This is evidently correct syntax in SQL Server:
SELECT a.id, b.name
FROM Table1 a, Table2 b
WHERE a.id = b.fk1
So is this:
SELECT a.id, c.status
FROM Table1 a
JOIN Table3 c ON a.id = c.fk2
But this apparently isn't:
SELECT a.id, b.name, c.status
FROM Table1 a, Table2 b
JOIN Table3 c ON a.id = c.fk2
WHERE a.id = b.fk1
I would NOT normally want to construct a query in the third case's style (and really not the first case's either), but it would probably be the path of least resistence in editing some code that's already been written at my company. Somebody used the first form with five different tables, and I really need to work in a sixth table through a JOIN statement, without taking chances of messing up what they already have. Even though I could re-write their stuff outright if I need to, I would really like to know how to do something like in the third case.
Running the code exactly as-is in the examples, the third case gives me this error message:
The multi-part identifier "a.id" could not be bound.
What is syntactically breaking the third case? What simple fix could be applied? Thanks!
I, likewise, would not recommend doing this. But, you can just change the , to a cross join:
SELECT a.id, b.name, c.status
FROM Table1 a cross join Table2 b
JOIN Table3 c ON a.id = c.fk2
WHERE a.id = b.fk1
This code:
SELECT a.id, b.name, c.status
FROM Table1 a, Table2 b
JOIN Table3 c ON a.id = c.fk2
WHERE a.id = b.fk1
is doing a cross join on a and the result of an inner join on b and c. c cannot access any of the fields in a because the join is being performed on b. what you should do is change your query to:
SELECT a.id, b.name, c.status
FROM Table1 a
inner join Table2 b on a.id = b.fk1
inner JOIN Table3 c ON a.id = c.fk2
Related
Can anyone help me figure out the correct WHERE clause for the following scenario:
select A.name
from tableA A, tableB B
where A.id = B.id
and
(
B.field = 5
OR
B.hasNoRowForJoinedID
)
I feel like I'm missing something really obvious here in how to accomplish this, but I can't for the life of me put my finger on it.
You are using an outdated SQL Syntax. To perform the LEFT OUTER JOIN based your your request above, you can do the following:
SELECT A.name
FROM A
LEFT OUTER JOIN B ON A.id = B.id
WHERE (B.field = 5 OR B.field IS NULL)
Use proper join syntax and not the outdated ones:
select A.name
from tableA A
left join tableB B on A.id = B.id and B.field = 5
I have a query like below:
select
a.id, a.title, a.description
from
my_table_name as a
where
a.id in (select id from another_table b where b.id = 1)
My question is, is there any way I can avoid the subquery in where clause and use it in from clause itself without compromising of performance?
Both of the answers given so far are incorrect in the general case (though the database may have unique constraints which ensure they are correct in a specific case)
If another_table might have multiple rows with the same id then the INNER JOIN will bring back duplicates that are not present in the IN version. Trying to remove them with DISTINCT can change the semantics if the columns from my_table_name themselves have duplicates.
A general rewrite would be
SELECT a.id,
a.title,
a.description
FROM my_table_name AS a
JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT id
FROM another_table
WHERE id = 1) AS b
ON b.id = a.id
The performance characteristics of this rewrite are implementation dependant.
You may use INNER JOIN as:
select
a.id, a.title, a.description
from
my_table_name as a INNER JOIN another_table as b ON (a.id = b.id and b.id = 1)
Or
select
a.id, a.title, a.description
from
my_table_name as a INNER JOIN another_table as b ON a.id = b.id
where b.id = 1
Both the queries may not return the same value for you. You may choose whatever works for you. Please use this as a starting point and not as a copy-paste code.
To express it as a join:
select distinct
a.id, a.title, a.description
from my_table_name as a
join another_table b on b.id = a.id
where b.id = 1
The use of distinct is to produce the same results in case another_table has the same id more than once so the same row doesn't get returned multiple times.
Note: if combinations of id, name and description in my_table_name are not unique, this query won't return such duplicates as the original query would.
