for you to return the unit back to us and once we determine that the unit is in transit we will process the check and you will receive it in 4-6 weeks. Should you take the offer please provide the address where the check should be sent to. Thank you.
Regards,
Mark C7NO
Sony National Customer Relations
From:
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 6:49 PM
To: Sony Support USA
Subject:
Over the past month, you have sent me four defective TVs. I cannot tell you how frustrating this process has been for me. I never would have thought that a company like Sony could be this bad. It has been like pulling teeth with you all.
I purchased my television thinking that it would come along with the best product and support in the market. That has not been the case. My TV broke down within a year and now you have sent literally four televisions to replace it but none of them have worked.
The latest contact I got was that you have run out of new television for my model and instead need to send me another refurbished one or refund me. I do not want either option.
I want a brand new TV. I dont care if it's the same one or a better one but it has to be new. It cannot be refurbished. I do not want a refund.
At this point, I have spent about 20 hours of my life on the phone with you or shipping back and forth items. I would also like compensation to account for that time.
Please email me or call me with a response.

Hi adam26,
Welcome to the Sony Community!
We certainly empathize with your frustration and we apologize for the inconvenience caused. Please check your other thread here, we saw someone from our customer relation department already responded to your inquiry. Again, we sincerely hope to seek your kind understanding on this matter.
Regards,
Dave

Characters allowed inside LIKE operator

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for