How to do operations between a column and a subquery - sql

I would like to know how I can do operations between a column and a subquery, what I want to do is add to the field Subtotal what was obtained in the subquery Impuestos, the following is the query that I am using for this case.
Select
RC.PURCHID;
LRC.VALUEMST as 'Subtotal',
isnull((
select sum((CONVERT(float, TD1.taxvalue)/100)*LRC1.VALUEMST ) as a
FROM TAXONITEM TOI1
inner join TAXDATA TD1 ON (TD1.TAXCODE = TOI1.TAXCODE and RC.DATAAREAID = TD1.DATAAREAID)
inner join TRANS LRC1 on (LRC1.VEND = RC.RECID)
WHERE TOI1.TAXITEMGROUP = PL.TAXITEMGROUP and RC.DATAAREAID = TOI1.DATAAREAID
), 0) Impuestos
from VEND RC
inner join VENDTABLE VTB on VTB.ACCOUNTNUM = RC.INVOICEACCOUNT
inner join TRANS LRC on (LRC.VEND = RC.RECID)
inner join PURCHLINE PL on (PL.LINENUMBER =LRC.LINENUM and PL.PURCHID =RC.PURCHID)
where year (RC.DELIVERYDATE) =2021 and RC.PURCHASETYPE =3 order by RC.PURCHID;
Hope someone can give me some guidance when doing operations with subqueries.

A few disjointed facts that may help:
When a SELECT statement returns only one row with one column, you can enclose that statement in parenthesis and use it as a plain value. In your case, let's say that select sum(......= TOI1.DATAAREAID returns 500. Then, your outer select's second column is equivalent to isnull(500,0)
You mention in your question "subquery Impuestos". Keep in mind that, although you indeed used a subquery as we mentioned earlier, by the time it was enclosed in parentheses it is not treated as a subquery (more accurately: derived table), but as a value. Thus, the "Impuestos" is only a column alias at this point
I dislike and avoid subqueries before the from, makes things much harder to read. Here is a solution with apply which will keep your code mostly intact:
Select
RC.PURCHID,
LRC.VALUEMST as 'Subtotal',
isnull(subquery1.a, 0) as Impuestos
from VEND RC
inner join VENDTABLE VTB on VTB.ACCOUNTNUM = RC.INVOICEACCOUNT
inner join TRANS LRC on (LRC.VEND = RC.RECID)
inner join PURCHLINE PL on (PL.LINENUMBER =LRC.LINENUM and PL.PURCHID =RC.PURCHID)
outer apply
(
select sum((CONVERT(float, TD1.taxvalue)/100)*LRC1.VALUEMST ) as a
FROM TAXONITEM TOI1
inner join TAXDATA TD1 ON (TD1.TAXCODE = TOI1.TAXCODE and RC.DATAAREAID = TD1.DATAAREAID)
inner join TRANS LRC1 on (LRC1.VEND = RC.RECID)
WHERE TOI1.TAXITEMGROUP = PL.TAXITEMGROUP and RC.DATAAREAID = TOI1.DATAAREAID
) as subquery1
where year (RC.DELIVERYDATE) =2021 and RC.PURCHASETYPE =3 order by RC.PURCHID;

Related

How to fix SQL query to Left Join a subquery with Where clause?

