I have the following query which works great but how do I add multiple columns in its select statement? Following is the query:
SELECT ISNULL(
(SELECT DISTINCT a.DatasourceID
FROM [Table1] a
WHERE a.DatasourceID = 5 AND a.AgencyID = 4 AND a.AccountingMonth = 201907), NULL) TEST
So currently I only get one column (TEST) but would like to add other columns such as DataSourceID, AgencyID and AccountingMonth.
If you want to output a row for some condition (or requested values ) and output a row when it does not meet condition,
you can set a pseudo table for your requested values in the FROM clause and make a left outer join with your Table1.
SELECT ISNULL(Table1.DatasourceId, 999999),
Table1.AgencyId,
Table1.AccountingMonth,
COUNT(*) as count
FROM ( VALUES (5, 4, 201907 ),
(6, 4, 201907 ))
AS requested(DatasourceId, AgencyId, AccountingMonth)
LEFT OUTER JOIN Table1 ON requested.agencyid=Table1.AgencyId
AND requested.datasourceid = Table1.DatasourceId
AND requested.AccountingMonth = Table1.AccountingMonth
GROUP BY Table1.DatasourceId, Table1.AgencyId, Table1.AccountingMonth
Note that:
I have put a ISNULL for the first column like you did to output a particular value (9999) when no value is found.
I did not put the ISNULL(...,NULL) like your query in the other columns since IMHO it is not necessary: if there is no value, a null will be output anyway.
I added a COUNT(*) column to illustrate an aggregate, you could use another (SUM, MIN, MAX) or none if you do not need it.
The set of requested values is provided as a constant table values (see https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/queries/table-value-constructor-transact-sql?view=sql-server-2017)
I have added multiple rows for requested conditions : you can request for multiple datasources, agencies or months in one query with one line for each in the output.
If you want only one row, put only one row in "requested" pseudo table values.
There must be a GROUP BY, even if you do not want to use an aggregate (count, sum or other) in order to have the same behavior as your distinct clause , it restricts the output to single lines for requested values.
To me it seems that you want to see does data exists, i guess that your's AgencyID is foreign key to agency table, DataSourceID also to DataSource, and that you have AccountingMonth table which has all accounting periods:
SELECT ds.ID as DataSourceID , ag.ID as AgencyID , am.ID as AccountingMonth ,
ISNULL(COUNT(a.*),0) as Count
FROM [Table1] a
RIGHT JOIN [Datasource] ds ON ds.ID = a.DataSourceID
RIGHT JOIN [Agency] ag ON ag.ID = a.AgencyID
RIGHT JOIN [AccountingMonth] am on am.ID = a.AccountingMonth
GROUP BY ds.ID, ag.ID, am.ID
In this way you can see count of records per group by criteria. Notice RIGHT join, you must use RIGHT JOIN if you want to include all record from "Right" table.
In yours query you have DISTINCT a.DatasourceID and WHERE a.DatasourceID = 5 and it returns 5 if in table exists rows that match yours WHERE criteria, and returns null if there is no data. If you remove WHERE a.DatasourceID = 5 your query would break with error: subquery returned multiple rows.
the way you are doing only allows for one column and one record and giving it the name of test. It does not look like you really need to test for null. because you are returning null so that does nothing to help you. Remove all the null testing and return a full recordset distinct will also limit your returns to 1 record. When working with a single table you don't need an alias, if there are no spaces or keywords braced identifiers not required. if you need to see if you have an empty record set, test for it in the calling program.
SELECT DatasourceID, AgencyID,AccountingMonth
FROM Table1
WHERE DatasourceID = 5 AND AgencyID = 4 AND AccountingMonth = 201907
Related
I am getting the users data from UUID WHERE empl_user_pub_uuid = 'e2bb39f1f28011eab66c63cb4d9c7a34'.
Since I don't want to make an additional query to fetch additional user data I'm trying to sneak them through the INSERT.
WITH _u AS (
SELECT
eu.empl_user_pvt_uuid,
ee.email,
ep.name_first
FROM employees.users eu
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT DISTINCT ON (ee.empl_user_pvt_uuid)
ee.empl_user_pvt_uuid,
ee.email
FROM employees.emails ee
ORDER BY ee.empl_user_pvt_uuid, ee.t DESC
) ee ON eu.empl_user_pvt_uuid = ee.empl_user_pvt_uuid
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT DISTINCT ON (ep.empl_user_pvt_uuid)
ep.empl_user_pvt_uuid,
ep.name_first
FROM employees.profiles ep
) ep ON eu.empl_user_pvt_uuid = ep.empl_user_pvt_uuid
WHERE empl_user_pub_uuid = 'e2bb39f1f28011eab66c63cb4d9c7a34'
)
INSERT INTO employees.password_resets (empl_pwd_reset_uuid, empl_user_pvt_uuid, t_valid, for_empl_user_pvt_uuid, token)
SELECT 'f70a0346-a077-11eb-bd1a-aaaaaaaaaaaa', '6efc2b7a-f27e-11ea-b66c-de1c405de048', '2021-04-18 19:57:47.111365', _u.empl_user_pvt_uuid, '19d65aea-7c4a-41bc-b580-9d047f1503e6'
FROM _u
RETURNING _u.empl_user_pvt_uuid, _u.email, _u.name_first;
However I get:
[42P01] ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table "_u"
Position: 994
What am I doing wrong?
