I am working on a database with products and lot numbers. Each entry in the Lots table has a Lot Number and a Product description.
Sometimes there are multiple records of the same lot number, for example when an item is repacked a new record is created, but with the same Lot Number and same product description - this is fine. But other times there are problem cases, namely when two different products share the same Lot Number. I am trying to find those.
In other words, there are 3 possibilities:
Lot numbers for which there is only one record in the table.
Lot numbers for which there are multiple records, but the Product description is the same for all of them
Lot numbers for which there are multiple records, and the product descriptions are not all the same.
I need to return only #3, with a separate record for each instance of that Lot Number and product description.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks Juan for the sample data. Using this example, I want to return the data contained in Id 2-8, but not 1, 9, 10, 11.
This wasn't easy because lot of time don't use access.
First select unique values using distinct.
Then count how many diferent product appear on each lotnumber using group by
Last join both result and show only the lots with more than one description where total >1
.
SELECT id, Product.lotnumber, Product.Product, total
FROM
Product Inner join
(
SELECT lotnumber, count(*) as total
FROM
(SELECT distinct lotnumber, product
FROM Product)
GROUP BY lotnumber
) SubT On Product.lotnumber = SubT.lotnumber
WHERE total > 1
ORDER BY id
As you can see :
lot 2 have two products (yy and zz)
lot 3 have thre products (aa, bb, cc)
I include my product table:
Sorry for spanish. Field types are Autonumeric, Short Text, and Number
I'm currently working on a program that keeps track of my company's stock inventory, using ms Access 2010. I'm having a hard time getting the query, intended to show inventory, to display the information I want. The problem seems to be that the query pulls the same record multiple times, inflating the sums of reserved and sold product.
Background:
My company stocks steel bars. We offer to cut the bars into pieces. From an inventory side, We want to track the length of each bar, from the moment it comes in to the warehouse, through it's time in the warehouse (where it might get cut into smaller pieces), until the entire bar is sold and gone.
Database:
The query giving problems, is consulting 3 tables;
Barstock (with the following fields)
BatchNumber (all the bars recieved, beloning to the same production heat)
BarNo (the individual bar)
Orginial Length (the length of the bar when recieved at the stock
(BatchNumber and BarNo combined, is the primary key)
Sales
ID (primary key)
BatchNumber
BarNo
Quantity Sold
Reservation (a seller kan reserve some material, when a customer signals interest, but needs time to decide)
ID (Primary key)
BatchNumber
BarNo
Quantity reserved
I'd like to pull information from the three tables into one list, that displays:
-Barstock.orginial length As Received
- Sales.Quantity sold As Sold
- Recieved - Sold As On Stock
- reservation.Quantity Reserved As Reserved
- On Stock - Reserved As Available.
The problem is that I suck at sql. I've looked into union and inner join to the best of my ability, but my efforts have been in vain. I usually rely on the design view to produce the Sql statements I need. With design view, I've come up with the following Sql:
SELECT
BarStock.BatchNo
, BarStock.BarNo
, First(BarStock.OrgLength) AS Recieved
, Sum(Sales.QtySold) AS SumAvQtySold
, [Recieved]-[SumAvQtySold] AS [On Stock]
, Sum(Reservation.QtyReserved) AS Reserved
, ([On Stock]-[Reserved])*[Skjemaer]![Inventory]![unitvalg] AS Available
FROM
(BarStock
INNER JOIN Reservation ON (BarStock.BarNo = Reservation.BarNo) AND (BarStock.BatchNo = Reservation.BatchNo)
)
INNER JOIN Sales ON (BarStock.BarNo = Sales.BarNo) AND (BarStock.BatchNo = Sales.BatchNo)
GROUP BY
BarStock.BatchNo
, BarStock.BarNo
I know that the query is pulling the same record multiple times because;
- when I remove the GROUP BY term, I get several records that are exactley the same.
- There are however, only one instance of these records in the corresponding tables.
I hope I've been able to explain myself properly, please ask if I need to elaborate on anything.
Thank you for taking the time to look at my problem!
