topic Re: This SQL works in SQL Server Management Studio but not in SAS PROC SQL... ? in SAS Procedures

This SQL works in SQL Server Management Studio but not in SAS PROC SQL... ?

Malarkey — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:43:45 GMT

Hi, All!

I am trying to build a sql query that will tell me what percent of a column in a sql server table is populated - i.e. non-missing count / total count.

When I run this sql in Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio:

select sum(case

when DocumentationType <> ' '

then 1

else 0

end) as num_pop

,count(*) as count

,sum(case

when DocumentationType <> ' '

then 1.00

else 0.00

end) / count(*) as pct_pop

from raw_eve297_lps

I get these results:

num_pop count pct_pop

135392 525079 0.257850

When I run the same sql in a PROC SQL in SAS, I get these results:

The SAS System

num_pop count pct_pop
135392 525079 0

I KNOW it's something silly I'm overlooking. Fresh sets of eyes are welcome. Thanks!

Re: This SQL works in SQL Server Management Studio but not in SAS PROC SQL... ?

snoopy369 — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:50:09 GMT

What DBMS is raw_eve297_lps in? Is that a SAS dataset? If not it might be translating the code in some odd form.

This works:

data testdata;

set sashelp.class;

if sex='M' then sex=' ';

run;

proc sql;

select sum(case

when sex <> ' '

then 1

else 0

end) as num_pop

,count(*) as count

,sum(case

when sex <> ' '

then 1.00

else 0.00

end) / count(*) as pct_pop

from testdata

;

quit;

I would also change <> to NE or ^=; while <> does work in PROC SQL, in other places in SAS it's the MAX operator and may confuse other SAS programmers.

Also working in SAS:

proc sql;

select sum(case

when sex <> ' '

then 1

else 0

end) as num_pop

,count(*) as count

,calculated num_pop/calculated count

from testdata

;

quit;

You might try that and see if it works better. (Calculated is how you refer to new columns earlier defined in that query).

Re: This SQL works in SQL Server Management Studio but not in SAS PROC SQL... ?

Malarkey — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:59:41 GMT

Hi, Snoopy!

It's in a sql server database. I should have pasted my SAS code also - I am using ^= there:

libname raw odbc DATABASE=PROD_Rawdata

schema=dbo;

proc sql;

select sum(case

when DocumentationType ^= ' '

then 1

else 0

end) as num_pop

,count(*) as count

,sum(case

when DocumentationType ^= ' '

then 1.00

else 0.00

end) / count(*) as pct_pop

from raw.raw_eve297_lps

;

quit;

Re: This SQL works in SQL Server Management Studio but not in SAS PROC SQL... ?

snoopy369 — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:07:46 GMT

Well, then I don't see anything obviously wrong. You could try turning off implicit passthrough (NOIPASSTHRU) in the PROC SQL statement and see if that helps, or see if FEEDBACK helps any in explaining what it's doing differently. Sometimes queries involving nulls/missings/etc. are handled differently by DBMSs other than SAS. I'd expect an issue with both elements, but perhaps something's happening that I don't fully understand in the translation to SQL Server code. (NOIPASSTHRU would likely slow your query down, FYI, as it would have to bring all the data back to SAS before summarizing it.)

Re: This SQL works in SQL Server Management Studio but not in SAS PROC SQL... ?

Malarkey — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:20:37 GMT

Hi, Snoopy!

Here is what finally worked:

proc sql;

select sum(case
             when DocumentationType ^= ' '
    then 1
    else 0
      end) as num_pop
      ,count(*) as count
      ,put((calculated num_pop / calculated count),8.7)

from raw.raw_eve297_lps
;

quit;

I've been reading through other posts to try to find the answer, saw one where the put was used and thought I'd try it. That did the trick - and thanks for the calculated col_name tip! Much less clutter in the SQL statement!

Re: This SQL works in SQL Server Management Studio but not in SAS PROC SQL... ?

snoopy369 — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:24:10 GMT

Good to know it works. You might just have a format issue - if PUT works, then you could even try

, calculated num_pop/calculated count format=8.7

if that's the issue. Depends in part on where this is ultimately being consumed whether that's likely.