I have two queries which return separate result sets, and the queries are returning the correct output.
How can I combine these two queries into one so that I can get one single result set with each result in a separate column?
Query 1:
SELECT SUM(Fdays) AS fDaysSum From tblFieldDays WHERE tblFieldDays.NameCode=35 AND tblFieldDays.WeekEnding=?
Query 2:
SELECT SUM(CHdays) AS hrsSum From tblChargeHours WHERE tblChargeHours.NameCode=35 AND tblChargeHours.WeekEnding=?
Thanks.
You can aliasing both query and Selecting them in the select query
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!2/ca27b/1
SELECT x.a, y.b FROM (SELECT * from a) as x, (SELECT * FROM b) as y
You can use a CROSS JOIN:
SELECT *
FROM ( SELECT SUM(Fdays) AS fDaysSum
FROM tblFieldDays
WHERE tblFieldDays.NameCode=35
AND tblFieldDays.WeekEnding=1) A -- use you real query here
CROSS JOIN (SELECT SUM(CHdays) AS hrsSum
FROM tblChargeHours
WHERE tblChargeHours.NameCode=35
AND tblChargeHours.WeekEnding=1) B -- use you real query here
You could also use a CTE to grab groups of information you want and join them together, if you wanted them in the same row. Example, depending on which SQL syntax you use, here:
WITH group1 AS (
SELECT testA
FROM tableA
),
group2 AS (
SELECT testB
FROM tableB
)
SELECT *
FROM group1
JOIN group2 ON group1.testA = group2.testB --your choice of join
;
You decide what kind of JOIN you want based on the data you are pulling, and make sure to have the same fields in the groups you are getting information from in order to put it all into a single row. If you have multiple columns, make sure to name them all properly so you know which is which. Also, for performance sake, CTE's are the way to go, instead of inline SELECT's and such. Hope this helps.
how to club the 4 query's as a single query
show below query
total number of cases pending + 2.cases filed during this month ( base on sysdate) + total number of cases (1+2) + no. cases disposed where nse= disposed + no. of cases pending (other than nse <> disposed)
nsc = nature of case
report is taken on 06th of every month
( monthly report will be counted from 05th previous month to 05th present of present month)
Related
Ok...so what I'm trying to do is to have a query (I can't use PL/SQL as the query is utilized by an application that can't handle PL/SQL) that simply queries a table and if a particular condition isn't met, it actually creates a record with that condition in the returned results (not actually create a record in a table).
To set this up, imagine there is only one table with the following columns: ID, TEST, and SPEC and may have data like the following:
1234 LIMIT_TEST Total of limits
4321 LIMIT_TEST Total of limits
5678 LIMIT_TEST Etha
8765 LIMIT_TEST Metha
The SPEC column is produced by a case, when, then statement that pulls expressions out of a SPECIFICATION column.
So you'll see there are actually 3 LIMIT_TESTs:
Total of Limits
Etha
Metha
However, for ID 1234, there is only "Total of limits". What I need to have the query return is something like:
1234 LIMIT_TEST Total of limits
1234 LIMIT_TEST null Etha
1234 LIMIT_TEST null Metha
(Imagine in the case statement a column is added to put what the nulls are for).
Any ideas are appreciated.
You could form a UNION between your main query and another which includes a static NULL in its SELECT clause, and uses a NOT EXISTS in its WHERE clause to determine the absence of Etha and Metha.
select id, test, decode(spec, ms, spec) spec, nullif(ms, spec) missing
from (select id, test, spec, ms,
row_number() over (partition by id, ms order by decode(spec, ms, 1)) rn
from t cross join (select distinct spec ms from t) dt )
where rn = 1
SQLFiddle (I added one row here for id=1234, spec ='Etha' to check scenario
where two specs for one id exists). Table name is T, not creative.
Explanation:
select distinct spec - obvious step
cross join distinct specs with our table - probably must be done somehow in any solution (union, exists, etc.)
enumerate rows depending on if spec's are equal then this rows have priority - this is done by row_number()
take only rows with rn = 1, rest is the matter of presentation (functions decode and nullif).
This will do it...
select
c.id, c.test, d.spec, case when d.spec is null then c.spec else null end as missing_spec
from
(select a.id, a.test, b.spec from TABLE_NAME a, (select distinct spec from TABLE_NAME) b) c,
TABLE_NAME d
where c.id = d.id (+) and c.test = d.test (+) and c.spec = d.spec (+)
order by c.id, c.spec;
Assumption: There will only ever be one record in the table for each unique combination of id, test, and spec.
1) Cartesian join the source table with a distinct list of the spec values. This will provide a base result list having a record for each unique combination of all possible ids, tests, and spec values.
2) Left outer join the source table. This will allow you to identify which of all the possible unique combination are actually present in the source table.
3) Add a case to the select clause for the final results column that displays null when the combination is found and the spec value if missing.
If it is possible for the source table to have multiple records for a single combination of id, test, and spec, then you would want to add distinct before the a.id in line 4 (as mentioned by Ponder Stibbons).