!!! Checking some assumptions
From your database schema, it seems that:
There could be multiple Sales records for a given BatchNumber/BarNo (for instance, I can imagine that multiple customers may have bought subsections of the same bar).
There could be multiple Reservation records for a given BatchNumber/BarNo (for instance, multiple sections of the same bar could be 'reserved')
To check if you do indeed have multiple records in those tables, try something like:
SELECT CountOfDuplicates
FROM (SELECT COUNT(*) AS CountOfDuplicates
FROM Sales
GROUP BY BatchNumber & "," & BarNo)
WHERE CountOfDuplicates > 1
If the query returns some records, then there are duplicates and it's probably why your query is returning incorrect values.
Starting from scratch
Now, the trick to your make your query work is to really think about what is the main data you want to show, and start from that:
You basically want a list of all bars in the stock.
Some of these bars may have been sold, or they may be reserved, but if they are not, you should show the Quantity available in Stock. Your current query would never show you that.
For each bar in stock, you want to list the quantity sold and the quantity reserved, and combined them to find out the quantity remaining available.
So it's clear, your central data is the list of bars in stock.
Rather than try to pull everything into a single large query straight away, it's best to create simple queries for each of those goals and make sure we get the proper data in each case.
Just the Bars
From what you explain, each individual bar is recorded in the BarStock table.
As I said in my comment, from what I understand, all bars that are delivered have a single record in the BarStock table, without duplicates. So your main list against which your inventory should be measured is the BarStock table:
SELECT BatchNumber,
BarNo,
OrgLength
FROM BarStock
Just the Sales
Again, this should be pretty straightforward: we just need to find out how much total length was sold for each BatchNumber/BarNo pair:
SELECT BatchNumber,
BarNo,
Sum(QtySold) AS SumAvQtySold
FROM Sales
GROUP BY BatchNumber, BarNo
Just the Reservations
Same as for Sales:
SELECT BatchNumber,
BarNo,
SUM(QtyReserved) AS Reserved
FROM Reservation
GROUP BY BatchNumber, BarNo
Original Stock against Sales
Now, we should be able to combine the first 2 queries into one. I'm not trying to optimise, just to make the data work together:
SELECT BarStock.BatchNumber,
BarStock.BarNo,
BarStock.OrgLength,
S.SumAvQtySold,
(BarStock.OrgLength - Nz(S.SumAvQtySold)) AS OnStock
FROM BarStock
LEFT JOIN (SELECT BatchNumber,
BarNo,
Sum(QtySold) AS SumAvQtySold
FROM Sales
GROUP BY BatchNumber, BarNo) AS S
ON (BarStock.BatchNumber = S.BatchNumber) AND (BarStock.BarNo = S.BarNo)
We do a LEFT JOIN because there might be bars in stock that have not yet been sold.
If we did an INNER JOIN, we wold have missed these in the final report, leading us to believe that these bars were never there in the first place.
All together
We can now wrap the whole query in another LEFT JOIN against the reserved bars to get our final result:
SELECT BS.BatchNumber,
BS.BarNo,
BS.OrgLength,
BS.SumAvQtySold,
BS.OnStock,
R.Reserved,
(OnStock - Nz(Reserved)) AS Available
FROM (SELECT BarStock.BatchNumber,
BarStock.BarNo,
BarStock.OrgLength,
S.SumAvQtySold,
(BarStock.OrgLength - Nz(S.SumAvQtySold)) AS OnStock
FROM BarStock
LEFT JOIN (SELECT BatchNumber,
BarNo,
SUM(QtySold) AS SumAvQtySold
FROM Sales
GROUP BY BatchNumber,
BarNo) AS S
ON (BarStock.BatchNumber = S.BatchNumber) AND (BarStock.BarNo = S.BarNo)) AS BS
LEFT JOIN (SELECT BatchNumber,
BarNo,
SUM(QtyReserved) AS Reserved
FROM Reservation
GROUP BY BatchNumber,
BarNo) AS R
ON (BS.BatchNumber = R.BatchNumber) AND (BS.BarNo = R.BarNo)
Note the use of Nz() for items that are on the right side of the join: if there is no Sales or Reservation data for a given BatchNumber/BarNo pair, the values for SumAvQtySold and Reserved will be Null and will render OnStock and Available null as well, regardless of the actual quantity in stock, which would not be the result we expect.
