I've read lots of examples of JOIN syntax, but none of them work for my problem.
I have a table of quotes and a table of sales enquiries. One quote may result in multiple enquiries, or it may not result in any enquiries. I want to create a list of all quotes and include details of any resulting enquiry. I'm expecting multiple result rows for a quote that resulted in many enquiries. I'm expecting a single row with empty or null enquiries fields, for those quotes that didn't give rise to any enquiries.
The connecting data is in the quotes table, where there's a field called 'activity' that contains the id of any or all enquiries that resulted. It's updated each tim e anew enquiry comes in.
So I tried this:
SELECT q.*, e.id, e.price
FROM quotes as q
LEFT JOIN enquiries as e
ON INSTR(q.activity, e.id) >'0'
WHERE q.date > '2013-07-01'
But every row in my results includes enquiries data. I can't seem to get it to include the quotes that never resulted in anything. I thought LEFT JOIN was supposed to give me all of the quotes regardless of enquiries, and include the enquiries data where there was a match. But every example I've seen is just joining on a.id = b.id, so I suspect that my INSTR() match criteria might be messing things up.
As previous commentators have suggested the issue will be down to the join with Instr. The return value from INSTR of many RDBMSs is an integer value. When you therefore test the value of INSTR against '0' you won't get a match. Also, if Instr doesn't find a match you may get something else returned like MS Access where Null is a possible return value. This is obviously all speculation and we really need to see an example of your data and the issue to confirm if this is the actual problem. In the absence of any more info this is the best you are going to get:
Without knowing which DB you are using I've included a few links for INSTR:
MySql,
Oracle,
MS Access (returns variant Long),
SQL Server - No Instr Function - CharIndex
I think your problem might be somewhere else, because this seems to work fine for me. I assumed the list of enquiries was just a comma separated string. See http://sqlfiddle.com/#!4/71ce1/1
Get rid of the single quotes around the 0, but that doesn't make any difference. Also, you shouldn't be relying on the default date format, but using TO_DATE.You don't say what DBMS you're using, but I tried both Oracle and MySQL.
Related
i am trying to update a colleague's MS Access application (with vb-code). I am rather experienced in writing SQL queries but i am not able to solve the following problem.
The query i am looking to fix uses a pass-through-query's result and a local MS Access table and joins them togehter in the where-clause (i tried using the normal way with ON but it seems this doesn't work when there is a pass through query involved). I have little experience with joining tables in the where-clause but is there such a thing that i cant use certain columns (of both tables) in the where-clause when joining tables in the where-clause? -> When i use a filter criteria such as columnA <> 'somerandomtext' (which is always satisfied, just to point out the problem) the query result is empty. When i delete the latter criteria in the where clause, the query returns results (although too many because i cant filter them accordingly).
Furthermore: I checked the pass-through-query, the results are correct. I checked the MS-Access table, the data in the table is correct. Therefore, i think i might be doing something wrong in the query where i join the two mentioned above.
THIS QUERY WORKS AS INTENDED AND RETURNS RESULTS:
SELECT t.tr_id, t.ser_num, t.contrgnt_id, t.pos_ekey, t.sernum AS cmdty, format(t.vol,""##,###,###.00"") AS volume, t.unit_def, t.value_date,
format(t.coup,""##,###,###.00"") AS fixprice,
format(s.calcvarprice,""##,###,###.00"") AS marketprice,
format(s.calcamount,""##,###,###.00"") AS payamount,
format(s.settlevarprice, ""##,###,##0.00"") as settleprice,
format(s.settleamount, ""##,###,##0.00"") as settleamount, s.sync
FROM pms_trans AS t, settledata AS s
WHERE t.tr_id=s.tr_id And t.is_booked='N' And t.value_date>='01.01.2021' And t.value_date<='01.04.2021'
THIS QUERY SOMEHOW RETURNS 0 RESULTS:
SELECT t.tr_id, t.ser_num, t.contrgnt_id, t.pos_ekey, t.sernum AS cmdty, format(t.vol,""##,###,###.00"") AS volume, t.unit_def, t.value_date,
format(t.coup,""##,###,###.00"") AS fixprice,
format(s.calcvarprice,""##,###,###.00"") AS marketprice,
format(s.calcamount,""##,###,###.00"") AS payamount,
format(s.settlevarprice, ""##,###,##0.00"") as settleprice,
format(s.settleamount, ""##,###,##0.00"") as settleamount, s.sync
FROM pms_trans AS t, settledata AS s
WHERE t.tr_id=s.tr_id And t.is_booked='N' And t.pos_ekey <> 'BGGS' And t.value_date>='01.01.2021' And t.value_date<='01.04.2021'
As mentioned before, i suspect that there are some limitations when joining via where-clause (although i didnt find sufficient information online).
