I have a situation like finding the persons who matches the filter applied. For that I have constructed query(select ids of people who matches filter condition) for persons who matches the filter. and then get the person details for the filtered people.
m = ActiveRecord::Base.connection.exec_query(filter_blocks_query.join(' INTERSECT ')) unless filter_blocks_query.empty?
Person.where(id: m.rows.flatten)
But this executes the result and then filters people who matches the filtered IDs. Is there any ways to make it like a single query.
filter_blocks_query is raw sql statement.
Related
I'm working in a large access database (Access 2010) and am trying to return records where two locations are different.
In my case, I have a large number of birds that have been observed on multiple dates and potentially on different islands. Each bird has a unique BirdID and also an actual physical identifier (unfortunately that may have changed over time). [I'm going to try addressing the changing physical identifier issue later]. I currently want to query individual birds where one or more of their observations is different than the "IslandAlpha" (the first island where they were observed). Something along the lines of a criteria for BirdID: WHERE IslandID [doesn't equal] IslandAlpha.
I then need a separate query to find where all observations DO equal where they were first observed. So where IslandID = IslandAlpha
I'm new to Access, so let me know if you need more information on how my tables/relationships are set up! Thanks in advance.
Assuming the following tables:
Birds table in which all individual birds have records with a unique BirdID and IslandAlpha.
Sightings table in which individual sightings are recorded, including IslandID.
Your first query would look something like this:
SELECT *
FROM Birds
INNER JOIN Sightings ON Birds.BirdID=Sightings.BirdID
WHERE Sightings.IslandID <> Birds.IslandAlpha
You second query would be the same but with = instead of <> in the WHERE clause.
Please provide us information about the tables and columns you are using.
I will presume you are asking this question because a simple join of tables and filtering where IslandAlpha <> ObsLoc is not possible because IslandAlpha is derived from first observation record for each bird. Pulling first observation record for each bird requires a nested query. Need a unique record identifier in Observations - autonumber should serve. Assuming there is an observation date/time field, consider:
SELECT * FROM Observations WHERE ObsID IN
(SELECT TOP 1 ObsID FROM Observations AS Dupe
WHERE Dupe.ObsBirdID = Observations.ObsBirdID ORDER BY Dupe.ObsDateTime);
Now use that query for subsequent queries.
SELECT * FROM Observations
INNER JOIN Query1 ON Observations.ObsBirdID = Query1.ObsBirdID
WHERE Observations.ObsLocID <> Query1.ObsLocID;
Using PostgreSQL 9.6.12.
Given an author has many blog posts.
When I run the following query I get a row for each associated post.
SELECT authors.id
FROM authors
LEFT JOIN posts ON authors.id = posts.author_id
When I run the following, I only get a row for each author:
SELECT authors.*
FROM authors
LEFT JOIN posts ON authors.id = posts.author_id
When I run a count on either one, however, I get the higher row count. E.g. the count of all the posts.
Why don't I get the higher row count result when I use the wildcard to select all the columns?
The problem could be caused by how you are running the query, and the settings of the IDE. These queries should return the same row count. Please run the following queries to check.
select count(*) from (SELECT authors.id
FROM authors
LEFT JOIN posts ON authors.id = posts.author_id)
select count(*) from (SELECT authors.*
FROM authors
LEFT JOIN posts ON authors.id = posts.author_id)
Why don't I get a cartesian product result when I use the wildcard to
select all the columns?
You do not get a cartesian product in either of the two SQL queries.
When I run a count on either one, however, I get the cartesian product
number of rows. E.g. the count of all the posts.
You are not calculating the count of all the posts. You are retrieving all posts that have an author in the authors table.
I am afraid you are confusing the term cartesian product. A cartesian product is the number of rows in the first table times the number of rows in the second table, without and limiting clause/condition. In simple SQL it would correspond to the following e.g.:
SELECT * FROM authors, posts
The two queries in your question return the exact same rows, except that the first query displays only the column id of the authors table while the second displays all the columns of the authors table.
This is standard SQL and I am very confident that every technology respecting the SQL standard would respect the above said.
I hope you see what I mean and suggest that you review the question. It may help if you can show some concrete example, in particular you would have to clarify:
what do you mean by "cartesian product"? (your definition differs from the common usage)
how do you count rows? (according to your example I find it hard to believe you count different number of rows; they must be equal)
im very new to SQL and currently working with joins the first time in my life. What I am trying to figure out right now is trying to get the difference between to queries.
Query 1:
SELECT name
FROM actor
JOIN casting ON id = actorid
where (SELECT COUNT(ord) FROM casting join actor on actorid = actor.id AND ord=1) >= 30
GROUP BY name
Query 2:
SELECT name
FROM actor
JOIN casting ON id = actorid
AND (SELECT COUNT(ord) FROM casting WHERE actorid = actor.id AND ord=1)>=30)
GROUP BY name
So I would think that doing
FROM casting join actor on actorid = actor.id
in the subquery is the same as
FROM casting WHERE actorid = actor.id.
But apparently it is not. Could anyone help me out and explain why?
