select
evm.case_id, evm.close_ts, evm.cm_promise_utc_ts, evm.cm11, evm.cm13, evm.creat_id, evm.creat_ts, evm.creat_type,
evm.event_act, evm.event_act_perf, evm.event_dt, evm.event_id, evm.event_orig, evm.event_srce, evm.event_sta, evm.event_sub_type, evm.event_type,
evm.fol_pref_mthd, evm.incdnt_no,
evm.lst_updt_id, evm.lst_updt_ts, evm.lst_updt_type,
evm.main_sta, evm.new_act_note, evm.orig_id, evm.own_type, evm.prod_type, evm.req_chan, evm.srvc_arm,
crm.case_nm,
evg.req_add_info as req_add_info_general, evg.rslt_add_info,
evt.add_info, evt.other_ds, evt.req_add_info as req_add_info_ticketing,
eve.event_iss, eve.event_rev,
eve.req_cm_commentary, eve.req_event_nm, eve.rslt_err_dt, eve.rslt_root_cause, eve.rslt_rslv_dtl_cnfr, eve.rslt_rslv_dtl_outcm,
tlsopus.agnt_emply_sta, tlsopus.dlvr_mthd, tlsopus.dm_ctry,
tlsopus.event_subtype as event_sub_type_tlsarpt,
tlsopus.mkt_alpha_cd, tlsopus.own_id, tlsopus.prod_full_nm,
tlsopus.repr_locat, tlsopus.req_pref_spec_dt, tlsopus.req_vend, tlsopus.rslt_rec_loctr,
tlsopus.trvl_prod, tlsopus.trvl_type, tlsopus.user_role,
tlssales.trip_id, tlssales.inv_dt, tlssales.refd_exch_in,
tlssales.trip_type, tlssales.trans_usd_am, tlssales.mkt_cd, tlssales.chan_type,tlssales.exp_trip_id
from cstonedb3.opus_event_master as evm
left join cstonedb3.opus_crm_cases as crm
on evm.case_id = crm.case_id
left join cstonedb3.opus_event_general as evg
on evm.event_id = evg.event_id
left join cstonedb3.opus_event_ticketing as evt
on evm.event_id = evt.event_id
left join cstonedb3.opus_event_escalation as eve
on evm.event_id = eve.event_id
left join cstonedb3.tlsarpt_opus_case_detail as tlsopus
on evm.event_id = tlsopus.event_id
left join cstonedb3.tlsarpt_travel_sales as tlssales
on tlsopus.rslt_rec_loctr = tlssales.trip_id
or tlsopus.rslt_rec_loctr = tlssales.exp_trip_id
where evm.creat_ts between '2022-07-01' and '2022-07-31'
and tlsopus.mkt_alpha_cd = 'US';
tlssales table has two columns that correspond to one column in tlsopus
i.e the values for "tlsopus.rslt_rec_loctr" can be present in either "tlssales.trip_id" or "tlssales.exp_trip_id".
I want the join to first search through the "tlssales.trip_id" column. If there's no match here in this column, then look for a match in "tlssales.exp_trip_id" column.
For this I applied the or condition in the last join statement. But this query gives the following error :
FAILED: SemanticException Cartesian products are disabled for safety
reasons. If you know what you are doing, please
sethive.strict.checks.cartesian.product to false and that
hive.mapred.mode is not set to 'strict' to proceed. Note that if you
may get errors or incorrect results if you make a mistake while using
some of the unsafe features.
Can someone please explain where I'm going wrong? I tried to look through other pages and found out that we can apply or in join.
Related
I have the following SQL string which tries to combine an INNER JOIN with a LEFT JOIN in the FROM section.
As you can see I use table VIP_APP_VIP_SCENARIO_DETAIL_LE to perform the query. When I use it against this table, Access give me an "Invalid Operation" error.
