How to use" HAVING "and "ORDER BY" clause in sql

Question

I have sql query like shown below the sql server says that their is error in HAVING and ORDER bY is their any error with syntax near HAVING and ORDER BY, can anyone help.

SELECT Id,
       Name1,
       ZipCode,
       StreetName,
       StreetNumber,
       State1,
       Lat,
       Lng,
       Keyword,
       ( 6371 * ACOS( COS( (12.925432/57.2958) ) * COS(  (Lat/57.2958)  ) * COS( ( Lng/57.2958 ) - (77.5940171/57.2958) ) + SIN( 12.925432/57.2958 ) * SIN(  Lat/57.2958  ) ) ) AS distance 
  FROM Business_Details 
  HAVING (distance < 1.5) and (Keyword like '%plumber%')  
  ORDER BY distance  ; 

Solution 1

Use where here instead of having.

having is useful for narrowing conditions on aggregate values.
where is useful for narrowing conditions on un-aggregated data.

Update
SQL Server is not MySQL, what works on one ...

1. May just work on the other
2. May need to be tweaked slightly to work
3. May need to be completely re-enginerred before it will work.

This should be what you need

SELECT Id, 
       Name1, 
       ZipCode, 
       StreetName, 
       StreetNumber, 
       State1, 
       Lat, 
       Lng, 
       Keyword, 
       ( 6371 * ACOS( COS( (12.925432/57.2958) ) * COS(  (Lat/57.2958)  ) * COS( ( Lng/57.2958 ) - (77.5940171/57.2958) ) + SIN( 12.925432/57.2958 ) * SIN(  Lat/57.2958  ) ) ) AS distance  
  FROM Business_Details  
  where (Keyword like '%plumber%')  
  and ( 6371 * ACOS( COS( (12.925432/57.2958) ) * COS(  (Lat/57.2958)  ) * COS( ( Lng/57.2958 ) - (77.5940171/57.2958) ) + SIN( 12.925432/57.2958 ) * SIN(  Lat/57.2958  ) ) ) < 1.5
  ORDER BY ( 6371 * ACOS( COS( (12.925432/57.2958) ) * COS(  (Lat/57.2958)  ) * COS( ( Lng/57.2958 ) - (77.5940171/57.2958) ) + SIN( 12.925432/57.2958 ) * SIN(  Lat/57.2958  ) ) ) ;  

Solution 2

HAVING is generally used in conjunction with a GROUP BY statement. HAVING is like the WHERE for the resulting groups.

Solution 3

Everyone has already mentioned that HAVING is for aggregate data, like SUM and MIN and you can put those two conditions in your WHERE clause.

For what it's worth (I cannot test right now) and to hopefully address your actual question, it has been my experience that you can not use a column alias in the HAVING clause, and must explicitly rewrite the equation for the column there instead of the alias.

See this question for more details.

Solution 4

SELECT * from   
 (SELECT Id,
   Name1,
   ZipCode,
   StreetName,
   StreetNumber,
   State1,
   Lat,
   Lng,
   Keyword,
   ( 6371 * ACOS( COS( (12.925432/57.2958) ) * COS(  (Lat/57.2958)  ) * COS( ( Lng/57.2958 ) - (77.5940171/57.2958) ) + SIN( 12.925432/57.2958 ) * SIN(  Lat/57.2958  ) ) ) AS distance 
FROM Business_Details 
)
WHERE (distance < 1.5) and (Keyword like '%plumber%')  
 ORDER BY distance  ; 

View more solutions

Comments

[Daniel Renshaw]

This isn't the cause of the error which is the main point of this question

[Wes Price]

Having is the cause of the error, you cannot use it without adding a group by. It seems clear from the SQL that the user is trying to use the Having clause in the context of the Where clause.

[Neil Knight]

Actually, you can use a HAVING without a GROUP BY clause. This SQL runs fine: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sys.databases HAVING MAX(database_id) < 100

[mahesh]

In this particular article code.google.com/apis/maps/articles/phpsqlsearch.html they have used the following query with having and order by clause they are using mysql server in that i am using sql server 2005 does it make any difference in query SELECT id, ( 3959 * acos( cos( radians(37) ) * cos( radians( lat ) ) * cos( radians( lng ) - radians(-122) ) + sin( radians(37) ) * sin( radians( lat ) ) ) ) AS distance FROM markers HAVING distance < 25 ORDER BY distance LIMIT 0 , 20;

[mahesh]

Thanks for the reply In this particular article code.google.com/apis/maps/articles/phpsqlsearch.html they have used the following query with having and order by clause they are using mysql server in that i am using sql server 2005 does it make any difference in query SELECT id, ( 3959 * acos( cos( radians(37) ) * cos( radians( lat ) ) * cos( radians( lng ) - radians(-122) ) + sin( radians(37) ) * sin( radians( lat ) ) ) ) AS distance FROM markers HAVING distance < 25 ORDER BY distance LIMIT 0 , 20;

[mahesh]

Thanks for the reply In this particular article code.google.com/apis/maps/articles/phpsqlsearch.html they have used the following query with having and order by clause they are using mysql server in that i am using sql server 2005 does it make any difference in query SELECT id, ( 3959 * acos( cos( radians(37) ) * cos( radians( lat ) ) * cos( radians( lng ) - radians(-122) ) + sin( radians(37) ) * sin( radians( lat ) ) ) ) AS distance FROM markers HAVING distance < 25 ORDER BY distance LIMIT 0 , 20;

[Neil Knight]

Yes, it will make a difference.

[Rabeel]

@Daniel Renshaw. When running (very similar) to the above on SQL2005 "Msg 8121, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Column 'tableName.columnName' is invalid in the HAVING clause because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause."

[Daniel Renshaw]

@Binary Worrier: my mistake, I thought HAVING was interchangable with WHERE when no GROUP BY was specified; I've just checked this and found that you're right and I was wrong :-) This means that there are two errors in the original SQL (having vs where and referencing a computed result in the having/where clause)

[Rabeel]

@Ardman: That works becase the column database_id is implicitly used in the aggregate function count. if it were select * instead of select count(*) it wouldn't work.

[Rabeel]

@Daniel Renshaw: Well spotted, hadn't noticed distance

[Neil Knight]

@Binary Worrier: Which proves my point about using the HAVING clause without a GROUP BY :o)