Order By Clause with Empty Field values !

Hello,
In Oracle , the order by clause does not return the expected query result, if any of the field value in the order by clause has an empty string.
Oracle treats the empty string as null value and ORDER BY gives a result with the empty string field values listed at last.
For example :
test is a sample table containing "name" field.
Query: "select name from test order by name"
In SQL Server/Access
Result (1)
NAME
(blank)
(blank)
User1
User2
User3
In Oracle
Result (2)
NAME
User1
User2
User3
(blank)
(blank)
I know some of the Work arounds for this as listed below :
1) To use NVL in Order By Clause.
i.e., the modified query
"select name from test order by nvl(name,0)"
gives the result same as Result (1).
2) To have single blank space in the field value if it is empty.
I dont want to use either of these two options b'se it would lead to a mass change in my existing code.
Is there any way i can do a
collation order settings in the Oracle databases to get the results as in MS SQL/Access.
Can Any help me out in Solving this?
Thanks
Devi Shankar
null

Bharath,
I am moving this question to the SQL forum.
Regards,
Geoff

Similar Messages

Why order by clause maintains column number values instead of column names

why order by clause maintains column number values instead of column names ?

we can use oder by 1,2 as column number
UGNo one said that it can't be used. What's your point?
To OP: It can be written with the column's 'select list positional number' just because for the support of laziness. :)
There's no difference between 'ORDER BY name, address' and 'ORDER BY 1,2'.

How to find roles with open field values

Hello SAP gurus,
I need to find a way to find roles with open field values. Some kind of report that returns me a list of all roles that, despite having a generated profile, it still contains empty field values in it.
Is there anything like it available on SAP?
Thanks
Antonio

Some kind of report that returns me a list of all roles that, despite having a generated profile, it still contains empty field values in it
Hey I am not sure, but seems I might have seen some report like that. Can you try search report named PFCG* / PFUD*
Again this is either report (SE38/SA38) or may be FM (SE37). I am away from system a bit while and can't recall.
Regards,
Arpan Paik

Decode in order by clause with desc

I want to user order by clause with decode + desc order.
somthing like
ORDER BY DECODE ('SALE', e.sale, 'SALE DESC' ????)
????-> How to use desc order with decode
Thanks in advance

I thought smart people in this OTN community will understand that I am trying to order by the thisdate column that is timestamp datatype:). My apologize for not being that specific.
The query I gave is a simple version of the stored procedure I am using. The point is I need to order by - depending on one of the parameters that is passed to the procedure. In simplest decode statements, its something like
order by decode(p_in_var,'ABC','thisdate asc','DEF','thisdate desc',thisdate asc)
Here p_in_var is varchar input parameter to the stored procedure.
Please let me know if there is any more information needed.
Thx!

Arrow mark with kunnr field values in alv output.

Hi ,
I need to increase the column field length. I am using Function Module REUSE_ALV_LIST_DISPLAY because alv_grid display fm is not available in 4.0b version. I have used column optimization in layout. The column kunnr is coming with a small arrow though there is no data loss. Is there any way I can remove the arrow mark with kunnr field values.

Hi,
You can increase your column lenght in fieldcat by using Fcat-columnwidth = "SIZE OF KUNNR ".
Set the size of kunnr field in fieldcat and get the appropiate output.
Regards
Abdul

Show row/column with empty dimension values.

I have 2 columns where 1 column is dimension and 1 column is measure. I need to hide the row when the dimension is empty.
What I did is at the block I UN-TICK "Show row/column with empty dimension values". But it didnt works.
Thanks.

click on the block and add a filter with condition dimension isnotnull. this will eliminate the dimension rows with empty values.
Thanks,
karthik

Order by clause based on parameter value

hi,
i am using reports 6i with 10 g db
I have to create a report sorted in order of four fields. there is a parameter for selecting which field should come first in order by clause.
ie the user has provision to view the report in selected sorted order
suppose the four fields are emp_id, name, dept_id, desig .
if the user select dept_id , then the order by clause should be in order of dept_id,emp_id,name,desig
Please help to solve this scenario.
Thanks

