I am trying to retrieve every data stored in 2 tabs from my database through a SELECT statement.
The problem is there are a lot of columns in each tab and manually selecting each column would be a pain in the ass.
So naturally I thought about using a join :
select * from equipment
join data
on equipment.id = data.equipmentId
The problem is I am getting the equipment ID 2 times in the result.
I thought that maybe some specific join could help me filter out the duplicate key, but I can't manage to find a way...
Is there any way to filter out the foreign key or is there a better way to do the whole thing (I would rather not have to post process the data to manually remove those duplicate columns)?
You can use USING clause.
"The USING clause specifies which columns to test for equality when
two tables are joined. It can be used instead of an ON clause in the
JOIN operations that have an explicit join clause."
select *
from test
join test2 using(id)
Here is a demo
You can also use NATURAL JOIN
select *
from test
natural join test2;
Related
I have a requirement to pull records, that do not have history in an archive table. 2 Fields of 1 record need to be checked for in the archive.
In technical sense my requirement is a left join where right side is 'null' (a.k.a. an excluding join), which in abap openSQL is commonly implemented like this (for my scenario anyways):
Select * from xxxx //xxxx is a result for a multiple table join
where xxxx~key not in (select key from archive_table where [conditions] )
and xxxx~foreign_key not in (select key from archive_table where [conditions] )
Those 2 fields are also checked against 2 more tables, so that would mean a total of 6 subqueries.
Database engines that I have worked with previously usually had some methods to deal with such problems (such as excluding join or outer apply).
For this particular case I will be trying to use ABAP logic with 'for all entries', but I would still like to know if it is possible to use results of a sub-query to check more than than 1 field or use another form of excluding join logic on multiple fields using SQL (without involving application server).
I have tested quite a few variations of sub-queries in the life-cycle of the program I was making. NOT EXISTS with multiple field check (shortened example below) to exclude based on 2 keys works in certain cases.
Performance acceptable (processing time is about 5 seconds), although, it's noticeably slower than the same query when excluding based on 1 field.
Select * from xxxx //xxxx is a result for a multiple table inner joins and 1 left join ( 1-* relation )
where NOT EXISTS (
select key from archive_table
where key = xxxx~key OR key = XXXX-foreign_key
)
EDIT:
With changing requirements (for more filtering) a lot has changed, so I figured I would update this. The construct I marked as XXXX in my example contained a single left join ( where main to secondary table relation is 1-* ) and it appeared relatively fast.
This is where context becomes helpful for understanding the problem:
Initial requirement: pull all vendors, without financial records in 3
tables.
Additional requirements: also exclude based on alternative
payers (1-* relationship). This is what example above is based on.
More requirements: also exclude based on alternative payee (*-* relationship between payer and payee).
Many-to-many join exponentially increased the record count within the construct I labeled XXXX, which in turn produces a lot of unnecessary work. For instance: a single customer with 3 payers, and 3 payees produced 9 rows, with a total of 27 fields to check (3 per row), when in reality there are only 7 unique values.
At this point, moving left-joined tables from main query into sub-queries and splitting them gave significantly better performance.
than any smarter looking alternatives.
select * from lfa1 inner join lfb1
where
( lfa1~lifnr not in ( select lifnr from bsik where bsik~lifnr = lfa1~lifnr )
and lfa1~lifnr not in ( select wyt3~lifnr from wyt3 inner join t024e on wyt3~ekorg = t024e~ekorg and wyt3~lifnr <> wyt3~lifn2
inner join bsik on bsik~lifnr = wyt3~lifn2 where wyt3~lifnr = lfa1~lifnr and t024e~bukrs = lfb1~bukrs )
and lfa1~lifnr not in ( select lfza~lifnr from lfza inner join bsik on bsik~lifnr = lfza~empfk where lfza~lifnr = lfa1~lifnr )
)
and [3 more sets of sub queries like the 3 above, just checking different tables].
My Conclusion:
When exclusion is based on a single field, both not in/not exits work. One might be better than the other, depending on filters you use.
When exclusion is based on 2 or more fields and you don't have many-to-many join in main query, not exists ( select .. from table where id = a.id or id = b.id or... ) appears to be the best.
The moment your exclusion criteria implements a many-to-many relationship within your main query, I would recommend looking for an optimal way to implement multiple sub-queries instead (even having a sub-query for each key-table combination will perform better than a many-to-many join with 1 good sub-query, that looks good).
Anyways, any additional insight into this is welcome.
