Skip to main content


I think that all of us used until now UNION in a SQLstatement. Using this operator we can combine the result of 2 queries.
For example we want to display the name of all our clients.In our database the clients are stored in separate databases based on theregion. To be able to display the name of all our clients we need to execute aquery on different table and combine the result:
SELECT Name FROM EuropeClients
SELECT Name FROM AsiaClients
Each time when we execute this call everything is fine. Inone day, the marketing team observes that there are clients that appear inEurope, but also in Asia, but when we execute this query we don’t have anyduplicated data.
This happen because UNION removes any duplicates rows.Because of this, if we want to count how many time a client name appears, itwill not be possible using just UNION.
SELECT Name, count(*) AS Count
(SELECT Name FROM EuropeClients
SELECT Name FROM AsiaClients)
For this query, the Count column will be 1 everywhere. For thesecases we need to use an optional argument that UNION operator have. The ALLargument displays the duplicates rows also. Using this argument with UNION willpermit to get the result that we expected from our queue.
SELECT Name, count(*) AS Count
(SELECT Name FROM EuropeClients
SELECT Name FROM AsiaClients)
Maybe the example was not the best one. But I would like to emphasize that theUNION don’t return the duplicates rows, but UNION ALL do.
Also, before using anykind of SQL commands try to understand 100% what they do.


  1. It's not so surprising, because SQL is based on set theory, where any set (thus also the union result) contains only unique elements.

    Anyway, from a practical point of view, what is important is that any DBA will prefer UNION ALL for another reason: obviously, is much faster, in general.

    1. +1 Tudor for the speed reason :)

    2. Next obvious question: if SQL is based on set theory, why SELECT doesn't return always unique results? ;)


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine:
threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration:

TeamCity.NET 4.51EF 6.0.2VS2013
It seems that there …

GET call of REST API that contains '/'-slash character in the value of a parameter

Let’s assume that we have the following scenario: I have a public HTTP endpoint and I need to post some content using GET command. One of the parameters contains special characters like “\” and “/”. If the endpoint is an ApiController than you may have problems if you encode the parameter using the http encoder.
using (var httpClient = new HttpClient()) { httpClient.BaseAddress = baseUrl; Task<HttpResponseMessage> response = httpClient.GetAsync(string.Format("api/foo/{0}", "qwert/qwerqwer"))); response.Wait(); response.Result.EnsureSuccessStatusCode(); } One possible solution would be to encode the query parameter using UrlTokenEncode method of HttpServerUtility class and GetBytes method ofUTF8. In this way you would get the array of bytes of the parameter and encode them as a url token.
The following code show to you how you could write the encode and decode methods.

Entity Framework (EF) TransactionScope vs Database.BeginTransaction

In today blog post we will talk a little about a new feature that is available on EF6+ related to Transactions.
Until now, when we had to use transaction we used ‘TransactionScope’. It works great and I would say that is something that is now in our blood.
using (var scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required)) { using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection("...")) { conn.Open(); SqlCommand sqlCommand = new SqlCommand(); sqlCommand.Connection = conn; sqlCommand.CommandText = ... sqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery(); ... } scope.Complete(); } Starting with EF6.0 we have a new way to work with transactions. The new approach is based on Database.BeginTransaction(), Database.Rollback(), Database.Commit(). Yes, no more TransactionScope.
In the followi…