The search term is to ambiguous for google aparently. I am looking at a SQL call and it has 2 FROM keywords? I've never seen this before, can someone explain?
SELECT TOP(5) SUM(column) AS column, column
FROM ( SELECT DISTINCT column, column, column
FROM ((((((table table
INNER JOIN table table ON (column = column
AND column = 2
AND column != '' ))
INNER JOIN table table ON (column = column
AND (column = 144 OR column = 159 OR column = 162 OR column = 164 OR column = 163 OR column = 1 OR column = 2 OR column = 122 OR column = 155 OR column = 156 )))
inner join table table ON (column = column
AND column = 0 ))
INNER JOIN table ON (column = column ))
INNER JOIN table table ON ( column = column
AND (column = 102 OR column = 103 )))
INNER JOIN table table ON (column = column ))) TempTable
GROUP BY column ORDER BY column desc
You will note the multiple FROM keywords. It runs just fine. Just curious to what the purpose is.
This is called as subquery. You can use subquery within your main query
So subquery made the multiple FORM clause.
There's a reason why SQL is called a Structured Query Language: it lets you formulate queries that use other queries as their source, thus creating a hierarchical query structure.
This is a common practice: each FROM keyword is actually paired with its own SELECT, making the inner query a source for the outer one.
Proper formatting would help you understand what is going on: indenting inner SELECTs helps you see the structure of your query, making it easier to understand which part is used as the source of what other parts:
SELECT TOP(5) SUM(price) AS total_price, item_id
FROM ( -- The output of this query serves as input for the outer query
SELECT price, item
FROM order -- This may have its own selects, joins, etc.
GROUP BY order_id
)
GROUP BY item_id
SQL supports SELECTing from the results of another, nested SELECT. As already mentioned, the nested SELECT is called a subquery.
More details about subqueries and examples of their use in MSSQL Server can be found at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189575(v=sql.105).aspx
Subquery used to select into an aliased column:
USE AdventureWorks2008R2;
GO
SELECT Ord.SalesOrderID, Ord.OrderDate,
(SELECT MAX(OrdDet.UnitPrice)
FROM AdventureWorks.Sales.SalesOrderDetail AS OrdDet
WHERE Ord.SalesOrderID = OrdDet.SalesOrderID) AS MaxUnitPrice
FROM AdventureWorks2008R2.Sales.SalesOrderHeader AS Ord
Using a subquery in the WHERE clause (from http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/200127/SQL-Joins-and-Subqueries)
-- Use a Subquery
SELECT * FROM AdventureWorks.Person.Address
WHERE StateProvinceID IN
(
SELECT StateProvinceID
FROM AdventureWorks.Person.StateProvince
WHERE StateProvinceCode = 'CA'
)
-- Use a Join
SELECT addr.*
FROM AdventureWorks.Person.Address addr
INNER JOIN AdventureWorks.Person.StateProvince state
ON addr.StateProvinceID = state.StateProvinceID
WHERE state.StateProvinceCode = 'CA'
You're seeing FROM clauses in subqueries. If you tabify the query it may be more obvious
SELECT TOP(5) SUM(column) AS column, column
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT column, column, column
FROM ((((((table table
...
INNER JOIN table table ON (column = column ))) TempTable
GROUP BY column
ORDER BY column desc
Related
I am currently working on an assignment for my SQL class and I am stuck. I'm not looking for full code to answer the question, just a little nudge in the right direction. If you do provide full code would you mind a small explanation as to why you did it that way (so I can actually learn something.)
Here is the question:
Write a SELECT statement that returns three columns: EmailAddress, ShipmentId, and the order total for each Client. To do this, you can group the result set by the EmailAddress and ShipmentId columns. In addition, you must calculate the order total from the columns in the ShipItems table.
Write a second SELECT statement that uses the first SELECT statement in its FROM clause. The main query should return two columns: the Client’s email address and the largest order for that Client. To do this, you can group the result set by the EmailAddress column.
I am confused on how to pull in the EmailAddress column from the Clients table, as in order to join it I have to bring in other tables that aren't being used. I am assuming there is an easier way to do this using sub Queries as that is what we are working on at the time.
Think of SQL as working with sets of data as opposed to just tables. Tables are merely a set of data. So when you view data this way you immediately see that the query below returns a set of data consisting of the entirety of another set, being a table:
SELECT * FROM MyTable1
Now, if you were to only get the first two columns from MyTable1 you would return a different set that consisted only of columns 1 and 2:
SELECT col1, col2 FROM MyTable1
Now you can treat this second set, a subset of data as a "table" as well and query it like this:
SELECT
*
FROM (
SELECT
col1,
col2
FROM
MyTable1
)
This will return all the columns from the two columns provided in the inner set.
