ansaurus

Question

How to use" HAVING "and "ORDER BY" clause in sql

Answer 1

+7 A:

Use where here instead of having.

having is useful for narrowing conditions on aggregate values.
where is useful for narrowing conditions on un-aggregated data.

Update
SQL Server is not MySQL, what works on one ...

May just work on the other
May need to be tweaked slightly to work
May need to be completely re-enginerred before it will work.

This should be what you need

SELECT Id, 
       Name1, 
       ZipCode, 
       StreetName, 
       StreetNumber, 
       State1, 
       Lat, 
       Lng, 
       Keyword, 
       ( 6371 * ACOS( COS( (12.925432/57.2958) ) * COS(  (Lat/57.2958)  ) * COS( ( Lng/57.2958 ) - (77.5940171/57.2958) ) + SIN( 12.925432/57.2958 ) * SIN(  Lat/57.2958  ) ) ) AS distance  
  FROM Business_Details  
  where (Keyword like '%plumber%')  
  and ( 6371 * ACOS( COS( (12.925432/57.2958) ) * COS(  (Lat/57.2958)  ) * COS( ( Lng/57.2958 ) - (77.5940171/57.2958) ) + SIN( 12.925432/57.2958 ) * SIN(  Lat/57.2958  ) ) ) < 1.5
  ORDER BY ( 6371 * ACOS( COS( (12.925432/57.2958) ) * COS(  (Lat/57.2958)  ) * COS( ( Lng/57.2958 ) - (77.5940171/57.2958) ) + SIN( 12.925432/57.2958 ) * SIN(  Lat/57.2958  ) ) ) ;

Binary Worrier 2010-08-31 10:36:43

This isn't the cause of the error which is the main point of this question

Daniel Renshaw 2010-08-31 10:39:48

Having is the cause of the error, you cannot use it without adding a group by.It seems clear from the SQL that the user is trying to use the Having clause in the context of the Where clause.

Wes Price 2010-08-31 10:47:48

Actually, you can use a HAVING without a GROUP BY clause. This SQL runs fine: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sys.databases HAVING MAX(database_id) < 100

Ardman 2010-08-31 11:02:20

Thanks for the replyIn this particular article code.google.com/apis/maps/articles/phpsqlsearch.html they have used the following query with having and order by clause they are using mysql server in that i am using sql server 2005 does it make any difference in query SELECT id, ( 3959 * acos( cos( radians(37) ) * cos( radians( lat ) ) * cos( radians( lng ) - radians(-122) ) + sin( radians(37) ) * sin( radians( lat ) ) ) ) AS distance FROM markers HAVING distance < 25 ORDER BY distance LIMIT 0 , 20;

mahesh 2010-08-31 11:07:03

Yes, it will make a difference.

Ardman 2010-08-31 11:10:15

@Daniel Renshaw. When running (very similar) to the above on SQL2005 "Msg 8121, Level 16, State 1, Line 1Column 'tableName.columnName' is invalid in the HAVING clause because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause."

Binary Worrier 2010-08-31 11:23:57

@Binary Worrier: my mistake, I thought `HAVING` was interchangable with `WHERE` when no `GROUP BY` was specified; I've just checked this and found that you're right and I was wrong :-) This means that there are *two* errors in the original SQL (having vs where and referencing a computed result in the having/where clause)

Daniel Renshaw 2010-08-31 11:27:52

@Ardman: That works becase the column database_id is implicitly used in the aggregate function `count`. if it were `select *` instead of `select count(*)` it wouldn't work.

Binary Worrier 2010-08-31 11:28:53

@Daniel Renshaw: Well spotted, hadn't noticed `distance`

Binary Worrier 2010-08-31 11:31:29

@Binary Worrier: Which proves my point about using the HAVING clause without a GROUP BY :o)

Ardman 2010-08-31 12:37:41

@Ardman: Of course! While also proving mine :p

Binary Worrier 2010-08-31 12:40:21

Answer 2

+1 A:

SELECT * from   
 (SELECT Id,
   Name1,
   ZipCode,
   StreetName,
   StreetNumber,
   State1,
   Lat,
   Lng,
   Keyword,
   ( 6371 * ACOS( COS( (12.925432/57.2958) ) * COS(  (Lat/57.2958)  ) * COS( ( Lng/57.2958 ) - (77.5940171/57.2958) ) + SIN( 12.925432/57.2958 ) * SIN(  Lat/57.2958  ) ) ) AS distance 
FROM Business_Details 
)
WHERE (distance < 1.5) and (Keyword like '%plumber%')  
 ORDER BY distance  ;

Michael Pakhantsov 2010-08-31 10:36:59

Thanks for the reply In this particular article code.google.com/apis/maps/articles/phpsqlsearch.html they have used the following query with having and order by clause they are using mysql server in that i am using sql server 2005 does it make any difference in query SELECT id, ( 3959 * acos( cos( radians(37) ) * cos( radians( lat ) ) * cos( radians( lng ) - radians(-122) ) + sin( radians(37) ) * sin( radians( lat ) ) ) ) AS distance FROM markers HAVING distance < 25 ORDER BY distance LIMIT 0 , 20;

mahesh 2010-08-31 11:06:39

Answer 3

+5 A:

Everyone has already mentioned that HAVING is for aggregate data, like SUM and MIN and you can put those two conditions in your WHERE clause.

For what it's worth (I cannot test right now) and to hopefully address your actual question, it has been my experience that you can not use a column alias in the HAVING clause, and must explicitly rewrite the equation for the column there instead of the alias.

See this question for more details.

Brandon Horsley 2010-08-31 10:37:28

Answer 4

+2 A:

HAVING is generally used in conjunction with a GROUP BY statement. HAVING is like the WHERE for the resulting groups.

hqrsie 2010-08-31 10:39:53

In this particular article http://code.google.com/apis/maps/articles/phpsqlsearch.htmlthey have used the following query with having and order by clause they are using mysql server in that i am using sql server 2005 does it make any difference in querySELECT id, ( 3959 * acos( cos( radians(37) ) * cos( radians( lat ) ) * cos( radians( lng ) - radians(-122) ) + sin( radians(37) ) * sin( radians( lat ) ) ) ) AS distance FROM markers HAVING distance < 25 ORDER BY distance LIMIT 0 , 20;

mahesh 2010-08-31 11:05:25

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

How to use" HAVING "and "ORDER BY" clause in sql

related questions