Related
I'm trying to query my database to pull only duplicate/old data to write to a scratch section in excel (Using a macro passing SQL to the DB).
For now, I'm currently testing in Access alone to only filter out the old data.
First, I'm trying to filter my database by a specifed WorkOrder, RunNumber, and Row.
The code below only filters by Work Order, RunNumber, and Row. ...but SQL doesn't like when I tack on a 2nd AND statement; so this currently isn't working.
SELECT *
FROM DataPoints
WHERE (((DataPoints.[WorkOrder])=[WO2]) AND ((DataPoints.[RunNumber])=6) AND ((DataPoints.[Row]=1)
Once I figure that portion out....
Then if there is only 1 entry with specified WorkOrder, RunNumber, and Row, then I want filter it out. (its not needed in the scratch section, because its data is already written to the main section of my report)
If there are 2 or more entries with said criteria(WO, RN, and Row), then I want to filter out the newest entry based on RunDate and RunTime, and only keep all older entries.
For instance, in the clip below. The only item remaining in my filtered query will be the top entry with the timestamp 11:47:00AM.
.
Are there any recommended commands to complete this problem? Any ideas are helpful. Thank you.
I would suggest something along the lines of the following:
select t.*
from datapoints t
where
t.workorder = [WO2] and
t.runnumber = 6 and
t.row = 1 and
exists
(
select 1
from datapoints u
where
u.workorder = t.workorder and
u.runnumber = t.runnumber and
u.row = t.row and
(u.rundate > t.rundate or (u.rundate = t.rundate and u.runtime > t.runtime))
)
Here, if the correlated subquery within the where clause finds a record with the same workorder, runnumber and row, but with either a later rundate or the same rundate and a later runtime, then the record is returned by the main query.
You need two more )'s at the end of your code snippet. Or you can delete the parentheses completely in this example, MS Access will ad them back in as it deems necessary.
M.S. Access SQL can be tricky as it is not standards compliant and either doesn't allow for super complex queries, or it needs an ugly work around, like having a parentheses nesting nightmare when trying to join more than two tables.
For these reasons, I suggest using multiple Access queries to produce your results.
I am using sql server 2008 r2 and I have two database, which is one have 11.000 record and another is just 3000 record, when i do run this query
SELECT Right(rtrim(tbltransac.No_Faktur),6) as NoUrut,
tbltransac.No_Faktur,
tbltransac.No_FakturP,
tbltransac.Kd_Plg,
Tblcust.Nm_Plg,
GRANDTOTAL AS Total_Faktur,
tbltransac.Nm_Pajak,
tbltransac.Tgl_Faktur,
tbltransac.Tgl_FakturP,
tbltransac.Total_Distribusi
FROM Tblcust
INNER JOIN ViewGrandtotal AS tbltransac ON Tblcust.Kd_Plg = tbltransac.Kd_Plg
WHERE tbltransac.Kd_Trn = 'J'
and year(tbltransac.tgl_faktur)=2015
And ISNULL(tbltransac.No_OPJ,'') <> 'SHOP'
Order by Right(rtrim(tbltransac.No_Faktur),6) Desc
It takes me 1 minute 30 sec in my server (I query it using sql management tool) that have 3000 record but it only took 3 sec to do a query in my another server which is have 11000 record, whats wring with my database?
I've already tried to backup and restore my 3000 record database and restore it in my 11000 record server, it's faster.. took 30 sec to do a query, but it's still annoying if i compare to my 11000 record server. They are in the same spec
How this happend? what i should check? i check on event viewer, resource monitor or sql management log, i couldn't find any error or blocked connection. There is no wrong routing too..
Please help... It just happen a week ago, before this it was fine, and I haven't touch the server more than a month...
as already mentioned before, you have three issues in your query.