So, your inner query, which I won't write for you since you appear to be a student, and that wouldn't be right for me to give you the entire answer, would be a query consisting of a GROUP BY clause and a SUM of the order value field. But the key thing you need to understand is this set thinking: you can just wrap the ENTIRE query inside brackets and treat it as a table the way I have done above. Hopefully this helps.
You need a subquery, like this:
select emailaddress, max(OrderTotal) as MaxOrder
from
( -- Open the subquery
select Cl.emailaddress,
Sh.ShipmentID,
sum(SI.Value) as OrderTotal -- Use the line item value column in here
from Client Cl -- First table
inner join Shipments Sh -- Join the shipments
on Sh.ClientID = Cl.ClientID
inner join ShipItem SI -- Now the items
on SI.ShipmentID = Sh.ShipmentID
group by C1.emailaddress, Sh.ShipmentID -- here's your grouping for the sum() aggregation
) -- Close subquery
group by emailaddress -- group for the max()
For the first query you can join the Clients to Shipments (on ClientId).
And Shipments to the ShipItems table (on ShipmentId).
Then group the results, and count or sum the total you need.
Using aliases for the tables is usefull, certainly when you select fields from the joined tables that have the same column name.
select
c.EmailAddress,
i.ShipmentId,
SUM((i.ShipItemPrice - i.ShipItemDiscountAmount) * i.Quantity) as TotalPriceDiscounted
from ShipItems i
join Shipments s on (s.ShipmentId = i.ShipmentId)
left join Clients c on (c.ClientId = s.ClientId)
group by i.ShipmentId, c.EmailAddress
order by i.ShipmentId, c.EmailAddress;
Using that grouped query in a subquery, you can get the Maximum total per EmailAddress.
select EmailAddress,
-- max(TotalShipItems) as MaxTotalShipItems,
max(TotalPriceDiscounted) as MaxTotalPriceDiscounted
from (
select
c.EmailAddress,
-- i.ShipmentId,
-- count(*) as TotalShipItems,
SUM((i.ShipItemPrice - i.ShipItemDiscountAmount) * i.Quantity) as TotalPriceDiscounted
from ShipItems i
join Shipments s on (s.ShipmentId = i.ShipmentId)
left join Clients c on (c.ClientId = s.ClientId)
group by i.ShipmentId, c.EmailAddress
) q
group by EmailAddress
order by EmailAddress
Note that an ORDER BY is mostly meaningless inside a subquery if you don't use TOP.
Hi i have two table A and B.A has 6 rows and b has 7 rows.Both tables have common value in name column.All the 6 rows of a table is present in b table on name column.
When i write query select * from a,b where a.name = b.name i get 14 rows returned i was expecting an inner join of with 6 rows in result.
Please explain me how query works when we have two tables in form clause.
Table A
Table B
query is
select * from a,b where a.tt = b.tt and a.nename=b.nename;
reuslt is
You've got duplicates in both tables (except for {2, 2017-03-04 03:00:00} which has three copies) which is why you get 14 = (2 * 4) + (2 * 3).
It's very hard to make sense of duplicate data. It's even harder to do when it duplicated on both sides of a join.
You could do something like
With fixedA (SELECT
*,
row_number() over (partition by nename, tt order by nename) rn
FROM
A),
fixedb (SELECT
*,
row_number() over (partition by nename, tt order by nename) rn
FROM
B)
SELECT *
FROM fixedA a full outer join fixedb b
on a.neName = b.neName
and a.tt = b.tt
and a.rn = b.rn
This will however leave one B record with a Null A record
The row_number also seems to do what cellID does so you could just do
SELECT *
FROM a full outer join b
on a.neName = b.neName
and a.tt = b.tt
and a.cellID = b.cellID
you should be doing something like full outer join on that table that you need result set from I would suggest something like this
select * from a full outer join b on a.tt = b.tt and a.nename=b.nename;
if your dealing with a bigger data set join on data type like varchar might take a lot of time to load the result set due to comparison. So, it would be better to use foreign key or primary key joins
https://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_join_full.asp
I need to limit the results of my query so that it only pulls results where the total number of lines on the ID is less than 4, and am unsure how to do this without losing the select statement columns.
select fje.journalID, fjei.ItemID, fjei.acccount, fjei.debit, fjei.credit
from JournalEntry fje
inner join JournalEntryItem fjei on fjei.journalID = fje.journalID
inner join JournalEntryItem fjei2 on fjei.journalID = fjei2.journalID and
fjei.ItemID != fjei2.ItemID
order by fje.journalID
So if journalID 1 has 5 lines, it should be excluded, but if it has 4 lines, I should see it in my query. Just need a push in the right direction. Thanks!
