assigning values to fields

hey all,
let's say i have the following records:
Name, Inv#, Desc
--
Cust1, null, Desc1
Cust1, null, Desc2
Cust1, 1, Desc1
Cust1, 2, Desc1
Cust1, 2, Desc2
How would you make those null values 3's or the MAX(Inv#) for Cust1?
thanks,
rodcharIf this is your entire table, you might need to clean it up to include a
key. Otherwise,
UPDATE tbl
SET Inv# = ( SELECT MAX( Inv# ) + 1
FROM tbl t1 )
WHERE Inv# IS NULL ;
Anith|||Try:
SELECT NAME, ISNULL(INV,3), DESCCOL
FROM YOURTABLE
OR
SELECT NAME, ISNULL(INV,(SELECT MAX(INV)FROM YOURTABLE)), DESCCOL
FROM YOURTABLE
OR
DECLARE @.VAL INT
SELECT @.VAL = MAX(INV) FROM YOURTABLE
SELECT NAME, ISNULL(INV,@.VAL), DESCCOL
FROM YOURTABLE
HTH
Jerry
"rodchar" <rodchar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:34412E99-897D-42DE-AB25-25C689902ABA@.microsoft.com...
> hey all,
> let's say i have the following records:
> Name, Inv#, Desc
> --
> Cust1, null, Desc1
> Cust1, null, Desc2
> Cust1, 1, Desc1
> Cust1, 2, Desc1
> Cust1, 2, Desc2
> How would you make those null values 3's or the MAX(Inv#) for Cust1?
> thanks,
> rodchar
>|||UPDATE YourTable
SET [Inv#] =
(
SELECT MAX([Inv#])
FROM YourTable Y1
WHERE Y1.Name = YourTable.Name
)
WHERE YourTable.[Inv#] IS NULL
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"rodchar" <rodchar@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:34412E99-897D-42DE-AB25-25C689902ABA@.microsoft.com...
> hey all,
> let's say i have the following records:
> Name, Inv#, Desc
> --
> Cust1, null, Desc1
> Cust1, null, Desc2
> Cust1, 1, Desc1
> Cust1, 2, Desc1
> Cust1, 2, Desc2
> How would you make those null values 3's or the MAX(Inv#) for Cust1?
> thanks,
> rodchar
>|||3 things for everyone:
1st: Thanks for the great replies
2nd:
UPDATE Transactions
SET InvNo = ( SELECT MAX( InvNo ) + 1
FROM Transactions t1 )
WHERE InvNo IS NULL ;
This worked for me but what i thought would happen with this is that once it
updated the first null and made it a 3 the 2nd null would become a 4. Can
anyone explain please?
3rd:
This same query didn't work in an access database it said that this wasn't
an updateable query. any ideas?
thanks again,
rodchar
"Anith Sen" wrote:

> If this is your entire table, you might need to clean it up to include a
> key. Otherwise,
> UPDATE tbl
> SET Inv# = ( SELECT MAX( Inv# ) + 1
> FROM tbl t1 )
> WHERE Inv# IS NULL ;
> --
> Anith
>
>|||>> This worked for me but what i thought would happen with this is that once
I am not sure what to explain, since the code is simple and clear. In case,
you are looking for sequentially incrementing value to replace the NULLs,
you'd have to use a "ranking" mechanism like:
UPDATE tbl
SET Inv# = ( SELECT MAX( Inv# )
FROM tbl t1 ) +
( SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM tbl t1
WHERE t1.Name = tbl.Name
AND t1.Descr <= tbl.Descr
AND t1.Inv# IS NULL )
FROM tbl
WHERE Inv# IS NULL ;
Depending on the ranking variations you need, you'll have to adjust the
correlations in the subquery using COUNT(*).
Access has different updateability rules and different UDPATE dialect than
SQL Server. If you are using MS Access, consider posting this question in an
Access forum.
Anith|||i'm sorry for not being clear. your code posting is exactly what i needed. i
was just curious why it didn't make the nulls sequential. Because once it
makes the first null record a 3 wouldn't that be the new MAX(InvNo), and in
turn making the last null value a 4.
just trying to understand how the engine thinks and works. this helped a lot
.
"Anith Sen" wrote:

> I am not sure what to explain, since the code is simple and clear. In case
,
> you are looking for sequentially incrementing value to replace the NULLs,
> you'd have to use a "ranking" mechanism like:
> UPDATE tbl
> SET Inv# = ( SELECT MAX( Inv# )
> FROM tbl t1 ) +
> ( SELECT COUNT(*)
> FROM tbl t1
> WHERE t1.Name = tbl.Name
> AND t1.Descr <= tbl.Descr
> AND t1.Inv# IS NULL )
> FROM tbl
> WHERE Inv# IS NULL ;
> Depending on the ranking variations you need, you'll have to adjust the
> correlations in the subquery using COUNT(*).
>
> Access has different updateability rules and different UDPATE dialect than
> SQL Server. If you are using MS Access, consider posting this question in
an
> Access forum.
> --
> Anith
>
>|||>> i was just curious why it didn't make the nulls sequential.
With no correlation, the value is generated only once for the entire
dataset. With a correlation, the values are generated for each matching row
in the dataset.
No problem.
Anith|||thank you everyone for the help. this has been very productive.
"Anith Sen" wrote:

