I have two database tables:
Cities with columns:
Country_Code | City_Code | City_Name
Countries with columns
Country_Code | Country_Name
Based on a few chars entered by User, it checks the City_Name column to return results to populate a City autocomplete box. The result needs to have the city code, city name, country code, and country name, hence the need for a join.
The query I am using is
SELECT TOP 10
ci.Country_Code, ci.City_Code, ci.City_Name, co.Country_Name
FROM
Cities ci
LEFT OUTER JOIN
Countries co ON ci.Country_Code = co.Country_Code
WHERE
ci.City_Name LIKE '#CityName'
ORDER BY
ci.City_Name
The results I get are correct, but the query takes a long time to complete. From what I understand, first, the results contain join of both the tables, then the where clause kicks in to get the specific rows only, which are ordered by City Name and top 10 results returned.
My question is, is there a way to speed up the query. Have the where clause checked, and then only perform the join, better still perform it only on the top 10 results? I tried putting my WHERE clause in the ON clause, but that gave wrong results.
EDIT : #CityName contains 2-3 chars entered by the user and then a '%'.
I'd suggest start with adding clustered index on Countries.Country_Code (also making it the primary key of the Countries table if it is not already so). An index would sort the table such that the search speed in join is increased.
This appears to be your query:
SELECT TOP 10 ci.Country_Code, ci.City_Code, ci.City_Name, co.Country_Name
FROM Cities ci LEFT OUTER JOIN
Countries co
ON ci.Country_Code = co.Country_Code
WHERE ci.City_Name LIKE #CityName
ORDER BY ci.City_Name ;
Quotes should not be needed around #CityName.
I don't understand the LEFT JOIN. It suggests that there are cities without a valid Country_Code -- and that seems unlikely.
Assuming #CityName does not start with a wildcard (as suggested by your question), then this can make use of an index. I would suggest the following indexes:
cities(city_name, country_code)
countries(country_code, country_name)
The second is not needed if country_code is a primary key.
Related
What my issue is:
I am constantly returning multiple values when I don't expect to. I am attempting to get a specific climate, determined by the state, county, and country.
What I've tried:
The code given below. I am unsure as to what is wrong with it specifically. I do know that it is returning multiple values. But why? I specify that STATE_ABBREVIATION = PROV_TERR_STATE_LOC and with the inner joins that I do, shouldn't that create rows that are similar except for their different CLIMATE_IDs?
SELECT
...<code>...
(SELECT locations.CLIMATE_ID
FROM REF_CLIMATE_LOCATION locations, SED_BANK_TST.dbo.STATIONS stations
INNER JOIN REF_STATE states ON STATE_ID = states.STATE_ID
INNER JOIN REF_COUNTY counties ON COUNTY_ID = counties.COUNTY_ID
INNER JOIN REF_COUNTRY countries ON COUNTRY_ID = countries.COUNTRY_ID
WHERE STATE_ABBREVIATION = PROV_TERR_STATE_LOC) AS CLIMATE_ID
...<more code>...
FROM SED_BANK_TST.dbo.STATIONS stations
I've been at this for hours, looking up different questions on SO, but I cannot figure out how to make this subquery return a single value.
All those inner joins don't reduce the result set if the IDs you're testing exist in the REF tables. Apart from that you're doing a Cartesian product between locations and stations (which may be an old fashioned inner join because of the where clause).
You'll only get a single row if you only have a single row in the locations table that matches a single row in the stations table under the condition that STATE_ABBREVIATION = PROV_TERR_STATE_LOC
Your JOINs show a hierarchy of locations: Country->State->County, but your WHERE clause only limits by the state abbreviation. By joining the county you'll get one record for every county in that state. You CAN limit your results by taking the TOP 1 of the results, but you need to be very careful that that's really what you want. If you're looking for a specific county, you'll need to include that in the WHERE clause. You get some control with the TOP 1 in that it will give the top 1 based on an ORDER BY clause. I.e., if you want the most recently added, use:
SELECT TOP 1 [whatever] ORDER BY [DateCreated] DESC;
For your subquery, you can do something like this:
SELECT TOP 1
locations.CLIMATE_ID
FROM REF_CLIMATE_LOCATION locations ,
SED_BANK_TST.dbo.STATIONS stations
INNER JOIN REF_STATE states ON STATE_ID = states.STATE_ID
INNER JOIN REF_COUNTY counties ON COUNTY_ID = counties.COUNTY_ID
INNER JOIN REF_COUNTRY countries ON COUNTRY_ID = countries.COUNTRY_ID
WHERE STATE_ABBREVIATION = PROV_TERR_STATE_LOC
Just be sure to either add an ORDER BY at the end or be okay with it choosing the TOP 1 based on the "natural order" on the tables.