To guarantee to produce the same results, you need to ensure that the id's in another_table is unique. To do this as a join:
select
a.id, a.title, a.description
from my_table_name as a
join (select distinct id from another_table) b on b.id = a.id
where b.id = 1
Say I have three tables in SQL server 2008 R2
SELECT a.*, b.*, c.*
FROM
Table_A a
RIGHT JOIN Table_B b ON a.id = b.id
LEFT JOIN Table_C c ON b.id = c.id
or
SELECT a.*, b.*, c.*
FROM
Table_A a
RIGHT JOIN Table_B b ON a.id = b.id
JOIN Table_C c ON b.id = c.id
also, does it matter if I use b.id or a.id on joining c?
i.e. instead of JOIN Table_C c ON b.id = c.id, use JOIN Table_C c ON a.id = c.id
Thank you!
If it doesn't change the semantics of the query, the database server can reorder the joins to run in whichever way it thinks is more efficient.
Usually, if you want to force a certain order, you can use inline view subqueries, as in
SELECT a.*, x.*
FROM
Table_A a
RIGHT JOIN
(
SELECT *, b.id as id2 FROM Table_B b
LEFT JOIN Table_C c ON b.id = c.id
) x
ON a.id = x.id2
According to the definitions:
JOIN
: Return rows when there is at least one match in both tables
LEFT JOIN Return all rows from the left table, even if there are no matches in the right table
RIGHT JOIN Return all rows from the right table, even if there are no matches in the left table
The first option would include all raws from the 1st Join on Tables a and b even if there are no matching ones in table c, while the second statement would show only raws which match ones in table c.
regarding the second question i guess it would make a difference, since the 1st join includes all ids from table b, even though there are no matching ones in table a, so once you change your Join creterium to a.id you will get a different set of ids than b.id.
Yes, you do need a LEFT JOIN after a RIGHT JOIN
See
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!3/2c079/5/0
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!3/2c079/6/0
If you don't, the (inner) JOIN at the end will cancel out the effect of your RIGHT JOIN.
That wouldn't make any sense to have a RIGHT JOIN if you don't care. And if you care, you will have to add a LEFT JOIN after it.
I am unsure as to how to resolve an ambiguous column reference when using an alias.
Imagine two tables, a and b that both have a name column. If I join these two tables and alias the result, I do not know how to reference the name column for both tables. I've tried out a few variants, but none of them work:
Attempt 1
SELECT a.name, b.name
FROM (a INNER JOIN b ON a.id = b.id) AS x
This doesn't work as a and b are out of scope.
Attempt 2
SELECT x.a.name, x.b.name
FROM (a INNER JOIN b ON a.id = b.id) AS x
SQL syntax doesn't work like that.
Attempt 3
SELECT x.name, x.name
FROM (a INNER JOIN b ON a.id = b.id) AS x
That's just plain ambiguous!
I'm all out of ideas - any help would be much appreciated.
don't enclose it with parenthesis since (a INNER JOIN b ON a.id = b.id) is not a complete query.
SELECT a.name AS A_Name,
b.name AS B_Name
FROM a INNER JOIN b
ON a.id = b.id
or (assuming) if you have longer tables names and you want to make it short,
SELECT a.name AS A_Name,
b.name AS B_Name
FROM longTableNameA a
INNER JOIN longTableNameB b
ON a.id = b.id
I need to simulate the left join effect without using the "left join" key.
I have two tables, A and B, both with id and name columns. I would like to select all the dbids on both tables, where the name in A equals the name in B.
I use this to make a synchronization, so at the beginning B is empty (so I will have couples with id from A with a value and id from B is null). Later I will have a mix of couples with value - value and value - null.
Normally it would be:
SELECT A.id, B.id
FROM A left join B
ON A.name = B.name
The problem is that I can't use the left join and wanted to know if/how it is possible to do the same thing.
you can use this approach, but you must be sure that the inner select only returns one row.
SELECT A.id,
(select B.id from B where A.name = B.name) as B_ID
FROM A
Just reverse the tables and use a right join instead.
