I am running the below SELECT statement to:
Return prices from a standard price list customer = 0
If the customer has been quoted a special price customer = X then use that price instead
I am getting the error message:
ERROR at line 3:
ORA-00933: SQL command not properly ended
Oracle version is: Oracle8i Enterprise Edition Release 8.1.7.4.0 - Production.
SELECT glas_daten_basis.idnr, glas_daten_basis.gl_bez, NVL(p2.zum2, p1.zum2)
FROM glas_daten_basis
JOIN os_przu p1 ON p1.idnr = glas_daten_basis.idnr
LEFT JOIN os_przu p2 ON p2.idnr = glas_daten_basis.idnr AND p2.kunr = 63
WHERE p1.kunr = 0;
Line 3 is the JOIN, is there something wrong here?
Update: There are 137 rows in the standard price list, so I should be given 137 rows regardless of whether the price is from customer = 0 or customer = X. The answers so far give me a ~60 rows for some reason.
SELECT os_przu.idnr, os_przu.zum2
FROM os_przu
WHERE os_przu.kunr = 0;
...
137 rows selected.
As #a_horse-with_no_name said, ANSI joins don't work in 8i; they weren't added until 9i. So if you're really stuck on this ancient and unsupported version you're stuck with the old Oracle-specific syntax:
SELECT glas_daten_basis.idnr, glas_daten_basis.gl_bez, NVL(p2.zum2, p1.zum2)
FROM glas_daten_basis, os_przu p1, os_przu p2
WHERE p1.idnr = glas_daten_basis.idnr
AND p1.kunr = 0
AND p2.idnr (+) = glas_daten_basis.idnr
AND p2.kunr (+) = 63;
Which is pretty similar to #nelucon's answer, except that only had one (+) left-join marker and it was on the wrong side of the condition.
SQL Fiddle.
The (+) is the Oracle-specific outer-join operator, and it has to be applied to each condition for the outer-joined table - if one is missed then the rest are ignored and it effectively becomes an inner join again. (One of the reasons ANSI joins are easier to work with, though you can still get that wrong by referring to the joined table in the where clause as well as the on.)
something like this, i didn't test the code but you got it. (+) means the left join. for more infos, google for "oracle 8 left join"
SELECT glas_daten_basis.idnr, glas_daten_basis.gl_bez, NVL(p2.zum2, p1.zum2)
FROM glas_daten_basis, os_przu p1, os_przu p2
WHERE p1.kunr = 0
AND p1.idnr = glas_daten_basis.idnr
AND p2.idnr = glas_daten_basis.idnr (+)
AND p2.kunr = 6;
Related
I have a SQL query written in SQL Server version 2000. The query is not running in SQL Server 2016. The query is like below.
Select *
from ProjPace2 P, ProjPace2 P2
where P.DivCode *= P2.DivCode
and P.ProjGrp *= P2.ProjGrp
and P.ProjYr *= P2.ProjYr
and P.T_D *= P2.T_D
and P.Qtr *= P2.Qtr
and P.SRA_LRA *= P2.SRA_LRA
and P.District *= P2.District
and P.PICompany *= P2.PICompany
and P.ContCode *= P2.ContCode
and P.dtWkEnding > dateadd(dd,-1,'1/1/2015')
and P2.dtWkEnding between dateadd(dd,-10,'1/1/2015') and dateadd(dd,-3,'1/1/2015')
I am getting the following error:
Msg 4147, Level 15, State 1, Line 20
The query uses non-ANSI outer join operators ("*=" or "=*"). To run this query without modification, please set the compatibility level for current database to 80, using the SET COMPATIBILITY_LEVEL option of ALTER DATABASE. It is strongly recommended to rewrite the query using ANSI outer join operators (LEFT OUTER JOIN, RIGHT OUTER JOIN). In the future versions of SQL Server, non-ANSI join operators will not be supported even in backward-compatibility modes.
I can understand the error is occurring due to "*" and I want to replace it with Left outer join so I can get the same result.
Any help will be thankfully accepted.
Partha
All conditions that are specified with *= operator denote ON clause for LEFT OUTER JOIN. So equivalent query would become:
Select *
from ProjPace2 P
left outer join ProjPace2 P2 on
P.DivCode = P2.DivCode
and P.ProjGrp = P2.ProjGrp
and P.ProjYr = P2.ProjYr
and P.T_D = P2.T_D
and P.Qtr = P2.Qtr
and P.SRA_LRA = P2.SRA_LRA
and P.District = P2.District
and P.PICompany = P2.PICompany
and P.ContCode = P2.ContCode
where P.dtWkEnding > dateadd(dd,-1,'1/1/2015')
and P2.dtWkEnding between dateadd(dd,-10,'1/1/2015') and dateadd(dd,-3,'1/1/2015')
One note though: Since you have condition where returned rows must have P2.dtWkEnding between dateadd(dd,-10,'1/1/2015') and dateadd(dd,-3,'1/1/2015') there is no need for LEFT OUTER JOIN since rows without matching P2 record will never be returned. So for this query you should use INNER JOIN.