If you are expecting to have a single value on your sub-query, probably you need to use DISTINCT. The best way to see it is you run your sub-query separately and see the result. If you need to include other columns from the tables you used, you may do so to check what makes your result have multiple rows.
You can also use MAX() or MIN() or TOP 1 to get a single value on the sub-query but this is dependent to the logic you want to achieve for locations.CLIMATE_ID. You need to answer the question, "How is it related to the rest of the columns retrieved?"
Given the schema here I'm trying to understand and solve the below 3 sql queries as I'm confused:
1- Present a table giving the names of the countries with ≥ 50% urbanization
rates, their urbanization rates, and their per capita GDP. Note that
urbanization rate is the percentage of population living in cities. Do not
count cities with NULL values for population.
SELECT country.name, round(sum(city.population)/country.population, 3) AS urban, round(gdp/country.population, 3) AS gdppc
FROM city
INNER JOIN country ON code = country
INNER JOIN economy ON code = economy.country
WHERE city.population IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY country.name, country.population, economy.gdp
HAVING round(sum(city.population)/country.population, 3) >= 0.5
ORDER BY urban DESC;
In the above query, Why I need to include country.population and economy.gdp in the GROUP BY? If I tried using just country.name in the GROUP BY I get an error saying I should include the others.
2- Show organizations that have as members all the European countries with over 50 million people?
SELECT name
FROM organization
INNER JOIN (SELECT organization
FROM country
INNER JOIN encompasses
ON code = encompasses.country
INNER JOIN ismember
ON code = ismember.country
WHERE population > 50000000 AND continent = 'Europe'
GROUP BY organization
HAVING count(ismember.country) = (SELECT count(*)
FROM country
INNER JOIN encompasses
ON code = country
WHERE population > 50000000 AND continent = 'Europe'))
AS innerQuery
ON abbreviation = innerQuery.organization;
Why I need the HAVING Part above?
3- Insert a new organization called “Tivoli” and a trigger that says if Germany joins “Tivoli” then so too must the UK and France. Insert Germany into the “Tivoli” organization. Confirm proper behavior.
I tried the below script but it's not working, any advice please?
do $$
begin
IF(NOT EXISTS ( SELECT 1 FROM organization WHERE organization."name" = 'Tivoli' AND organization.country = 'D' ))
BEGIN
INSERT INTO organization VALUES ('Tivoli','Tivoli organization',NULL,'F',NULL,NULL);
INSERT INTO organization VALUES ('Tivoli','Tivoli organization',NULL,'GB',NULL,NULL);
END;
end $$
1)
You used country.population and economy.gdp in the select, outside of aggregate functions ( COUNT(), AVG() and SUM() ), and you have a GROUP BY. Everything that you select has to be in GROUP BY or inside of aggregate functions.
2)
Because you were asked to show organizations that have ALL of 50mil + people countries. With HAVING, you check if that organization has the right amount of countries.
3)
organization."name" = 'Tivoli'
It's supposed to be :
organization.name
First of all, you should limit a question to one only, not 3. But here are some pointers for all 3:
In the above query, Why I need to include country.population and economy.gdp in the GROUP BY? If I tried using just country.name in the GROUP BY I get an error saying I should include the others.
This is a requirement. A group by country.name alone would work (in Postgres 9.1+) only if the other two fields are known to be functionally dependent on country.name. But probably country.name is not the primary key of the country table, so in theory it is possible to have two records in that table with the same name, but different population.
