I'm sorry for the weird title, I didn't know how to summarize my question. If you have a better idea, let me know and I'll update it.
Suppose I have a database scheme containing table fro both students and classes. I also have a third table connecting the first two, so I know which student attends which classes. This third connection table only contains two foreign keys, the student id and the class id.
I know how get a list of all classes attended by a single student or hot to get all students in a single class.
My question, however, is, how do I get all the students who attend ALL of the classes A, B, C and D and not just one of them?
Thanks in advance.
You can use aggregation:
select student_id
from student_classes sc
where class_id in (A, B, C, D)
group by student_id
having count(*) = 4;
Related
Scenario
I have a few tables, each table represents an entity of a unique type. For example lets go with:
School, Subject, Class, Teacher. Listed in order as Parent -> Child
Schema
Each table has:
ID: UUID
Name: CHAR VARYING
{parent}_id: UUID<-- example, class would have Subject_id, or Teacher would have Class_id.
The {parent}_id is the foreign id for each table.
Problem
I want to make a query that lists all the teachers of a given school. In order to do this in this Schema, I need to first query Subject by School_id, then Class by subject_id and then finally teacher by class_id.
A recursive functions makes sense to me but all tutorials I find are doing this within a single table and by ids which don't change with each recursion. In my example, each recursion I will need to search for a different ID.
Question
How do you go about doing this? I could make an array of the ids and make an index, increase index and use that to access the id in the array. This however seems like a common query so I believe there might be a more elegant solution.
Note: I am using PostgreSQL
Edit for Comment
I am using PostgreSQL DB and PGAdmin
Why would UUID not work? It has worked up to this point with no problems; even works with cascading delete using foreign keys.
I can show actual schema. However here is a fictitious layout. Quite straight forward I hope.
School
ID
Name
Subject
ID
Name
School_ID
Class
ID
Name
Subject_ID
Teacher
ID
Name
Class_ID
Expected output
Teacher_ID, Teacher_Name, Class_Name, Subject_Name, School_Name
Something like?:
select
Teacher_ID, Teacher_Name, Class_Name, Subject_Name, School_Name
from
school
join
subject
on
school.id = subject.school_id
join
class
on
class.subject_id = subject.id
join
teacher
on
teacher.class_id = class.id
I'm working on my SQL project using the Oracle database for class, and I'm asked a question that I see far too often.
You have three tables:
STUDENT: SNO, SNAME
CLASS: CNO, CNAME
ATTENDANCE: SNO, CNO, Grade
The question I keep finding is of a similar type: Find the names of the students that attend in all of the classes that "John" (or anyone else) attends.
John attends three classes, so I have to find the students that also attend those three classes (could be more, but those three must be there). However, I won't always know how many classes John (or whoever) attends, so it can't be hardcoded like that.
SELECT jclass.CNO
FROM attendance jclass
INNER JOIN student on jclass.SNO = student.SNO
WHERE student.SNAME = 'John';
This gets me the classes that John attends. I tried to add the identifier for the other students:
SELECT student.SNAME
FROM student
INNER JOIN attendance on student.SNO = attendance.SNO
INNER JOIN class on attendance.CNO = class.CNO
WHERE student.SNAME <> 'John'
AND class.CNO IN (SELECT jclass.CNO
FROM attendance jclass
INNER JOIN student on jclass.SNO = student.SNO
WHERE student.SNAME = 'John');
However, this only gets me the students that appear in at least one of John's classes, rather than all of them. I can see why it's doing this, but I'm not sure how to fix it. It's the one big struggle I'm having with SQL.
Here is one way - assuming SNO is primary key in the first table, CNO is primary key in the second table, and (SNO, CNO) is (composite) primary key in the third table, and that the input student is given by a unique identifier (first name is distinctly NOT a unique identifier, so the problem stated in terms of giving "John" as the input makes no sense). Here I assume the "special" student is identified by SNO = 1001; you can make 1001 into a variable, or change it to a subquery that selects a (unique!!) SNO based on some other inputs.
