I have data split between 2 tables, and need to join the necessary data together for analysis.
One table Test 3 Output contains ID numbers, and the return value of the test. The other table Test Results contains the same IDs, along with their corresponding serial number and overall test result.
I need to combine these into a single table that just displays ID, serial number and test value.
Sorry in advance for the horrible SQL thats about to follow, I'm brand new to this.
I have 2 working queries that give me what I want, but I can't seem to join them together.
The first query:
select `ID`,`Serial Number` from `Test Results`t where (len(`Serial Number`)=16 and FailMode = '24V Supply FAIL')
This gets me the ID and serial number of all the tests that failed '24V supply'. It also filters out garbage serial numbers as the correct ones should have 16 digits.
The second query:
select `ID` from `Test 3 Output`o where o.`24V Supply (V)`<30
This gets me the ID and test results, and filters out some results that were greater than 30V. Note that '24V Supply(V) is the name of the column containing the test results.
Now when I try to join these with the ID, I get a syntax error. Here's what I tried:
select `ID`,`Serial Number`
from `Test Results`t
where (len(`Serial Number`)=16 and FailMode = '24V Supply FAIL')
left join (`Test 3 Output`o ON t.`ID` = o.`ID` where o.`24V Supply (V)`<30)
This gives the error:
Error: Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression (len(`Serial Number`)=16 and FailMode = '24V Supply FAIL') left join (`Test 3 Output`o ON t.`ID` = o.`ID` where o.`24V Supply (V)`<30)
I'm not sure what operator I'm missing but I had a feeling its related to the fact there's two where statements?
Can anyone offer some help?
Edit: I found a workaround since I can't use 2 where clauses with a join. I created 2 views with my 2 separate queries, and performed the join on those which got me what I wanted. I'd still like to hear a proper way of doing it though :)
You can join 2 subqueries like this:
SELECT q1.a, q1.b, q2.c
FROM (
(SELECT a, b FROM table1
WHERE b > 10) AS q1
LEFT JOIN
(SELECT a, c FROM table2
WHERE c > 20) AS q2
ON q1.a = q2.a
)
Doing the subqueries as separate query objects is easier to debug, but the query objects keep piling up...
Related
Consider the following tables:
Table A:
DOC_NUM
DOC_TYPE
RELATED_DOC_NUM
NEXT_STATUS
...
Table B:
DOC_NUM
DOC_TYPE
RELATED_DOC_NUM
NEXT_STATUS
...
The DOC_TYPE and NEXT_STATUS columns have different meanings between the two tables, although a NEXT_STATUS = 999 means "closed" in both. Also, under certain conditions, there will be a record in each table, with a reference to a corresponding entry in the other table (i.e. the RELATED_DOC_NUM columns).
I am trying to create a query that will get data from both tables that meet the following conditions:
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
A.DOC_TYPE = "ST"
B.DOC_TYPE = "OT"
A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999
A.DOC_TYPE = "ST" represents a transfer order to transfer inventory from one plant to another. B.DOC_TYPE = "OT" represents a corresponding receipt of the transferred inventory at the receiving plant.
We want to get records from either table where there is an ST/OT pair where either or both entries are not closed (i.e. NEXT_STATUS < 999).
I am assuming that I need to use a FULL OUTER join to accomplish this. If this is the wrong assumption, please let me know what I should be doing instead.
UPDATE (11/30/2021):
I believe that #Caius Jard is correct in that this does not need to be an outer join. There should always be an ST/OT pair.
With that I have written my query as follows:
SELECT <columns>
FROM A LEFT JOIN B
ON
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
WHERE
A.DOC_TYPE IN ('ST') AND
B.DOC_TYPE IN ('OT') AND
(A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999)
Does this make sense?
UPDATE 2 (11/30/2021):
The reality is that these are DB2 database tables being used by the JD Edwards ERP application. The only way I know of to see the table definitions is by using the web site http://www.jdetables.com/, entering the table ID and hitting return to run the search. It comes back with a ton of information about the table and its columns.
Table A is really F4211 and table B is really F4311.
