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.
Related
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.
I am fairly new in Access and SQL programming. I am trying to do the following:
Sum(SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.Amount) AS [Sum Of PaymentPerYear]
and group by year even when there is no amount in some of the years. I would like to have these years listed as well for a report with charts. I'm not certain if this is possible, but every bit of help is appreciated.
My code so far is as follows:
SELECT
Base_CustomerT.SalesRep,
SO_SalesOrderT.CustomerId,
Base_CustomerT.Customer,
SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.DatePaid,
Sum(SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.Amount) AS [Sum Of PaymentPerYear]
FROM
Base_CustomerT
INNER JOIN (
SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT
INNER JOIN SO_SalesOrderT
ON SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.SalesOrderId = SO_SalesOrderT.SalesOrderId
) ON Base_CustomerT.CustomerId = SO_SalesOrderT.CustomerId
GROUP BY
Base_CustomerT.SalesRep,
SO_SalesOrderT.CustomerId,
Base_CustomerT.Customer,
SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.DatePaid,
SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.PaymentType,
Base_CustomerT.IsActive
HAVING
(((SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.PaymentType)=1)
AND ((Base_CustomerT.IsActive)=Yes))
ORDER BY
Base_CustomerT.SalesRep,
Base_CustomerT.Customer;
You need another table with all years listed -- you can create this on the fly or have one in the db... join from that. So if you had a table called alltheyears with a column called y that just listed the years then you could use code like this:
WITH minmax as
(
select min(year(SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.DatePaid) as minyear,
max(year(SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.DatePaid) as maxyear)
from SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT
), yearsused as
(
select y
from alltheyears, minmax
where alltheyears.y >= minyear and alltheyears.y <= maxyear
)
select *
from yearsused
join ( -- your query above goes here! -- ) T
ON year(T.SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.DatePaid) = yearsused.y
You need a data source that will provide the year numbers. You cannot manufacture them out of thin air. Supposing you had a table Interesting_year with a single column year, populated, say, with every distinct integer between 2000 and 2050, you could do something like this:
SELECT
base.SalesRep,
base.CustomerId,
base.Customer,
base.year,
Sum(NZ(data.Amount)) AS [Sum Of PaymentPerYear]
FROM
(SELECT * FROM Base_CustomerT INNER JOIN Year) AS base
LEFT JOIN
(SELECT * FROM
SO_SalesOrderT
INNER JOIN SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT
ON (SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.SalesOrderId = SO_SalesOrderT.SalesOrderId)
) AS data
ON ((base.CustomerId = data.CustomerId)
AND (base.year = Year(data.DatePaid))),
WHERE
(data.PaymentType = 1)
AND (base.IsActive = Yes)
AND (base.year BETWEEN
(SELECT Min(year(DatePaid) FROM SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT)
AND (SELECT Max(year(DatePaid) FROM SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT))
GROUP BY
base.SalesRep,
base.CustomerId,
base.Customer,
base.year,
ORDER BY
base.SalesRep,
base.Customer;
Note the following:
The revised query first forms the Cartesian product of BaseCustomerT with Interesting_year in order to have base customer data associated with each year (this is sometimes called a CROSS JOIN, but it's the same thing as an INNER JOIN with no join predicate, which is what Access requires)
In order to have result rows for years with no payments, you must perform an outer join (in this case a LEFT JOIN). Where a (base customer, year) combination has no associated orders, the rest of the columns of the join result will be NULL.
I'm selecting the CustomerId from Base_CustomerT because you would sometimes get a NULL if you selected from SO_SalesOrderT as in the starting query
I'm using the Access Nz() function to convert NULL payment amounts to 0 (from rows corresponding to years with no payments)
I converted your HAVING clause to a WHERE clause. That's semantically equivalent in this particular case, and it will be more efficient because the WHERE filter is applied before groups are formed, and because it allows some columns to be omitted from the GROUP BY clause.
Following Hogan's example, I filter out data for years outside the overall range covered by your data. Alternatively, you could achieve the same effect without that filter condition and its subqueries by ensuring that table Intersting_year contains only the year numbers for which you want results.
Update: modified the query to a different, but logically equivalent "something like this" that I hope Access will like better. Aside from adding a bunch of parentheses, the main difference is making both the left and the right operand of the LEFT JOIN into a subquery. That's consistent with the consensus recommendation for resolving Access "ambiguous outer join" errors.
Thank you John for your help. I found a solution which works for me. It looks quiet different but I learned a lot out of it. If you are interested here is how it looks now.
