I have a simply shop with php and I need to ignore some products in shop on manage page. How to possible to make ignore in SQL query?
Here is my query:
$query = "SELECT a.*,
a.user as puser,
a.id as pid,
b.date as date,
b.price as price,
b.job_id as job_id,
b.masterkey as masterkey
FROM table_shop a
INNER JOIN table_shop_s b ON a.id = b.buyid
WHERE b.payok = 1
ORDER BY buyid";
I need to ignore list with product_id = "3","4" from table table_shop_s in this query
WHERE b.payok = 1 AND tablename.product_id != 3 AND tablename.product_id != 4
Simply use NOT IN (to ignore specific pids), with AND logical condition. Use the following:
$query = "SELECT a.*,
a.user as puser,
a.id as pid,
b.date as date,
b.price as price,
b.job_id as job_id,
b.masterkey as masterkey
FROM table_shop a
INNER JOIN table_shop_s b ON a.id = b.buyid
WHERE b.payok = 1
AND a.id NOT IN (3,4)
ORDER BY buyid";
Other answer has noted you would probably use a "productid NOT IN (3,4)" which would work, but that would be a short-term fix. Extend the thinking a bit. 2 products now, but in the future you have more you want to hide / prevent? What then, change all your queries and miss something?
My suggestion would be to update your product table. Add a column such as ExcludeFlag and have it set to 1 or 0... 1 = Yes, Exclude, 0 = ok, leave it alone. Then join your shop detail table to products and exclude when this flag is set... Also, you only need to "As" columns when you are changing their result column name, Additionally, by doing A.*, you are already getting ALL columns from alias "a" table, do you really need to add the extra instances of "a.user as puser, a.id as pid" ?
something like
SELECT
a.*,
b.date,
b.price,
b.job_id,
b.masterkey
FROM
table_shop a
INNER JOIN table_shop_s b
ON a.id = b.buyid
AND b.payok = 1
INNER JOIN YourProductTable ypt
on b.ProductID = ypt.ProductID
AND ypt.ExcludeFlag = 0
ORDER BY
a.id
Notice the extra join and specifically including all those where the flag is NOT set.
Also, good practice to alias table names closer to context of purpose vs just "a" and "b" much like my example of long table YourProductTable aliased as ypt.
I also changed the order by to "a.id" since that is the primary table in your query and also, since a.id = b.buyid, it is the same key order anyhow and probably is indexed on your "a" table too. the table_shop_s table I would assume already has an index on (buyid), but might improve when you get a lot of records to be indexed on (buyid, payok) to better match your JOINING criteria on both parts.
Related
How I can add two fields that belong to an inner join?
I have this code:
select
SUM(ACT.NumberOfPlants ) AS NumberOfPlants,
SUM(ACT.NumOfJornales) AS NumberOfJornals
FROM dbo.AGRMastPlanPerformance MPR (NOLOCK)
INNER JOIN GENRegion GR ON (GR.intGENRegionKey = MPR.intGENRegionLink )
INNER JOIN AGRDetPlanPerformance DPR (NOLOCK) ON
(DPR.intAGRMastPlanPerformanceLink =
MPR.intAGRMastPlanPerformanceKey)
INNER JOIN vwGENPredios P (NOLOCK) ON ( DPR.intGENPredioLink =
P.intGENPredioKey )
INNER JOIN AGRSubActivity SA (NOLOCK) ON (SA.intAGRSubActivityKey =
DPR.intAGRSubActivityLink)
LEFT JOIN (SELECT RA.intGENPredioLink, AR.intAGRActividadLink,
AR.intAGRSubActividadLink, SUM(AR.decNoPlantas) AS
intPlantasTrabajads, SUM(AR.decNoPersonas) AS NumOfJornales,
SUM(AR.decNoPlants) AS NumberOfPlants
FROM AGRRecordActivity RA WITH (NOLOCK)
INNER JOIN AGRActividadRealizada AR WITH (NOLOCK) ON
(AR.intAGRRegistroActividadLink = RA.intAGRRegistroActividadKey AND
AR.bitActivo = 1)
INNER JOIN AGRSubActividad SA (NOLOCK) ON (SA.intAGRSubActividadKey
= AR.intAGRSubActividadLink AND SA.bitEnabled = 1)
WHERE RA.bitActive = 1 AND
AR.bitActive = 1 AND
RA.intAGRTractorsCrewsLink IN(2)
GROUP BY RA.intGENPredioLink,
AR.decNoPersons,
AR.decNoPlants,
AR.intAGRAActivityLink,
AR.intAGRSubActividadLink) ACT ON (ACT.intGENPredioLink IN(
DPR.intGENPredioLink) AND
ACT.intAGRAActivityLink IN( DPR.intAGRAActivityLink) AND
ACT.intAGRSubActivityLink IN( DPR.intAGRSubActivityLink))
WHERE
MPR.intAGRMastPlanPerformanceKey IN(4) AND
DPR.intAGRSubActivityLink IN( 1153)
GROUP BY
P.vchRegion,
ACT.NumberOfFloors,
ACT.NumOfJournals
ORDER BY ACT.NumberOfFloors DESC
However, it does not perform the complete sum. It only retrieves all the values of the columns and adds them 1 by 1, instead of doing the complete sum of the whole column.
