SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


Distinct


Distinct

Author
Message
Miles Neale
Miles Neale
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame (3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 3026 Visits: 1694
Revenant (5/8/2013)
manik123 (5/8/2013)
Lokesh Vij (5/6/2013)
Thanks for the easy one Vinay, after tricky Qotd yesterday :-)


+1 nice question....

+ another 1, with thanks


Same!

Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
Koen Verbeeck
Koen Verbeeck
One Orange Chip
One Orange Chip (27K reputation)One Orange Chip (27K reputation)One Orange Chip (27K reputation)One Orange Chip (27K reputation)One Orange Chip (27K reputation)One Orange Chip (27K reputation)One Orange Chip (27K reputation)One Orange Chip (27K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 27175 Visits: 13268
Thanks for the question.


How to post forum questions.
Need an answer? No, you need a question.
What’s the deal with Excel & SSIS?
My blog at SQLKover.

MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP
theboyholty
theboyholty
SSC Veteran
SSC Veteran (200 reputation)SSC Veteran (200 reputation)SSC Veteran (200 reputation)SSC Veteran (200 reputation)SSC Veteran (200 reputation)SSC Veteran (200 reputation)SSC Veteran (200 reputation)SSC Veteran (200 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 200 Visits: 123
I don't understand why so many people are so happy to be presented with a simple question, or so pleased with themselves for getting it right. personally I prefer something which makes me think.

Having said that, it depends on your collation. If you're using case sensitive collation, then statements 2,3,4 and 5 would all fail.
byoun836
byoun836
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 9 Visits: 11
Hey Guys

i tested the query out for this and it ran fine when i changed CAPS to the field names
David Conn
David Conn
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame (3.1K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.1K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.1K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.1K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.1K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.1K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.1K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 3143 Visits: 1148
Good Question.
A few people getting carried away with Collation Sequences where it looks to me that the QOTD Author was concentrating on the last Select Statement.
I like to think of the "Order By" as the Query's Presentation Layer. In this case the "Order By" couldn't present Data not in the Query's Results

Regards
David
paul s-306273
paul s-306273
SSCrazy
SSCrazy (2.4K reputation)SSCrazy (2.4K reputation)SSCrazy (2.4K reputation)SSCrazy (2.4K reputation)SSCrazy (2.4K reputation)SSCrazy (2.4K reputation)SSCrazy (2.4K reputation)SSCrazy (2.4K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 2391 Visits: 1108
Easy today - what Hugo says is axiomatic.

Hugo Kornelis (5/7/2013)
Thanks! Good question.

In addition to the explanation given: the restriction actually makes sense. Remember that, logically, the ORDER BY is performed *after* the SELECT. In the official ANSI standard, columns in the ORDER BY must always be in the SELECT clause. The fact that we usually can order by other columns is because, logically, SQL Server adds a hidden extra column in the SELECT, uses it for ordering, then doesn't disply it or return it to the client. (And I stress that this is "logically" - queries are not actually executed that way!). But with a SELECT DISTINCT, that is impossible. Adding the extra column before the DISTINCT would influence the results (the extra columns could make rows that are otherwise the same distinct to each other, and once removed the results would show duplicate rows in spite of the DISTINCT). And adding the extra column after the DISTINCT is impossible, since a single row after DISTINCT can correspond to multiple rows before DISTINCT.

Or, yet another way to put it, suppose I have this data in a table called MyTable:
Col1 | Col2
-----+-----
1 | a
2 | b
3 | a

Now suppose I were allowed to execute this query:
SELECT DISTINCT Col2
FROM MyTable
ORDER BY Col1;


The resultset should contain an "a" and a "b". But in what order? The "b" comes from the row with Col1 = 2, but the "a' comes from two rows, with Col1 = 1 and Col1 = 3. Should the "a" go before or after the "b"? There is no possible answer for this - and that's why the query is illegal!


Raghavendra Mudugal (5/7/2013)
I guess, when we DISTINCT, it also sorts the data physically, so usage of additional ORDER BY is not needed

WRONG!!!!!!
This may or may not work correctly, but you have no guarantee.
The optimizer had different ways to implement a DISTINCT. One of them is a "Distinct sort" - where rows are sorted and duplicate are removed. That would produce results in the specified output - though the optimizer could decide to reverse the order of the columns. Another way would be to convert the DISTINCT to an aggregate - remember that there is no difference at all between "SELECT DISTINCT Col1 FROM MyTable" and "SELECT Col1 FROM MyTable GROUP BY MyCol", and the optimizer knows that. If the aggregeate is implemented with a stream aggregate operator. you may still be okay (though, again, the order of the columns if more than one is used can be changed to match an existing index and avoid a sort step). But if a hash aggregate operator is used, you're completely hosed.
And then, with a large enough table, you can get a parallel plan, where each individual stream might or might not have the rows in order, but the order is not retained when gathering streams. Or, with a complex query, the optimizer might decide to push down the distinct operator as far as possible to reduce the rows, and then reorder the results coming out of it for the rest, e.g. to facilitate a merge join, or as a byproduct of a hash join.

When working with SQL Server, if you need guarantees about the order in which results will be returned - ALWAYS USE AN ORDER BY!!!!!
Everything else means you rely on undocumented, and hence unguaranteed behaviour. A ticking timebomb!

sqlnaive
sqlnaive
SSCarpal Tunnel
SSCarpal Tunnel (4.3K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.3K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.3K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.3K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.3K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.3K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.3K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 4273 Visits: 2774
Nice Ez Pz question. :-)
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search