Is there a way in SQL to use a query that is equivalent to the following:
select * from table1, table2 where some_join_condition
and some_other_condition and count(distinct(table1.id)) < some_number;
Let us say table1 is an employee table. Then a join will cause data about a single employee to be spread across multiple rows. I want to limit the number of distinct employees returned to some number. A condition on row number or something similar will not be sufficient in this case.
So what is the best way to get the same effect the same output as intended by the above query?
select *
from (select * from employee where rownum < some_number and some_id_filter), table2
where some_join_condition and some_other_condition;
This will work for nearly all DBs
SELECT *
FROM table1 t1
INNER JOIN table2 t2
ON some_join_condition
AND some_other_condition
INNER JOIN (
SELECT t1.id
FROM table1 t1
HAVING
count(t1.ID) > someNumber
) on t1.id = t1.id
Some DBs have special syntax to make this a little bit eaiser.
I may not have a full understanding of what you're trying to accomplish, but lets say you're trying to get it down to 1 row per employee, but each join is causing multiple rows per employee and grouping by employee name and other fields is still not unique enough to get it down to a single row, then you can try using ranking and partitioning and then select the rank you prefer for each employee partition.
See example : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms176102.aspx
Related
table1 (id, name)
table2 (id, name)
Query:
SELECT name
FROM table2
-- that are not in table1 already
SELECT t1.name
FROM table1 t1
LEFT JOIN table2 t2 ON t2.name = t1.name
WHERE t2.name IS NULL
Q: What is happening here?
A: Conceptually, we select all rows from table1 and for each row we attempt to find a row in table2 with the same value for the name column. If there is no such row, we just leave the table2 portion of our result empty for that row. Then we constrain our selection by picking only those rows in the result where the matching row does not exist. Finally, We ignore all fields from our result except for the name column (the one we are sure that exists, from table1).
While it may not be the most performant method possible in all cases, it should work in basically every database engine ever that attempts to implement ANSI 92 SQL
You can either do
SELECT name
FROM table2
WHERE name NOT IN
(SELECT name
FROM table1)
or
SELECT name
FROM table2
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT *
FROM table1
WHERE table1.name = table2.name)
See this question for 3 techniques to accomplish this
I don't have enough rep points to vote up froadie's answer. But I have to disagree with the comments on Kris's answer. The following answer:
SELECT name
FROM table2
WHERE name NOT IN
(SELECT name
FROM table1)
Is FAR more efficient in practice. I don't know why, but I'm running it against 800k+ records and the difference is tremendous with the advantage given to the 2nd answer posted above. Just my $0.02.
SELECT <column_list>
FROM TABLEA a
LEFTJOIN TABLEB b
ON a.Key = b.Key
WHERE b.Key IS NULL;
https://www.cloudways.com/blog/how-to-join-two-tables-mysql/
This is pure set theory which you can achieve with the minus operation.
select id, name from table1
minus
select id, name from table2
Here's what worked best for me.
SELECT *
FROM #T1
EXCEPT
SELECT a.*
FROM #T1 a
JOIN #T2 b ON a.ID = b.ID
This was more than twice as fast as any other method I tried.
Watch out for pitfalls. If the field Name in Table1 contain Nulls you are in for surprises.
Better is:
SELECT name
FROM table2
WHERE name NOT IN
(SELECT ISNULL(name ,'')
FROM table1)
You can use EXCEPT in mssql or MINUS in oracle, they are identical according to :
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2008/08/07/sql-server-except-clause-in-sql-server-is-similar-to-minus-clause-in-oracle/
That work sharp for me
SELECT *
FROM [dbo].[table1] t1
LEFT JOIN [dbo].[table2] t2 ON t1.[t1_ID] = t2.[t2_ID]
WHERE t2.[t2_ID] IS NULL
You can use following query structure :
SELECT t1.name FROM table1 t1 JOIN table2 t2 ON t2.fk_id != t1.id;
table1 :
id
name
1
Amit
2
Sagar
table2 :
id
fk_id
email
1
1
amit#ma.com
Output:
name
Sagar
All the above queries are incredibly slow on big tables. A change of strategy is needed. Here there is the code I used for a DB of mine, you can transliterate changing the fields and table names.
This is the strategy: you create two implicit temporary tables and make a union of them.
