I need a little help with the following SQL Query:
SELECT AUF_EK.FIRM, AUF_EK.customer, AUF_EK.cnr, k.name1,
k.name2, k.name3, k.street, k.pin, k.loc, r.name1,
r.name2, r.name3, lo_gpname1,
.....
First the selected columns, I get that so far.
FROM AUFT, PARTNER r, PARTNER k, .... skp_ARTIKEL_Z,
then we have the from clause, but why is there an Partner r and Partner k? Does it mean the table name is "Partner r" or is the a other reason I don't know yet?
WHERE (
AUF.FIRM BETWEEN 123 AND 456 AND AUF.FIRM = k.FIRM AND AUF.customer = k.gpnr AND AUF.FIRM
= k.FIRM AND AUF.customer = k.gpnr AND AUF.art_nr = ART.art_nr
The where clause makes sense to me till here, so it basically matches columns from the selected tables...
AND EK_POS.art_nr =
ARTIKEL_Z.art_nr(+) AND NVL
(POS.pos_nr_zuo, 0) = (NVL (
_EK_POS_PREIS.pos_nr_zuo(+), 0)) )
But here the part I don't get. I'm not an SQL Pro.... What does the (+) is doing? And what is ,0 meaning?
Partner r and Partner k
You can refer this answer What's the best way to join on the same table twice?
What does the (+) is doing?
Refer the answer of OMG Ponies
That's Oracle specific notation for an OUTER JOIN, because the ANSI-89 format (using a comma in the FROM clause to separate table references) didn't standardize OUTER joins.
The query would be re-written in ANSI-92 syntax as:
SELECT ...
FROM a
LEFT JOIN b ON b.id = a.id
It should also be noted that even though the (+) works, Oracle recommends not using it
And what is ,0 meaning?
NVL(POS.pos_nr_zuo, 0) if value of POS.pos_nr_zuo is null, it return 0 as default value
You asked several questions:
about the PARTNER r:
In your query you want to reference the table PARTNER twice, so you give it an alias, first one is r,second is k.
It's hard to say what exactly it's used for because I can't see the whole query. But a simple example is : suppose you have a ADDRESSES table and an ORDERS table. ORDERS has two references to people : BILLING_ADDR_ID and SHIPPING_ADDR_ID. If you want to display both addresses in a query, you need two aliases.
About the (+) - It's an old syntax for LEFT OUTER JOIN.
About the ',0 - It's part of the NVL(...,0) expression.
Related
Consider the following tables:
Table A:
DOC_NUM
DOC_TYPE
RELATED_DOC_NUM
NEXT_STATUS
...
Table B:
DOC_NUM
DOC_TYPE
RELATED_DOC_NUM
NEXT_STATUS
...
The DOC_TYPE and NEXT_STATUS columns have different meanings between the two tables, although a NEXT_STATUS = 999 means "closed" in both. Also, under certain conditions, there will be a record in each table, with a reference to a corresponding entry in the other table (i.e. the RELATED_DOC_NUM columns).
I am trying to create a query that will get data from both tables that meet the following conditions:
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
A.DOC_TYPE = "ST"
B.DOC_TYPE = "OT"
A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999
A.DOC_TYPE = "ST" represents a transfer order to transfer inventory from one plant to another. B.DOC_TYPE = "OT" represents a corresponding receipt of the transferred inventory at the receiving plant.
We want to get records from either table where there is an ST/OT pair where either or both entries are not closed (i.e. NEXT_STATUS < 999).
I am assuming that I need to use a FULL OUTER join to accomplish this. If this is the wrong assumption, please let me know what I should be doing instead.
UPDATE (11/30/2021):
I believe that #Caius Jard is correct in that this does not need to be an outer join. There should always be an ST/OT pair.
With that I have written my query as follows:
SELECT <columns>
FROM A LEFT JOIN B
ON
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
WHERE
A.DOC_TYPE IN ('ST') AND
B.DOC_TYPE IN ('OT') AND
(A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999)
Does this make sense?
