I come from SQL Server and I am migrating some T-SQL code to Postgres.
In PostgreSQL, I now have this UPDATE statement (see below).
In there:
"#reportdata" is a temporary table
kwt.Report is a normal table
This part in the WHERE clause is doing an implicit JOIN. I think that's how they call it in Postgres.
(cr.campaignid = rp.campaignid AND cr.reportdate = rp.reportdate)
That is because this couple (campaignid, reportdate) represents a unique logical key in kwt.Report. Also, both columns are not nullable in kwt.Report.
In "#reportdata" both columns can be NULL.
My question is: when I see such an implicit join in an UPDATE statement, I am somehow always not quite sure if it's INNER or OUTER join. I think it's INNER, there's no way this to be OUTER but I just want to be sure.
Could someone please confirm?
I mean, OK, if rp.campaignid is NULL there's no way this condition to evaluate to true, right?
(cr.campaignid = rp.campaignid AND cr.reportdate = rp.reportdate)
I am asking this, because I am not sure if comparison with NULL works the same way in Postgres as in SQL Server. As far as I recall, in SQL Server NULL = a always evaluates to NULL (not to true (bit 0), not to false (bit 1) but to NULL). Please correct me if this understanding is not right. Is this the same in Postgres?
UPDATE kwt.Report cr
SET
impressions = rp.impressions,
clicks = rp.clicks,
views = rp.views
FROM
"#reportdata" AS rp
WHERE
(cr.campaignid = rp.campaignid AND cr.reportdate = rp.reportdate)
AND (rp.campaignid IS NOT NULL);
In SQL:
A = null is neither true nor false
Check this
with cte0 as
(
select '1' as c
), cte1 as
(
select null as c
)
select * from cte0
inner join cte1 on cte0.c = cte1.c
union
select * from cte0
inner join cte1 on cte0.c != cte1.c
c | c
:- | :-
db<>fiddle here
Related
I have a question on sql desgin.
Context:
I have a table called t_master and 13 other tables (lets call them a,b,c... for simplicity) where it needs to compared.
Logic:
t_master will be compared to table 'a' where t_master.gen_val =
a.value.
If record exist in t_master, retrieve t_master record, else retrieve 'a' record.
I do not need to retrieve the records if it exists in both tables (t_master and a) - XOR condition
Repeat this comparison with the remaining 12 tables.
I have some idea on doing this, using WITH to subquery the non-master tables (a,b,c...) first with their respective WHERE clause.
Then use XOR statement to retrieve the records.
Something like
WITH a AS (SELECT ...),
b AS (SELECT ...)
SELECT field1,field2...
FROM t_master FULL OUTER JOIN a FULL OUTER JOIN b FULL OUTER JOIN c...
ON t_master.gen_value = a.value
WHERE ((field1 = x OR field2 = y ) AND NOT (field1 = x AND field2 = y))
AND ....
.
.
.
.
Seeing that I have 13 tables that I need to full outer join, is there a better way/design to handle this?
Otherwise I would have at least 2*13 lines of WHERE clause which I'm not sure if that will have impact on the performance as t_master is sort of a log table.
**Assume I cant change any schema.
Currently I'm not sure if this SQL will working correctly yet, so I'm hoping someone can guide me in the right direction regarding this.
update from used_by_already's suggestion:
This is what I'm trying to do (comparison between 2 tables first, before I add more, but I am unable to get values from ATP_R.TBL_HI_HDR HI_HDR as it is in the NOT EXISTS subquery.
How do i overcome this?