I'm new to SQL and I'm not certain why I am getting this error. I am trying to left join a sub-query to another query in sql developer.
This is the first query,
SELECT DISTINCT
tl.species,
ag.age
FROM
age_list ag,
tree_list tl
WHERE
ag.tree_id = tl.tree_id
And then the sub-query I would like to left join where the tree_id = tree_number is,
SELECT DISTINCT
sl.tree_spon,
sl.tree_number
FROM spon_list sl
WHERE
sl.tree_spon < 10
When trying to do this I've tried to use,
SELECT DISTINCT
tl.species,
ag.age,
q1.tree_spon
FROM
age_list ag,
tree_list tl
LEFT OUTER JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT
sl.tree_spon,
sl.tree_number
FROM spon_list sl
WHERE sl.tree_spon < 10) q1 on q1.tree_number = tree_list.tree_id
WHERE
ag.tree_id = tl.tree_id
Whatever I change in terms of the alias' for the columns and tables I always get the error, "ORA-00904: invalid identifier error", and that "tree_list.tree_id is invalid identifier", though separately the queries run fine.
Can anyone help, is it an issue with both queries joining on the tl.tree_id?
You can use the ANSI join syntax throughout (rather than mixing in legacy comma joins), joining on ag.tree_id = sl.tree_number (or tl.tree_id = sl.tree_number but they're both equal given the previous join) and putting the filter on sl.tree_spon < 10 into the ON clause as well:
SELECT DISTINCT
tl.species,
ag.age,
sl.tree_spon,
sl.tree_number
FROM age_list ag
INNER JOIN tree_list tl
ON (ag.tree_id = tl.tree_id)
LEFT OUTER JOIN spon_list sl
ON (ag.tree_id = sl.tree_number AND sl.tree_spon < 10)
Change tree_list.tree_id to tl.tree_id

Using summed field in query twice with IIF statement - have I missed some syntax somewhere?

Having a bit of a problem with my code and can't figure out where I'm going wrong.
Essentially this query will return all employees for a given employer for a given year, along with the amount of their allowances, tax withheld, and gross payments they've received, and their Reportable Employer Superannuation Contributions (RESC).
RESC is any amounts (tblSuperPayments.PaymentAmount) paid over and above the superannuation guarantee, which is gross payments (sum of tblPayment.GrossPayment) * super rate (tblSuperRate.SuperRate). Otherwise, RESC is 0.
The data that I currently have in my tables is as follows
SUM(tblPayment.GrossPayment) = 1730
SUM(tblEmployee.TaxPayable) = 80
SUM(tblSuperPayments.PaymentAmount) = 500
tblSuperRate.SuperRate = 9.5%
Therefore my query should be returning an amount of RESC of 500-(1730*9.5%)= 335.65.
However, my query is currently returning $835.65 - meaning that (1730*9.5%) is returning -335.65.
I can't figure out where my logic is going wrong - it's probably something simple but I can't see it. I suspect that it might be summing tblPayment.GrossPayment twice (edited on request)
SELECT