UPDATE 2 (11/30/2021):
The reality is that these are DB2 database tables being used by the JD Edwards ERP application. The only way I know of to see the table definitions is by using the web site http://www.jdetables.com/, entering the table ID and hitting return to run the search. It comes back with a ton of information about the table and its columns.
Table A is really F4211 and table B is really F4311.
Right now, I've simplified the query to keep it simple and keep variables to a minimum. This is what I have currently:
SELECT CAST(F4211.SDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8)) AS SO_NUM,
F4211.SDRORN AS RELATED_PO,
F4211.SDDCTO AS SO_DOC_TYPE,
F4211.SDNXTR AS SO_NEXT_STATUS,
CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8)) AS PO_NUM,
F4311.PDRORN AS RELATED_SO,
F4311.PDDCTO AS PO_DOC_TYPE,
F4311.PDNXTR AS PO_NEXT_STATUS
FROM PROD2DTA.F4211 AS F4211
INNER JOIN PROD2DTA.F4311 AS F4311
ON F4211.SDRORN = CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8))
WHERE F4211.SDDCTO IN ( 'ST' )
AND F4311.PDDCTO IN ( 'OT' )
The other part of the story is that I'm using a reporting package that allows you to define "virtual" views of the data. Virtual views allow the report developer to specify the SQL to use. This is the application where I am using the SQL. When I set up the SQL, there is a validation step that must be performed. It will return a limited set of results if the SQL is validated.
When I enter the query above and validate it, it says that there are no results, which makes no sense. I'm guessing the data casting is causing the issue, but not sure.
UPDATE 3 (11/30/2021):
One more twist to the story. The related doc number is not only defined as a string value, but it contains leading zeros. This is true in both tables. The main doc number (in both tables) is defined as a numeric value and therefore has no leading zeros. I have no idea why those who developed JDE would have done this, but that is what is there.
So, there are matching records between the two tables that meet the criteria, but I think I'm getting no results because when I convert the numeric to a string, it does not match, because one value is, say "12345", while the other is "00012345".
Can I pad the numeric -> string value with zeros before doing the equals check?
UPDATE 4 (12/2/2021):
Was able to finally get the query to work by converting the numeric doc num to a left zero padded string.
SELECT <columns>
FROM PROD2DTA.F4211 AS F4211
INNER JOIN PROD2DTA.F4311 AS F4311
ON F4211.SDRORN = RIGHT(CONCAT('00000000', CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8))), 8)
WHERE F4211.SDDCTO IN ( 'ST' )
AND F4311.PDDCTO IN ( 'OT' )
AND ( F4211.SDNXTR < 999
OR F4311.PDNXTR < 999 )
You should write your query as follows:
SELECT <columns>
FROM A INNER JOIN B
ON
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
WHERE
A.DOC_TYPE IN ('ST') AND
B.DOC_TYPE IN ('OT') AND
(A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999)
LEFT join is a type of OUTER join; LEFT JOIN is typically a contraction of LEFT OUTER JOIN). OUTER means "one side might have nulls in every column because there was no match". Most critically, the code as posted in the question (with a LEFT JOIN, but then has WHERE some_column_from_the_right_table = some_value) runs as an INNER join, because any NULLs inserted by the LEFT OUTER process, are then quashed by the WHERE clause
See Update 4 for details of how I resolved the "data conversion or mapping" error.
I have the next data base:
Table Bill:
Table Bill_Details:
And Table Type:
I want a query to show this result:
The query as far goes like this:
SELECT
Bill.Id_Bill,
Type.Id_Type,
Type.Info,
Bill_Details.Deb,
Bill_Details.Cre,
Bill.NIT,
Bill.Date2,
Bill.Comt
FROM Type
RIGHT JOIN (Bill INNER JOIN Bill_Details
ON Bill.Id_Bill = Bill_Details.Id_Bill)
ON Type.Id_Type = Bill_Details.Id_Type
ORDER BY Bill.Id_Bill, Type.Id_Type;
With this result:
I'm not sure how to deal or how to include this:
Type.600,
Type."TOTAL",
IIF(SUM(Bill_Details.Deb) - Sum(Bill_Details.Cre) >= 0, ABS(SUM(Bill_Details.Deb) - Sum(Bill_Details.Cre)), "" ),
IIF(SUM(Bill_Details.Deb) - Sum(Bill_Details.Cre) <= 0, ABS(SUM(Bill_Details.Deb) - Sum(Bill_Details.Cre)), "" )
The previous code is the responsable of include new data in some fields, since all of the other fields will carry the same data of the upper register. I'll apreciate some sugestions to acomplish this.
