I would like to know if there is a better way to write the example script stated below.
Table 1 has 1 line for every item.
Table 2 has 1 line for every physique available of an item.
I would write the SQL below. But when I have about 18 physique values, this will increase the join section. I can join the table without specifying the Physique, but this leaves me with a dataset where rows are exploded and I need to run a Distinct or Group By.
select
t2.ItemID, t2.Name, t1_width.Target as 'Width', t1_length.Target as 'Length'
from
t2
left join t1 as t1_width on t1_width.ItemID = t2.ItemID and t1_Physique = 'Width'
left join t1 as t1_length on t1_length.ItemID = t2.ItemID and t1_Physique = 'Length'
Maybe there is a better way to call the right values from the Select of make one join?
You must use Pivot Table in this case. PIVOT basically changes the rows to columns. In this way there'd be only one INNER JOIN ON t1.ItemID = t2.ItemID.
To start with,
SELECT DISTINCT Physique FROM table2
to get the pivot (column values). There is even a set query to generate this in the example below.
[Use this example to build the query]
Quick Tip: You could use either MAX(target) or COUNT(target) in the agg func call in PIVOT table, depends on dataset you trying to generate.
Related
I'm migrating the backend a budget database from Access to SQL Server and I ran into an issue.
I have 2 tables (let's call them t1 and t2) that share many fields in common: Fund, Department, Object, Subcode, TrackingCode, Reserve, and FYEnd.
If I want to join the tables to find records where all 7 fields match, I can create an inner join using each field:
SELECT *
FROM t1
INNER JOIN t2
ON t1.Fund = t2.Fund
AND t1.Department = t2.Department
AND t1.Object = t2.Object
AND t1.Subcode = t2.Subcode
AND t1.TrackingCode = t2.TrackingCode
AND t1.Reserve = t2.Reserve
AND t1.FYEnd = t2.FYEnd;
This works, but it runs very slowly. When the backend was in Access, I was able to solve the problem by adding a calculated column to both tables. It basically, just concatenated the fields using "-" as a delimiter. The revised query is as follows:
SELECT *
FROM t1 INNER JOIN t2
ON CalculatedColumn = CalculatedColumn
This looks cleaner and runs much faster. The problem is when I moved t1 and t2 to SQL Server, the same query gives me an error message:
I'm new to SQL Server. Can anyone explain what's going on here? Is there a setting I need to change for the calculated column?
Posting this as an answer from my comment.
Usually, this is an issue with mismatched Data types between the two columns referenced. Check and make sure the data types of the two fields (CompositeID) are the same.
You have to calculate the columns before joining them as the ON clause can only access columns for the table.
It is no good to have two identical tables anyway so you should rethink your design completely.
SELECT t1a.*,t2a.*
FROM (SELECT CalculatedColumn, * FROM t1) t1a INNER JOIN (SELECT CalculatedColumn, * FROM t2 ) t2a
ON t1a.CalculatedColumn = t2a.CalculatedColumn
Getting a bit stuck trying to build this query. (SQL SERVER)
I'm trying to join two tables on similar rows, but then stack the unique rows from both table 1 and table 2 on the result set. I was first shooting for a full outer join, but it leaves my key fields blank when the data comes from only one of the tables.
Example: Full Outer Join
Here's what I would like for the query to be able to do:
Essentially, I would like to have a result table where the key fields (Part and Operation) are all returned in two columns (so like a union), but the Estimated and Actual Rate columns returned side by side where there is a matching row between table 1 and table 2.
I've also been trying to inner join the two tables to make a subquery, then using that inner join for except clause on each of the tables, then stacking the original inner join with the two except unions.
Current Attempt: One Join, Two Excepts, Two Unions
UPDATE: I got the current attempt to return values! It's a bit complicated though, Appreciate any advice or feedback though! Great answers below thanks, I will need to do some comparisons
Thanks
SELECT ISNULL(t1.part,t2.part) AS Part,
ISNULL(t1.operation,t2.operation) AS Operation,
ISNULL('Estimated Rate',0) AS 'Estimated Rate',
ISNULL('Actual Rate',0) AS 'Actual Rate'
FROM table1 t1
FULL OUTER JOIN table2 t2
ON t1.part = t2.part
AND t1.operation = t2.operation
I would do this as a union all and group by:
select part, operation,
sum(estimatedrate) as estimatedrate, sum(actualrate) as actualrate
from ((select part, operation, estimatedrate, 0 as actualrate
from table1
) union all
(select part, operation, 0 as estimatedrate, 0 actualrate
from table1
)
) er
group by part, operation;
Despite going through every material I could possibly find on the internet, I haven't been able to solve this issue myself. I am new to MS Access and would really appreciate any pointers.
Here's my problem - I have three tables
Source1084 with columns - Department, Sub-Dept, Entity, Account, +few more
R12CAOmappingTable with columns - Account, R12_Account
Table4 with columns - R12_Account, Department, Sub-Dept, Entity, New Dept, LOB +few more
I have a total of 1084 records in Source and the result table must also contain 1084 records. I need to draw a table with all the columns from Source + R12_account from R12CAOmappingTable + all columns from Table4.
Here is the query I wrote. This yields the right columns but gives me more or less number of records with interchanging different join options.
