ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How to avoid the "divide by zero" error in SQL?

I have this error message:

Msg 8134, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Divide by zero error encountered.

What is the best way to write SQL code so that I will never see this error message again?

I could do either of the following:

Add a where clause so that my divisor is never zero

Or

I could add a case statement, so that there is a special treatment for zero.

Is the best way to use a NULLIF clause?

Is there better way, or how can this be enforced?

Perhaps some data validation is in order.

H
Henrik Staun Poulsen

In order to avoid a "Division by zero" error we have programmed it like this:

Select Case when divisor=0 then null
Else dividend / divisor
End ,,,

But here is a much nicer way of doing it:

Select dividend / NULLIF(divisor, 0) ...

Now the only problem is to remember the NullIf bit, if I use the "/" key.


A much nicer Way of doing it "Select dividend / nullif(divisor, 0) ..." breaks if divisor is NULL.
@Anderson That's not true at all. Are you sure you didn't accidentally use IsNull instead of NullIf? Try it yourself! SELECT Value,1/NullIf(Value,0)FROM(VALUES(0),(5.0),(NULL))x(Value); Unless by "breaks" you mean returns a NULL? You can convert that to whatever you want with IsNull or Coalesce.
@ErikE, it is true... try running ... select 1/nullif(null,0) ... you get "The type of the first argument to NULLIF cannot be the NULL constant because the type of the first argument has to be known." Handle this by using "coalesce(FieldName,0)" ... e.g. select 1/nullif(coalesce(null,0),0)
@JohnJoseph I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or arguing with me.
@JohnJoseph Look closer at the error you got. Yes, SELECT 1 / NULLIF(NULL, 0) fails, but it's because NULLIF() needs to know the datatype of the first argument. This altered example works fine: SELECT 1 / NULLIF(CAST(NULL AS INT), 0). In real life, you are going to supply a table column to NULLIF() rather than a NULL constant. Since table columns have known datatypes, this also works fine: SELECT 1 / NULLIF(SomeNullableColumn, 0) FROM SomeTable.
P
Peter Mortensen

In case you want to return zero, in case a zero devision would happen, you can use:

SELECT COALESCE(dividend / NULLIF(divisor,0), 0) FROM sometable

For every divisor that is zero, you will get a zero in the result set.


Some benchmarks reveal that COALESCE is slightly slower than ISNULL. However, COALESCE is in the standards so is more portable.
If someone else doesn't instantly get why this works, NULLIF(d,0) will return NULL if d is 0. In SQL, dividing by NULL returns NULL. The Coalesce replaces the resulting NULL by 0.
@SQLGeorge While I agree with your argument, please note that there are cases that one cares more what is statistically correct than mathematically correct. In some cases when using statistics functions, 0 or even 1 is an acceptable result when divisor is zero.
Can someone explain to me why this is bad? If I'm trying to figure out a percent and the divisor is zero I most certainly want the result to be zero percent.
I think that @George and @James/ Wilson fundamentally misunderstand the question being asked. There are certainly business applications where returning a "0" is appropriate, even if it is not technically true from a mathematical point of view.
K
KenD

This seemed to be the best fix for my situation when trying to address dividing by zero, which does happen in my data.

Suppose you want to calculate the male–female ratios for various school clubs, but you discover that the following query fails and issues a divide-by-zero error when it tries to calculate ratio for the Lord of the Rings Club, which has no women:

SELECT club_id, males, females, males/females AS ratio
  FROM school_clubs;

You can use the function NULLIF to avoid division by zero. NULLIF compares two expressions and returns null if they are equal or the first expression otherwise.

Rewrite the query as:

SELECT club_id, males, females, males/NULLIF(females, 0) AS ratio
  FROM school_clubs;

Any number divided by NULL gives NULL, and no error is generated.