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 = (?)
);
When I execute the query below I get the following error message :
ORA-00918: column ambigously defined
ORA-02063: preceding line from ABC
Query:
SELECT
dos.*,
cmd.*,
cmd_r.*,
adr_inc.*,
adr_veh.*,
loc.*,
fou_d.*,
fou_r.*, --Works if I comment this line
mot.*
FROM
DOSSIERS#ABC dos
LEFT JOIN CMDS#ABC cmd ON cmd.DOS_CODE_ID = dos.dos_code_id
LEFT JOIN CMDS_RECCSTR#ABC cmd_r ON cmd_r.DOS_CODE_ID = dos.DOS_CODE_ID AND cmd_r.CMD_CODE_ID = cmd.CMD_CODE_ID AND cmd_r.CMD_DT_CREAT = cmd.CMD_DT_CREAT
LEFT JOIN HISTO_ADR#ABC adr_inc ON adr_inc.DOS_CODE_ID = dos.DOS_CODE_ID
LEFT JOIN HISTO_ADR#ABC adr_veh ON adr_veh.DOS_CODE_ID = dos.DOS_CODE_ID
LEFT JOIN LOC#ABC loc ON dos.DOS_CODE_ID = loc.DOS_CODE_ID
LEFT JOIN FOURNISS#ABC fou_d ON fou_d.PAY_CODE_ID = loc.PAY_CODE_ID_D AND fou_d.FOU_CODE_ID = loc.FOU_CODE_ID_D
LEFT JOIN FOURNISS#ABC fou_r ON fou_r.PAY_CODE_ID = loc.PAY_CODE_ID_R AND fou_r.FOU_CODE_ID = loc.FOU_CODE_ID_R
LEFT JOIN REF_MOT#ABC mot ON mot.RMR_CODE_ID = cmd_r.RMR_CODE_ID
WHERE
dos.REF_EXT = 'XXXXXXX'
If I comment fou_r.* in SELECT it works.
The following queries don't work neither:
SELECT *
FROM ... ;
SELECT (SELECT count(xxx) FROM ...)
FROM ...;
I looked at similar issues on SO but they were all using complex queries or was using many SELECT inside WHERE. Mine is simple that is why I don't understand what could be wrong.
Current Database: Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.2.0 - 64bit Production
Target Database (refers to db link ABC target): Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.3.0 - 64bi
Client: Toad for Oracle 9.7.2.5
You seem to be hitting bug 13589271. I can't share details from MOS, but there isn't much to share anyway. It's related to the remote table having a column with a 30-character name though, as you have in your remote FOURNIUSS table.
Unfortunately simply aliasing the column in your query, like this:
fou_d.COLUMN_WITH_30_CHARACTERS_NAME alias_a,
fou_r.COLUMN_WITH_30_CHARACTERS_NAME alias_b,
... doesn't help and still gets the same error, as the alias is applied by the local database and the problem seems to be during the remote access. What does seem to work is using an in-line view to apply a column alias before the join:
...
LEFT JOIN LOC#ABC loc ON dos.DOS_CODE_ID = loc.DOS_CODE_ID
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT PAY_CODE_ID, FOU_CODE_ID, COLUMN_WITH_30_CHARACTERS_NAME alias_a FROM FOURNISS#ABC
) fou_d ON fou_d.PAY_CODE_ID = loc.PAY_CODE_ID_D AND fou_d.FOU_CODE_ID = loc.FOU_CODE_ID_D
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT PAY_CODE_ID, FOU_CODE_ID, COLUMN_WITH_30_CHARACTERS_NAME alias_b FROM FOURNISS#ABC
) fou_r ON fou_r.PAY_CODE_ID = loc.PAY_CODE_ID_R AND fou_r.FOU_CODE_ID = loc.FOU_CODE_ID_R
LEFT JOIN REF_MOT#ABC mot ON mot.RMR_CODE_ID = cmd_r.RMR_CODE_ID
...
This even works if you give the column the same alias in both inline views. The downside is that you have to explicitly list all of the columns from the table (or at least those you're interested in) in order to be able to apply the alias to the problematic one, but having done so you can still use fou_d.* and fou_r.* in the outer select list.
I don't have an 11.2.0.2 database but I've run this successfully in an 11.2.0.3 database which still showed the ORA-00918 error from your original code. It's possible something else in 11.2.0.2 will stop this workaround being effective, of course. I don't see the original problem in 11.2.0.4 at all, so upgrading to that terminal patch release might be a better long-term solution.