SELECT LOG_REPO.UNIQ_ID,
LOG_REPO.REQUEST_PAYLOAD,
LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL,
LOG_REPO.CREATED_BY,
TO_CHAR(LOG_REPO.CREATED_DT,'DD/MM/YYYY') AS CREATED_DT,
HI_HDR.HI_NO R_VALUE,
HI_HDR.CREATED_BY R_CREATED_BY,
TO_CHAR(HI_HDR.CREATED_DT,'DD/MM/YYYY') AS R_CREATED_DT
FROM ATP_COMMON.VW_CMN_LOG_GEN_REPO LOG_REPO JOIN ATP_R.TBL_HI_HDR HI_HDR ON LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL = HI_HDR.HI_NO
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT NULL
FROM ATP_R.TBL_HI_HDR HI_HDR
WHERE LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL = HI_HDR.HI_NO
)
UNION ALL
SELECT LOG_REPO.UNIQ_ID,
LOG_REPO.REQUEST_PAYLOAD,
LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL,
LOG_REPO.CREATED_BY,
TO_CHAR(LOG_REPO.CREATED_DT,'DD/MM/YYYY') AS CREATED_DT,
HI_HDR.HI_NO R_VALUE,
HI_HDR.CREATED_BY R_CREATED_BY,
TO_CHAR(HI_HDR.CREATED_DT,'DD/MM/YYYY') AS R_CREATED_DT
FROM ATP_R.TBL_HI_HDR HI_HDR JOIN ATP_COMMON.VW_CMN_LOG_GEN_REPO LOG_REPO ON HI_HDR.HI_NO = LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT NULL
FROM ATP_COMMON.VW_CMN_LOG_GEN_REPO LOG_REPO
WHERE HI_HDR.HI_NO = LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL
)
Full outer joins used to exclude all matching rows can be an expensive query. You don't supply much detail, but perhaps using NOT EXISTS would be simpler and maybe it will produce a better explain plan. Something along these lines.
select
cola,colb,colc
from t_master m
where not exists (
select null from a where m.keycol = a.fk_to_m
)
and not exists (
select null from b where m.keycol = b.fk_to_m
)
and not exists (
select null from c where m.keycol = c.fk_to_m
)
union all
select
cola,colb,colc from a
where not exists (
select null from t_master m where a.fk_to_m = m.keycol
)
union all
select
cola,colb,colc from b
where not exists (
select null from t_master m where b.fk_to_m = m.keycol
)
union all
select
cola,colb,colc from c
where not exists (
select null from t_master m where c.fk_to_m = m.keycol
)
You could union the 13 a,b,c ... tables to simplify the coding, but that may not perform so well.
In my project I need find difference task based on old and new revision in the same table.
id | task | latest_Rev
1 A N
1 B N
2 C Y
2 A Y
2 B Y
Expected Result:
id | task | latest_Rev
2 C Y
So I tried following query
Select new.*
from Rev_tmp nw with (nolock)
left outer
join rev_tmp old with (nolock)
on nw.id -1 = old.id
and nw.task = old.task
and nw.latest_rev = 'y'
where old.task is null
when my table have more than 20k records this query takes more time?
How to reduce the time?
In my company don't allow to use subquery
Use LAG function to remove the self join
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT *,
CASE WHEN latest_Rev = 'y' THEN Lag(latest_Rev) OVER(partition BY task ORDER BY id) ELSE NULL END AS prev_rev
FROM Rev_tmp) a
WHERE prev_rev IS NULL
My answer assumes
You can't change the indexes
You can't use subqueries
All fields are indexed separately
If you look at the query, the only value that really reduces the resultset is latest_rev='Y'. If you were to eliminate that condition, you'd definitely get a table scan. So we want that condition to be evaluated using an index. Unfortunately a field that just values 'Y' and 'N' is likely to be ignored because it will have terrible selectivity. You might get better performance if you coax SQL Server into using it anyway. If the index on latest_rev is called idx_latest_rev then try this:
Set transaction isolated level read uncommitted
Select new.*
from Rev_tmp nw with (index(idx_latest_rev))
left outer
join rev_tmp old
on nw.id -1 = old.id
and nw.task = old.task
where old.task is null
and nw.latest_rev = 'y'
latest_Rev should be a Bit type (boolean equivalent), i better for performance (Detail here)
May be can you add index on id, task
, latest_Rev columns
You can try this query (replace left outer by not exists)
Select *
from Rev_tmp nw
where nw.latest_rev = 'y' and not exists
(
select * from rev_tmp old
where nw.id -1 = old.id and nw.task = old.task
)
I have a simple SQL table containing some values, for example:
id | value (table 'values')
----------
0 | 4
1 | 7
2 | 9
I want to iterate over these values, and use them in a query like so:
SELECT value[0], x1
FROM (some subquery where value[0] is used)
UNION
SELECT value[1], x2
FROM (some subquery where value[1] is used)
...
etc
In order to get a result set like this:
4 | x1
7 | x2
9 | x3
It has to be in SQL as it will actually represent a database view. Of course the real query is a lot more complicated, but I tried to simplify the question while keeping the essence as much as possible.
I think I have to select from values and join the subquery, but as the value should be used in the subquery I'm lost on how to accomplish this.