tblEmployee.EmployeeID AS Id
SUM(tblPayment.Allowances) AS TotAllow,
SUM(tblPayment.TaxPayable) AS TotTax,
SUM(tblPayment.GrossPayment) AS TotGross,
(IIF
((SUM(tblSuperPayments.PaymentAmount)) <= (SUM(tblPayment.GrossPayment)*tblSuperRate.SuperRate),
0,
(SUM(tblSuperPayments.PaymentAmount) - (SUM(tblPayment.GrossPayment)*tblSuperRate.SuperRate))
)) As TotRESC
FROM
((tblEmployee
LEFT JOIN tblPayment // any reason for using left join over inner join
ON tblEmployee.EmployeeID = tblPayment.fk_EmployeeID)
LEFT JOIN tblSuperPayments // any reason for using left join over inner join
ON tblEmployee.EmployeeID = tblSuperPayments.fk_EmployeeID)
LEFT JOIN tblSuperRate // any reason for using left join over inner join
ON (tblPayment.PaymentDate <= tblSuperRate.TaxYearEnd) // these two conditions might be returning
AND (tblPayment.PaymentDate >= tblSuperRate.TaxYearStart) //two SuperRate rows because of using equals in both
WHERE
tblEmployee.fk_EmployerID = 1
GROUP BY
tblEmployee.EmployeeID,
tblSuperRate.SuperRate;
Looking at your query I recommend you to just group by primary key (EmployeeID) of tblEmployee and the use the result as a sub query and do a join later tham using many columns of tblEmployeein group by which might cause duplicate rows. I rewrote the query as I have mentioned above and added comments at places which might cause the error.
SELECT
tblEmployee.TFN,
tblEmployee.FirstName,
tblEmployee.MiddleName,
tblEmployee.LastName,
tblEmployee.DOB,
tblEmployee.MailingAddress,
tblEmployee.AddressLine2,
tblEmployee.City,
tblEmployee.fk_StateProvinceID,
tblEmployee.PostalCode,
temp.TotAllow,
temp.TotTax,
temp.TotGross,
temp.TotRESC
FROM
(SELECT
tblEmployee.EmployeeID AS Id
SUM(tblPayment.Allowances) AS TotAllow,
SUM(tblPayment.TaxPayable) AS TotTax,
SUM(tblPayment.GrossPayment) AS TotGross,
(IIF
((SUM(tblSuperPayments.PaymentAmount)) <= (SUM(tblPayment.GrossPayment)*tblSuperRate.SuperRate),
0,
(SUM(tblSuperPayments.PaymentAmount) - (SUM(tblPayment.GrossPayment)*tblSuperRate.SuperRate))
)) As TotRESC
FROM
((tblEmployee
LEFT JOIN tblPayment // any reason for using left join over inner join
ON tblEmployee.EmployeeID = tblPayment.fk_EmployeeID)
LEFT JOIN tblSuperPayments // any reason for using left join over inner join
ON tblEmployee.EmployeeID = tblSuperPayments.fk_EmployeeID)
LEFT JOIN tblSuperRate // any reason for using left join over inner join
ON (tblPayment.PaymentDate <= tblSuperRate.TaxYearEnd) // these two conditions might be returning
AND (tblPayment.PaymentDate >= tblSuperRate.TaxYearStart) //two SuperRate rows because of using equals in both
WHERE
tblEmployee.fk_EmployerID = 1
GROUP BY
tblEmployee.EmployeeID,
tblSuperRate.SuperRate) temp // Does a single employee have more than one superrate why grouping by it?
JOIN tblEmployee ON tblEmployee.EmployeeID=temp.Id;

