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.
Related
Getting a bit stuck trying to build this query. (SQL SERVER)
I'm trying to join two tables on similar rows, but then stack the unique rows from both table 1 and table 2 on the result set. I was first shooting for a full outer join, but it leaves my key fields blank when the data comes from only one of the tables.
Example: Full Outer Join
Here's what I would like for the query to be able to do:
Essentially, I would like to have a result table where the key fields (Part and Operation) are all returned in two columns (so like a union), but the Estimated and Actual Rate columns returned side by side where there is a matching row between table 1 and table 2.
I've also been trying to inner join the two tables to make a subquery, then using that inner join for except clause on each of the tables, then stacking the original inner join with the two except unions.
Current Attempt: One Join, Two Excepts, Two Unions
UPDATE: I got the current attempt to return values! It's a bit complicated though, Appreciate any advice or feedback though! Great answers below thanks, I will need to do some comparisons
Thanks
SELECT ISNULL(t1.part,t2.part) AS Part,
ISNULL(t1.operation,t2.operation) AS Operation,
ISNULL('Estimated Rate',0) AS 'Estimated Rate',
ISNULL('Actual Rate',0) AS 'Actual Rate'
FROM table1 t1
FULL OUTER JOIN table2 t2
ON t1.part = t2.part
AND t1.operation = t2.operation
I would do this as a union all and group by:
select part, operation,
sum(estimatedrate) as estimatedrate, sum(actualrate) as actualrate
from ((select part, operation, estimatedrate, 0 as actualrate
from table1
) union all
(select part, operation, 0 as estimatedrate, 0 actualrate
from table1
)
) er
group by part, operation;
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
)
I'm using MySQL and I'm trying to construct a query to do the following:
I have:
Table1 [ID,...]
Table2 [ID, tID, start_date, end_date,...]
What I want from my query is:
Select all entires from Table2 Where Table1.ID=Table2.tID
**where at least one** end_date<today.
The way I have it working right now is that if Table 2 contains (for example) 5 entries but only 1 of them is end_date< today then that's the only entry that will be returned, whereas I would like to have the other (expired) ones returned as well. I have the actual query and all the joins working well, I just can't figure out the ** part of it.
Any help would be great!
Thank you!
SELECT * FROM Table2
WHERE tID IN
(SELECT Table2.tID FROM Table1
INNER JOIN Table2 ON Table1.ID = Table2.tID
WHERE Table2.end_date < NOW
)
The subquery will select all tId's that match your where clause. The main query will use this subquery to filter the entries in table 2.
Note: the use of inner join will filter all rows from table 1 with no matching entry in table 2. This is no problem; these entries wouldn't have matched the where clause anyway.
Maybe, just maybe, you could create a sub-query to join with your actual tables and in this subquery you use a count() which can be used later on you where clause.
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.
I have a query that shows me a listing of ALL opportunities in one query
I have a query that shows me a listing of EXCLUSION opportunities, ones we want to eliminate from the results
I need to produce a query that will take everything from the first query minus the second query...
SELECT DISTINCT qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients.*
FROM qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients INNER JOIN qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions ON
([qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients].[ClientID] <> [qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions].[ClientID])
AND
([qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions].[ClientID] <> [qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions].[BillingCode])
The initial query works as intended and exclusions successfully lists all the hits, but I get the full listing when I query with the above which is obviously wrong. Any tips would be appreciated.
EDIT - Two originating queries
qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients (1)
SELECT MissedOpportunities.MOID, PriceList.BillingCode, Client.ClientID, Client.ClientName, PriceList.WorkDescription, PriceList.UnitOfWork, MissedOpportunities.Qty, PriceList.CostPerUnit AS Our_PriceList_Cost, ([MissedOpportunities].[Qty]*[PriceList].[CostPerUnit]) AS At_Cost, MissedOpportunities.fBegin
FROM PriceList INNER JOIN (Client INNER JOIN MissedOpportunities ON Client.ClientID = MissedOpportunities.ClientID) ON PriceList.BillingCode = MissedOpportunities.BillingCode
WHERE (((MissedOpportunities.fBegin)=#10/1/2009#));
qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions
SELECT qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients.*, MissedOpportunity_Exclusions.Exclusion, MissedOpportunity_Exclusions.Comments
FROM qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients INNER JOIN MissedOpportunity_Exclusions ON (qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients.BillingCode = MissedOpportunity_Exclusions.BillingCode) AND (qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients.ClientID = MissedOpportunity_Exclusions.ClientID)
WHERE (((MissedOpportunity_Exclusions.Exclusion)=True));
One group needs to see everything, the other needs to see things they havn't deamed as "valid" missed opportunity as in, we've seen it, verified why its there and don't need to bother critiquing it every single month.
Generally you can exclude a table by doing a left join and comparing against null:
SELECT t1.* FROM t1 LEFT JOIN t2 on t1.id = t2.id where t2.id is null;
Should be pretty easy to adopt this to your situation.
Looking at your query rewritten to use table aliases so I can read it...
SELECT DISTINCT c.*
FROM qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients c
JOIN qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions e
ON c.ClientID <> e.ClientID
AND e.ClientID <> e.BillingCode
This query will produce a cartesian product of sorts... each and every row in qryMissedOpportunity_ALL_Clients will match and join with every row in qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions where ClientIDs do not match... Is this what you want?? Generally join conditions are based on a column in one table being equal to the value of a column in the other table... Joining where they are not equal is unusual ...
Second, the second iniquality in the join conditions is between columns in the same table (qryMissedOpportunity_Exclusions table) Are you sure this is what you want? If it is, it is not a join condition, it is a Where clause condition...
Second, your question mentions two queries, but there is only the one query (above) in yr question. Where is the second one?