I have a transaction table where the complete transaction (tranid) spans multiple rows per the example below
What I'm trying to find are transactions that contain all nulls vs tranid's that only partially have nulls, and only showing tranid's where every column is null under acount_id vs only 2 of the 6 in the example above.
I have the following query written, but searching for "is null" only produces the two lines of the first transaction that have nulls vs searching an entire transaction for all nulls. I'm not sure how I'd search for that, and am hoping someone could help with the logic here.
select *
from ns.tItemFulfillment itf
inner join ns.tsalesorder so on itf.created_from_id = so.transaction_id
left join ns.tpurchaseorder tpo on so.transaction_id = tpo.created_from_id
inner join ns.transaction_lines tl on itf.transaction_id = tl.transaction_id
left join ns.accounts a on tl.account_id = a.account_id
where tl.account_ID IS NULL and tpo.created_from_id is null
produces the following, which as you can see is only the last two lines of the transaction above.
I should be able to only query tranid's with all nulls, which is what I need help with. Thank you
Use aggregation:
select tranid
from mytable —- or whatever join you need
group by tranid
having max(account_id) is null
and max(account_number) is null
—- etc for all columns that need to be all null
Related
Consider below SQL.
SELECT DISTINCT bvc_Order.ID,
bvc_OrderItem.ProductID,
bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID
FROM dbo.bvc_OrderItem WITH (nolock)
RIGHT OUTER JOIN dbo.bvc_Order WITH (nolock)
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.bvc_User WITH (nolock) ON dbo.bvc_Order.UserID = dbo.bvc_User.ID
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.Amazon_Merchants WITH (nolock) ON dbo.bvc_Order.CompanyID = dbo.Amazon_Merchants.ID ON dbo.bvc_OrderItem.OrderID = dbo.bvc_Order.ID
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem WITH (nolock) ON dbo.bvc_OrderItem.ID = dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.OrderItemID
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.bvc_Product WITH (nolock) ON dbo.bvc_OrderItem.ProductID = dbo.bvc_Product.ID
WHERE 1=1
AND (bvc_Order.StatusCode <> 1
AND bvc_Order.StatusCode <> 999)
AND ( bvc_OrderItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')
OR bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00'))
AND bvc_Order.OrderSource = 56;
The query when I execute against my database, it returns 85 rows. Well, that is not correct.
If I just remove the part "AND bvc_Order.OrderSource = 56" it returns back 5 rows which is really correct.
Strange.....
Another thing, if I remove the part
OR bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')
it will also return the 5 rows as expected even with bvc_Order.OrderSource filter.
I am not sure why it is adding more rows while I am trying to reduce rows by using filters.
the table bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem doesn't contain any rows for the result order ids or OrderItemIDs
[edit]
Thanks guys, I tried to remove the LEFT/RIGHT Join Mix but Query manager doesn't allows only LEFT, it does add at least one RIGHT join. I updated the SQL to remove extra tables and now we have only three. But same result
SELECT DISTINCT dbo.bvc_Order.ID, dbo.bvc_OrderItem.ProductID, dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID AS Expr1
FROM dbo.bvc_OrderItem
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem ON dbo.bvc_OrderItem.ID = dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.OrderItemId
RIGHT OUTER JOIN dbo.bvc_Order ON dbo.bvc_OrderItem.OrderID = dbo.bvc_Order.ID
WHERE 1=1
AND (bvc_Order.StatusCode <> 1 AND bvc_Order.StatusCode <> 999)
AND (
bvc_OrderItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')
OR bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')
)
AND bvc_Order.OrderSource = 56;
[edit]So far, there is no solution for this. I previously pasted a link in my comment with example data outout for both valid/invalid results with queries. here it is again.
http://sameers.me/SQLIssue.xlsx
One thing to remember here is that ALL left join is not possible. Let me explain further
bvc_Order contains main order record
bvc_ORderItem contains Order Items/Products
bvc_ORderItem_BundleItem contains child products of the product which are available in bvC_OrderItem table.