Right now, I've simplified the query to keep it simple and keep variables to a minimum. This is what I have currently:
SELECT CAST(F4211.SDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8)) AS SO_NUM,
F4211.SDRORN AS RELATED_PO,
F4211.SDDCTO AS SO_DOC_TYPE,
F4211.SDNXTR AS SO_NEXT_STATUS,
CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8)) AS PO_NUM,
F4311.PDRORN AS RELATED_SO,
F4311.PDDCTO AS PO_DOC_TYPE,
F4311.PDNXTR AS PO_NEXT_STATUS
FROM PROD2DTA.F4211 AS F4211
INNER JOIN PROD2DTA.F4311 AS F4311
ON F4211.SDRORN = CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8))
WHERE F4211.SDDCTO IN ( 'ST' )
AND F4311.PDDCTO IN ( 'OT' )
The other part of the story is that I'm using a reporting package that allows you to define "virtual" views of the data. Virtual views allow the report developer to specify the SQL to use. This is the application where I am using the SQL. When I set up the SQL, there is a validation step that must be performed. It will return a limited set of results if the SQL is validated.
When I enter the query above and validate it, it says that there are no results, which makes no sense. I'm guessing the data casting is causing the issue, but not sure.
UPDATE 3 (11/30/2021):
One more twist to the story. The related doc number is not only defined as a string value, but it contains leading zeros. This is true in both tables. The main doc number (in both tables) is defined as a numeric value and therefore has no leading zeros. I have no idea why those who developed JDE would have done this, but that is what is there.
So, there are matching records between the two tables that meet the criteria, but I think I'm getting no results because when I convert the numeric to a string, it does not match, because one value is, say "12345", while the other is "00012345".
Can I pad the numeric -> string value with zeros before doing the equals check?
UPDATE 4 (12/2/2021):
Was able to finally get the query to work by converting the numeric doc num to a left zero padded string.
SELECT <columns>
FROM PROD2DTA.F4211 AS F4211
INNER JOIN PROD2DTA.F4311 AS F4311
ON F4211.SDRORN = RIGHT(CONCAT('00000000', CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8))), 8)
WHERE F4211.SDDCTO IN ( 'ST' )
AND F4311.PDDCTO IN ( 'OT' )
AND ( F4211.SDNXTR < 999
OR F4311.PDNXTR < 999 )
You should write your query as follows:
SELECT <columns>
FROM A INNER JOIN B
ON
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
WHERE
A.DOC_TYPE IN ('ST') AND
B.DOC_TYPE IN ('OT') AND
(A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999)
LEFT join is a type of OUTER join; LEFT JOIN is typically a contraction of LEFT OUTER JOIN). OUTER means "one side might have nulls in every column because there was no match". Most critically, the code as posted in the question (with a LEFT JOIN, but then has WHERE some_column_from_the_right_table = some_value) runs as an INNER join, because any NULLs inserted by the LEFT OUTER process, are then quashed by the WHERE clause
See Update 4 for details of how I resolved the "data conversion or mapping" error.
I have a table that is for PaymentRequest (PR), each PR table has two forms of pay, a WorkProgress, and a AdvanceByWarranty, the relation is like this:
I Need to create a report to get all the payment made in that (PR), and some other fields between them
The sql that I was using to join PaymentRequest with WorkProgress is this, and it works, it returns the WorkProgress of that payment
To get the Advances by warranty I use this, it also works, returns 2 Advances, as it should be
But, when I mix both, it doesnt return 3 rows, as it should be, it returns two. The result is this
I was expecting something like this (With shorter names)
How can i get the expected query?
Edit:
The sql to get the expected query is this
select
pr.ProjectId, pr.NumberPaymentState,
wp.ToCollectAmmount as WPAmmount, wp.ToCollectPercent as WPPercent,
null as AWAmmount, null as AWPercent
from PaymentRequests pr
left join WorkProgresses wp on (wp.ProjectId = pr.ProjectId and wp.NumberPaymentState = pr.NumberPaymentState)
union all
select
pr.ProjectId, pr.NumberPaymentState,
null as WPAmmount, null as WPPercent,
aw.ToCollectAmmount as AWAmmount, aw.ToCollectPercent as AWPercent
from PaymentRequests pr
left join AdvanceByWarranties aw on (aw.ProjectId = pr.ProjectId and aw.NumberPaymentState = pr.NumberPaymentState)
You might have wanted what you show, but it doesn't work like this.
