[sql] ORDER BY items must appear in the select list if SELECT DISTINCT is specified

I added the columns in the select list to the order by list, but it is still giving me the error:

ORDER BY items must appear in the select list if SELECT DISTINCT is specified.

Here is the stored proc:

CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[GetRadioServiceCodesINGroup] 
@RadioServiceGroup nvarchar(1000) = NULL
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;

SELECT DISTINCT rsc.RadioServiceCodeId,
                rsc.RadioServiceCode + ' - ' + rsc.RadioService as RadioService
FROM sbi_l_radioservicecodes rsc
INNER JOIN sbi_l_radioservicecodegroups rscg 
ON rsc.radioservicecodeid = rscg.radioservicecodeid
WHERE rscg.radioservicegroupid IN 
(select val from dbo.fnParseArray(@RadioServiceGroup,','))
OR @RadioServiceGroup IS NULL  
ORDER BY rsc.RadioServiceCode,rsc.RadioServiceCodeId,rsc.RadioService

END

Distinct and Group By generally do the same kind of thing, for different purposes... They both create a 'working" table in memory based on the columns being Grouped on, (or selected in the Select Distinct clause) - and then populate that working table as the query reads data, adding a new "row" only when the values indicate the need to do so...

The only difference is that in the Group By there are additional "columns" in the working table for any calculated aggregate fields, like Sum(), Count(), Avg(), etc. that need to updated for each original row read. Distinct doesn't have to do this... In the special case where you Group By only to get distinct values, (And there are no aggregate columns in output), then it is probably exactly the same query plan.... It would be interesting to review the query execution plan for the two options and see what it did...

Certainly Distinct is the way to go for readability if that is what you are doing (When your purpose is to eliminate duplicate rows, and you are not calculating any aggregate columns)

You could try a subquery:

SELECT DISTINCT TEST.* FROM (
    SELECT rsc.RadioServiceCodeId,
        rsc.RadioServiceCode + ' - ' + rsc.RadioService as RadioService
    FROM sbi_l_radioservicecodes rsc
       INNER JOIN sbi_l_radioservicecodegroups rscg ON  rsc.radioservicecodeid = rscg.radioservicecodeid
    WHERE rscg.radioservicegroupid IN 
       (select val from dbo.fnParseArray(@RadioServiceGroup,','))
        OR @RadioServiceGroup IS NULL  
    ORDER BY rsc.RadioServiceCode,rsc.RadioServiceCodeId,rsc.RadioService
) as TEST

Try one of these:

1. Use column alias:

   ORDER BY RadioServiceCodeId,RadioService

2. Use column position:

   ORDER BY 1,2

You can only order by columns that actually appear in the result of the DISTINCT query - the underlying data isn't available for ordering on.

Try one of these:

1. Use column alias:

   ORDER BY RadioServiceCodeId,RadioService

2. Use column position:

   ORDER BY 1,2

You can only order by columns that actually appear in the result of the DISTINCT query - the underlying data isn't available for ordering on.

When you define concatenation you need to use an ALIAS for the new column if you want to order on it combined with DISTINCT Some Ex with sql 2008

--this works 

    SELECT DISTINCT (c.FirstName + ' ' + c.LastName) as FullName 
    from SalesLT.Customer c 
    order by FullName

--this works too

    SELECT DISTINCT (c.FirstName + ' ' + c.LastName) 
    from SalesLT.Customer c 
    order by 1

-- this doesn't 

    SELECT DISTINCT (c.FirstName + ' ' + c.LastName) as FullName 
    from SalesLT.Customer c 
    order by c.FirstName, c.LastName

-- the problem the DISTINCT needs an order on the new concatenated column, here I order on the singular column
-- this works

    SELECT DISTINCT (c.FirstName + ' ' + c.LastName) 
        as FullName, CustomerID 
        from SalesLT.Customer c 

order by 1, CustomerID

-- this doesn't

    SELECT DISTINCT (c.FirstName + ' ' + c.LastName) as FullName 
     from SalesLT.Customer c 
      order by 1, CustomerID

While they are not the same thing, in one sense DISTINCT implies a GROUP BY, because every DISTINCT could be re-written using GROUP BY instead. With that in mind, it doesn't make sense to order by something that's not in the aggregate group.

For example, if you have a table like this:

col1  col2
----  ----
 1     1
 1     2
 2     1
 2     2
 2     3
 3     1

and then try to query it like this:

SELECT DISTINCT col1 FROM [table] WHERE col2 > 2 ORDER BY col1, col2

That would make no sense, because there could end up being multiple col2 values per row. Which one should it use for the order? Of course, in this query you know the results wouldn't be that way, but the database server can't know that in advance.