Interestingly, when I use the EXACT same query using the VIP_APP_VIP_SCENARIO_DETAIL_BUDGET or VIP_APP_VIP_SCENARIO_DETAIL_ACTUALS table, it performs flawlessly.
So why would it work on two tables but not the other? All fields are in all tables and the data types are correct.
As a side note: on the query with the error, if I change the LEFT JOIN to an INNER JOIN, it runs with no problem! I really need a LEFT JOIN though.
SELECT
D.MATERIAL_NUMBER,
D.MATERIAL_DESCRIPTION,
D.PRODUCTION_LOT_SIZE,
D.STANDARDS_NAME,
D.WORK_CENTER,
S.OP_SHORT_TEXT,
S.OPERATION_CODE,
D.LINE_SPEED_UPM,
D.PERCENT_STD,
D.EQUIPMENT_SU,
D.EQUIPMENT_CU,
D.OPERATOR_NUM,
V.COSTING_LOT_SIZE,
V.VOL_TOTAL_ADJ
FROM
([STDS_SCENARIO: TEST] AS D INNER JOIN MASTER_SUMMARY AS S ON
D.MATERIAL_NUMBER = S.MATERIAL_NUMBER AND D.WORK_CENTER = S.WORK_CENTER)
LEFT JOIN
(SELECT ITEM_CODE, COSTING_LOT_SIZE, VOL_TOTAL_ADJ
FROM
VIP_APP_VIP_SCENARIO_DETAIL_LE
WHERE SCENARIO_ID = 16968) AS V ON D.MATERIAL_NUMBER = V.ITEM_CODE
ORDER BY D.MATERIAL_NUMBER, D.STANDARDS_NAME, S.OPERATION_CODE;
tried to mock this up in SQL server with some tables of my own, but the structure seemed to work, this follows the pattern referenced above. (hopefully no syntax errors left here)
SELECT * FROM (
select
D.MATERIAL_NUMBER,
D.MATERIAL_DESCRIPTION,
D.PRODUCTION_LOT_SIZE,
D.STANDARDS_NAME,
D.WORK_CENTER,
S.OP_SHORT_TEXT,
S.OPERATION_CODE,
D.LINE_SPEED_UPM,
D.PERCENT_STD,
D.EQUIPMENT_SU,
D.EQUIPMENT_CU,
D.OPERATOR_NUM
FROM [STDS_SCENARIO: TEST] D
INNER JOIN MASTER_SUMMARY S
ON D.MATERIAL_NUMBER = S.MATERIAL_NUMBER AND D.WORK_CENTER = S.WORK_CENTER) AS J
LEFT JOIN
(SELECT ITEM_CODE, COSTING_LOT_SIZE, VOL_TOTAL_ADJ
FROM
VIP_APP_VIP_SCENARIO_DETAIL_LE
WHERE SCENARIO_ID = 16968) AS V ON J.MATERIAL_NUMBER = V.ITEM_CODE
ORDER BY J.MATERIAL_NUMBER, J.STANDARDS_NAME, J.OPERATION_CODE;
Had help from a friend and we discovered that it was a casting problem between a linked Oracle table and the Access table. To fix the problem we casted both sides of the linked fields to a string:
CSTR(D.[MATERIAL_NUMBER]) = CSTR(V.[ITEM_CODE])
I'm not familiar with MS Access 2003-2007 SQL, but I have to maintain/extend a project that uses it. (The original author has left the company. Hooray for legacy code.) What I'm trying to do is join a number of related tables so that the query gives me the number of transactions for a particular user within a particular time range. The end result of this is that I want to see how many hours passed between an OUT event and the previous IN event for that user.