The first temporary table comes from a selection of all the rows of the first original table the fields of which you wanna control that are NOT present in the second original table.
The second implicit temporary table contains all the rows of the two original tables that have a match on identical values of the column/field you wanna control.
The result of the union is a table that has more than one row with the same control field value in case there is a match for that value on the two original tables (one coming from the first select, the second coming from the second select) and just one row with the control column value in case of the value of the first original table not matching any value of the second original table.
You group and count. When the count is 1 there is not match and, finally, you select just the rows with the count equal to 1.
Seems not elegant, but it is orders of magnitude faster than all the above solutions.
IMPORTANT NOTE: enable the INDEX on the columns to be checked.
SELECT name, source, id
FROM
(
SELECT name, "active_ingredients" as source, active_ingredients.id as id
FROM active_ingredients
UNION ALL
SELECT active_ingredients.name as name, "UNII_database" as source, temp_active_ingredients_aliases.id as id
FROM active_ingredients
INNER JOIN temp_active_ingredients_aliases ON temp_active_ingredients_aliases.alias_name = active_ingredients.name
) tbl
GROUP BY name
HAVING count(*) = 1
ORDER BY name
See query:
SELECT * FROM Table1 WHERE
id NOT IN (SELECT
e.id
FROM
Table1 e
INNER JOIN
Table2 s ON e.id = s.id);
Conceptually would be: Fetching the matching records in subquery and then in main query fetching the records which are not in subquery.
First define alias of table like t1 and t2.
After that get record of second table.
After that match that record using where condition:
SELECT name FROM table2 as t2
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM table1 as t1 WHERE t1.name = t2.name)
I'm going to repost (since I'm not cool enough yet to comment) in the correct answer....in case anyone else thought it needed better explaining.
SELECT temp_table_1.name
FROM original_table_1 temp_table_1
LEFT JOIN original_table_2 temp_table_2 ON temp_table_2.name = temp_table_1.name
WHERE temp_table_2.name IS NULL
And I've seen syntax in FROM needing commas between table names in mySQL but in sqlLite it seemed to prefer the space.
The bottom line is when you use bad variable names it leaves questions. My variables should make more sense. And someone should explain why we need a comma or no comma.
I tried all solutions above but they did not work in my case. The following query worked for me.
SELECT NAME
FROM table_1
WHERE NAME NOT IN
(SELECT a.NAME
FROM table_1 AS a
LEFT JOIN table_2 AS b
ON a.NAME = b.NAME
WHERE any further condition);
Below is my insert query.
INSERT INTO /*+ APPEND*/ TEMP_CUSTPARAM(CUSTNO, RATING)
SELECT DISTINCT Q.CUSTNO, NVL(((NVL(P.RATING,0) * '10.0')/100),0) AS RATING
FROM TB_ACCOUNTS Q LEFT JOIN TB_CUSTPARAM P
ON P.TEXT_PARAM IN (SELECT DISTINCT PRDCD FROM TB_ACCOUNTS)
AND P.TABLENAME='TB_ACCOUNTS' AND P.COLUMNNAME='PRDCD';
In the previous version of the query, P.TEXT_PARAM=Q.PRDCD but during insert to TEMP_CUSTPARAM due to violation of unique constraint on CUSTNO.
The insert query is taking ages to complete. Would like to know how to use distinct with LEFT JOIN statement.
Thanks.
SELECT T1.Col1, T2.Col2 FROM Table1 T1
Left JOIN
(SELECT Distinct Col1, Col2 FROM Table2
) T2 ON T2.Id = T1.Id
You are missing criteria to join TB_ACCOUNTS records with their related TB_ACCOUNTS/PRDCD TB_CUSTPARAM records and thus cross join them instead. I guess you want:
INSERT INTO /*+ APPEND*/ TEMP_CUSTPARAM(CUSTNO, RATING)
SELECT DISTINCT
Q.CUSTNO,
NVL(P.RATING, 0) * 0.1 AS RATING
FROM TB_ACCOUNTS Q
LEFT JOIN TB_CUSTPARAM P ON P.TEXT_PARAM = Q.PRDCD
AND P.TABLENAME = 'TB_ACCOUNTS'
AND P.COLUMNNAME = 'PRDCD';
If the query is taking ages to complete, check first the execution plan. You may find some hints here - If you see a cartesian join on two non-trivial tables, probably the query should be revisited.