Now NOT Every product has child products, so bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem may not have any record (and in current scenario, there is really no valid row for the orders in bvC_OrderItem_BundleItem).
In short, in current scenario, there is NO matching row available in bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem table. If I remove that join for now, it is all okay, but in real world, I can't remove that BundleItem table join ofcourse.
thank you
When you say
WHERE bvc_Order.OrderSource = 56
that evaluates to false when bvc_Order.OrderSource is NULL. If the LEFT/RIGHT join failed then it will be NULL. This effectively turns the LEFT/RIGHT join into an inner join.
You probably should write the predicate into the ON clause. An alternative approach, which might not deliver the same results, is:
WHERE (bvc_Order.OrderSource IS NULL OR bvc_Order.OrderSource = 56)
The other predicates have the same problem:
Another thing, if I remove the part OR bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00') it will also return the 5 rows as expected
When the join fails bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID is NULL.
I also would recommend writing queries manually. If I understand you right this query comes from a designer. It's structure is quite confusing. I'm pulling up the most important comment:
Mixing left and right outer joins in a query is just confusing. You should start by rewriting the from clause to only use one type (and I strongly recommend left outer join). – Gordon Linoff
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth? S.H.
It is impossible that an extra AND condition appended to a WHERE clause can ever result in extra rows. That would imply a database engine defect, which I hope I can assume is "impossible". (If not, then I guess it's back to square one).
That fact makes it easier to concentrate on possible reasons:
When you comment out
AND bvc_Order.OrderSource = 56;
then you also comment out the semicolon terminator. Is it possible
that there is text following this query that is affecting it? Try
putting a semicolon at the end of the previous line to make sure.
Depending on the tool you are using to run queries, sometimes when a
query fails to execute, the tool mistakenly shows an old result set.
Make sure your query is executing correctly by adding a dummy column
to the SELECT statement to absolutely prove you are seeing live
results. Which tool are you using?
when you use LEFT outer join it will give all the rows from left table (dbo.bvc_OrderItem) once the your and, or conditions satisfies,
the same thing happens with Right outer join too,
Those conditions (Left join, right join ) may not restrict the rows since rows from one table can be all, another table with some rows only.
check with your join condition
Then check you condition :
(bvc_Order.StatusCode <> 1 AND bvc_Order.StatusCode <> 999)
if any rows satisfying this condition
next check with another condition
[bvc_OrderItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')
OR bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')]
Then bvc_Order.OrderSource = 56
compare the result of three queries and check the data in with the conditions and then write your complete query, so that you will understand where the mistake you have done.
Few points to remember
1.And is applied during Virtual join phases
2.Where clause is applied after the final result
3.Left join followed by right join is effectively an inner join in some cases
Lets break your query step by step..
dbo.bvc_OrderItem a1
LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem b1
Above output will be a single virtual table (logically) which contains all rows from b1 with matching rows from a1
now below predicates from your and clause will be applied
bvc_OrderItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')
OR bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')
which effectively eliminates all rows from bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem even if they have matches and gives result some thing like below if bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00') is true
bvc_OrderItem bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem
28046 28046
null 1
null 2
null 3
if this condition(bvc_OrderItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')) is true,then you are asking sql to ignore all rows in bvc_OrderItem ,which effectively means the same result set as above
bvc_OrderItem bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem other columns
28046 28046
null 1
null 2
null 3
next you are doing right outer join with dbo.bvc_Order which may qualifies for the join point I mentioned above
Assume ,you got below result set as output which preserves all of bvc_order table(rough output only for understanding due to lack of actual data)
bvc_OrderItem bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem statuscode ordersource
28046 28046 999 56
null 1 1 57
null 2 100 58
null 3 11 59
Next below AND predicates will be applied
status code <>1 and statuscode<> 999
which means ignore rows which match with bvc_order and has status of 1 ,999 even if they found matching rows
Next you are asking bvc_Order.OrderSource = 56; which means I don't care about other rows,preserve matching rows only for 56 and keep the rest as null
Hope this clarifies on what is happening step by step.A more better way can be provide some test data and show the expected output.
you also can control physical order of joins,you can try below to see if this is what you are trying to do..