The code I have so far is as follows:
SELECT Directions.DirectionText, Transactions.Timestamp
FROM Users
LEFT JOIN AccessNumbers ON Users.AccessNumberID = AccessNumbers.AccessNumberID
LEFT JOIN Transactions ON AccessNumbers.Number = Transactions.Number
LEFT JOIN Events ON Transactions.Event = Events.EventNumber
LEFT JOIN Readers ON Transactions.ReaderID = Readers.ReaderID
LEFT JOIN Directions ON Readers.Direction = Direction.Direction
WHERE
(Events.EventNum IN (1, 22)) AND
(Users.[Name] = "firstName") AND
(Users.Surname = "Surname") AND
(Transactions.Timestamp >=#2017-04-10 01:00:00#) AND
(Transactions.Timestamp <=#2017-05-09 14:57:30#)
ORDER BY Transactions.Timestamp
The error I receive is "Syntax Error (missing operator in query expression 'Users.AccessNumberID = ... Direction.Direction'
I have also tried the following, to receive "Syntax Error on JOIN operation':
SELECT Directions.DirectionText, Transactions.Timestamp
FROM Users
LEFT JOIN (AccessNumbers ON Users.AccessNumberID =
AccessNumbers.AccessNumberID)
ON (AccessNumbers.Number = Transactions.Number)
ON (Transactions.Event = Events.EventNumber)
ON (Transactions.ReaderID = Readers.ReaderID)
ON (Readers.Direction = Direction.Direction)
WHERE ...
I'm aware that the SQL needs parentheses, but I don't know where to place them.
I've had issues with Access trying to put in my parentheses for me in the past... especially with LEFT joins. I'd normally parenthesize your first query like so:
SELECT Directions.DirectionText, Transactions.Timestamp
FROM ((((Users
LEFT JOIN AccessNumbers ON Users.AccessNumberID = AccessNumbers.AccessNumberID)
LEFT JOIN Transactions ON AccessNumbers.Number = Transactions.Number)
LEFT JOIN Events ON Transactions.Event = Events.EventNumber)
LEFT JOIN Readers ON Transactions.ReaderID = Readers.ReaderID)
LEFT JOIN Directions ON Readers.Direction = Directions.Direction
WHERE
(Events.EventNum IN (1, 22)) AND
(Users.[Name] = "firstName") AND
(Users.Surname = "Surname") AND
(Transactions.Timestamp >=#2017-04-10 01:00:00#) AND
(Transactions.Timestamp <=#2017-05-09 14:57:30#)
ORDER BY Transactions.Timestamp
Your second query would need more LEFT JOIN clauses thrown in to function.
A simple trick is the following:
Add a closing parenthesis before each LEFT beyond the first.
Add an opening parenthesis after FROM for each LEFT beyond the first.
Result:
SELECT Directions.DirectionText, Transactions.Timestamp
FROM ((((Users
LEFT JOIN AccessNumbers ON Users.AccessNumberID = AccessNumbers.AccessNumberID
) LEFT JOIN Transactions ON AccessNumbers.Number = Transactions.Number
) LEFT JOIN Events ON Transactions.Event = Events.EventNumber
) LEFT JOIN Readers ON Transactions.ReaderID = Readers.ReaderID
) LEFT JOIN Directions ON Readers.Direction = Direction.Direction
WHERE
(Events.EventNum IN (1, 22)) AND
(Users.[Name] = "firstName") AND
(Users.Surname = "Surname") AND
(Transactions.Timestamp >=#2017-04-10 01:00:00#) AND
(Transactions.Timestamp <=#2017-05-09 14:57:30#)
ORDER BY Transactions.Timestamp
The result is the same as Sturgus says, but adding them this way makes sense to me. For layout purposes, you might move each closing parenthesis to the line above it.
I made a query and wanted to not have any duplicates but i got some times 3 duplicates and when i used DISTINCT or DISTINCTROW i got only 2 duplicates.