I have read many answers here, but until now nothing could help me. I'm developing a ticket system, where each ticket has many updates.
I have about 2 tables: tb_ticket and tb_updates.
I created a SELECT with subqueries, where it took a long time (about 25 seconds) to get about 1000 rows. Now I changed it to INNER JOIN instead many SELECTs in subqueries, it is really fast (70 ms), but now I get duplicates tickets. I would like to know how can I do to get only the last row (ordering by time).
My current result is:
...
67355;69759;"COMPANY X";"2014-08-22 09:40:21";"OPEN";"John";1
67355;69771;"COMPANY X";"2014-08-26 10:40:21";"UPDATE";"John";1
The first column is the ticket ID, the second is the update ID... I would like to get only a row per ticket ID, but DISTINCT does not work in this case. Which row should be? Always the latest one, so in this case 2014-08-26 10:40:21.
UPDATE:
It is a postgresql database. I did not share my current query because it has only portuguese names, so I think it would not help at all.
SOLUTION:
Used_By_Already had the best solution to my problem.
Without the details of your tables one has to guess the field names, but it seems that tb_updates has many records for a single record in tb_ticket (a many to one relationship).
A generic solution to your problem - to get just the "latest" record - is to use a subquery on tb_updates (see alias mx below) and then join that back to tb_updates so that only the record that has the latest date is chosen.
SELECT
t.*
, u.*
FROM tb_ticket t
INNER JOIN tb_updates u
ON t.ticket_id = u.ticket_id
INNER JOIN (
SELECT
ticket_id
, MAX(updated_at) max_updated
FROM tb_updates
GROUP BY
ticket_id
) mx
ON u.ticket_id = mx.ticket_id
AND u.updated_at = mx.max_updated
;
If you have a dbms that supports ROW_NUMBER() then using that function can be a very effective alternative method, but you haven't informed us which dbms you are using.
by the way:
These rows ARE distinct:
67355;69759;"COMPANY X";"2014-08-22 09:40:21";"OPEN";"John";1
67355;69771;"COMPANY X";"2014-08-26 10:40:21";"UPDATE";"John";1
69759 is different to 69771, and that is enough for the 2 rows to be DISTINCT
there are difference in the 2 dates also.
distinct is a row operator which means is considers the entire row, not just the first column, when deciding which rows are unique.
Used_By_Already's solution would work just fine. I'm not sure on the performance but another solution would be to use cross apply, though that is limited to only a few DBMS's.
SELECT *
FROM tb_ticket ticket
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT top(1) *
FROM tb_updates details
ORDER BY updateTime desc
WHERE details.ticketID = ticket.ticketID
) updates
U Can try something like below if your updateid is identity column:
Select ticketed, max(updateid) from table
group by ticketed
To obtain last row you have to end your query with order by time desc then use TOP (1) in the select statement to select only the first row in the query result
ex:
select TOP (1) .....
from .....
where .....
order by time desc
I'm using sql-server 2005 and ASP.NET with C#.
I have Users table with
userId(int),
userGender(tinyint),
userAge(tinyint),
userCity(tinyint)
(simplified version of course)
I need to select always two fit to userID I pass to query users of opposite gender, in age range of -5 to +10 years and from the same city.
Important fact is it always must be two, so I created condition if ##rowcount<2 re-select without age and city filters.
Now the problem is that I sometimes have two returned result sets because I use first ##rowcount on a table. If I run the query.
Will it be a problem to use the DataReader object to read from always second result set? Is there any other way to check how many results were selected without performing select with results?
Can you simplify it by using SELECT TOP 2 ?
Update: I would perform both selects all the time, union the results, and then select from them based on an order (using SELECT TOP 2) as the union may have added more than two. Its important that this next select selects the rows in order of importance, ie it prefers rows from your first select.
Alternatively, have the reader logic read the next result-set if there is one and leave the SQL alone.
To avoid getting two separate result sets you can do your first SELECT into a table variable and then do your ##ROWCOUNT check. If >= 2 then just select from the table variable on its own otherwise select the results of the table variable UNION ALLed with the results of the second query.
Edit: There is a slight overhead to using table variables so you'd need to balance whether this was cheaper than Adam's suggestion just to perform the 'UNION' as a matter of routine by looking at the execution stats for both approaches
SET STATISTICS IO ON
Would something along the following lines be of use...
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT 1 AS prio, *
FROM my_table M1 JOIN my_table M2
WHERE M1.userID = supplied_user_id AND
M1.userGender <> M2.userGender AND
M1.userAge - 5 >= M2.userAge AND
M1.userAge + 15 <= M2.userAge AND
M1.userCity = M2.userCity
LIMIT TO 2 ROWS
UNION
SELECT 2 AS prio, *
FROM my_table M1 JOIN my_table M2
WHERE M1.userID = supplied_user_id AND
M1.userGender <> M2.userGender
LIMIT TO 2 ROWS)
ORDER BY prio
LIMIT TO 2 ROWS;
I haven't tried it as I have no SQL Server and there may be dialect issues.
