I want to select the last 5 records from a table in SQL Server without arranging the table in ascending or descending order.
22 Answers
This is just about the most bizarre query I've ever written, but I'm pretty sure it gets the "last 5" rows from a table without ordering:
select * from issues where issueid not in ( select top ( (select count(*) from issues) - 5 ) issueid from issues ) Note that this makes use of SQL Server 2005's ability to pass a value into the "top" clause - it doesn't work on SQL Server 2000.
5 Comments
Suppose you have an index on id, this will be lightning fast:
SELECT * FROM [MyTable] WHERE [id] > (SELECT MAX([id]) - 5 FROM [MyTable]) The way your question is phrased makes it sound like you think you have to physically resort the data in the table in order to get it back in the order you want. If so, this is not the case, the ORDER BY clause exists for this purpose. The physical order in which the records are stored remains unchanged when using ORDER BY. The records are sorted in memory (or in temporary disk space) before they are returned.
Note that the order that records get returned is not guaranteed without using an ORDER BY clause. So, while any of the the suggestions here may work, there is no reason to think they will continue to work, nor can you prove that they work in all cases with your current database. This is by design - I am assuming it is to give the database engine the freedom do as it will with the records in order to obtain best performance in the case where there is no explicit order specified.
Assuming you wanted the last 5 records sorted by the field Name in ascending order, you could do something like this, which should work in either SQL 2000 or 2005:
select Name from ( select top 5 Name from MyTable order by Name desc ) a order by Name asc 3 Comments
- You need to count number of rows inside table ( say we have 12 rows )
- then subtract 5 rows from them ( we are now in 7 )
select * where index_column > 7
select * from users where user_id > ( (select COUNT(*) from users) - 5)you can order them ASC or DESC
But when using this code
select TOP 5 from users order by user_id DESCit will not be ordered easily.
Comments
Without an order, this is impossible. What defines the "bottom"? The following will select 5 rows according to how they are stored in the database.
SELECT TOP 5 * FROM [TableName]
2 Comments
Well, the "last five rows" are actually the last five rows depending on your clustered index. Your clustered index, by definition, is the way that he rows are ordered. So you really can't get the "last five rows" without some order. You can, however, get the last five rows as it pertains to the clustered index.
SELECT TOP 5 * FROM MyTable ORDER BY MyCLusteredIndexColumn1, MyCLusteredIndexColumnq, ..., MyCLusteredIndexColumnN DESC Comments
If you know how many rows there will be in total you can use the ROW_NUMBER() function. Here's an examble from MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms186734.aspx)
USE AdventureWorks; GO WITH OrderedOrders AS ( SELECT SalesOrderID, OrderDate, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY OrderDate) AS 'RowNumber' FROM Sales.SalesOrderHeader ) SELECT * FROM OrderedOrders WHERE RowNumber BETWEEN 50 AND 60; Comments
Try this, if you don't have a primary key or identical column:
select [Stu_Id],[Student_Name] ,[City] ,[Registered], RowNum = row_number() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 0)) from student ORDER BY RowNum desc 2 Comments
View ..So this is what I was looking for.. !There is a handy trick that works in some databases for ordering in database order,
SELECT * FROM TableName ORDER BY true
Apparently, this can work in conjunction with any of the other suggestions posted here to leave the results in "order they came out of the database" order, which in some databases, is the order they were last modified in.
Comments
select * from table order by empno(primary key) desc fetch first 5 rows only 2 Comments
When number of rows in table is less than 5 the answers of Matt Hamilton and msuvajac is Incorrect. Because a TOP N rowcount value may not be negative.
A great example can be found Here.
Comments
DECLARE @MYVAR NVARCHAR(100) DECLARE @step int SET @step = 0; DECLARE MYTESTCURSOR CURSOR DYNAMIC FOR SELECT col FROM [dbo].[table] OPEN MYTESTCURSOR FETCH LAST FROM MYTESTCURSOR INTO @MYVAR print @MYVAR; WHILE @step < 10 BEGIN FETCH PRIOR FROM MYTESTCURSOR INTO @MYVAR print @MYVAR; SET @step = @step + 1; END CLOSE MYTESTCURSOR DEALLOCATE MYTESTCURSOR Comments
Thanks to @Apps Tawale , Based on his answer, here's a bit of another (my) version,
To select last 5 records without an identity column,
select top 5 *, RowNum = row_number() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 0)) from [dbo].[ViewEmployeeMaster] ORDER BY RowNum desc Nevertheless, it has an order by, but on RowNum :)
Note(1): The above query will reverse the order of what we get when we run the main select query.
So to maintain the order, we can slightly go like:
select *, RowNum2 = row_number() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 0)) from ( select top 5 *, RowNum = row_number() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 0)) from [dbo].[ViewEmployeeMaster] ORDER BY RowNum desc ) as t1 order by RowNum2 desc Note(2): Without an identity column, the query takes a bit of time in case of large data
ORDER BYwill be non-deterministic. If there is no sort, then there is no definition of last.bottom5is about as logical as burning a witch at the stake to prove innocence. aBOTTOM(X)would require processing all rows in the table and discarding them except for the lastXrecords. It would be the most inefficient query in the entire SQL stack. If you don't want to order, then this indicates that your structure is not sufficient. If you have an auto-incrementing column then you can order by that column in descending order to get the top 5, whilst still preserving the data input sequence, this will be the bottom 5.TOP (X)without a correspondingORDER BYclause, in many RDBMS the sequence will be indeterminate and is volatile, the database engine can re-sequence the reocrds to optimise the queries, this can mean thatTOP (5)today can return different records toTOP(5)yesterday. Don't be lazy, be explicit and make sure you design your schemas to support practical sequencing. SQL 101