Yes indeed, that is WAY BETTER than that other answer which has got so many upvotes. In your solution, you have at least a NULL, which indicates that you cannot provide a correct result. But if you convert the result from NULL to Zero, then you simply get wrong and misleading results.
By the way, if you want to calculate a male/female ratio, then I suggest to better compare it to the total, like this: select males/(males+females), females/(males+females). This will give you the percentage distribution of males and females in a club, like 31% men, 69% women.
r
rmrrm

You can also do this at the beginning of the query:

SET ARITHABORT OFF 
SET ANSI_WARNINGS OFF

So if you have something like 100/0 it will return NULL. I've only done this for simple queries, so I don't know how it will affect longer/complex ones.


Works for me. In my case I have to use divide operation at WHERE clause. I'm sure there is no zero divider, because when I comment WHERE out, there is no zero values at results. But somehow query optimizer do divide by zero while filtering. SET ARITHABORT OFF SET and ANSI_WARNINGS OFF do it work - after 2 days of fighting with divide by zero at WHERE clause. Thx!
This "feels" so dirty but I love it! Needed it in a query that does aggregation and use CASE statement was not an option because then I had to add that column to the GROUP BY which totally changed the results. Making the initial query a subselect and then doing a GROUP BY on the outer query also changes the results because there is division involved.
OK, so I still like this "solution" but like many of you probably felt, I felt there had to be a "cleaner" way. What if I forgot to re-enable the warnings? Or someone cloaned my code (that never happens, right?) and did not think about the warnings? Anyway, saw other answers about NULLIF(). I knew about NULLIF() but did not realize dividing by NULL returns NULL (I thought it would be an error). So... I went with the following: ISNULL( (SUM(foo) / NULLIF(SUM(bar),0) ), 0) AS Avg
I did not know this solution. I'm not sure I like it, but it might be useful to know of, some day. Thank you very much.
This is the easiest solution, but note that it will hurt performance. From docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/… : "Setting ARITHABORT to OFF can negatively impact query optimization leading to performance issues."
S
SQL Police

You can at least stop the query from breaking with an error and return NULL if there is a division by zero:

SELECT a / NULLIF(b, 0) FROM t 

However, I would NEVER convert this to Zero with coalesce like it is shown in that other answer which got many upvotes. This is completely wrong in a mathematical sense, and it is even dangerous as your application will likely return wrong and misleading results.


Your concern is valid if it is used in a program. How about if we were to give a report to management with percentages? I think using this: SUM(Charge_Amount) OVER(Partition BY Charge_Date) AS Total_Charge_Amount,Charge_Amount/ISNULL((NULLIF(SUM(Charge_Amount) OVER(Partition BY Charge_Date),0)),1)*100 AS pct would be appropriate if used only in the SELECT context. Charge_Amount in some Charge_Date comes 0.00 so the sum is also 0 in few instance, and we get an error. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks
@Heike if you want to show a report to management, then show them something like #NA , but DO NOT show them "0%", because this gives the wrong impression that two columna are the same (e.g. if you want to compare actual figures vs. budget figures)
N
Nisarg Shah
SELECT Dividend / ISNULL(NULLIF(Divisor,0), 1) AS Result from table

By catching the zero with a nullif(), then the resulting null with an isnull() you can circumvent your divide by zero error.


Due to its length your answer has been recommended for deletion. Note that it is always better to add a small explanation of whatever you are suggesting - even if it seems very simple ;)
B
Beska

EDIT: I'm getting a lot of downvotes on this recently...so I thought I'd just add a note that this answer was written before the question underwent it's most recent edit, where returning null was highlighted as an option...which seems very acceptable. Some of my answer was addressed to concerns like that of Edwardo, in the comments, who seemed to be advocating returning a 0. This is the case I was railing against.

ANSWER: I think there's an underlying issue here, which is that division by 0 is not legal. It's an indication that something is fundementally wrong. If you're dividing by zero, you're trying to do something that doesn't make sense mathematically, so no numeric answer you can get will be valid. (Use of null in this case is reasonable, as it is not a value that will be used in later mathematical calculations).

