HAVING

Question

HAVING

Viewing 11 posts - 46 through 55 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Hugo Kornelis SSC Guru Points: 64790 More actions · Answer 1

Paul White NZ (6/21/2010)
Rick Lang (6/21/2010)
Perhaps a different version of the question where the answer would be different with the Having clause vs just the where clause might help to clear up any confusion (mine anyways)?
In addition to Hugo's example, this is a favourite of mine:
SELECT 'One row'
WHERE 1 = 0
HAVING 0 = 0;

Wow!

You should have saved that for QotD, Paul!

Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server/Data Platform MVP (2006-2016)
Visit my SQL Server blog: https://sqlserverfast.com/blog/
SQL Server Execution Plan Reference: https://sqlserverfast.com/epr/

Paul White SSC Guru Points: 150467 More actions · Answer 2

John McC (6/22/2010)
That's just plain wrong. 😉

It still gives me nightmares from time to time :blink:

I used to think I understood the basics of SQL.

Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi

Toreador SSChampion Points: 11365 More actions · Answer 3

I've seen that one before somewhere.

It becomes slightly more obvious if you add a 'count(*)' to the select list

Paul White SSC Guru Points: 150467 More actions · Answer 4

Hugo Kornelis (6/22/2010)
Wow!
You should have saved that for QotD, Paul!

Scary isn't it!

I blame a fellow MVP of yours: Rob Farley for all this - he reminded me of it in a T-SQL Tuesday blog a little while ago. I didn't have the link to hand before, but I've found it now, for anyone else that's interested:

http://msmvps.com/blogs/robfarley/archive/2010/01/12/t-sql-tuesday-having-puzzle-answer.aspx

I don't recall where I first came across it - it just seems to spring up every few years to remind me that SQL doesn't always go hand in hand with common sense...:-)

Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi

Paul White SSC Guru Points: 150467 More actions · Answer 5

Toreador (6/22/2010)
It becomes slightly more obvious if you add a 'count(*)' to the select list

Yep there's lots of variations:

SELECT 'One row', SUM(CASE WHEN 1 = 0 THEN 0 ELSE 1 END)

WHERE 1 = 0;

Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi

me_always Say Hey Kid Points: 708 More actions · Answer 6

Hi,

Could not get the having clause ...

can anyonce please explain?

Hugo Kornelis SSC Guru Points: 64790 More actions · Answer 7

me_always (8/9/2010)
Hi,
Could not get the having clause ...
can anyonce please explain?

Sure - but such a broad question is too hard to answer (other than with a reference to Books Online).

Have you read the explanation that is given after replying to the question? And have you read the discussion here?

If, after reading all that, you still have a question, I'll be happy to answer - as soon as you tell me what exactly you don't understand.

Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server/Data Platform MVP (2006-2016)
Visit my SQL Server blog: https://sqlserverfast.com/blog/
SQL Server Execution Plan Reference: https://sqlserverfast.com/epr/

yogender SSC-Addicted Points: 477 More actions · Answer 8

yogender

SSC-Addicted

Points: 477

August 9, 2010 at 6:16 am

#1204099

Learned something new about HAVING.

Dhruvesh Shah SSCrazy Points: 2303 More actions · Answer 9

Thanks, i was under the impression that we have to use Having with Group by only and also explanation is clear enough to understand how it works.

kapil_kk SSC-Insane Points: 21316 More actions · Answer 10

Excellent Question 🙂

Great discussion & explanations!

_______________________________________________________________
To get quick answer follow this link:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/

Mr. Kapsicum SSCertifiable Points: 6128 More actions · Answer 11

THIS THREAD IS DEFINITELY GIVING A LOT TO LEARN.

SPECIALLY THIS:

SELECT 'One row'
WHERE 1 = 0
HAVING 0 = 0;