I have a table called "calls", there are columns:
a_imei_number
b_imei_number
a_phone_number
b_phone_number
call_start_time
call_end_time
if a specific phone called x calls y then imei number of x is in a_imei_number column if y calls x then imei of x in b_imei_number. Shortly difference between a_imei_number and b_imei_number is incoming and outgoing calls for an imei. same for phone_number columns.
I am searching calls for a specific imei that happen in same time (cloned imei numbers) so i thought if i find a call whose call_start_time between other's call_start_time and call_end_time then i would find the cloned phones. so imei numbers must be same and phone numbers must be different logically.
so i wrote
select * from calls c1 , calls c2
where (c1.a_imei = 1234 or c1.b_imei = 1234)
and
c1.call_start_time between c2.call_start_time and c2.call_end_time
table has maybe 500M data. so this query is not returning and result maybe in 1 week it returns. Is there anyother way to find the result without joining same table like this ?
If I understand correctly, you are looking for calls that occur at the same time as calls to or from a specific number. The following query expresses this idea:
select c2.*
from (select c.*
from calls c
where c.a_imei = 1234 or c.b_imei = 1234
) cbase join
calls c2
on cbase.call_start_time between c2.call_start_time and c2.call_end_time;
The performance is going to depend greatly on the number of matches of the first query.
Sometimes, the database engine has a hard time optimizing or in a condition. I would suggest having indexes on calls(a_imei, call_start_time) and calls(b_imei, call_start_time) and rewriting the query as:
select c2.*
from ((select c.call_start_time
from calls c
where c.a_imei = 1234
) union all
(select c.call_start_time
from calls c
where c.b_imei = 1234
)
) cbase join
calls c2
on cbase.call_start_time between c2.call_start_time and c2.call_end_time;
For the final join, a third index would be useful: calls(call_start_time, call_end_time).
This probably won't help completely, but will hopefully give someone with more knowledge something to start with:
Improving the join
SELECT *
FROM calls c1
INNER JOIN calls c2 ON c1.call_start_time BETWEEN c2.call_start_time AND c2.call_end_time
WHERE (c1.a_imei = 1234 or c1.b_imei = 1234)
Other Comments:
SELECT * will be inefficient as it is, especially as it will be returning non unique column names, you should only select the columns relevant to the query in question.
There are several things you can do to improve your query.
Indexes
It seems that you should have indexes defined on a_imei and b_imei. Perhaps you also would want to include call start and end times in those indexes as well, this depends.
Specify columns
Don't use select *, instead specify the list of columns you want to return.
select
a_imei_number,
b_imei_number,
call_start_time,
call_end_time
Proper Join
This depends on exactly what you are looking for in results. If you want to report on all possible duplicates, you would structure it one way.
select c2.a_imei, c2.b_imei, c2.call_start_time, c2.call_end_time
from (select c.a_imei, c.b_imei, c.call_start_time, c.call_end_time
from calls c
where c.a_imei = c.b_imei
) cbase join
calls c2
on cbase.call_start_time between c2.call_start_time and c2.call_end_time;
If you have a known imei_number and want to search for it, the query would be structured differently.
select c2.a_imei, c2.b_imei, c2.call_start_time, c2.call_end_time
from (select c.a_imei, c.b_imei, c.call_start_time, c.call_end_time
from calls c
where c.a_imei = 1234 or c.b_imei = 1234
) cbase join
calls c2
on cbase.call_start_time between c2.call_start_time and c2.call_end_time;
Related
I am trying to select rows from one table where the id referenced in those rows matches the unique id from another table that relates to it like so:
SELECT *
FROM booklet_tickets
WHERE bookletId = (SELECT id
FROM booklets
WHERE bookletNum = 2000
AND seasonId = 9
AND bookletTypeId = 3)
With the bookletNum/seasonId/bookletTypeId being filled in by a user form and inserted into the query.
This works and returns what I want but seems messy. Is a join better to use in this type of scenario?
If there is even a possibility for your subquery to return multiple value you should use in instead:
SELECT *
FROM booklet_tickets
WHERE bookletId in (SELECT id
FROM booklets
WHERE bookletNum = 2000
AND seasonId = 9
AND bookletTypeId = 3)
But I would prefer exists over in :
SELECT *
FROM booklet_tickets bt
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM booklets b
WHERE bookletNum = 2000
AND seasonId = 9
AND bookletTypeId = 3
AND b.id = bt.bookletId)
It is not possible to give a "Yes it's better" or "no it's not" answer for this type of scenario.
