I'm trying to test the first answer to this question:
SQL - message schema - need to find an existing message thread given a set of users
The first answer to this question is written in DB2 and I'm having a hard time converting the answer to TSQL. Can someone help me figure this out? Here's the query:
WITH Selected_Users(id) as (VALUES (#id1), (#id2), --etc--),
Threads(id) as (SELECT DISTINCT threadFk
FROM ThreadMembers as a
JOIN Selected_Users as b
ON b.id = a.userFk)
SELECT a.id
FROM Threads as a
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT '1'
FROM ThreadMembers as b
LEFT JOIN Selected_Users as c
ON c.id = b.userFk
WHERE c.id IS NULL
AND b.threadFk = a.id)
AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT '1'
FROM Selected_Users as b
LEFT JOIN ThreadMembers as c
ON c.userFk = b.id
AND c.threadFk = a.id
WHERE c.userFk IS NULL)
The description of the query is part of the answer, which helps a lot. The first part of the query creates a temp table called Selected_Users, but I'm not sure how this would be done. Thanks in advance!
I don't think T-SQL allows for the list syntax that DB2 does.
As Andriy M points out, SQL 2008+ does allow a pretty similar syntax:
WITH Selected_Users(id) AS (
SELECT Id FROM (
VALUES (#id1), (#id2), --etc--
) AS V(Id)
),
....
Or you could create a real temp table (or variable):
DECLARE #selected_Users TABLE (id int);
INSERT #selected_Users VALUES
(#id1),
(#id2),
--etc.--
; --make sure to close with semi-colon before WITH CTE
and then replace Selected_Users with #selected_Users in the rest of the query. Or change the initial CTE to:
WITH Selected_Users(id) AS (
SELECT * FROM #selected_Users
),
....
Or, you could do a UNION ALL:
WITH Selected_Users(id) AS (
SELECT #id1
UNION ALL SELECT #id2
UNION ALL SELECT #id3
--etc.--
),
....
I'm unfamiliar with DB2, but if the Selected_Users and Threads "temp tables" are supposed to be CTEs (common table expressions -- basically inline-views), then you'll have to change those to:
WITH Selected_Users(id) AS
(
SELECT #id1 UNION
SELECT #id2
),
Threads(id) AS
(
SELECT DISTINCT
threadFk
FROM
ThreadMembers a
JOIN
Selected_Users b
ON
a.userFk = b.id
)
SELECT
a.Id
FROM
Threads a
WHERE
...
I'll think about the rest and update soon.
Related
I am trying to join my master table to some sub-tables in PostgreSQL in a single select query. I am getting a syntax error and I have the feeling I am making a terrible mistake or doing something which is not allowed. The code:
Select
id,
length,
other_stuff
from my_table tbl1
Left join
(
Select
id,
height
from my_table2 tbl2) tbl2 using (id)
left join
-- I get syntax error here
(
With a as (select id from some_table),
b as (Select value from other_table)
Select id, value from a, b) tbl3 using (id)
order by tbl1.id
Can we use WITH clause in left joins sub or nested queries and Is there a better way to do this?
UPDATE1
Well, I would like to add some more details. I have three select queries like this (having unique ID) and I want to join them based on ID.
Query1:
With a as (Select id, my_other records... from postgres_table1)
b as (select id, my_records... from postgres_table2)
c as (select id, my_record.. from postgres_table3, b)
Select
id,
my_records
from a left join c on some_condtion_with_a
order by 1
Second query:
Select
id, my_records
from
(
multiple_sub_queries_by_getting_records_from_c
)
Third Query:
With d as (select id, records.. from b),
e as (select id, records.. from d),
f as (select id, records.. from e)
select
id,
records..
from f
I tried to join them using left join. The first two queries were joined successfully. While, joining third query I got the syntax error. Maybe, I am complicating things thus I asked is there a better way to do it.
You are over complicating things. There is no need to use a derived table to outer join my_table2. And there is no need for a CTE plus a derived table to join the tbl3 alias:
Select id,
length,
other_stuff
from my_table tbl1
Left join my_table2 tbl2 using (id)
left join (
select st.id, ot.value
from some_table st
cross join other_table ot
) tbl3 using (id)
order by tbl1.id;
This assumes that the cross join you create with Select id, value from a, b is intended.
