If I were to query our ORDERS table, I might enter the following:
SELECT * FROM ORDERS
WHERE ITEM_NAME = 'Fancy Pants'
In the results for this query, I might get the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER_ID WAIST First_Name Email
----------------------------------------------------------------------
001 32 Jason j-diddy[at]some-thing.com
005 28 Pip pirrip[at]british-mail.com
007 28 HAL9000 olhal[at]hot-mail.com
Now, I'm also wanting to pull information from a different table:
SELECT * FROM PRODUCTS
WHERE ITEM_NAME = 'Fancy Pants'
------------------------------------------
PRODUCT_ID Product Prod_Desc
------------------------------------------
008 Fancy Pants Really fancy.
In the end, however, I'm actually wanting to condense these records into one row via SQL query:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRODUCT ORDER_Merged First_Name_Merged Email_Merged
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fancy Pants 001,005,007 Jason,Pip,Hal9000 j-di[...].com, pirrip[...].com
Anyway, that's how it would look. What I can't figure out is what that "merge" query would look like.
My searches here unfortunately keep leading me to results for PHP. I have found a couple of results re: merging into CSV rows via SQL but I don't think they'll work in my scenario.
Any insight would, as always, be greatly appreciated.
UPDATE:
Ah, turns out the STUFF and FOR XML functions were exactly what I needed. Thanks all!!
Select
A.name,
stuff((
select ',' + B.address
from Addresses B
WHERE A.id=B.name_id
for xml path('')),1,1,'')
From Names A
This is an excellent article on various approaches to group concatenation with pro's and con's of each.
http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/t-sql-programming/concatenating-row-values-in-transact-sql/
Personally however, I like the Coalesce approach as I demonstrate here:
https://dba.stackexchange.com/a/2615/1607
Related
Being new with SQL and SSRS and can do many things already, but I think I must be missing some basics and therefore bang my head on the wall all the time.
A report that is almost working, needs to have more results in it, based on conditions.
My working query so far is like this:
SELECT projects.project_number, project_phases.project_phase_id, project_phases.project_phase_number, project_phases.project_phase_header, project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total, invoicerows.invoicerow_total
FROM projects INNER JOIN
project_phases ON projects.project_id = project_phases.project_id
LEFT OUTER JOIN
project_phase_expensegroups ON project_phases.project_phase_id = project_phase_expensegroups.project_phase_id
LEFT OUTER JOIN
invoicerows ON project_phases.project_phase_id = invoicerows.project_phase_id
WHERE ( projects.project_number = #iProjectNumber )
AND
( project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total >0 )
The parameter is for selectionlist that is used to choose a project to the report.
How to have also records that have
( project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total ) with value 0 but there might be invoices for that project phase?
Tried already to add another condition like this:
WHERE ( projects.project_number = #iProjectNumber )
AND
( project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total > 0 )
OR
( invoicerows.invoicerow_total > 0 )
but while it gives some results - also the one with projectphase_expense_total with value 0, but the report is total mess.
So my question is: what am I doing wrong here?
There is a core problem with your query in that you are left joining to two tables, implying that rows may not exist, but then putting conditions on those tables, which will eliminate NULLs. That means your query is internally inconsistent as is.
The next problem is that you're joining two tables to project_phases that both may have multiple rows. Since these data are not related to each other (as proven by the fact that you have no join condition between project_phase_expensegroups and invoicerows, your query is not going to work correctly. For example, given a list of people, a list of those people's favorite foods, and a list of their favorite colors like so:
People
Person
------
Joe
Mary
FavoriteFoods
Person Food
------ ---------
Joe Broccoli
Joe Bananas
Mary Chocolate
Mary Cake
FavoriteColors
Person Color
------ ----------
Joe Red
Joe Blue
Mary Periwinkle
Mary Fuchsia
When you join these with links between Person <-> Food and Person <-> Color, you'll get a result like this:
Person Food Color
------ --------- ----------
Joe Broccoli Red
Joe Bananas Red
Joe Broccoli Blue
Joe Bananas Blue
Mary Chocolate Periwinkle
Mary Chocolate Fuchsia
Mary Cake Periwinkle
Mary Cake Fuchsia
This is essentially a cross-join, also known as a Cartesian product, between the Foods and the Colors, because they have a many-to-one relationship with each person, but no relationship with each other.