My personal rule of thumb if number of rows in a table is less than 1 million, I do not care optimising "SELECT WHERE IN" types of queries as SQL Server Query Optimizer is smart enough to pick an appropriate plan for the query.
In reality however you often need more values from a joined table in the final resultset so a JOIN with a filter WHERE clause might make more sense, such as:
SELECT BT.*, B.SeasonId
FROM booklet_tickes BT
INNER JOIN booklets B ON BT.bookletId = B.id
WHERE B.bookletNum = 2000
AND B.seasonId = 9
AND B.bookletTypeId = 3
To me it comes down to a question of style rather than anything else, write your code so that it'll be easier for you to understand it months later. So pick a certain style and then stick to it :)
The question however is old as the time itself :)
SQL JOIN vs IN performance?
Consider the following tables:
Table A:
DOC_NUM
DOC_TYPE
RELATED_DOC_NUM
NEXT_STATUS
...
Table B:
DOC_NUM
DOC_TYPE
RELATED_DOC_NUM
NEXT_STATUS
...
The DOC_TYPE and NEXT_STATUS columns have different meanings between the two tables, although a NEXT_STATUS = 999 means "closed" in both. Also, under certain conditions, there will be a record in each table, with a reference to a corresponding entry in the other table (i.e. the RELATED_DOC_NUM columns).
I am trying to create a query that will get data from both tables that meet the following conditions:
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
A.DOC_TYPE = "ST"
B.DOC_TYPE = "OT"
A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999
A.DOC_TYPE = "ST" represents a transfer order to transfer inventory from one plant to another. B.DOC_TYPE = "OT" represents a corresponding receipt of the transferred inventory at the receiving plant.
We want to get records from either table where there is an ST/OT pair where either or both entries are not closed (i.e. NEXT_STATUS < 999).
I am assuming that I need to use a FULL OUTER join to accomplish this. If this is the wrong assumption, please let me know what I should be doing instead.
UPDATE (11/30/2021):
I believe that #Caius Jard is correct in that this does not need to be an outer join. There should always be an ST/OT pair.
With that I have written my query as follows:
SELECT <columns>
FROM A LEFT JOIN B
ON
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
WHERE
A.DOC_TYPE IN ('ST') AND
B.DOC_TYPE IN ('OT') AND
(A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999)
Does this make sense?
UPDATE 2 (11/30/2021):
The reality is that these are DB2 database tables being used by the JD Edwards ERP application. The only way I know of to see the table definitions is by using the web site http://www.jdetables.com/, entering the table ID and hitting return to run the search. It comes back with a ton of information about the table and its columns.
Table A is really F4211 and table B is really F4311.
Right now, I've simplified the query to keep it simple and keep variables to a minimum. This is what I have currently:
SELECT CAST(F4211.SDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8)) AS SO_NUM,
F4211.SDRORN AS RELATED_PO,
F4211.SDDCTO AS SO_DOC_TYPE,
F4211.SDNXTR AS SO_NEXT_STATUS,
CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8)) AS PO_NUM,
F4311.PDRORN AS RELATED_SO,
F4311.PDDCTO AS PO_DOC_TYPE,
F4311.PDNXTR AS PO_NEXT_STATUS
FROM PROD2DTA.F4211 AS F4211
INNER JOIN PROD2DTA.F4311 AS F4311
ON F4211.SDRORN = CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8))
WHERE F4211.SDDCTO IN ( 'ST' )
AND F4311.PDDCTO IN ( 'OT' )
The other part of the story is that I'm using a reporting package that allows you to define "virtual" views of the data. Virtual views allow the report developer to specify the SQL to use. This is the application where I am using the SQL. When I set up the SQL, there is a validation step that must be performed. It will return a limited set of results if the SQL is validated.
When I enter the query above and validate it, it says that there are no results, which makes no sense. I'm guessing the data casting is causing the issue, but not sure.
UPDATE 3 (11/30/2021):
One more twist to the story. The related doc number is not only defined as a string value, but it contains leading zeros. This is true in both tables. The main doc number (in both tables) is defined as a numeric value and therefore has no leading zeros. I have no idea why those who developed JDE would have done this, but that is what is there.