So Edwardo asks in the comments "what if the user puts in a 0?", and he advocates that it should be okay to get a 0 in return. If the user puts zero in the amount, and you want 0 returned when they do that, then you should put in code at the business rules level to catch that value and return 0...not have some special case where division by 0 = 0.

That's a subtle difference, but it's important...because the next time someone calls your function and expects it to do the right thing, and it does something funky that isn't mathematically correct, but just handles the particular edge case it's got a good chance of biting someone later. You're not really dividing by 0...you're just returning an bad answer to a bad question.

Imagine I'm coding something, and I screw it up. I should be reading in a radiation measurement scaling value, but in a strange edge case I didn't anticipate, I read in 0. I then drop my value into your function...you return me a 0! Hurray, no radiation! Except it's really there and it's just that I was passing in a bad value...but I have no idea. I want division to throw the error because it's the flag that something is wrong.


I disagree. Your business rules should never ever end up doing illegal math. If you end up doing something like this most likely your data model is wrong. Whenever you encounter a divide by 0 you should ponder if the data should had been NULL instead of 0.
I can't believe I was downvoted by someone who asks if I've ever "do any real programming?" because I'm saying to do it right, rather than be lazy. sigh
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. But the question is perfectly valid in a lot of common LOB applications, and answering it with a "division by 0 is not legal" does not add value IMHO.
@JackDouglas Right. This is a case where you want the business rules to handle a special case in a special way...but it shouldn't be the underlying math that returns a blank. It should be the business rule. The accepted answer returns a null, which is an okay way to handle it. Throwing an exception would be okay too. Spotting it and handling before it goes to the SQL would be arguably ideal. Providing some kind of function that other things could call that returned a mathematically incorrect value is not the way to go, because that special case may not apply for those other callers.
@JackDouglas Yes, that's a good summary, that I agree with. Originally the question seemed to be phrased as "what can I do to just hide this error." Since then, it has evolved. Returning a null, the answer he eventually comes to, seems like one reasonable reponse. (I was strongly advocating not returning a 0, or some other number.)
N
N Mason

Replacing "divide by zero" with zero is controversial - but it's also not the only option. In some cases replacing with 1 is (reasonably) appropriate. I often find myself using

 ISNULL(Numerator/NULLIF(Divisor,0),1)

when I'm looking at shifts in scores/counts, and want to default to 1 if I don't have data. For example

NewScore = OldScore *  ISNULL(NewSampleScore/NULLIF(OldSampleScore,0),1) 

More often than not, I've actually calculated this ratio somewhere else (not least because it can throw some very large adjustment factors for low denominators. In this case I'd normally control for OldSampleScore is greater than a threshold; which then precludes zero. But sometimes the 'hack' is appropriate.


@N Mason; yes, sometimes 1 is an option. But how do you remember the ISNULL part, when you type the backslash?
Sorry Henrik - I'm not sure I understand the question.
P
Peter Mortensen

I wrote a function a while back to handle it for my stored procedures:

print 'Creating safeDivide Stored Proc ...'
go

if exists (select * from dbo.sysobjects where  name = 'safeDivide') drop function safeDivide;
go

create function dbo.safeDivide( @Numerator decimal(38,19), @divisor decimal(39,19))
   returns decimal(38,19)
begin
 -- **************************************************************************
 --  Procedure: safeDivide()
 --     Author: Ron Savage, Central, ex: 1282
 --       Date: 06/22/2004
 --
 --  Description:
 --  This function divides the first argument by the second argument after
 --  checking for NULL or 0 divisors to avoid "divide by zero" errors.
 -- Change History:
 --
 -- Date        Init. Description
 -- 05/14/2009  RS    Updated to handle really freaking big numbers, just in
 --                   case. :-)
 -- 05/14/2009  RS    Updated to handle negative divisors.
 -- **************************************************************************
   declare @p_product    decimal(38,19);

   select @p_product = null;

   if ( @divisor is not null and @divisor <> 0 and @Numerator is not null )
      select @p_product = @Numerator / @divisor;