I want to check my database for records that I already have recorded before making a web service call.
Here is what I imagine the query to look like, I just can't seem to figure out the syntax.
SELECT *
FROM (1,2,3,4) as temp_table
WHERE temp_table.id
LEFT JOIN table ON id IS NULL
Is there a way to do this? What is a query like this called?
I want to pass in a list of id's to mysql and i want it to spit out the id's that are not already in the database?
Use:
SELECT x.id
FROM (SELECT #param_1 AS id
FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT #param_2
FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT #param_3
FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT #param_4
FROM DUAL) x
LEFT JOIN TABLE t ON t.id = x.id
WHERE x.id IS NULL
If you need to support a varying number of parameters, you can either use:
a temporary table to populate & join to
MySQL's Prepared Statements to dynamically construct the UNION ALL statement
To confirm I've understood correctly, you want to pass in a list of numbers and see which of those numbers isn't present in the existing table? In effect:
SELECT Item
FROM IDList I
LEFT JOIN TABLE T ON I.Item=T.ID
WHERE T.ID IS NULL
You look like you're OK with building this query on the fly, in which case you can do this with a numbers / tally table by changing the above into
SELECT Number
FROM (SELECT Number FROM Numbers WHERE Number IN (1,2,3,4)) I
LEFT JOIN TABLE T ON I.Number=T.ID
WHERE T.ID IS NULL
This is relatively prone to SQL Injection attacks though because of the way the query is being built. It'd be better if you could pass in '1,2,3,4' as a string and split it into sections to generate your numbers list to join against in a safer way - for an example of how to do that, see http://www.sqlteam.com/article/parsing-csv-values-into-multiple-rows
All of this presumes you've got a numbers / tally table in your database, but they're sufficiently useful in general that I'd strongly recommend you do.
SELECT * FROM table where id NOT IN (1,2,3,4)
I would probably just do:
SELECT id
FROM table
WHERE id IN (1,2,3,4);
And then process the list of results, removing any returned by the query from your list of "records to submit".
How about a nested query? This may work. If not, it may get you in the right direction.
SELECT * FROM table WHERE id NOT IN (
SELECT id FROM table WHERE 1
);
I was looking at sql inner queries (bit like the sql equivalent of a C# anon method), and was wondering, can I return more than one value from a query?
For example, return the number of rows in a table as one output value, and also, as another output value, return the distinct number of rows?
Also, how does distinct work? Is this based on whether one field may be the same as another (thus classified as "distinct")?
I am using Sql Server 2005. Would there be a performance penalty if I return one value from one query, rather than two from one query?
Thanks
You could do your first question by doing this:
SELECT
COUNT(field1),
COUNT(DISTINCT field2)
FROM table
(For the first field you could do * if needed to count null values.)
Distinct means the definition of the word. It eliminates duplicate returned rows.
Returning 2 values instead of 1 would depend on what the values were, if they were indexed or not and other undetermined possible variables.
If you are meaning subqueries within the select statement, no you can only return 1 value. If you want more than 1 value you will have to use the subquery as a join.
If the inner query is inline in the SELECT, you may struggle to select multiple values. However, it is often possible to JOIN to a sub-query instead; that way, the sub-query can be named and you can get multiple results
SELECT a.Foo, a.Bar, x.[Count], x.[Avg]
FROM a
INNER JOIN (SELECT COUNT(1) AS [Count], AVG(something) AS [Avg]) x
ON x.Something = a.Something
Which might help.
DISTINCT does what it says. IIRC, you can SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT Foo) etc to query distinct data.
you can return multiple results in 3 ways (off the top of my head)
By having a select with multiple values eg: select col1, col2, col3
With multiple queries eg: select 1 ; select "2" ; select colA. you would get to them in a datareader by calling .NextRecord()
Using output parameters, declare the parameters before exec the query then get the value from them afterwards. eg: set #param1 = "2" . string myparam2 = sqlcommand.parameters["param1"].tostring()
Distinct, filters resulting rows to be unique.
Inner queries in the form:
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE fld in (SELECT fld2 FROM tbl2 WHERE tbl.fld = tbl2.fld2)
cannot return multiple rows. When you need multiple rows from a secondary query, you usually need to do an inner join on the other query.
rows:
SELECT count(*), count(distinct *) from table
will return a dataset with one row containing two columns. Column 1 is the total number of rows in the table. Column 2 counts only distinct rows.
Distinct means the returned dataset will not have any duplicate rows. Distinct can only appear once usually directly after the select. Thus a query such as:
SELECT distinct a, b, c FROM table
might have this result:
a1 b1 c1
a1 b1 c2
a1 b2 c2
a1 b3 c2
Note that values are duplicated across the whole result set but each row is unique.
I'm not sure what your last question means. You should return from a query all the data relevant to the query. As for faster, only benchmarking can tell you which approach is faster.