So, there are matching records between the two tables that meet the criteria, but I think I'm getting no results because when I convert the numeric to a string, it does not match, because one value is, say "12345", while the other is "00012345".
Can I pad the numeric -> string value with zeros before doing the equals check?
UPDATE 4 (12/2/2021):
Was able to finally get the query to work by converting the numeric doc num to a left zero padded string.
SELECT <columns>
FROM PROD2DTA.F4211 AS F4211
INNER JOIN PROD2DTA.F4311 AS F4311
ON F4211.SDRORN = RIGHT(CONCAT('00000000', CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8))), 8)
WHERE F4211.SDDCTO IN ( 'ST' )
AND F4311.PDDCTO IN ( 'OT' )
AND ( F4211.SDNXTR < 999
OR F4311.PDNXTR < 999 )
You should write your query as follows:
SELECT <columns>
FROM A INNER JOIN B
ON
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
WHERE
A.DOC_TYPE IN ('ST') AND
B.DOC_TYPE IN ('OT') AND
(A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999)
LEFT join is a type of OUTER join; LEFT JOIN is typically a contraction of LEFT OUTER JOIN). OUTER means "one side might have nulls in every column because there was no match". Most critically, the code as posted in the question (with a LEFT JOIN, but then has WHERE some_column_from_the_right_table = some_value) runs as an INNER join, because any NULLs inserted by the LEFT OUTER process, are then quashed by the WHERE clause
See Update 4 for details of how I resolved the "data conversion or mapping" error.
I pop into a problem recently, and Im sure its because of how I Join them.
this is my code:
select LP_Pending_Info.Service_Order,
LP_Pending_Info.Pending_Days,
LP_Pending_Info.Service_Type,
LP_Pending_Info.ASC_Code,
LP_Pending_Info.Model,
LP_Pending_Info.IN_OUT_WTY,
LP_Part_Codes.PartCode,
LP_PS_Codes.PS,
LP_Confirmation_Codes.SO_NO,
LP_Pending_Info.Engineer_Code
from LP_Pending_Info
join LP_Part_Codes
on LP_Pending_Info.Service_order = LP_Part_Codes.Service_order
join LP_PS_Codes
on LP_Pending_Info.Service_Order = LP_PS_Codes.Service_Order
join LP_Confirmation_Codes
on LP_Pending_Info.Service_Order = LP_Confirmation_Codes.Service_Order
order by LP_Pending_Info.Service_order, LP_Part_Codes.PartCode;
For every service order I have 5 part code maximum.
If the service order have only one value it show the result correctly but when it have more than one Part code the problem begin.
for example: this service order"4182134076" has only 2 part code, first'GH81-13601A' and second 'GH96-09938A' so it should show the data 2 time but it repeat it for 8 time. what seems to be the problem?
If your records were exactly the same the distinct keyword would have solved it.
However in rows 2 and 3 which have the same Service_Order and Part_Code if you check the SO_NO you see it is different - that is why distinct won't work here - the rows are not identical.
I say you have some problem in one of the conditions in your joins. The different data is in the SO_NO column so check the raw data in the LP_Confirmation_Codes table for that Service_Order:
select * from LP_Confirmation_Codes where Service_Order = 4182134076
I assume you are missing an and with the value from the LP_Part_Codes or LP_PS_Codes (but can't be sure without seeing those tables and data myself).
By this sentence If the service order have only one value it show the result correctly but when it have more than one Part code the problem begin. - probably you are missing and and with the LP_Part_Codes table
Based on your output result, here are the following data that caused multiple output.
Service Order: 4182134076 has :
2 PartCode which are GH81-13601A and GH96-09938A
2 PS which are U and P
2 SO_NO which are 1.00024e+09 and 1.00022e+09
Therefore 2^3 returns 8 rows. I believe that you need to check where you should join your tables.