SELECT DISTINCTROW
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.SalesRep,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.CustomerId,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.Customer,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.RevenueYear,
CustomerPaymentPerYearQ.[Sum Of PaymentPerYear]
FROM
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ
LEFT JOIN CustomerPaymentPerYearQ
ON (Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.RevenueYear = CustomerPaymentPerYearQ.[RevenueYear])
AND (Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.CustomerId = CustomerPaymentPerYearQ.CustomerId)
GROUP BY
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.SalesRep,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.CustomerId,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.Customer,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.RevenueYear,
CustomerPaymentPerYearQ.[Sum Of PaymentPerYear]
;
We have a database that stores vehicle's gps position, date, time, vehicle identification, lat, long, speed, etc., every minute.
The following select pulls each vehicle position and info, but the problem is that returns the first record, and I need the last record (current position), based on date (datagps.Fecha) and time (datagps.Hora). This is the select:
SELECT configgps.Fichagps,
datacar.Ficha,
groups.Nombre,
datagps.Hora,
datagps.Fecha,
datagps.Velocidad,
datagps.Status,
datagps.Calleune,
datagps.Calletowo,
datagps.Temp,
datagps.Longitud,
datagps.Latitud,
datagps.Evento,
datagps.Direccion,
datagps.Provincia
FROM asigvehiculos
INNER JOIN datacar ON (asigvehiculos.Iddatacar = datacar.Id)
INNER JOIN configgps ON (datacar.Configgps = configgps.Id)
INNER JOIN clientdata ON (asigvehiculos.Idgroup = clientdata.group)
INNER JOIN groups ON (clientdata.group = groups.Id)
INNER JOIN datagps ON (configgps.Fichagps = datagps.Fichagps)
Group by Fichagps;
I need same result I'm getting, but instead of the older record I need the most recent
(LAST datagps.Fecha / datagps.Hora).
How can I accomplish this?
Add ORDER BY datagps.Fecha DESC, datagps.Hora DESC LIMIT 1 to your query.
I'm not sure why you are having any problems with this as Lex's answers seem good.
I would start putting ORDER BY's in your query so it puts them in an order, when it's showing the record you want as the first one in the list, then add the LIMIT.
If you want the most recent, then the following should be good enough:
ORDER BY datagps.Fecha DESC, datagps.Hora DESC
If you simply want the record that was added to the database most recently (irregardless of the date/time fields), then you could (assuming you have an auto-incremental primary key in the datagps table (I assume it's called dataID for this example)):
ORDER BY datagps.dataID DESC
If these aren't showing the data you want - then there is something missing from your example (maybe data-types aren't DATETIME fields? - if not - then maybe a CONVERT to change them from their current type before ORDERing BY would be a good idea)
EDIT:
I've seen the screenshot and I'm confused as to what the issue is still. That appears to be showing everything in order. Are you implying that there are many more than 5 records? How many are you expecting?
Do you mean: for each record returned, you want the one row from the table datagps with the latest date and time attached to the result? If so, how about this:
# To show how the query will be executed
# comment to return actual results
EXPLAIN
SELECT
configgps.Fichagps, datacar.Ficha, groups.Nombre, datagps.Hora, datagps.Fecha,
datagps.Velocidad, datagps.Status, datagps.Calleune, datagps.Calletowo,
datagps.Temp, datagps.Longitud, datagps.Latitud, datagps.Evento,
datagps.Direccion, datagps.Provincia
FROM asigvehiculos
INNER JOIN datacar ON (asigvehiculos.Iddatacar = datacar.Id)
INNER JOIN configgps ON (datacar.Configgps = configgps.Id)
INNER JOIN clientdata ON (asigvehiculos.Idgroup = clientdata.group)
INNER JOIN groups ON (clientdata.group = groups.Id)
INNER JOIN datagps ON (configgps.Fichagps = datagps.Fichagps)
########### Add this section
LEFT JOIN datagps b ON (
configgps.Fichagps = b.Fichagps
# wrong condition
#AND datagps.Hora < b.Hora
#AND datagps.Fecha < b.Fecha)
# might prevent indexes to be used
AND (datagps.Fecha < b.Fecha OR (datagps.Fecha = b.Fecha AND datagps.Hora < b.Hora))
WHERE b.Fichagps IS NULL
###########
Group by configgps.Fichagps;
Similar question here only that that one uses outer joins.
Edit (again):
The conditions are wrong so corrected it. Can you show us the output of the above EXPLAIN query so we can pinpoint where the bottle neck is?
As hurikhan77 said, it will be better if you could convert both of the the columns into a single datetime field - though I'm guessing this would not be possible for your case (since your database is already being used?)
Though if you can convert it, the condition (on the join) would become:
AND datagps.FechaHora < b.FechaHora
After that, add an index for datagps.FechaHora and the query would be fast(er).
What you probably want is getting the maximum of (Fecha,Hora) per grouped dataset? This is a little complicated to accomplish with your column types. You should combine Fecha and Hora into one column of type DATETIME. Then it's easy to just SELECT MAX(FechaHora) ... GROUP BY Fichagps.
It could have helped if you posted your table structure to understand the problem.
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.