Just as an example, change the query to this one:
SELECT Right(rtrim(tbltransac.No_Faktur),6) as NoUrut,
tbltransac.No_Faktur,
tbltransac.No_FakturP,
tbltransac.Kd_Plg,
Tblcust.Nm_Plg,
GRANDTOTAL AS Total_Faktur,
tbltransac.Nm_Pajak,
tbltransac.Tgl_Faktur,
tbltransac.Tgl_FakturP,
tbltransac.Total_Distribusi
FROM Tblcust
INNER JOIN ViewGrandtotal AS tbltransac ON Tblcust.Kd_Plg = tbltransac.Kd_Plg
WHERE tbltransac.Kd_Trn = 'J'
and tbltransac.tgl_faktur BETWEEN '20150101' AND '20151231'
And tbltransac.No_OPJ <> 'SHOP'
Order by NoUrut Desc --Only if you need a sorted output in the datalayer
Another idea, if your viewGrandTotal is quite large, could be an pre-filtering of this table before you join it. Sometimes SQL Server doesn't get a good plan which needs some lovely touch to get him in the right direction.
Maybe this one:
SELECT Right(rtrim(vgt.No_Faktur),6) as NoUrut,
vgt.No_Faktur,
vgt.No_FakturP,
vgt.Kd_Plg,
tc.Nm_Plg,
vgt.Total_Faktur,
vgt.Nm_Pajak,
vgt.Tgl_Faktur,
vgt.Tgl_FakturP,
vgt.Total_Distribusi
FROM (SELECT Kd_Plg, Nm_Plg FROM Tblcust GROUP BY Kd_Plg, Nm_Plg) as tc -- Pre-Filter on just the needed columns and distinctive.
INNER JOIN (
-- Pre filter viewGrandTotal
SELECT DISTINCT vgt.No_Faktur, vgt.No_Faktur, vgt.No_FakturP, vgt.Kd_Plg, vgt.GRANDTOTAL AS Total_Faktur, vgt.Nm_Pajak,
vgt.Tgl_Faktur, vgt.Tgl_FakturP, vgt.Total_Distribusi
FROM ViewGrandtotal AS vgt
WHERE tbltransac.Kd_Trn = 'J'
and tbltransac.tgl_faktur BETWEEN '20150101' AND '20151231'
And tbltransac.No_OPJ <> 'SHOP'
) as vgt
ON tc.Kd_Plg = vgt.Kd_Plg
Order by NoUrut Desc --Only if you need a sorted output in the datalayer
The pre filtering could increase the generation of a better plan.
Another issue could be just the multi-threading. Maybe your query get a parallel plan as it reaches the cost threshold because of the 11.000 rows. The other query just hits a normal plan due to his lower rows. You can take a look at the generated plans by including the actual execution plan inside your SSMS Query.
Maybe you can compare those plans to get a clue. If this doesn't help, you can post them here to get some feedback from me.
I hope this helps. Not quite easy to give you good hints without knowing table structures, table sizes, performance counters, etc. :-)
Best regards,
Ionic
Note: first of all you should avoid any function in Where clause like this one
year(tbltransac.tgl_faktur)=2015
Here Aaron Bertrand how to work with date in Where clause
"In order to make best possible use of indexes, and to avoid capturing too few or too many rows, the best possible way to achieve the above query is ":
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM dbo.SomeLogTable
WHERE DateColumn >= '20091011'
AND DateColumn < '20091012';
And i cant understand your logic in this piece of code but this is bad part of your query too
ISNULL(tbltransac.No_OPJ,'') <> 'SHOP'
Actually Null <> "Shop" in this case, so Why are you replace it to ""?
Thanks and good luck
Here is some recommendations:
year(tbltransac.tgl_faktur)=2015 replace this with tbltransac.tgl_faktur >= '20150101' and tbltransac.tgl_faktur < '20160101'
ISNULL(tbltransac.No_OPJ,'') <> 'SHOP' replace this with tbltransac.No_OPJ <> 'SHOP' because NULL <> 'SHOP'.
Order by Right(rtrim(tbltransac.No_Faktur),6) Desc remove this, because ordering should be done in presentation layer rather then in data layer.
Read about SARG arguments and predicates:
What makes a SQL statement sargable?
