Special Order By Clause

Hello NG
As initial position the following table:
ID Name Flag <Anything> Date
1 Müller 0 .... 01.01.2002
500 Schmitt 0 .... 25.11.2002
7500 Graf 1 .... 30.11.2002
100000 Seiler 1 .... 31.12.2002
The ID is to illustrate that in the table are > 100000 records. <something> is to show that there are still other columns in the table.
A date shall be given (e.g. the 30.11.2002)
What i wish is a sql query, which returns exactly 1000 records under the condition that all records from the given date backwards are always included. That is independently wether I sort ASC or DESC the records with date = 30.11.2002 must be in the result. Even if I sort ASC or DESC according to other columns than date, all records must be contained of 30.11.2002 plus the other records until 1000 records are found.
If I try to sort with ORDER BY date ASC naturally the records with date 01.01.2002 are the first. From the records with 30.11.2002 I do not see anything because the 1000 desired records are already filled with 'old' data.
If there are more than 1000 records available with date equal to 30.11.2002 ists all the same if the result is filled with only this[i]Long postings are being truncated to ~1 kB at this time.

Thanx for your help John
Principally the query seems to work as desired. Unfortonatelly i receive the error 'ORA-0331: end-of-file on communication channel' when executing the whole query. If executing only the part after the first from then it works. Actually I have defined 30 fields in each select statement.
Then I have hocused me in the amount of records in the table. There are actually > 7 Million records!
How can I resolve this problem?
Thanx in advance
Adrian

Similar Messages

TestStand Open SQL Statement does not support SQL's ORDER BY clause???

TestStand 1.0.3
Windows 2000 SP1
SQL Server 2000 Personal
You've got to be kidding me...
It appears that the built-in TestStand Open SQL Step does NOT support the
"ORDER BY" clause in the SELECT statement, even though the documentation
says it does. Is this true?
I have an Open SQL Statement query:
"SELECT * FROM [MyTable] WHERE ([Batch ID]=1234)"
it works fine, returning a correct record count 120 records. If I change
the Open SQL Statement query simply by adding an ORDER BY clause, such as:
"SELECT * FROM [MyTable] WHERE ([Batch ID]=1234) ORDER BY [MyField] ASC"
it returns a record count of zero. I know that "MyField" exists in the
MyTable table and contains valid data. The
second query works fine in SQL
Server Enterprise Manager.
Am I missing something? Is it true that the TestStand Open SQL Step does
NOT support the "ORDER BY" clause? If not, what &#$!ing good is it and why
does the manual state it is supported? Is there any other way using just
the TestStand steps to order a database recordset on one or more fields?
Any help would be appreciated.
Grrrrr....
Bob Rafuse
Etec Inc.

> Bob -
> The database step types do not do anything special to the SQL command
> that you give it. The step just passes the command to the ADO
> provider. I tried a simple query using the step types with the
> following command,
>
> "SELECT UUT_RESULT.* FROM UUT_RESULT WHERE ([UUT_SERIAL_NUMBER] =
> 12345) ORDER BY [EXECUTION_TIME] ASC"
>
> and this return the expected results and the record count parameter
> was as expected. I tried this on TS 1.0.2 and TS 2.0 with MS Access
> 2000 and MS SQL Server 7.0. I do not have MS SQL Server 2000 at this
> time.
>
> It would be surprised if the step types are messing something up.
I've been doing some experimenting over the past couple of days. Simple,
one-table queries seem to handle the ORDER BY clause fine. Th
ings seem to
get messed up when I try multi-table queries with ORDER BY clause with the
TestStand database steps. I get no errors but the returned record counts
are always 0 with the ORDER BY and positive without the ORDER BY. The exact
same queries work fine in Visual Basic/ADO and the SQL Server Query
Analyzer.
> Questions:
> 1. Have you verified whether the data is actually returned even though
> the record count is zero?
Hmmm... yes data IS getting returned (at least on the two instances I just
checked), but the record count is always zero. I was not proceeding with
processing if the record count was 0.
Still... I don't know how to loop through the recordset without knowing how
many records there are an not eventually generate an error by passing EOF.
Is there another way using the TestStand database steps to determine a) the
number of records in the recordset or b) when I'm at EOF?
> 2. Are you using any advanced options on the Opend SQL Statement step
> type, specifically
the cursor type set to forward only? Forward only
> cursors do not allow for record counts.
Everything on the Advanced tab of the Open SQL Statement step is set to "Use
Default".
Bob.