Just use UNION ALL between your first two queries, and rename the columns accordingly. Here is some pseudocode hybrid to guide you:
select keycols, workercols, null as advancecols
from pr join worker
union all
select keycols, null as workercols, advancecols
from pr join advancecols
I pop into a problem recently, and Im sure its because of how I Join them.
this is my code:
select LP_Pending_Info.Service_Order,
LP_Pending_Info.Pending_Days,
LP_Pending_Info.Service_Type,
LP_Pending_Info.ASC_Code,
LP_Pending_Info.Model,
LP_Pending_Info.IN_OUT_WTY,
LP_Part_Codes.PartCode,
LP_PS_Codes.PS,
LP_Confirmation_Codes.SO_NO,
LP_Pending_Info.Engineer_Code
from LP_Pending_Info
join LP_Part_Codes
on LP_Pending_Info.Service_order = LP_Part_Codes.Service_order
join LP_PS_Codes
on LP_Pending_Info.Service_Order = LP_PS_Codes.Service_Order
join LP_Confirmation_Codes
on LP_Pending_Info.Service_Order = LP_Confirmation_Codes.Service_Order
order by LP_Pending_Info.Service_order, LP_Part_Codes.PartCode;
For every service order I have 5 part code maximum.
If the service order have only one value it show the result correctly but when it have more than one Part code the problem begin.
for example: this service order"4182134076" has only 2 part code, first'GH81-13601A' and second 'GH96-09938A' so it should show the data 2 time but it repeat it for 8 time. what seems to be the problem?
If your records were exactly the same the distinct keyword would have solved it.
However in rows 2 and 3 which have the same Service_Order and Part_Code if you check the SO_NO you see it is different - that is why distinct won't work here - the rows are not identical.
I say you have some problem in one of the conditions in your joins. The different data is in the SO_NO column so check the raw data in the LP_Confirmation_Codes table for that Service_Order:
select * from LP_Confirmation_Codes where Service_Order = 4182134076
I assume you are missing an and with the value from the LP_Part_Codes or LP_PS_Codes (but can't be sure without seeing those tables and data myself).
By this sentence If the service order have only one value it show the result correctly but when it have more than one Part code the problem begin. - probably you are missing and and with the LP_Part_Codes table
Based on your output result, here are the following data that caused multiple output.
Service Order: 4182134076 has :
2 PartCode which are GH81-13601A and GH96-09938A
2 PS which are U and P
2 SO_NO which are 1.00024e+09 and 1.00022e+09
Therefore 2^3 returns 8 rows. I believe that you need to check where you should join your tables.
Use DINTINCT
select distinct LP_Pending_Info.Service_Order,LP_Pending_Info.Pending_Days,
LP_Pending_Info.Service_Type,LP_Pending_Info.ASC_Code,LP_Pending_Info.Model,
LP_Pending_Info.IN_OUT_WTY, LP_Part_Codes.PartCode,LP_PS_Codes.PS,
LP_Confirmation_Codes.SO_NO,LP_Pending_Info.Engineer_Code
from LP_Pending_Info
join LP_Part_Codes on LP_Pending_Info.Service_order = LP_Part_Codes.Service_order
join LP_PS_Codes on LP_Part_Codes.Service_Order = LP_PS_Codes.Service_Order
join LP_Confirmation_Codes on LP_PS_Codes.Service_Order = LP_Confirmation_Codes.Service_Order
order by LP_Pending_Info.Service_order, LP_Part_Codes.PartCode;
distinct will not return duplicates based on your select. So if a row is same, it will only return once.
I'm trying to extract nutrient data in MS Access 2007 from the USDA food database, freely available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=24912
I need records that have ALL nutrients from NUT_DATA.Nutr_No . Those records have values between '501' and '511' . But I wish to exclude incomplete records that have missing values.
Currently, Baby food banana has all from nutrient 501 to 511, but Baby food Beverage has only 9 of the nutrients listed, and many others are like that.
As a last resort, I guess it would be acceptable to have all records, showing null for missing values, as long as each FOOD_DES.Long_Desc has exactly 11 records, one for each NUT_DATA.Nutr_No OR NUTR_DEF.NutrDesc (which correspond to each other).