Best Regards and thank you in advance,
Peter
First, apply the correct syntax for the date expressions:
WHERE t.tr_id=s.tr_id And t.is_booked='N' And t.pos_ekey <> 'BGGS' And t.value_date >= #2021-01-01# And t.value_date <= #2021-04-01#
Next, double-check the values for pos_ekey. For example, try to apply the filter, <> 'BGGS', directly on the field in table view.
I am stumped on how to make this query run more efficiently/correctly. Here is the query first and then I can describe the tables that are involved:
UPDATE agg_pivot_test AS p
LEFT JOIN jd_cleaning AS c
ON c.Formerly = IIF(c.Formerly LIKE '*or*', '*' & p.LyFinalCode & '*', CStr(p.LyFinalCode))
SET p.CyFinalCode = c.FinalCode
WHERE p.CyFinalCode IS NULL AND c.Formerly IS NOT NULL;
agg_pivot_test has 200 rows of data and only 99 fit the criteria of WHERE p.CyFinalCode IS NULL. The JOIN needs some explaining. It is an IIF because some genius decided to link last year's data to this year's data using Formerly. It is a string because sometimes multiple items have been consolidated down to one so they use "or" (e.g., 632 or 631 or 630). So if I want to match this year's data I have to use Formerly to match last year's LyFinalCode. So this year the code might be 629, but I have to use the Formerly to map the items that were 632, 631, or 630 to the new code. Make sense? That is why the ON has an IIF. Also, Formerly is a string and LyFinalCode is an integer... fun.
Anyway, when you run the query it says it is updating 1807 records when again, there are only 200 records and only 99 that fit the criteria.
Any suggestions about what this is happening or how to fix it?
An interesting problem. I don't think I've ever come across something quite like this before.
I'm guessing what's happening is that rows where CyFinalCode is null, are being matched multiple times by the join statement, and thus the join expression is calculating a cartesian product of row-matches, and this is the basis of the rows updated message. It seems odd, as I would have expected access to complain about multiple row matches, when row matches should only be 1:1 in an update statement.
I would suggest rewriting the query (with this join) as a select statement, and seeing what the query gives you in the way of output; Something like:
SELECT p.*, c.*
FROM agg_pivot_test p LEFT JOIN jd_cleaning c
ON c.Formerly = IIF(c.Formerly LIKE '*or*', '*' & p.LyFinalCode & '*', CStr(p.LyFinalCode))
WHERE p.CyFinalCode IS NULL AND c.Formerly IS NOT NULL
I'm also inclined to suggest changing "... & p.LyFinalCode & ..." to "... & CStr(p.LyFinalCode) & ..." - though I can't really see why it should make a difference.
The only other thing I can think to suggest is change the join a bit: (this isnt guaranteed to be better necessarily - though it might be)
UPDATE agg_pivot_test AS p LEFT JOIN jd_cleaning AS c
ON (c.Formerly = CStr(p.LyFinalCode) OR InStr(c.Formerly, CStr(p.LyFinalCode)) > 0)
(Given the syntax of your statement, I assume this sql is running within access via ODBC; in which case this should be fine. If I'm wrong the sql is running server side, you'll need to change InStr to SubString.)
I am using SQL server 2005, querying with Web Developer 2010, and the min function appears to be returning more than one value (for each ID returned, see below). Ideally I would like it to just return the one for each ID.
SELECT Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber,
MIN(Production.WorksOrderOperations.OperationNumber) AS Expr1,
Production.Resources.ResourceCode,
Production.Resources.ResourceDescription,
Production.WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View.PartNumber,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedQuantity,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedSetTime,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedRunTime
FROM Production.WorksOrderOperations
INNER JOIN Production.Resources
ON Production.WorksOrderOperations.ResourceID = Production.Resources.ResourceID
INNER JOIN Production.WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View
ON Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber = Production.WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View.WorksOrderNumber
WHERE Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber IN
( SELECT WorksOrderNumber
FROM Production.WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View AS WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View_1
WHERE (WorksOrderSuffixStatus = 'Proposed'))
AND Production.Resources.ResourceCode IN ('1303', '1604')
GROUP BY Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber,
Production.Resources.ResourceCode,
Production.Resources.ResourceDescription,
Production.WorksOrderExcel_ExcelExport_View.PartNumber,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedQuantity,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedSetTime,
Production.WorksOrderOperations.PlannedRunTime
If you can get your head around it, I am selecting certain columns from multiple tables where the WorksOrderNumber is also contained within a subquery, and numerous other conditions.