Using the Query designer in Access, you would have had to create the 3 queries separately and then combine them.
Note though that the Query Designed isn't very good at dealing with multiple LEFT and RIGHT joins, so I don't think you could have written the whole thing in one go.
Some comments
I believe you should read the information that #Remou gave you in his comments.
To me, there are some unfortunate design choices for this database: getting basic stock data should be as easy as s simple SUM() on the column that hold inventory records.
Usually, a simple way to track inventory is to keep track of each stock transaction:
Incoming stock records have a + Quantity
Outgoing stock records have a - Quantity
The record should also keep track of the part/item/bar reference (or ID), the date and time of the transaction, and -if you want to manage multiple warehouses- which warehouse ID is involved.
So if you need to know the complete stock at hand for all items, all you need to do is something like:
SELECT BarID,
Sum(Quantity)
FROM StockTransaction
GROUP BY BarID
In your case, while BatchNumber/BarNo is your natural key, keeping them in a separate Bar table would have some advantages:
You can use Bar.ID to get back the Bar.BatchNumber and Bar.BarNo anywhere you need it.
You can use BarID as a foreign key in your BarStock, Sales and Reservation tables. It makes joins easier without having to mess with the complexities of compound keys.
There are things that Access allows that are not really good practice, such as spaces in table names and fields, which end up making things less readable (at least because you need to keep them between []), less consistent with VBA variable names that represent these fields, and incompatible with other database that don't accept anything other than alphanumerical characters for table and field names (should you wish to up-size later or interface your database with other apps).
Also, help yourself by sticking to a single naming convention, and keep it consistent:
Do not mix upper and lower case inconsistently: either use CamelCase, or lower case or UPPER case for everything, but always keep to that rule.
Name tables in the singular -or the plural-, but stay consistent. I prefer to use the singular, like table Part instead of Parts, but it's just a convention (that has its own reasons).
Spell correctly: it's Received not Recieved. That mistake alone may cost you when debugging why some query or VBA code doesn't work, just because someone made a typo.
Each table should/must have an ID column. Usually, this will be an auto-increment that guarantees uniqueness of each record in the table. If you keep that convention, then foreign keys become easy to guess and to read and you never have to worry about some business requirement changing the fact that you could suddenly find yourself with 2 identical BatchNumbers, for some reason you can't fathom right now.
There are lots of debates about database design, but there are certain 'rules' that everyone agrees with, so my recommendation should be to strive for:
Simplicity: make sure that each table records one kind of data, and does not contain redundant data from other tables (normalisation).
Consistency: naming conventions are important. Whatever you choose, stick to it throughout your project.
Clarity: make sure that you-in-3-years and other people can easily read the table names and fields and understand what they are without having to read a 300 page specification. It's not always possible to be that clear, but it's something to strive for.
I need to find the sum of the prices of a number of products, however the prices are stored in a different table to products that need pricing.
But, there is a catch, it needs to select these items based on criteria from a third table too.
So, I need the sum of the price of all products in Table 1 where CutID in Table 2 = 001.
Table 1 and Table 2 are linked on SCID, one to many respectively.
If this makes no sense tell me and I will try to clarify?
Thanks,
Bob P
Based on your question, I don't think there's a need for VBA. Excel formulas should be sufficient.
Add a few columns to your primary table. In these columns, use vlookup() to get all your information in one place, including the criteria.
If you only need to sum based on one criteria, use sumif(). If there's multiple criteria, use sumproduct().
Generally, with Access, I initially try to work with something as close a possible to a standard SQL query for ease of maintenance and portability. This ran for me in Access 2010:
SELECT Products.ProductID, Sum(Prices.Price) AS PriceSum
FROM Prices INNER JOIN (Critera INNER JOIN Products ON Critera.SCID = Products.SCID) ON Prices.ProductID = Products.ProductID
WHERE Critera.CutID="001"
GROUP BY Products.ProductID;
Please let us know if that works with your data (I'm not sure of your column names, either).