The rule is as follows:
When GROUP BY is present, it is not valid for the SELECT list expressions to refer to ungrouped columns except within aggregate functions or if the ungrouped column is functionally dependent on the grouped columns, since there would otherwise be more than one possible value to return for an ungrouped column. A functional dependency exists if the grouped columns (or a subset thereof) are the primary key of the table containing the ungrouped column.
This is implemented since version 9.1.
Why I need the HAVING Part above?
Because a condition on an aggregate (count in this case) can only be performed after grouping, and can thus not be expressed in the where clause. In this case the having clause makes sure that the organisation is not only present in some big EU Member States, but all big EU Member states.
I tried the below script but it's not working, any advice please?
Without a proper database schema, it is not possible to provide you with the correct SQ, but from the ERD diagram it seems that the organization table does not have a country field. Instead the ismember table connects organizations with countries. You would only insert one organization, but several ismember records (one per Member State involved)
It is better also to name the fields in your insert statement, so it is clear which value corresponds to which field.
I want to retrieve the course_id in table course that is not in the table takes. Table takes only contains course_id of courses taken by students. The problem is that if I have:
select count (distinct course.course_id)
from course, takes
where course.course_id = (takes.course_id);
the result is 85 which is smaller than the total number of course_id in table course, which is 200. The result is correct.
But I want to find the number of course_id that are not in the table takes, and I have:
select count (distinct course.course_id)
from course, takes
where course.course_id != (takes.course_id);
The result is 200, which is equal the number of course_id in table course. What is wrong with my code?
This SQL will give you the count of course_id in table course that aren't in the table takes:
select count (*)
from course c
where not exists (select *
from takes t
where c.course_id = t.course_id);
You didn't specify your DBMS, however, this SQL is pretty standard so it should work in the popular DBMSs.
There are a few different ways to accomplish what you're looking for. My personal favorite is the LEFT JOIN condition. Let me walk you through it:
Fact One: You want to return a list of courses
Fact Two: You want to
filter that list to not include anything in the Takes table.
I'd go about this by first mentally selecting a list of courses:
SELECT c.Course_ID
FROM Course c
and then filtering out the ones I don't want. One way to do this is to use a LEFT JOIN to get all the rows from the first table, along with any that happen to match in the second table, and then filter out the rows that actually do match, like so:
SELECT c.Course_ID
FROM
Course c
LEFT JOIN -- note the syntax: 'comma joins' are a bad idea.
Takes t ON
c.Course_ID = t.Course_ID -- at this point, you have all courses
WHERE t.Course_ID IS NULL -- this phrase means that none of the matching records will be returned.
Another note: as mentioned above, comma joins should be avoided. Instead, use the syntax I demonstrated above (INNER JOIN or LEFT JOIN, followed by the table name and an ON condition).
In my tables I have for example
CountyID,County and CityID in the county table and in the city table I have table I have for example
City ID and City
How do I create a report that pulls the County from the county table and pulls city based upon the cityid in the county table.
Thanks
Since this is quite a basic question, I'll give you a basic answer instead of the code to do it for you.
Where tables have columns that "match" each other, you can join them together on what they have in common, and query the result almost as if it was one table.
There are also different types of join based on what you want - for example it might be that some rows in one of the tables you're joining together don't have a corresponding match.
If you're sure that a city will definitely have a corresponding county, try inner joining the two tables on their matching column CityID and querying the result.
The obvious common link between both tables is CityID, so you'd be joining on that. I think you have the data organized wrong though, I'd put CountryID in the City table rather than CityID in the country table. Then, based on the CountryID selected, you can limit your query of the City table based on that.
To follow in context of Bridge's answer, you are obviously new to SQL and there are many places to dig up how to write them. However, the most fundamental basics you should train yourself with is always apply the table name or alias to prevent ambiguity and try to avoid using column names that might be considered reserved words to the language... they always appear to bite people.