LEFT JOIN ON COALESCE(a, b, c) - very strange behavior

I have encountered very strange behavior of my query and I wasted a lot of time to understand what causes it, in vane. So I am asking for your help.
SELECT count(*) FROM main_table
LEFT JOIN front_table ON front_table.pk = main_table.fk_front_table
LEFT JOIN info_table ON info_table.pk = front_table.fk_info_table
LEFT JOIN key_table ON key_table.pk = COALESCE(info_table.fk_key_table, front_table.fk_key_table_1, front_table.fk_key_table_2)
LEFT JOIN side_table ON side_table.fk_front_table = front_table.pk
WHERE side_table.pk = (SELECT MAX(pk) FROM side_table WHERE fk_front_table = front_table.pk)
OR side_table.pk IS NULL
Seems like a simple join query, with coalesce, I've used this technique before(not too many times) and it worked right.
In this query I don't ever get nulls for side_table.pk. If I remove coalesce or just don't use key_table, then the query returns rows with many null side_table.pk, but if I add coalesce join, I can't get those nulls.
It seems key_table and side_table don't have anything in common, but the result is so weird.
Also, when I don't use side_table and WHERE clause, the count(*) result with coalesce and without differs, but I can't see any pattern in rows missing, it seems random!
Real query:
SELECT ECHANGE.EXC_AUTO_KEY, STOCK_RESERVATIONS.STR_AUTO_KEY FROM EXCHANGE
LEFT JOIN WO_BOM ON WO_BOM.WOB_AUTO_KEY = EXCHANGE.WOB_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN VIEW_WO_SUB ON VIEW_WO_SUB.WOO_AUTO_KEY = WO_BOM.WOO_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN STOCK stock3 ON stock3.STM_AUTO_KEY = EXCHANGE.STM_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN STOCK stock2 ON stock2.STM_AUTO_KEY = EXCHANGE.ORIG_STM
LEFT JOIN CONSIGNMENT_CODES con2 ON con2.CNC_AUTO_KEY = stock2.CNC_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN CONSIGNMENT_CODES con3 ON con3.CNC_AUTO_KEY = stock3.CNC_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN CI_UTL ON CI_UTL.CUT_AUTO_KEY = EXCHANGE.CUT_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN PART_CONDITION_CODES pcc2 ON pcc2.PCC_AUTO_KEY = stock2.PCC_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN PART_CONDITION_CODES pcc3 ON pcc3.PCC_AUTO_KEY = stock3.PCC_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN STOCK_RESERVATIONS ON STOCK_RESERVATIONS.STM_AUTO_KEY = stock3.STM_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN WAREHOUSE wh2 ON wh2.WHS_AUTO_KEY = stock2.WHS_ORIGINAL
LEFT JOIN SM_HISTORY ON (SM_HISTORY.STM_AUTO_KEY = EXCHANGE.ORIG_STM AND SM_HISTORY.WOB_REF = EXCHANGE.WOB_AUTO_KEY)
LEFT JOIN RC_DETAIL ON stock3.RCD_AUTO_KEY = RC_DETAIL.RCD_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN RC_HEADER ON RC_HEADER.RCH_AUTO_KEY = RC_DETAIL.RCH_AUTO_KEY
LEFT JOIN WAREHOUSE wh3 ON wh3.WHS_AUTO_KEY = COALESCE(RC_DETAIL.WHS_AUTO_KEY, stock3.WHS_ORIGINAL, stock3.WHS_AUTO_KEY)
WHERE STOCK_RESERVATIONS.STR_AUTO_KEY = (SELECT MAX(STR_AUTO_KEY) FROM STOCK_RESERVATIONS WHERE STM_AUTO_KEY = stock3.STM_AUTO_KEY)
OR STOCK_RESERVATIONS.STR_AUTO_KEY IS NULL
Removing LEFT JOIN WAREHOUSE wh3 gives me about unique EXC_AUTO_KEY values with a lot of NULL STR_AUTO_KEY, while leaving this row removes all NULL STR_AUTO_KEY.
I recreated simple tables with numbers with the same structure and query works without any problems o.0
I have a feeling COALESCE is acting as a REQUIRED flag for the joined table, hence shooting the LEFT JOIN to become an INNER JOIN.
Try this:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM main_table
LEFT JOIN front_table ON front_table.pk = main_table.fk_front_table
LEFT JOIN info_table ON info_table.pk = front_table.fk_info_table
LEFT JOIN key_table ON key_table.pk = NVL(info_table.fk_key_table, NVL(front_table.fk_key_table_1, front_table.fk_key_table_2))
LEFT JOIN (SELECT fk_, MAX(pk) as pk FROM side_table GROUP BY fk_) st ON st.fk_ = front_table.pk
NVL might behave just the same though...
I undertood what was the problem (not entirely though): there is a LEFT JOIN VIEW_WO_SUB in original query, 3rd line. It causes this query to act in a weird way.
When I replaced the view with the other table which contained the information I needed, the query started returning right results.
Basically, with this view join, NVL, COALESCE or CASE join with combination of certain arguments did not work along with OR clause in WHERE subquery, all rest was fine. ALthough, I could get the query to work with this view join, by changing the order of joined tables, I had to place table participating in where subquery to the bottom.