I didn't try to make the query as efficient as possible, or use features you most likely haven't seen in your class. Rather, I tried to make it as elementary and as readable as possible.
select sno
from attendance
where cno in (select cno from attendance where sno = 1001)
group by sno
having count(*) = (select count(*) from attendance where sno = 1001)
;
The strategy is simple: the subquery in the in condition finds the classes attended by the "special" student, then from the attendance table we select only rows for those classes. Group by student, and count. Keep only the students for whom the count is equal to the total count for the "special" student. Note the last condition is about groups, not about input rows, so it belongs in the having clause.
I'm struggling writing a query in Entity Framework that deals with a many to many relationship that I have set up. What I want to do is get the items from TableA that belong to a relationship with TableB and at the same time know from the results which relationship was a correct match.
For instance, if I'm using Students and Courses, I want to look for all the students that are in a set of courses and also return only those courses that matched. I very specifically want to start the query with Students, as this can easily be accomplished by just looking at the Courses navigation property to get the list of students.
What I want is a list of Students where each Student contains only the set of Courses in my query (NOT every course the student is taking).
Something like the below is close, I get the correct list of Students, but the navigation property for Courses shows all Courses, not the subset from my query. I want to avoid having to query again if possible, and just return the set of Students / Courses I need.
Dim listOfStudents = From s In Students
From c In s.Courses
Where listOfCourseIds.Contains(c.CourseId)
If there's no junction table between the two, then try:
from s in dc.Students
from c in s.Courses
where c.CourseID == courseID
select s;
If entity has a junction table between the two, try:
from s in dc.Students
from e in s.StudentsCourses
where e.Course.CourseID == courseID
select s;
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Explicit vs implicit SQL joins
I understand that lots of people will shout at me now. But from my understanding
Say I have two tables
STUDENTS
student_id
firstname
surname
COURSES
course_id
name
student_id
So the courses table has a foreign key STUDENT_ID meaning that ONE student can have MANY courses yes?
OKAY.
From my understanding, if I want to select all the course associated with ONE student I could do either these:
SELECT *
FROM courses AS c, students AS s
WHERE c.student_id = s.student_id
AND s.student_id = 1;
OR
SELECT *
FROM courses AS c
JOIN students AS s ON c.student_id = s.student_id AND s.student_id = 1;
So what's the point in the JOIN when its essentially EXACTLY the same as the WHERE?
I know my understanding is WRONG but I cannot find a simple answer.
Please enlighten me!
FOREIGN_KEY makes your life simple when you try to insert something by checking for the integrity of the data. It was never meant to help you while retrieving the data from the relations.
e.g. If you try to insert a student with course_id = 10 when no such course exists, then foreign key constraint wouldn't allow you to have such a student.
JOIN is exactly the same as using WHERE. Have a look at this question.
In short: there is no difference.
Longer explanation: the relational model is based on the "cartesian product". In the query
SELECT a.x , b.y
FROM table_a a, table_b b
;
, every possible combination of rows form table_a and table_b is produced. If a contains 10 rows, and b 100 rows, you would get 1000 rows. Everything you add to the WHERE-clause restricts these results to only the pairs of rows that satisfy the WHERE-clause. So in
SELECT a.x , b.y, ...
FROM table_a a, table_b b
WHERE a.x = b.y
;
you would get everything, except the rows for which `NOT (a.x = b.y)'
In practice, there are two kinds of WHERE-clause elements: those that relate two tables, and those that compare a column-expression to a constant. The JOIN-clause is a way to specify the first kind of restrictions.
There are some minor differences and complications (NULLs, outer joins), but for the time being the two constructs are equivalent.
I know I'm gonna get down votes, but I have to make sure if this is logical or not.
I have three tables A, B, C. B is a table used to make a many-many relationship between A and C. But the thing is that A and C are also related directly in a 1-many relationship
A customer added the following requirement:
Obtain the information from the Table B inner joining with A and C, and in the same query relate A and C in a one-many relationship
Something like:
alt text http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/7371/74492374sa4.png
I tried doing the query but always got 0 rows back. The customer insists that I can accomplish the requirement, but I doubt it. Any comments?
PS. I didn't have a more descriptive title, any ideas?
UPDATE:
Thanks to rcar, In some cases this can be logical, in order to have a history of all the classes a student has taken (supposing the student can only take one class at a time)
UPDATE:
There is a table for Contacts, a table with the Information of each Contact, and the Relationship table. To get the information of a Contact I have to make a 1:1 relationship with Information, and each contact can have like and an address book with; this is why the many-many relationship is implemented.