Than ask yourself what is the expectation of the query.
Do you expect one record per CUSTNO? Or can a customer have more than one rating?
One reting per customer could have sense from the point of business. To get unique customer list with rating
1) first get a UNIQUE CUSTNO - note that this is in generel not done with a DISTINCT clause, but if tehre are more rows per customer with a filter predicate, e.g. selecting the most recent row.
2) than join to the rating table
Q: If I have two tables joined together, and I want to get (*) from the first table, I mean all the fields of the first table.
Shall I write all the fields names of the first table in the query? Or is there some way to select * just from the first table.
You should not to list all the fields, see the example:
SELECT DISTINCT t1.*
from T1
join t2 on condition
first_table.* should do the trick.
Sounds more like a semi join. Consider rewriting e.g.
SELECT DISTINCT T1.*
FROM T1 JOIN T2 ON T1.id = T2.id;
can be re-written as
SELECT *
FROM T1
WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM T2);
I have no idea if that title conveys what I want it to.
I have two tables containing phone records (one for each account) and I'd like to get call counts for the numbers that are common to each account. In other words:
Table 1
Number ...
8675309
8675309
8675310
8675310
8675312
Table 2
Number ...
8675309
8675309
8675309
8675310
8675311
Querying with something like:
SELECT DISTINCT table1.number, COUNT(table1.number), COUNT(table2.number) FROM table1, table2 WHERE table1.number = table2.number GROUP BY table1.number
would hopefully produce:
8675309|2|3
8675310|2|1
Instead, it currently produces something like:
8675309|6|6
8675310|2|2
It appears to be multiplying the count from each table. Presumably, this is because I'm not joining the tables the way I should for this goal. Or because by the time I ask for COUNT(table1.number) the tables have already been joined in some multiplicative way. Should I not be doing a JOIN and instead something that would read like: "where table2.number CONTAINS(table1.number)"?
Any tips?
One way is with subqueries:
SELECT t1.number, t1.table1Count, t2.table2Count
from (select number, count(*) table1Count
from table1
group by number) t1
inner join (select number, count(*) table2Count
from table2
group by number) t2
on t2.number = t1.number
This assumes that you only want to list numbers that appear in both tables. If you want to list all numbers that appear in one table and optionally the other, you'd use a left or right outer join; if you wanted all numbers that appeared in either or both tables, you'd use a full outer join.
Another and potentially more efficient way requires the presence of a single column that uniquely identifies each row in each table:
SELECT
t1.number
,count(distinct t1.PrimaryKeyValue) table1Count
,count(distinct t2.PrimaryKeyValue) table2Count
from table1 t1
inner join table2 t2
on t2.number = t1.number
group by t1.number
This makes the same assumptions as before, and can also be adjusted modified via outer joins.
One way is to use a couple of derived tables to compute your counts separately and then join them to produce your final summary:
select t1.number, t1.count1, t2.count2
from (select number, count(number) as count1 from table1 group by number) as t1
join (select number, count(number) as count2 from table2 group by number) as t2
on t1.number = t2.number
There are probably other ways but that should work and it is the first thing that came to mind.
You're getting your "multiplicative" effect pretty much for the reasons you suspect. If you have this:
table1(id,x) table2(id,x)
------------ ------------
1, a 4, a
2, a 5, a
3, b 6, b
Then joining them on x will give you this:
1,a, 4,a
1,a, 5,a
2,a, 4,a
2,a, 5,a
...
Usually you could use a GROUP BY to sort out the duplicates but you can't do that because it would mess up your per-table counts.
Try this:
select tab1.number,tab1.num1,tab2.num2
from
(SELECT number, COUNT(number) as num1 from table1 group by number) as tab1
left join
(SELECT number, COUNT(number) as num2 from table2 group by number) as tab2
on tab1.number = tab2.number
I am building an application which dynamically generates sql to search for rows of a particular Table (this is the main domain class, like an Employee).
There are three tables Table1, Table2 and Table1Table2Map.
Table1 has a many to many relationship with Table2, and is mapped through Table1Table2Map table. But since Table1 is my main table the relationship is virtually like a one to many.