It's true, as has been noted, that the RETURNING clause of an INSERT only sees the inserted row. More specifically, quoting the manual here:
The optional RETURNING clause causes INSERT to compute and return
value(s) based on each row actually inserted (or updated, if an ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE clause was used). This is primarily useful for
obtaining values that were supplied by defaults, such as a serial
sequence number. However, any expression using the table's columns
is allowed. The syntax of the RETURNING list is identical to that
of the output list of SELECT. Only rows that were successfully
inserted or updated will be returned. [...]
Bold emphasis mine.
So nothing keeps you from adding a correlated subquery to the RETURNING list:
INSERT INTO employees.password_resets AS ep
(empl_pwd_reset_uuid , empl_user_pvt_uuid , t_valid , for_empl_user_pvt_uuid, token)
SELECT 'f70a0346-a077-11eb-bd1a-aaaaaaaaaaaa', '6efc2b7a-f27e-11ea-b66c-de1c405de048', '2021-04-18 19:57:47.111365', eu.empl_user_pvt_uuid , '19d65aea-7c4a-41bc-b580-9d047f1503e6'
FROM employees.users eu
WHERE empl_user_pub_uuid = 'e2bb39f1f28011eab66c63cb4d9c7a34'
RETURNING for_empl_user_pvt_uuid AS empl_user_pvt_uuid -- alias to meet your org. query
, (SELECT email
FROM employees.emails
WHERE empl_user_pvt_uuid = ep.empl_user_pvt_uuid
ORDER BY t DESC -- NULLS LAST ?
LIMIT 1
) AS email
, (SELECT name_first
FROM employees.profiles
WHERE empl_user_pvt_uuid = ep.empl_user_pvt_uuid
-- ORDER BY ???
LIMIT 1
) AS name_first;
This is also much more efficient than the query you had (or what was proposed) for multiple reasons.
We don't run the subqueries ee and ep over all rows of the tables employees.emails and employees.profiles. That would be efficient if we needed major parts of those tables, but we only fetch a single row of interest from each. With appropriate indexes, a correlated subquery is much more efficient for this. See:
Efficient query to get greatest value per group from big table
Two SQL LEFT JOINS produce incorrect result
Select first row in each GROUP BY group?
Optimize GROUP BY query to retrieve latest row per user
We don't add the overhead of one or more CTEs.
We only fetch additional data after a successful INSERT, so no time is wasted if the insert didn't go through for any reason. (See quote at the top!)
Plus, possibly most important, this is correct. We use data from the row that has actually been inserted - after inserting it. (See quote at the top!) After possible default values, triggers or rules have been applied. We can be certain that what we see is what's actually in the database (currently).
You have no ORDER BY for profiles.name_first. That's not right. Either there is only one qualifying row, then we need no DISTINCT nor LIMIT 1. Or there can be multiple, then we also need a deterministic ORDER BY to get a deterministic result.
And if emails.t can be NULL, you'll want to add NULLS LAST in the ORDER BY clause. See:
Sort by column ASC, but NULL values first?
Indexes
Ideally, you have these multicolumn indexes (with columns in this order):
users (empl_user_pub_uuid, empl_user_pvt_uuid)
emails (empl_user_pvt_uuid, email)
profiles (empl_user_pvt_uuid, name_first)
Then, if the tables are vacuumed enough, you get three index-only scans and the whole operation is lightening fast.
Get pre-INSERT values?
If you really want that (which I don't think you do), consider:
Return pre-UPDATE column values using SQL only
According Postgres Docs about 6.4. Returning Data From Modified Rows :
In an INSERT, the data available to RETURNING is the row as it was
inserted.
But here you are trying to return columns from source table instead of destination. Returning will not be able to return columns form _u table rather only from employees.password_resets table's inserted row. But you can write nested cte for insertion and can select data from source table as well. Please try below approach.