EDIT2: Although it's slightly off topic, given how my question was about sub-queries, I figured I would post an update. After over a year I had to revisit the solution I worked on to expand it. I learned that proper excluding join works. I just failed horribly at implementing it the first time.
select header~key
from headers left join items on headers~key = items~key
where items~key is null
if it is possible to use results of a sub-query to check more than
than 1 field or use another form of excluding join logic on multiple
fields
No, it is not possible to check two columns in subquery, as SAP Help clearly says:
The clauses in the subquery subquery_clauses must constitute a scalar
subquery.
Scalar is keyword here, i.e. it should return exactly one column.
Your subquery can have multi-column key, and such syntax is completely legit:
SELECT planetype, seatsmax
FROM saplane AS plane
WHERE seatsmax < #wa-seatsmax AND
seatsmax >= ALL ( SELECT seatsocc
FROM sflight
WHERE carrid = #wa-carrid AND
connid = #wa-connid )
however you say that these two fields should be checked against different tables
Those 2 fields are also checked against two more tables
so it's not the case for you. Your only choice seems to be multi-join.
P.S. FOR ALL ENTRIES does not support negation logic, you cannot just use some sort of NOT IN FOR ALL ENTRIES, it won't be that easy.
I have a left join command that also checks for matching letters and two other combinctions in the data between the joined tables. The DISTINCT ON is to ensure the location_plus has no duplication as results from the table on the right. To test my results I added an AND to check for a particular account numbers results. This AND component seems to be completely ignored, returning almost all of the records instead of the ~10 for that a/c number. Why is this?
SELECT
DISTINCT ON (location_plus)
a.*,b.*
FROM schema.source_table b
LEFT JOIN schema.other_reference a
ON a.loc_id = (substring(b.loc_id,3))::integer
WHERE left(b.loc_id,1)=left(a.table_name,1)
OR ((left(b.loc_id,1)='B' AND left(a.table_name,1)='A') OR (left(b.loc_id,1)='B' AND left(a.table_name,1)='B'))
and b.account_number='12345678'
AND has precendence over OR. So
WHERE left(b.loc_id,1)=left(a.table_name,1)
OR (...)
and b.account_number='12345678'
is
WHERE left(b.loc_id,1)=left(a.table_name,1)
OR ((...) and b.account_number='12345678')
where you probably want it to be
WHERE (left(b.loc_id,1)=left(a.table_name,1) OR (...))
and b.account_number='12345678'
Use parentheses as shown to fix this.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
INNER JOIN versus WHERE clause — any difference?
What is the difference between an INNER JOIN query and an implicit join query (i.e. listing multiple tables after the FROM keyword)?
For example, given the following two tables:
CREATE TABLE Statuses(
id INT PRIMARY KEY,
description VARCHAR(50)
);
INSERT INTO Statuses VALUES (1, 'status');
CREATE TABLE Documents(
id INT PRIMARY KEY,
statusId INT REFERENCES Statuses(id)
);
INSERT INTO Documents VALUES (9, 1);
What is the difference between the below two SQL queries?
From the testing I've done, they return the same result. Do they do the same thing? Are there situations where they will return different result sets?
-- Using implicit join (listing multiple tables)
SELECT s.description
FROM Documents d, Statuses s
WHERE d.statusId = s.id
AND d.id = 9;
-- Using INNER JOIN
SELECT s.description
FROM Documents d
INNER JOIN Statuses s ON d.statusId = s.id
WHERE d.id = 9;
There is no reason to ever use an implicit join (the one with the commas). Yes for inner joins it will return the same results. However, it is subject to inadvertent cross joins especially in complex queries and it is harder for maintenance because the left/right outer join syntax (deprecated in SQL Server, where it doesn't work correctly right now anyway) differs from vendor to vendor. Since you shouldn't mix implicit and explict joins in the same query (you can get wrong results), needing to change something to a left join means rewriting the entire query.
If you do it the first way, people under the age of 30 will probably chuckle at you, but as long as you're doing an inner join, they produce the same result and the optimizer will generate the same execution plan (at least as far as I've ever been able to tell).
This does of course presume that the where clause in the first query is how you would be joining in the second query.
This will probably get closed as a duplicate, btw.
The nice part of the second method is that it helps separates the join condition (on ...) from the filter condition (where ...). This can help make the intent of the query more readable.
The join condition will typically be more descriptive of the structure of the database and the relation between the tables. e.g., the salary table is related to the employee table by the EmployeeID column, and queries involving those two tables will probably always join on that column.
The filter condition is more descriptive of the specific task being performed by the query. If the query is FindRichPeople, the where clause might be "where salaries.Salary > 1000000"... thats describing the task at hand, not the database structure.