For example, the query returns these results:
What I expect is the final sums. In NumberOfPlants the result of the sum would be 163,237 and of NumberJornales would be 61.
How can I do this?
First of all the (nolock) hints are probably not accomplishing the benefit you hope for. It's not an automatic "go faster" option, and if such an option existed you can be sure it would be already enabled. It can help in some situations, but the way it works allows the possibility of reading stale data, and the situations where it's likely to make any improvement are the same situations where risk for stale data is the highest.
That out of the way, with that much code in the question we're better served with a general explanation and solution for you to adapt.
The issue here is GROUP BY. When you use a GROUP BY in SQL, you're telling the database you want to see separate results per group for any aggregate functions like SUM() (and COUNT(), AVG(), MAX(), etc).
So if you have this:
SELECT Sum(ColumnB) As SumB
FROM [Table]
GROUP BY ColumnA
You will get a separate row per ColumnA group, even though it's not in the SELECT list.
If you don't really care about that, you can do one of two things:
Remove the GROUP BY If there are no grouped columns in the SELECT list, the GROUP BY clause is probably not accomplishing anything important.
Nest the query
If option 1 is somehow not possible (say, the original is actually a view) you could do this:
SELECT SUM(SumB)
FROM (
SELECT Sum(ColumnB) As SumB
FROM [Table]
GROUP BY ColumnA
) t
Note in both cases any JOIN is irrelevant to the issue.
I have three tables:
articles(id,title,message)
comments(id,article_id,commentedUser_id,comment)
comment_likes(id, likedUser_id, comment_id, action_like, action_dislike)
I want to show comments.id, comments.commentedUser_id, comments.comment, ( Select count(action_like) where action_like="like") as likes and comment_id=comments.id where comments.article_id=article.id
Actually I want to count all action_likes that related to any comment. And show all all comments of articles.
action_likes having only two values null or like
SELECT c.id , c.CommentedUser_id , c.comment , (cl.COUNT(action_like) WHERE action_like='like' AND comment_id='c.id') as likes
FROM comment_likes as cl
LEFT JOIN comments as c ON c.id=cl.comment_id
WHERE c.article_id=article.id
It shows nothing, I know I'm doing wrong way, that was just that I want say
I guess you are looking for something like below. This will return Article/Comment wise LIKE count.
SELECT
a.id article_id,
c.id comment_id,
c.CommentedUser_id ,
c.comment ,
COUNT (CASE WHEN action_like='like' THEN 1 ELSE NULL END) as likes
FROM article a
INNER JOIN comments C ON a.id = c.article_id
LEFT JOIN comment_likes as cl ON c.id=cl.comment_id
GROUP BY a.id,c.id , c.CommentedUser_id , c.comment
IF you need results for specific Article, you can add WHERE clause before the GROUP BY section like - WHERE a.id = N
I would recommend a correlated subquery for this:
SELECT a.id as article_id, c.id as comment_id,
c.CommentedUser_id, c.comment,
(SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM comment_likes cl
WHERE cl.comment_id = c.id AND
cl.action_like = 'like'
) as num_likes
FROM article a INNER JOIN
comments c
ON a.id = c.article_id;
This is a case where a correlated subquery often has noticeably better performance than an outer aggregation, particularly with the right index. The index you want is on comment_likes(comment_id, action_like).