Using COALESCE with JOIN on a different database column

Trying to populate the location column of a query and was hoping that the use of the COALESCE function would help me get what I want.
SELECT OrderItem.Code AS ItemCode, MAX(COALESCE(OrderItem.Location, [Picklist].[dbo].[ItemData].InventoryLocation)) AS Location, SUM(OrderItem.Quantity) AS Quantity, MAX(Store.StoreName) AS Store
FROM OrderItem
INNER JOIN [Order] ON OrderItem.OrderID = [Order].OrderID
INNER JOIN [Store] ON [Order].StoreID = [Store].StoreID
LEFT JOIN [AmazonOrder] ON [AmazonOrder].OrderID = [Order].OrderID
JOIN [Picklist].[dbo].[ItemData] ON [Picklist].[dbo].[ItemData].[InventoryNumber] = [OrderItem].[Code]
WHERE (CASE WHEN [Order].[LocalStatus] = 'Recently Downloaded' AND [AmazonOrder].FulfillmentChannel = 2 THEN 1
WHEN [Order].[LocalStatus] = 'Recently Downloaded' AND [Store].StoreName != 'Amazon' THEN 1 ELSE 0 END ) = 1
GROUP BY OrderItem.Code
ORDER BY ItemCode
There will not be a location when the Store is Amazon so I need to Join on another table in another database. I don't believe I'm using this correctly. Also I do get the right Location results returned if I use :
SELECT InventoryLocation From [Picklist].[dbo].[ItemData] WHERE InventoryNumber = 'L1201-2W-EA'
Perhaps this is more like the query that you want:
SELECT oi.Code AS ItemCode, COALESCE(oi.Location, id.InventoryLocation) AS Location,
oi.Quantity, s.StoreName AS Store
FROM OrderItem oi INNER JOIN
[Order] o
ON oi.OrderID = o.OrderID INNER JOIN
[Store]
ON o.StoreID = s.StoreID LEFT JOIN
AmazonOrder ao
ON ao.OrderID = o.OrderID JOIN
[Picklist].[dbo].[ItemData] id
ON id.InventoryNumber = oi.[Code]
WHERE o.LocalStatus = 'Recently Downloaded' AND
(ao.FulfillmentChannel = 2 OR s.StoreName <> 'Amazon')
ORDER BY ItemCode
Here are the changes:
Removed the aggregation. It does not seem to be part of the question.
Introduced table aliases, so the query is easier to write and to read.
Simplified the logic in the where clause.
As the comment above says, the max seems somewhat strange, an arbitrary aggregation no doubt due to one of the joins bringing back more information than you might of expected.
Then the statement has a few issues:
The coalesce is using two fields, neither if which is in a left join, only the AmazonOrder is left joined, so that seems a bit strange, that would only work if the first field in the coalesce (OrderItem.Location) is nullable - which it might be, there is no schema posted.
The left join itself is an inner join in disguise at present - within the where clause you have given explicit conditions on a field from that table - AND [AmazonOrder].FulfillmentChannel = 2 - if the record was actually missing the left join would return null for that field, and the where clause would then drop it out of the results. If you want this to properly work as a left join, any condition on fields from that table must move into the join condition, or the where clause itself must allow for that field being null (explicitly or using a coalesce.)
SELECT OrderItem.Code AS Code,
CASE WHEN (LEN(ISNULL(MAX([OrderItem].[Location]),'')) = 1)
THEN MAX([OrderItem].[Location])
ELSE MAX([Picklist].[dbo].[ItemData].InventoryLocation)
END AS Location,
SUM(OrderItem.Quantity) AS Quantity,
MAX(Store.StoreName) AS Store
FROM OrderItem
INNER JOIN [Order] ON OrderItem.OrderID = [Order].OrderID
INNER JOIN [Store] ON [Order].StoreID = [Store].StoreID
LEFT JOIN [AmazonOrder] ON [AmazonOrder].OrderID = [Order].OrderID
LEFT JOIN [Picklist].[dbo].[ItemData] ON [Picklist].[dbo].[ItemData].[InventoryNumber] = [OrderItem].[Code] OR
[Picklist].[dbo].[ItemData].[MediaCreator] = [OrderItem].[Code]
WHERE [Order].LocalStatus = 'Recently Downloaded' AND (AmazonOrder.FulfillmentChannel = 2 OR Store.StoreName <> 'Amazon')
GROUP BY OrderItem.Code
ORDER BY OrderItem.Code
Decided to go with case statement on location column route because I could not get COALESCE to work for me. Schema, some not all data, at SQLFiddle.
I guess if someone gets COALESCE to work I'll change the answer?
#Gordon Linoff I used the re-written WHERE clause because it looked cleaner than using the CASE statement. It worked and guessed there was a simpler way to go about it but was more worried about getting COALESCE to work. As for the Aliases sometimes I like to use them but in this case since there was a lot of tables I like to code out what I'm actually working in. Just my preference .

