Take a common business situation in which you have a table of orders with a created_date and a customer_id. You want to read all the orders this month along with the associated customer so:
#Query("select Q from Order Q join customer C on Q.customer_id=C.id where Q.created_date >= '2021-11-01'")
This works but when I added to application.properties:
logging.level.org.hibernate.SQL=DEBUG
logging.level.org.hibernate.type.descriptor.sql.BasicBinder=TRACE
I was horrified to observe that for each order, the customer details are re-read with a separate select statement; thus, if there are say 80 orders this month, the JPA system executes 81 select statements, not one. I appreciate that this might be hard to optimise-out in the general case but it makes the system useless for production. Is it possible to give hints to JPA/Spring to avoid the extra select statements?
This answer works for me and makes sense. If you're JOINing two tables then the resultant rows are of a new type, distinct from the type of the rows of the underlying tables. So you have to declare that type:
data class OrderwithCust (
var orderid: Int,
var customerid: Int,
var customerName: String?
)
You can then obtain a list of OrderwithCust instances via
#Query("select new OrderwithCust(Q.id,Q.customer_id,C.name) from Order Q join customer C on Q.customer_id=C.id where Q.created_date >= '2021-11-01'")
Related
Made this account just to ask about this question after being unable to find/expending the local resources I have, so I come to you all.
I'm trying to join two tables - ORDERS and CUSTOMER - as per a question on my assignment
For every order, list the order number and order date along with the customer number, last name, and first name of the customer who placed the order.
So I'm looking for the order number, date, customer number, and the full name of customers.
The code goes as such
SELECT ORDERS.ORDR_ORDER_NUMBER, ORDERS.ORDR_ORDER_DATE, ORDERS.ORDR_CUSTOMER_NUMBER, CUSTOMER.CUST_LAST, CUSTOMER.CUST_FIRST
FROM ORDERS, CUSTOMER
WHERE ORDERS.ORDR_CUSTOMER_NUMBER = CUSTOMER.CUST_CUSTOMER_NUMBER;
I've done this code without the table identifiers, putting quotation marks around ORDERS.ORDR_CUSTOMER_NUMBER, aliases for the two tables, and even putting a space after ORDR_ in both SELECT & WHERE for laughs and nothing's working. All of them keep coming up with the error in the title (ORA-00904), saying [ORDERS.]ORDR_CUSTOMER_NUMBER is the invalid identifier even though it shouldn't be.
Here also are the tables I'm working with, in case that context is needed for help.
Anyway, the query that produces the result you want should take the form:
select
o.ordr_order_number,
o.ordr_order_date,
c.cust_customer_number,
c.cust_last,
c.cust_first
from orders o
join customer c on c.cust_customer_number = o.ordr_customer_number
As you see the query becomes a lot easier to read and write if you use modern join syntax, and if you use table aliases (o and c).
You have to add JOIN or INNER JOIN to your query. Because the data comes from two different tables the WHERE clause will not select both.
FROM Orders INNER JOIN Customers ON Orders.order_Customer_Number = Customer.Cust_Customer_Number
I have two tables, one for Customer and one for Item.
In Customer, I have a column called "preference", which stores a list of hard criteria expressed as a WHERE clause in SQL e.g. "item.price<20 and item.category='household'".
I'd like a query that works like this:
SELECT * FROM item WHERE interpret('SELECT preference FROM customer WHERE id = 1')
Which gets translated to this:
SELECT * FROM item WHERE item.price < 20 and item.category = 'household'
Example data model:
CREATE TABLE customer (
cust_id INT
preference VARCHAR
);
CREATE TABLE item (
item_id INT
price DECIMAL(19,4)
category VARCHAR
);
# Additional columns omitted for brevity
I've looked up casting and dynamic SQL but I haven't been able to figure out how I should do this.
I'm using PostgreSQL 9.5.1
I'm going to assume that preference is the same as my made up item_id column. You may need to tweak it to fit your case. For future questions like this it may pay to give us the table structures you are working with, it really helps us out!
What you are asking for is a subquery:
select *
from item
where item_id in (select
preference
from
customer
where id = 1)
What I would suggest though is a join:
select item.*
from item
join customer on item.item_id = customer.preference
where item.price<20 and
item.category='household'
customer.id = 1
I decided to change my schema instead, as it was getting pretty messy to store the criteria in preferences in that manner.
I restricted the kinds of preferences that could be specified, then stored them as columns in Customer.
After that, all the queries I wanted could be expressed as joins.
What I meant was, there's a Table A having 5 columns. I have a SP that I use to get 3 columns from Table A and one column from Table B. Now, would it be better to add the column from Table B to Table A or use a sub-query in that SP to get that column from Table B?
Your question is still confusing and it very much looks like you haven't understood how to use a relational database. So let me try to explain:
Let's say you have two tables:
client
client_number
first_name
last_name
date_of_birth
...
order
order_number
client_number
order_date
...