Note that the SQL compiler doesn't see it that way... if it decides that it will be faster to cross join and then filter the results, it will cross join and filter the results. It doesn't care what is in the ON clause and whats in the WHERE clause. But, that typically wont happen if the on clause matches a foreign key or joins to a primary key or indexed column. As far as operating correctly, they are identical; as far as writing readable, maintainable code, the second way is probably a little better.
there is no difference as far as I know is the second one with the inner join the new way to write such statements and the first one the old method.
The first one does a Cartesian product on all record within those two tables then filters by the where clause.
The second only joins on records that meet the requirements of your ON clause.
EDIT: As others have indicated, the optimization engine will take care of an attempt on a Cartesian product and will result in the same query more or less.
A bit same. Can help you out.
Left join vs multiple tables in SQL (a)
Left join vs multiple tables in SQL (b)
In the example you've given, the queries are equivalent; if you're using SQL Server, run the query and display the actual exection plan to see what the server's doing internally.
Is there a way of joining results from 2 tables without using JOIN or SELECT from more than one table? The reason being the database im working with requires queries that only contain SELECT, FROM, and WHERE clauses containing only one distinct table. I do, however, need information from other tables for the project i'm working on.
More info: the querier returns the query results in a .csv format, is there something we can manipulate there?
Pick a programming language. Any language will do. Run one query, and get the results. Run another query, get the results. Use the programming language to combine the results.
Seriously. You are asking how to join data from a database that doesn't support joins. If the database doesn't support it, you're going to have to do it externally.
select a.*, b.* from tablea a, tableb b
You can do it either by Using JOIN or SELECT. You have to use one of it. By Join you must be knowing. I am writing an example for without using JOIN and just using SELECT, to join two tables.
SELECT * from Table1, Table2 where Table1.common_attribute = Table2.common_attribute;
Say I have a select statement that goes..
select * from animals
That gives a a query result of all the columns in the table.
Now, if the 42nd column of the table animals is is_parent, and I want to return that in my results, just after gender, so I can see it more easily. But I also want all the other columns.
select is_parent, * from animals
This returns ORA-00936: missing expression.
The same statement will work fine in Sybase, and I know that you need to add a table alias to the animals table to get it to work ( select is_parent, a.* from animals ani), but why must Oracle need a table alias to be able to work out the select?
Actually, it's easy to solve the original problem. You just have to qualify the *.
select is_parent, animals.* from animals;
should work just fine. Aliases for the table names also work.
There is no merit in doing this in production code. We should explicitly name the columns we want rather than using the SELECT * construct.
As for ad hoc querying, get yourself an IDE - SQL Developer, TOAD, PL/SQL Developer, etc - which allows us to manipulate queries and result sets without needing extensions to SQL.
Good question, I've often wondered this myself but have then accepted it as one of those things...
Similar problem is this:
sql>select geometrie.SDO_GTYPE from ngg_basiscomponent
ORA-00904: "GEOMETRIE"."SDO_GTYPE": invalid identifier
where geometrie is a column of type mdsys.sdo_geometry.
Add an alias and the thing works.
sql>select a.geometrie.SDO_GTYPE from ngg_basiscomponent a;
Lots of good answers so far on why select * shouldn't be used and they're all perfectly correct. However, don't think any of them answer the original question on why the particular syntax fails.
Sadly, I think the reason is... "because it doesn't".
I don't think it's anything to do with single-table vs. multi-table queries:
This works fine:
select *
from
person p inner join user u on u.person_id = p.person_id
But this fails:
select p.person_id, *
from
person p inner join user u on u.person_id = p.person_id
While this works:
select p.person_id, p.*, u.*
from
person p inner join user u on u.person_id = p.person_id
It might be some historical compatibility thing with 20-year old legacy code.
Another for the "buy why!!!" bucket, along with why can't you group by an alias?
The use case for the alias.* format is as follows
select parent.*, child.col
from parent join child on parent.parent_id = child.parent_id
That is, selecting all the columns from one table in a join, plus (optionally) one or more columns from other tables.
The fact that you can use it to select the same column twice is just a side-effect. There is no real point to selecting the same column twice and I don't think laziness is a real justification.
Select * in the real world is only dangerous when referring to columns by index number after retrieval rather than by name, the bigger problem is inefficiency when not all columns are required in the resultset (network traffic, cpu and memory load).
Of course if you're adding columns from other tables (as is the case in this example it can be dangerous as these tables may over time have columns with matching names, select *, x in that case would fail if a column x is added to the table that previously didn't have it.
why must Oracle need a table alias to be able to work out the select
Teradata is requiring the same. As both are quite old (maybe better call it mature :-) DBMSes this might be historical reasons.
My usual explanation is: an unqualified * means everything/all columns and the parser/optimizer is simply confused because you request more than everything.