I have two table named Soft and Web, table containing multiple data in that which data is different that data I want. For Ex :
In soft table containing 5 data i.e.
Also in Web table containing 5 data i.e.
Now I want output i.e.
I have done query but unfortunately didnt succed, lets see my query i.e.
SELECT DISTINCT soft.GSTNo AS SoftGST
,web.GSTNo AS WebGST
,soft.InvoiceNumber AS SoftInvoice
,web.InvoiceNumber AS WebInvoice
,soft.Rate AS SoftRate
,web.Rate AS WebRate
FROM soft
LEFT OUTER JOIN web ON web.GstNo = soft.GSTNo
AND web.InvoiceNumber = soft.invoicenumber
AND web.rate = soft.rate
Also I apply inner join bt same thing didnt work.
You can achieve this by
;WITH cte_soft AS
(SELECT * FROM soft
EXCEPT
SELECT * FROM web)
,cte_web AS
(SELECT * FROM web
EXCEPT
SELECT * FROM soft)
SELECT *
FROM
(SELECT gst softgst, NULL webgst, invoice softinvoice, NULL webinvoice, rate softrate, NULL webrate
FROM cte_soft
UNION ALL
SELECT NULL, gst, NULL, invoice, NULL , rate
FROM cte_web) tbl
ORDER BY coalesce(softgst, webgst),coalesce(softinvoice,webinvoice)
Fiddle
You can use full join:
SELECT s.gst as softgst, w.gst as webgst,
s.invoice as softinvoice, w.invoice as webinvoice,
s.rate as softrate, w.rate as webrate
FROM soft s FULL JOIN
web w
ON s.gst = w.gst AND s.invoice = w.invoice AND s.rate = w.rate
WHERE s.gst IS NULL OR w.gst IS NULL
ORDER BY COALESCE(s.gst, w.gst), COALESCE(s.invoice, w.invoice);
No subqueries are CTEs are needed. This is really just a slight variant of your query.
I'm in need of a way to access a column from the inner table from a subquery, which I have included below with database/table names changed. The inner query returns all of the Item_Ids of Items that have a specific term config and belong to a specific customer. Obviously, the SET currently doesn't work as I can't access any of the rows of let from the main query.
I'm fairly new to SQL and am struggling to wrap my head around how I might convert this to using joins instead of a subquery. The problem is that I need to be able to set ALL of the Grand Totals for any of the Item_Ids that come from the subquery.
UPDATE [Database].[dbo].[Items]
SET GrandTotal = GrandTotal / let.CurrentValue
WHERE Id IN (
SELECT let.Item_Id
FROM [Database].[dbo].[ItemTerms] let
WHERE TermConfig_Id = 'TERM_CONFIG_ID'
AND Item_Id IN (
SELECT le2.Id
FROM [Database].[dbo].[LaneExhibits] le2
WHERE Customer_Id = 'CUST_ID'
)
)
EDIT: Add Sample Row from Subquery
Columns are Id, DataValueStatus, CurrentValue, PreviousValue, Item_Id, TermConfig_Id. The subquery only returns the Item_Id but that is the rest of the data.
424C8BF4-0FCB-E711-80C9-005056BA0972 1 460 NULL 2D4C8BF4-0FCB-E711-80C9-005056BA0972 B8FCE730-27BE-E711-80C9-005056BA0972
The inner join version:
UPDATE i
SET GrandTotal = GrandTotal / let.CurrentValue
FROM [Database].[dbo].[Items] i
INNER JOIN [Database].[dbo].[ItemTerms] let ON i.Id=let.Item_Id
WHERE TermConfig_Id = 'TERM_CONFIG_ID'
AND Item_Id IN (
SELECT le2.Id
FROM [Database].[dbo].[LaneExhibits] le2
WHERE Customer_Id = 'CUST_ID'
)
Merge is your friend https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/merge-transact-sql?view=sql-server-2017
simplified sample from your example
MERGE [Database].[dbo].[Items] AS target
USING (SELECT let.Item_Id, let.CurrentValue FROM [Database].[dbo].[ItemTerms] let
/* other joins and filters here */
) AS source (Item_Id, CurrentValue)
ON (target.Item_Id = source.id /* or what you want */)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET GrandTotal = source.GrandTotal / source.CurrentValue
I'm writing a some filtering logic that basically wants to first check if there's a value in the filter table, then if there is return the filtered values. When there isn't a value in the filter table just return everything. The following table does this correctly but I have to write the same select statement twice.
select *
from personTbl
where (not exists (select filterValue from filterTable where filterType = 'name') or
personTbl.name in (select filterValue from filterTable where filterType = 'name'))
Is there some better way to do this that will return true if the table is empty, or the value is contained within it?