SELECT DISTINCT dbo.bvc_Order.ID, dbo.bvc_OrderItem.ProductID, dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID AS Expr1
dbo.bvc_OrderItem
LEFT OUTER JOIN
(
dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem
RIGHT OUTER JOIN
dbo.bvc_Order
ON dbo.bvc_OrderItem.OrderID = dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.OrderItemId
)c
on
dbo.bvc_OrderItem.ID = c.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.OrderItemId
WHERE 1=1
AND (bvc_Order.StatusCode <> 1 AND bvc_Order.StatusCode <> 999)
AND (
bvc_OrderItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')
OR bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00')
)
AND bvc_Order.OrderSource = 56;
It looks like you are using the Query Designer. I would avoid using this as this can make your queries extremely confusing. Your queries will be much more concise if you are designing them by hand. If you don't completely understand how inner/outer joins work, a great textbook that I used to teach myself SQL is Murach's SQL Server for Developers.
https://www.murach.com/shop/murach-s-sql-server-2012-for-developers-detail
Now, onto the answer.
I've been thinking about how to resolve your problem, and if you are trying to reduce the result set to 5 rows, why are you using multiple outer joins in the first place? I would consider switching the joins to inner joins instead of outer joins if you are looking for a very specific result set. I can't really provide you with a really comprehensive answer without looking at exactly what results you are trying to achieve, but here's a general idea based on what you've provided to all of us:
SELECT DISTINCT dbo.bvc_Order.ID, dbo.bvc_OrderItem.ProductID, dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID AS 'bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem_ProductID'
FROM dbo.bvc_OrderItem
INNER JOIN dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem ON dbo.bvc_OrderItem.ID = dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.OrderItemId
INNER JOIN dbo.bvc_Order ON dbo.bvc_OrderItem.OrderID = dbo.bvc_Order.ID
Start here and then based upon what you are searching for, add where clauses to filter criteria.
Also, your where clause must be rewritten if you use an inner join instead of an outer join:
WHERE 1=1 --not really sure why this is here. This will always be true. Omit this statement to avoid a bad result set.
AND (bvc_Order.StatusCode <> 1 AND bvc_Order.StatusCode <> 999) --this is saying, if the StatusCode is not equal to 1 and not equal to 999, don't include it.
--Revised: Look for Status codes with 1 or 999
--bvc_Order.StatusCode = 1 OR bvc_Order.StatusCode = 999
AND (bvc_OrderItem.ProductID IN ('28046_00') --I would eliminate this unless you are looking to see if this exists in Product ID. You could also accomplish this if you are trying to see if this value is in both tables, change this to:
bvc_OrderItem.ProductID = '28046_00' AND bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem.ProductID = '28046_00')
--if you are trying to see if the order source is 56, use this.
AND bvc_Order.OrderSource = 56;
If you are trying to find out rows that are not included in this result set, then I would use OUTER JOIN as necessary (LEFT preferred). Without more information about what you're looking for in your database, that's the best all of us can do.
bLike #usr writ, the reason of this unexpected (for you) result is, you build query with outer joins, and filter rows after join. If you need filter rows of outer joined tables, you should do this before join.
but probably you try build this:
SELECT DISTINCT o.ID, oi.ProductID, bi.ProductID AS Expr1
FROM dbo.bvc_Order as o
LEFT JOIN dbo.bvc_OrderItem as oi on oi.OrderID = o.ID
LEFT JOIN dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem as bi ON oi.ID = bi.OrderItemId
WHERE 1=1
AND o.OrderSource = 56;
AND o.StatusCode not in (1, 999)
AND '28046_00' in (oi.ProductID, isnull(bi.ProductID,'_') )
Is this query give results what you need?
