In an Oracle Database, Differencebetween Rownum and Row_Number

In an Oracle database, what is the difference between ROWNUM and ROW_NUMBER?

ROWNUM is a "pseudocolumn" that assigns a number to each row returned by a query:

SQL> select rownum, ename, deptno
  2  from emp;

    ROWNUM ENAME          DEPTNO
---------- ---------- ----------
         1 SMITH              99
         2 ALLEN              30
         3 WARD               30
         4 JONES              20
         5 MARTIN             30
         6 BLAKE              30
         7 CLARK              10
         8 SCOTT              20
         9 KING               10
        10 TURNER             30
        11 FORD               20
        12 MILLER             10

ROW_NUMBER is an analytic function that assigns a number to each row according to its ordering within a group of rows:

SQL> select ename, deptno, row_number() over (partition by deptno order by ename) rn
  2  from emp;

ENAME          DEPTNO         RN
---------- ---------- ----------
CLARK              10          1
KING               10          2
MILLER             10          3
FORD               20          1
JONES              20          2
SCOTT              20          3
ALLEN              30          1
BLAKE              30          2
MARTIN             30          3
TURNER             30          4
WARD               30          5
SMITH              99          1

What is rowID & rowNum (ROWID vs ROWNUM)

Both, ROWNUM and ROWID are pseudo columns.

Rowid

For each row in the database, the ROWID pseudo column returns the
address of the row.

An example query would be:

SELECT ROWID, last_name  
   FROM employees
   WHERE department_id = 20;

More info on rowid here: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14200/pseudocolumns008.htm

Rownum

For each row returned by a query, the ROWNUM pseudo column returns a
number indicating the order in which Oracle selects the row from a
table or set of joined rows. The first row selected has a ROWNUM of 1,
the second has 2, and so on.

You can limit the amount of results with rownum like this:

SELECT * FROM employees WHERE ROWNUM < 10;

More info on rownum here: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14200/pseudocolumns009.htm

Difference

The actual difference between rowid and rownum is, that rowid is a permanent unique identifier for that row. However, the rownum is temporary. If you change your query, the rownum number will refer to another row, the rowid won't.

So the ROWNUM is a consecutive number which applicable for a specific SQL statement only. In contrary the ROWID, which is a unique ID for a row.

Oracle Paging: Analytic function ROW_NUMBER() VS ROWNUM

I thought this question was interesting, so I tried a few things out.

I have table called large_t, that contains about 1.1M rows.

Then I have two queries:

select * 
from
(
  select rownum rnum, a.*
  from (
         select owner, object_name, object_id
         from large_t
         order by object_id
       ) a
  where rownum   <= 30      
) where rnum > 20;

And

select *
from
(
select owner, object_name, object_id,
       row_number() over (order by object_id) rnum
from large_t
) where rnum > 20 and rnum <= 30;

If you look at the plans the two queries generate, the first has an operation:

SORT ORDER BY STOPKEY

While the analytic query contains an operation called

WINDOW SORT PUSHED RANK

The SORT ORDER BY STOPKEY is a more efficient sort operation that a plain ORDER BY. I am not sure how a WINDOW SORT PUSHED RANK works, but it seems to work in a similar fashion.

Looking at v$sql_workarea after running both queries, both only required a sort_area of 4096 bytes.

In contrast, if I ran the query without a paging query:

select owner, object_name, object_id
from large_t
order by object_id

Then the sort area required is 37M, proving the sort in both queries is about the same.

Normally, if you want to efficiently return the TOP N of a sorted query, you will want an index on the sorting column - that will prevent Oracle needing to sort at all. So, I created an index on OBJECT_ID, and then explained both queries again.

This time the first query used the index and returned in 0.2 seconds, while the second query didn't use the new index and was much slower.

So my conclusion from this quick bit of analysis is that in the general case using rownum to filter or the analytic row_number function both perform about the same. However, the rownum example automatically started using the index I created on the table when row_number did not. Maybe I could get it to use the index with some hints - that is something else you can experiment with.

How to use Oracle ORDER BY and ROWNUM correctly?

The where statement gets executed before the order by. So, your desired query is saying "take the first row and then order it by t_stamp desc". And that is not what you intend.

The subquery method is the proper method for doing this in Oracle.

If you want a version that works in both servers, you can use:

select ril.*
from (select ril.*, row_number() over (order by t_stamp desc) as seqnum
      from raceway_input_labo ril
     ) ril
where seqnum = 1

The outer * will return "1" in the last column. You would need to list the columns individually to avoid this.

Oracle Database Rownum Between

You can use ROW_NUMBER() to assign a row number based on some ordering logic contained in your current query, e.g. a certain column. Then, retain only the 5th to 10th records:

select t.*
from
(
    select
    (
        select count(*) as sayfasayisi
        from konular t
        where t.kategori is not null
    ) as sayfasayisi,
    ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY some_col) rn,
    t.id,
    t.uye,
    ...
) t
where t.rn between 5 and 10;

Oracle 'Partition By' and 'Row_Number' keyword

PARTITION BY segregate sets, this enables you to be able to work(ROW_NUMBER(),COUNT(),SUM(),etc) on related set independently.