Result set looks a little like this, have blurred out irrelevant data.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/5UFIp.png (Wouldn't let me embed image).
The highlighted rows are NOT supposed to be there, I cannot explicitly filter them out, as this result set will be updated daily and it is likely to happen with a different record.
I have tried casting and converting the OperationNumber to numerous other data types, varchar type returns '100' instead of the '30'. Also tried searching search engines, no one seems to have the same problem.
I did not structure the tables (they're horribly normalised), and it is not possible to restructure them.
Any ideas appreciated, many thanks.
The MIN function returns the minimum within the group.
If you want the minimum for each ID you need to get group on just ID.
I assume that by "ID" you are referring to Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber.
You can add this as a "table" in your SQL:
(SELECT Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber,
MIN(Production.WorksOrderOperations.OperationNumber)
FROM Production.WorksOrderOperations
GROUP BY Production.WorksOrderOperations.WorksOrderNumber)
SELECT bp.*,r.rating,COUNT(r.review_for),bp.business_name,bp.profile_member
FROM ibf_business_reviews r
LEFT JOIN ibf_business_profiles bp ON ( r.review_for=bp.profile_member )
WHERE bp.sub_category LIKE '%{$id},%'{$location_sql}
GROUP BY r.review_for HAVING COUNT(r.review_for) >=1
ORDER BY r.date_posted DESC LIMIT 0,2");
This query is used to show results for business_name in a certain sub_category id '%{$id} in a certain location. My problem is that extra results are showing in categories that share a second or third digit aka ...viewcat&id=54 will show in ..viewcat&id=154 etc
I using the LIKE may be my issue? WHERE bp.sub_category LIKE '%{$id},%'
You are storing a comma-separated list in a varchar, when you should store one number per row in a child table. Then you wouldn't have to use LIKE at all.
Read up on First Normal Form.
Here was my comment
+! for the need to reformat the SQL. You do realize that the "percent"
signs (%) are the wildcards. So you're
essentially telling it that you can
return ANYTHING that includes id... so
if you search "23" you could get
"123", you could get "234" or
"1234"... etc.
and you replied
Thanks #Rock removing the wildcards worked!
Now my answer to this is... If you removed BOTH wildcards from your string, then you're essentially doing an "equals".
IE:
WHERE bp.sub_category LIKE '{$id},'
should be the same as
WHERE bp.sub_category = '{$id},'
Because you don't have any wildcards to "match" in the "LIKE" statement.
Please forgive me if I screwed up the "$" or the ","... I'm not a MySQL guy
I'm having trouble with Microsoft Access 2003, it's complaining about this statement:
select cardnr
from change
where year(date)<2009
group by cardnr
having max(time+date) = (time+date) and cardto='VIP'
What I want to do is, for every distinct cardnr in the table change, to find the row with the latest (time+date) that is before year 2009, and then just select the rows with cardto='VIP'.
This validator says it's OK, Access says it's not OK.
This is the message I get: "you tried to execute a query that does not include the specified expression 'max(time+date)=time+date and cardto='VIP' and cardnr=' as part of an aggregate function."
Could someone please explain what I'm doing wrong and the right way to do it? Thanks
Note: The field and table names are translated and do not collide with any reserved words, I have no trouble with the names.
Try to think of it like this - HAVING is applied after the aggregation is done.
Therefore it can not compare to unaggregated expressions (neither for time+date, nor for cardto).
However, to get the last (principle is the same for getting rows related to other aggregated functions as weel) time and date you can do something like:
SELECT cardnr
FROM change main
WHERE time+date IN (SELECT MAX(time+date)
FROM change sub
WHERE sub.cardnr = main.cardnr AND
year(date)<2009
AND cardto='VIP')
(assuming that date part on your time field is the same for all the records; having two fields for date/time is not in your best interest and also using reserved words for field names can backfire in certain cases)
It works because the subquery is filtered only on the records that you are interested in from the outer query.
Applying the same year(date)<200 and cardto='VIP' to the outer query can improve performance further.