One approach is to do a left outer join to your filter-subquery, and then select all the rows where the join either failed (meaning that the subquery returned no rows) or succeeded and had the right value:
SELECT personTbl.*
FROM personTbl
LEFT
OUTER
JOIN ( SELECT DISTINCT filterValue
FROM filterTable
WHERE filterType = 'name'
) filter
ON 1 = 1
WHERE filter.filterValue = personTbl.name
OR filter.filterValue IS NULL
;
To be honest, I'm not sure if the above is a good idea — it's not very intuitive1, and I'm not sure how well it will perform — but you can judge for yourself.
1. As evidence of its unintuitiveness, witness the mistaken claim below that it doesn't work. As of this writing, that comment has garnered two upvotes. So although the query is correct, it clearly inspires people to great confidence that it's wrong. Which is a nice party trick, but not generally desirable in production code.
You can use a collection to try to make the query more intuitive (and only require a single select from the filter table):
CREATE TYPE filterlist IS TABLE OF VARCHAR2(100);
/
SELECT p.*
FROM PersonTbl p
INNER JOIN
( SELECT CAST(
MULTISET(
SELECT filterValue
FROM filterTable
WHERE filterType = 'name'
)
AS filterlist
) AS filters
FROM DUAL ) f
ON ( f.filters IS EMPTY OR p.name MEMBER OF f.filters );
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
I'm looking for some "inference rules" (similar to set operation rules or logic rules) which I can use to reduce a SQL query in complexity or size.
Does there exist something like that? Any papers, any tools? Any equivalencies that you found on your own? It's somehow similar to query optimization, but not in terms of performance.
To state it different: Having a (complex) query with JOINs, SUBSELECTs, UNIONs is it possible (or not) to reduce it to a simpler, equivalent SQL statement, which is producing the same result, by using some transformation rules?
So, I'm looking for equivalent transformations of SQL statements like the fact that most SUBSELECTs can be rewritten as a JOIN.
To state it different: Having a (complex) query with JOINs, SUBSELECTs, UNIONs is it possible (or not) to reduce it to a simpler, equivalent SQL statement, which is producing the same result, by using some transformation rules?
This answer was written in 2009. Some of the query optimization tricks described here are obsolete by now, others can be made more efficient, yet others still apply. The statements about feature support by different database systems apply to versions that existed at the time of this writing.
That's exactly what optimizers do for a living (not that I'm saying they always do this well).
Since SQL is a set based language, there are usually more than one way to transform one query to other.
Like this query:
SELECT *
FROM mytable
WHERE col1 > #value1 OR col2 < #value2
can be transformed into this one (provided that mytable has a primary key):
SELECT *
FROM mytable
WHERE col1 > #value1
UNION
SELECT *
FROM mytable
WHERE col2 < #value2
or this one:
SELECT mo.*
FROM (
SELECT id
FROM mytable
WHERE col1 > #value1
UNION
SELECT id
FROM mytable
WHERE col2 < #value2
) mi
JOIN mytable mo
ON mo.id = mi.id
, which look uglier but can yield better execution plans.
One of the most common things to do is replacing this query:
SELECT *
FROM mytable
WHERE col IN
(
SELECT othercol
FROM othertable
)
with this one:
SELECT *
FROM mytable mo
WHERE EXISTS
(
SELECT NULL
FROM othertable o
WHERE o.othercol = mo.col
)
In some RDBMS's (like PostgreSQL 8.4), DISTINCT and GROUP BY use different execution plans, so sometimes it's better to replace the one with the other:
SELECT mo.grouper,
(
SELECT SUM(col)
FROM mytable mi
WHERE mi.grouper = mo.grouper
)
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT grouper
FROM mytable
) mo
vs.