In your query, the related set comprised of rows with similar cdt.country_code, cdt.account, cdt.currency. When you partition on those columns and you apply ROW_NUMBER on them. Those other columns on those combination/set will receive sequential number from ROW_NUMBER

But that query is funny, if your partition by some unique data and you put a row_number on it, it will just produce same number. It's like you do an ORDER BY on a partition that is guaranteed to be unique. Example, think of GUID as unique combination of cdt.country_code, cdt.account, cdt.currency

newid() produces GUID, so what shall you expect by this expression?

select
   hi,ho,
   row_number() over(partition by newid() order by hi,ho)
from tbl;

...Right, all the partitioned(none was partitioned, every row is partitioned in their own row) rows' row_numbers are all set to 1

Basically, you should partition on non-unique columns. ORDER BY on OVER needed the PARTITION BY to have a non-unique combination, otherwise all row_numbers will become 1

An example, this is your data:

create table tbl(hi varchar, ho varchar);

insert into tbl values
('A','X'),
('A','Y'),
('A','Z'),
('B','W'),
('B','W'),
('C','L'),
('C','L');

Then this is analogous to your query:

select
   hi,ho,
   row_number() over(partition by hi,ho order by hi,ho)
from tbl;

What will be the output of that?

HI  HO  COLUMN_2
A   X   1
A   Y   1
A   Z   1
B   W   1
B   W   2
C   L   1
C   L   2

You see thee combination of HI HO? The first three rows has unique combination, hence they are set to 1, the B rows has same W, hence different ROW_NUMBERS, likewise with HI C rows.

Now, why is the ORDER BY needed there? If the previous developer merely want to put a row_number on similar data (e.g. HI B, all data are B-W, B-W), he can just do this:

select
   hi,ho,
   row_number() over(partition by hi,ho)
from tbl;

But alas, Oracle(and Sql Server too) doesn't allow partition with no ORDER BY; whereas in Postgresql, ORDER BY on PARTITION is optional: http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!1/27821/1

select
   hi,ho,
   row_number() over(partition by hi,ho)
from tbl;

Your ORDER BY on your partition look a bit redundant, not because of the previous developer's fault, some database just don't allow PARTITION with no ORDER BY, he might not able find a good candidate column to sort on. If both PARTITION BY columns and ORDER BY columns are the same just remove the ORDER BY, but since some database don't allow it, you can just do this:

SELECT cdt.*,
        ROW_NUMBER ()
        OVER (PARTITION BY cdt.country_code, cdt.account, cdt.currency
              ORDER BY newid())
           seq_no
   FROM CUSTOMER_DETAILS cdt

You cannot find a good column to use for sorting similar data? You might as well sort on random, the partitioned data have the same values anyway. You can use GUID for example(you use newid() for SQL Server). So that has the same output made by previous developer, it's unfortunate that some database doesn't allow PARTITION with no ORDER BY

Though really, it eludes me and I cannot find a good reason to put a number on the same combinations (B-W, B-W in example above). It's giving the impression of database having redundant data. Somehow reminded me of this: How to get one unique record from the same list of records from table? No Unique constraint in the table

It really looks arcane seeing a PARTITION BY with same combination of columns with ORDER BY, can not easily infer the code's intent.

Live test: http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!3/27821/6

---

But as dbaseman have noticed also, it's useless to partition and order on same columns.

You have a set of data like this:

create table tbl(hi varchar, ho varchar);

insert into tbl values
('A','X'),
('A','X'),
('A','X'),
('B','Y'),
('B','Y'),
('C','Z'),
('C','Z');

Then you PARTITION BY hi,ho; and then you ORDER BY hi,ho. There's no sense numbering similar data :-) http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!3/29ab8/3

select
   hi,ho,
   row_number() over(partition by hi,ho order by hi,ho) as nr
from tbl;

Output:

HI  HO  ROW_QUERY_A
A   X   1
A   X   2
A   X   3
B   Y   1
B   Y   2
C   Z   1
C   Z   2

See? Why need to put row numbers on same combination? What you will analyze on triple A,X, on double B,Y, on double C,Z? :-)

---

You just need to use PARTITION on non-unique column, then you sort on non-unique column(s)'s unique-ing column. Example will make it more clear:

create table tbl(hi varchar, ho varchar);

insert into tbl values
('A','D'),
('A','E'),
('A','F'),
('B','F'),
('B','E'),
('C','E'),
('C','D');

select
   hi,ho,
   row_number() over(partition by hi order by ho) as nr
from tbl;

PARTITION BY hi operates on non unique column, then on each partitioned column, you order on its unique column(ho), ORDER BY ho

Output:

HI  HO  NR
A   D   1
A   E   2
A   F   3
B   E   1
B   F   2
C   D   1
C   E   2

That data set makes more sense

Live test: http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!3/d0b44/1

And this is similar to your query with same columns on both PARTITION BY and ORDER BY:

select
   hi,ho,
   row_number() over(partition by hi,ho order by hi,ho) as nr
from tbl;

And this is the ouput:

HI  HO  NR
A   D   1
A   E   1
A   F   1
B   E   1
B   F   1
C   D   1
C   E   1

See? no sense?

Live test: http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!3/d0b44/3

---

Finally this might be the right query:

SELECT cdt.*,
     ROW_NUMBER ()
     OVER (PARTITION BY cdt.country_code, cdt.account -- removed: cdt.currency
           ORDER BY 
               -- removed: cdt.country_code, cdt.account, 
               cdt.currency) -- keep
        seq_no
FROM CUSTOMER_DETAILS cdt

SQL RANK() versus ROW_NUMBER()

ROW_NUMBER : Returns a unique number for each row starting with 1. For rows that have duplicate values,numbers are arbitarily assigned.

Rank : Assigns a unique number for each row starting with 1,except for rows that have duplicate values,in which case the same ranking is assigned and a gap appears in the sequence for each duplicate ranking.

---

Related Topics