Questsion about using HAVING in ACCESS SQL - sql

I wanted to get clarity on how the HAVING component in an SQL statement works, particularly with a SQL statement that has multiple joins. Consider the following SQL select statement:
SELECT
p.id,
p.first_name as [First Name],
p.last_name as [Last Name]
FROM
( [tbl_person] as p
INNER JOIN [tbl_person_languages] as pl
ON [p].[id] = [pl].[person_id])
INNER JOIN [tbl_person_crossCuttingSkills] As ccp
ON [p].[id] = [ccp].[person_id]
WHERE
cint(pl.language_id) in (12,14) AND
cint(ccp.skill_id) in (55)
GROUP BY
p.id,
p.first_name,
p.last_name
HAVING
count(pl.language_id) =2 AND
count(ccp.skill_id) = 1
I want to pull out records, from tbl_person, where a record has all of the WHERE requirements. For example: I want to select all users where they speak a languages Italian (with ID 12) and Spanish (ID 15) AND have a skill of cooking (55). They need to have all requirements, not just one or more. I was under the assumption this is where you would use GROUP BY and HAVING. With the HAVING:
count(pl.language_id) =2
I use count = 2 because there are two options in the language WHERE clause (12 and 14)
And I use
count(ccp.skill_id) = 1
Because there is one value in the WHERE clause (55).
Is this the correct way to be doing this? For some reason, this returns no records (I have one record in my DB of a person who fits these requirements exactly). But, if I change my HAVING to:
count(pl.language_id) =2 AND
count(ccp.skill_id) = 2
It works fine. Why is this? Are my assumptions of how this works incorrect or is there something else going on?

Remember what count() does . . . it counts non-NULL values. So, you are counting two non-NULL values then the counts are the same.
In most dialects of SQL, you can fix this by doing:
HAVING count(distinct pl.language_id) = 2 AND count(distinct ccp.skill_id) = 1
But that doesn't work in MS Access, because MS Access does not support COUNT(DISTINCT).
So, you can be more verbose. In your case:
HAVING SUM(iif(cint(pl.language_id) = 12, 1, 0)) > 0 AND
SUM(iif(cint(pl.language_id) = 14, 1, 0)) > 0 AND
SUM(iif(cint(ccp.skill_id) = 55, 1, 0)) > 0
I'm sorry this HAVING clause is not simpler. You could switch to another database (such as SQL Server Express) that more closely aligns with ANSI functionality.

Related

conditional IIF in a JOIN

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;

SQL GROUP BY function returning incorrect SUM amount

I've been working on this problem, researching what I could be doing wrong but I can't seem to find an answer or fault in the code that I've written. I'm currently extracting data from a MS SQL Server database, with a WHERE clause successfully filtering the results to what I want. I get roughly 4 rows per employee, and want to add together a value column. The moment I add the GROUP BY clause against the employee ID, and put a SUM against the value, I'm getting a number that is completely wrong. I suspect the SQL code is ignoring my WHERE clause.
Below is a small selection of data:
hr_empl_code hr_doll_paid
1 20.5
1 51.25
1 102.49
1 560
I expect that a GROUP BY and SUM clause would give me the value of 734.24. The value I'm given is 211461.12. Through troubleshooting, I added a COUNT(*) column to my query to work out how many lines it's running against, and it's giving a result of 1152, furthering reinforces my belief that it's ignoring my WHERE clause.
My SQL code is as below. Most of it has been generated by the front-end application that I'm running it from, so there is some additional code in there that I believe does assist the query.
SELECT DISTINCT
T000.hr_empl_code,
SUM(T175.hr_doll_paid)
FROM
hrtempnm T000,
qmvempms T001,
hrtmspay T166,
hrtpaytp T175,
hrtptype T177
WHERE 1 = 1
AND T000.hr_empl_code = T001.hr_empl_code
AND T001.hr_empl_code = T166.hr_empl_code
AND T001.hr_empl_code = T175.hr_empl_code
AND T001.hr_ploy_ment = T166.hr_ploy_ment
AND T001.hr_ploy_ment = T175.hr_ploy_ment
AND T175.hr_paym_code = T177.hr_paym_code
AND T166.hr_pyrl_code = 'f' AND T166.hr_paid_dati = 20180404
AND (T175.hr_paym_type = 'd' OR T175.hr_paym_type = 't')
GROUP BY T000.hr_empl_code
ORDER BY hr_empl_code
I'm really lost where it could be going wrong. I have stripped out the additional WHERE AND and brought it down to just T166.hr_empl_code = T175.hr_empl_code, but it doesn't make a different.
By no means am I any expert in SQL Server and queries, but I have decent grasp on the technology. Any help would be very appreciated!
Group by is not wrong, how you are using it is wrong.
SELECT
T000.hr_empl_code,
T.totpaid
FROM
hrtempnm T000
inner join (SELECT
hr_empl_code,
SUM(hr_doll_paid) as totPaid
FROM
hrtpaytp T175
where hr_paym_type = 'd' OR hr_paym_type = 't'
GROUP BY hr_empl_code
) T on t.hr_empl_code = T000.hr_empl_code
where exists
(select * from qmvempms T001,
hrtmspay T166,
hrtpaytp T175,
hrtptype T177
WHERE T000.hr_empl_code = T001.hr_empl_code
AND T001.hr_empl_code = T166.hr_empl_code
AND T001.hr_empl_code = T175.hr_empl_code
AND T001.hr_ploy_ment = T166.hr_ploy_ment
AND T001.hr_ploy_ment = T175.hr_ploy_ment
AND T175.hr_paym_code = T177.hr_paym_code
AND T166.hr_pyrl_code = 'f' AND T166.hr_paid_dati = 20180404
)
ORDER BY hr_empl_code
Note: It would be more clear if you have used joins instead of old style joining with where.

