I have two tables. Cat and Data.
Cat
Cat_Serno
Cat_Name
Data
Data_Serno
Data_Name
Data_Cat_ID
Data_Project_ID
When i Am doing a regular join I am getting
SELECT t1.*,t2.*
FROM Cat t1
LEFT JOIN Data t2 ON t1.Cat_Serno = t2.Data_Cat_Id
but when I apply a where condition on Project_Id it gives me only one column. I want to Display all the category and Null if there is no related data in the Data table along with the where clause on the Project_Id. It should also contain Null if I am using a where clause with a project_id without any value in the Data table (eg: where Project_Id=2) even if 2 is not present in the Data Table.
When I do it with Project_Id=2 which is not existing in Data Table I only get one Record with Null Values.
If you include column of table Data in where clause, your join will almost act as inner join, so if you want all records of Cat table, you should not include any column of Data table in where clause, still if you want to apply condition you can include it in "on" in join Try this,
SELECT t1.*,t2.*
FROM Cat t1
LEFT JOIN Data t2 ON t1.Cat_Serno = t2.Data_Cat_Id
and Project_Id=2
You have to add the where condition with the required values and add an OR condition with IS NULL
Example:
WHERE (DataName = 'Data_One' OR DataName IS NULL)
Please note, that NULL is not equals to any values (including NULL), so you have to handle it.
Another way:
WHERE COALESCE(DataName, 'n/a') IN ('Data_One', 'n/a')
If you want to return records from both Data and Cat, when there is no matching records in the opposite table, do a FULL OUTER JOIN, instead of a LEFT/RIGHT join.
Furthermore, to filter records from either table without filtering the entire result set, apply your conditions in the ON part of the statement, rather than the WHERE part of the statement. For example:
SELECT t1.*, t2.* FROM Cat t1 FULL OUTER JOIN Data t2
ON t1.Cat_Serno = t2.Data_Cat_Id
AND t2.Data_Project_Id = 2
Try:
WHERE t2.project_id = ...
OR t2.project_id IS NULL;
Related
I have been working on this issue since 2 days now.
I have two tables created by using SQL Select statements
SELECT (
) Target
INNER JOIN
SELECT (
) Source
ON Join condition 1
AND Join condition 2
AND Join condition 3
AND Join condition 4
AND Join condition 5
The target table has count value of 10,000 records.
The source table has count value of 10,000 records.
but when I do an inner join between the two tables on the 5 join conditions
I get 9573 records.
I am basically trying to find a one to one match between source and target table. I feel every field from target matches every field in source.
Questions:
Why does my inner join give less records even if there are same value of records in both tables?
If it is expected, how can I make sure I get the exact 10,000 records after the join condition?
1) An INNER JOIN only outputs the rows from the JOINING of two tables where their joining columns match. So in your case, Join Condition1 may not exist in rows in both tables and therefore some rows are filtering out.
2) As the other poster mentioned a left join is one way. You need to look which table source or target you want to use as your master i.e. start from and return all those rows. You then left join the remaining table based on your conditions to add all the columns where you join conditions match.
It's probably better if you give us the tables you are working on and the query\results you are trying to achieve.
There's some really good articles about the different joins out there. But it looks like you'd be interested in left joins. So if it exists in Target, but not in Source, it will not drop the record.
So, it would be:
SELECT(...) Target
LEFT OUTER JOIN
SELECT(...) Source
ON cond1 and cond2 and cond3 and cond4 and cond5
Give that a shot and let me know how it goes!
Sometime you need to rely on logical analysis rather than feelings. Use this query to find the fields that do not match and then work out your next steps
SELECT
Target.Col1,Source.Col1,
Target.Col2,Source.Col2,
Target.Col3,Source.Col3
FROM
(
) Target
FULL OUTER JOIN
(
) Source
ON Target.Col1=Source.Col1
AND Target.Col2=Source.Col2
AND Target.Col3=Source.Col3
WHERE (
Target.Col1 IS NULL
OR Source.Col1 IS NULL
OR Target.Col2 IS NULL
OR Source.Col2 IS NULL
OR Target.Col3 IS NULL
OR Source.Col3 IS NULL
)
Despite going through every material I could possibly find on the internet, I haven't been able to solve this issue myself. I am new to MS Access and would really appreciate any pointers.