Super Slow Query - sped up, but not perfect... Please help

I posted a query yesterday (see here) that was horrible (took over a minute to run, resulting in 18,215 records):
SELECT DISTINCT
dbo.contacts_link_emails.Email, dbo.contacts.ContactID, dbo.contacts.First AS ContactFirstName, dbo.contacts.Last AS ContactLastName, dbo.contacts.InstitutionID,
dbo.institutionswithzipcodesadditional.CountyID, dbo.institutionswithzipcodesadditional.StateID, dbo.institutionswithzipcodesadditional.DistrictID
FROM
dbo.contacts_def_jobfunctions AS contacts_def_jobfunctions_3
INNER JOIN
dbo.contacts
INNER JOIN
dbo.contacts_link_emails
ON dbo.contacts.ContactID = dbo.contacts_link_emails.ContactID
ON contacts_def_jobfunctions_3.JobID = dbo.contacts.JobTitle
INNER JOIN
dbo.institutionswithzipcodesadditional
ON dbo.contacts.InstitutionID = dbo.institutionswithzipcodesadditional.InstitutionID
LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.contacts_def_jobfunctions
INNER JOIN
dbo.contacts_link_jobfunctions
ON dbo.contacts_def_jobfunctions.JobID = dbo.contacts_link_jobfunctions.JobID
ON dbo.contacts.ContactID = dbo.contacts_link_jobfunctions.ContactID
WHERE
(dbo.contacts.JobTitle IN
(SELECT JobID
FROM dbo.contacts_def_jobfunctions AS contacts_def_jobfunctions_1
WHERE (ParentJobID <> '1841')))
AND
(dbo.contacts_link_emails.Email NOT IN
(SELECT EmailAddress
FROM dbo.newsletterremovelist))
OR
(dbo.contacts_link_jobfunctions.JobID IN
(SELECT JobID
FROM dbo.contacts_def_jobfunctions AS contacts_def_jobfunctions_2
WHERE (ParentJobID <> '1841')))
AND
(dbo.contacts_link_emails.Email NOT IN
(SELECT EmailAddress
FROM dbo.newsletterremovelist AS newsletterremovelist))
ORDER BY EMAIL
With a lot of coaching and research, I've tuned it up to the following:
SELECT contacts.ContactID,
contacts.InstitutionID,
contacts.First,
contacts.Last,
institutionswithzipcodesadditional.CountyID,
institutionswithzipcodesadditional.StateID,
institutionswithzipcodesadditional.DistrictID
FROM contacts
INNER JOIN contacts_link_emails ON
contacts.ContactID = contacts_link_emails.ContactID
INNER JOIN institutionswithzipcodesadditional ON
contacts.InstitutionID = institutionswithzipcodesadditional.InstitutionID
WHERE
(contacts.ContactID IN
(SELECT contacts_2.ContactID
FROM contacts AS contacts_2
INNER JOIN contacts_link_emails AS contacts_link_emails_2 ON
contacts_2.ContactID = contacts_link_emails_2.ContactID
LEFT OUTER JOIN contacts_def_jobfunctions ON
contacts_2.JobTitle = contacts_def_jobfunctions.JobID
RIGHT OUTER JOIN newsletterremovelist ON
contacts_link_emails_2.Email = newsletterremovelist.EmailAddress
WHERE (contacts_def_jobfunctions.ParentJobID <> 1841)
GROUP BY contacts_2.ContactID
UNION
SELECT contacts_1.ContactID
FROM contacts_link_jobfunctions
INNER JOIN contacts_def_jobfunctions AS contacts_def_jobfunctions_1 ON
contacts_link_jobfunctions.JobID = contacts_def_jobfunctions_1.JobID
AND contacts_def_jobfunctions_1.ParentJobID <> 1841
INNER JOIN contacts AS contacts_1 ON
contacts_link_jobfunctions.ContactID = contacts_1.ContactID
INNER JOIN contacts_link_emails AS contacts_link_emails_1 ON
contacts_link_emails_1.ContactID = contacts_1.ContactID
LEFT OUTER JOIN newsletterremovelist AS newsletterremovelist_1 ON
contacts_link_emails_1.Email = newsletterremovelist_1.EmailAddress
GROUP BY contacts_1.ContactID))
