💎🏭SQL Reloaded: A Look into Reverse

Some time back I was mentioning Stuff as one of the functions rarely used in SQL Server. Here’s another one: Reverse. I remember I used such a function in other programming languages and maybe 1-2 times in SQL Server, and I can’t say I seen it in action in other posts. As it name states and the MSDN documentation confirms, Reverse returns the reverse of a string value. The function takes as parameter any string value or value that could be implicitly conversed to a string, otherwise you’ll have to do an explicit conversion. As can be seen from the below first example the reverse of the “string” string is “gnirts”, and, as per the second example, the reverse of the revers of a string is the initial string itself. The third and fourth example use in exchange a numeric value.
 

-- reversing a string using Reverse function 
SELECT Reverse('string') Example1 
, Reverse(Reverse('string')) Example2 
, Reverse(1234567890) Example3 
, Reverse(Reverse(1234567890)) Example4 

Example1	Example2	Example3	Example4
gnirts	string	987654321	1234567890

It seems there is not much to be said about Reverse function, and in the few situations that you need it, it’s great to have it, otherwise you would have to built it yourself. Let’s try to imagine there is no Reverse function in SQL Server, how would we provide such functionality by using existing functionality? In general such an exercise might look like lost time, though it could be useful in order to present several basic techniques. In this case the Reverse functionality could be provided by using a simple loop that iterates through string’s characters changing their order. The below piece of code should return the same output as above:

-- reversing a string using looping 
DECLARE @String varchar(50) 
DECLARE @Retval varchar(50) 
DECLARE @Index int 
SET @String = 'string' 
SET @Index = 1 
SET @Retval = '' 
WHILE @Index <= Len(@String) 
BEGIN  
   SET @Retval = Substring(@String, @Index, 1) + @Retval   
   SET @Index = @Index + 1  
END 
SELECT @Retval 

Some type of problems whose solution involve the sequential processing of values within loops could be solved also using recursive techniques (recursion) that involve the sequential processing of values in which the output of a given intermediary step is based on the previous step. Recursion imply a slightly different view of the same problem, it could prove itself to be maybe less efficient in some cases and quite a useful technique in the others. SQL Server provides two types of recursion, one at function level involving functions, stored procedures are triggers, respectively at query level implemented in common table expressions. Recursive functions, functions that call themselves, have been for quite a while in SQL Server though few of the database books I read really talk about them. Probably I will detail the topic in another post, though for the moment I will show only the technique at work. In this case the recursive approach is quite simple:

-- reversing a string using a recursive function 
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.ReverseString( 
@string varchar(50)) 
RETURNS varchar(50) 
AS 
BEGIN           
     RETURN (CASE WHEN Len(@string)>1 THEN dbo.ReverseString( Right(@string, len(@string)-1)) + Left(@string, 1) ELSE @string END) 
END 

-- testing 
SELECT dbo.ReverseString('string') Example1 
, dbo.ReverseString(dbo.ReverseString('string')) Example2 

Common table expressions (CTE), since their introduction with SQL Server 2005, became quite an important technique in processing hierarchical structures like BOMs, which involve the traversal of the whole tree. A sequence is actually a tree having the width of 1 node, so it seems like a CTE’s job:
  

-- reversing a string using common table expression 
DECLARE @String varchar(50) 
SET @String = 'string' 
;WITH CTE(String, [Index]) 
AS (     SELECT Cast('' as varchar(50)) String 
    , 1 [Index] 
    UNION ALL 
    SELECT Cast(Substring(@String, [Index], 1) + String as varchar(50)) String 
    , [Index] + 1 [Index] 
    FROM CTE 
    WHERE [Index]<=Len(@String) 
) 

SELECT @String Reversed 
FROM CTE 
WHERE [Index]-1=Len(@String) 

Unlike the previous two solutions, the CTE approach involves more work, work that maybe isn’t required just for the sake of using the technique. When multiple alternative approaches exist, I prefer using the (simplest) solution that offers the highest degree of flexibility. In this case is the loop, though in others it could be a recursive function or a CTE.

Notes:

The queries work also in SQL databases in Microsoft Fabric.

Happy coding!

