I'm trying to get 2 results into 1 html table, the results of a user being kicked/banned. A UUID is a unique code for every user.
The UUID is stored in BAT_players.
The player name is also stored in BAT_players
There are 3 table's: BAT_players, BAT_ban and BAT_kick
I'm trying to get the history of a user in a html table, this includes kicks and bans. Right now there are only bans in this history, i'm trying to add kicks too. This query is working fine, it shows only bans though.
SELECT BAT_ban.ban_staff, BAT_ban.ban_state, BAT_ban.ban_server, BAT_ban.ban_begin, BAT_ban.ban_end, BAT_ban.ban_id, BAT_kick.kick_id, BAT_ban.ban_reason, BAT_players.BAT_player, ban_soort
FROM BAT_players
INNER JOIN BAT_ban
ON BAT_ban.UUID=BAT_players.UUID
Unfortunately it is not working with this query, it's giving me an empty history. What am i doing wrong with the second inner join?
SELECT BAT_ban.ban_staff, BAT_ban.ban_state, BAT_ban.ban_server, BAT_ban.ban_begin, BAT_ban.ban_end, BAT_ban.ban_id, BAT_kick.kick_id, BAT_ban.ban_reason, BAT_players.BAT_player, ban_soort
FROM BAT_players
INNER JOIN BAT_ban
ON BAT_ban.UUID=BAT_players.UUID
INNER JOIN BAT_kick
ON BAT_kick.UUID=BAT_players.UUID ORDER BY ban_id DESC
;
Thanks!
The problem is that a "null" on any of your inner joins will eliminate that row from the result set.
One solution (perhaps the best solution) is to use left joins.
Another is to take the UNION of two inner joins.
Here's a great link to help visualize INNER, OUTER, LEFT and RIGHT joins:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/33052/Visual-Representation-of-SQL-Joins
Try using LEFT JOIN:
SELECT BAT_ban.ban_staff, BAT_ban.ban_state, BAT_ban.ban_server, BAT_ban.ban_begin, BAT_ban.ban_end, BAT_ban.ban_id, BAT_kick.kick_id, BAT_ban.ban_reason, BAT_players.BAT_player, ban_soort
FROM BAT_players LEFT JOIN
BAT_ban ON BAT_ban.UUID=BAT_players.UUID LEFT JOIN
BAT_kick ON BAT_kick.UUID=BAT_players.UUID
ORDER BY ban_id DESC
To replace NULL values with empty strings (for SQL Server):
SELECT ISNULL(BAT_ban.ban_staff,''), ISNULL(BAT_ban.ban_state,''), ISNULL(BAT_ban.ban_server,''), ISNULL(BAT_ban.ban_begin,''), ISNULL(BAT_ban.ban_end,''), ISNULL(BAT_ban.ban_id,''), ISNULL(BAT_kick.kick_id,''), ISNULL(BAT_ban.ban_reason,''), BAT_players.BAT_player, ban_soort
FROM BAT_players LEFT JOIN
BAT_ban ON BAT_ban.UUID=BAT_players.UUID LEFT JOIN
BAT_kick ON BAT_kick.UUID=BAT_players.UUID
ORDER BY ban_id DESC
For MySQL, replace ISNULL with IFNULL.
An INNER JOIN requires a value in both tables, so if you use it for both kicks and bans, you will only see users who have been both kicked and banned.
To show users who have been either kicked or banned, you need to change both joins to LEFT JOIN, which essentially means "join if you can, but don't discard rows if you can't". That will include users who have been neither kicked nor banned, so you will also want an extra condition in the WHERE clause saying BAT_ban.ban_id IS NOT NULL OR BAT_kick.kick_id IS NOT NULL.
Note that where a user has multiple bans and multiple kicks, this will produce a row for every combination of ban and kick, since there is no rule to determine which ban should line up with which kick.
An alternative is to write two queries, each using INNER JOIN, and then combine the results. If you give them the same number and type of output columns (leaving NULL for those which aren't applicable) you can use UNION to run both and return the complete result set in one go.
Related
I have a query that joins many related tables together and as a result, it returns duplicate rows for those items with multiple data against them.
I've searched for answers to this on stack and via google but all the results show things like using 'DISTINCT' or creating a subquery. I can't get any solution to work and I think the confusion I face is because of the many joins I have.
Can someone guide me on how to stop my results shows duplicates? Here is my query so far.