Order by clause not working

Hi, everyone,
I am trying to use the following insert statement to insert records in asc order. if i use the select statement alone the order by clause works fine, but when i use the same sql and add a insert into table statment the order by clause does not work. I am not getting the records in ascending order. could anybody help me in this regard?
INSERT INTO cat_sales_stg
select      b.SSC,
     ltrim(rtrim(a.CAT_DESC)) cat_desc,
     SUM(a.AMOUNT) AMOUNT
FROM Trans a, SSC b
WHERE a.ACCOUNT_NUMBER = TO_CHAR(b.ACCOUNT_NUMBER)
     AND a.TMONTH >= 200905 AND a.TMONTH <= 200910
     AND a.FORMAT_NAME = 'ABC'
     AND b.BMONTH = 200910
     AND b.SAMPLE = 3
     AND b.BANNER_NAME = 'ABC'
     AND b.MODEL_NAME = 'XYZ'
group by b.SSC, ltrim(rtrim(a.CAT_DESC))
order by ssc,cat_desc
Thanks in advance

user10636796 wrote:
Hi, everyone,
I am trying to use the following insert statement to insert records in asc orderWhat Toon, William, and others have said is that you DON'T insert rows in a specific order. That is completely outside the way relational databases are designed. You insert rows as unordered and use an ORDER BY clause in a SELECT when reading them. ORDER BY is for SELECT statements, not INSERT.
In particular Toon poined out that we can't control where individual rows get stored.
There is a databas object called a varray that can store data in sorted order. I have never seen them used because selecting the data back out again is more work; using an ordinary table and an ORDER BY clause is much easier.

Suppress "Order By" clause in Answers Query

Hello,
Is it possible to Suppress "Order By" clause in Answers Query.
I'm using a database view as data source. In the view definition, "order by" clause is already specified. Is it possible to get the same order in the OBIEE report??
I do not want to use Sort Order column in the repository.
Thanks,
Girish

You add a rownumber to your DB view and use that to 'sort' your report.
regards
John
http://obiee101.blogspot.com/

How to make an ORDER BY clause dynamic

is there anyway to make the ORDER BY clause in an SQL query within a DB control
dynamic? I have tried to pass a String of the column name and place it in the
statement within {}, but it doesn't work

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
is there anyway to make the ORDER BY clause in an SQL query within a
DB control
dynamic? I have tried to pass a String of the column name and place
it in the
statement within {}, but it doesn't workDid you find how ? please let me know, I also need to have a dynamic order by
clause.

Change GR/IR Account for Special Order PO Type

I've had a request from our FI department.
They would like a new PO type for special orders that will post to a different GR/IR Account.
In our configuration, the GR/IR account is determined based upon valuation class of the article.
But if they special order the same article using this new PO type, they would like it to post to a different GR/IR account.
There doesn't seem to be a way to do this through configuration. (If there is, I would love to know how.)
I can't find a way to change the GR/IR account in the PO BAdi (ME_PROCESS_PO_CUST). This BAdI would allow me to set the G/L Account Code, Profit and Cost centers but doesn't seem to have the GR/IR Account.
Is there any BAdI or User-Exit that will allow me to maintain the GR/IR Account while creating a PO?
Thanks,
Deb

Hi Deborah,
You can do this by a FI substitution rule at item document level. Maybe a FI Consultant can help you.
Regards,
Alexandre

