Using of Rownum Function with ">" Sign in Oracle

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.

Select n'th row using ROWNUM Oracle

In the second query, you are not using rownum but a fixed value: rn. Its values are computed in the subquery.

In the first query, the second rownum is not the same rownum as the rownum in the subselect. The rownum in the subselect works for the rowset in the subselect. And the rownum in the outer query works for the outer query. So, your first query is seen by oracle like:

SELECT SALARY
FROM something
WHERE ROWNUM >= N;
RETURN result;

This won't give records because first row is rownum = 1 and its not >= N. And the second row fetched its now the first and it's not >= N. And so on.

See here another question with the same issue.

If you want, the rownum is the last thing computed. It is a assigned when a row is fetched. So, always the first row has rownum = 1. :)

SQL - How to select a row having a column with max value

Keywords like TOP, LIMIT, ROWNUM, ...etc are database dependent. Please read this article for more information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_(SQL)#Result_limits

Oracle: ROWNUM could be used.

select * from (select * from table 
order by value desc, date_column) 
where rownum = 1;

Answering the question more specifically:

select high_val, my_key
from (select high_val, my_key
      from mytable
      where something = 'avalue'
      order by high_val desc)
where rownum <= 1

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

---

Related Topics