I'm building a report in SSRS which takes data from several tables with similar names. There are three different 'sets' of tables - i.e., 123xxx, 456xxx, and 789xxx. Within these groups, the only difference in the table names is a three-digit code for a worksite, so, for example, we might have a table called 123001, 123010, and 123011. Within each set of tables, the columns have the same names.
The problem is that there are about 15 different sites, and I'm taking several columns from each site and each group of tables. Is there a more efficient way to write that query than to write out the name of every single column?
I don't believe there is but I feel like the use of aliases on your tables would make it much easier to undestand/follow your query building.
Also, if you aren't comparing values on the tables at all, then maybe a union between each table select would help make sense too.
I would give each table an alias.
SELECT s1t1.name
FROM Site1Table1 as s1t1;
Related
I think I got a knot in my line of thought, surely you can untie it.
Basically I have two working queries which are based on the same table and result in an identical structure (same as source table). They are simply two different kinds of row filters. Now I would like to "stack" these filters, meaning that I want to retract all the entries which are in query a and query b.
Why do I want that?
Our club is structured in several local groups and I need to hand different kinds of lists (e.g. members with email-entry) to these groups. In this example I would have a query "groupA" and a query "newsletter". Another could be "groupB" and "activemember", but also "groupB" and "newsletter". Unfortunately each query is based on a set of conditions, which imho would be stored best in a single query instead of copying the conditions several times to different queries (in case something changes).
Judging from the Venn diagrams 1, I suppose I need to use INNER JOIN but could not get it to work. Neither with the LibreOffice Base query assistant nor an SQL-Code. I tried this:
SELECT groupA.*
FROM groupA
INNER JOIN newsletter
ON groupA.memberID = newsletter.memberID
The error code says: Cannot be in ORDER BY clause in statement
I suppose that the problem comes from the fact, that both queries are based on the same table.
May be there is an even easier way of nesting queries?
I am hoping for something like
SELECT * FROM groupA
WHERE groupA.memberID = newsletter.memberID
Thank you and sorry if this already has a duplicate, I just could not find the right search terms.
I've been trying to find a way of comparing huge amount of data in two different tables but I am not sure if this is the correct approach.
So, this is why I am asking it here to understand a problem more and getting some clarity in order to solve it.
As title says I have two tables with less than 2 million rows of data and I need to a data comparison on them. So basically I only need to check if data in one table matches the data from other tables. Each table comes from separate database and I've managed to create views in order to have the same column names.
Here is my approach which gives me differences from two tables.
SELECT db1.ADDRESS_ID, db1.address
FROM UAT_CUSTOMERS_DB1 db1
EXCEPT
SELECT db2.ADDRESS_ID, db2.address
FROM UAT_CUSTOMERS_DB2 db2;
I have two questions, so basically this works:
It seems pretty straightforward but can someone explain to me in a bit more depth how this query works with such speed ? Yes I know - read docs but I would really appreciate alternative answer.
How can I include all the columns from tables without specifying manually each column name ?
I have 30 databases from a survey application that all have a table of results with approximately 100 columns in each. Most of the columns are identical but each survey seems to have a unique column or two added in with no real pattern (these are the added questions and results of the survey). As I am working on the statement to join all of the tables into one large master table the code is getting quite complex. Is there a more efficient way to merge these tables from multiple databases and just select all rows and columns so it will merge if the column exists and create if it encounters a new column?
No, there isn't an automatic way to merge a bunch of similar, but not quite the same, tables into one. At least, not in any database system that I know of.
You could possibly automate something like that with a fairly simple script that relies on your database's information schema (or equivalent).
However, with only 30 tables and only a column or two different in each, I'm not sure it's worth it. A manual approach, with copying and pasting and making minor changes, would probably be faster.
Also, consider whether the "extra" columns that are unique to individual tables need to go into the combined table. The point of making a big single table is to process/analyze all the data together. If something only applies to a single source, this isn't possible.
I've a database which contains several tables for various tables of different products. These products have unique part numbers across all tables.
To search across all tables, I've created a view which uses UNION ALL across all common fields in the tables.
Once a part has been identified, I need to select all the columns depending on the table the data resides in. The view includes a field that specifies the table the data was found in.
I'm not sure of the way to accomplish the last part:
CASE statement (I'm leaning towards this one at the moment)
Dynamic SQL (prefer not to use this, would involve SELECT * and other nasties)
SELECT in client side (client needs to select from arbitrary tables, require additional privileges, bad design?)
Alternative solution?
EDIT: Actually, IF statement is the only one that makes sense. Client shouldn't need access to the tables directly. Since the columns are different in each table anyway, might as well have a seperate statement for each table.
(I'd mark the question as answered, but I don't have enough reputation for that)
I am not sure whether i understood your question correctly.. my understanding is you have views which is selecting data from diffrent tables using union all.. you can give table name while creating view only
select "table1",table1.a,table1.b.. from table1
union all
select "table2", table2.a,table2.b ..... from table2
Actually, IF statement is the only one that makes sense. Client shouldn't need access to the tables directly. Since the columns are different in each table anyway, might as well have a seperate statement for each table.
I have multiple tables which all have the same structure --except a couple of them have one column misnamed. I would like a sql statement that would allow the user to select that misnamed column using the correct name (there are only 2 possible names for the column-the correct one and the wrong one). I was thinking I could have the query first look at the all_tab_columns view to look up the table and decide which spelling of that column the table has to retrieve the data...
I understand the difficulty of renaming/altering existing production tables, but it seems like the best solution to this problem is simply to update the misnamed tables with the correct column name. Is there a reason (beyond extra work) that this is infeasible?