I'm trying to create a view with an ORDER BY
clause. I have create it successfully on SQL Server 2012 SP1, but when I try to re-create it on SQL Server 2008 R2, I get this error:
Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Procedure TopUsers, Line 11
Incorrect syntax near 'OFFSET'.
The code to create the view is
CREATE View [dbo].[TopUsersTest]
as
select
u.[DisplayName] , sum(a.AnswerMark) as Marks
From Users_Questions us inner join [dbo].[Users] u
on u.[UserID] = us.[UserID]
inner join [dbo].[Answers] a
on a.[AnswerID] = us.[AnswerID]
group by [DisplayName]
order by Marks desc
OFFSET 0 ROWS
=====================
This is a screen shot of the diagram
I wish to return users' DisplayName
and the UserTotalMarks
and order this result desc, so the user with the biggest result with be on the top.
The ORDER BY clause is not valid in views, inline functions, derived tables, and subqueries, unless either the TOP or OFFSET and FETCH clauses are also specified. When ORDER BY is used in these objects, the clause is used only to determine the rows returned by the TOP clause or OFFSET and FETCH clauses.
I dont believe you can create a view using order by. You need to select from the view and then order by in that statement.
Syntax. SELECT column-list FROM table_name [WHERE condition] [ORDER BY column1, column2, .. columnN] [ASC | DESC]; You can use more than one column in the ORDER BY clause.
The SQL ORDER BY clause is used to sort the result set in either ascending or descending order. For example, SELECT * FROM Customers ORDER BY first_name; Run Code. Here, the SQL command selects all customers and then sorts them in ascending order by first_name .
I'm not sure what you think this ORDER BY
is accomplishing? Even if you do put ORDER BY
in the view in a legal way (e.g. by adding a TOP
clause), if you just select from the view, e.g. SELECT * FROM dbo.TopUsersTest;
without an ORDER BY
clause, SQL Server is free to return the rows in the most efficient way, which won't necessarily match the order you expect. This is because ORDER BY
is overloaded, in that it tries to serve two purposes: to sort the results and to dictate which rows to include in TOP
. In this case, TOP
always wins (though depending on the index chosen to scan the data, you might observe that your order is working as expected - but this is just a coincidence).
In order to accomplish what you want, you need to add your ORDER BY
clause to the queries that pull data from the view, not to the code of the view itself.
So your view code should just be:
CREATE VIEW [dbo].[TopUsersTest] AS SELECT u.[DisplayName], SUM(a.AnswerMark) AS Marks FROM dbo.Users_Questions AS uq INNER JOIN [dbo].[Users] AS u ON u.[UserID] = us.[UserID] INNER JOIN [dbo].[Answers] AS a ON a.[AnswerID] = uq.[AnswerID] GROUP BY u.[DisplayName];
The ORDER BY
is meaningless so should not even be included.
To illustrate, using AdventureWorks2012, here is an example:
CREATE VIEW dbo.SillyView AS SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT SalesOrderID, OrderDate, CustomerID , AccountNumber, TotalDue FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader ORDER BY CustomerID; GO SELECT SalesOrderID, OrderDate, CustomerID, AccountNumber, TotalDue FROM dbo.SillyView;
Results:
SalesOrderID OrderDate CustomerID AccountNumber TotalDue ------------ ---------- ---------- -------------- ---------- 43659 2005-07-01 29825 10-4020-000676 23153.2339 43660 2005-07-01 29672 10-4020-000117 1457.3288 43661 2005-07-01 29734 10-4020-000442 36865.8012 43662 2005-07-01 29994 10-4020-000227 32474.9324 43663 2005-07-01 29565 10-4020-000510 472.3108
And you can see from the execution plan that the TOP
and ORDER BY
have been absolutely ignored and optimized away by SQL Server:
There is no TOP
operator at all, and no sort. SQL Server has optimized them away completely.
Now, if you change the view to say ORDER BY SalesID
, you will then just happen to get the ordering that the view states, but only - as mentioned before - by coincidence.
But if you change your outer query to perform the ORDER BY
you wanted:
SELECT SalesOrderID, OrderDate, CustomerID, AccountNumber, TotalDue FROM dbo.SillyView ORDER BY CustomerID;
You get the results ordered the way you want:
SalesOrderID OrderDate CustomerID AccountNumber TotalDue ------------ ---------- ---------- -------------- ---------- 43793 2005-07-22 11000 10-4030-011000 3756.989 51522 2007-07-22 11000 10-4030-011000 2587.8769 57418 2007-11-04 11000 10-4030-011000 2770.2682 51493 2007-07-20 11001 10-4030-011001 2674.0227 43767 2005-07-18 11001 10-4030-011001 3729.364
And the plan still has optimized away the TOP
/ORDER BY
in the view, but a sort is added (at no small cost, mind you) to present the results ordered by CustomerID
:
So, moral of the story, do not put ORDER BY in views. Put ORDER BY in the queries that reference them. And if the sorting is expensive, you might consider adding/changing an index to support it.
I've had success forcing the view to be ordered using
SELECT TOP 9999999 ... ORDER BY something
Unfortunately using SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT
does not work due the issue here.
From Sql 2012 you can force ordering in views and subqueries with OFFSET
SELECT C.CustomerID,
C.CustomerName,
C.CustomerAge
FROM dbo.Customer C
ORDER BY CustomerAge OFFSET 0 ROWS;
Warning: this should only be used on small lists because OFFSET forces the full view to be evaluated even if further joins or filters on the view reduce its size!
There is no good way to force ordering in a view without a side effect really and for good reason.
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