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


HAVING


HAVING

Author
Message
Hugo Kornelis
Hugo Kornelis
SSChampion
SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 13111 Visits: 12148
Comments posted to this topic are about the item HAVING


Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP
Visit my SQL Server blog: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/hugo_kornelis
UMG Developer
UMG Developer
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: 3016 Visits: 2204
Great question, I had to think about it, thanks!

Though I would have to say I would have made one of the choices "One row displaying the value 1", as that would have made one of the incorrect choices more plausible.
Hugo Kornelis
Hugo Kornelis
SSChampion
SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 13111 Visits: 12148
Thanks, UMG!

And you are right, that would have been a better distractor. I'm not sure why I included the "one row, value 2" option. It's a while back I made this question; if I recall correctly, the HAVING clause first tested for >= 5, and I changed this later but apparently forgot to change the distractor.


Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP
Visit my SQL Server blog: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/hugo_kornelis
ziangij
ziangij
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 3267 Visits: 377
thanks Hugo, i really didnt know this. I was assuming that HAVING must have a corresponding GROUP by.
deepak.a
deepak.a
SSC Eights!
SSC Eights! (856 reputation)SSC Eights! (856 reputation)SSC Eights! (856 reputation)SSC Eights! (856 reputation)SSC Eights! (856 reputation)SSC Eights! (856 reputation)SSC Eights! (856 reputation)SSC Eights! (856 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 856 Visits: 863
Bit Tricky & thanks for the Good question Smile
Christian Buettner-167247
Christian Buettner-167247
SSCarpal Tunnel
SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 4079 Visits: 3889
High quality, thats what I like in the mornings - Thanks Hugo!

Best Regards,

Chris Büttner
sharath.chalamgari
sharath.chalamgari
SSCommitted
SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)SSCommitted (1.6K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1634 Visits: 798
Good Question, we will be always thinking that having can be used only with the Group By clause.
Koen Verbeeck
Koen Verbeeck
SSC-Dedicated
SSC-Dedicated (34K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (34K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (34K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (34K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (34K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (34K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (34K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (34K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 34165 Visits: 13270
Nice question. Learned something about HAVING.


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
Ronald H
Ronald H
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1.4K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.4K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.4K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.4K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.4K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.4K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.4K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.4K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1358 Visits: 622
Nice question! I got it wrong, because I misinterpreted the HAVING clause; I read it as WHERE Col >= 5, and that leads to a value of 2. I knew the behaviour of HAVING though, but I wanted to have it play a role in this query. But alas, it's only to confuse the reader...

So there can always be logic in an incorrect answer, as long as you read the question wrong Smile

Ronald Hensbergen

Help us, help yourself... Post data so we can read and use it: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2+2=5 for significant large values of 2
MG-148046
MG-148046
SSCrazy
SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)SSCrazy (2.9K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 2850 Visits: 2783
I thought it would be an empty result but wasn't positive decided to "test" and created the table. I got this message on executing the query:

Msg 8121, Level 16, State 1, Line 4
Column 'QotD.col2' is invalid in the HAVING clause because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause.

This is from BOL:

"The HAVING clause is typically used together with the GROUP BY clause to filter the results of aggregate values. However, HAVING can be specified without GROUP BY. The HAVING clause specifies additional filters that are applied after the WHERE clause filters. These filters can be applied to an aggregate function used in the select list."

I don't know if the version of SQL makes a difference, but I am using SQL Server 2008 R2

MG

"There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies."
Tony Hoare

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
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