Edit: If anyone is wondering: The queries are based on question 13 from http://sqlzoo.net/wiki/More_JOIN_operations
Actually, the part that really looks like a "where" statement is only what's after the keyword ON. We sometimes fall on queries performing some data filtering directly at this stage, but its actual purpose is to specify the criteria used
A "join" is a very common operation that consists of associating the rows of two distinct tables according to a common criteria. For example, if you have, on one side, a table containing a client list in which each of them has a unique client number, and on a other side a order list table in which each order contains the client's number, then you may want to "resolve" the number of the latter table into its name, address, and so on.
Before SQL92 (26 years ago), the only way to achieve this was to write something like this :
SELECT client.name,
client.adress,
orders.product,
orders.totalprice
FROM client,orders
WHERE orders.clientNumber = client.clientNumber
AND orders.totalprice > 100.00
Selecting something from two (or more) tables induces a "cartesian product" which actually consists of associating every row from the first set which every row of the second one. This means that if your first table contains 3 rows and the second one 8 rows, the resulting set would be 24-row wide. And out of these, you use the WHERE clause to exclude basically everything and retain only rows in which the client number is the same on both side.
We understand that the size of the resulting set before filtering can grow exponentially if the contents of the different tables exceed a few rows (which is always the case) and it can get even worse if you imply more than two tables. Also, on the programmer's side, it rapidly becomes rather unreadable.
Therefore, if this is what you actually want to do, you now can explicitly tell the server about it, and specify the criteria at first, which will avoid unnecessary growing temporary subsets, while still letting you filter the results with WHERE if needed.
SELECT client.name,
client.adress,
orders.product,
orders.totalprice
FROM client
JOIN orders
ON orders.clientNumber = client.clientNumber
WHERE orders.totalprice > 100.00
It becomes critical when performing multiple JOIN in a single query, especially when performing both INNER and OUTER joins.
In the 2nd query your nested query takes the actor.id from its root query and only counts the results from that. In the 1st query your nested query counts results from all actors instead of only the specified one.
When executing SQL queries I have been trying to figure out the following:
In this example:
SELECT DISTINCT AL.id, AL.name
FROM albums AL
why is there a need to specify distinct? I thought that the Id being a primary key was enough to avoid duplicate results.
When you specify distinct you are specifying that you want the whole row to be distinct. For example if you have two rows:
ID=1 and Name='Joe Smith'
ID=2 and Name='Joe Smith'
then your query is going to return both rows because the different ID values make the rows distinct.
However, if you are selecting only the ID column (and it's your primary key) then the distinct is pointless.
If you're trying to find all of the unique names then you'd want to:
SELECT DISTINCT AL.name
FROM albums AL
You are right, in your case there should be no need for the word distinct because you are asking for the id and the name. Now, for sake of example where distinct is necessary, say you had multiple id's with the same name. Let It Be is an album by both the Beatles and the Replacements. And let's say you were using your database to write out labels that only included the names of the albums. The query you would want would be:
select distinct al.name
from albums al;
Sometimes your database is not perfect and it ends up with a bunch of junk data. If the id has not been designated as unique, you might end up with duplicate records, and then you might want to avoid seeing the duplicates in your query results.
I'm creating an archive for Academic Papers. Each paper may have one author, or multiple authors. I've created the tables in the following manner:
Table 1: PaperInfo - Each row contains information on the paper
Table 2: PaperAuthor - Only Two Columns: contains PaperID, and AuthorID
Table 3: AuthorList - Contains Author Information.
There is also a Table 4 which is linked to Table 4, which contains a list of Universities which the author belongs to, but I'm going to leave it out for now in case it gets too complicated.
I wish to have a Query which will link all three tables together, and display Paper Information of the recordset in a table, with columns such as these:
Paper Title
Paper Authors
The column "Paper Authors" is going to contain more than one authors in some cases.
I've wrote the following query:
SELECT a.*,b.*,c.*
FROM PaperInfo a, PaperAuthor b, AuthorList c
WHERE a.PaperID = b.PaperID AND b.AuthorID = c.AuthorID
So far, the results I've been getting for each row is one author per row. I wish to contain more authors in one column. Can this be done in anyway?
Note: I'm using Access 2010 as my database.
In straight SQL the answer unfortunately is that it isn't possible. You would need to use a processing language in order to get the result you are after.
Since you mention you are using Access 2010 please refer to this question: is there a group_concat function in ms-access?
Particularly, read the post which points to http://www.rogersaccesslibrary.com/forum/generic-function-to-concatenate-child-records_topic16&SID=453fabc6-b3z9-34z6zb14-a78f832z-19z89a2c.html
You probably need to implement a custom function but the 2nd url does what you are looking for.
This functionality is not part of the SQL standard, but different vendors have solutions for it, see for instance Pivot Table with many to many table, MySQL pivot table.
If you know the maximum number of authors per paper (for example 3 or 4), you could get away with a triple or quadruple left join.
What you are after is an inner join.
An SQL JOIN clause is used to combine rows from two or more tables, based on a common field between them.
The most common type of join is: SQL INNER JOIN (simple join). An SQL INNER JOIN return all rows from multiple tables where the join
condition is met.
http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_join.asp
You may want to combine the inner join with a group to give you 1 paper to many authors in your results.
The GROUP BY statement is used in conjunction with the aggregate
functions to group the result-set by one or more columns.
http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_groupby.asp