if not, try change last condition, for example:
and (bi.ProductID = '28046_00' or bi.ProductID is null and oi.ProductID = '28046_00')
you can also put additional condition in to join conditions, for example:
SELECT DISTINCT o.ID, oi.ProductID, bi.ProductID AS Expr1
FROM dbo.bvc_Order as o
LEFT JOIN dbo.bvc_OrderItem as oi on oi.OrderID = o.ID
LEFT JOIN dbo.bvc_OrderItem_BundleItem as bi ON oi.ID = bi.OrderItemId
and bi.ProductID in ('28046_00') --this join BundleItem only if ...
WHERE 1=1
AND o.OrderSource = 56;
AND o.StatusCode not in (1, 999)
AND (oi.ProductID in ('28046_00') or bi.ProductID is not null)
ah, and if you always need join bvc_Order with bvc_OrderItem then use inner join
I have a table with 51 records . The table structure looks something like below :
ack_extract_id query_id cnst_giftran_key field1 value1
Now ack_extract_ids can be 8,9.
I want to check for giftran keys which are there for extract_id 9 and not there in 8.
What I tried was
SELECT *
FROM ddcoe_tbls.ack_flextable ack_flextable1
INNER JOIN ddcoe_tbls.ack_main_config config
ON ack_flextable1.ack_extract_id = config.ack_extract_id
LEFT JOIN ddcoe_tbls.ack_flextable ack_flextable2
ON ack_flextable1.cnst_giftran_key = ack_flextable2.cnst_giftran_key
WHERE ack_flextable2.cnst_giftran_key IS NULL
AND config.ack_extract_file_nm LIKE '%Dtl%'
AND ack_flextable2.ack_extract_id = 8
AND ack_flextable1.ack_extract_id = 9
But it is returning me 0 records. Ideally the left join where right is null should have returned the record for which the cnst_giftran_key is not present in the right hand side table, right ?
What am I missing here ?
When you test columns from the left-joined table in the where clause (ack_flextable2.ack_extract_id in your case), you force that join to behave as if it were an inner join. Instead, move that test to be part of the join condition.
Then to find records where that value is missing, test for a NULL key in the where clause.
SELECT *
FROM ddcoe_tbls.ack_flextable ack_flextable1
INNER JOIN ddcoe_tbls.ack_main_config config
ON ack_flextable1.ack_extract_id = config.ack_extract_id
LEFT JOIN ddcoe_tbls.ack_flextable ack_flextable2
ON ack_flextable1.cnst_giftran_key = ack_flextable2.cnst_giftran_key
AND ack_flextable2.ack_extract_id = 8
WHERE ack_flextable2.cnst_giftran_key IS NULL
AND config.ack_extract_file_nm LIKE '%Dtl%'
AND ack_flextable1.ack_extract_id = 9
AND ack_flextable2.cnst_giftran_key IS NULL
THIS IS NO ANSWER, JUST AN EXPLANATION
From your comment to Joe Stefanelli's answer I gather that you don't fully understand the issue with WHERE and ON in an outer join. So let's look at an example.
We are looking for all supplier's last orders, i.e. the order records where there is no newer order for the supplier.
select *
from order
where not exists
(
select *
from order newer
where newer.supplier = order.supplier
and newer.orderdate > order.orderdate
);
This is straight-forward; the query matches what we just put in words: Find orders for which NOT EXISTS a newer order for the same supplier.
The same query with the anti-join pattern:
select order.*
from order
left join order newer on newer.supplier = order.supplier
and newer.orderdate > order.orderdate
where newer.id is null;
Here we join every order with all their newer orders, thus probably creating a huge intermediate result. With the left outer join we make sure we get a dummy record attached when there is no newer order for the supplier. Then at last we scan the intermediate result with the WHERE clause, keeping only records where the attached record has an ID null. Well, the ID is obviously the table's primary key and can never be null, so what we keep here is only the outer-joined results where the newer data is just a dummy record containing nulls. Thus we get exactly the orders for which no newer order exists.