Here's my problem - I have three tables
Source1084 with columns - Department, Sub-Dept, Entity, Account, +few more
R12CAOmappingTable with columns - Account, R12_Account
Table4 with columns - R12_Account, Department, Sub-Dept, Entity, New Dept, LOB +few more
I have a total of 1084 records in Source and the result table must also contain 1084 records. I need to draw a table with all the columns from Source + R12_account from R12CAOmappingTable + all columns from Table4.
Here is the query I wrote. This yields the right columns but gives me more or less number of records with interchanging different join options.
SELECT rmt.r12_account,
srb.version,
srb.fy,
srb.joblevel,
srb.scenario,
srb.department,
srb.[sub-department],
srb.[job function],
srb.entity,
srb.employee,
table4.lob,
table4.product,
table4.newacct,
table4.newdept,
srb.[beg balance],
srb.jan,
srb.feb,
srb.mar,
srb.apr,
srb.may,
srb.jun,
srb.jul,
srb.aug,
srb.sep,
srb.oct,
srb.nov,
srb.dec,
rmt.r12_account
FROM (source1084 AS srb
LEFT JOIN r12caomappingtable AS rmt
ON srb.account = rmt.account)
LEFT JOIN table4
ON ( srb.department = table4.dept )
AND ( srb.[sub-department] = table4.subdept )
AND ( srb.entity = table4.entity )
WHERE ( ( ( srb.[sub-department] ) = table4.subdept )
AND ( ( srb.entity ) = table4.entity )
AND ( ( rmt.r12_account ) = table4.r12_account ) );
In this simple example, Table1 contains 3 rows with unique fld1 values. Table2 contains one row, and the fld1 value in that row matches one of those in Table1. Therefore this query returns 3 rows.
SELECT *
FROM
Table1 AS t1
LEFT JOIN Table2 AS t2
ON t1.fld1 = t2.fld1;
However if I add the WHERE clause as below, that version of the query returns only one row --- the row where the fld1 values match.
SELECT *
FROM
Table1 AS t1
LEFT JOIN Table2 AS t2
ON t1.fld1 = t2.fld1
WHERE t1.fld1 = t2.fld1;
In other words, that WHERE clause counteracts the LEFT JOIN because it excludes rows where t2.fld1 is Null. If that makes sense, notice that second query is functionally equivalent to this ...
SELECT *
FROM
Table1 AS t1
INNER JOIN Table2 AS t2
ON t1.fld1 = t2.fld1;
Your situation is similar. I suggest you first eliminate the WHERE clause and confirm this query returns at least your expected 1084 rows.
SELECT Count(*) AS CountOfRows
FROM (source1084 AS srb
LEFT JOIN r12caomappingtable AS rmt
ON srb.account = rmt.account)
LEFT JOIN table4
ON ( srb.department = table4.dept )
AND ( srb.[sub-department] = table4.subdept )
AND ( srb.entity = table4.entity );
After you get the query returning the correct number of rows, you can alter the SELECT list to return the columns you want. But the columns aren't really the issue until you can get the correct rows.
Without knowing your tables values it is hard to give a complete answer to your question. The issue that is causing you a problem based on how you described it. Is more then likely based on the type of joins you are using.
The best way I found to understand what type of joins you should be using would referencing a Venn diagram explaining the different type of joins that you can use.
Jeff Atwood also has a really good explanation of SQL joins on his site using the above method as well.
Best to just use the query builder. Drop in your main table. Choose the columns you want. Now for any of the other lookup values then simply drop in the other tables, draw the join line(s), double click and use a left join. You can do this for 2 or 30 columns that need to "grab" or lookup other values from other tables. The number of ORIGINAL rows in the base table returned should ALWAYS remain the same.
So just use the query builder and follow the above.
The problem with your posted SQL is you NESTED the joins inside (). Don't do that. (or let the query builder do this for you – they tend to be quite messy but will also work).
Just use this:
FROM source1084 AS srb
LEFT JOIN r12caomappingtable AS rmt
ON srb.account = rmt.account
LEFT JOIN table4
ON ( srb.department = table4.dept )
AND ( srb.[sub-department] = table4.subdept )
AND ( srb.entity = table4.entity )
As noted, I don't see why you are "repeating" the conditions again in the where clause.
I'm trying to run this join and I'm not receiving the correct values.