In Report,order by clause is not working

Hi All,
For the report i prepared the query in this one am using the order by clause,i run the query in the sql plus working fine am getting the data based on the order by clause.when i use the same query for the report am getting the data but not in the order(i.e order by clause in not working).
Please help me how to do this one.
Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Leelakrishna.G

Hi Dora,
Data is coming in the proper sequence,but in the first group data is not coming(In first group data first line only displaying,remaining data is not comming).
My req is:
The report is executing based on the creation date(i.e.,from creation date to today).
In this so many Purchase requisitions will be there for this one different approval in different times will be there.
For Ex:
we will take 2 PR number only(for the first one 3 approvals,second one 4 levels of approval).
1. one supplier 1person raised by 1PR submit
No Action
Approve
2. 2Supplier 2personraised by 2PR Submit
NO Action
Forword
Approve
with ur suggestion am trying data is gettin fine but first group first line is coming remaining data is not coing.
EX:
1. one supplier 1person raised by 1PR submit
No Action
Approve
2PR Submit
NO Action
Forword
Approve
Note:"2. 2Supplier 2personraised by " this kind of lines data is missing.
Can you pls check and suggest me how i can do this.
Thanks in Advance.
Regards,
Leelakrishna.G

Error : The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived

Hi All,
I am on 11g 6.2, Windows Server 2008, my db SQL server 2008, I am facing the error for the reports in which I am trying to edit one the column formula and do something like 'abc/sum(abc)*100'.
10058. [NQODBC] [SQL_STATE: HY000] [nQSError: 10058] A general error has occurred. [nQSError: 43113] Message returned from OBIS. [nQSError: 43119] Query Failed: [nQSError: 16001] ODBC error state: 37000 code: 8180 message: [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Statement(s) could not be prepared.. [nQSError: 16001] ODBC error state: 37000 code: 1033 message: [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived tables, subqueries, and common table expressions, unless TOP or FOR XML is also specified.. [nQSError: 16002] Cannot obtain number of columns for the query result. (HY000)
One of the solutions to this which I have found is to edit the EXPRESSION_IN_ORDERBY_SUPPORTED feature in the db properties.
I want to know what does EXPRESSION_IN_ORDERBY_SUPPORTED means?
When I create a calculations in 11g like abc/sum(abc) in the column formula for a column then i get this error.
What does this error mean? Does OBIEE 11g doesn't support using these expressions in the report and the fact that it applies the order by clause to the reports, the report fail?
Could anybody please explain the issue. There is very limited information on this over the web.
Thanks in advance.
Ronny

Thanks svee for the quick response, actually i had resolved the issue by unchecking the EXPRESSION_IN_ORDERBY_SUPPORTED option in the database. I want to understand how does that makes the difference?
What does EXPRESSION_IN_ORDERBY_SUPPORTED mean? Does it mean that if I give any expression in my answers report and since obiee uses a order by for all the queries, the expression won't be supported?
Please explain.

Order by clause in cursor problem

Hello,
I'm unable to compile package body when i'm using order by clause in cursor subquery in stored procedure.
Sample code:
CREATE PACKAGE Announces AS
TYPE tRefCur IS REF CURSOR;
PROCEDURE TopAnnounces(
iiCount IN NUMBER,
osAnnounces OUT tRefCur,
oiRetVal OUT NUMBER
END Announces;
CREATE PACKAGE BODY Announces AS
PROCEDURE TopAnnounces(
iiCount IN NUMBER,
osAnnounces OUT NUMBER,
oiRetVal OUT NUMBER
AS
BEGIN
OPEN osAnnounces FOR
SELECT Id, Name, AnnCount FROM
SELECT Id, Name, COUNT(CategoryId) AS AnnCount FROM tblAnnounces
GROUP BY Id, Name
-- bellow is the line, where the code crash
ORDER BY AnnCount DESC
WHERE ROWNUM < iiCount + 1;
oiRetVal := 0;
EXCEPTION
WHEN OTHERS THEN
oiRetVal := -255;
END TopAnnounces;
END Announces;
If I compile the code above I will get this error:
PLS-00103: Encoutered the symbol "ORDER" when expecting on of the following:
After I remark the problematic line, the compilation is successful (but not the result :).
Is there something I'm doing wrong?
Thanks for advice
Vojtech Novacek
null

