Reputation: 171
I want to order result of SELECT
statement by values given within IN()
.
I have 200+ values within the IN
operator.
Pseudo code:
select *
from EmployeeId
where EmployeeId in (2, 198, 5,...till 200)
Result set I am trying to achieve:
EmployeeId
----------
2
198
5
.
.
.
200
My research so far: when I use this, I cannot add square brackets ([]
) within the IN
operator.
Update: I am pasting values in in() operator from excel.
Thanks in advance.
Upvotes: 1
Views: 1333
Reputation: 1
I know it's a bit late but the best way would be
SELECT *
FROM EmployeeId
WHERE EmployeeId in (2, 198, 5,...till 200)
ORDER BY CHARINDEX(CAST(EmployeeId AS VARCHAR), (2, 198, 5,...till 200))
Upvotes: 0
Reputation: 25142
This is how conditional order by is done.
Order by
case
when EmployeeId = 2 then 1
when EmployeeId = 198 then 2
...
End
EDIT
Assuming you are taking in this comma separated string as a variable, or even if you are not you could store it as a variable, here is a smooth way by using a string splitter which would prevent you from having to manually create a temp table.
declare @table table(col1 int)
insert into @table
values
(1),
(2),
(3),
(4),
(5),
(6),
(7),
(8),
(9),
(10),
(11),
(12)
declare @searchVariable varchar (256) = '10,12,3,5,7,1'
select
t.*
from
@table t
cross apply
dbo.DelimitedSplit8K (@searchVariable,',') s
where
s.Item = t.col1
order by
s.ItemNumber
The split function I used is from Jeff Moden and is added below. It's a good function to have as it is very performant compared to many other split functions.
CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[DelimitedSplit8K] (@pString VARCHAR(8000), @pDelimiter CHAR(1))
--WARNING!!! DO NOT USE MAX DATA-TYPES HERE! IT WILL KILL PERFORMANCE!
RETURNS TABLE WITH SCHEMABINDING AS
RETURN
/* "Inline" CTE Driven "Tally Table" produces values from 1 up to 10,000...
enough to cover VARCHAR(8000)*/
WITH E1(N) AS (
SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL
SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL
SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 1
), --10E+1 or 10 rows
E2(N) AS (SELECT 1 FROM E1 a, E1 b), --10E+2 or 100 rows
E4(N) AS (SELECT 1 FROM E2 a, E2 b), --10E+4 or 10,000 rows max
cteTally(N) AS (--==== This provides the "base" CTE and limits the number of rows right up front
-- for both a performance gain and prevention of accidental "overruns"
SELECT TOP (ISNULL(DATALENGTH(@pString),0)) ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)) FROM E4
),
cteStart(N1) AS (--==== This returns N+1 (starting position of each "element" just once for each delimiter)
SELECT 1 UNION ALL
SELECT t.N+1 FROM cteTally t WHERE SUBSTRING(@pString,t.N,1) = @pDelimiter
),
cteLen(N1,L1) AS(--==== Return start and length (for use in substring)
SELECT s.N1,
ISNULL(NULLIF(CHARINDEX(@pDelimiter,@pString,s.N1),0)-s.N1,8000)
FROM cteStart s
)
--===== Do the actual split. The ISNULL/NULLIF combo handles the length for the final element when no delimiter is found.
SELECT ItemNumber = ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY l.N1),
Item = SUBSTRING(@pString, l.N1, l.L1)
FROM cteLen l
;
GO
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 4442
2 things... 1) The IN operator doesn't provide any sorting capabilities. 2) Due to performance considerations, it's not a good idea to use more than a few values with the IN operator. The IN operator is evaluated as if were a series if OR conditions. So basically, it's the equivalent of writing out 200 Column = 2 OR column = 198... and so on.
Given your goal, I'd suggest using a #temp table. This will improve performance, allow you to sort and, if you assign the sorting column as the PK, you'll be able to sort the final result w/o having a sort operation in the execution plan of the final query (nice little bonus)...
IF OBJECT_ID('tempdb..#SearchValues', 'U') IS NOT NULL
DROP TABLE #SearchValues;
CREATE TABLE #SearchValues (
Sort INT NOT NULL IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED,
Search INT NOT NULL
);
INSERT #SearchValues (Search) VALUES
(2),(198),(5),(75),(22),(300),(4),
(122),(201),(40),(200);
SELECT
e.*
FROM
dbo.Employee e
JOIN #SearchValues sv
ON e.EmployeeId = sv.Search
ORDER BY
sv.Sort;
Upvotes: 3