> With no correlation, the value is generated only once for the entire
> dataset. With a correlation, the values are generated for each matching ro
w
> in the dataset.
>
> No problem.
> --
> Anith
>
>|||On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:09:04 -0700, ari wrote:

>2nd:
>UPDATE Transactions
>SET InvNo = ( SELECT MAX( InvNo ) + 1
>FROM Transactions t1 )
>WHERE InvNo IS NULL ;
>This worked for me but what i thought would happen with this is that once i
t
>updated the first null and made it a 3 the 2nd null would become a 4. Can
>anyone explain please?
Hi ari,
In SQL, all operations are done "at once". At least in theory. In
practice, they will eventuelly, somewhere deep in the engine, be
processed one row at a time, but the DB should behave as if the complete
statement is executed at once.
That's why you can swap columns without temp storage to hold the old
value, like you would in procedural languages:
UPDATE SomeTable
SET A = B,
B = A
WHERE ...
The right-hand B and A both refer to the "old" values (before the
update). The DB can process this internally ion any order it wants, as
long as the result looks as if it was all executed at once.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)

assigning values

hey all,
let's say i have the following records:
Name, Inv#, Desc
--
Cust1, null, Desc1
Cust1, null, Desc2
Cust2, null, Desc1
Cust2, null, Desc1
Cust3, null, Desc2
How would I make it:
Cust1, 1, Desc1
Cust1, 1, Desc2
Cust2, 2, Desc1
Cust2, 2, Desc1
Cust3, 3, Desc2
thanks,
rodcharselect name,right(name,1),Desc
from table
This will work for this example
http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
"rodchar" wrote:

> hey all,
> let's say i have the following records:
> Name, Inv#, Desc
> --
> Cust1, null, Desc1
> Cust1, null, Desc2
> Cust2, null, Desc1
> Cust2, null, Desc1
> Cust3, null, Desc2
> How would I make it:
> Cust1, 1, Desc1
> Cust1, 1, Desc2
> Cust2, 2, Desc1
> Cust2, 2, Desc1
> Cust3, 3, Desc2
>
> thanks,
> rodchar|||the invoice numbers don't come from the NAME field.
it should find the MAX(InvoiceID) and assign it to all transactions for a
single customer that have a NULL value, then for the next set of transaction
s
for the next customer the Invoice number should be incremented by 1.
CustA, 1, Desc1
CustA, 1, Desc2
CustB, 2, Desc1
CustB, 2, Desc1
CustC, 3, Desc2
"SQL" wrote:
> select name,right(name,1),Desc
> from table
> This will work for this example
> http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/
> "rodchar" wrote:
>|||Please post DDL, so that people do not have to guess what the keys,
constraints, Declarative Referential Integrity, data types, etc. in
your schema are. Sample data is also a good idea, along with clear
specifications. It is very hard to debug code when you do not let us
see it.
Let's get back to the basics of an RDBMS. Rows are not records; fields
are not columns; tables are not files; there is no sequential access or
ordering in an RDBMS, so "first", "next" and "last" are totally
meaningless. If you want an ordering, then you need to havs a column
that defines that ordering. You must use an ORDER BY clause on a
cursor -- the keys have nothing whatsoever to do with the display in
the front end.
Let me fix those horrible data element names with some guesses. The
only possible key is (cust_name, item_description), while silly me, I
would have thought that invoice_nbr would be unique in an invoice
table.
What you posted does not make any sense.|||Sorry about that.
Alright, let me give a quick 30,000 ft view because my logic could be off
(it has been before many times.)
I'm trying generate invoices from a transactions table. so here's what i do.
i enter all the transactions for the month for all the customers. when
invoice time comes around here are my steps:
1. I assign invoice numbers to each record in the transactions table where
InvoiceID IS NULL.
2. Then I insert the records into the invoice headers table and invoice
details table.
Transactions table:
rowID int primary key
CustomerID int
InvoiceID int
TransactionType (bill,payment)
Cost money
so my records look like this
1, 122, null, bill, $20
2, 122, null, bill, $20
3, 105, null, bill, $20
4, 101, null, bill, $20
5, 102, null, bill, $20
now if my logic is sound
my transactions table will look like the following after assigning invoice
numbers to them:
1, 122, 1, bill, $20
2, 122, 1, bill, $20
3, 105, 2, bill, $20
4, 101, 3, bill, $20
5, 102, 4, bill, $20
Please advise. Is there a more clearer way to do this whole process that i'm
missing.
thanks,
rodchar
"--CELKO--" wrote:

> Please post DDL, so that people do not have to guess what the keys,
> constraints, Declarative Referential Integrity, data types, etc. in
> your schema are. Sample data is also a good idea, along with clear
> specifications. It is very hard to debug code when you do not let us
> see it.
> Let's get back to the basics of an RDBMS. Rows are not records; fields
> are not columns; tables are not files; there is no sequential access or
> ordering in an RDBMS, so "first", "next" and "last" are totally
> meaningless. If you want an ordering, then you need to havs a column
> that defines that ordering. You must use an ORDER BY clause on a
> cursor -- the keys have nothing whatsoever to do with the display in
> the front end.
> Let me fix those horrible data element names with some guesses. The
> only possible key is (cust_name, item_description), while silly me, I
> would have thought that invoice_nbr would be unique in an invoice
> table.
> What you posted does not make any sense.
>