SELECT dbo.Vessel.VesselId,
dbo.Vessel.Name,
dbo.Capacity.DeckAreaM2,
dbo.Vessel.DPClassId,
dbo.Subsea.Accomodation,
dbo.Subsea.RovHangar,
dbo.Crane.SWL
FROM dbo.Vessel INNER JOIN
dbo.Capacity ON dbo.Vessel.VesselId = dbo.Capacity.VesselId LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.DeckEquipment ON dbo.Vessel.VesselId = dbo.DeckEquipment.VesselId LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.Crane ON dbo.DeckEquipment.DeckEquipmentId = dbo.Crane.DeckEquipmentId LEFT OUTER JOIN
dbo.Subsea ON dbo.Vessel.VesselId = dbo.Subsea.VesselId
First of all, does your query even work? There's no such thing as LEFT INNER JOIN ; you may have an INNER JOIN, a LEFT JOIN, or a LEFT OUTER JOIN, with the latter two being the same.
Second, I can understand your non-willingness to make an additional subquery, but why are you against the DISTINCT operator?
Third, if you use a GROUP BY and put there ONLY the fields you want, it will be equivelant to a DISTINCT operator and will return the results you need.
Last but not least, you need to show us what you are getting and what you want instead, if we are to be able to help you more.
I'm new to sql and trying to tweak someone else's huge stored procedure to get a subset of the results. The code below is maybe 10% of the whole procedure. I added the lp.posting_date, last left join, and the where clause. Trying to get records where the posting date is between the start date and the end date. Am I doing this right? Apparently not because the results are unaffected by the change. UPDATE: I CHANGED THE LAST JOIN. The results are correct if there's only one area allocation term. If there is more than one area allocation term, the results are duplicated for each term.
SELECT Distinct
l.lease_id ,
l.property_id as property_id,
l.lease_number as LeaseNumber,
l.name as LeaseName,
lty.name as LeaseType,
lst.name as LeaseStatus,
l.possession_date as PossessionDate,
l.rent as RentCommencementDate,
l.store_open_date as StoreOpenDate,
msr.description as MeasureUnit,
l.comments as Comments ,
lat.start_date as atStartDate,
lat.end_date as atEndDate,
lat.rentable_area as Rentable,
lat.usable_area as Usable,
laat.start_date as aatStartDate,
laat.end_date as aatEndDate,
MK.Path as OrgPath,
CAST(laa.percentage as numeric(9,2)) as Percentage,
laa.rentable_area as aaRentable,
laa.usable_area as aaUsable,
laa.headcounts as Headcount,
laa.area_allocation_term_id,
lat.area_term_id,
laa.area_allocation_id,
lp.posting_date
INTO #LEASES FROM la_tbl_lease l
INNER JOIN #LEASEID on l.lease_id=#LEASEID.lease_id
INNER JOIN la_tbl_lease_term lt on lt.lease_id=l.lease_id and lt.IsDeleted=0
LEFT JOIN la_tlu_lease_type lty on lty.lease_type_id=l.lease_type_id and lty.IsDeleted=0
LEFT JOIN la_tlu_lease_status lst on lst.status_id= l.status_id
LEFT JOIN la_tbl_area_group lag on lag.lease_id=l.lease_id
LEFT JOIN fnd_tlu_unit_measure msr on msr.unit_measure_key=lag.unit_measure_key
LEFT JOIN la_tbl_area_term lat on lat.lease_id=l.lease_id and lat.isDeleted=0
LEFT JOIN la_tbl_area_allocat_term laat on laat.area_term_id=lat.area_term_id and laat.isDeleted=0
LEFT JOIN dbo.la_tbl_area_allocation laa on laa.area_allocation_term_id=laat.area_allocation_term_id and laa.isDeleted=0
LEFT JOIN vw_FND_TLU_Menu_Key MK on menu_type_id_key=2 and isActive=1 and id=laa.menu_id_key
INNER JOIN la_tbl_lease_projection lp on lp.lease_projection_id = #LEASEID.lease_projection_id
where lp.posting_date <= laat.end_date and lp.posting_date >= laat.start_date
As may have already been hinted at you should be careful when using the WHERE clause with an OUTER JOIN.
The idea of the OUTER JOIN is to optionally join that table and provide access to the columns.
The JOINS will generate your set and then the WHERE clause will run to restrict your set. If you are using a condition in the WHERE clause that says one of the columns in your outer joined table must exist / equal a value then by the nature of your query you are no longer doing a LEFT JOIN since you are only retrieving rows where that join occurs.