My first query return like 25,000 record
SELECT count(*) from table1 as DSO,
table2 as EAR
WHERE
(UCASE(TRIM(EAR.value)) = UCASE(TRIM(DSO.value))
AND
UCASE(TRIM(EAR.value1) = UCASE(TRIM(DSO.value1))
my second Query return like 3,000,000
SELECT count(*) from table1 as DSO
left join table2 as EAR,
ON
(UCASE(TRIM(EAR.value)) = UCASE(TRIM(DSO.value))
AND
UCASE(TRIM(EAR.value1) = UCASE(TRIM(DSO.value1))
The total of records of the table 1 are like 45,000, thats what I Should recieve.
First query is an INNER JOIN and second one is a LEFT JOIN. You should expect quite different results. Also, look at the way db2400 treats NULLs with the UCASE and TRIM functions. My guess is that your left join is making some matches that you don't want.
The INNER JOIN in the first query is going to exclude any records from table1 that don't have a match in table2. That pretty quickly explains the lower count.
Either join will happily create more than one row for each record in table1 if it finds multiple matches in table2. The difference is that the LEFT JOIN will ALSO create one row for each record in table1 that doesn't have a match in table2. It sounds like you expect there to be a 1:1 match between the two tables, but that is not what you are getting.
I need to retrieve all default settings from the settings table but also grab the character setting if exists for x character.
But this query is only retrieving those settings where character is = 1, not the default settings if the user havent setted anyone.
SELECT `settings`.*, `character_settings`.`value`
FROM (`settings`)
LEFT JOIN `character_settings`
ON `character_settings`.`setting_id` = `settings`.`id`
WHERE `character_settings`.`character_id` = '1'
So i should need something like this:
array(
'0' => array('somekey' => 'keyname', 'value' => 'thevalue'),
'1' => array('somekey2' => 'keyname2'),
'2' => array('somekey3' => 'keyname3')
)
Where key 1 and 2 are the default values when key 0 contains the default value with the character value.
The where clause is filtering away rows where the left join doesn't succeed. Move it to the join:
SELECT `settings`.*, `character_settings`.`value`
FROM `settings`
LEFT JOIN
`character_settings`
ON `character_settings`.`setting_id` = `settings`.`id`
AND `character_settings`.`character_id` = '1'
When making OUTER JOINs (ANSI-89 or ANSI-92), filtration location matters because criteria specified in the ON clause is applied before the JOIN is made. Criteria against an OUTER JOINed table provided in the WHERE clause is applied after the JOIN is made. This can produce very different result sets. In comparison, it doesn't matter for INNER JOINs if the criteria is provided in the ON or WHERE clauses -- the result will be the same.
SELECT s.*,
cs.`value`
FROM SETTINGS s
LEFT JOIN CHARACTER_SETTINGS cs ON cs.setting_id = s.id
AND cs.character_id = 1
If I understand your question correctly you want records from the settings database if they don't have a join accross to the character_settings table or if that joined record has character_id = 1.
You should therefore do
SELECT `settings`.*, `character_settings`.`value`
FROM (`settings`)
LEFT OUTER JOIN `character_settings`
ON `character_settings`.`setting_id` = `settings`.`id`
WHERE `character_settings`.`character_id` = '1' OR
`character_settings`.character_id is NULL
You might find it easier to understand by using a simple subquery
SELECT `settings`.*, (
SELECT `value` FROM `character_settings`
WHERE `character_settings`.`setting_id` = `settings`.`id`
AND `character_settings`.`character_id` = '1') AS cv_value
FROM `settings`
The subquery is allowed to return null, so you don't have to worry about JOIN/WHERE in the main query.
Sometimes, this works faster in MySQL, but compare it against the LEFT JOIN form to see what works best for you.
SELECT s.*, c.value
FROM settings s
LEFT JOIN character_settings c ON c.setting_id = s.id AND c.character_id = '1'
For this problem, as for many others involving non-trivial left joins such as left-joining on inner-joined tables, I find it convenient and somewhat more readable to split the query with a with clause. In your example,
with settings_for_char as (
select setting_id, value from character_settings where character_id = 1
)
select
settings.*,
settings_for_char.value
from
settings
left join settings_for_char on settings_for_char.setting_id = settings.id;
The way I finally understand the top answer is realising (following the Order Of Execution of the SQL query ) that the WHERE clause is applied to the joined table thereby filtering out rows that do not satisfy the WHERE condition from the joined (or output) table. However, moving the WHERE condition to the ON clause applies it to the individual tables prior to joining. This enables the left join to retain rows from the left table even though some column entries of those rows (entries from the right tables) do not satisfy the WHERE condition.
The result is correct based on the SQL statement. Left join returns all values from the right table, and only matching values from the left table.