Why is the performance better? Most databases will implement the group by by sorting the data. Sorting is an expensive operation that grows super-linearly -- that is, twice as much data takes more than twice as long to sort.
The correlated subquery breaks the problem down into smaller pieces. In fact, no sorting should be necessary -- just scanning the index and counting the matching rows.
How can we reduce the Execution time of the below query?
Need help in rewriting below SQL query in a more efficient way?
SELECT A.*, C.*, F.*, D.*
FROM TABLE1 A INNER JOIN
TABLE2 C
ON A.CODE = C.CODE INNER JOIN
TABLE3 D
ON A.CODE = D.CODE INNER JOIN
TABLE4 F
ON A.CODE = F.CODE
WHERE D.IND1 = 'N' AND
D.IND2 = 'N' AND
D.EFF_DATE = (SELECT MAX(X.EFF_DATE)
FROM TABLE3 X
WHERE X.CODE = D.CODE AND X.EFF_DATE <= A.EFFECTIVE_DATE
) AND
F.EFF_DATE = (SELECT MAX(Z.EFF_DATE)
FROM TABLE4 Z
WHERE Z.DETAIL_CODE = F.DETAIL_CODE AND Z.EFF_DATE <= A.EFFECTIVE_DATE
)
For performance, I would start with indexes on:
TABLE3(IND1, IND2, CODE, EFF_DATE)
TABLE3(CODE, EFF_DATE)
TABLE1(CODE, EFF_DATE)
TABLE2(CODE)
TABLE4(CODE)
TABLE4(DETAIL_CODE, EFF_DATE)
If you have performance issues, though, I suspect your code may be generating unexpected Cartesian products. Debugging that requires much more information. I might suggest asking another question.
If you can find out where the bottlenecks in your query are -- i.e. sub-queries, joins -- that will give you a better idea of what to look at. In the absence of that, take a look at:
modify your column projections (i.e. A., C., F., D.) to only return the columns you need
look at table partitioning for the queries accessing rows based on DATE values (TABLE3.EFF_DATE, TABLE4.EFF_DATE) (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/issue-archive/2006/06-sep/o56partition-090450.html)
look at adding materialized view(s) either on the entire query OR the sub-queries (https://oracle-base.com/articles/misc/materialized-views)
look at statistic generation if the query plan is not optimal (https://docs.oracle.com/cd/A97630_01/server.920/a96533/stats.htm#26713)
If you can provide an EXPLAIN plan (or Oracle's equivalent), that would be helpful.
Note that because of the conditions on the two sub-queries all the records in your result will have D.EFF_DATE <= A.EFFECTIVE_DATE and F.EFF_DATE <= A.EFFECTIVE_DATE, so I would suggest to put those conditions in the JOIN clauses.
Secondly, analytic functions may give better performance than subqueries:
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT A.*,C.*,F.*,D.*,
RANK() OVER (PARTITION BY D.CODE
ORDER BY D.EFF_DATE DESC) AS D_RANK,
RANK() OVER (PARTITION BY F.DETAIL_CODE
ORDER BY F.EFF_DATE DESC) AS F_RANK
FROM TABLE1 A
INNER JOIN TABLE2 C
ON A.CODE = C.CODE
INNER JOIN TABLE3 D
ON A.CODE = D.CODE
AND D.EFF_DATE <= A.EFFECTIVE_DATE
INNER JOIN TABLE4 F
ON A.CODE = F.CODE
AND F.EFF_DATE <= A.EFFECTIVE_DATE
WHERE D.IND1 = 'N'
AND D.IND2 = 'N'
)
WHERE D_RANK = 1 AND F_RANK = 1
Evidently you need to have the right indexes to optimise the execution plan.
Another thing to consider is the total number of columns your query returns, you seem to be selecting all the columns from 4 tables.
We found that our complex queries ran in under a second when selecting only a few columns but took orders of magnitude longer when selecting many columns.