Edit: I oversimplified my question; in reality I want to have 2 rows from the subquery and not only one.
Edit 2: As suggested I'm posting the real query. I simplified it a bit to make it clearer, but it's a working query and the problem is there. Note that I have hardcoded the value '2' in this query two times. I want to replace that with values from a different table, in the example table above I would want a result set of the combined results of this query with 4, 7 and 9 as values instead of the currently hardcoded 2.
SELECT x.fantasycoach_id, SUM(round_points)
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT fc.id AS fantasycoach_id,
ffv.formation_id AS formation_id,
fpc.round_sequence AS round_sequence,
round_points,
fpc.fantasyplayer_id
FROM fantasyworld_FantasyCoach AS fc
LEFT JOIN fantasyworld_fantasyformation AS ff ON ff.id = (
SELECT MAX(fantasyworld_fantasyformationvalidity.formation_id)
FROM fantasyworld_fantasyformationvalidity
LEFT JOIN realworld_round AS _rr ON _rr.id = round_id
LEFT JOIN fantasyworld_fantasyformation AS _ff ON _ff.id = formation_id
WHERE is_valid = TRUE
AND _ff.coach_id = fc.id
AND _rr.sequence <= 2 /* HARDCODED USE OF VALUE */
)
LEFT JOIN fantasyworld_FantasyFormationPlayer AS ffp
ON ffp.formation_id = ff.id
LEFT JOIN dbcache_fantasyplayercache AS fpc
ON ffp.player_id = fpc.fantasyplayer_id
AND fpc.round_sequence = 2 /* HARDCODED USE OF VALUE */
LEFT JOIN fantasyworld_fantasyformationvalidity AS ffv
ON ffv.formation_id = ff.id
) x
GROUP BY fantasycoach_id
Edit 3: I'm using PostgreSQL.
SQL works with tables as a whole, which basically involves set operations. There is no explicit iteration, and generally no need for any. In particular, the most straightforward implementation of what you described would be this:
SELECT value, (some subquery where value is used) AS x
FROM values
Do note, however, that a correlated subquery such as that is very hard on query performance. Depending on the details of what you're trying to do, it may well be possible to structure it around a simple join, an uncorrelated subquery, or a similar, better-performing alternative.
Update:
In view of the update to the question indicating that the subquery is expected to yield multiple rows for each value in table values, contrary to the example results, it seems a better approach would be to just rewrite the subquery as the main query. If it does not already do so (and maybe even if it does) then it would join table values as another base table.
Update 2:
Given the real query now presented, this is how the values from table values could be incorporated into it:
SELECT x.fantasycoach_id, SUM(round_points) FROM
(
SELECT DISTINCT
fc.id AS fantasycoach_id,
ffv.formation_id AS formation_id,
fpc.round_sequence AS round_sequence,
round_points,
fpc.fantasyplayer_id
FROM fantasyworld_FantasyCoach AS fc
-- one row for each combination of coach and value:
CROSS JOIN values
LEFT JOIN fantasyworld_fantasyformation AS ff
ON ff.id = (
SELECT MAX(fantasyworld_fantasyformationvalidity.formation_id)
FROM fantasyworld_fantasyformationvalidity
LEFT JOIN realworld_round AS _rr
ON _rr.id = round_id
LEFT JOIN fantasyworld_fantasyformation AS _ff
ON _ff.id = formation_id
WHERE is_valid = TRUE
AND _ff.coach_id = fc.id
-- use the value obtained from values:
AND _rr.sequence <= values.value
)
LEFT JOIN fantasyworld_FantasyFormationPlayer AS ffp
ON ffp.formation_id = ff.id
LEFT JOIN dbcache_fantasyplayercache AS fpc
ON ffp.player_id = fpc.fantasyplayer_id
-- use the value obtained from values again:
AND fpc.round_sequence = values.value
LEFT JOIN fantasyworld_fantasyformationvalidity AS ffv
ON ffv.formation_id = ff.id
) x
GROUP BY fantasycoach_id
Note in particular the CROSS JOIN which forms the cross product of two tables; this is the same thing as an INNER JOIN without any join predicate, and it can be written that way if desired.
The overall query could be at least a bit simplified, but I do not do so because it is a working example rather than an actual production query, so it is unclear what other changes would translate to the actual application.