Here is a revised version of the UNION which you removed from the question. The original query was a good start, but you just did not provide sufficient details about the error or problem you were experiencing. My comments were not meant to have you remove the problem query, only that you needed to provide more details about the error or problem. In the future if you have a UNION, make sure the each query of the UNION works separately. Then you could debug problems easier, one step at a time.
Problems which I corrected in the second query of the UNION:
Removed reference to table [Type] in the query, since it was not part of the FROM clause. Instead, I replaced it with a literal value.
Fixed FROM clause to join both [Bill] and [Bill_Details] tables. You had fields from both tables, so why would you not join on them just like in the first query of the UNION?
Grouped on all fields from table [Bill] referenced in the SELECT clause. You must either group on all fields, or include them in aggregate expressions like Sum() or First(), etc.
Replaced empty strings with Nulls for the False cases on Iif() statements.
SELECT
Bill.Id_Bill, Type.Id_Type, Type.Info,
Bill_Details.Deb,
Bill_Details.Cre,
Bill.NIT, Bill.Date2, Bill.Comt
FROM
Type RIGHT JOIN (Bill INNER JOIN Bill_Details
ON Bill.Id_Bill = Bill_Details.Id_Bill)
ON Type.Id_Type = Bill_Details.Id_Type;
UNION
SELECT
Bill.Id_Bill, 600 As Id_Type, "TOTAL" As Info,
IIF(SUM(Bill_Details.Deb) - Sum(Bill_Details.Cre) >= 0, ABS(SUM(Bill_Details.Deb) - Sum(Bill_Details.Cre)), Null ) As Deb,
IIF(SUM(Bill_Details.Deb) - Sum(Bill_Details.Cre) <= 0, ABS(SUM(Bill_Details.Deb) - Sum(Bill_Details.Cre)), Null ) As Cre,
Bill.NIT, Bill.Date2, Bill.Comt
FROM Bill INNER JOIN Bill_Details
ON Bill.Id_Bill = Bill_Details.Id_Bill
GROUP BY Bill.Id_Bill, Bill.NIT, Bill.Date2, Bill.Comt;
I'm trying to join 4 tables that have a somewhat complex relationship. Because of where this will be used, it needs to be contained in a single query, but I'm having trouble since the primary query and the IN clause query both join 2 tables together and the lookup is on two columns.
The goal is to input a SalesNum and SalesType and have it return the Price
Tables and relationships:
sdShipping
SalesNum[1]
SalesType[2]
Weight[3]
sdSales
SalesNum[1]
SalesType[2]
Zip[4]
spZones
Zip[4]
Zone[5]
spPrices
Zone[5]
Price
Weight[3]
Here's my latest attempt in T-SQL:
SELECT
spp.Price
FROM
spZones AS spz
LEFT OUTER JOIN
spPrices AS spp ON spz.Zone = spp.Zone
WHERE
(spp.Weight, spz.Zip) IN (SELECT ship.Weight, sales.Zip
FROM sdShipping AS ship
LEFT OUTER JOIN sdSales AS sales ON sales.SalesNum = ship.SalesNum
AND sales.SalesType = ship.SalesType
WHERE sales.SalesNum = (?)
AND ship.SalesType = (?));
SQL Server Management Studio says I have an error in my syntax near ',' (appropriately useless error message). Does anybody have any idea whether this is even allowed in Microsoft's version of SQL? Is there perhaps another way to accomplish it? I've seen the multi-key IN questions answered on here, but never in the case where both sides require a JOIN.
Many databases do support IN on tuples. SQL Server is not one of them.