Not tested, but I think you need this. try:
with a as (select id from some_table),
b as (Select value from other_table)
Select
id,
length,
other_stuff
from my_table tbl1
Left join
(
Select
id,
height
from my_table2 tbl2
)
tbl2 using (id)
left join
(
Select id, value from a, b
)
tbl3 using (id)
order by tbl1.id
I've only ever seen/used WITH in the following format:
WITH
temptablename(columns) as (query),
temptablename2(columns) as (query),
...
temptablenameX(columns) as (query)
SELECT ...
i.e. they come first
You'll probably find it easier to write queries if you use indentation to describe nesting levels. I like to make my SELECT FROM WHERE GROUPBY ORDERBY at one indent level, and then tablename INNER JOIN ON etc more indented:
SELECT
column
FROM
table
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT subcolumn FROM subtable WHERE subclause
) myalias
ON
table.id = myalias.whatever
WHERE
blah
Organising your indents every time you nest down a layer really helps. By making everything that is "a table or a block of data like a table (i.e. a subquery)" indented the same amount you can easily see the notional order that the DB should retrieve
Move your WITHs to the top of the statement, you will still use the alias names in place in the sub sub query of course
Looking at your query, there isn't much point in your subqueries.. You don't do any grouping or particularly complex processing of the data, you just select an ID and another column and then join it in. Your query will be simpler if you don't do this:
SELECT
column
FROM
table
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT subcolumn FROM subtable WHERE subclause
) myalias
ON
table.id = myalias.whatever
WHERE
blah
Instead, do this:
SELECT
column
FROM
table
INNER JOIN
subtable
ON
table.id = subtable.id
WHERE
blah
Re your updated requirements, following the same pattern.
look for --my comments
With a as (Select id, my_other records... from postgres_table1)
b as (select id, my_records... from postgres_table2)
c as (select id, my_record.. from postgres_table3, b)
d as (select id, records.. from b),
e as (select id, records.. from d),
f as (select id, records.. from e)
SELECT * FROM
(
--your first
Select
id,
my_records
from a left join c on some_condtion_with_a
) Q1
LEFT OUTER JOIN
(
--your second
Select
id, my_records
from
(
multiple_sub_queries_by_getting_records_from_c
)
) Q2
ON Q1.XXXX = Q2.XXXX --fill this in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LEFT OUTER JOIN
(
--your third
select
id,
records..
from f
) Q3
ON QX.XXXXX = Q3.XXXX --fill this in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It'll work, but it might not be the prettiest or most necessary SQL arrangement. As both i and HWNN have said, you can rewrite a lot of these queries where you're just doing some simple selecting in your WITH.. But likely that theyre simple enough that the database optimizer can also see this and rerwite the query for you when it runs it
Just remember to code clearly, and lay your indentation out nicely to stop it tunring into a massive, unmaintainable, undebuggable spaghetti mess
Please explain to me the use of the comma after 'FROM TABLE_ABC A'. how does it work in the execution of the sql query.
CREATE TABLE ABCD AS
( SELECT A.*
FROM TABLE_ABC A,
(SELECT COL_1,COL_2 FROM
(SELECT B.*,C.* FROM
TABLE_XYZ B, TABLE_MNO C
WHERE B.COL_X=C.COL_Y
)D
)A.COL_C=D.COL_D
)
WITH DATA PRIMARY INDEX(SASAJS)
It is similar to join
select * from #tempA ta join #tempB tb
on ta.ID = tb.ID
same as
select * from #tempA ta, #tempB tb
where ta.ID = tb.ID
Using JOINS makes the code easier to read
You're using a select to create a 2nd table that is also created from another subselect. See it like this and you'll understand it better:
CREATE TABLE ABCD AS(
SELECT
A.*
FROM
TABLE_ABC A,
(
SELECT
COL_1,
COL_2
FROM
(
SELECT
B.*,
C.*
FROM
TABLE_XYZ B,
TABLE_MNO C
WHERE
B.COL_X = C.COL_Y
) D
)
WHERE
A.COL_C = D.COL_D
) WITH DATA PRIMARY INDEX(SASAJS)
but your original code is lacking a WHERE CLAUSE before A.COL_C = D.COL_D. I included it.