The "where" condition worked not as expected ("or" issue)

I have a problem to join thoses 4 tables
Model of my database
I want to count the number of reservations with different sorts (user [mrbs_users.id], room [mrbs_room.room_id], area [mrbs_area.area_id]).
Howewer when I execute this query (for the user (id=1) )
SELECT count(*)
FROM mrbs_users JOIN mrbs_entry ON mrbs_users.name=mrbs_entry.create_by
JOIN mrbs_room ON mrbs_entry.room_id = mrbs_room.id
JOIN mrbs_area ON mrbs_room.area_id = mrbs_area.id
WHERE mrbs_entry.start_time BETWEEN "145811700" and "1463985000"
or
mrbs_entry.end_time BETWEEN "1458120600" and "1463992200" and mrbs_users.id = 1
The result is the total number of reservations of every user, not just the user who has the id = 1.
So if anyone could help me.. Thanks in advance.
Use parentheses in the where clause whenever you have more than one condition. Your where is parsed as:
WHERE (mrbs_entry.start_time BETWEEN "145811700" and "1463985000" ) or
(mrbs_entry.end_time BETWEEN "1458120600" and "1463992200" and
mrbs_users.id = 1
)
Presumably, you intend:
WHERE (mrbs_entry.start_time BETWEEN 145811700 and 1463985000 or
mrbs_entry.end_time BETWEEN 1458120600 and 1463992200
) and
mrbs_users.id = 1
Also, I removed the quotes around the string constants. It is bad practice to mix data types, and in some databases, the conversion between types can make the query less efficient.
The problem you've faced caused by the incorrect condition WHERE.
So, should be:
WHERE (mrbs_entry.start_time BETWEEN 145811700 AND 1463985000 )
OR
(mrbs_entry.end_time BETWEEN 1458120600 AND 1463992200 AND mrbs_users.id = 1)
Moreover, when you use only INNER JOIN (JOIN) then it be better to avoid WHERE clause, because the ON clause is executed before the WHERE clause, so criteria there would perform faster.
Your query in this case should be like this:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM mrbs_users
JOIN mrbs_entry ON mrbs_users.name=mrbs_entry.create_by
JOIN mrbs_room ON mrbs_entry.room_id = mrbs_room.id
AND
(mrbs_entry.start_time BETWEEN 145811700 AND 1463985000
OR ( mrbs_entry.end_time BETWEEN 1458120600 AND 1463992200 AND mrbs_users.id = 1)
)
JOIN mrbs_area ON mrbs_room.area_id = mrbs_area.id