To write an appropriate SARG, you must ensure that a column that has
an index on it appears in the predicate alone, not as a function
parameter. SARGs must take the form of column inclusive_operator
or inclusive_operator column. The column name is alone
on one side of the expression, and the constant or calculated value
appears on the other side. Inclusive operators include the operators
=, >, <, =>, <=, BETWEEN, and LIKE. However, the LIKE operator is inclusive only if you do not use a wildcard % or _ at the beginning of
the string you are comparing the column to
Good morning. I'm working in Responsys Interact, which is an Oracle-based email campaign management type SAAS product. I'm creating a query to basically filter a target list for an email campaign designed to target a specific sub-set of our master email contact list. Here's the query I created a few weeks ago that appears to work:
/*
Table Symbolic Name
CONTACTS_LIST $A$
Engaged $B$
TRANSACTIONS_RAW $C$
TRANSACTION_LINES_RAW $D$
-- A Responsys Filter (Engaged) will return only an RIID_, nothing else, according to John # Responsys....so,....let's join on that to contact list...
*/
SELECT
DISTINCT $A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_,
$A$.RIID_,
$A$.FIRST_NAME,
$A$.LAST_NAME,
$A$.EMAIL_PERMISSION_STATUS_
FROM
$A$
JOIN $B$ ON $B$.RIID_ = $A$.RIID_
LEFT JOIN $C$ ON $C$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_ = $A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_
LEFT JOIN $D$ ON $D$.TRANSACTION_ID = $C$.TRANSACTION_ID
WHERE
$A$.EMAIL_DOMAIN_ NOT IN ('none.com', 'noemail.com', 'mailinator.com', 'nomail.com') AND
/* don't include hp customers */
$A$.HP_PLAN_START_DATE IS NULL AND
$A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_ NOT IN
(
SELECT
$C$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_
FROM
$C$
JOIN $D$ ON $D$.TRANSACTION_ID = $C$.TRANSACTION_ID
WHERE
/* Get only purchase transactions for certain item_id's/SKU's */
($D$.ITEM_FAMILY_ID IN (3,4,5,8,14,15) OR $D$.ITEM_ID IN (704,769,1893,2808,3013) ) AND
/* .... within last 60 days (i.e. 2 months) */
$A$.TRANDATE > ADD_MONTHS(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, -2)
)
;
This seems to work, in that if I run the query without the sub-query, we get 720K rows; and if I add back the 'AND NOT IN...' subquery, we get about 700K rows, which appears correct based on what my user knows about her data. What I'm (supposedly) doing with the NOT IN subquery is filtering out any email addresses where the customer has purchased certain items from us in the last 60 days.
So, now I need to add in another constraint. We still don't want customers who made certain purchases in the last 60 days as above, but now also we want to exclude customers who have purchased another particular item, but now within the last 12 months. So, I thought I would add another subquery, as shown below. Now, this has introduced several problems:
Performance - the query, which took a couple minutes to run before, now takes quite a few more minutes to run - in fact it seems to time out....
So, I wondered if there's an issue having two subqueries, but before I went to think about alternatives to this, I decided to test my new subquery by temporarily deleting the first subquery, so that I had just one subquery similar to above, but with the new item = 11 and within the last 12 months logic. And so with this, the query finally returned after a few minutes now, but with zero rows.
Trying to figure out why, I tried simply changing the AND NOT IN (subquery) to AND IN (subquery), and that worked, in that it returned a few thousand rows, as expected.
So why would the same SQL when using AND IN (subquery) "work", but the exact same SQL simply changed to AND NOT IN (subquery) return zero rows, instead of what I would expect which would be my 700 something thousdand plus rows, less the couple thousand encapsulated by the subquery result?
Also, what is the best i.e. most performant way to accomplish what I'm trying to do, which is filter by some purchases made within one date range, AND by some other purchases made within a different date range?