In the example I create two tables. See how outer table have an alias you use in the inner select?
SQL Fiddle Demo
SELECT T.[value], (SELECT [property] FROM Table2 P WHERE P.[value] = T.[value])
FROM Table1 T
This is a better way for performance
SELECT T.[value], P.[property]
FROM Table1 T
INNER JOIN Table2 p
on P.[value] = T.[value];
Table 2 can be a QUERY instead of a real table
Third Option
Using a cte to calculate your values and then join back to the main table. This way you have the subquery logic separated from your final query.
WITH cte AS (
SELECT
T.[value],
T.[value] * T.[value] as property
FROM Table1 T
)
SELECT T.[value], C.[property]
FROM Table1 T
INNER JOIN cte C
on T.[value] = C.[value];
It might be helpful to extract the computation to a function that is called in the SELECT clause and is executed for each row of the result set
Here's the documentation for CREATE FUNCTION for SQL Server. It's probably similar to whatever database system you're using, and if not you can easily Google for it.
Here's an example of creating a function and using it in a query:
CREATE FUNCTION DoComputation(#parameter1 int)
RETURNS int
AS
BEGIN
-- Do some calculations here and return the function result.
-- This example returns the value of #parameter1 squared.
-- You can add additional parameters to the function definition if needed
DECLARE #Result int
SET #Result = #parameter1 * #parameter1
RETURN #Result
END
Here is an example of using the example function above in a query.
SELECT v.value, DoComputation(v.value) as ComputedValue
FROM [Values] v
ORDER BY value
How Do I set multiple AND conditions?
ex.
SELECT *
FROM CONFIRMED
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT *
FROM Import_Orders
WHERE Import_Orders.Customer = CONFIRMED.Customer
AND Import_Orders.Reference = CONFIRMED.Reference
AND Import_Orders.[Index] = CONFIRMED.[Index]
AND Import_Orders.QuantityToDeliver = CONFIRMED.QuantityToDeliver
AND Import_Orders.DateToDeliver = CONFIRMED.DateToDeliver
);
I know this works on my tables with one WHERE & AND condition but not with several.
I Need a result of two tables where the above conditions do not match. I do not have identical keys in the two tables. Now with this code I get all the results that are in table CONFIRMED.
Here is the syntax for multiple tables:
WHERE NOT EXISTS (...) AND NOT EXISTS (...) AND NOT EXISTS (...)
However, if the database is so large that you care about performance, you'll need a much less obvious syntax along the following lines:
LEFT JOIN Some_Table t ON (t.xxx = Main_Table.xxx)
LEFT JOIN Another_Table t2 ON (t2.xxx = Main_Table.xxx)
LEFT JOIN Yet_Another_Table t3 ON (t3.xxx = Main_Table.xxx)
...
WHERE t.id IS NULL AND t2.id IS NULL AND t3.id IS NULL
For one table and one composed condition, like in the SQL sample in your question:
LEFT JOIN Some_Table t ON
t.xxx = Main_Table.xxx
AND t.yyy = Main_Table.yyy
AND t.zzz = Main_Table.zzz
WHERE t.id IS NULL
This is expected to return rows that exist in Main_Table but do not have matching rows in Some_Table, assuming the columns xxx, etc., are non-nullable.
If, for example, xxx is nullable, here is how you need to modify the query further:
LEFT JOIN Some_Table t ON
(t.xxx = Main_Table.xxx OR (t.xxx IS NULL AND Main_Table.xxx IS NULL))
AND t.yyy = Main_Table.yyy
AND t.zzz = Main_Table.zzz
WHERE t.id IS NULL
I am guessing that you have an ID on Import_Orders, if not use any field name that is turning up empty on the query. You would be better using field names rather than *. I have added an example for Import_Orders.
SELECT CONFIRMED.*, Import_Orders.ID, Import_Orders.Customer
FROM CONFIRMED
LEFT JOIN Import_Orders
ON Import_Orders.Customer = CONFIRMED.Customer
AND Import_Orders.Reference = CONFIRMED.Reference
AND Import_Orders.[Index] = CONFIRMED.[Index]
AND Import_Orders.QuantityToDeliver = CONFIRMED.QuantityToDeliver
AND Import_Orders.DateToDeliver = CONFIRMED.DateToDeliver
WHERE Import_Orders.ID Is Null
More information
Fundamental Microsoft Jet SQL for Access 2000
Intermediate Microsoft Jet SQL for Access 2000
Advanced Microsoft Jet SQL for Access 2000
You could just replace all the "=" with "<>" and you should get all the results that don't have a match on all criteria.