Talking about a huge intermediate result: How can this be faster than the first query? Well, it shouldn't. The first query should actually either run equally fast or faster. A good DBMS will see through this and make the same execution plan for both queries. A rather young DBMS however may really execute the anti join quicker. That is because the developers put so much effort into join techniques, as these are needed in about every query, and didn't yet care about IN and EXISTS that much. In such a case one may run into performance issues with NOT IN or NOT EXISTS and use the anti-join pattern instead.
Now as to the WHERE / ON problem:
select order.*
from order
left join order newer on newer.orderdate > order.orderdate
where newer.supplier = order.supplier
and newer.id is null;
This looks almost the same as before, but some criteria has moved from ON to WHERE. This means the outer join gets different criteria. Here is what happens: for every order find all newer orders ‐ no matter which supplier! So it is all orders of the last order date that get an outer-join dummy record. But then in the WHERE clause we remove all pairs where the supplier doesn't match. Notice that the outer-joined records contain NULL for newer.supplier, so newer.supplier = order.supplier is never true for them; they get removed. But then, if we remove all outer-joined records we get exactly the same result as with a vanilla inner join. When we put outer join criteria in the WHERE clause we turn the outer join into an inner join. So the query can be re-written as
select order.*
from order
inner join order newer on newer.orderdate > order.orderdate
where newer.supplier = order.supplier
and newer.id is null;
And with tables in FROM and INNER JOIN it doesn't matter whether the criteria is in ON or WHERE; it's rather a matter of readability, because both criteria will equally get applied.
Now we see that newer.id is null can never be true. The final result will be empty ‐ which is exactly what happened with your query.
You can try with this query:
select * from ddcoe_tbls.ack_main_config
where cnst_giftran_key not in
(
select cnst_giftran_key from ddcoe_tbls.ack_main_config
where ack_extract_id = 8
)
and ack_extract_id = 9;
My code is such:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM earned_dollars a
LEFT JOIN product_reference b ON a.product_code = b.product_code
WHERE a.activity_year = '2015'
I'm trying to match two tables based on their product codes. I would expect the same number of results back from this as total records in table a (with a year of 2015). But for some reason I'm getting close to 3 million.
Table a has about 40,000,000 records and table b has 2000. When I run this statement without the join I get 2,500,000 results, so I would expect this even with the left join, but somehow I'm getting 300,000,000. Any ideas? I even refered to the diagram in this post.
it means either your left join is using only part of foreign key, which causes row multiplication, or there are simply duplicate rows in the joined table.
use COUNT(DISTINCT a.product_code)
What is the question are are trying to answer with the tsql?
instead of select count(*) try select a.product_code, b.product_code. That will show you which records match and which don't.
Should also add a where b.product_code is not null. That should exclude the records that don't match.
b is the parent table and a is the child table? try a right join instead.
Or use the table's unique identifier, i.e.
SELECT COUNT(a.earned_dollars_id)
Not sure what your datamodel looks like and how it is structured, but i'm guessing you only care about earned_dollars?
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM earned_dollars a
WHERE a.activity_year = '2015'
and exists (select 1 from product_reference b ON a.product_code = b.product_code)
SELECT
dealing_record.*
,shares.*
,transaction_type.*
FROM
shares
INNER JOIN shares ON shares.share_ID = dealing_record.share_id
INNER JOIN transaction_type ON transaction_type.transaction_type_id = dealing_record.transaction_type_id;
The above SQL code produces the desired output but with a couple of duplicate columns. Also, with incomplete display of the column headers. When I change the
linesize 100
the headers shows but data displayed overlaps
I have checked through similar questions but I don't seem to get how to solve this.
You have duplicate columns, because, you're asking to the SQL engine for columns that they will show you the same data (with SELECT dealing_record.* and so on) , and then duplicates.