Question why you need so many columns in your result set.
We have been experiencing performance concerns over job and I could fortunately find the query causing the slowness..
select name from Student a, Student_Temp b
where a.id = b.id and
a.name in (select name from Student
group by name having count(*) = #sno)
group by a.name having count(*) = #sno
OPTION (MERGE JOIN, LOOP JOIN)
This particular query is iteratively called many times slowing down the performance..
Student table has 8 Million records and Student_temp receives 5-20 records in the iteration process each time.
Student table has composite primary key on ( id and name)
and sno = No of records in Student_Temp.
My questions are below,
1) why does this query show performance issues.
2) could you guys give a more efficient way of writing this piece ?
Thanks in Advance !
It's repeating the same logic unnecessarily. You really just want:
Of the Student(s) who also exist in Student_temp
what names exist #sno times?
Try this:
SELECT
name
FROM
Student a JOIN
Student_Temp b ON a.id = b.id
GROUP BY
name
HAVING
count(*) = #sno
Your query returns the following result: Give me all names that are #sno times in the table Student and exactly once in Student_temp.
You can rewrite the query like this:
SELECT a.name
FROM Student a
INNER JOIN Student_temp b
ON a.id = b.id
GROUP BY a.name
HAVING COUNT(*) = #sno
You should omit the query hint unless you are absolutely sure that the query optimizer screws up.
EDIT: There is of course a difference between the queries: if for instance #sno=2 then a name that shows up once in Student but twice in Student_temp would be included in my query but not in the original. I depends on what you really want to achieve whether that needs to be adressed or not.
Here you go
select name
from Student a
inner join Student_Temp b
on a.id = b.id
group by a.name
HAVING COUNT(*) = #sno
I have this SELECT query:
SELECT Auctions.ID, Users.Balance, Users.FreeBids,
COUNT(CASE WHEN Bids.Burned=0 AND Auctions.Closed=0 THEN 1 END) AS 'ActiveBids',
COUNT(CASE WHEN Bids.Burned=1 AND Auctions.Closed=0 THEN 1 END) AS 'BurnedBids'
FROM (Users INNER JOIN Bids ON Users.ID=Bids.BidderID)
INNER JOIN Auctions
ON Bids.AuctionID=Auctions.ID
WHERE Users.ID=#UserID
GROUP BY Users.Balance, Users.FreeBids, Auctions.ID
My problam is that it returns no rows if the UserID cant be found on the Bids table.
I know it's something that has to do with my
(Users INNER JOIN Bids ON Users.ID=Bids.BidderID)
But i dont know how to make it return even if the user is no on the Bids table.
You're doing an INNER JOIN, which only returns rows if there are results on both sides of the join. To get what you want, change your WHERE clause like this:
Users LEFT JOIN Bids ON Users.ID=Bids.BidderID
You may also have to change your SELECT statement to handle Bids.Burned being NULL.
If you want to return rows even if there's no matching Auction, then you'll have to make some deeper changes to your query.
My problam is that it returns no rows if the UserID cant be found on the Bids table.
Then INNER JOIN Bids/Auctions should probably be left outer joins. The way you've written it, you're filtering users so that only those in bids and auctions appear.
Left join is the simple answer, but if you're worried about performance I'd consider re-writing it a little bit. For one thing, the order of the columns in the group by matters to performance (although it often doesn't change the results). Generally, you want to group by a column that's indexed first.
Also, it's possible to re-write this query to only have one group by, which will probably speed things up.
Try this out:
with UserBids as (
select
a.ID
, b.BidderID
, ActiveBids = count(case when b.Burned = 0 then 1 end)
, BurnedBids = count(case when b.Burned = 0 then 1 end)
from Bids b
join Auctions a
on a.ID = b.AuctionID
where a.Closed = 0
group by b.BidderID, a.AuctionID
)
select
b.ID
, u.Balance
, u.FreeBids
, b.ActiveBids
, b.BurnedBids
from Users u
left join UserBids b
on b.BidderID = u.ID
where u.ID = #UserID;
If you're not familiar with the with UserBids as..., it's called a CTE (common table expression), and is basically a way to make a one-time use view, and a nice way to structure your queries.