SELECT
FOOD_DES.NDB_No, FOOD_DES.FdGrp_Cd, FOOD_DES.Long_Desc, NUT_DATA.Nutr_No, NUTR_DEF.NutrDesc, NUT_DATA.Nutr_Val, WEIGHT.Amount, WEIGHT.Msre_Desc, WEIGHT.Gm_Wgt, [WEIGHT]![Amount] & " " & [WEIGHT]![Msre_Desc] AS msre
FROM
NUTR_DEF inner JOIN ((FOOD_DES INNER JOIN NUT_DATA ON FOOD_DES.NDB_No=NUT_DATA.NDB_No) INNER JOIN WEIGHT ON FOOD_DES.NDB_No=WEIGHT.NDB_No) ON NUTR_DEF.Nutr_No=NUT_DATA.Nutr_No
WHERE
(NUT_DATA.Nutr_No between '501' and '511' ) and ((WEIGHT.Seq)="1") and NUT_DATA.Nutr_Val > '0' and
// this part is me out of ideas trying stuff, but didn't help
EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM
NUTR_DEF inner JOIN ((FOOD_DES INNER JOIN NUT_DATA ON FOOD_DES.NDB_No=NUT_DATA.NDB_No) INNER JOIN WEIGHT ON FOOD_DES.NDB_No=WEIGHT.NDB_No) ON NUTR_DEF.Nutr_No=NUT_DATA.Nutr_No
WHERE count FOOD_DES.Long_Desc = "11" )
//end wild of experimentation
ORDER BY FOOD_DES.Long_Desc, NUTR_DEF.SR_Order;
This is a sample of the data. I just copied the most important columns. The red is not what I'm looking for because it doesn't have all 11 nutrients. I can paste on the google doc the whole table if someone thinks that would help.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FghDD59wy2PYlpsqUlYVc3Ulwvy4MMLagpBUYtvLBfI/edit?usp=sharing
As your starting point, identify which food items have values > 0 for all 11 of those nutrients. Check whether this simpler GROUP BY query shows you the correct items:
SELECT ndat.NDB_No
FROM
NUT_DATA AS ndat
INNER JOIN WEIGHT AS wt
ON ndat.NDB_No = wt.NDB_No
WHERE
ndat.Nutr_Val>0
AND ndat.Nutr_No IN('501','502','503','504','505','506','507','508','509','510','511')
AND wt.Seq='1'
GROUP BY ndat.NDB_No
HAVING Count(ndat.Nutr_No)=11;
Note you could use Val(ndat.Nutr_No) Between 501 And 511 as the Nutr_No restriction, which would give you a more concise statement. However, evaluating Val() for every row of the table means that approach would forego the performance benefit of indexed retrieval ... so that version of the query should be noticeably slower.
Save that query and create a new query which joins it to the base tables for the additional data you need from other columns. Or use it as a subquery instead of a named query if you prefer.
Need help on a query using sql server 2005
I am having two tables
code
chargecode
chargeid
orgid
entry
chargeid
itemNo
rate
I need to list all the chargeids in entry table if it contains multiple entries having different chargeids
which got listed in code table having the same charge code.
data :
code
100,1,100
100,2,100
100,3,100
101,11,100
101,12,100
entry
1,x1,1
1,x2,2
2,x3,2
11,x4,1
11,x5,1
using the above data , it query should list chargeids 1 and 2 and not 11.
I got the way to know how many rows in entry satisfies the criteria, but m failing to get the chargeids
select count (distinct chargeId)
from entry where chargeid in (select chargeid from code where chargecode = (SELECT A.chargecode
from code as A join code as B
ON A.chargecode = B.chargeCode and A.chargetype = B.chargetype and A.orgId = B.orgId AND A.CHARGEID = b.CHARGEid
group by A.chargecode,A.orgid
having count(A.chargecode) > 1)
)
First off: I apologise for my completely inaccurate original answer.
The solution to your problem is a self-join. Self-joins are used when you want to select more than one row from the same table. In our case we want to select two charge IDs that have the same charge code:
SELECT DISTINCT c1.chargeid, c2.chargeid FROM code c1
JOIN code c2 ON c1.chargeid != c2.chargeid AND c1.chargecode = c2.chargecode
JOIN entry e1 ON e1.chargeid = c1.chargeid
JOIN entry e2 ON e2.chargeid = c2.chargeid
WHERE c1.chargeid < c2.chargeid
Explanation of this:
First we pick any two charge IDs from 'code'. The DISTINCT avoids duplicates. We make sure they're two different IDs and that they map to the same chargecode.
Then we join on 'entry' (twice) to make sure they both appear in the entry table.
This approach gives (for your example) the pairs (1,2) and (2,1). So we also insist on an ordering; this cuts to result set down to just (1,2), as you described.