That said, the most basic of queries is
select
T1.field1,
T1.field2,
etc with more fields you want
from
FirstTable as T1
where
(some conditional criteria)
order by
(some column or columns)
Now, when dealing with multiple tables, you need the JOINs... typically INNER or LEFT are most common. Inner means MUST match in both tables. LEFT means must match the table on the left side regardless of a match to the right... ex:
select
T1.Field1,
T2.SomeField,
T3.MaybeExistsField
from
SomeTable T1
Join SecondTable T2
on T1.SomeKey = T2.MatchingColumnInSecondTable
LEFT JOIN ThirdTable T3
on T1.AnotherKey = T3.ColumnThatMayHaveTheMatchingKey
order by
T2.SomeField DESC,
T1.Field1
From these examples, you should easily be able to incorporate your tables and their relationships to each other into your results...
I'm trying to make sense of the right way to use JOIN, COUNT(*), and GROUP BY to do a pretty simple query. I've actually gotten it to work (see below) but from what I've read, I'm using an extra GROUP BY that I shouldn't be.
(Note: The problem below isn't my actual problem (which deals with more complicated tables), but I've tried to come up with an analogous problem)
I have two tables:
Table: Person
-------------
key name cityKey
1 Alice 1
2 Bob 2
3 Charles 2
4 David 1
Table: City
-------------
key name
1 Albany
2 Berkeley
3 Chico
I'd like to do a query on the People (with some WHERE clause) that returns
the number of matching people in each city
the key for the city
the name of the city.
If I do
SELECT COUNT(Person.key) AS count, City.key AS cityKey, City.name AS cityName
FROM Person
LEFT JOIN City ON Person.cityKey = City.key
GROUP BY Person.cityKey, City.name
I get the result that I want
count cityKey cityName
2 1 Albany
2 2 Berkeley
However, I've read that throwing in that last part of the GROUP BY clause (City.name) just to make it work is wrong.
So what's the right way to do this? I've been trying to google for an answer, but I feel like there's something fundamental that I'm just not getting.
I don't think that it's "wrong" in this case, because you've got a one-to-one relationship between city name and city key. You could rewrite it such that you join to a sub-select to get the count of persons to cities by key, to the city table again for the name, but it's debatable that that'd be better. It's a matter of style and opinion I guess.
select PC.ct, City.key, City.name
from City
join (select count(Person.key) ct, cityKey key from Person group by cityKey) PC
on City.key = PC.key
if my SQL isn't too rusty :-)
...I've read that throwing in that last part of the GROUP BY clause (City.name) just to make it work is wrong.
You misunderstand, you got it backwards.
Standard SQL requires you to specify in the GROUP BY all the columns mentioned in the SELECT that are not wrapped in aggregate functions. If you don't want certain columns in the GROUP BY, wrap them in aggregate functions. Depending on the database, you could use the analytic/windowing function OVER...
However, MySQL and SQLite provide the "feature" where you can omit these columns from the group by - which leads to no end of "why doesn't this port from MySQL to fill_in_the_blank database?!" Stackoverflow and numerous other sites & forums.
However, I've read that throwing in
that last part of the GROUP BY clause
(City.name) just to make it work is
wrong.
It's not wrong. You have to understand how the Query Optimizer sees your query. The order in which it is parsed is what requires you to "throw the last part in." The optimizer sees your query in something akin to this order:
the required tables are joined
the composite dataset is filtered through the WHERE clause
the remaining rows are chopped into groups by the GROUP BY clause, and aggregated
they are then filtered again, through the HAVING clause
finally operated on, by SELECT / ORDER BY, UPDATE or DELETE.
The point here is that it's not that the GROUP BY has to name all the columns in the SELECT, but in fact it is the opposite - the SELECT cannot include any columns not already in the GROUP BY.
Your query would only work on MySQL, because you group on Person.cityKey but select city.key. All other databases would require you to use an aggregate like min(city.key), or to add City.key to the group by clause.
Because the combination of city name and city key is unique, the following are equivalent:
select count(person.key), min(city.key), min(city.name)
...
group by person.citykey
Or:
select count(person.key), city.key, city.name
...
group by person.citykey, city.key, city.name
Or:
select count(person.key), city.key, max(city.name)
...
group by city.key
All rows in the group will have the same city name and key, so it doesn't matter if you use the max or min aggregate.
P.S. If you'd like to count only different persons, even if they have multiple rows, try:
count(DISTINCT person.key)
instead of
count(person.key)