   return(@p_product)
end
go

Hi Ron, Nice solution, except it has a limited data type (4 decimal places) and our @divisors can be negative as well. And how do you enforce it's use? TIA Henrik Staun Poulsen
I dashed it off pretty quick to handle a specific problem scenario at the time. Single developer app, so enforcement not so difficult except for my memory. :-)
Despite the print statement, it's not a stored proc, it's a scalar UDF. This will kill you in MS-SQL if it's part of a query.
I agreed with Mark Sowul's assertion that the scalar function will cause pain. This is a terrible suggestion in T-SQL, don't do it! Scalar Functions are performance destroyers! In-line table valued function are the only good user functions in SQL Server (possibly with the exception of CLR functions which can perform well).
You can replace your whole function with the expression @numerator / NULLIF(@divisor, 0). It does the same and is much more faster.
f
finnw

Add a CHECK constraint that forces Divisor to be non-zero Add a validator to the form so that the user cannot enter zero values into this field.


I start to like CHECK constraints more and more.
V
Vijay Bansal

For update SQLs:

update Table1 set Col1 = Col2 / ISNULL(NULLIF(Col3,0),1)

hi Vijay, Yes, that will work, but... I would be careful about the ISNULL part, where you end up dividing by NULL. I would rather signal to the user that the result is unknown because the divisor is zero.
It's saved me in complicated subQuery, Thanks.
R
Remus Rusanu

There is no magic global setting 'turn division by 0 exceptions off'. The operation has to to throw, since the mathematical meaning of x/0 is different from the NULL meaning, so it cannot return NULL. I assume you are taking care of the obvious and your queries have conditions that should eliminate the records with the 0 divisor and never evaluate the division. The usual 'gotcha' is than most developers expect SQL to behave like procedural languages and offer logical operator short-circuit, but it does NOT. I recommend you read this article: http://www.sqlmag.com/Articles/ArticleID/9148/pg/2/2.html


There is such a "Magic global setting";SET ARITHABORT OFF.
J
Jimmy

Here is a situation where you can divide by zero. The business rule is that to calculate inventory turns, you take cost of goods sold for a period, annualize it. After you have the annualized number, you divide by the average inventory for the period.

I'm looking at calculating the number of inventory turns that occur in a three month period. I have calculated that I have Cost of Goods sold during the three month period of $1,000. The annual rate of sales is $4,000 ($1,000/3)*12. The beginning inventory is 0. The ending inventory is 0. My average inventory is now 0. I have sales of $4000 per year, and no inventory. This yields an infinite number of turns. This means that all my inventory is being converted and purchased by customers.

This is a business rule of how to calculate inventory turns.


Yes, you then have an infinite number of turns. So in this case, if you have a division by zero, then you should show something like '#INF'.
"The beginning inventory is 0. The ending inventory is 0. My average inventory is now 0." Your calculation is an estimate. At some time the inventory is positive or you can't ship/sell anything. If you are unhappy with +∞ as a result, use a better estimation of average inventory.
G
Gregory Hart
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.Divide(@Numerator Real, @Denominator Real)
RETURNS Real AS
/*
Purpose:      Handle Division by Zero errors
Description:  User Defined Scalar Function
Parameter(s): @Numerator and @Denominator

Test it:

SELECT 'Numerator = 0' Division, dbo.fn_CORP_Divide(0,16) Results
UNION ALL
SELECT 'Denominator = 0', dbo.fn_CORP_Divide(16,0)
UNION ALL
SELECT 'Numerator is NULL', dbo.fn_CORP_Divide(NULL,16)
UNION ALL
SELECT 'Denominator is NULL', dbo.fn_CORP_Divide(16,NULL)
UNION ALL
SELECT 'Numerator & Denominator is NULL', dbo.fn_CORP_Divide(NULL,NULL)
UNION ALL
SELECT 'Numerator & Denominator = 0', dbo.fn_CORP_Divide(0,0)
UNION ALL
SELECT '16 / 4', dbo.fn_CORP_Divide(16,4)
UNION ALL
SELECT '16 / 3', dbo.fn_CORP_Divide(16,3)