SELECT A.id,
B.id
FROM B
RIGHT JOIN A
ON A.name = B.name
I'm not familiar with java/jpa. Using pure SQL, here's one approach:
SELECT A.id AS A_id, B.id AS B_id
FROM A INNER JOIN B
ON A.name = B.name
UNION
SELECT id AS A_id, NULL AS B_id
FROM A
WHERE name NOT IN ( SELECT name FROM B );
In SQL Server, for example, You can use the *= operator to make a left join:
select A.id, B.id
from A, B
where A.name *= B.name
Other databases might have a slightly different syntax, if such an operator exists at all.
This is the old syntax, used before the join keyword was introduced. You should of course use the join keyword instead if possible. The old syntax might not even work in newer versions of the database.
I can only think of two ways that haven't been given so far. My last three ideas have already been given (boohoo) but I put them here for posterity. I DID think of them without cheating. :-p
Calculate whether B has a match, then provide an extra UNIONed row for the B set to supply the NULL when there is no match.
SELECT A.Id, A.Something, B.Id, B.Whatever, B.SomethingElse
FROM
(
SELECT
A.*,
CASE
WHEN EXISTS (SELECT * FROM B WHERE A.Id = B.Id) THEN 1
ELSE 0
END Which
FROM A
) A
INNER JOIN (
SELECT 1 Which, B.* FROM B
UNION ALL SELECT 0, B* FROM B WHERE 1 = 0
) B ON A.Which = B.Which
AND (
A.Which = 0
OR (
A.Which = 1
AND A.Id = b.Id
)
)
A slightly different take on that same query:
SELECT A.Id, B.Id
FROM
(
SELECT
A.*,
CASE
WHEN EXISTS (SELECT * FROM B WHERE A.Id = B.Id) THEN A.Id
ELSE -1 // a value that does not exist in B
END PseudoId
FROM A
) A
INNER JOIN (
SELECT B.Id PseudoId, B.Id FROM B
UNION ALL SELECT -1, NULL
) B ON A.Which = B.Which
AND A.PseudoId = B.PseudoId
Only for SQL Server specifically. I know, it's really a left join, but it doesn't SAY LEFT in there!
SELECT A.Id, B.Id
FROM
A
OUTER APPLY (
SELECT *
FROM B
WHERE A.Id = B.Id
) B
Get the inner join then UNION the outer join:
SELECT A.Id, B.Id
FROM
A
INNER JOIN B ON A.name = B.name
UNION ALL
SELECT A.Id, NULL
FROM A
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM B
WHERE A.Id = B.Id
)
Use RIGHT JOIN. That's not a LEFT JOIN!
SELECT A.Id, B.Id
FROM
B
RIGHT JOIN A ON B.name = A.name
Just select the B value in a subquery expression (let's hope there's only one B per A). Multiple columns from B can be their own expressions (YUCKO!):
SELECT A.Id, (SELECT TOP 1 B.Id FROM B WHERE A.Id = B.Id) Bid
FROM A
Anyone using Oracle may need some FROM DUAL clauses in any SELECTs that have no FROM.
You could use subqueries, something like:
select a.id
, nvl((select b.id from b where b.name = a.name), "") as bId
from a
you can use oracle + operator for left join :-
SELECT A.id, B.id
FROM A , B
ON A.name = B.name (+)
Find link :-
Oracle "(+)" Operator
SELECT A.id, B.id
FROM A full outer join B
ON A.name = B.name
where A.name is not null
I'm not sure if you just can't use a LEFT JOIN or if you're restricted from using any JOINS at all. But as far as I understand your requirements, an INNER JOIN should work:
SELECT A.id, B.id
FROM A
INNER JOIN B ON A.name = B.name
Simulating left join using pure simple sql:
SELECT A.name
FROM A
where (select count(B.name) from B where A.id = B.id)<1;
In left join there are no lines in B referring A so 0 names in B will refer to the lines in A that dont have a match
+ or A.id = B.id in where clause to simulate the inner join