Hi Rinz,
Use the query as follows :
select column_name1, column_name1, ....
from table_name
&order_by_clauseNow in the AFTER-PARAMETER-FORM trigger set the order by clause as below depending upon requirements :
if :sort_column = dept_id then
:order_by_clause := 'order by dept_id,emp_id,name,desig';
else
:order_by_clause := 'order by emp_id, dept_id, name,desig';
end if;
Here sort_column is User parameter which will be selected by user, provide list of Values for it.
Hope this helps
Best Regards
Arif Khadas

How to use "Order by" clause dynamically on LOV values in 10g r2 forms

Hi ,
I have following requirement,please guide me.
1 Create a List Of Values with 2 fields, Code and Description
2. Do not use order by clause in record Group Query
3. Attach this LOV to a field in Form
4. When user invokes the LOV user will see two fields in LOV with header as Code and Description
5. Now when user clicks on Column Header “Code” then LOV should be sorted on Code
6. And if User clicks on Column Header “Description” then LOV should be sorted on Description
Thanks in Advance.

Kindly post this problem in this forum ->
[Forms Forum|http://forums.oracle.com/forums/forum.jspa?forumID=82]
And, close this thread by marked it as answered. ;)
Regards.
Satyaki De.

ORDER BY clause with expression

Considering that all the column names and table name is valid, what happens internally when the following query is run?
SQL> SELECT STU_ID, STU_NAME FROM STUDENT ORDER BY 2+3, STU_ID;
What i found out was the rows get ordered in ascending order of STU_ID. It's quite clear that it is ignoring the expressing 2+3, so my doubts are:
(a) Is it appending any pseudo-column to the table with 2+3 getting evaluated to 5?
(b) If there exist a 5th column in the table student and we specify it in the select statement's select list (5 column names) then why its not considering it as 5 and sorting the data according that?
(c) Is it true that, any expression we write is getting evaluated to NULL? Then is it that ORDER BY NULL evaluates to no ordering and the parser searches for next column-name or position (if specified) ?
(d) if neither then, what's the reason of the ignorance?

Hi,
Welcome to the forum!
987236 wrote:
Considering that all the column names and table name is valid, what happens internally when the following query is run?
SQL> SELECT STU_ID, STU_NAME FROM STUDENT ORDER BY 2+3, STU_ID;
What i found out was the rows get ordered in ascending order of STU_ID. It's quite clear that it is ignoring the expressing 2+3, so my doubts are:
(a) Is it appending any pseudo-column to the table with 2+3 getting evaluated to 5There's no pseduo-column involved. (Pseudo-columns are something that Oracle provides for you, without you having to spell out what you want. ROWID and LEVEL are examples of pseudo-columns. In this example, 2+3 is an Expression . Like pseudo-columns, expressions can usually appear in the ORDER BY clause, even though they are not actually stored in the table.)
It's sorting first by the NUMBER 5 (= 2 + 3), not the 5th column. Since the NUMBER 5 has the same value on every row, every row ties for first place. The result of sorting by any constant is the same; the results are the same as not including that exrpression in the ORDER BY clause. That is the ORDER BY clause you posted is equivalent to
ORDER BY 2 + 3
,         'foo'
,         SYSDATE
,         NULL
,         stu_idand it's also equivalent to
ORDER BY stu_idNone of the expressions except stu_id vary from row to row, so none of them affect the sorting.
(b) If there exist a 5th column in the table student and we specify it in the select statement's select list (5 column names) then why its not considering it as 5 and sorting the data according that?As Solomon said, only number literals are taken to mean a column. 5 is a number literal, so
ORDER BY 5means "sort by the 5th column", but 2 + 3 is not a literal (it's an expression that happens to include a couple of literals), so
ORDER BY 2 + 3does not refer to the 5th colunmn.
(c) Is it true that, any expression we write is getting evaluated to NULL? Then is it that ORDER BY NULL evaluates to no ordering and the parser searches for next column-name or position (if specified) ?No, when you way "ORDER BY x", the rows with lower values of x come first, followed by rows with higher values of x. Rows with the same value of x will be together, in no particular order with respect to each other (unless there is a tie-breaker expression later in the ORDER BY clause.
That's exactly what happens when you say "ORDER BY NULL". NULL has the same value (actually, the same lack of any value) on all rows, so all the rows have the same value of x, and they will appear in no particular order.
(d) if neither then, what's the reason of the ignorance?