The full idea is to obtain the contact's name and his address book.
Now that I got the customer's idea... I'm having trouble with the query, basically I am trying to use the query that jdecuyper wrote, but as he warns, I get no data back
This is a doable scenario. You can join a table twice in a query, usually assigning it a different alias to keep things straight.
For example:
SELECT s.name AS "student name", c1.className AS "student class", c2.className as "class list"
FROM s
JOIN many_to_many mtm ON s.id_student = mtm.id_student
JOIN c c1 ON s.id_class = c1.id_class
JOIN c c2 ON mtm.id_class = c2.id_class
This will give you a list of all students' names and "hardcoded" classes with all their classes from the many_to_many table.
That said, this schema doesn't make logical sense. From what I can gather, you want students to be able to have multiple classes, so the many_to_many table should be where you'd want to find the classes associated with a student. If the id_class entries used in table s are distinct from those in many_to_many (e.g., if s.id_class refers to, say, homeroom class assignments that only appear in that table while many_to_many.id_class refers to classes for credit and excludes homeroom classes), you're going to be better off splitting c into two tables instead.
If that's not the case, I have a hard time understanding why you'd want one class hardwired to the s table.
EDIT: Just saw your comment that this was a made-up schema to give an example. In other cases, this could be a sensible way to do things. For example, if you wanted to keep track of company locations, you might have a Company table, a Locations table, and a Countries table. The Company table might have a 1-many link to Countries where you would keep track of a company's headquarters country, but a many-to-many link through Locations where you keep track of every place the company has a store.
If you can give real information as to what the schema really represents for your client, it might be easier for us to figure out whether it's logical in this case or not.
Perhaps it's a lack of caffeine, but I can't conceive of a legitimate reason for wanting to do this. In the example you gave, you've got students, classes and a table which relates the two. If you think about what you want the query to do, in plain English, surely it has to be driven by either the student table or the class table. i.e.
select all the classes which are attended by student 1245235
select all the students which attend class 101
Can you explain the requirement better? If not, tell your customer to suck it up. Having a relationship between Students and Classes directly (A and C), seems like pure madness, you've already got table B which does that...
Bear in mind that the one-to-many relationship can be represented through the many-to-many, most simply by adding a field there to indicate the type of relationship. Then you could have one "current" record and any number of "history" ones.
Was the customer "requirement" phrased as given, by the way? I think I'd be looking to redefine my relationship with them if so: they should be telling me "what" they want (ideally what, in business domain language, their problem is) and leaving the "how" to me. If they know exactly how the thing should be implemented, then I'd be inclined to open the source code in an editor and leave them to it!
I'm supposing that s.id_class indicates the student's current class, as opposed to classes she has taken in the past.
The solution shown by rcar works, but it repeats the c1.className on every row.
Here's an alternative that doesn't repeat information and it uses one fewer join. You can use an expression to compare s.id_class to the current c.id_class matched via the mtm table.
SELECT s.name, c.className, (s.id_class = c.id_class) AS is_current
FROM s JOIN many_to_many AS mtm ON (s.id_student = mtm.id_student)
JOIN c ON (c.id_class = mtm.id_class);
So is_current will be 1 (true) on one row, and 0 (false) on all the other rows. Or you can output something more informative using a CASE construct:
SELECT s.name, c.className,
CASE WHEN s.id_class = c.id_class THEN 'current' ELSE 'past' END AS is_current
FROM s JOIN many_to_many AS mtm ON (s.id_student = mtm.id_student)
JOIN c ON (c.id_class = mtm.id_class);
It doesn't seem to make sense. A query like:
SELECT * FROM relAC RAC
INNER JOIN tableA A ON A.id_class = RAC.id_class
INNER JOIN tableC C ON C.id_class = RAC.id_class
WHERE A.id_class = B.id_class
could generate a set of data but inconsistent. Or maybe we are missing some important part of the information about the content and the relationships of those 3 tables.
I personally never heard a requirement from a customer that would sound like:
Obtain the information from the Table
B inner joining with A and C, and in
the same query relate A and C in a
one-many relationship
It looks like that it is what you translated the requirement to.
Could you specify the requirement in plain English, as what results your customer wants to get?