SELECT f.flight_code,
f.status,
a.airport_name,
a1.airport_name,
f.departing_date+f.departing_time AS SupposedDepartingTime,
f.landing_date+f.landing_time AS SupposedLandingTime,
de.actual_takeoff_date+de.actual_takeoff_time AS ActualDepartingTime,
SupposedLandingTime+(ActualDepartingTime-SupposedDepartingTime) AS ActualLandingTime
FROM
(((Flights AS f
LEFT JOIN Aireports AS a
ON a.airport_code = f.depart_ap)
LEFT JOIN Aireports AS a1
ON f.target_ap = a1.airport_code)
LEFT JOIN Irregular_Events AS ie
ON f.flight_code = ie.flight_code)
LEFT JOIN Delay_Event AS de
ON ie.IE_code = de.delay_code;
had to use LEFT JOIN because when i used INNER JOIN i missed some of the things i wanted to show because i wanted to see all the flights and not only the flights that got delayed or canceled.
This is the results when i used INNER JOIN, you can see only the flights that have the status "ביטול" or "עיכוב" and that is not what i wanted.
[the results with LEFT JOIN][2]
[2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cgE2G.png
and when i used DISTINCT where you see the rows with the NUMBER 6 on the first column it appear only two times
IMPORTANT!
I just checked my query and all the tables i use there and i saw my problem but dont know how to fix it!
in the table Irregular_Events i have more the one event for flights 3,6 and 8 and that is why when i use LEFT JOIN i see more even thou i use distinct, please give me some help!
Not entirely sure without seeing the table structure, but this might work:
SELECT f.flight_code,
f.status,
a.airport_name,
a1.airport_name,
f.departing_date+f.departing_time AS SupposedDepartingTime,
f.landing_date+f.landing_time AS SupposedLandingTime,
de.actual_takeoff_date+de.actual_takeoff_time AS ActualDepartingTime,
SupposedLandingTime+(ActualDepartingTime-SupposedDepartingTime) AS ActualLandingTime
FROM
((Flights AS f
LEFT JOIN Aireports AS a
ON a.airport_code = f.depart_ap)
LEFT JOIN Aireports AS a1
ON f.target_ap = a1.airport_code)
LEFT JOIN
(
SELECT
ie.flight_code,
de1.actual_takeoff_date,
de1.actual_takeoff_time
FROM
Irregular_Events ie
INNER JOIN Event AS de1
ON ie.IE_code = de1.delay_code
) AS de
ON f.flight_code = de.flight_code
It is hard to tell what is the problem with your query without any sample of the output, and without any description of the structure of your tables.
But your problem is that your are querying from the flights table, which [I assume] can be linked to multiple irregular_events, which can possibly also be linked to multiple delay_event.
If you want to get only one row per flight, you need to make sure your joins return only one row too. Maybe you can do it by adding one more condition to the join, or by adding a condition in a sub-query.
EDIT
You could try to add a GROUP BY to the query:
GROUP BY
f.flight_code,
f.status,
a.airport_name,
a1.airport_name;
I'm trying to retrieve a list of components via my computer_system, BUT if a computer system's graphics card is set to null (I.e. It has an onboard), the row isn't returned by my select statement.
I've been trying to use COALESCE without results. I've also tried with and OR in my WHERE clause, which then just returns my computer system with all different kinds of graphic cards.
Relevant code:
SELECT
computer_system.cs_id,
computer_system.cs_name,
motherboard.name,
motherboard.price,
cpu.name,
cpu.price,
gfx.name,
gfx.price
FROM
public.computer_case ,
public.computer_system,
public.cpu,
public.gfx,
public.motherboard,
public.ram
WHERE
computer_system.cs_ram = ram.ram_id AND
computer_system.cs_cpu = cpu.cpu_id AND
computer_system.cs_mb = motherboard.mb_id AND
computer_system.cs_case = computer_case.case_id AND
computer_system.cs_gfx = gfx.gfx_id; <-- ( OR computer_system.cs_gfx IS NULL)
Returns:
1;"Computer1";"Fractal Design"; 721.00; "MSI Z87"; 982.00; "Core i7 I7-4770K "; 2147.00; "Crucial Gamer"; 1253.00; "ASUS GTX780";3328.00
Should I use Joins? Is there no easy way to say return the requested row, even if there's a bloody NULL value. Been struggling with this for at least 2 hours.