For example, the transaction_type.transaction_type_id column and the dealing_record.transaction_type_id column will have matching rows (otherwise you won't see anything with an INNER JOIN) and you will see those duplicates.
If you want to avoid this problem or, at least, to reduce the risk of having duplicates in your results, improve your query, using only the columns you really need, as #ConradFrix already said. An example would be this:
SELECT
dealing_record.Name
,shares.ID
,shares.Name
,transaction_type.Name
,transaction_type.ID
FROM
shares
INNER JOIN shares ON shares.share_ID = dealing_record.share_id
INNER JOIN transaction_type ON transaction_type.transaction_type_id = dealing_record.transaction_type_id;
Try to join shares with dealing_record, not shares again:
select dealing_record.*,
shares.*,
transaction_type.*
FROM shares inner join dealing_record on shares.share_ID = dealing_record.share_id
inner join transaction_type on transaction_type.transaction_type_id=
dealing_record.transaction_type_id;
I have a query that shows me a listing of ALL opportunities in one query
I have a query that shows me a listing of EXCLUSION opportunities, ones we want to eliminate from the results
I need to produce a query that will take everything from the first query minus the second query...
SELECT DISTINCT qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients.*
FROM qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients INNER JOIN qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions ON
([qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients].[ClientID] <> [qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions].[ClientID])
AND
([qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions].[ClientID] <> [qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions].[BillingCode])
The initial query works as intended and exclusions successfully lists all the hits, but I get the full listing when I query with the above which is obviously wrong. Any tips would be appreciated.
EDIT - Two originating queries
qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients (1)
SELECT MissedOpportunities.MOID, PriceList.BillingCode, Client.ClientID, Client.ClientName, PriceList.WorkDescription, PriceList.UnitOfWork, MissedOpportunities.Qty, PriceList.CostPerUnit AS Our_PriceList_Cost, ([MissedOpportunities].[Qty]*[PriceList].[CostPerUnit]) AS At_Cost, MissedOpportunities.fBegin
FROM PriceList INNER JOIN (Client INNER JOIN MissedOpportunities ON Client.ClientID = MissedOpportunities.ClientID) ON PriceList.BillingCode = MissedOpportunities.BillingCode
WHERE (((MissedOpportunities.fBegin)=#10/1/2009#));
qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions
SELECT qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients.*, MissedOpportunity_Exclusions.Exclusion, MissedOpportunity_Exclusions.Comments
FROM qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients INNER JOIN MissedOpportunity_Exclusions ON (qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients.BillingCode = MissedOpportunity_Exclusions.BillingCode) AND (qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients.ClientID = MissedOpportunity_Exclusions.ClientID)
WHERE (((MissedOpportunity_Exclusions.Exclusion)=True));
One group needs to see everything, the other needs to see things they havn't deamed as "valid" missed opportunity as in, we've seen it, verified why its there and don't need to bother critiquing it every single month.
Generally you can exclude a table by doing a left join and comparing against null:
SELECT t1.* FROM t1 LEFT JOIN t2 on t1.id = t2.id where t2.id is null;
Should be pretty easy to adopt this to your situation.
Looking at your query rewritten to use table aliases so I can read it...
SELECT DISTINCT c.*
FROM qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients c
JOIN qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions e
ON c.ClientID <> e.ClientID
AND e.ClientID <> e.BillingCode
This query will produce a cartesian product of sorts... each and every row in qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients will match and join with every row in qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions where ClientIDs do not match... Is this what you want?? Generally join conditions are based on a column in one table being equal to the value of a column in the other table... Joining where they are not equal is unusual ...
Second, the second iniquality in the join conditions is between columns in the same table (qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions table) Are you sure this is what you want? If it is, it is not a join condition, it is a Where clause condition...
Second, your question mentions two queries, but there is only the one query (above) in yr question. Where is the second one?