These are two separate tables, so as to have a normalized relational database. The order table contains the client number, so you can look up the clients name and date of birth in the client table. The date of birth may be important in order know whether the client is allowed to order certain articles. But you don't want to store the date of birth with every order - it doesn't change.
If you want to look up the age you can use a sub query:
select
order_number,
order_date,
quantity,
(
select date_of_birth
from client c
where c.client_number = o.client_number
)
from order o
where item = 'whisky';
but most often you would simply join the tables:
select
o.order_number,
o.order_date,
o.quantity,
c.date_of_birth,
c.first_name,
c.last_name
from order o
join client c on c.client_number = o.client_number;
You would however not change your tables and invite redundancy with all its problems only not to have to join. You design your database such that it is a well-formed relational database, not such that it makes your latest query easy to write. It is very, very common to use joins and subqueries, and having to use them usually shows that you built your database well.
I think this a good time you look up database normalization, e.g. in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization.
I'm pretty sure this works universally across various SQL implementations. Suppose I have many-to-many relationship between 2 tables:
Customer: id, name
has many:
Order: id, description, total_price
and this relationship is in a junction table:
Customer_Order: order_date, customer_id, order_id
Now I want to write SQL query to join all of these together, mentioning the customer's name, the order's description and total price and the order date:
SELECT name, description, total_price FROM Customer
JOIN Customer_Order ON Customer_Order.customer_id = Customer.id
JOIN Order = Order.id = Customer_Order.order_id
This is all well and good. This query will also work if we change the order so it's FROM Customer_Order JOIN Customer or put the Order table first. Why is this the case? Somewhere I've read that JOIN works like an arithmetic operator (+, * etc.) taking 2 operands and you can chain operator together so you can have: 2+3+5, for example. Following this logic, first we have to calculate 2+3 and then take that result and add 5 to it. Is it the same with JOINs?
Is it that behind the hood, the first JOIN must first be completed in order for the second JOIN to take place? So basically, the first JOIN will create a table out of the 2 operands left and right of it. Then, the second JOIN will take that resulting table as its left operand and perform the usual joining. Basically, I want to understand how multiple JOINs work behind the hood.
In many ways I think ORMs are the bane of modern programming. Unleashing a barrage of underprepared coders. Oh well diatribe out of the way, You're asking a question about set theory. THere are potentially other options that center on relational algebra but SQL is fundamentally set theory based. here are a couple of links to get you started
Using set theory to understand SQL
A visual explanation of SQL
I'm taking a database course this semester, and we're learning SQL. I understand most simple queries, but I'm having some difficulty using the count aggregate function.
I'm supposed to relate an advertisement number to a property number to a branch number so that I can tally up the amount of advertisements by branch number and compute their cost. I set up what I think are two appropriate new views, but I'm clueless as to what to write for the select statement. Am I approaching this the correct way? I have a feeling I'm over complicating this bigtime...
with ad_prop(ad_no, property_no, overseen_by) as
(select a.ad_no, a.property_no, p.overseen_by
from advertisement as a, property as p
where a.property_no = p.property_no)
with prop_branch(property_no, overseen_by, allocated_to) as
(select p.property_no, p.overseen_by, s.allocated_to
from property as p, staff as s
where p.overseen_by = s.staff_no)
select distinct pb.allocated_to as branch_no, count( ??? ) * 100 as ad_cost
from prop_branch as pb, ad_prop as ap
where ap.property_no = pb.property_no
group by branch_no;
Any insight would be greatly appreciated!
You could simplify it like this:
advertisement
- ad_no
- property_no
property
- property_no
- overseen_by
staff
- staff_no
- allocated_to
SELECT s.allocated_to AS branch, COUNT(*) as num_ads, COUNT(*)*100 as ad_cost
FROM advertisement AS a
INNER JOIN property AS p ON a.property_no = p.property_no
INNER JOIN staff AS s ON p.overseen_by = s.staff_no
GROUP BY s.allocated_to;
Update: changed above to match your schema needs
You can condense your WITH clauses into a single statement. Then, the piece I think you are missing is that columns referenced in the column definition have to be aggregated if they aren't included in the GROUP BY clause. So you GROUP BY your distinct column then apply your aggregation and math in your column definitions.
SELECT
s.allocated_to AS branch_no
,COUNT(a.ad_no) AS ad_count
,(ad_count * 100) AS ad_cost
...
GROUP BY s.allocated_to
i can tell you that you are making it way too complicated. It should be a select statement with a couple of joins. You should re-read the chapter on joins or take a look at the following link
http://www.sql-tutorial.net/SQL-JOIN.asp
A join allows you to "combine" the data from two tables based on a common key between the two tables (you can chain more tables together with more joins). Once you have this "joined" table, you can pretend that it is really one table (aliases are used to indicate where that column came from). You understand how aggregates work on a single table right?
I'd prefer not to give you the answer so that you can actually learn :)