SQL outer join in combination with MAX function in right table

I have an SQL question based on below table structure.
Database is currently in MS Access, with plans to migrate to SQL Server. Query should work in both DBMS'es.
I want to get devName and the latest dswSW_Version, based on dswTimestamp, for the device in question. If no SW history exists, I want to just return the devName.
The closest I could get was:
SELECT dev.devname, dsw1.dswsw_version
FROM device_sw_history AS dsw1 RIGHT JOIN device AS dev
ON dsw1.dswdevid = dev.devid
WHERE dsw1.dswtimestamp = (SELECT MAX(dswtimestamp) FROM device_sw_history AS dsw2 WHERE dsw1.dswdevid = dsw2.dswdevid)
AND devid = #devid
But nothing is returned for devid = 2, due to MAX returning null. I want to return Apple, null.
Is there a way to construct this statement without using a UNION and still return devname even if no SW history exists ?
Device:
devid devname
1 Samsung
2 Apple
Device_SW_History:
dswid dswdevid dswtimestamp dswsw_version
1 1 5/dec/13 One
2 1 6/dec/13 Two
Thank you !
Just put your condition in the on clause:
SELECT dev.devname, dsw1.dswsw_version
FROM device_sw_history AS dsw1 RIGHT JOIN device AS dev
ON dsw1.dswdevid = dev.devid
AND dsw1.dswtimestamp = (SELECT MAX(dswtimestamp) FROM device_sw_history AS dsw2 WHERE dsw1.dswdevid = dsw2.dswdevid)
WHERE devid = #devid
For inner joins the on and where clauses are identical, and putting a condition in one or the other is merely a question of style and readability. Outer joins introduce a difference between on and where, the on clause only applies to one table, while the where clause applies to their combination.
On SQL Server, a simple subquery should do the trick:
SELECT
devname,
(SELECT TOP 1 dswsw_version FROM device_sw_history WHERE dswdevid = devid
ORDER BY dswtimestamp DESC)
FROM device
This will return all the device names from device, even those that does not have an entry in device_sw_history.

MySQL to PostgreSQL: GROUP BY issues

So I decided to try out PostgreSQL instead of MySQL but I am having some slight conversion problems. This was a query of mine that samples data from four tables and spit them out all in on result.
I am at a loss of how to convey this in PostgreSQL and specifically in Django but I am leaving that for another quesiton so bonus points if you can Django-fy it but no worries if you just pure SQL it.
SELECT links.id, links.created, links.url, links.title, user.username, category.title, SUM(votes.karma_delta) AS karma, SUM(IF(votes.user_id = 1, votes.karma_delta, 0)) AS user_vote
FROM links
LEFT OUTER JOIN `users` `user` ON (`links`.`user_id`=`user`.`id`)
LEFT OUTER JOIN `categories` `category` ON (`links`.`category_id`=`category`.`id`)
LEFT OUTER JOIN `votes` `votes` ON (`votes`.`link_id`=`links`.`id`)
WHERE (links.id = votes.link_id)
GROUP BY votes.link_id
ORDER BY (SUM(votes.karma_delta) - 1) / POW((TIMESTAMPDIFF(HOUR, links.created, NOW()) + 2), 1.5) DESC
LIMIT 20
The IF in the select was where my first troubles began. Seems it's an IF true/false THEN stuff ELSE other stuff END IF yet I can't get the syntax right. I tried to use Navicat's SQL builder but it constantly wanted me to place everything I had selected into the GROUP BY and that I think it all kinds of wrong.
What I am looking for in summary is to make this MySQL query work in PostreSQL. Thank you.
Current Progress
Just want to thank everybody for their help. This is what I have so far:
SELECT links_link.id, links_link.created, links_link.url, links_link.title, links_category.title, SUM(links_vote.karma_delta) AS karma, SUM(CASE WHEN links_vote.user_id = 1 THEN links_vote.karma_delta ELSE 0 END) AS user_vote
FROM links_link
LEFT OUTER JOIN auth_user ON (links_link.user_id = auth_user.id)
LEFT OUTER JOIN links_category ON (links_link.category_id = links_category.id)
LEFT OUTER JOIN links_vote ON (links_vote.link_id = links_link.id)
WHERE (links_link.id = links_vote.link_id)
GROUP BY links_link.id, links_link.created, links_link.url, links_link.title, links_category.title
ORDER BY links_link.created DESC
LIMIT 20
I had to make some table name changes and I am still working on my ORDER BY so till then we're just gonna cop out. Thanks again!
Have a look at this link GROUP BY
When GROUP BY is present, it is not
valid for the SELECT list expressions
to refer to ungrouped columns except
within aggregate functions, since
there would be more than one possible
value to return for an ungrouped
column.
You need to include all the select columns in the group by that are not part of the aggregate functions.
A few things:
Drop the backticks
Use a CASE statement instead of IF() CASE WHEN votes.use_id = 1 THEN votes.karma_delta ELSE 0 END
Change your timestampdiff to DATE_TRUNC('hour', now()) - DATE_TRUNC('hour', links.created) (you will need to then count the number of hours in the resulting interval. It would be much easier to compare timestamps)
Fix your GROUP BY and ORDER BY
Try to replace the IF with a case;
SUM(CASE WHEN votes.user_id = 1 THEN votes.karma_delta ELSE 0 END)
You also have to explicitly name every column or calculated column you use in the GROUP BY clause.