I'm assuming that B.* or C.* has a column named COL_D AND A also has it. It would also be better if the D as after the ) before the last WHERE
I have two tables with binding primary key in database and I desire to find a disjoint set between them. For example,
Table1 has columns (ID, Name) and sample data: (1 ,John), (2, Peter), (3, Mary)
Table2 has columns (ID, Address) and sample data: (1, address2), (2, address2)
So how do I create a SQL query so I can fetch the row with ID from table1 that is not in table2. In this case, (3, Mary) should be returned?
PS: The ID is the primary key for those two tables.
Try this
SELECT ID, Name
FROM Table1
WHERE ID NOT IN (SELECT ID FROM Table2)
Use LEFT JOIN
SELECT a.*
FROM table1 a
LEFT JOIN table2 b
on a.ID = b.ID
WHERE b.id IS NULL
There are basically 3 approaches to that: not exists, not in and left join / is null.
LEFT JOIN with IS NULL
SELECT l.*
FROM t_left l
LEFT JOIN
t_right r
ON r.value = l.value
WHERE r.value IS NULL
NOT IN
SELECT l.*
FROM t_left l
WHERE l.value NOT IN
(
SELECT value
FROM t_right r
)
NOT EXISTS
SELECT l.*
FROM t_left l
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT NULL
FROM t_right r
WHERE r.value = l.value
)
Which one is better? The answer to this question might be better to be broken down to major specific RDBMS vendors. Generally speaking, one should avoid using select ... where ... in (select...) when the magnitude of number of records in the sub-query is unknown. Some vendors might limit the size. Oracle, for example, has a limit of 1,000. Best thing to do is to try all three and show the execution plan.
Specifically form PostgreSQL, execution plan of NOT EXISTS and LEFT JOIN / IS NULL are the same. I personally prefer the NOT EXISTS option because it shows better the intent. After all the semantic is that you want to find records in A that its pk do not exist in B.
Old but still gold, specific to PostgreSQL though: https://explainextended.com/2009/09/16/not-in-vs-not-exists-vs-left-join-is-null-postgresql/
Fast Alternative
I ran some tests (on postgres 9.5) using two tables with ~2M rows each. This query below performed at least 5* better than the other queries proposed:
-- Count
SELECT count(*) FROM (
(SELECT id FROM table1) EXCEPT (SELECT id FROM table2)
) t1_not_in_t2;
-- Get full row
SELECT table1.* FROM (
(SELECT id FROM table1) EXCEPT (SELECT id FROM table2)
) t1_not_in_t2 JOIN table1 ON t1_not_in_t2.id=table1.id;
Keeping in mind the points made in #John Woo's comment/link above, this is how I typically would handle it:
SELECT t1.ID, t1.Name
FROM Table1 t1
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT TOP 1 NULL
FROM Table2 t2
WHERE t1.ID = t2.ID
)
SELECT COUNT(ID) FROM tblA a
WHERE a.ID NOT IN (SELECT b.ID FROM tblB b) --For count
SELECT ID FROM tblA a
WHERE a.ID NOT IN (SELECT b.ID FROM tblB b) --For results
Not quite sure how to ask this, but I have 2 tables that are related in a 1 to many relationship, I need to select all records in the "1" table that have less than three records in the "many' table.
select b.foreignkey,count(b.foreignkey) as bidcount
from b
where b.foreignkey in (select a.id from a) and bidcount< 3
group by b.foreignkey
this doesn't work at all I know but I am at a loss how to do this.
I need to in the end select all the records from the "a" table based on this criteria. Sorry if that is confusing!