Here's the modified version:
SELECT
DISTINCT $A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_,
$A$.RIID_,
$A$.FIRST_NAME,
$A$.LAST_NAME,
$A$.EMAIL_PERMISSION_STATUS_
FROM
$A$
JOIN $B$ ON $B$.RIID_ = $A$.RIID_
LEFT JOIN $C$ ON $C$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_ = $A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_
LEFT JOIN $D$ ON $D$.TRANSACTION_ID = $C$.TRANSACTION_ID
WHERE
$A$.EMAIL_DOMAIN_ NOT IN ('none.com', 'noemail.com', 'mailinator.com', 'nomail.com') AND
/* don't include hp customers */
$A$.HP_PLAN_START_DATE IS NULL AND
$A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_ NOT IN
(
SELECT
$C$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_
FROM
$C$
JOIN $D$ ON $D$.TRANSACTION_ID = $C$.TRANSACTION_ID
WHERE
/* Get only purchase transactions for certain item_id's/SKU's */
($D$.ITEM_FAMILY_ID IN (3,4,5,8,14,15) OR $D$.ITEM_ID IN (704,769,1893,2808,3013) ) AND
/* .... within last 60 days (i.e. 2 months) */
$C$.TRANDATE > ADD_MONTHS(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, -2)
)
AND
$A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_ NOT IN
(
/* get purchase transactions for another type of item within last year */
SELECT
$C$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_
FROM
$C$
JOIN $D$ ON $D$.TRANSACTION_ID = $C$.TRANSACTION_ID
WHERE
$D$.ITEM_FAMILY_ID = 11 AND $C$.TRANDATE > ADD_MONTHS(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, -12)
)
;
Thanks for any ideas/insights. I may be missing or mis-remembering some basic SQL concept here - if so please help me out! Also, Responsys Interact runs on top of Oracle - it's an Oracle product - but I don't know off hand what version/flavor. Thanks!
Looks like my problem with the new subquery was due to poor performance due to lack of indexes. Thanks to Alex Poole's comments, I looked in Responsys and there is a facility to get an 'explain' type analysis, and it was throwing warnings, and suggesting I build some indexes. Found the way to do that on the data sources, went back to the explain, and it said, "The query should run without placing an unnecessary burden on the system". And while it still ran for quite a few minutes, it did finally come back with close to the expected number of rows.
Now, I'm on to tackle the other half of the issue, which is to now incorporate this second sub-query in addition to the first, original subquery....
Ok, upon further testing/analysis and refining my stackoverflow search critieria, the answer to the main part of my question dealing with the IN vs. NOT IN can be found here: SQL "select where not in subquery" returns no results
My performance was helped by using Responsys's explain-like feature and adding some indexes, but when I did that, I also happened to add in a little extra SQL in my sub-query's WHERE clause.... when I removed that, even after indexes built, I was back to zero rows returned. That's because as it turned out at least one of the transactions rows for the item family id I was interested in for this additional sub-query had a null value for email address. And as further explained in the link above, when using NOT IN, as soon as you have a null value involved, SQL can't definitively say it's NOT IN, since you can't really compare to null, so as soon as you have a null, the sub-query's going to evaluate 'false', thus zero rows. When using IN, even though there are nulls present, if you get one positive match, well, that's a match, so the sub-query returns 'true', so that's why you'll get rows with IN, but not with NOT IN. I hadn't realized that some of our transaction data may have null email addresses - now I know, so I just added a where not null to the where clause for the email address, and now all's good.
I am using SQL server 2005, querying with Web Developer 2010, and the min function appears to be returning more than one value (for each ID returned, see below). Ideally I would like it to just return the one for each ID.
SELECT Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber,
MIN(Production.WorksOrderOperations.OperationNumber) AS Expr1,
Production.Resources.ResourceCode,
Production.Resources.ResourceDescription,
Production.WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View.PartNumber,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedQuantity,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedSetTime,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedRunTime
FROM Production.WorksOrderOperations
INNER JOIN Production.Resources
ON Production.WorksOrderOperations.ResourceID = Production.Resources.ResourceID
INNER JOIN Production.WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View
ON Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber = Production.WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View.WorksOrderNumber
WHERE Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber IN
( SELECT WorksOrderNumber
FROM Production.WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View AS WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View_1
WHERE (WorksOrderSuffixStatus = 'Proposed'))
AND Production.Resources.ResourceCode IN ('1303', '1604')
GROUP BY Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber,
Production.Resources.ResourceCode,
Production.Resources.ResourceDescription,
Production.WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View.PartNumber,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedQuantity,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedSetTime,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedRunTime
If you can get your head around it, I am selecting certain columns from multiple tables where the WorksOrderNumber is also contained within a subquery, and numerous other conditions.
Result set looks a little like this, have blurred out irrelevant data.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/5UFIp.png (Wouldn't let me embed image).
The highlighted rows are NOT supposed to be there, I cannot explicitly filter them out, as this result set will be updated daily and it is likely to happen with a different record.