Shorten it and copy it out as a new query in ssms or whatever you are using for testing. Use an inner join unless you want to preserve the left side set even when there is no matching lp.lease_id. Try something like
if object_id('tempdb..#leases) is not null
drop table #leases;
select distinct
l.lease_id
,l.property_id as property_id
,lp.posting_date
into #leases
from la_tbl_lease as l
inner join la_tbl_lease_projection as lp on lp.lease_id = l.lease_id
where lp.posting_date <= laat.end_date and lp.posting_date >= laat.start_date
select * from #leases
drop table #leases
If this gets what you want then you can work from there and add the other left joins to the query (getting rid of the select * and 'drop table' if you copy it back into your proc). If it doesn't then look at your Boolean date logic or provide more detail for us. If you are new to sql and its procedural extensions, try using the object explorer to examine the properties of the columns you are querying, and try selecting the top 1000 * from the tables you are using to get a feel for what the data looks like when building queries. -Mike
You can try the BETWEEN operator as well
Where lp.posting_date BETWEEN laat.start_date AND laat.end_date
Reasoning: You can have issues wheres there is no matching values in a table. In that instance on a left join the table will populate with null. Using the 'BETWEEN' operator insures that all returns have a value that is between the range and no nulls can slip in.
As it turns out, the problem was easier to solve and it was in a different place in the stored procedure. All I had to do was add one line to one of the cursors to include area term allocations by date.
There must be something I'm missing here. I have this nice, pretty Oracle SQL statement in Toad that gives me back a list of all active personnel with the IDs that I want:
SELECT PERSONNEL.PERSON_ID,
PERSONNEL.NAME_LAST_KEY,
PERSONNEL.NAME_FIRST_KEY,
PA_EID.ALIAS EID,
PA_IDTWO.ALIAS IDTWO,
PA_LIC.ALIAS LICENSENO
FROM PERSONNEL
LEFT JOIN PERSONNEL_ALIAS PA_EID
ON PERSONNEL.PERSON_ID = PA_EID.PERSON_ID
AND PA_EID.PERSONNEL_ALIAS_TYPE_CD = 1086
AND PA_EID.ALIAS_POOL_CD = 3796547
AND PERSONNEL.ACTIVE_IND = 1
LEFT JOIN PERSONNEL_ALIAS PA_IDTWO
ON PERSONNEL.PERSON_ID = PA_IDTWO.PERSON_ID
AND PA_IDTWO.PERSONNEL_ALIAS_TYPE_CD = 3839085
AND PA_IDTWO.ACTIVE_IND = 1
LEFT JOIN PERSONNEL_ALIAS PA_LIC
ON PERSONNEL.PERSON_ID = PA_LIC.PERSON_ID
AND PA_LIC.PERSONNEL_ALIAS_TYPE_CD = 1087
AND PA_LIC.ALIAS_POOL_CD = 683988
AND PA_LIC.ACTIVE_IND = 1
WHERE PERSONNEL.ACTIVE_IND = 1 AND PERSONNEL.PHYSICIAN_IND = 1;
This works very nicely. Where I run into problems is when I put it into Access. I know, I know, Access Sucks. Sometimes one needs to use it, especially if one has multiple database types that they just want to store a few queries in, and especially if one's boss only knows Access. Anyway, I was having trouble with the ANDs inside the FROM, so I moved those to the WHERE, but for some odd reason, Access isn't doing the LEFT JOINs, returning only those personnel with EID, IDTWO, and LICENSENO's. Not everybody has all three of these.
Best shot in Access so far is:
SELECT PERSONNEL.PERSON_ID,
PERSONNEL.NAME_LAST_KEY,
PERSONNEL.NAME_FIRST_KEY,
PA_EID.ALIAS AS EID,
PA_IDTWO.ALIAS AS ID2,
PA_LIC.ALIAS AS LICENSENO
FROM ((PERSONNEL
LEFT JOIN PERSONNEL_ALIAS AS PA_EID ON PERSONNEL.PERSON_ID=PA_EID.PERSON_ID)
LEFT JOIN PERSONNEL_ALIAS AS PA_IDTWO ON PERSONNEL.PERSON_ID=PA_IDTWO.PERSON_ID)
LEFT JOIN PERSONNEL_ALIAS AS PA_LIC ON PERSONNEL.PERSON_ID=PA_LIC.PERSON_ID
WHERE (((PERSONNEL.ACTIVE_IND)=1)
AND ((PERSONNEL.PHYSICIAN_IND)=1)
AND ((PA_EID.PRSNL_ALIAS_TYPE_CD)=1086)
AND ((PA_EID.ALIAS_POOL_CD)=3796547)
AND ((PA_IDTWO.PRSNL_ALIAS_TYPE_CD)=3839085)
AND ((PA_IDTWO.ACTIVE_IND)=1)
AND ((PA_LIC.PRSNL_ALIAS_TYPE_CD)=1087)
AND ((PA_LIC.ALIAS_POOL_CD)=683988)
AND ((PA_LIC.ACTIVE_IND)=1));
I think that part of the problem could be that I'm using the same alias (lookup) table for all three joins. Maybe there's a more efficient way of doing this? Still new to SQL land, so any tips as far as that goes would be great. I feel like these should be equivalent, but the Toad query gives me back many many tens of thousands of imperfect rows, and Access gives me fewer than 500. I need to find everybody so that nobody is left out. It's almost as if the LEFT JOINs aren't working at all in Access.