There are a few ways to deal with this in the report.
Create ExpenseGroup and InvoiceRow subreports, that are called from the main report by a combination of project_id and project_phase_id parameters.
Summarize one or the other set of data into a single value. For example, you could sum the invoice rows. Or, you could concatenate the expense groups into a single string separated by commas.
Some notes:
Please, please format your query before posting it in a question. It is almost impossible to read when not formatted. It seems pretty clear that you're using a GUI to create the query, but do us the favor of not having to format it ourselves just to help you
While formatting, please use aliases, Don't use full table names. It just makes the query that much harder to understand.
You need an extra parentheses in your where clause in order to get the logic right.
WHERE ( projects.project_number = #iProjectNumber )
AND (
(project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total > 0)
OR
(invoicerows.invoicerow_total > 0)
)
Also, you're using a column in your WHERE clause from a table that is left joined without checking for NULLs. That basically makes it a (slow) inner join. If you want to include rows that don't match from that table you also need to check for NULL. Any other comparison besides IS NULL will always be false for NULL values. See this page for more information about SQL's three value predicate logic: http://www.firstsql.com/idefend3.htm
To keep your LEFT JOINs working as you intended you would need to do this:
WHERE ( projects.project_number = #iProjectNumber )
AND (
project_phase_expensegroups.projectphase_expense_total > 0
OR project_phase_expensegroups.project_phase_id IS NULL
OR invoicerows.invoicerow_total > 0
OR invoicerows.project_phase_id IS NULL
)
I found the solution and it was kind easy after all. I changed the only the second LEFT OUTER JOIN to INNER JOIN and left away condition where the query got only results over zero. Also I used SELECT DISTINCT
Now my report is working perfectly.
I have a query that produces a 2 field result: Email and Interest.
The result is millions of records. But there are about 100 distinct Interests.
I would like to run the query to produce a result that is 101 fields wide like this:
Email | Books | Cats | Dogs | ETC
Where the metric is the count of each.
With my knowledge of SQL thus far I'd have to use CASE WHEN. But I'd have to write 100 lines of code.
Is there a better way?
You could use the PIVOT statement but sounds like terradata does not support that. Pivot would require typing in all column names as well. Don't think you can avoid that
I am using MS Access and I have a rather complex situation.
I have Respondents who are linked to varying numbers of different Companies via 2 connecting tables. I want to be able to create a list of distinct customers which excludes any customer associated with Company X.
Here is a pic of the relationships that are involved with the query.
And here is an example of what I'm trying to achieve.
RespondentRef | Respondent Name
8 Joe Bloggs
.
RespondentRef | GroupRef
8 2
.
GroupRef | CompanyRef
2 10
.
CompanyRef | CompanyName
10 Ball of String
I want a query where I enter in 'Ball of String' for the company name, and then it produces a list of all the Respondents (taken from Tbl_Respondent) which completely excludes Respondent 8 (as he is linked to CompanyName: Ball of String).
Tbl_Respondent
RespondentRef | Respondent Name
... ...
7 Bob Carlyle
9 Anton Boyle
I have tried many combinations of subqueries with <> and NOT EXISTS and NOT IN and nothing seems to work. I suspect the way these tables are linked may have something to do with it.
Any help you could offer would be very much appreciated. If you have any questions let me know. (I have made best efforts, but please accept my apologies for any formatting conventions or etiquette faux-pas I may have committed.)
Thank you very much.
EDIT:
My formatted version of Frazz's code is still turning resulting in a syntax error. Any help would be appreciated.