A subquery with an alias has many names, but it's effectively a table. In your case, you would do something like this.
select your fields
from your tables
join (
select id, count(*) records
from wherever
group by id ) derivedTable on someTable.id = derivedTable.id
and records < 4
I have two tables
Table A
type_uid, allowed_type_uid
9,1
9,2
9,4
1,1
1,2
24,1
25,3
Table B
type_uid
1
2
From table A I need to return
9
1
Using a WHERE IN clause I can return
9
1
24
SELECT
TableA.type_uid
FROM
TableA
INNER JOIN
TableB
ON TableA.allowed_type_uid = TableB.type_uid
GROUP BY
TableA.type_uid
HAVING
COUNT(distinct TableB.type_uid) = (SELECT COUNT(distinct type_uid) FROM TableB)
Join the two tables togeter, so that you only have the records matching the types you are interested in.
Group the result set by TableA.type_uid.
Check that each group has the same number of allowed_type_uid values as exist in TableB.type_uid.
distinct is required only if there can be duplicate records in either table. If both tables are know to only have unique values, the distinct can be removed.
It should also be noted that as TableA grows in size, this type of query will quickly degrade in performance. This is because indexes are not actually much help here.
It can still be a useful structure, but not one where I'd recommend running the queries in real-time. Rather use it to create another persisted/cached result set, and use this only to refresh those results as/when needed.
Or a slightly cheaper version (resource wise):
SELECT
Data.type_uid
FROM
A AS Data
CROSS JOIN
B
LEFT JOIN
A
ON Data.type_uid = A.type_uid AND B.type_uid = A.allowed_type_uid
GROUP BY
Data.type_uid
HAVING
MIN(ISNULL(A.allowed_type_uid,-999)) != -999
Your explanation is not very clear. I think you want to get those type_uid's from table A where for all records in table B there is a matching A.Allowed_type_uid.
SELECT T2.type_uid
FROM (SELECT COUNT(*) as AllAllowedTypes FROM #B) as T1,
(SELECT #A.type_uid, COUNT(*) as AllowedTypes
FROM #A
INNER JOIN #B ON
#A.allowed_type_uid = #B.type_uid
GROUP BY #A.type_uid
) as T2
WHERE T1.AllAllowedTypes = T2.AllowedTypes
(Dems, you were faster than me :) )
I am trying to filter a single table (master) by the values in multiple other tables (filter1, filter2, filter3 ... filterN) using only joins.
I want the following rules to apply:
(A) If one or more rows exist in a filter table, then include only those rows from the master that match the values in the filter table.
(B) If no rows exist in a filter table, then ignore it and return all the rows from the master table.
(C) This solution should work for N filter tables in combination.
(D) Static SQL using JOIN syntax only, no Dynamic SQL.
I'm really trying to get rid of dynamic SQL wherever possible, and this is one of those places I truly think it's possible, but just can't quite figure it out. Note: I have solved this using Dynamic SQL already, and it was fairly easy, but not particularly efficient or elegant.
What I have tried:
Various INNER JOINS between master and filter tables - works for (A) but fails on (B) because the join removes all records from the master (left) side when the filter (right) side has no rows.
LEFT JOINS - Always returns all records from the master (left) side. This fails (A) when some filter tables have records and some do not.
What I really need:
It seems like what I need is to be able to INNER JOIN on each filter table that has 1 or more rows and LEFT JOIN (or not JOIN at all) on each filter table that is empty.
My question: How would I accomplish this without resorting to Dynamic SQL?
In SQL Server 2005+ you could try this:
WITH
filter1 AS (
SELECT DISTINCT
m.ID,
HasMatched = CASE WHEN f.ID IS NULL THEN 0 ELSE 1 END,
AllHasMatched = MAX(CASE WHEN f.ID IS NULL THEN 0 ELSE 1 END) OVER ()
FROM masterdata m
LEFT JOIN filtertable1 f ON join_condition
),
filter2 AS (
SELECT DISTINCT
m.ID,
HasMatched = CASE WHEN f.ID IS NULL THEN 0 ELSE 1 END,
AllHasMatched = MAX(CASE WHEN f.ID IS NULL THEN 0 ELSE 1 END) OVER ()
FROM masterdata m
LEFT JOIN filtertable2 f ON join_condition
),
…
SELECT m.*
FROM masterdata m
INNER JOIN filter1 f1 ON m.ID = f1.ID AND f1.HasMatched = f1.AllHasMatched
INNER JOIN filter2 f2 ON m.ID = f2.ID AND f2.HasMatched = f2.AllHasMatched
…
My understanding is, filter tables without any matches simply must not affect the resulting set. The output should only consist of those masterdata rows that have matched all the filters where matches have taken place.