To understand what you are doing, let's look at simplified version of your query:
SELECT PERSONNEL.PERSON_ID,
PA_EID.ALIAS AS EID
FROM PERSONNEL
LEFT JOIN PERSONNEL_ALIAS AS PA_EID ON PERSONNEL.PERSON_ID=PA_EID.PERSON_ID
WHERE PERSONNEL.ACTIVE_IND=1
AND PERSONNEL.PHYSICIAN_IND=1
AND PA_EID.PRSNL_ALIAS_TYPE_CD=1086
AND PA_EID.ALIAS_POOL_CD=3796547
If the LEFT JOIN finds match, your row might look like this:
Person_ID EID
12345 JDB
If it doesn't find a match, (disregard the WHERE clause for a second), it could look like:
Person_ID EID
12345 NULL
When you add the WHERE clauses above, you are telling it to only find records in the PERSONNEL_ALIAS table that meet the condition, but if no records are found, then the values are considered NULL, so they will never satisfy the WHERE condition and no records will come back...
As Joe Stefanelli said in his comment, adding a WHERE clause to a LEFT JOIN'ed table make it act as an INNER JOIN instead...
Further to #Sparky's answer, to get the equivalent of what you're doing in Oracle, you need to filter rows from the tables on the "outer" side of the joins before you join them. One way to do this might be:
For each table on the "outer" side of a join that you need to filter rows from (that is, the three instances of PERSONNEL_ALIAS), create a query that filters the rows you want. For example, the first query (say, named PA_EID) might look something like this:SELECT PERSONNEL_ALIAS.* FROM PERSONNEL_ALIAS WHERE PERSONNEL_ALIAS.PERSONNEL_ALIAS_TYPE_CD = 1086 AND PERSONNEL_ALIAS.ALIAS_POOL_CD = 3796547
In your "best shot in Access so far" query in the original post: a) replace each instance of PERSONNEL_ALIAS with the corresponding query created in Step 1, and, b) remove the corresponding conditions (on PA_EID, PA_IDTWO, and PA_LIC) from the WHERE clause.
Question about SQL View. Trying to develop a view from two tables. The two tables have same Primary Keys, execpt the 1st table has all of them, the 2nd has some, but not all. When I INNER Join them, I get a recordset but its not complete, because the 2nd table doesnt have all the records in it. Is there a way in my view to write logic stating that if the key isnt in there int he table #2 to insert a zero so the entire record set is shown in the view? I wan tto show ALL the records in the view even if theres nothing to inner join.
My example below:
SELECT dbo.Baan_view1b.Number, dbo.Baan_view1b.description, dbo.Baan_view1b.system, dbo.Baan_view1b.Analyst, dbo.Baan_view1b.[User],
dbo.Baan_view1b.[Date Submitted], dbo.Baan_view1b.category, dbo.Baan_view1b.stage, MAX(dbo.notes.percent_developed) AS Expr1
FROM dbo.Baan_view1b INNER JOIN
dbo.notes ON dbo.Baan_view1b.Number = dbo.notes.note_number
GROUP BY dbo.Baan_view1b.Number, dbo.Baan_view1b.description, dbo.Baan_view1b.system, dbo.Baan_view1b.Analyst, dbo.Baan_view1b.[User],
dbo.Baan_view1b.[Date Submitted], dbo.Baan_view1b.category, dbo.Baan_view1b.stage
HAVING (NOT (dbo.Baan_view1b.stage LIKE 'Closed'))
what you are looking for is the Left Join (left outer join) and not the inner join
SELECT dbo.Baan_view1b.Number, dbo.Baan_view1b.description, dbo.Baan_view1b.system, dbo.Baan_view1b.Analyst,
dbo.Baan_view1b.[User], dbo.Baan_view1b.[Date Submitted], dbo.Baan_view1b.category, dbo.Baan_view1b.stage,
MAX(dbo.notes.percent_developed) AS Expr1
FROM dbo.Baan_view1b
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.notes
ON dbo.Baan_view1b.Number = dbo.notes.note_number
WHERE NOT dbo.Baan_view1b.stage LIKE 'Closed'
GROUP BY dbo.Baan_view1b.Number, dbo.Baan_view1b.description, dbo.Baan_view1b.system, dbo.Baan_view1b.Analyst,
dbo.Baan_view1b.[User], dbo.Baan_view1b.[Date Submitted], dbo.Baan_view1b.category, dbo.Baan_view1b.stage
Also, changing the HAVING Clause to a WHERE clause makes the query more efficient.