Order by clause with union

Hi,
I wanted to know if this is possible with order by clause and union. some how union messes up the ordering of the left part of the union statement.
assume the data is as below in table tab1
c1 c2
4 1
4 2
5 1
5 2
7 1
7 2
8 3
9 4
the expected output must be for all c1 < 7 ordering must be on c1 and for all c1 > 7 ordering must be on c2.
so the query i tried was
select c1,c2 from tab1 where c1 <7 order by c1
union
select c1,c2 from tab1 where c1 >=7 order by c2
it is giving the message 'Sql command not properly ended'.
Suggestions are welcome

SQL>
SQL> With t As
2 (
3 Select 4 c1, 1 c2 From dual Union All
4 Select 4 ,2       From dual Union All
5 Select 5 ,1       From dual Union All
6 Select 5 ,2       From dual Union All
7 Select 7 ,1       From dual Union All
8 Select 7 ,2       From dual Union All
9 Select 8 ,3       From dual Union All
10 Select 9 ,4       From dual
11 ), t1 As (Select c1,c2 From t Where c1 <7 Order By c1)
12 ,t2 As (select c1,c2 from t where c1 >=7 Order By c2)
13 Select * From t1 Union All
14 Select * From t2;
        C1         C2
         4          1
         4          2
         5          1
         5          2
         7          1
         7          2
         8          3
         9          4
8 rows selected
SQL> /*-- Union All
2   select c1,c2 from t where c1 >=7
3   Order By c1,c2;
4 */
5
with union clause order by must be placed in the end,,
select c1 from dual union all
select c2 from dual
order by c1

Conditional order by clause with multiple columns

I would like to know whether it is possible to include multiple columns in a conditional order by clause.
Ex: I have written the following PL / SQL :
CREATE PROCEDURE GetProducts
@OrderBy VARCHAR(50),
@Input2 VARCHAR(30)
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON
SELECT Id, ProductName, Description, Price, Quantity
FROM Products
WHERE ProductName LIKE @Input2
ORDER BY
CASE
WHEN @OrderBy = 'ProductNameAsc' THEN ProductName
END ASC,
CASE
WHEN @OrderBy = 'ProductNameDesc' THEN ProductName
END DESC
END
Now I want to include when the Orderby - "Productnameasc" then order by productname, price, stdate
else
orderby productname, crdate, category
Could this be done? I tried it, but couldn't get this to work.
Any help is greatly appreciated.

Since matching ORDER BY columns have different data types (first column for CLERK is sal - number, first column for MANAGER deptno is number but first column for "else" is a string) we need to convert number to string but preserve number sort order. Since DEPTNO is NUMBER(2) we will use TO_CHAR with format 'S00'. Since SAL is NUMBER(7,2) we will use TO_CHAR with format model 'S00000D00'. For EMPNO we will use TO_CHAR with format model 'S0000'.
select deptno,
        empno,
        ename,
        job,
        sal
from emp
order by case job
             when 'CLERK' then to_char(sal,'S00000D00')
             when 'MANAGER' then to_char(deptno,'S00')
             else ename
           end,
           case job
             when 'CLERK' then to_char(deptno,'S00')
             else job
           end,
           case job
             when 'CLERK' then job
             when 'MANAGER' then to_char(empno,'S0000')
           end
    DEPTNO      EMPNO ENAME      JOB              SAL
        20       7369 SMITH      CLERK            800
        30       7900 JAMES      CLERK            950
        20       7876 ADAMS      CLERK           1100
        10       7934 MILLER     CLERK           1300
        10       7782 CLARK      MANAGER         2450
        20       7566 JONES      MANAGER         2975
        30       7698 BLAKE      MANAGER         2850
        30       7499 ALLEN      SALESMAN        1600
        20       7902 FORD       ANALYST         3000
        10       7839 KING       PRESIDENT       5000
        30       7654 MARTIN     SALESMAN        1250
    DEPTNO      EMPNO ENAME      JOB              SAL
        20       7788 SCOTT      ANALYST         3000
        30       7844 TURNER     SALESMAN        1500
        30       7521 WARD       SALESMAN        1250
14 rows selected.
SQL> SY.