My app generates a sql which basically gives a result set containing rows from all these tables. The select clause and joins dont change whereas the where clause is generated based on user interaction. In any case I dont want duplicate rows of Table1 in my result set as it is the main table for result display. Right now the query that is getting generated is like this:
select distinct Table1.Id as Id, Table1.Name, Table2.Description from Table1
left outer join Table1Table2Map on (Table1Table2Map.Table1Id = Table1.Id)
left outer join Table2 on (Table2.Id = Table1Table2Map.Table2Id)
For simplicity I have excluded the where clause. The problem is when there are multiple rows in Table2 for Table1 even though I have said distinct of Table1.Id the result set has duplicate rows of Table1 as it has to select all the matching rows in Table2.
To elaborate more, consider that for a row in Table1 with Id = 1 there are two rows in Table1Table2Map (1, 1) and (1, 2) mapping Table1 to two rows in Table2 with ids 1, 2. The above mentioned query returns duplicate rows for this case. Now I want the query to return Table1 row with Id 1 only once. This is because there is only one row in Table2 that is like an active value for the corresponding entry in Table1 (this information is in Mapping table).
Is there a way I can avoid getting duplicate rows of Table1.
I think there is some basic problem in the way I am trying to solve the problem, but I am not able to find out what it is. Thanks in advance.
Try:
left outer join (select distinct YOUR_COLUMNS_HERE ...) SUBQUERY_ALIAS on ...
In other words, don't join directly against the table, join against a sub-query that limits the rows you join against.
You can use GROUP BY on Table1.Id ,and that will get rid off the extra rows. You wouldn't need to worry about any mechanics on join side.
I came up with this solution in a huge query and it this solution didnt effect the query time much.
NOTE : I'm answering this question 3 years after its been asked but this may help someone i believe.
You can re-write your left joins to be outer applies, so that you can use a top 1 and an order by as follows:
select Table1.Id as Id, Table1.Name, Table2.Description
from Table1
outer apply (
select top 1 *
from Table1Table2Map
where (Table1Table2Map.Table1Id = Table1.Id) and Table1Table2Map.IsActive = 1
order by somethingCol
) t1t2
outer apply (
select top 1 *
from Table2
where (Table2.Id = Table1Table2Map.Table2Id)
) t2;
Note that an outer apply without a "top" or an "order by" is exactly equivalent to a left outer join, it just gives you a little more control. (cross apply is equivalent to an inner join).
You can also do something similar using the row_number() function:
select * from (
select distinct Table1.Id as Id, Table1.Name, Table2.Description,
rowNum = row_number() over ( partition by table1.id order by something )
from Table1
left outer join Table1Table2Map on (Table1Table2Map.Table1Id = Table1.Id)
left outer join Table2 on (Table2.Id = Table1Table2Map.Table2Id)
) x
where rowNum = 1;
Most of this doesn't apply if the IsActive flag can narrow down your other tables to one row, but they might come in useful for you.
To elaborate on one point: you said that there is only one "active" row in Table2 per row in Table1. Is that row not marked as active such that you could put it in the where clause? Or is there some magic in the dynamic conditions supplied by the user that determines what's active and what isn't.
If you don't need to select anything from Table2 the solution is relatively simply in that you can use the EXISTS function but since you've put TAble2.Description in the clause I'll assume that's not the case.
Basically what separates the relevant rows in Table2 from the irrelevant ones? Is it an active flag or a dynamic condition? The first row? That's really how you should be removing duplicates.
DISTINCT clauses tend to be overused. That may not be the case here but it sounds like it's possible that you're trying to hack out the results you want with DISTINCT rather than solving the real problem, which is a fairly common problem.
You have to include activity clause into your join (and no need for distinct):
select Table1.Id as Id, Table1.Name, Table2.Description from Table1
left outer join Table1Table2Map on (Table1Table2Map.Table1Id = Table1.Id) and Table1Table2Map.IsActive = 1
left outer join Table2 on (Table2.Id = Table1Table2Map.Table2Id)
If you want to display multiple rows from table2 you will have duplicate data from table1 displayed. If you wanted to you could use an aggregate function (IE Max, Min) on table2, this would eliminate the duplicate rows from table1, but would also hide some of the data from table2.
See also my answer on question #70161 for additional explanation