SELECT *
FROM CONFIRMED
WHERE EXISTS
(
SELECT *
FROM Import_Orders
WHERE Import_Orders.Customer <> CONFIRMED.Customer
AND Import_Orders.Reference <> CONFIRMED.Reference
AND Import_Orders.[Index] <> CONFIRMED.[Index]
AND Import_Orders.QuantityToDeliver <> CONFIRMED.QuantityToDeliver
AND Import_Orders.DateToDeliver <> CONFIRMED.DateToDeliver
);
I have a table where I wish to update some of the rows. All the fields are not null. I'm doing a sub-query, and I wish to update the table with the non-Null results.
See Below for my final answer:
In MySQL, I solve this problem by doing an UPDATE IGNORE. How do I make this work in SQL Server 2005? The sub-query uses a four-table Join to find the data to insert if it exists. The Update is being run against a table that could have 90,000+ records, so I need a solution that uses SQL, rather than having the Java program that's querying the database retrieve the results and then update those fields where we've got non-Null values.
Update: My query:
UPDATE #SearchResults SET geneSymbol = (
SELECT TOP 1 symbol.name FROM
GeneSymbol AS symbol JOIN GeneConnector AS geneJoin
ON symbol.id = geneJoin.geneSymbolID
JOIN Result AS sSeq ON geneJoin.sSeqID = sSeq.id
JOIN IndelConnector AS joiner ON joiner.sSeqID = sSeq.id
WHERE joiner.indelID = #SearchResults.id ORDER BY symbol.id ASC)
WHERE isSNV = 0
If I add "AND symbol.name IS NOT NULL" to either WHERE I get a SQL error. If I run it as is I get "adding null to a non-null column" errors. :-(
Thank you all, I ended up finding this:
UPDATE #SearchResults SET geneSymbol =
ISNULL ((SELECT TOP 1 symbol.name FROM
GeneSymbol AS symbol JOIN GeneConnector AS geneJoin
ON symbol.id = geneJoin.geneSymbolID
JOIN Result AS sSeq ON geneJoin.sSeqID = sSeq.id
JOIN IndelConnector AS joiner ON joiner.sSeqID = sSeq.id
WHERE joiner.indelID = #SearchResults.id ORDER BY symbol.id ASC), ' ')
WHERE isSNV = 0
While it would be better not to do anything in the null case (so I'm going to try to understand the other answers, and see if they're faster) setting the null cases to a blank answer also works, and that's what this does.
Note: Wrapping the ISNULL (...) with () leads to really obscure (and wrong) errors.
with UpdatedGenesDS (
select joiner.indelID, name, row_number() over (order by symbol.id asc) seq
from
GeneSymbol AS symbol JOIN GeneConnector AS geneJoin
ON symbol.id = geneJoin.geneSymbolID
JOIN Result AS sSeq ON geneJoin.sSeqID = sSeq.id
JOIN IndelConnector AS joiner ON joiner.sSeqID = sSeq.id
WHERE name is not null ORDER BY symbol.id ASC
)
update Genes
set geneSymbol = upd.name
from #SearchResults a
inner join UpdateGenesDs upd on a.id = b.intelID
where upd.seq =1 and isSNV = 0
this handles the null completely as all are filtered out by the where predicate (can also be filtered by join predicate if You wish. Is it what You are looking for?
Here's another option, where only those rows in #SearchResults that are succesfully joined will be udpated. If there are no null values in the underlying data, then the inner joins will pull in no null values, and you won't have to worry about filtering them out.
UPDATE #SearchResults
set geneSymbol = symbol.name
from #SearchResults sr
inner join IndelConnector AS joiner
on joiner.indelID = sr.id
inner join Result AS sSeq
on sSeq.id = joiner.sSeqID
inner join GeneConnector AS geneJoin
on geneJoin.sSeqID = sSeq.id
-- Get "lowest" (i.e. first if listed alphabetically) value of name for each id
inner join (select id, min(name) name
from GeneSymbol
group by id) symbol
on symbol.id = geneJoin.geneSymbolID
where isSNV = 0 -- Which table is this value from?
(There might be some syntax problems, without tables I can't debug it)