Now, your case is a little different. You included all the columns from the order by clause in the select clause, and therefore it would seem at first glance that they were all grouped. However, some of those columns were included in a calculated field. When you do that in combination with distinct, the distinct directive can only be applied to the final results of the calculation: it doesn't know anything about the source of the calculation any more.

This means the server doesn't really know it can count on those columns any more. It knows that they were used, but it doesn't know if the calculation operation might cause an effect similar to my first simple example above.

So now you need to do something else to tell the server that the columns are okay to use for ordering. There are several ways to do that, but this approach should work okay:

SELECT rsc.RadioServiceCodeId,
            rsc.RadioServiceCode + ' - ' + rsc.RadioService as RadioService
FROM sbi_l_radioservicecodes rsc
INNER JOIN sbi_l_radioservicecodegroups rscg 
    ON rsc.radioservicecodeid = rscg.radioservicecodeid
WHERE rscg.radioservicegroupid IN 
    (SELECT val FROM dbo.fnParseArray(@RadioServiceGroup,','))
    OR @RadioServiceGroup IS NULL  
GROUP BY rsc.RadioServiceCode,rsc.RadioServiceCodeId,rsc.RadioService
ORDER BY rsc.RadioServiceCode,rsc.RadioServiceCodeId,rsc.RadioService

Distinct and Group By generally do the same kind of thing, for different purposes... They both create a 'working" table in memory based on the columns being Grouped on, (or selected in the Select Distinct clause) - and then populate that working table as the query reads data, adding a new "row" only when the values indicate the need to do so...

The only difference is that in the Group By there are additional "columns" in the working table for any calculated aggregate fields, like Sum(), Count(), Avg(), etc. that need to updated for each original row read. Distinct doesn't have to do this... In the special case where you Group By only to get distinct values, (And there are no aggregate columns in output), then it is probably exactly the same query plan.... It would be interesting to review the query execution plan for the two options and see what it did...

Certainly Distinct is the way to go for readability if that is what you are doing (When your purpose is to eliminate duplicate rows, and you are not calculating any aggregate columns)

Distinct and Group By generally do the same kind of thing, for different purposes... They both create a 'working" table in memory based on the columns being Grouped on, (or selected in the Select Distinct clause) - and then populate that working table as the query reads data, adding a new "row" only when the values indicate the need to do so...

The only difference is that in the Group By there are additional "columns" in the working table for any calculated aggregate fields, like Sum(), Count(), Avg(), etc. that need to updated for each original row read. Distinct doesn't have to do this... In the special case where you Group By only to get distinct values, (And there are no aggregate columns in output), then it is probably exactly the same query plan.... It would be interesting to review the query execution plan for the two options and see what it did...

Certainly Distinct is the way to go for readability if that is what you are doing (When your purpose is to eliminate duplicate rows, and you are not calculating any aggregate columns)

Try one of these:

1. Use column alias:

   ORDER BY RadioServiceCodeId,RadioService

2. Use column position:

   ORDER BY 1,2

You can only order by columns that actually appear in the result of the DISTINCT query - the underlying data isn't available for ordering on.

When you define concatenation you need to use an ALIAS for the new column if you want to order on it combined with DISTINCT Some Ex with sql 2008

--this works 

    SELECT DISTINCT (c.FirstName + ' ' + c.LastName) as FullName 
    from SalesLT.Customer c 
    order by FullName

--this works too

    SELECT DISTINCT (c.FirstName + ' ' + c.LastName) 
    from SalesLT.Customer c 
    order by 1

-- this doesn't 

    SELECT DISTINCT (c.FirstName + ' ' + c.LastName) as FullName 
    from SalesLT.Customer c 
    order by c.FirstName, c.LastName

-- the problem the DISTINCT needs an order on the new concatenated column, here I order on the singular column
-- this works

    SELECT DISTINCT (c.FirstName + ' ' + c.LastName) 
        as FullName, CustomerID 
        from SalesLT.Customer c 

order by 1, CustomerID

-- this doesn't

    SELECT DISTINCT (c.FirstName + ' ' + c.LastName) as FullName 
     from SalesLT.Customer c 
      order by 1, CustomerID

Try one of these:

1. Use column alias:

   ORDER BY RadioServiceCodeId,RadioService

2. Use column position:

   ORDER BY 1,2

You can only order by columns that actually appear in the result of the DISTINCT query - the underlying data isn't available for ordering on.