*/
BEGIN
    RETURN
        CASE WHEN @Denominator = 0 THEN
            NULL
        ELSE
            @Numerator / @Denominator
        END
END
GO

I do not like your solution, because using a UDF forces the query to run in a single threaded mode. I like your test setup. I would like to have that in all our UDFs.
For me this solution is perfect and elegant
@Payedimaunt; yes, UDFs lead to very elegant code. But it does not perform well. This is "cursors on sleeping pills". :-) It is also difficult to remember to write dbo.Divide instead of a ordinary "/"
n
nunespascal

Filter out data in using a where clause so that you don't get 0 values.


J
Joeyslaptop

Sometimes, 0 might not be appropriate, but sometimes 1 is also not appropriate. Sometimes a jump from 0 to 100,000,000 described as 1 or 100-percent change might also be misleading. 100,000,000 percent might be appropriate in that scenario. It depends on what kind of conclusions you intend to draw based on the percentages or ratios.

For example, a very small-selling item moving from 2-4 sold and a very large-selling item changing from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 sold might mean very different things to an analyst or to management, but would both come through as 100% or 1 change.

It might be easier to isolate NULL values than to scour over a bunch of 0% or 100% rows mixed with legitimate data. Often, a 0 in the denominator can indicate an error or missing value, and you might not want to just fill in an arbitrary value just to make your dataset look tidy.

CASE
     WHEN [Denominator] = 0
     THEN NULL --or any value or sub case
     ELSE [Numerator]/[Denominator]
END as DivisionProblem

I find that the problem is to remember to do something whenever you want to do a division. If you fail to remember adding CASE or NULLIF, you get a support case in x weeks, on a Monday morning. I hate that.
D
Dale K

This is how I fixed it:

IIF(ValueA != 0, Total / ValueA, 0)

It can be wrapped in an update:

SET Pct = IIF(ValueA != 0, Total / ValueA, 0)

Or in a select:

SELECT IIF(ValueA != 0, Total / ValueA, 0) AS Pct FROM Tablename;

Thoughts?


I and others find that replacing "unknown" with zero is a dangerous fix. I much prefer NULL. But the difficult bit is to remember to add iif or nullif on all divisions!
D
Despertar

You can handle the error appropriately when it propagates back to the calling program (or ignore it if that's what you want). In C# any errors that occur in SQL will throw an exception that I can catch and then handle in my code, just like any other error.

I agree with Beska in that you do not want to hide the error. You may not be dealing with a nuclear reactor but hiding errors in general is bad programming practice. This is one of the reasons most modern programming languages implement structured exception handling to decouple the actual return value with an error / status code. This is especially true when you are doing math. The biggest problem is that you cannot distinguish between a correctly computed 0 being returned or a 0 as the result of an error. Instead any value returned is the computed value and if anything goes wrong an exception is thrown. This will of course differ depending on how you are accessing the database and what language you are using but you should always be able to get an error message that you can deal with.

try
{
    Database.ComputePercentage();
}
catch (SqlException e)
{
    // now you can handle the exception or at least log that the exception was thrown if you choose not to handle it
    // Exception Details: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Divide by zero error encountered.
}

I think we all agree that hiding the error with a 0 is not a solution. What I propose is to write our code such that every "/" is followed by a "NULLIF". This way my report/nuclear reactor is not left alone, but is showing a "NULL" instead of that pesky error Msg 8134. Of cause, if I need a different process when divisor is 0, then Beska and I agree. We need to code that. It is just difficult to do every time you write a "/". "/ NULLIF" is not impossible to do every time.
H
Henrik Staun Poulsen

Use NULLIF(exp,0) but in this way - NULLIF(ISNULL(exp,0),0)

NULLIF(exp,0) breaks if exp is null but NULLIF(ISNULL(exp,0),0) will not break


I cannot get NULLIF(exp, 0), if 0 is a Zero, not a o. Try; DECLARE @i INT SELECT 1 / NULLIF(@i, 0) to see if you can get it to break.