Use DINTINCT
select distinct LP_Pending_Info.Service_Order,LP_Pending_Info.Pending_Days,
LP_Pending_Info.Service_Type,LP_Pending_Info.ASC_Code,LP_Pending_Info.Model,
LP_Pending_Info.IN_OUT_WTY, LP_Part_Codes.PartCode,LP_PS_Codes.PS,
LP_Confirmation_Codes.SO_NO,LP_Pending_Info.Engineer_Code
from LP_Pending_Info
join LP_Part_Codes on LP_Pending_Info.Service_order = LP_Part_Codes.Service_order
join LP_PS_Codes on LP_Part_Codes.Service_Order = LP_PS_Codes.Service_Order
join LP_Confirmation_Codes on LP_PS_Codes.Service_Order = LP_Confirmation_Codes.Service_Order
order by LP_Pending_Info.Service_order, LP_Part_Codes.PartCode;
distinct will not return duplicates based on your select. So if a row is same, it will only return once.
I am writing a sql query to get data from different tables but it is getting data from different tables very slowly.
Approximately above 2 minutes to complete.
What i am doing is here :
1. I am getting data differences and on behalf of date difference i am getting account numbers
2. I am comparing tables to get exact data i need.
here is my query
select T.accountno,
MAX(T.datetxn) as MxDt,
datediff(MM,MAX(T.datetxn), '2011-6-30') as Diffs,
max(P.Name) as POName
from Account_skd A,
AccountTxn_skd T,
POName P
where A.AccountNo = T.AccountNo and
GPOCode = A.OfficeCode and
Code = A.POCode and
A.servicecode = T.ServiceCode
group by T.AccountNo
order by len(T.AccountNo) DESC
please help that how i can use joins or any other way to get data within very less time say 5-10 seconds.
Since it appears you are getting EVERY ACCOUNT, and performance is slow, I would try by creating a prequery by just account, then do a single join to the other join tables something like..
select
T.Accountno,
T.MxDt,
datediff(MM, T.MxDt, '2011-6-30') as Diffs,
P.Name as POName
from
( select T1.AccountNo,
Max( T1.DateTxn ) MxDt
from AccontTxn_skd T1
group by T1.AccountNo ) T
JOIN Account_skd A
on T.AccountNo = A.AccountNo
JOIN POName P
on A.POCode = P.Code <-- GUESSING as you didn't qualify alias.field
AND A.OfficeCode = P.GPOCode <-- in your query for these two fields
order by
len(T.AccountNo) DESC
You had other elements based on the T.ServiceCode matching, but since you are only grouping on the account number anyhow, did it matter which service code was used? Otherwise, you would need to group by both the account AND service code (which I would have added the service code into the prequery and added as join condition to the account table too).
Need help on a query using sql server 2005
I am having two tables
code
chargecode
chargeid
orgid
entry
chargeid
itemNo
rate
I need to list all the chargeids in entry table if it contains multiple entries having different chargeids
which got listed in code table having the same charge code.
data :
code
100,1,100
100,2,100
100,3,100
101,11,100
101,12,100
entry
1,x1,1
1,x2,2
2,x3,2
11,x4,1
11,x5,1
using the above data , it query should list chargeids 1 and 2 and not 11.
I got the way to know how many rows in entry satisfies the criteria, but m failing to get the chargeids
select count (distinct chargeId)
from entry where chargeid in (select chargeid from code where chargecode = (SELECT A.chargecode
from code as A join code as B
ON A.chargecode = B.chargeCode and A.chargetype = B.chargetype and A.orgId = B.orgId AND A.CHARGEID = b.CHARGEid
group by A.chargecode,A.orgid
having count(A.chargecode) > 1)
)
First off: I apologise for my completely inaccurate original answer.
The solution to your problem is a self-join. Self-joins are used when you want to select more than one row from the same table. In our case we want to select two charge IDs that have the same charge code:
SELECT DISTINCT c1.chargeid, c2.chargeid FROM code c1
JOIN code c2 ON c1.chargeid != c2.chargeid AND c1.chargecode = c2.chargecode
JOIN entry e1 ON e1.chargeid = c1.chargeid
JOIN entry e2 ON e2.chargeid = c2.chargeid
WHERE c1.chargeid < c2.chargeid
Explanation of this:
First we pick any two charge IDs from 'code'. The DISTINCT avoids duplicates. We make sure they're two different IDs and that they map to the same chargecode.
Then we join on 'entry' (twice) to make sure they both appear in the entry table.
This approach gives (for your example) the pairs (1,2) and (2,1). So we also insist on an ordering; this cuts to result set down to just (1,2), as you described.