Tables will be posted if needed.
EDIT: It should return a second row:
2;"Computer2";"Fractal Design"; 721.00; "MSI Z87"; 982.00; "Core i7 I7-4770K "; 2147.00; "Crucial Gamer"; 1253.00; "null/nothing";null/nothing
You want a LEFT OUTER JOIN.
First, clean up your code so you use ANSI joins so it's readable:
SELECT
computer_system.cs_id,
computer_system.cs_name,
motherboard.name,
motherboard.price,
cpu.name,
cpu.price,
gfx.name,
gfx.price
FROM
public.computer_system
INNER JOIN public.computer_case ON computer_system.cs_case = computer_case.case_id
INNER JOIN public.cpu ON computer_system.cs_cpu = cpu.cpu_id
INNER JOIN public.gfx ON computer_system.cs_gfx = gfx.gfx_id
INNER JOIN public.motherboard ON computer_system.cs_mb = motherboard.mb_id
INNER JOIN public.ram ON computer_system.cs_ram = ram.ram_id;
Then change the INNER JOIN on public.gfx to a LEFT OUTER JOIN:
LEFT OUTER JOIN public.gfx ON computer_system.cs_gfx = gfx.gfx_id
See PostgreSQL tutorial - joins.
I very strongly recommend reading an introductory tutorial to SQL - at least the PostgreSQL tutorial, preferably some more material as well.
It looks like it's just a bracket placement issue. Pull the null check and the graphics card id comparison into a clause by itself.
...
computer_system.cs_case = computer_case.case_id AND
(computer_system.cs_gfx IS NULL OR computer_system.cs_gfx = gfx.gfx_id)
Additionally, you ask if you should use joins. You are in fact using joins, by virtue of having multiple tables in your FROM clause and specifying the join criteria in the WHERE clause. Changing this to use the JOIN ON syntax might be a little easier to read:
FROM sometable A
JOIN someothertable B
ON A.somefield = B.somefield
JOIN somethirdtable C
ON A.somefield = C.somefield
etc
Edit:
You also likely want to make the join where you expect the null value to be a left outer join:
SELECT * FROM
first_table a
LEFT OUTER JOIN second_table b
ON a.someValue = b.someValue
If there is no match in the join, the row from the left side will still be returned.
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Would these two FROM clauses produce the same results? And if not, is there a way to write the the first one so that no parenthesis are needed?
FROM SALESTAX
RIGHT JOIN ( ITEMS
RIGHT JOIN ( PINVOICE
INNER JOIN PINVDET ON PINVOICE.PNV_INVOICENO = PINVDET.PND_INVOICENO AND PINVOICE.PNV_Site = PINVDET.PND_Site
) ON ITEMS.ITE_INVNO = PINVDET.PND_INVNO
) ON SALESTAX.STX_GroupID = PINVDET.PND_TAX1
FULL JOIN ( CUSTMS
RIGHT JOIN CUSMER ON CUSTMS.TMS_CODE = CUSMER.CUS_TERM
) ON PINVDET.PND_CUSTID = CUSMER.CUS_CustID
FROM CUSTMS RIGHT JOIN
CUSMER ON TMS_CODE = CUS_TERM FULL JOIN
PINVDET ON PND_CUSTID = CUS_CustID LEFT JOIN
PINVOICE ON PNV_INVOICENO = PND_INVOICENO AND PNV_Site = PND_Site LEFT JOIN
SALESTAX on STX_GROUPID = PND_TAX1 left join
ITEMS on ITE_INVNO = PND_INVNO
EDIT: While I'd like to know the answer to the first question, I'm more immediately interested in just having a more straightforward version of the first FROM clause that doesn't need parenthesis so if you'd rather just rewrite it than compare the two then feel free to just do that.