WITH _u AS (
SELECT
eu.empl_user_pvt_uuid,
ee.email,
ep.name_first
FROM employees.users eu
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT DISTINCT ON (ee.empl_user_pvt_uuid)
ee.empl_user_pvt_uuid,
ee.email
FROM employees.emails ee
ORDER BY ee.empl_user_pvt_uuid, ee.t DESC
) ee ON eu.empl_user_pvt_uuid = ee.empl_user_pvt_uuid
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT DISTINCT ON (ep.empl_user_pvt_uuid)
ep.empl_user_pvt_uuid,
ep.name_first
FROM employees.profiles ep
) ep ON eu.empl_user_pvt_uuid = ep.empl_user_pvt_uuid
WHERE empl_user_pub_uuid = 'e2bb39f1f28011eab66c63cb4d9c7a34'
), I as
(
INSERT INTO employees.password_resets (empl_pwd_reset_uuid, empl_user_pvt_uuid, t_valid, for_empl_user_pvt_uuid, token)
SELECT 'f70a0346-a077-11eb-bd1a-aaaaaaaaaaaa', '6efc2b7a-f27e-11ea-b66c-de1c405de048', '2021-04-18 19:57:47.111365', _u.empl_user_pvt_uuid, '19d65aea-7c4a-41bc-b580-9d047f1503e6'
FROM _u
)
select _u.empl_user_pvt_uuid, _u.email, _u.name_first from _u
My original table (File05292019) has 22,904 records. I perform a self join on 3 of the fields as shown below and the result is 22,886. Why is this the case? What do the missing records represent?
SELECT File05292019.LastName, File05292019.FirstName, File05292019.SubscriberSocialSecurityNumber
FROM File05292019
INNER JOIN File05292019 AS File05292019_1
ON (File05292019.SubscriberSocialSecurityNumber = File05292019_1.SubscriberSocialSecurityNumber)
AND (File05292019.LastName = File05292019_1.LastName)
AND (File05292019.FirstName = File05292019_1.FirstName)
GROUP BY File05292019.LastName, File05292019.FirstName, File05292019.SubscriberSocialSecurityNumber;
Because of group operator. You should have duplicate records in result set
Check by running this query
SELECT File05292019.LastName, File05292019.FirstName, File05292019.SubscriberSocialSecurityNumber
FROM File05292019
INNER JOIN File05292019 AS File05292019_1
ON (File05292019.SubscriberSocialSecurityNumber = File05292019_1.SubscriberSocialSecurityNumber)
AND (File05292019.LastName = File05292019_1.LastName)
AND (File05292019.FirstName = File05292019_1.FirstName)
the presence of group by suggest that
this mean that you have some rows with the same values
you could try uisng
SELECT File05292019.LastName
, File05292019.FirstName
, File05292019.SubscriberSocialSecurityNumber
count(*)
FROM File05292019
GROUP BY File05292019.LastName
, File05292019.FirstName
, File05292019.SubscriberSocialSecurityNumber
HAVING count(*) > 1
for find these rows
Couple of possibilities:
NULL values exist in the JOIN fields: SubscriberSocialSecurityNumber, LastName, and FirstName. Because NULL = NULL is a False statement, joins exclude nulls (non-value entities).
Duplicate values in GROUP BY fields where the aggregation returns distinct values by grouping. Add the COUNT(*) As RecordCount aggregate to see which fields have more than 1 value.
Possibly subscribers changed their names but retained same SSNs; names and SSNs were incorrectly inputted; or several records use a default status like 999-99-9999?
I have two columns in one table say Column A and Column B. I need to search each value of Column A with All the values of column B each and every time and return true if the column A value is found in any of the rows of column B. How can i get this?
I have tried using the below command:
select column _A, column_B,(if (column_A =column_B), True, False) as test from sample;
If i use the above command, it is checking for that particular row alone. But I need true value, if a value of column A is found in any of the rows of column B.
How can i can check one value of column A with all the all the values of column B?
Or Is there any possibility to iterate and compare each value between two columns?
Solution
create temporary table t as select rand() as id, column_A, column_B from sample; --> Refer 1
select distinct t3.id,t3.column_A,t3.column_B,t3.match from ( --> Refer 3
select t1.id as id, t1.column_A as column_A, t1.column_B as column_B,--> Refer 2
if(t2.column_B is null, False, True) as match from t t1 LEFT OUTER JOIN
t t2 ON t1.column_A = t2.column_B
) t3;
Explanation
Create an identifier column to keep track of the rows in original table. I am using rand() here. We will take advantage of this to get the original rows in Step 3. Creating a temporary table t here for simplicity in next steps.
Use a LEFT OUTER JOIN with self to do your test that requires matching each column with another across all rows, yielding the match column. Note that here multiple duplicate rows may get created than in Sample table, but we have got a handle on the duplicates, since the id column for them will be same.
In this step, we apply distinct to get the original rows as in Sample table. You can then ditch the id column.
Notes
Self joins are costly in terms of performance, but this is unavoidable for solution to the question.
The distinct used in Step 3, is costly too. A more performant approach would be to use Window functions where we can partition by the id and pick the first row in the window. You can explore that.
You can do a left join to itself and check if the column key is null. If it is null, then that value is not found in the other table. Use if or "case when" function to check if it is null or not.