SELECT *
FROM Tbl_Respondent
WHERE RespondentRef NOT IN (
SELECT tbl_Group_Details_Respondents.RespondentRef
FROM tbl_Group_Details_Respondents
JOIN tbl_Group_Details ON tbl_Group_Details.GroupReference = tbl_Group_Details_Respondents.GroupReference
JOIN tbl_Company_Details ON tbl_Company_Details.CompanyReference = tbl_Group_Details.CompanyReference
WHERE tbl_Company_Details.CompanyName = "Ball of String"
)
This should do what you need:
SELECT *
FROM Tbl_Respondent
WHERE RespondentRef NOT IN (
SELECT gdr.RespondentRef
FROM Tbl_Group_Details_Respondent gdr
JOIN Tbl_Group_Details gd ON gd.GroupRef=gdr.GroupRef
JOIN Tbl_Company_Details cd ON cd.CompanyRef=gd.CompanyRef
WHERE cd.CompanyName='Ball of String'
)
Basically, I'm dealing with a horribly set up table that I'd love to rebuild, but am not sure I can at this point.
So, the table is of addresses, and it has a ton of similar entries for the same address. But there are sometimes slight variations in the address (i.e., a room # is tacked on IN THE SAME COLUMN, ugh).
Like this:
id | place_name | place_street
1 | Place Name One | 1001 Mercury Blvd
2 | Place Name Two | 2388 Jupiter Street
3 | Place Name One | 1001 Mercury Blvd, Suite A
4 | Place Name, One | 1001 Mercury Boulevard
5 | Place Nam Two | 2388 Jupiter Street, Rm 101
What I would like to do is in SQL (this is mssql), if possible, is do a query that is like:
SELECT DISTINCT place_name, place_street where [the first 4 letters of the place_name are the same] && [the first 4 characters of the place_street are the same].
to, I guess at this point, get:
Plac | 1001
Plac | 2388
Basically, then I can figure out what are the main addresses I have to break out into another table to normalize this, because the rest are just slight derivations.
I hope that makes sense.
I've done some research and I see people using regular expressions in SQL, but a lot of them seem to be using C scripts or something. Do I have to write regex functions and save them into the SQL Server before executing any regular expressions?
Any direction on whether I can just write them in SQL or if I have another step to go through would be great.
Or on how to approach this problem.
Thanks in advance!
Use the SQL function LEFT:
SELECT DISTINCT LEFT(place_name, 4)
I don't think you need regular expressions to get the results you describe. You just want to trim the columns and group by the results, which will effectively give you distinct values.
SELECT left(place_name, 4), left(place_street, 4), count(*)
FROM AddressTable
GROUP BY left(place_name, 4), left(place_street, 4)
The count(*) column isn't necessary, but it gives you some idea of which values might have the most (possibly) duplicate address rows in common.
I would recommend you look into Fuzzy Search Operations in SQL Server. You can match the results much better than what you are trying to do. Just google sql server fuzzy search.
Assuming at least SQL Server 2005 for the CTE:
;with cteCommonAddresses as (
select left(place_name, 4) as LeftName, left(place_street,4) as LeftStreet
from Address
group by left(place_name, 4), left(place_street,4)
having count(*) > 1
)
select a.id, a.place_name, a.place_street
from cteCommonAddresses c
inner join Address a
on c.LeftName = left(a.place_name,4)
and c.LeftStreet = left(a.place_street,4)
order by a.place_name, a.place_street, a.id
I've been beating my head on the desk trying to figure this one out. I have a table that stores job information, and reasons for a job not being completed. The reasons are numeric,01,02,03,etc. You can have two reasons for a pending job. If you select two reasons, they are stored in the same column, separated by a comma. This is an example from the JOBID table:
Job_Number User_Assigned PendingInfo
1 user1 01,02
There is another table named Pending, that stores what those values actually represent. 01=Not enough info, 02=Not enough time, 03=Waiting Review. Example:
Pending_Num PendingWord
01 Not Enough Info
02 Not Enough Time
What I'm trying to do is query the database to give me all the job numbers, users, pendinginfo, and pending reason. I can break out the first value, but can't figure out how to do the second. What my limited skills have so far:
select Job_number,user_assigned,SUBSTRING(pendinginfo,0,3),pendingword
from jobid,pending
where
SUBSTRING(pendinginfo,0,3)=pending.pending_num and
pendinginfo!='00,00' and
pendinginfo!='NULL'
What I would like to see for this example would be:
Job_Number User_Assigned PendingInfo PendingWord PendingInfo PendingWord
1 User1 01 Not Enough Info 02 Not Enough Time
Thanks in advance
You really shouldn't store multiple items in one column if your SQL is ever going to want to process them individually. The "SQL gymnastics" you have to perform in those cases are both ugly hacks and performance degraders.