Yes, you can do this. Assuming that baan_view1b has all the records and notes has only some, change
FROM dbo.Baan_view1b INNER JOIN dbo.notes
to say
FROM dbo.Baan_view1b LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.notes
INNER JOIN (or just plain JOIN) tells the database engine to take records from Baan_view1b, match them up with records in notes, and include a row in the output for every pair of records that match. As you have seen, it excludes records from Baan_view1b that don't have matches in the notes table.
LEFT OUTER JOIN instead tells the engine to take ALL the records from Bann_view1b (because it's on the left side of the JOIN keywords). Then, it will match up records from notes wherever it can. However, you are guaranteed a row in the output for every row in the left-hand table regardless of whether it can be matched.
If, as is usual, you asked for column values from both tables, the columns from the table on the right-hand side of the JOIN will have NULL values in the missing rows.
Change the inner join to a left outer join.
(Or a right outer join or a full outer join if you feel fancy.)
You need a outer join. This shows all records that have a matching key as well as the ones that don't. The inner join only shows records that have matching join keys.
Enjoy!
You need to do a Left Outer Join as other posters have already mentioned. More information can be found here.
What are the uses of the different join operations in SQL? Like I want to know why do we need the different inner and outer joins?
The only type of join you really need is LEFT OUTER JOIN. Every other type of join can be rewritten in terms of one or more left outer joins, and possibly some filtering. So why do we need all the others? Is it just to confuse people? Wouldn't it be simpler if there were only one type of join?
You could also ask: Why have both a <= b and b >= a? Don't these just do the same thing? Can't we just get rid of one of them? It would simplify things!
Sometimes it's easier to swap <= to >= instead of swapping the arguments round. Similarly, a left join and a right join are the same thing just with the operands swapped. But again it's practical to have both options instead of requiring people to write their queries in a specific order.
Another thing you could ask is: In logic why do we have AND, OR, NOT, XOR, NAND, NOR, etc? All these can be rewritten in terms of NANDs! Why not just have NAND? Well it's awkward to write an OR in terms of NANDs, and it's not as obvious what the intention is - if you write OR, people know immediately what you mean. If you write a bunch of NANDs, it is not obvious what you are trying to achieve.
Similarly, if you want to do a FULL OUTER JOIN b you could make a left join and a right join, remove duplicated results, and then union all. But that's a pain and so there's a shorthand for it.
When do you use each one? Here's a simplified rule:
If you always want a result row for each row in the LEFT table, use a LEFT OUTER JOIN.
If you always want a result row for each row in the RIGHT table, use a RIGHT OUTER JOIN.
If you always want a result row for each row in either table, use a FULL OUTER JOIN.
If you only want a result row when there's a row in both tables, use an INNER JOIN.
If you want all possible pairs of rows, one row from each table, use a CROSS JOIN.
inner join - joins rows from both sets of the match based on specified criteria.
outer join - selects all of one set, along with matching or empty (if not matched) elements from the other set. Outer joins can be left or right, to specify which set is returned in its entirety.
To make the other answers clearer - YOU GET DIFFERENT RESULTS according to the join you choose, when the columns you're joining on contain null values - for example.
So - for each Real-life scenario there is a join that suits it (either you want the lines without the data or not in the null values example).
My answer assumes 2 tables joined on a single key:
INNER JOIN - get the results that are in both join tables (according to the join rule)
FULL OUTER JOIN - get all results from both table (Cartesian product)
LEFT OUTER JOIN - get all the results from left table and the matching results from the right
You can add WHERE clauses in order to further constrain the results.
Use these in order to only get what you want to get.