I'm curious about how I could go about getting the data I need out of a "circle" of tables.
I have 5 tables(and a few supporting ones): 3 entities joined by junction tables. So the general model is like this:
Cards have many Budgets, and Accounts have many Budgets, and Accounts have many Cards.
So my relationships make a circle, through the junction tables, form Card to Budget to Account back to Card, This structure works all fine and dandy until today when I tried to construct a query using all 5 tables, and noticed that I know of no way to avoid abiguous joins which this structure in place. I'm thinking it might have been a better idea to create AccountBudget and CardBudget tables, but since they will both define exactly the same type of data, one table seemed more efficient.
The information I'm trying to get is basically the total budget limit for all cards of a certain type, and the total budget limit for all accounts of that same type. Am I just looking at this problem wrong?
// Card Budget_Card Budget Budget_Account Account
// ------- --------- -------- -------------- ---------
// cardId------\ budgetId<---------budgetId------>budgetId -----accountId--(to Card)->
// accountId --->cardId limit accountId<------/ typeId
// (etc) typeId (etc)
// (typeId in Budget is either 1 for an account budget or 2 for a card budget.)
As you can see, it's a circle. What I'm trying to accomplish is return one row with two columns: the sum of Budget.limit for the record in Account where typeId = 1, and the sum of Budget.limit for all rows in Card belonging to Accounts of the same type.
As per suggestion, I can in fact get the data I need from a union, but it's no use to me if the data is not in two separate columns:
SELECT DISTINCTROW Sum(Budget.limit) AS SumOfLimit
FROM (Account RIGHT JOIN Card ON Account.accountId = Card.accountId)
RIGHT JOIN (Budget LEFT JOIN Budget_Card ON Budget.budgetID = Budget_Card.budgetId) ON Card.cardId = Budget_Card.cardId
GROUP BY Budget.typeId, Budget.quarterId, Account.typeId
HAVING (((Budget.typeId)=2) AND ((Budget.quarterId)=[#quarterId]) AND ((Account.typeId)=[#accountType]))
UNION SELECT DISTINCTROW Sum(Budget.limit) AS SumOfLimit
FROM Budget LEFT JOIN (Account RIGHT JOIN Budget_Account ON Account.accountId = Budget_Account.accountId) ON Budget.budgetID = Budget_Account.budgetId
GROUP BY Budget.typeId, Budget.quarterId, Account.typeId
HAVING (((Budget.typeId)=1) AND ((Budget.quarterId)=[#quarterId]) AND ((Account.typeId)=[#accountType]));
So, if I understand you correctly, you've made separate column headers with the same name, and so your data becomes skewed because the information needs to be separated? If this is the case I would suggest changing the column headers as you've proposed, or in linking two queries together. To connect the data by querying the same tagged name will combine results. If you want to designate something, it's always a good idea to create separate names for column headers.
Here is an explanation of using SQL to query multiple tables: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/sql-basics-query-multiple-tables/1050307
First make the query for the Cards, then union with the query for the Accounts
Although it would be easier to relate cards to accounts and then only have budgets for accounts, however i don't know if that would work with your schema
Imagine I have table like this:
id:Product:shop_id
1:Basketball:41
2:Football:41
3:Rocket:45
4:Car:86
5:Plane:86
Now, this is an example of large internet mall, where there are shops which sell to one customer, so customer can choose more products from each shop and buy it in one basket.
However, I am not sure if there is any SQL syntax which allows me to simply get unique shop_ids and total number of those shops' products in customer basket. So I'd get something like:
Shop 41 has 2 products
Shop 45 one product
Shop 86 two product
I can make SQL queries to scoop through table to make some kind of ['shop_id']['number_of_products'] array variable that would store all products' shop_ids, then "unique them" - up and count how many times I had to cut one more shop_id out to have some remaining but that just seems as a lot of useless scripting.
If you got some nice and neat idea, please, let me know.
This is exactly the sort of thing that aggregate functions are for. You make one row of output for each group of rows in the table. Group them by shop_id and count how many rows are in each group.
select shop_id, count(1) from TABLE_NAME
group by shop_id