SELECT mo.grouper, SUM(col)
FROM mytable
GROUP BY
mo.grouper
In PostgreSQL, DISTINCT sorts and GROUP BY hashes.
MySQL 5.6 lacks FULL OUTER JOIN, so it can be rewritten as following:
SELECT t1.col1, t2.col2
FROM table1 t1
LEFT OUTER JOIN
table2 t2
ON t1.id = t2.id
vs.
SELECT t1.col1, t2.col2
FROM table1 t1
LEFT JOIN
table2 t2
ON t1.id = t2.id
UNION ALL
SELECT NULL, t2.col2
FROM table1 t1
RIGHT JOIN
table2 t2
ON t1.id = t2.id
WHERE t1.id IS NULL
, but see this article in my blog on how to do this more efficiently in MySQL:
Emulating FULL OUTER JOIN in MySQL
This hierarchical query in Oracle 11g:
SELECT DISTINCT(animal_id) AS animal_id
FROM animal
START WITH
animal_id = :id
CONNECT BY
PRIOR animal_id IN (father, mother)
ORDER BY
animal_id
can be transformed to this:
SELECT DISTINCT(animal_id) AS animal_id
FROM (
SELECT 0 AS gender, animal_id, father AS parent
FROM animal
UNION ALL
SELECT 1, animal_id, mother
FROM animal
)
START WITH
animal_id = :id
CONNECT BY
parent = PRIOR animal_id
ORDER BY
animal_id
, the latter one being more efficient.
See this article in my blog for the execution plan details:
Genealogy query on both parents
To find all ranges that overlap the given range, you can use the following query:
SELECT *
FROM ranges
WHERE end_date >= #start
AND start_date <= #end
, but in SQL Server this more complex query yields same results faster:
SELECT *
FROM ranges
WHERE (start_date > #start AND start_date <= #end)
OR (#start BETWEEN start_date AND end_date)
, and believe it or not, I have an article in my blog on this too:
Overlapping ranges: SQL Server
SQL Server 2008 also lacks an efficient way to do cumulative aggregates, so this query:
SELECT mi.id, SUM(mo.value) AS running_sum
FROM mytable mi
JOIN mytable mo
ON mo.id <= mi.id
GROUP BY
mi.id
can be more efficiently rewritten using, Lord help me, cursors (you heard me right: "cursors", "more efficiently" and "SQL Server" in one sentence).
See this article in my blog on how to do it:
Flattening timespans: SQL Server
There is a certain kind of query, commonly met in financial applications, that pulls effective exchange rate for a currency, like this one in Oracle 11g:
SELECT TO_CHAR(SUM(xac_amount * rte_rate), 'FM999G999G999G999G999G999D999999')
FROM t_transaction x
JOIN t_rate r
ON (rte_currency, rte_date) IN
(
SELECT xac_currency, MAX(rte_date)
FROM t_rate
WHERE rte_currency = xac_currency
AND rte_date <= xac_date
)
This query can be heavily rewritten to use an equality condition which allows a HASH JOIN instead of NESTED LOOPS:
WITH v_rate AS
(
SELECT cur_id AS eff_currency, dte_date AS eff_date, rte_rate AS eff_rate
FROM (
SELECT cur_id, dte_date,
(
SELECT MAX(rte_date)
FROM t_rate ri
WHERE rte_currency = cur_id
AND rte_date <= dte_date
) AS rte_effdate
FROM (
SELECT (
SELECT MAX(rte_date)
FROM t_rate
) - level + 1 AS dte_date
FROM dual
CONNECT BY
level <=
(
SELECT MAX(rte_date) - MIN(rte_date)
FROM t_rate
)
) v_date,
(
SELECT 1 AS cur_id
FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 2 AS cur_id
FROM dual
) v_currency
) v_eff
LEFT JOIN
t_rate
ON rte_currency = cur_id
AND rte_date = rte_effdate
)
SELECT TO_CHAR(SUM(xac_amount * eff_rate), 'FM999G999G999G999G999G999D999999')
FROM (
SELECT xac_currency, TRUNC(xac_date) AS xac_date, SUM(xac_amount) AS xac_amount, COUNT(*) AS cnt
FROM t_transaction x
GROUP BY
xac_currency, TRUNC(xac_date)
)
JOIN v_rate
ON eff_currency = xac_currency
AND eff_date = xac_date
Despite being bulky as hell, the latter query is six times as fast.
The main idea here is replacing <= with =, which requires building an in-memory calendar table to join with.
Converting currencies
Here's a few from working with Oracle 8 & 9 (of course, sometimes doing the opposite might make the query simpler or faster):
Parentheses can be removed if they are not used to override operator precedence. A simple example is when all the boolean operators in your where clause are the same: where ((a or b) or c) is equivalent to where a or b or c.
A sub-query can often (if not always) be merged with the main query to simplify it. In my experience, this often improves performance considerably:
select foo.a,
bar.a
from foomatic foo,
bartastic bar
where foo.id = bar.id and
bar.id = (
select ban.id
from bantabulous ban
where ban.bandana = 42
)
;
is equivalent to
select foo.a,
bar.a
from foomatic foo,
bartastic bar,
bantabulous ban
where foo.id = bar.id and
bar.id = ban.id and
ban.bandana = 42
;
Using ANSI joins separates a lot of "code monkey" logic from the really interesting parts of the where clause: The previous query is equivalent to
select foo.a,
bar.a
from foomatic foo
join bartastic bar on bar.id = foo.id
join bantabulous ban on ban.id = bar.id
where ban.bandana = 42
;
If you want to check for the existence of a row, don't use count(*), instead use either rownum = 1 or put the query in a where exists clause to fetch only one row instead of all.
I suppose the obvious one is look for any Cursors that can be replaced with a SQL 'Set' based operation.
Next on my list, is look for any correlated sub-queries that can be re-written as a un-correlated query
In long stored procedures, break out separate SQL statements into their own stored procedures. That way they will get there own cached query plan.
Look for transactions that can have their scope shortened. I regularly find statements inside a transaction that can safely be outside.
Sub-selects can often be re-written as straight forward joins (modern optimisers are good at spotting simple ones)
As #Quassnoi mentioned, the Optimiser often does a good job. One way to help it is to ensure indexes and statistics are up to date, and that suitable indexes exist for your query workload.
I like everyone on a team to follow a set of standards to make code readable, maintainable, understandable, washable, etc.. :)
everyone uses the same alias
no cursors. no loops
why even think of IN when you can EXISTS
INDENT
Consistency in coding style
there is some more stuff here What are some of your most useful database standards?
I like to replace all sort of subselect by join query.
This one is obvious :
SELECT *
FROM mytable mo
WHERE EXISTS
(
SELECT *
FROM othertable o
WHERE o.othercol = mo.col
)
by
SELECT mo.*
FROM mytable mo inner join othertable o on o.othercol = mo.col
And this one is under estimate :
SELECT *
FROM mytable mo
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT *
FROM othertable o
WHERE o.othercol = mo.col
)
by
SELECT mo.*
FROM mytable mo left outer join othertable o on o.othercol = mo.col
WHERE o.othercol is null
It could help the DBMS to choose the good execution plan in a big request.
Given the nature of SQL, you absolutely have to be aware of the performance implications of any refactoring. Refactoring SQL Applications is a good resource on refactoring with a heavy emphasis on performance (see Chapter 5).
Although simplification may not equal optimization, simplification can be important in writing readable SQL code, which is in turn critical to being able to check your SQL code for conceptual correctness (not syntactic correctness, which your development environment should check for you). It seems to me that in an ideal world, we would write the most simple, readable SQL code and then the optimizer would rewrite that SQL code to be in whatever form (perhaps more verbose) would run the fastest.
I have found that thinking of SQL statements as based on set logic is very useful, particularly if I need to combine where clauses or figure out a complex negation of a where clause. I use the laws of boolean algebra in this case.
The most important ones for simplifying a where clause are probably DeMorgan's Laws (note that "·" is "AND" and "+" is "OR"):
NOT (x · y) = NOT x + NOT y
NOT (x + y) = NOT x · NOT y
This translates in SQL to:
NOT (expr1 AND expr2) -> NOT expr1 OR NOT expr2
NOT (expr1 OR expr2) -> NOT expr1 AND NOT expr2
These laws can be very useful in simplifying where clauses with lots of nested AND and OR parts.
It is also useful to remember that the statement field1 IN (value1, value2, ...) is equivalent to field1 = value1 OR field1 = value2 OR ... . This allows you to negate the IN () one of two ways:
NOT field1 IN (value1, value2) -- for longer lists
NOT field1 = value1 AND NOT field1 = value2 -- for shorter lists
A sub-query can be thought of this way also. For example, this negated where clause:
NOT (table1.field1 = value1 AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM table2 WHERE table1.field1 = table2.field2))
can be rewritten as:
NOT table1.field1 = value1 OR NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM table2 WHERE table1.field1 = table2.field2))
These laws do not tell you how to transform a SQL query using a subquery into one using a join, but boolean logic can help you understand join types and what your query should be returning. For example, with tables A and B, an INNER JOIN is like A AND B, a LEFT OUTER JOIN is like (A AND NOT B) OR (A AND B) which simplifies to A OR (A AND B), and a FULL OUTER JOIN is A OR (A AND B) OR B which simplifies to A OR B.
jOOQ supports pattern based transformation, which can be used in the online SQL parser and translator (look for the "patterns" dropdown), or as a parser CLI, or programmatically.
Since you're mainly looking for ways to turn your query into something simpler, not necessarily faster (which may depend on the target RDBMS), jOOQ could help you here.
Some examples include:
CASE to CASE abbreviation
-- Original
SELECT
CASE WHEN x IS NULL THEN y ELSE x END,
CASE WHEN x = y THEN NULL ELSE x END,
CASE WHEN x IS NOT NULL THEN y ELSE z END,
CASE WHEN x IS NULL THEN y ELSE z END,
CASE WHEN x = 1 THEN y WHEN x = 2 THEN z END,
FROM tab;
-- Transformed
SELECT
NVL(x, y), -- If available in the target dialect, otherwise COALESCE
NULLIF(x, y),
NVL2(x, y, z), -- If available in the target dialect
NVL2(x, z, y), -- If available in the target dialect
CHOOSE(x, y, z) -- If available in the target dialect
FROM tab;
COUNT(*) scalar subquery comparison
-- Original
SELECT (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM tab) > 0;
-- Transformed
SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM tab)
Flatten CASE
-- Original
SELECT
CASE
WHEN a = b THEN 1
ELSE CASE
WHEN c = d THEN 2
END
END
FROM tab;
-- Transformed
SELECT
CASE
WHEN a = b THEN 1
WHEN c = d THEN 2
END
FROM tab;
NOT AND (De Morgan's rules)
-- Original
SELECT
NOT (x = 1 AND y = 2),
NOT (x = 1 AND y = 2 AND z = 3)
FROM tab;
-- Transformed
SELECT
NOT (x = 1) OR NOT (y = 2),
NOT (x = 1) OR NOT (y = 2) OR NOT (z = 3)
FROM tab;
Unnecessary EXISTS subquery clauses
-- Original
SELECT EXISTS (SELECT DISTINCT a, b FROM t);
-- Transformed
SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM t);
There's a lot more.
Disclaimer: I work for the company behind jOOQ
My approach is to learn relational theory in general and relational algebra in particular. Then learn to spot the constructs used in SQL to implement operators from the relational algebra (e.g. universal quantification a.k.a. division) and calculus (e.g. existential quantification). The gotcha is that SQL has features not found in the relational model e.g. nulls, which are probably best refactored away anyhow. Recommended reading: SQL and Relational Theory: How to Write Accurate SQL Code By C. J. Date.
In this vein, I'm not convinced "the fact that most SUBSELECTs can be rewritten as a JOIN" represents a simplification.
Take this query for example:
SELECT c
FROM T1
WHERE c NOT IN ( SELECT c FROM T2 );
Rewrite using JOIN
SELECT DISTINCT T1.c
FROM T1 NATURAL LEFT OUTER JOIN T2
WHERE T2.c IS NULL;
The join is more verbose!
Alternatively, recognize the construct is implementing an antijoin on the projection of c e.g. pseudo algrbra
T1 { c } antijoin T2 { c }
Simplification using relational operators:
SELECT c FROM T1 EXCEPT SELECT c FROM T2;