SELECT rmt.r12_account,
srb.version,
srb.fy,
srb.joblevel,
srb.scenario,
srb.department,
srb.[sub-department],
srb.[job function],
srb.entity,
srb.employee,
table4.lob,
table4.product,
table4.newacct,
table4.newdept,
srb.[beg balance],
srb.jan,
srb.feb,
srb.mar,
srb.apr,
srb.may,
srb.jun,
srb.jul,
srb.aug,
srb.sep,
srb.oct,
srb.nov,
srb.dec,
rmt.r12_account
FROM (source1084 AS srb
LEFT JOIN r12caomappingtable AS rmt
ON srb.account = rmt.account)
LEFT JOIN table4
ON ( srb.department = table4.dept )
AND ( srb.[sub-department] = table4.subdept )
AND ( srb.entity = table4.entity )
WHERE ( ( ( srb.[sub-department] ) = table4.subdept )
AND ( ( srb.entity ) = table4.entity )
AND ( ( rmt.r12_account ) = table4.r12_account ) );
In this simple example, Table1 contains 3 rows with unique fld1 values. Table2 contains one row, and the fld1 value in that row matches one of those in Table1. Therefore this query returns 3 rows.
SELECT *
FROM
Table1 AS t1
LEFT JOIN Table2 AS t2
ON t1.fld1 = t2.fld1;
However if I add the WHERE clause as below, that version of the query returns only one row --- the row where the fld1 values match.
SELECT *
FROM
Table1 AS t1
LEFT JOIN Table2 AS t2
ON t1.fld1 = t2.fld1
WHERE t1.fld1 = t2.fld1;
In other words, that WHERE clause counteracts the LEFT JOIN because it excludes rows where t2.fld1 is Null. If that makes sense, notice that second query is functionally equivalent to this ...
SELECT *
FROM
Table1 AS t1
INNER JOIN Table2 AS t2
ON t1.fld1 = t2.fld1;
Your situation is similar. I suggest you first eliminate the WHERE clause and confirm this query returns at least your expected 1084 rows.
SELECT Count(*) AS CountOfRows
FROM (source1084 AS srb
LEFT JOIN r12caomappingtable AS rmt
ON srb.account = rmt.account)
LEFT JOIN table4
ON ( srb.department = table4.dept )
AND ( srb.[sub-department] = table4.subdept )
AND ( srb.entity = table4.entity );
After you get the query returning the correct number of rows, you can alter the SELECT list to return the columns you want. But the columns aren't really the issue until you can get the correct rows.
Without knowing your tables values it is hard to give a complete answer to your question. The issue that is causing you a problem based on how you described it. Is more then likely based on the type of joins you are using.
The best way I found to understand what type of joins you should be using would referencing a Venn diagram explaining the different type of joins that you can use.
Jeff Atwood also has a really good explanation of SQL joins on his site using the above method as well.
Best to just use the query builder. Drop in your main table. Choose the columns you want. Now for any of the other lookup values then simply drop in the other tables, draw the join line(s), double click and use a left join. You can do this for 2 or 30 columns that need to "grab" or lookup other values from other tables. The number of ORIGINAL rows in the base table returned should ALWAYS remain the same.
So just use the query builder and follow the above.
The problem with your posted SQL is you NESTED the joins inside (). Don't do that. (or let the query builder do this for you – they tend to be quite messy but will also work).
Just use this:
FROM source1084 AS srb
LEFT JOIN r12caomappingtable AS rmt
ON srb.account = rmt.account
LEFT JOIN table4
ON ( srb.department = table4.dept )
AND ( srb.[sub-department] = table4.subdept )
AND ( srb.entity = table4.entity )
As noted, I don't see why you are "repeating" the conditions again in the where clause.
I have five results to retrieve from a table and I want to write a store procedure that will return all desired rows.
I can write the query like that temporarily:
Select * from Table where Id = 1 OR Id = 2 or Id = 3
I supposed I need to receive a list of Ids to split, but how do I write the WHERE clause?
So, if you're just trying to learn SQL, this is a short and good example to get to know the IN operator. The following query has the same result as your attempt.
SELECT *
FROM TABLE
WHERE ID IN (SELECT ID FROM TALBE2)
This translates into what is your attempt. And judging by your attempt, this might be the simplest version for you to understand. Although, in the future I would recommend using a JOIN.
A JOIN has the same functionality as the previous code, but will be a better alternative. If you are curious to read more about JOINs, here are a few links from the most important sources
Joins - wikipedia
and also a visual representation of how different types of JOIN work
Another way to do it. The inner join will only include rows from T1 that match up with a row from T2 via the Id field.
select T1.* from T1 inner join T2 on T1.Id = T2.Id
In practice, inner joins are usually preferable to subqueries for performance reasons.
Here is the table (new user, can't post images yet):
I've always used Excel, but I'm switching over to SQL due to larger data sets. To populate CELL G2 in Excel, I would have used something like this:
=SUM((A2:A8=E2)*(B2:B8))
That gives a value of 141 in Excel for Cell G2.
I figured out how to get this to work in SQL, but I don't exactly understand why this works. Here's what I used in SQL:
SET Table2.total_units_purchased = Table1.some_number
FROM Table2 INNER JOIN
(
SELECT Table1.item
, SUM(Table1.units_purchased) AS some_number
FROM Table1
GROUP BY Table1.item
) Table1
ON Table2.item = Table1.item
Is the "AS" required before some_number? This still works for some reason even if I omit "AS".
Am I missing anything here? Does the order of the tables in the last line of code matter?
Thanks for any help.
Using 'AS' keyword in as an alias is optional, that's why your query still works when you omit the 'AS'.
Secondly, the order of the tables in the last line of code does not matter in this case. The query would work in the same way if your code was ON Table1.item = Table2.item. Note that table order matters if you are using left or right outer joins.
In your SQL code you are selecting the 'item' and the 'sum of the units purchased' for that item and you put these data into another table which you rename to Table1 again.
Then, you join two tables, Table2 and new Table1 where their item fields have the same value.
Lastly, you are selecting the 'sum of the units purchased' field and assign it to Table2's total_units_purchased field.
You could have written your SQL query as the following, which does the same thing with your Excel function.
select sum(table1.units_purchased)
into table2.total_units_purchased
from table1, table2
where Table2.item = Table1.item