💎SQL Reloaded: Ways of Looking at Data V (Hierarchies)

While commenting on a post on User Defined Functions from SQL Server Programmers Blog I realized that I could use a multi-statement table-valued function in order to simulate recursive processing for ‘Identifying the top-most parent’ problem presented in Reports - Ways of Looking at Data – Part IV: Hierarchies. Some years back, I needed to create the BOM structure for a report based on IFS-iV ERP system, the data being stored in a SQL Server 2000-based data warehouse. Then, given the fact that common table expressions were introduced only on SQL Server 2005, I used a similar technique as the below one though based on temporary tables, if I’m remembering correctly. Then, like now, I was just iterating through the various levels of the BOM inserting data in the temporary table, this approach having better performance than creating a query self-referencing the same logic multiple times, the logic scaling quite well on multiple millions of records.

 -- BOM Top Most Items 
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.BOMTopMostItems(  
   @ProductID  int , 
   @Date datetime)  
RETURNS  
@BOM TABLE( 
    BillOfMaterialsID int NULL,  
   ProductAssemblyID int NULL,  
   ComponentID int NOT NULL, 
   ModifiedDate datetime NOT NULL, 
   Level smallint NOT NULL)  
AS 
BEGIN 
DECLARE @NoRecords int -- stored the number of Products part of an Assembly  

DECLARE @Level smallint  

SET @Date = ISNull(@Date, GetDate())  

SET @Level = 0 -- initializing the routine 

INSERT @BOM(BillOfMaterialsID, ProductAssemblyID, ComponentID, ModifiedDate, Level)  
SELECT BillOfMaterialsID, ProductAssemblyID, ComponentID, ModifiedDate, @Level  
FROM Production.BillOfMaterials  
WHERE ComponentID = @ProductID  
AND DATEDIFF(d, IsNull(EndDate, GetDate()), @Date)<=0  

SELECT @NoRecords = count(1) 
FROM @BOM  
WHERE ProductAssemblyID IS NOT NULL  

 
WHILE  (IsNull(@NoRecords, 0)>1)  
BEGIN  

    -- inserting next level 
    INSERT @BOM(BillOfMaterialsID, ProductAssemblyID, ComponentID, ModifiedDate, Level) 
    SELECT BOM.BillOfMaterialsID, BOM.ProductAssemblyID, BOM.ComponentID, BOM.ModifiedDate, @Level+1 
    FROM @BOM B  
         JOIN Production.BillOfMaterials BOM 
           ON B.ProductAssemblyID = BOM.ComponentID 
          AND DATEDIFF(d, IsNull(BOM.EndDate, GetDate()), @Date)<=0 
    WHERE Level = @Level 

    SET @Level = @Level+1  

    SELECT @NoRecords = count(1) 
    FROM @BOM 
    WHERE ProductAssemblyID IS NOT NULL 
      AND Level = @Level 

END -- deleting the intermediate levels 

DELETE   
FROM @BOM  
WHERE ProductAssemblyID IS NOT NULL 

RETURN 
END 

 
As can be seen I’m first inserting the BOM information of the Product searched, then based on these data I’m taking and inserting the next level, stopping when the top-most items where identified, here ProductAssemblyID IS NOT NULL, in the end deleting the intermediate levels. The same approach could be used to generate the whole hierarchy, in this case starting from the top.

Here is an example based on the above function, I used NULL in the second parameter because the @date parameter is set to the current date if not provided.    

SELECT * 
FROM dbo.BOMTopMostItems(486, NULL)  

 When checking the data returned I observed that for the given ProductID the same BillOfMaterialsID appears more than once, this because, as can be seen by generating the whole BOM for one of the respective duplicated ComponentID, the same ProductID could appear in a BOM at different levels or at the same level but belonging to different assemblies. Therefore in order to get only the list of top-most items you could use a DISTINCT:

SELECT DISTINCT ComponentID  
FROM dbo.BOMTopMostItems(486, NULL) 

On the other side if we want to remove the duplicates resulted from Products appearing at the same level of the same BOM but for different assemblies, could be used a DISTINCT when inserting into the @BOM table or, even if not recommended, use a DISTINCT when calling the function:
 