Writing order by clause with user parameter

I have a user parameter where the user is supposed to choose what column they want to sort by.
And they can choose between k.personnr and k.personnavn. I am trying to do this with a decode function.
Now this would work fine if there was no union between these select statements.
But with the union I get a ORA-01785, where they tell me to put in a number.
Here is the sql:
SELECT
k.personnr as PERSON ,
k.personnavn as NAVN,
r.belop as SUM,
concat(to_char(r.bilagdato,'MM'), to_char(r.bilagdato,'YYYY')) AS MND,
PERIODE(concat(to_char(r.bilagdato,'MM'), to_char(r.bilagdato,'YYYY'))) AS PERIODE
FROM
reskontro r,
klient k,
kontoplan p,
konto c
WHERE
r.distriktnr='21'
and r.distriktnr=c.kontoid
and r.distriktnr=k.distriktnr
and r.personnr=k.personnr
and r.kontonr=p.kontonr
and (((r.bilagdato between :p_fra_dato and :p_til_dato) and (:p_fra_dato <= c.overfort) and (:p_til_dato <= c.overfort))
or ((r.bilagdato between :p_fra_dato and c.overfort) and (:p_fra_dato <= c.overfort) and (:p_til_dato >= c.overfort)))
UNION ALL
SELECT
k.personnr as PERSON ,
k.personnavn as NAVN,
(t.belop/100) as SUM,
concat(to_char(t.bilagdato,'MM'), to_char(t.bilagdato,'YYYY')) AS MND,
PERIODE(concat(to_char(t.bilagdato,'MM'), to_char(t.bilagdato,'YYYY')),:P_HORISONTAL) AS PERIODE
FROM
transaksjon t,
klient k,
kontoplan p
WHERE
t.distriktnr='21'
and t.distriktnr=k.distriktnr
and t.personnr=k.personnr
and t.kontonr=p.kontonr
and t.bilagdato between :p_fra_dato and :p_til_dato
This is the order by clause I would like to use:
order by decode(:p_order_by,'Personnavn',k.personnavn,k.personnr)
I also get an error when I use:
order by decode(:p_order_by,'Personnavn',2,1)
Can anybody tell me how to work around this problem?

Hi,
One way you can do to get around this problem could be :
select * from (
SELECT
k.personnr as PERSON ,
k.personnavn as NAVN,
r.belop as SUM,
concat(to_char(r.bilagdato,'MM'), to_char(r.bilagdato,'YYYY')) AS MND,
PERIODE(concat(to_char(r.bilagdato,'MM'), to_char(r.bilagdato,'YYYY'))) AS PERIODE
FROM
reskontro r,
klient k,
kontoplan p,
konto c
WHERE
r.distriktnr='21'
and r.distriktnr=c.kontoid
and r.distriktnr=k.distriktnr
and r.personnr=k.personnr
and r.kontonr=p.kontonr
and (((r.bilagdato between :p_fra_dato and :p_til_dato) and (:p_fra_dato <= c.overfort) and (:p_til_dato <= c.overfort))
or ((r.bilagdato between :p_fra_dato and c.overfort) and (:p_fra_dato <= c.overfort) and (:p_til_dato >= c.overfort)))
UNION ALL
SELECT
k.personnr as PERSON ,
k.personnavn as NAVN,
(t.belop/100) as SUM,
concat(to_char(t.bilagdato,'MM'), to_char(t.bilagdato,'YYYY')) AS MND,
PERIODE(concat(to_char(t.bilagdato,'MM'), to_char(t.bilagdato,'YYYY')),:P_HORISONTAL) AS PERIODE
FROM
transaksjon t,
klient k,
kontoplan p
WHERE
t.distriktnr='21'
and t.distriktnr=k.distriktnr
and t.personnr=k.personnr
and t.kontonr=p.kontonr
and t.bilagdato between :p_fra_dato and :p_til_dato)
order by decode(:p_order_by,'Personnavn', NAVN, PERSON)
/Uffe