I have tried casting and converting the OperationNumber to numerous other data types, varchar type returns '100' instead of the '30'. Also tried searching search engines, no one seems to have the same problem.
I did not structure the tables (they're horribly normalised), and it is not possible to restructure them.
Any ideas appreciated, many thanks.
The MIN function returns the minimum within the group.
If you want the minimum for each ID you need to get group on just ID.
I assume that by "ID" you are referring to Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber.
You can add this as a "table" in your SQL:
(SELECT Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber,
MIN(Production.WorksOrderOperations.OperationNumber)
FROM Production.WorksOrderOperations
GROUP BY Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber)
Hey guys. This is a follow-on from this question:
After getting the right data and making some tweaks based on requests from business, I've now got this mini-beast on my hands. This query should return the total number of new jobseeker registrations and the number of new uploaded CV's:
SELECT COUNT(j.jobseeker_id) as new_registrations,
(
SELECT
COUNT(c.cv_id)
FROM
tb_cv as c, tb_jobseeker, tb_industry
WHERE
UNIX_TIMESTAMP(c.created_at) >= '1241125200'
AND
UNIX_TIMESTAMP(c.created_at) <= '1243717200'
AND
tb_jobseeker.industry_id = tb_industry.industry_id
)
AS uploaded_cvs
FROM
tb_jobseeker as j, tb_industry as i
WHERE
j.created_at BETWEEN '2009-05-01' AND '2009-05-31'
AND
i.industry_id = j.industry_id
GROUP BY i.description, MONTH(j.created_at)
Notes:
- The two values in the UNIX TIMESTAMP functions are passed in as parameters from the report module in our backend.
Every time I run it, MySQL chokes and lingers silently into the ether of the Interweb.
Help is appreciated.
Update: Hey guys. Thanks a lot for all the thoughtful and helpful comments. I'm only 2 weeks into my role here, so I'm still learning the schema. So, this query is somewhere between a thumbsuck and an educated guess. Will start to answer all your questions now.
tb_cv is not connected to the other tables in the sub-query. I guess this is the root cause for the slow query. It causes generation of a Cartesian product, yielding a lot more rows than you probably need.
Other than that I'd say you need indexes on tb_jobseeker.created_at, tb_cv.created_at and tb_industry.industry_id, and you might want to get rid of the UNIX_TIMESTAMP() calls in the sub-query since they prevent use of an index. Use BETWEEN and the actual field values instead.
Here is my attempt at understanding your query and writing a better version. I guess you want to get the count of new jobseeker registrations and new uploaded CVs per month per industry:
SELECT
i.industry_id,
i.description,
MONTH(j.created_at) AS month_created,
YEAR(j.created_at) AS year_created,
COUNT(DISTINCT j.jobseeker_id) AS new_registrations,
COUNT(cv.cv_id) AS uploaded_cvs
FROM
tb_cv AS cv
INNER JOIN tb_jobseeker AS j ON j.jobseeker_id = cv.jobseeker_id
INNER JOIN tb_industry AS i ON i.industry_id = j.industry_id
WHERE
j.created_at BETWEEN '2009-05-01' AND '2009-05-31'
AND cv.created_at BETWEEN '2009-05-01' AND '2009-05-31'
GROUP BY
i.industry_id,
i.description,
MONTH(j.created_at),
YEAR(j.created_at)
A few things I noticed while writing the query:
you GROUP BY values you don't output in the end. Why? (I've added the grouped field to the output list.)
you JOIN three tables in the sub-query while only ever using values from one of them. Why? I don't see what it would be good for, other than filtering out CV records that don't have a jobseeker or an industry attached — which I find hard to imagine. (I've removed the entire sub-query and used a simple COUNT instead.)
Your sub-query returns the same value every time. Did you maybe mean to correlate it in some way, to the industry maybe?.
The sub-query runs once for every record in a grouped query without being wrapped in an aggregate function.
First and foremost it may be worth moving the 'UNIX_TIMESTAMP' conversions to the other side of the equation (that is, perform a reverse function on the literal timestamp values at the other side of the >= and <=). That'll avoid the inner query having to perform the conversions for every record, rather than once for the query.
Also, why does the uploaded_cvs query not have any where clause linking it to the outer query? Am I missing something here?