Sorry you can not use order by clause into one temporal table created by subquery.
Put the order by clause offside of subquery.
Atte.
CC.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vojtech Novacek:
Hello,
I'm unable to compile package body when i'm using order by clause in cursor subquery in stored procedure.
Sample code:
CREATE PACKAGE Announces AS
TYPE tRefCur IS REF CURSOR;
PROCEDURE TopAnnounces(
iiCount IN NUMBER,
osAnnounces OUT tRefCur,
oiRetVal OUT NUMBER
END Announces;
CREATE PACKAGE BODY Announces AS
PROCEDURE TopAnnounces(
iiCount IN NUMBER,
osAnnounces OUT NUMBER,
oiRetVal OUT NUMBER
AS
BEGIN
OPEN osAnnounces FOR
SELECT Id, Name, AnnCount FROM
SELECT Id, Name, COUNT(CategoryId) AS AnnCount FROM tblAnnounces
GROUP BY Id, Name
-- bellow is the line, where the code crash
ORDER BY AnnCount DESC
WHERE ROWNUM < iiCount + 1;
oiRetVal := 0;
EXCEPTION
WHEN OTHERS THEN
oiRetVal := -255;
END TopAnnounces;
END Announces;
If I compile the code above I will get this error:
PLS-00103: Encoutered the symbol "ORDER" when expecting on of the following:
After I remark the problematic line, the compilation is successful (but not the result :).
Is there something I'm doing wrong?
Thanks for advice
Vojtech Novacek<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
null

Order By clause in Receiver JDBC adapter

Hello All,
Is it possible to construct a select statement that uses an Order by clause in JDBC receiver adapter?
ex : I would like the JDBC adapter to from a query as follows:
<b>Select * from EMP where sal = 10000 order by empid</b>
We are able to construct the select statement without order by clause but not with it.
Can any one suggest me how to do it. This is bit urgent for us.
Thanks
Abinash

hi,
did you try with
SQL_DML
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/2e/96fd3f2d14e869e10000000a155106/content.htm
Regards,
michal

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

Order by clause with Named Query

hi
i have to give order by clause in Named Query
how we have to specify is can any body help
thanks
Harish

Assuming an Entity called Handset:
select h from Handset h order by h.description

Order by clause in PL/SQL cursors

I am trying to execute a procedure with some input parameters. I open a cursor
with a select statement. However, the order by clause in the query does not
recognize parameter sent through the procedure input parameters.
For example:
open <<cursor name>> for
select id from member order by <<dynamic parameter>>" does not work (Compiles fine but does not return the right result).
But if I try and give a static order by <<column name>> it works. Is the
order by clause in the PL/SQL a compile time phenomenon?
I have also tried it through dynamic sql. All the other parameters work except the order by <<parameter>> asc|desc
Also "asc" and "desc" does not work if given dynamically.
What alternatives do I have?
null