Just using your code, not tested:
SELECT
b.foreignkey,
count(b.foreignkey) as bidcount
FROM
b
WHERE
b.foreignkey IN (SELECT a.id FROM a)
GROUP BY
b.foreignkey
HAVING
count(b.foreignkey) < 3
Try this:
SELECT t1.id,COUNT(t2.parentId)
FROM table1 as t1
INNER JOIN table2 as t2
ON t1.id = t2.parentId
GROUP BY t1.id
HAVING COUNT(t2.parentId) < 3
You didn't mention which version of SQL Server you're using - if you're on SQL Server 2005 or newer, you could use this CTE (Common Table Expression):
;WITH ChildRows AS
(
SELECT A.Id, COUNT(b.Id) AS 'BCount'
FROM
dbo.TableA A
INNER JOIN
dbo.TableB B ON B.TableAId = A.Id
)
SELECT A.*, R.BCount
FROM dbo.TableA A
INNER JOIN ChildRows R ON A.Id = R.Id
The inner SELECT lists the Id columns from TableA and the count of the child rows associated with those (using the INNER JOIN to TableB) - and the outer SELECT just builds on top of that result set and shows all fields from table A (and the count from the B table)
if you want to return all fields of your (1) table in one query, I suggest you consider using CROSS APPLY:
SELECT t1.* FROM table_1 t1
CROSS APPLY (SELECT COUNT(*) cnt FROM Table_Many t2 WHERE t2.fk = t1.pk) a
where a.cnt < 3
in some particular cases, based on your indices and db structure, this query may run 4 times faster than the GROUP BY method
you have posted this question in sql server, I have a answer in oracle database system (don't know whether it will run in sql server as well or not)
this is as follow-
select [desired column list] from
(select b.*, count(*) over (partition by b.foreignkey) c_1
from b
where b.foreignkey in (select a.id from a) )
where c_1 < 3 ;
i hope it should work on sql server as well...
if not please let me update ..
I've got a table with > 1'000'000 entries; this table is referenced from about 130 other tables. My problem is that a lot of those 1-mio-entries is old and unused.
What's the fastet way to find the entries not referenced by any of the other tables? I don't like to do a
select * from (
select * from table-a TA
minus
select * from table-a TA where TA.id in (
select "ID" from (
(select distinct FK-ID "ID" from table-b)
union all
(select distinct FK-ID "ID" from table-c)
...
Is there an easier, more general way?
Thank you all!
You could do this:
select * from table_a a
where not exists (select * from table_b where fk_id = a.id)
and not exists (select * from table_c where fk_id = a.id)
and not exists (select * from table_d where fk_id = a.id)
...
try :
select a.*
from table_a a
left join table_b b on a.id=b.fk_id
left join table_c c on a.id=c.fk_id
left join table_d d on a.id=d.fk_id
left join table_e e on a.id=e.fk_id
......
where b.fk_id is null
and c.fk_id is null
and d.fk_id is null
and e.fk_id is null
.....
you might also try:
select a.*
from table_a a
left join
(select b.fk_id from table_b b union
select c.fk_id from table_c c union
...) table_union on a.id=table_union.fk_id
where table_union.fk_id is null
This is more SQL oriented and it will not take forever like the above solution.
Not sure about efficiency but:
select * from table_a
where id not in (
select id from table_b
union
select id from table_c )
If your concern is allowing the database to continue normal operations while you do the house keeping you could split it into multiple stages:
insert into tblIds
select id from table_a
union
select id from table_b
as may times as you need and then:
delete * from table_a where id not in ( select id from tableIds )
Of course sometimes doing a lot of processing takes a lot of time.
I like #Patrick's answer above, but I would like to add to that.
Rather than building the 130-step query by hand, you could build these INSERT statements by scanning sysObjects, finding key relations and generating your INSERT statements.
That would not only save you time, but should also help you to know for sure whether you've covered all the tables - maybe there are 131, or only 129.
I'm inclined to Marcelo Cantos' answer (and have upvoted it), but here is an alternative in an attempt to circumvent the problem of not having indexes on the foreign keys...
WITH
ids_a AS
(
SELECT id FROM myTable
)
,
ids_b AS
(
SELECT id FROM ids_a WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM table_a WHERE fk_id = ids_a.id)
)
,
ids_c AS
(
SELECT id FROM ids_b WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM table_b WHERE fk_id = ids_b.id)
)
,
...
,
ids_z AS
(
SELECT id FROM ids_y WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM table_y WHERE fk_id = ids_y.id)
)
SELECT * FROM ids_z
All I'm trying to do is to suggest an order to Oracle to minimise its efforts. Unfortunately Oracle will compile this to comething very similar to Marcelo Cantos' answer and it may not performa any differently.