Using * is generally considered a bad practice anyway though, not least because you're going to get a lot of duplicated columns from the joins (lots of dos_code_id in each row, for example); but you're also likely to be getting other data you don't really want, and anything that consumes this result set will have to assume the column order is always the same in those tables - any variation, or later addition or removal of a column, will cause problems.
I am busy converting a query using the old style syntax to the new join syntax. The essence of my query is as follows :
Original Query
SELECT i.*
FROM
InterestRunDailySum i,
InterestRunDetail ird,
InterestPayments p
WHERE
p.IntrPayCode = 187
AND i.IntRunCode = p.IntRunCode AND i.ClientCode = p.ClientCode
AND ird.IntRunCode = p.IntRunCode AND ird.ClientCode = p.ClientCode
New Query
SELECT i.*
FROM InterestPayments p
INNER JOIN InterestRunDailySum i
ON (i.IntRunCode = p.IntRunCode AND i.ClientCode = p.ClientCode)
INNER JOIN InterestRunDetail ird
ON (ird.IntRunCode = p.IntRunCode AND ird.IntRunCode = p.IntRunCode)
WHERE
p.IntrPayCode = 187
In this example, "Original Query" returns 46 rows, where "New Query" returns over 800
Can someone explain the difference to me? I would have assumed that these queries are identical.
The problem is with your join to InterestRunDetail. You are joining on IntRunCode twice.
The correct query should be:
SELECT i.*
FROM InterestPayments p
INNER JOIN InterestRunDailySum i
ON (i.IntRunCode = p.IntRunCode AND i.ClientCode = p.ClientCode)
INNER JOIN InterestRunDetail ird
ON (ird.IntRunCode = p.IntRunCode AND ird.ClientCode = p.ClientCode)
WHERE
p.IntrPayCode = 187
The "new query" is the one compatible with the current ANSI SQL standard for JOINs.
Also, I find query #2 much cleaner:
you are almost forced to think about and specify the join condition(s) between two tables - you will not accidentally have cartesian products in your query. If you happen to list ten tables, but only six join conditions in your WHERE clause - you'll get a lot more data back than expected!
your WHERE clause isn't cluttered with join conditions and thus it's cleaner, less messy, easier to read and understand
the type of your JOIN (whether INNER JOIN, LEFT OUTER JOIN, CROSS JOIN) is typically a lot easier to see - since you spell it out. With the "old-style" syntax, the difference between those join types is rather hard to see, buried somewhere in your lots of WHERE criteria.....
Functionally, the two are identical - #1 might be deprecated sooner or later by some query engines.
Also see Aaron Bertrand's excellent Bad Habits to Kick - using old-style JOIN syntax blog post for more info - and while you're at it - read all "bad habits to kick" posts - all very much worth it!
I am trying to write a query to return the id of the latest version of a market index stored in a database.
SELECT miv.market_index_id market_index_id from ref_market_index_version miv
INNER JOIN ref_market_index mi ON miv.market_index_id = mi.id
WHERE mi.short_name='dow30'
AND miv.version_num = (SELECT MAX(m1.version_num) FROM ref_market_index_version m1 INNER JOIN ref_market_index m2 ON m1.market_index_id = m2.id )
The above SQL statement can be (roughly) translated into the form:
SELECT some columns FROM SOME CRITERIA MATCHED TABLES
WHERE mi.short_name='some name'
AND miv.version_num = SOME NUMBER
What I don't understand is that when I supply an actual number (instead of a sub query), the SQL statement works - also, when I test the SUB query used to determine the latest version number, that also works - however, when I attempt to use the result returned by sub query in the outer (parent?) query, it returns 0 rows - what am I doing wrong here?
Incidentally, I also tried an IN CLAUSE instead of the strict equality match i.e.
... AND miv.version_num IN (SUB QUERY)
That also resulted in 0 rows, although as before, when running the parent query with a hard coded version number, I get 1 row returned (as expected).
BTW I am using postgeresql, but I prefer the solution to be db agnostic.
The problem is probably that the max(version_num) doesn't exist for 'dow30'.
Try the following correlated subquery:
SELECT miv.market_index_id market_index_id
from ref_market_index_version miv INNER JOIN
ref_market_index mi
ON miv.market_index_id = mi.id
WHERE mi.short_name='dow30' AND
miv.version_num = (SELECT MAX(m1.version_num)
FROM ref_market_index_version m1 INNER JOIN
ref_market_index m2
ON m1.market_index_id = m2.id
where m1.short_name = 'dow30'
)
I added the where clause in the subquery.