The ideal solution is to split the individual items into separate columns and, for 3NF, move those columns to a separate table as rows if you really want to do it properly (but baby steps are probably okay if you're sure there will never be more than two reasons in the short-medium term).
Then your queries will be both simpler and faster.
However, if that's not an option, you can use the afore-mentioned SQL gymnastics to do something like:
where find ( ',' |fld| ',', ',02,' ) > 0
assuming your SQL dialect has a string search function (find in this case, but I think charindex for SQLServer).
This will ensure all sub-columns begin and start with a comma (comma plus field plus comma) and look for a specific desired value (with the commas on either side to ensure it's a full sub-column match).
If you can't control what the application puts in that column, I would opt for the DBA solution - DBA solutions are defined as those a DBA has to do to work around the inadequacies of their users :-).
Create two new columns in that table and make an insert/update trigger which will populate them with the two reasons that a user puts into the original column.
Then query those two new columns for specific values rather than trying to split apart the old column.
This means that the cost of splitting is only on row insert/update, not on _every single select`, amortising that cost efficiently.
Still, my answer is to re-do the schema. That will be the best way in the long term in terms of speed, readable queries and maintainability.
I hope you are just maintaining the code and it's not a brand new implementation.
Please consider to use a different approach using a support table like this:
JOBS TABLE
jobID | userID
--------------
1 | user13
2 | user32
3 | user44
--------------
PENDING TABLE
pendingID | pendingText
---------------------------
01 | Not Enough Info
02 | Not Enough Time
---------------------------
JOB_PENDING TABLE
jobID | pendingID
-----------------
1 | 01
1 | 02
2 | 01
3 | 03
3 | 01
-----------------
You can easily query this tables using JOIN or subqueries.
If you need retro-compatibility on your software you can add a view to reach this goal.
I have a tables like:
Events
---------
eventId int
eventTypeIds nvarchar(50)
...
EventTypes
--------------
eventTypeId
Description
...
Each Event can have multiple eventtypes specified.
All I do is write 2 procedures in my site code, not SQL code
One procedure converts the table field (eventTypeIds) value like "3,4,15,6" into a ViewState array, so I can use it any where in code.
This procedure does the opposite it collects any options your checked and converts it in
If changing the schema is an option (which it probably should be) shouldn't you implement a many-to-many relationship here so that you have a bridging table between the two items? That way, you would store the number and its wording in one table, jobs in another, and "failure reasons for jobs" in the bridging table...
Have a look at a similar question I answered here
;WITH Numbers AS
(
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY (SELECT 0)) AS N
FROM JobId
),
Split AS
(
SELECT JOB_NUMBER, USER_ASSIGNED, SUBSTRING(PENDING_INFO, Numbers.N, CHARINDEX(',', PENDING_INFO + ',', Numbers.N) - Numbers.N) AS PENDING_NUM
FROM JobId
JOIN Numbers ON Numbers.N <= DATALENGTH(PENDING_INFO) + 1
AND SUBSTRING(',' + PENDING_INFO, Numbers.N, 1) = ','
)
SELECT *
FROM Split JOIN Pending ON Split.PENDING_NUM = Pending.PENDING_NUM
The basic idea is that you have to multiply each row as many times as there are PENDING_NUMs. Then, extract the appropriate part of the string
While I agree with DBA perspective not to store multiple values in a single field it is doable, as bellow, practical for application logic and some performance issues. Let say you have 10000 user groups, each having average 1000 members. You may want to have a table user_groups with columns such as groupID and membersID. Your membersID column could be populated like this:
(',10,2001,20003,333,4520,') each number being a memberID, all separated with a comma. Add also a comma at the start and end of the data. Then your select would use like '%,someID,%'.
If you can not change your data ('01,02,03') or similar, let say you want rows containing 01 you still can use " select ... LIKE '01,%' OR '%,01' OR '%,01,%' " which will insure it match if at start, end or inside, while avoiding similar number (ie:101).