Use EXISTS instead:
SELECT spp.Price
FROM spZones spz LEFT OUTER JOIN
spPrices spp
ON spz.Zone = spp.Zone
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM sdShipping ship LEFT JOIN
sdSales sales
ON sales.SalesNum = ship.SalesNum AND
sales.SalesType = ship.SalesType
WHERE spp.Weight = ship.Weight AND spz.Zip = sales.Zip AND
sales.SalesNum = (?) AND
ship.SalesType = (?)
);
I am running a query that gives a non-overlapping set of first_party_id's - ids that are associated with one third party but not another. This query does not run in Athena, however, giving the error: Correlated queries not yet supported.
Was looking at prestodb docs, https://prestodb.io/docs/current/sql/select.html (Athena is prestodb under the hood), for an alternative to nested queries. The with statement example given doesn't seem to translate well for this not in clause. Wondering what the alternative to a nested query would be - Query below.
SELECT
COUNT(DISTINCT i.third_party_id) AS uniques
FROM
db.ids i
WHERE
i.third_party_type = 'cookie_1'
AND i.first_party_id NOT IN (
SELECT
i.first_party_id
WHERE
i.third_party_id = 'cookie_2'
)
There may be a better way to do this - I would be curious to see it too! One way I can think of would be to use an outer join. (I'm not exactly sure about how your data is structured, so forgive the contrived example, but I hope it would translate ok.) How about this?
with
a as (select *
from (values
(1,'cookie_n',10,'cookie_2'),
(2,'cookie_n',11,'cookie_1'),
(3,'cookie_m',12,'cookie_1'),
(4,'cookie_m',12,'cookie_1'),
(5,'cookie_q',13,'cookie_1'),
(6,'cookie_n',13,'cookie_1'),
(7,'cookie_m',14,'cookie_3')
) as db_ids(first_party_id, first_party_type, third_party_id, third_party_type)
),
b as (select first_party_type
from a where third_party_type = 'cookie_2'),
c as (select a.third_party_id, b.first_party_type as exclude_first_party_type
from a left join b on a.first_party_type = b.first_party_type
where a.third_party_type = 'cookie_1')
select count(distinct third_party_id) from c
where exclude_first_party_type is null;
Hope this helps!
You can use an outer join:
SELECT
COUNT(DISTINCT i.third_party_id) AS uniques
FROM
db.ids a
LEFT JOIN
db.ids b
ON a.first_party_id = b.first_party_id
AND b.third_party_id = 'cookie_2'
WHERE
a.third_party_type = 'cookie_1'
AND b.third_party_id is null -- this line means we select only rows where there is no match
You should also use caution when using NOT IN for subqueries that may return NULL values since the condition will always be true. Your query is comparing a.first_party_id to NULL, which will always be false and so NOT IN will lead to the condition always being true. Nasty little gotcha.
One way to avoid this is to avoid using NOT IN or to add a condition to your subquery i.e. AND third_party_id IS NOT NULL.
See here for a longer explanation.
I am fairly new in Access and SQL programming. I am trying to do the following:
Sum(SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.Amount) AS [Sum Of PaymentPerYear]
and group by year even when there is no amount in some of the years. I would like to have these years listed as well for a report with charts. I'm not certain if this is possible, but every bit of help is appreciated.