ID and NAME columns are from the right side table, so are returned.
Score is from the left table, and 30 is returned, as this value relates to Name "Flow". The other Names are NULL as they do not relate to Name "Flow".
The below would return the result you were expecting:
SELECT a.*, b.Score
FROM #Table1 a
LEFT JOIN #Table2 b
ON a.ID = b.T1_ID
WHERE 1=1
AND a.Name = 'Flow'
The SQL applies a filter on the right hand table.
Whats the difference between
SELECT DISTINCT field1
FROM table1 cd
JOIN table2
ON cd.Company = table2.Name
and table2.Id IN (2728)
and
SELECT DISTINCT field1
FROM table1 cd
JOIN table2
ON cd.Company = table2.Name
where table2.Id IN (2728)
both return the same result and both have the same explain output
Firstly there is a semantic difference. When you have a join, you are saying that the relationship between the two tables is defined by that condition. So in your first example you are saying that the tables are related by cd.Company = table2.Name AND table2.Id IN (2728). When you use the WHERE clause, you are saying that the relationship is defined by cd.Company = table2.Name and that you only want the rows where the condition table2.Id IN (2728) applies. Even though these give the same answer, it means very different things to a programmer reading your code.
In this case, the WHERE clause is almost certainly what you mean so you should use it.
Secondly there is actually difference in the result in the case that you use a LEFT JOIN instead of an INNER JOIN. If you include the second condition as part of the join, you will still get a result row if the condition fails - you will get values from the left table and nulls for the right table. If you include the condition as part of the WHERE clause and that condition fails, you won't get the row at all.
Here is an example to demonstrate this.
Query 1 (WHERE):
SELECT DISTINCT field1
FROM table1 cd
LEFT JOIN table2
ON cd.Company = table2.Name
WHERE table2.Id IN (2728);
Result:
field1
200
Query 2 (AND):
SELECT DISTINCT field1
FROM table1 cd
LEFT JOIN table2
ON cd.Company = table2.Name
AND table2.Id IN (2728);
Result:
field1
100
200
Test data used:
CREATE TABLE table1 (Company NVARCHAR(100) NOT NULL, Field1 INT NOT NULL);
INSERT INTO table1 (Company, Field1) VALUES
('FooSoft', 100),
('BarSoft', 200);
CREATE TABLE table2 (Id INT NOT NULL, Name NVARCHAR(100) NOT NULL);
INSERT INTO table2 (Id, Name) VALUES
(2727, 'FooSoft'),
(2728, 'BarSoft');
SQL comes from relational algebra.
One way to look at the difference is that JOINs are operations on sets that can produce more records or less records in the result than you had in the original tables. On the other side WHERE will always restrict the number of results.
The rest of the text is extra explanation.
For overview of join types see article again.
When I said that the where condition will always restrict the results, you have to take into account that when we are talking about queries on two (or more) tables you have to somehow pair records from these tables even if there is no JOIN keyword.
So in SQL if the tables are simply separated by a comma, you are actually using a CROSS JOIN (cartesian product) which returns every row from one table for each row in the other.
And since this is a maximum number of combinations of rows from two tables then the results of any WHERE on cross joined tables can be expressed as a JOIN operation.
But hold, there are exceptions to this maximum when you introduce LEFT, RIGHT and FULL OUTER joins.
LEFT JOIN will join records from the left table on a given criteria with records from the right table, BUT if the join criteria, looking at a row from the left table is not satisfied for any records in the right table the LEFT JOIN will still return a record from the left table and in the columns that would come from the right table it will return NULLs (RIGHT JOIN works similarly but from the other side, FULL OUTER works like both at the same time).
Since the default cross join does NOT return those records you can not express these join criteria with WHERE condition and you are forced to use JOIN syntax (oracle was an exception to this with an extension to SQL standard and to = operator, but this was not accepted by other vendors nor the standard).
Also, joins usually, but not always, coincide with existing referential integrity and suggest relationships between entities, but I would not put as much weight into that since the where conditions can do the same (except in the before mentioned case) and to a good RDBMS it will not make a difference where you specify your criteria.
The join is used to reflect the entity relations
the where clause filters down results.
So the join clauses are 'static' (unless the entity relations change), while the where clauses are use-case specific.
There is no difference. "ON" is like a synonym for "WHERE", so t he second kind of reads like:
JOIN table2 WHERE cd.Company = table2.Name AND table2.Id IN (2728)
There is no difference when the query optimisation engine breaks it down to its relevant query operators.