I have no idea if the 1st is equivalent to the 2nd (first because the queries are unfriendly formatted, to say the least and second because RIGHT joins are kind of confusing, since many are used to write using LEFT joins.) But to answer the question:
Is there a way to write the the first one so that no parenthesis are needed?
Yes, you can simply remove the parentheses from the 1st query.
Keeping the parentheses and formatted with some white space:
FROM
SALESTAX
RIGHT JOIN
( ITEMS
RIGHT JOIN
( PINVOICE
INNER JOIN
PINVDET
ON PINVOICE.PNV_INVOICENO = PINVDET.PND_INVOICENO
AND PINVOICE.PNV_Site = PINVDET.PND_Site
)
ON ITEMS.ITE_INVNO = PINVDET.PND_INVNO
)
ON SALESTAX.STX_GroupID = PINVDET.PND_TAX1
FULL JOIN
( CUSTMS
RIGHT JOIN
CUSMER
ON CUSTMS.TMS_CODE = CUSMER.CUS_TERM
)
ON PINVDET.PND_CUSTID = CUSMER.CUS_CustID
Without parentheses and white-space formatted:
FROM
SALESTAX
RIGHT JOIN
ITEMS
RIGHT JOIN
PINVOICE
INNER JOIN
PINVDET
ON PINVOICE.PNV_INVOICENO = PINVDET.PND_INVOICENO
AND PINVOICE.PNV_Site = PINVDET.PND_Site
ON ITEMS.ITE_INVNO = PINVDET.PND_INVNO
ON SALESTAX.STX_GroupID = PINVDET.PND_TAX1
FULL JOIN
CUSTMS
RIGHT JOIN
CUSMER
ON CUSTMS.TMS_CODE = CUSMER.CUS_TERM
ON PINVDET.PND_CUSTID = CUSMER.CUS_CustID
To answer the other question, about the 2nd query, no it isn't equivalent. You missed the table aliases and changed an inner join to left join. This is equivalent to the 1st:
FROM CUSMER
LEFT JOIN
CUSTMS ON CUSTMS.TMS_CODE = CUSMER.CUS_TERM
FULL JOIN
PINVDET
INNER JOIN -- this is changed
PINVOICE ON PINVOICE.PNV_INVOICENO = PINVDET.PND_INVOICENO
AND PINVOICE.PNV_Site = PINVDET.PND_Site
LEFT JOIN
ITEMS ON ITEMS.ITE_INVNO = PINVDET.PND_INVNO
LEFT JOIN
SALESTAX ON SALESTAX.STX_GroupID = PINVDET.PND_TAX1
ON PINVDET.PND_CUSTID = CUSMER.CUS_CustID
I encourage you to write your from clauses by placing all left joins first followed by inner joins. This greatly simplifies trying to figure out what queries are doing. A series of left joins says "keep all the rows in the first table". A series of inner joins says "keep only rows where there are matches between tables." (Occasionally, you might need subqueries as in the first example.)
It is unlikely in this example that the two are the same. In the first, the full join is the "outermost" join. In the second, the full join is embedded in a series of joins. These are interpreted sequentially from the first to the last. One of these is probably converting the full join to an inner join or left join. Of course, the two could produce equivalent results if all the tables match.
The second example could probably be written as:
FROM CUSMER LEFT JOIN
CUSTMS ON TMS_CODE = CUS_TERM LEFT JOIN
PINVDET ON PND_CUSTID = CUS_CustID LEFT JOIN
PINVOICE ON PNV_INVOICENO = PND_INVOICENO AND PNV_Site = PND_Site LEFT JOIN
SALESTAX on STX_GROUPID = PND_TAX1 left join
ITEMS on ITE_INVNO = PND_INVNO
(assuming that something after the full join is converting it to a left join anyway).