CODEWITHSUNDEEP
sqlsql-serveroracle-database
Ravi Maurya
Ravi Maurya

Reputation: 339

'In' clause in SQL server with multiple columns

I have a component that retrieves data from database based on the keys provided. However I want my java application to get all the data for all keys in a single database hit to fasten up things. I can use 'in' clause when I have only one key.

While working on more than one key I can use below query in oracle

SELECT * FROM <table_name> 
where (value_type,CODE1) IN (('I','COMM'),('I','CORE'));

which is similar to writing

SELECT * FROM <table_name> 
where value_type = 1 and CODE1 = 'COMM'

and

SELECT * FROM <table_name> 
where value_type = 1 and CODE1 = 'CORE'

together

However, this concept of using 'in' clause as above is giving below error in 'SQL server'

ERROR:An expression of non-boolean type specified in a context where a condition is expected, near ','.

Please let know if their is any way to achieve the same in SQL server.

Upvotes: 24

Views: 57975

Answers (8)

codejunkie
codejunkie

Reputation: 73

Compute it in MS Sql

SELECT * FROM <table_name> 
where value_type + '|' + CODE1 IN ('I|COMM', 'I|CORE');

Upvotes: 0

Andrew
Andrew

Reputation: 609

If you have under 1000 tuples you want to check against and you're using SQL Server 2008+, you can use a table values constructor, and perform a join against it. You can only specify up to 1000 rows in a table values constructor, hence the 1000 tuple limitation. Here's how it would look in your situation:

SELECT <table_name>.* FROM <table_name> 
JOIN ( VALUES
    ('I', 'COMM'),
    ('I', 'CORE')
) AS MyTable(a, b) ON a = value_type AND b = CODE1;

This is only a good idea if your list of values is going to be unique, otherwise you'll get duplicate values. I'm not sure how the performance of this compares to using many ANDs and ORs, but the SQL query is at least much cleaner to look at, in my opinion.

You can also write this to use EXIST instead of JOIN. That may have different performance characteristics and it will avoid the problem of producing duplicate results if your values aren't unique. It may be worth trying both EXIST and JOIN on your use case to see what's a better fit. Here's how EXIST would look,

SELECT * FROM <table_name> 
WHERE EXISTS (
    SELECT 1
    FROM (
        VALUES
            ('I', 'COMM'),
            ('I', 'CORE')
    ) AS MyTable(a, b)
    WHERE a = value_type AND b = CODE1
);

In conclusion, I think the best choice is to create a temporary table and query against that. But sometimes that's not possible, e.g. your user lacks the permission to create temporary tables, and then using a table values constructor may be your best choice. Use EXIST or JOIN, depending on which gives you better performance on your database.

Upvotes: 4

gladluter
gladluter

Reputation: 1

I had a similar problem in MS SQL, but a little different. Maybe it will help somebody in futere, in my case i found this solution (not full code, just example):

SELECT Table1.Campaign
      ,Table1.Coupon
  FROM [CRM].[dbo].[Coupons] AS Table1 
  INNER JOIN [CRM].[dbo].[Coupons] AS Table2 ON Table1.Campaign = Table2.Campaign AND Table1.Coupon = Table2.Coupon
  WHERE Table1.Coupon IN ('0000000001', '0000000002') AND Table2.Campaign IN ('XXX000000001', 'XYX000000001')

Of cource on Coupon and Campaign in table i have index for fast search.

Upvotes: 0

Roohi Ali
Roohi Ali

Reputation: 706

Normally you can not do it, but can use the following technique.

SELECT * FROM <table_name> 
where (value_type+'/'+CODE1) IN (('I'+'/'+'COMM'),('I'+'/'+'CORE'));

Upvotes: 3

Marcel
Marcel

Reputation: 1768

What you can do is 'join' the columns as a string, and pass your values also combined as strings.

where (cast(column1 as text) ||','|| cast(column2 as text)) in (?1)

The other way is to do multiple ands and ors.

Upvotes: 0

JTR
JTR

Reputation: 333

I think you can try this, combine and and or at the same time.

SELECT 
  * 
FROM 
  <table_name> 
WHERE 
  value_type = 1 
  AND (CODE1 = 'COMM' OR CODE1 = 'CORE')

Upvotes: 1

Stefan Steinegger
Stefan Steinegger

Reputation: 64658

This syntax doesn't exist in SQL Server. Use a combination of And and Or.

SELECT * 
FROM <table_name> 
WHERE 
  (value_type = 1 and CODE1 = 'COMM')
  OR (value_type = 1 and CODE1 = 'CORE')

(In this case, you could make it shorter, because value_type is compared to the same value in both combinations. I just wanted to show the pattern that works like IN in oracle with multiple fields.)

When using IN with a subquery, you need to rephrase it like this:

Oracle:

SELECT * 
FROM foo 
WHERE 
  (value_type, CODE1) IN (
    SELECT type, code 
    FROM bar
    WHERE <some conditions>)

SQL Server:

SELECT * 
FROM foo 
WHERE 
  EXISTS (
    SELECT * 
    FROM bar 
    WHERE <some conditions>
      AND foo.type_code = bar.type 
      AND foo.CODE1 = bar.code)

There are other ways to do it, depending on the case, like inner joins and the like.

Upvotes: 13

Alexei - check Codidact
Alexei - check Codidact

Reputation: 23108

A better solution is to avoid hardcoding your values and put then in a temporary or persistent table:

CREATE TABLE #t (ValueType VARCHAR(16), Code VARCHAR(16))

INSERT INTO #t VALUES ('I','COMM'),('I','CORE')

SELECT DT. * 
FROM <table_name> DT 
JOIN #t T ON T.ValueType = DT.ValueType AND T.Code = DT.Code

Thus, you avoid storing data in your code (persistent table version) and allow to easily modify the filters (without changing the code).

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions