Convert subselect to a join - sql

Question

I seem to understand that Join is preferred to sub-select.
I'm unable to see how to turn the 3 sub-selects to joins.
My sub-selects fetch the first row only
I'm perfectly willing to leave this alone if it is not offensive SQL.
This is my query, and yes, those really are the table and column names
select x1.*, x2.KTNR, x3.J6NQ
from
(select D0HONB as HONB, D0HHNB as HHNB,
(
select DHHHNB
from ECDHREP
where DHAOEQ = D0ATEQ and DHJRCD = D0KNCD
order by DHEJDT desc
FETCH FIRST 1 ROW ONLY
) as STC_HHNB,
(
select FIQ9NB
from DCFIREP
where FIQ7NB = D0Q7NB
AND FIBAEQ = D0ATEQ
and FISQCD = D0KNCD
and FIGZSZ in ('POS', 'ACT', 'MAN', 'HLD')
order by FIYCNB desc
FETCH FIRST 1 ROW ONLY
) as BL_Q9NB,
(
select AAKPNR
from C1AACPP
where AACEEQ = D0ATEQ and AARCCE = D0KNCD and AARDCE = D0KOCD
order by AAHMDT desc, AANENO desc
FETCH FIRST 1 ROW ONLY
) as NULL_KPNR
from ECD0REP
) as x1
left outer join (
select AAKPNR as null_kpnr, max(ABKTNR) as KTNR
from C1AACPP
left outer join C1ABCPP on AAKPNR = ABKPNR
group by AAKPNR
) as X2 on x1.NULL_KPNR = x2.null_KPNR
left outer join (
select ACKPNR as KPNR, count(*) as J6NQ
from C1ACCPP
WHERE ACJNDD = 'Y'
group by ACKPNR
) as X3 on x1.NULL_KPNR = x3.KPNR

Answer 1

You've got a combination of correlated subselects and nested table expressions (NTE).
Personally, I'd call it offensive if I had to maintain it. ;)
Consider common table expressions & joins...without your data and tabvle structure, I can't give you the real statement, but the general form would look like
with
STC_HHNB as (
select DHHHNB, DHAOEQ, DHJRCD, DHEJDT
from ECDHREP )
, BL_Q9NB as ( <....>
where FIGZSZ in ('POS', 'ACT', 'MAN', 'HLD'))
<...>
select <...>
from stc_hhb
join blq9nb on <...>
Two important reasons to favor CTE over NTE...the results of a CTE can be reused Also it's easy to build a statement with CTE's incrementally.
By re-used, I mean you can have
with
cte1 as (<...>)
, cte2 as (select <...> from cte1 join <...>)
, cte3 as (select <...> from cte1 join <...>)
, cte4 as (select <...> from cte2 join cte3 on <...>)
select * from cte4;
The optimizer can choose to build a temporary results set for cte1 and use it multiple times. From a building standpoint, you can see I'm builing on each preceding cte.
Here's a good article
https://www.mcpressonline.com/programming/sql/simplify-sql-qwithq-common-table-expressions
Edit
Let's dig into your first correlated sub-query.
select D0HONB as HONB, D0HHNB as HHNB,
(
select DHHHNB
from ECDHREP
where DHAOEQ = D0ATEQ and DHJRCD = D0KNCD
order by DHEJDT desc
FETCH FIRST 1 ROW ONLY
) as STC_HHNB
from ECD0REP
What you asking the DB to do is for every row read in ECD0REP, go out and get a row from ECDHREP. If you're unlucky, the DB will have to read lots of records in ECDHREP to find that one row. Generally, consider that with correlated sub-query the inner query would need to read every row. So if there's M rows in the outer and N rows in the inner...then you're looking at MxN rows being read.
I've seen this before, especially on the IBM i. As that's how an RPG developer would do it
read ECD0REP;
dow not %eof(ECD0REP);
//need to get DHHHNB from ECDHREP
chain (D0ATEQ, D0KNCD) ECDHREP;
STC_HHNB = DHHHNB;
read ECD0REP;
enddo;
But that's not the way to do it in SQL. SQL is (supposed to be) set based.
So what you need to do is think of how to select the set of records out of ECDHREP that will match up to the set of record you want from ECD0REP.
with cte1 as (
select DHHHNB, DHAOEQ, DHJRCD
from ECDHREP
)
select D0HONB as HONB
, D0HHNB as HHNB
, DHHHBN as STC_HHNB
from ECD0REP join cte1
on DHAOEQ = D0ATEQ and DHJRCD = D0KNCD
Now maybe that's not quite correct. Perhaps there's multiple rows in ECDHREP with the same values (DHAOEQ, DHJRCD); thus you needed the FETCH FIRST in your correlated sub-query. Fine you can focus on the CTE and figure out what needs to be done to get that 1 row you want. Perhaps MAX(DHHHNB) or MIN(DHHHNB) would work. If nothing else, you could use ROW_NUMBER() to pick out just one row...
with cte1 as (
select DHHHNB, DHAOEQ, DHJRCD
, row_number() over(partition by DHAOEQ, DHJRCD
order by DHAOEQ, DHJRCD)
as rowNbr
from ECDHREP
), cte2 as (
select DHHHNB, DHAOEQ, DHJRCD
from cte1
where rowNbr = 1
)
select D0HONB as HONB
, D0HHNB as HHNB
, DHHHBN as STC_HHNB
from ECD0REP join cte2
on DHAOEQ = D0ATEQ and DHJRCD = D0KNCD
Now you're dealing with sets of records, joining them together for your final results.
Worse case, the DB has to read M + N records.
It's not really about performance, it's about thinking in sets.
Sure with a simple statement using a correlated sub-query, the optimizer will probably be able to re-write it into a join.
But it's best to write the best code you can, rather then hope the optimizer can correct it.
I've seen and rewritten queries with 100's of correlated & regular sub-queries....in fact I've seen a query that had to be broken into 2 because there were two many sub-queries. The DB has a limit of 256 per statement.

Answer 2

I'm going to have to differ with Charles here if the FETCH FIRST 1 ROW ONLY clauses are necessary. In this case you likely can't pull those sub-selects out into a CTE because that CTE would only have a single row in it. I suspect you could pull the outer sub-select into a CTE, but you would still need the sub-selects in the CTE. Since there appears to be no sharing, I would call this personal preference. BTW, I don't think pulling the sub-selects into a join will work for you either, in this case, for the same reason.
What is the difference between a sub-select and a CTE?
with mycte as (
select field1, field2
from mytable
where somecondition = true)
select *
from mycte
vs.
select *
from (select field1, field2
from mytable
where somecondition = true) a
It's really just a personal preference, though depending on the specific requirements, a CTE can be used multiple times within the SQL statement, but a sub-select will be more correct in other cases like the FETCT FIRST clause in your question.
EDIT
Let's look at the first sub-query. With the appropriate index:
(
select DHHHNB
from ECDHREP
where DHAOEQ = D0ATEQ and DHJRCD = D0KNCD
order by DHEJDT desc
FETCH FIRST 1 ROW ONLY
) as STC_HHNB,
only has to read one record per row in the output set. I don't think that is terribly onerous. This is the same for the third correlated sub-query as well.
That index on the first correlated sub-query would be:
create index ECDHREP_X1
on ECDHREP (DHAOEQ, DHJRCD, DHEJDT);
The second correlated sub-query might need more than one read per row, just because of the IN predicate, but it is far from needing a full table scan.