While this query is now super fast (about 3 seconds), I've blown part of the logic somewhere - it only returns 14,863 rows (instead of the 18,215 rows that I believe is accurate).
The results seem near correct. I'm working to discover what data might be missing in the result set.
Can you please coach me through whatever I've done wrong here?
Thanks,
Russell Schutte
The main problem with your original query was that you had two extra joins just to introduce duplicates and then a DISTINCT to get rid of them.
Use this:
SELECT cle.Email,
c.ContactID,
c.First AS ContactFirstName,
c.Last AS ContactLastName,
c.InstitutionID,
izip.CountyID,
izip.StateID,
izip.DistrictID
FROM dbo.contacts c
INNER JOIN
dbo.institutionswithzipcodesadditional izip
ON izip.InstitutionID = c.InstitutionID
INNER JOIN
dbo.contacts_link_emails cle
ON cle.ContactID = c.ContactID
WHERE cle.Email NOT IN
(
SELECT EmailAddress
FROM dbo.newsletterremovelist
)
AND EXISTS
(
SELECT NULL
FROM dbo.contacts_def_jobfunctions cdj
WHERE cdj.JobId = c.JobTitle
AND cdj.ParentJobId <> '1841'
UNION ALL
SELECT NULL
FROM dbo.contacts_link_jobfunctions clj
JOIN dbo.contacts_def_jobfunctions cdj
ON cdj.JobID = clj.JobID
WHERE clj.ContactID = c.ContactID
AND cdj.ParentJobId <> '1841'
)
ORDER BY
email
Create the following indexes:
newsletterremovelist (EmailAddress)
contacts_link_jobfunctions (ContactID, JobID)
contacts_def_jobfunctions (JobID)
Do you get the same results when you do:
SELECT count(*)
FROM
dbo.contacts_def_jobfunctions AS contacts_def_jobfunctions_3
INNER JOIN
dbo.contacts
INNER JOIN
dbo.contacts_link_emails
ON dbo.contacts.ContactID = dbo.contacts_link_emails.ContactID
ON contacts_def_jobfunctions_3.JobID = dbo.contacts.JobTitle
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM
contacts
INNER JOIN contacts_link_jobfunctions
ON contacts.ContactID = contacts_link_jobfunctions.ContactID
INNER JOIN contacts_link_emails
ON contacts.ContactID = contacts_link_emails.ContactID
If so keep adding each join conditon on until you don't get the same results and you will see where your mistake was. If all the joins are the same, then look at the where clauses. But I will be surprised if it isn't in the first join because the syntax you have orginally won't even work on SQL Server and it is pretty nonstandard SQL and may have been incorrect all along but no one knew.
Alternatively, pick a few of the records that are returned in the orginal but not the revised. Track them through the tables one at a time to see if you can find why the second query filters them out.
I'm not directly sure what is wrong, but when I run in to this situation, the first thing I do is start removing variables.
So, comment out the where clause. How many rows are returned?
If you get back the 11,604 rows then you've isolated the problems to the joins. Work though the joins, commenting each one out (remove the associated columns too) and figure out how many rows are eliminated.
As you do this, aim to find what is causing the desired rows to be eliminated. Once isolated, consider the join differences between the first query and the second query.
In looking at the first query, you could probably just modify that to eliminate any INs and instead do a EXISTS instead.
Consider your indexes as well. Any thing in the where or join clauses should probably be indexed.