I don't think order by can be dynamic in a cursor, but it sure can be using dynamic sql. The only issue is that you must do a replace in the sql string with the dynamic variable. For example:
create or replace procedure test_dyn(p_col in varchar2, p_order in varchar2) as
q varchar2(500);
u_exec_cur number;
u_columnnumber NUMBER;
u_columndate DATE;
u_columnvarchar varchar2(50);
u_cur_count number;
u_ename varchar2(20);
u_sal number;
begin
q := 'select ename, sal from scott.emp order by p_col p_order';
-- got to do these two replaces
q:= replace(q,'p_col',p_col);
q:= replace(q,'p_order',p_order);
u_exec_cur := dbms_sql.open_cursor;
dbms_sql.parse(u_exec_cur,q,dbms_sql.v7);
dbms_sql.define_column(u_exec_cur, 1, u_columnvarchar, 20);
dbms_sql.define_column(u_exec_cur, 2, u_columnnumber);
u_cur_count := dbms_sql.execute(u_exec_cur);
loop
exit when (dbms_sql.fetch_rows(u_exec_cur) <= 0);
dbms_sql.column_value(u_exec_cur, 1, u_ename);
dbms_sql.column_value(u_exec_cur, 2, u_sal);
dbms_output.put_line(u_ename);
dbms_output.put_line(u_sail);
--htp.p(u_ename);
--htp.p(u_sal);
end loop;
end;
show errors;
Now when when I execute my procedure I can change the order by clause all I want, for example:
SQL> set serveroutput on;
SQL> exec gmika.test_dyn('sal','asc');
SMITH
800
ADAMS
1100
WARD
1250
MARTIN
1250
MILLER
1300
TURNER
1500
ALLEN
1600
JLO
2222
BLAKE
2850
JONES
2975
SCOTT
3000
FORD
3000
LOKITZ
4500
KING
5000
JAMES
5151
JAMES
5555
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL>
null

Order by clause in Sub query

Hi,
Can we use order by clause in Sub query?
While using the order by clause, I am getting the "missing expression error" . If I remove order by clause query executing fine.
Here is my query:
select *
from emp_mstr
where emp_no in(select
emp_no
from emp_mstr
order by branch_no);
Thanks & Regards,
Mahi

May be you miss some required spaces also, other than wrong use of ORDER BY
select *
from emp_mstr
where emp_no in
     ( select e2.emp_no
       from emp_mstr e2
--       order by e2.branch_no
     );Why do you want to ORDER BY in the subquery, which you use with IN clause? That will not make any difference in the result..Means the result you get with ORDER BY will be same as without that.. And in this case, ORDER by is a unncessary overhead.. And Ordering is very costly..
And why do you want to have the IN clause at all in your query? You are referring the same tables in the main query and sub query..
The below will give the same result
select *
from emp_mstr
where emp_no is not nullIf you want to use another table in the subquery, always use aliasess...
select *
from emp_mstr
where emp_no in
     ( select e2.emp_no
       from emp_mstr2 e2
--       order by e2.branch_no
     );

Order By Clause in View

Hi,
I have a doubt regarding Order By Clause in Views.
As per my knowledge, we can't put an order by clause in the subquery that defines view. But when i created a view in Oracle 9i with the order by clause, view got created.
Please see the my view code below :
create or replace view testview
as select * from employees
order by 1,2;
Could anyone please confirm that we can have order by clause in Views in oracle 9i?
Thanks,
Tandra

According to the SQL Reference doc, there is no such restriction for a non-updatable view:
The view subquery cannot select the CURRVAL or NEXTVAL pseudocolumns.
If the view subquery selects the ROWID, ROWNUM, or LEVEL pseudocolumns, those columns must have aliases in the view subquery.
If the view subquery uses an asterisk (*) to select all columns of a table, and you later add new columns to the table, the view will not contain those columns until you re-create the view by issuing a CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW statement.
For object views, the number of elements in the view subquery select list must be the same as the number of top-level attributes for the object type. The datatype of each of the selecting elements must be the same as the corresponding top-level attribute.
You cannot specify the SAMPLE clause.
This restriction exists only for updatable views:
If you want the view to be inherently updatable, it must not contain any of the following constructs:
A set operator
A DISTINCT operator
An aggregate or analytic function
A GROUP BY, ORDER BY, CONNECT BY, or START WITH clause
A collection expression in a SELECT list
A subquery in a SELECT list
Joins (with some exceptions as described in the paragraphs that follow).

Special Order By Clause

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for