Select t1.column_A,
t1.column_B,
IF(t2.column_B is null, 'False', 'True') as test
from Sample t1
Left Join Sample t2
On t1.column_A = t2.column_B;
I have a table which has got a column. I have to fetch the values from the column and modify it in the view before comparing it with an externally supplied value.
For that I am using the following query:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM tblMaster WITH (NOLOCK)
WHERE (SELECT test
FROM
(SELECT RIGHT('00000000000000000' + RTRIM(CODE), 17) as test
FROM tblMaster ) t) = '00001231231231231'
Subquery returns modified values of the column extracted from the actual table in form of a column. So I am using the column returned out of the subquery. I don't know if I can use a subquery which returns a column on the left side of equality.
Subquery returns multiple values.
You don't need a subquery for this:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM tblMaster WITH (NOLOCK)
WHERE right('00000000000000000' + RTRIM(CODE), 17) = '00001231231231231';
You can simplify this. You don't need to add 0s to integers, SQL will trim them off when comparing. Also you don't need the subquery:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM tblMaster WITH (NOLOCK)
WHERE CODE = '1231231231231'
I am just learning SQL, and I'm wondering what the difference is between the following lines:
WHERE s.parent IN (SELECT l.parent .....)
versus
WHERE s.parent = (SELECT l.parent .....)
IN
will not generate an error if you have multiple results on the subquery. Allows to have more than one value in the result returned by the subquery.
=
will generate an error if you have more than one result on the subquery.
SQLFiddle Demo (IN vs =)
when you are using 'IN' it can compare multiple values....like
select * from tablename where student_name in('mari','sruthi','takudu')
but when you are using '=' you can't compare multiple values
select * from tablenamewhere student_name = 'sruthi'
i hope this is the right answer
The "IN" clause is also much much much much slower. If you have many results in the select portion of
IN (SELECT l.parent .....),
it will be extremely inefficient as it actually generates a separate select sql statement for each and every result within the select statement ... so if you return 'Cat', 'Dog', 'Cow'
it will essentially create a sql statement for each result... if you have 200 results... you get the full sql statement 200 times...takes forever... (This was as of a few years ago... maybe imporved by now... but it was horribly slow on big result sets.)
Much more efficient to do an inner join such as:
Select id, parent
from table1 as T
inner join (Select parent from table2) as T2 on T.parent = T2.parent
For future visitors.
Basically in case of equals (just remember that here we are talking like where a.name = b.name), each cell value from table 1 will be compared one by one to each cell value of all the rows from table 2, if it matches then that row will be selected (here that row will be selected means that row from table 1 and table 2) for the overall result set otherwise will not be selected.
Now, in case of IN, complete result set on the right side of the IN will be used for comparison, so its like each value from table 1 will be checked on whether this cell value is present in the complete result set of the IN, if it is present then that value will be shown for all the rows of the IN’s result set, so let say IN result set has 20 rows, so that cell value from table 1 will be present in overall result set 20 times (i.e. that particular cell value will have 20 rows).
For more clarity see below screen shot, notice below that how complete result set from the right of the IN (and NOT IN) is considered in the overall result set; whole emphasis is on the fact that in case comparison using =, matching row from second table is selected, while in case of IN complete result from the second table is selected.
In can match a value with more than one values, in other words it checks if a value is in the list of values so for e.g.
x in ('a', 'b', 'x') will return true result as x is in the the list of values
while = expects only one value, its as simple as
x = y returns false
and
x = x returns true
The general rule of thumb is:
The = expects a single value to compare with. Like this:
WHERE s.parent = 'father_name'
IN is extremely useful in scenarios where = cannot work i.e. scenarios where you need the comparison with multiple values.
WHERE s.parent IN ('father_name', 'mother_name', 'brother_name', 'sister_name')
Hope this is useful!!!
IN
This helps when a subquery returns more than one result.
=
This operator cannot handle more than one result.
Like in this example:
SQL>
Select LOC from dept where DEPTNO = (select DEPTNO from emp where
JOB='MANAGER');
Gives ERROR ORA-01427: single-row subquery returns more than one row
Instead use
SQL>
Select LOC from dept where DEPTNO in (select DEPTNO from emp
where JOB='MANAGER');
1) Sometimes = also used as comparison operator in case of joins which IN doesn't.
2) You can pass multiple values in the IN block which you can't do with =. For example,
SELECT * FROM [Products] where ProductID IN((select max(ProductID) from Products),
(select min(ProductID) from Products))
would work and provide you expected number of rows.However,
SELECT * FROM [Products] where ProductID = (select max(ProductID) from Products)
and ProductID =(select min(ProductID) from Products)
will provide you 'no result'. That means, in case subquery supposed to return multiple number of rows , in that case '=' isn't useful.