Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««12

a query like factorial Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:06 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:27 AM
Points: 35,769, Visits: 32,437
schleep (3/19/2013)
Yikes. Thanks for pointing that out Jeff.

I've only (reluctantly) used it with very small sets, mostly in pre-2K5 code.
I'll be checking my code now...


You bet and thanks for the feedback.

If you have something big, a properly configured "Quirky Update" is both bullet-proof and lightning quick. It'll process a million rows in less than 3 seconds on most machines. There are some pretty strict rules to follow to make sure it doesn't go "quirky" on you, but it's usually worth it. It even beats the new functionality they added to SUM() OVER in 2012. It is, however, unsupported and if that's a problem for someone, then just use a recursive CTE or even a fire-hose cursor (likely better than the rCTE but haven't tested it) to do the running total.


--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #1432952
Posted Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:26 PM


SSCoach

SSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoach

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:20 PM
Points: 18,064, Visits: 16,099
masoudk1990 (3/19/2013)
Thank you Horatiu, mickyT, Erin Ramsay for your time and help.

@SQLRNNR
May you help me to trace your code on paper please?
Im a newbie and im not sure how does it work.

In my real table ID is NOT sequential. Thats why I tried to generate row number using ROW_NUMBER() function.

First, I think you forget to write WHERE statement in anchor and you meant something like this:

 WITH CTE (ID,Value) AS
(
SELECT ID,
Value
FROM @valuestab
WHERE ID = (SELECT MIN(ID) FROM @valuestab) --I guess you forget this line
UNION ALL

So your anchor should generate this output:

ID|Value
--------
1 | 19

Now we must union anchor with second part of query until it satisfied all rows.
At first run this condition b.ID +1 = a.ID change our table to this:

ID|Value
--------
1 | 19
2 | 19 + 90

Now it makes me confused. Once again we should check this condition b.ID +1 = a.ID
Does it check this condition only on last row or it check it on all rows?
If it check it on all rows it should generate this output:

ID|Value
--------
1 | 19
2 | 19 + 90
2 | 19 + 90 <-----surplus
3 | 19 + 90 + 20

I have problem with recursive statements, I know what is this, I know how we should write it.
But I still have logical problem with its mechanism.

Thank you for help.


The where clause in the anchor was not forgotten. It was unnecessary.

You are going to need to provide a representative data sample and table structure if you want a different solution.

Based on the data you provided, the script works. But if you are looking for something different, you need to write out exactly what you are trying to do.




Jason AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
I have given a name to my pain...
MCM SQL Server, MVP


SQL RNNR

Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw
Post #1432999
Posted Wednesday, July 3, 2013 2:30 AM


Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, November 22, 2014 5:33 AM
Points: 64, Visits: 290
Sorry for replying after so long, but I found an easy solution for this and I liked to share it here, perhaps it help someone in future.

DECLARE @factorial int

SET @factorial = 0

UPDATE tableName
SET @factorial = value = @factorial + value --value is column name

If you want to store factorial value in seperate column in each row:

DECLARE @factorial int

SET @factorial = 0

UPDATE tableName
SET @factorial = seperateColumn = @factorial + value --value is column name



___________________________________
Computer Enterprise Masoud Keshavarz
I don't care about hell.
If I go there I've played enough Diablo to know how to fight my way out.
Post #1469905
Posted Wednesday, July 3, 2013 4:41 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, December 12, 2014 10:09 AM
Points: 2,876, Visits: 5,201
That what a "quirky update" is about...
But!
To make it bullet-proof you need to read J.Moden article and see what else should be added into your query, so it will always work properly (eg. clustered index and MAXDOP 1).
Otherwise, you may find surprising that sometimes you will end up with unexpected results...


_____________________________________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"
"O skol'ko nam otkrytiy chudnyh prevnosit microsofta duh!"
(So many miracle inventions provided by MS to us...)

How to post your question to get the best and quick help
Post #1469981
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12

Permissions Expand / Collapse