ViewObjects Order by clause with DECODE

Hello!
I am using Jdeveloper 11g, version 11.1.1.2.0.
The problem I'm having is this.
If I use a DECODE statement in view objects ORDER BY clause, I get an error: "java.util.regex.PatternSyntaxException: Unmatched closing ')' near index 2".
Let me give an example. I'll be using EmployeesView view object, which is using Employees entity from HR schema.
This is a part of view objects XML.
<ViewObject
xmlns="http://xmlns.oracle.com/bc4j"
Name="EmployeesView"
Version="11.1.1.55.36"
SelectList="Employees.EMPLOYEE_ID,
Employees.FIRST_NAME,
Employees.LAST_NAME,
Employees.EMAIL,
Employees.PHONE_NUMBER,
Employees.HIRE_DATE,
Employees.JOB_ID,
Employees.SALARY,
Employees.COMMISSION_PCT,
Employees.MANAGER_ID,
Employees.DEPARTMENT_ID"
FromList="EMPLOYEES Employees"
BindingStyle="OracleName"
CustomQuery="false"
PageIterMode="Full"
UseGlueCode="false"
OrderBy="Employees.MANAGER_ID">
As you can see in this case, the Order by clause is very simple. This works like a charm.
But, if put something like this "DECODE(Employees.MANAGER_ID, NULL, 1, 2)" in the Order by, I get an internal parsing error.
I replicated this error on my home machine as well as on my work machine. I'm using the same version of Jdeveloper on both.
Has anyone else stumbled upon this problem and solved it?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated :)
Kristjan

The second example works, but the first one doesn't, unfortunately :/
Also, the example I gave is unfortunately just that, a proof-of-concept example that there is a problem with DECODE if it is written inside the Order by clause.
My real DECODE use case is a bit different. Like this: "DECODE(attribute, 'N', 1, 2) ASC".
Since posting my original question, I did some research-by-example work and I discovered that this is not just a problem of DECODE, but more like a problem of brackets and commas.
No database function that uses more than one parameter can be used in Order by clause.
The reason is, if a function with more than one parameter is used, commas inside brackets have to be used. Something along the lines of: "database_function(param1, param2, ...)".
The parser seems to have a problem with this kind of expressions.
Is there a work around?
Kristjan
p.s.: Thank you for your quick response.

Joining tables with "similar" field values

I have run into a situation where I want to join two tables on a field called U_LotusBox.    In my main table the the feild can contain values like 1 or 2 or 3 or 1,2,3,4. That's 1 comma 2 comma 3 comma 4. My field in the second tables contains only single digit values, like 1 ,2, 3 up to 5.
When the two fields are identical I am able to retrieve data. But if my field in the main contains a value of 1,2,3 and my secondary table field value is 2 I get no data returned because the two fields are not identical.
Is it possible to have a join that is "fuzzy" meaning that if the main table field values contains the value of the secondary field value, 2 in my example would it be possible to return data?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Ralph,
Here in high-level details is an SQL example of creating two tables (test1 and test2) with one column in each table (col_a and col_b, respectively) to show how a join on a substring of one column can be tied to a column of another table:
create table test1 (col_a char(5))
create table test2 (col_b char(1))
insert into test1 values ('1')
insert into test1 values ('1,2,3')
insert into test2 values ('1')
insert into test2 values ('2')
select col_a,test2_tbl1.col_b
from test1 inner join test2 as test2_tbl1 on col_a=test2_tbl1.col_b or
substring(col_a,1,1)=test2_tbl1.col_b or
substring(col_a,3,1)=test2_tbl1.col_b or
substring(col_a,5,1)=test2_tbl1.col_b
col_a     col_b
~~~~~~~|~~~~~
1         1
1,2,3     1
1,2,3     2
thanks,
John

Weblink with dynamic field value, plus wildcard

I am trying to use the weblink functionality to access a SharePoint site where images are saved. Contained within the image name is a field value in the CRM, but the name may have other characters in it as well. Plus, there might be more than one image that matches the request.
Rather than re-naming the hundreds of images on the site to work with standard weblink passing the field value, I'd like to be able to add a wildcard to the weblink so that it can pick all images containing that value. I've tried using the /*%%%FIELDNAME%%%, but that hasn't worked.
Any ideas?

This can not be done with a Weblink to your sharepoint server alone because it's conceptually flawed. Weblink points to One_ specific web address or file.
Here is a test. In your IE, you could go to Files --> Open --> Navigate to the folder, which contain the images --> Put *.jpg (or whatever the format you are using) --> Click Open. Nothing is going to happen. The reason, behind it, is you didn’t specify one and only one address or file.
Another test. Try to type in the full path of the folder, which holds the image files, in your IE address field. It should take you to the folder. If you attach *.jpg behind the address, you would get an error.
The only way to do this is to have a search engine in a web page, Google image search as an good example. This is probably more work than renaming the files or updating your records.
Regards,
Shilei

Order By Clause with Empty Field values !

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for