My code so far is as follows:
SELECT
Base_CustomerT.SalesRep,
SO_SalesOrderT.CustomerId,
Base_CustomerT.Customer,
SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.DatePaid,
Sum(SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.Amount) AS [Sum Of PaymentPerYear]
FROM
Base_CustomerT
INNER JOIN (
SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT
INNER JOIN SO_SalesOrderT
ON SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.SalesOrderId = SO_SalesOrderT.SalesOrderId
) ON Base_CustomerT.CustomerId = SO_SalesOrderT.CustomerId
GROUP BY
Base_CustomerT.SalesRep,
SO_SalesOrderT.CustomerId,
Base_CustomerT.Customer,
SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.DatePaid,
SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.PaymentType,
Base_CustomerT.IsActive
HAVING
(((SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.PaymentType)=1)
AND ((Base_CustomerT.IsActive)=Yes))
ORDER BY
Base_CustomerT.SalesRep,
Base_CustomerT.Customer;
You need another table with all years listed -- you can create this on the fly or have one in the db... join from that. So if you had a table called alltheyears with a column called y that just listed the years then you could use code like this:
WITH minmax as
(
select min(year(SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.DatePaid) as minyear,
max(year(SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.DatePaid) as maxyear)
from SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT
), yearsused as
(
select y
from alltheyears, minmax
where alltheyears.y >= minyear and alltheyears.y <= maxyear
)
select *
from yearsused
join ( -- your query above goes here! -- ) T
ON year(T.SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.DatePaid) = yearsused.y
You need a data source that will provide the year numbers. You cannot manufacture them out of thin air. Supposing you had a table Interesting_year with a single column year, populated, say, with every distinct integer between 2000 and 2050, you could do something like this:
SELECT
base.SalesRep,
base.CustomerId,
base.Customer,
base.year,
Sum(NZ(data.Amount)) AS [Sum Of PaymentPerYear]
FROM
(SELECT * FROM Base_CustomerT INNER JOIN Year) AS base
LEFT JOIN
(SELECT * FROM
SO_SalesOrderT
INNER JOIN SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT
ON (SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT.SalesOrderId = SO_SalesOrderT.SalesOrderId)
) AS data
ON ((base.CustomerId = data.CustomerId)
AND (base.year = Year(data.DatePaid))),
WHERE
(data.PaymentType = 1)
AND (base.IsActive = Yes)
AND (base.year BETWEEN
(SELECT Min(year(DatePaid) FROM SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT)
AND (SELECT Max(year(DatePaid) FROM SO_SalesOrderPaymentHistoryLineT))
GROUP BY
base.SalesRep,
base.CustomerId,
base.Customer,
base.year,
ORDER BY
base.SalesRep,
base.Customer;
Note the following:
The revised query first forms the Cartesian product of BaseCustomerT with Interesting_year in order to have base customer data associated with each year (this is sometimes called a CROSS JOIN, but it's the same thing as an INNER JOIN with no join predicate, which is what Access requires)
In order to have result rows for years with no payments, you must perform an outer join (in this case a LEFT JOIN). Where a (base customer, year) combination has no associated orders, the rest of the columns of the join result will be NULL.
I'm selecting the CustomerId from Base_CustomerT because you would sometimes get a NULL if you selected from SO_SalesOrderT as in the starting query
I'm using the Access Nz() function to convert NULL payment amounts to 0 (from rows corresponding to years with no payments)
I converted your HAVING clause to a WHERE clause. That's semantically equivalent in this particular case, and it will be more efficient because the WHERE filter is applied before groups are formed, and because it allows some columns to be omitted from the GROUP BY clause.
Following Hogan's example, I filter out data for years outside the overall range covered by your data. Alternatively, you could achieve the same effect without that filter condition and its subqueries by ensuring that table Intersting_year contains only the year numbers for which you want results.
Update: modified the query to a different, but logically equivalent "something like this" that I hope Access will like better. Aside from adding a bunch of parentheses, the main difference is making both the left and the right operand of the LEFT JOIN into a subquery. That's consistent with the consensus recommendation for resolving Access "ambiguous outer join" errors.
Thank you John for your help. I found a solution which works for me. It looks quiet different but I learned a lot out of it. If you are interested here is how it looks now.
SELECT DISTINCTROW
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.SalesRep,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.CustomerId,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.Customer,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.RevenueYear,
CustomerPaymentPerYearQ.[Sum Of PaymentPerYear]
FROM
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ
LEFT JOIN CustomerPaymentPerYearQ
ON (Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.RevenueYear = CustomerPaymentPerYearQ.[RevenueYear])
AND (Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.CustomerId = CustomerPaymentPerYearQ.CustomerId)
GROUP BY
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.SalesRep,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.CustomerId,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.Customer,
Base_Customer_RevenueYearQ.RevenueYear,
CustomerPaymentPerYearQ.[Sum Of PaymentPerYear]
;