If I had a basic table with 3 VARCHAR fields; let's say A, B, C
How could I write a query that returns the count of the number of NULL columns for every record in a table?
Ideally, it would be something like:
SELECT
CAST (A IS NULL) AS INTEGER
+ CAST (B IS NULL) AS INTEGER
+ CAST (C IS NULL) AS INTEGER
FROM MyTable
That doesn't work at all. I can't seem to do "IS NULL" in the SELECT area. Should I write a T-SQL user-defined function that takes all three columns as parameters? Would that be performance friendly for large data sets?select 'a is null', count(*) from mytable where a is null
union all
select 'b is null', count(*) from mytable where b is null
union all
select 'c is null', count(*) from mytable where c is null
union all
select 'all are null', count(*) where (a is null or b is null or c is null)|||select sum(case when A is null then 1 else 0 end) as Anulls
, sum(case when B is null then 1 else 0 end) as Bnulls
, sum(case when C is null then 1 else 0 end) as Cnulls
from yourtable|||Rudy, I think he wants to count the nulls for each row:
select case when A is null then 1 else 0 end
+ case when B is null then 1 else 0 end
+ case when C is null then 1 else 0 end as NullValues
from yourtable|||blindman, you are too right
the results of your query, however, are totally useless, as there is nothing to tell you which rows have which numbers of nulls
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
2
1
at least my query actually produces something useful
:cool:|||Hey, he only said he wanted the count! Ain't my problem if the project specs are no good... :D
And Roger, yes if you have a lot of columns it might be worthwhile to write a function that returns 1 if a value is Null, and 0 if it is not. Call it "NullBit" or something.
... and make Rudy happy by at least including a primary key in your result set!|||many ways to skin the null|||Rudy, I think he wants to count the nulls for each row:
select case when A is null then 1 else 0 end
+ case when B is null then 1 else 0 end
+ case when C is null then 1 else 0 end as NullValues
from yourtable
Yes, you are right; that is exactly what I wanted. It works perfectly!! Thank you so much!! I'm surprised; no one else in my office could come up with this. I was planning on writing a user-defined function with if statements but this is much more elegant.
Thanks Rudy and blindman!
FYI, I'm using this in a WHERE clause for a a large UPDATE command that merges import data into a production table. I only want to overwrite the existing data if the new data has more non-NULL fields.|||I only want to overwrite the existing data if the new data has more non-NULL fields.
surely the number of non-nulls is of secondary concern
suppose i had a Three Stooges table with this row:
'curly','larry',null
you're saying it's okay to overwrite this with
'tom','dick','harry'
but i've done many merges myself, and i'm sure there's more to your example than just three fields...|||Consider using this instead:
Update A
set A.Stooge1 = coalesce(A.Stooge1, B.Stooge1),
A.Stooge2 = coalesce(A.Stooge2, B.Stooge2),
A.Stooge3 = coalesce(A.Stooge3, B.Stooge3),
..etc..
from A inner join B on A.PKey = B.Pkey
This merges the two datasets together, giving priority to data in table A.|||Follow the blindman, follow the blindman!!!
-PatP|||Only when you are in the dark...|||nice
might also want to add a WHERE clause so you don't unnecessarily update every row, just the ones which actually have changed|||Good point. It's a tough call on what proportion of the rows need to be updated to justify the overhead of the where clause. Maybe for a one-time shot a SELECT INTO followed by renaming the resulting table would be fastest?
Showing posts with label chow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chow. Show all posts
Friday, February 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)