Bonjour!
So, in a stored procedure I would like to do a conditional union decided by a parameter. How can I do that?
Here is my "doesn't work" procedure :
SET ANSI_NULLS ON
GO
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
GO
CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[spp_GetAdressesList]
@OnlyLinked bit = 1,
@ObligedId int = -1
AS
BEGIN
SELECT
[ID_ADRESS]
,[ID_ENT]
,[VOI_ADRESS]
,[NUM_ADRESS]
,[BTE_ADRESS]
,[CP_ADRESS]
,[VIL_ADRESS]
FROM [ADRESSES]
WHERE
(
(VIL_ADRESS != 'NC' AND VIL_ADRESS != '--')
AND
(@OnlyLinked = 0 OR ID_ENT is not null)
)
IF (@ObligedId != -1)
BEGIN
UNION
SELECT
[ID_ADRESS]
,[ID_ENT]
,[VOI_ADRESS]
,[NUM_ADRESS]
,[BTE_ADRESS]
,[CP_ADRESS]
,[VIL_ADRESS]
FROM [ADRESSES]
WHERE
ID_ADRESS = @ObligedId
END
END
So if @ObligedId est = a -1 I would like to doesn't have the UNION.
I made this with a dynamic varchar query, at the end I was executing the query with an exec. But it's apparently less efficient and you can make sql injection (It is for asp.net application) with dynamic queries. I decided to change all my stored procedures
It's not possible to do an union in a IF clause?
Thanks for all answers without exceptions..
Both UNION and UNION ALL operators combine rows from result sets into a single result set. The UNION operator removes eliminate duplicate rows, whereas the UNION ALL operator does not.
Use UNION ALL instead of UNION whenever is possible That is why UNION ALL is faster. Because it does not remove duplicated values in the query. If there are few rows (let's say 1000 rows), there is almost no performance difference between UNION and UNION ALL. However, if there are more rows, you can see the difference.
Union is a type of operator in MySQL. We can use ORDER BY with this to filter records. Use UNION if you want to select rows one after the other from several tables or several sets of rows from a single table all as a single result set. Let us see an example.
Normally to do a case based union, you transform the pseudo
select 1 AS A
IF @b!=-1 then
union all
select 2 as B
END IF
into
select 1 AS A
union all
select 2 as B WHERE @b!=-1 -- the condition covers the entire select
-- because it is a variable test, SQL Server does it first and
-- aborts the entire part of the union if not true
For your query, that becomes
SELECT
[ID_ADRESS],[ID_ENT],[VOI_ADRESS],[NUM_ADRESS],[BTE_ADRESS]
,[CP_ADRESS],[VIL_ADRESS]
FROM [ADRESSES]
WHERE
(
(VIL_ADRESS != 'NC' AND VIL_ADRESS != '--')
AND
(@OnlyLinked = 0 OR ID_ENT is not null)
)
UNION
SELECT
[ID_ADRESS],[ID_ENT],[VOI_ADRESS],[NUM_ADRESS],[BTE_ADRESS]
,[CP_ADRESS],[VIL_ADRESS]
FROM [ADRESSES]
WHERE
ID_ADRESS = @ObligedId
AND (@ObligedId != -1)
However, since in this specific query, the data is from the same table just different filters, you would OR the filters instead. Note: if you had used UNION ALL, it can not be reduced this way because of possible duplicates that UNION ALL preserves. For UNION (which removes duplicates anyway), the OR reduction works just fine
SELECT
[ID_ADRESS],[ID_ENT],[VOI_ADRESS],[NUM_ADRESS],[BTE_ADRESS]
,[CP_ADRESS],[VIL_ADRESS]
FROM [ADRESSES]
WHERE
(
(VIL_ADRESS != 'NC' AND VIL_ADRESS != '--')
AND
(@OnlyLinked = 0 OR ID_ENT is not null)
)
OR
(
ID_ADRESS = @ObligedId
AND (@ObligedId != -1) -- include this
)
You could use a where
clause to choose either end of the union:
select col1, col2 from TableA where @Param = 1
UNION ALL
select col1, col2 from TableB where @Param = 2
In your example, you could omit the IF
statement entirely, since no address will have an ID_ADDRESS of -1.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With