Обсуждение: Column "..." does not exist (view + union)

Assuming the following simple setup with two data tables, one mapping
table, and one view -

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------
CREATE TABLE dossier (   id          SERIAL   NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
);
CREATE TABLE contact (   id          SERIAL   NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,   name        TEXT     NOT NULL,   firstname   TEXT
   NULL
 
);
CREATE TABLE dossier_contact (   dossier_id  INTEGER  NOT NULL REFERENCES dossier(id),   contact_id  INTEGER  NOT NULL
REFERENCEScontact(id),   ctype       INTEGER  NOT NULL,   PRIMARY KEY (dossier_id, contact_id)
 
);
CREATE VIEW dossier_contact_v AS   SELECT  dc.dossier_id,           dc.contact_id,           dc.ctype,           (CASE
WHENc.firstname IS NOT NULL                 THEN c.name || ', ' || c.firstname                 ELSE c.name
  END) AS name     FROM  dossier_contact dc     JOIN  contact c ON c.id = dc.contact_id;
 
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------

- running this query -
   SELECT  name     FROM  dossier_contact_v    WHERE  dossier_id = 56993      AND  ctype = 234
UNION   SELECT  name     FROM  dossier_contact_v    WHERE  dossier_id = -1      AND  ctype = -1
ORDER BY ctype;

- fails with the following error message:

ERROR:  column "ctype" does not exist
LINE 10: ORDER BY ctype;                 ^

The same query works fine without the ORDER BY, without the UNION, or
when I select the "ctype" column in addition to "name".
Why?

Using an alias in the FROM clause gives a different error:
   SELECT  x.name     FROM  dossier_contact_v x    WHERE  x.dossier_id = 56993      AND  x.ctype = 234
UNION   SELECT  x.name     FROM  dossier_contact_v x    WHERE  x.dossier_id = -1      AND  x.ctype = -1
ORDER BY x.ctype;

ERROR:  missing FROM-clause entry for table "x"
LINE 10: ORDER BY x.ctype                 ^

I am using "PostgreSQL 8.4.10 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC
gcc-4.5.real (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubuntu4) 4.5.2, 64-bit".


thanks,
stefan

Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> - running this query -
> 
>     SELECT  name
>       FROM  dossier_contact_v
>      WHERE  dossier_id = 56993
>        AND  ctype = 234
> UNION
>     SELECT  name
>       FROM  dossier_contact_v
>      WHERE  dossier_id = -1
>        AND  ctype = -1
> ORDER BY ctype;
> 
> - fails with the following error message:
> 
> ERROR:  column "ctype" does not exist
> LINE 10: ORDER BY ctype;

The reult table doesn't contain a column "ctype", it contains only
"name". Rewrite your query to something like:

select name from (select name, ctype from ... union select name, ctype from ...)
foo order by ctype



Andreas
-- 
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect.                              (Linus Torvalds)
"If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly."   (unknown)
Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe.              N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°

On 2011-12-17 10:02, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
> Stefan Weiss <krewecherl@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>     SELECT  name
>>       FROM  dossier_contact_v
>>      WHERE  dossier_id = 56993
>>        AND  ctype = 234
>> UNION
>>     SELECT  name
>>       FROM  dossier_contact_v
>>      WHERE  dossier_id = -1
>>        AND  ctype = -1
>> ORDER BY ctype;
>> 
>> - fails with the following error message:
>> 
>> ERROR:  column "ctype" does not exist
>> LINE 10: ORDER BY ctype;
> 
> The reult table doesn't contain a column "ctype", it contains only
> "name". [...]

I see. So this has to do with the union; after combining the two
queries, the tables from the FROM clauses are no longer available.
Thanks, that explains it.


- stefan

On 2011-12-17 22:36, Bèrto ëd Sèra wrote:
>>I see. So this has to do with the union; after combining the two
>>queries, the tables from the FROM clauses are no longer available.
> 
> this has nothing to do with the UNION, but with the fact that the result
> set is ordered after being produced, so you can order by any of its
> elements, and only by that. You can actually order by calling them
> acording to their position in the result set, like in:
> 
> SELECT 
>   relname, 
>   relpages
> FROM pg_class
> ORDER BY 1;
> 
> where 1 is actually the first element (no matter how it's called). The
> table as such is never available to ORDER BY, no matter how simple your
> query is.

I know, but the problem only occurs when I want to sort by a column
which hasn't been selected, and thus cannot be referred to by its index.
For normal (non-union) queries, this is possible:
   SELECT relname     FROM pg_class    WHERE relhasindex ORDER BY relpages;

In this trivial case, PostgreSQL knows where to look for "relpages".
Not so in a union:
   SELECT relname     FROM pg_class    WHERE relhasindex
UNION   SELECT relname     FROM pg_class    WHERE relhasoids
ORDER BY relpages;

(ERROR: column "relpages" does not exist)

I understand the error now (I think), and I know how to avoid it.


thanks,
stefan

On Saturday, December 17, 2011 2:21:30 pm Stefan Weiss wrote:

> 
> I know, but the problem only occurs when I want to sort by a column
> which hasn't been selected, and thus cannot be referred to by its index.
> For normal (non-union) queries, this is possible:
> 
>     SELECT relname
>       FROM pg_class
>      WHERE relhasindex
>   ORDER BY relpages;
> 
> In this trivial case, PostgreSQL knows where to look for "relpages".
> Not so in a union:
> 
>     SELECT relname
>       FROM pg_class
>      WHERE relhasindex
> UNION
>     SELECT relname
>       FROM pg_class
>      WHERE relhasoids
> ORDER BY relpages;
> 
> (ERROR: column "relpages" does not exist)
> 
> I understand the error now (I think), and I know how to avoid it.


SELECT relname     FROM pg_class    WHERE relhasindex
UNION   (SELECT relname     FROM pg_class    WHERE relhasoids    ORDER BY relpages);


> 
> 
> thanks,
> stefan

-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@gmail.com

On Dec 17, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Stefan Weiss wrote:

> I know, but the problem only occurs when I want to sort by a column
> which hasn't been selected, and thus cannot be referred to by its index.
> For normal (non-union) queries, this is possible:
>
>    SELECT relname
>      FROM pg_class
>     WHERE relhasindex
>  ORDER BY relpages;
>
> In this trivial case, PostgreSQL knows where to look for "relpages".
> Not so in a union:
>
>    SELECT relname
>      FROM pg_class
>     WHERE relhasindex
> UNION
>    SELECT relname
>      FROM pg_class
>     WHERE relhasoids
> ORDER BY relpages;
>
> (ERROR: column "relpages" does not exist)
>
> I understand the error now (I think), and I know how to avoid it.

The real problem here is the order of operations. This is what Postgres did:

SELECT * FROM (    SELECT relname    FROM pg_class    WHERE relhasindexUNION    SELECT relname    FROM pg_class
WHERErelhasoids) as foo 
ORDER BY relpages;

It applied the union before the order by. After the union, the relpages column was projected away. Thus relpages does
notexist for the order by. The postgres manual states that this is what will happen. 

The UNION clause has this general form:

select_statement UNION [ ALL ] select_statement
select_statement is any SELECT statement without an ORDER BY, LIMIT, FOR UPDATE, or FOR SHARE clause. (ORDER BY and
LIMITcan be attached to a subexpression if it is enclosed in parentheses. Without parentheses, these clauses will be
takento apply to the result of the UNION, not to its right-hand input expression.)