SELECT *
FROM master_table mt
WHERE (0 = (select count(*) from filter_table_1)
OR mt.id IN (select id from filter_table_1)
AND (0 = (select count(*) from filter_table_2)
OR mt.id IN (select id from filter_table_2)
AND (0 = (select count(*) from filter_table_3)
OR mt.id IN (select id from filter_table_3)
Be warned that this could be inefficient in practice. Unless you have a specific reason to kill your existing, working, solution, I would keep it.
Do inner join to get results for (A) only and do left join to get results for (B) only (you will have to put something like this in the where clause: filterN.column is null) combine results from inner join and left join with UNION.
Left Outer Join - gives you the MISSING entries in master table ....
SELECT * FROM MASTER M
INNER JOIN APPRENTICE A ON A.PK = M.PK
LEFT OUTER JOIN FOREIGN F ON F.FK = M.PK
If FOREIGN has keys that is not a part of MASTER you will have "null columns" where the slots are missing
I think that is what you looking for ...
Mike
First off, it is impossible to have "N number of Joins" or "N number of filters" without resorting to dynamic SQL. The SQL language was not designed for dynamic determination of the entities against which you are querying.
Second, one way to accomplish what you want (but would be built dynamically) would be something along the lines of:
Select ...
From master
Where Exists (
Select 1
From filter_1
Where filter_1 = master.col1
Union All
Select 1
From ( Select 1 )
Where Not Exists (
Select 1
From filter_1
)
Intersect
Select 1
From filter_2
Where filter_2 = master.col2
Union All
Select 1
From ( Select 1 )
Where Not Exists (
Select 1
From filter_2
)
...
Intersect
Select 1
From filter_N
Where filter_N = master.colN
Union All
Select 1
From ( Select 1 )
Where Not Exists (
Select 1
From filter_N
)
)
I have previously posted a - now deleted - answer based on wrong assumptions on you problems.
But I think you could go for a solution where you split your initial search problem into a matter of constructing the set of ids from the master table, and then select the data joining on that set of ids. Here I naturally assume you have a kind of ID on your master table. The filter tables contains the filter values only. This could then be combined into the statement below, where each SELECT in the eligble subset provides a set of master ids, these are unioned to avoid duplicates and that set of ids are joined to the table with data.
SELECT * FROM tblData INNER JOIN
(
SELECT id FROM tblData td
INNER JOIN fa on fa.a = td.a
UNION
SELECT id FROM tblData td
INNER JOIN fb on fb.b = td.b
UNION
SELECT id FROM tblData td
INNER JOIN fc on fc.c = td.c
) eligible ON eligible.id = tblData.id
The test has been made against the tables and values shown below. These are just an appendix.
CREATE TABLE tblData (id int not null primary key identity(1,1), a varchar(40), b datetime, c int)
CREATE TABLE fa (a varchar(40) not null primary key)
CREATE TABLE fb (b datetime not null primary key)
CREATE TABLE fc (c int not null primary key)
Since you have filter tables, I am assuming that these tables are probably dynamically populated from a front-end. This would mean that you have these tables as #temp_table (or even a materialized table, doesn't matter really) in your script before filtering on the master data table.
Personally, I use the below code bit for filtering dynamically without using dynamic SQL.
SELECT *
FROM [masterdata] [m]
INNER JOIN
[filter_table_1] [f1]
ON
[m].[filter_column_1] = ISNULL(NULLIF([f1].[filter_column_1], ''), [m].[filter_column_1])
As you can see, the code NULLs the JOIN condition if the column value is a blank record in the filter table. However, the gist in this is that you will have to actively populate the column value to blank in case you do not have any filter records on which you want to curtail the total set of the master data. Once you have populated the filter table with a blank, the JOIN condition NULLs in those cases and instead joins on itself with the same column from the master data table. This should work for all the cases you mentioned in your question.
I have found this bit of code to be faster in terms of performance.
Hope this helps. Please let me know in the comments.