SELECT DISTINCT BillOfMaterialsID
, ProductAssemblyID
, ComponentID
, ModifiedDate
, Level  
FROM dbo.BOMTopMostItems(486, NULL)

Happy coding!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

💎SQL Reloaded: Ways of Looking at Data IV (Hierarchies)

Introduction

There is a special type of entities that when related to each other, the relations put together form a hierarchy. It’s the case of assemblies and the components they are made of, a component could be at its turn an assembly formed from smaller components, resulting thus a structure known as Bill of Materials (BoM). Take for example a laptop made of parts like the keyboard, modem, hard disk, CD-ROM, microprocessor, volatile memory, graphic card, display, to name just a few of the main components, each of these parts are at their turn are made of smaller components that at their turn could be made from smaller components, and so on. Another popular example is the one of employees in an organization, following the line of command from CEO to the lowest person as importance, a person could be chief for more employees and have only one chief, resulting thus another hierarchical structure.

Most of the hierarchies I met were having maximum 7 levels, where a level represents a parent-child relation, typically there is no need for higher hierarchies. In a RDBMS such relations are represented with self-referencing tables or self-referencing structures in case more than one table is used to represent the relation. The problem with such structures is that in order to get the whole hierarchy a join must be created for each relation, though as the number of levels could vary, such queries can become quite complex. Therefore RDBMS came with their own solutions in order to work with hierarchies

There are several types of problems specific to hierarchies: 1. Building the hierarchy behind of an item in the structure
2. Identifying the top-most parent of an item in the structure
3. Identifying the top-most parent of an item in the structure and building the hierarchy behind it – a combination of the previous mentioned problems

Building the hierarchy

SQL Server 2005 introduced the common table expressions (CTE), a powerful feature that allows building whole hierarchies in a simplistic manner. From a structural point of view a CTE has two elements – the anchor member defining the starting point of the query, respectively the recursive member that builds upon the anchor member. The starting point of the query in this case is the entity or entities for which the structure is built, and here there are 2 situations – we are looking for all topmost entities or for the entities matching a certain criteria, typically looking for one or more Product Numbers. The difference between the two scopes could lead to different approaches – whether to include the Product information in the CTE or to use the CTE only to built the hierarchical structure, and add only in the end the production information. Before things would become fuzzier let’s start with an example, here are the two approaches for defining the anchor member, the first query identifying the top-most assemblies, while the second searches for the components in the BOM that matches a criteria (e.g. the Product’s name starts with BK-R93R).

So we have the starting point, how about the recursive member? Without using a CTE, normally we would have to join either of the two queries again with the BillofMaterials table in order to retrieve the components for the Products already retrieved, then the final result must be joined again with the BillofMaterials, and repeat this step over and over again until a predefined number of iterations are met, or until no components are retrieved anymore. Actually that’s what a CTE does too, and in order to make things simpler, a CTE has a name that it’s reused in the CTE in order to handle the recursive part, and outside of the CTE in order to use the final result. Supposing that CTE’s name is BOM here is the recursive member:
    The anchor and recursive member are merged in the CTE with the help of a UNION therefore the number of attributes must be the same and their data type must be compatible. Here is the final query:
    The TotalQty attribute has been introduced in order to show the cumulated quantity for each component, for example if the Assembly has the PerAssemblyQty 2 and the Component has the PerAssemblyQty 10 then the actual total quantity needed is 2*10.
    The Path attribute has been introduced in order to sort the hierarchy lexically based on the sequence formed from the ComponentID, it could have been used instead the Product Number.

Identifying the top-most parent

    The CTE can be used also for identifying the top-most parent of a given Product or set of Items, the second anchor query member could be used for this, while the recursive member would involve the reverse join between BOM and BillOfMaterials. Here is the final query:
Given the fact that the final CTE output includes the output from each iteration when only the data from the last iteration are needed, this might not be the best solution. I would expect that the simulation of recursion with the help of a temporary table would scale better in this case.

Another interesting fact to note is that in this case more assemblies are found to match the criteria of top-most item, meaning that the BOMs are not partitioned – two BOMs could have common elements.

Happy coding!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post