I have a query that looks like this:
Insert Into tblX (a,b,c)
Select x as a, y as b
(select top 1 whatever from tblZ as z where z.aID = y.aID order by z.s desc) as c
from tblY as y
where y.foo = 'bar'
AND c <> NULL
The problem is that last line.
It tells me that c is an invalid column name. using y.c as well, to the same result.
I need to not inset rows where that giant inner query is null, because tblX cannot accept nulls there. I feel like I should be able to filter on that column, but I can't quite get the syntax right.
You will probably need to double-nest this query.
Also, depends on your DBMS, but you should be checking C IS NOT NULL
You are using two tables without a join. If you tell us what you are trying to achieve, we can help better.
What ended up working is double nesting the query.
Insert Into tblX (a,b,c)
Select a,b,c from
(select x as a,
y as b,
(select top 1 whatever from tblZ as z where z.aID = y.aID order by z.s desc) as c
from tblY as y where y.foo = 'bar') as foobar
Where c IS NOT NULL
Related
(I wish to get a solution compatible with SQL Server)
Let's say I have a table 'x' with the columns {A,B,C,D,E} and another table 'y' with the columns {A,B,C,F,G}.
I now execute the following query:
SELECT * FROM(
(SELECT * FROM x) AS M
LEFT JOIN
(SELECT * FROM y) AS N
ON M.A=N.A AND M.B=N.B AND M.C=N.C) AS K
The output table has the columns {A,B,C,D,E,A,B,C,F,G} while I actually wish to select a table with the columns {A,B,C,D,E,F,G}
Is there any way around this problem?
You may use a simpler left join and specify the columns you wish to select:
SELECT
m.A,
m.B,
m.C,
m.D,
m.E,
n.F,
n.G
FROM x AS m
LEFT JOIN y AS n
ON m.A = n.A AND m.B = n.B AND m.C = n.C;
You don't really need all the subqueries here as far as I can tell. Also, in general doing SELECT * is not a good thing, and you should always explicitly list out the columns you wish to select.
I have a question on sql desgin.
Context:
I have a table called t_master and 13 other tables (lets call them a,b,c... for simplicity) where it needs to compared.
Logic:
t_master will be compared to table 'a' where t_master.gen_val =
a.value.
If record exist in t_master, retrieve t_master record, else retrieve 'a' record.
I do not need to retrieve the records if it exists in both tables (t_master and a) - XOR condition
Repeat this comparison with the remaining 12 tables.
I have some idea on doing this, using WITH to subquery the non-master tables (a,b,c...) first with their respective WHERE clause.
Then use XOR statement to retrieve the records.
Something like
WITH a AS (SELECT ...),
b AS (SELECT ...)
SELECT field1,field2...
FROM t_master FULL OUTER JOIN a FULL OUTER JOIN b FULL OUTER JOIN c...
ON t_master.gen_value = a.value
WHERE ((field1 = x OR field2 = y ) AND NOT (field1 = x AND field2 = y))
AND ....
.
.
.
.
Seeing that I have 13 tables that I need to full outer join, is there a better way/design to handle this?
Otherwise I would have at least 2*13 lines of WHERE clause which I'm not sure if that will have impact on the performance as t_master is sort of a log table.
**Assume I cant change any schema.
Currently I'm not sure if this SQL will working correctly yet, so I'm hoping someone can guide me in the right direction regarding this.
update from used_by_already's suggestion:
This is what I'm trying to do (comparison between 2 tables first, before I add more, but I am unable to get values from ATP_R.TBL_HI_HDR HI_HDR as it is in the NOT EXISTS subquery.
How do i overcome this?
SELECT LOG_REPO.UNIQ_ID,
LOG_REPO.REQUEST_PAYLOAD,
LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL,
LOG_REPO.CREATED_BY,
TO_CHAR(LOG_REPO.CREATED_DT,'DD/MM/YYYY') AS CREATED_DT,
HI_HDR.HI_NO R_VALUE,
HI_HDR.CREATED_BY R_CREATED_BY,
TO_CHAR(HI_HDR.CREATED_DT,'DD/MM/YYYY') AS R_CREATED_DT
FROM ATP_COMMON.VW_CMN_LOG_GEN_REPO LOG_REPO JOIN ATP_R.TBL_HI_HDR HI_HDR ON LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL = HI_HDR.HI_NO
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT NULL
FROM ATP_R.TBL_HI_HDR HI_HDR
WHERE LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL = HI_HDR.HI_NO
)
UNION ALL
SELECT LOG_REPO.UNIQ_ID,
LOG_REPO.REQUEST_PAYLOAD,
LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL,
LOG_REPO.CREATED_BY,
TO_CHAR(LOG_REPO.CREATED_DT,'DD/MM/YYYY') AS CREATED_DT,
HI_HDR.HI_NO R_VALUE,
HI_HDR.CREATED_BY R_CREATED_BY,
TO_CHAR(HI_HDR.CREATED_DT,'DD/MM/YYYY') AS R_CREATED_DT
FROM ATP_R.TBL_HI_HDR HI_HDR JOIN ATP_COMMON.VW_CMN_LOG_GEN_REPO LOG_REPO ON HI_HDR.HI_NO = LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT NULL
FROM ATP_COMMON.VW_CMN_LOG_GEN_REPO LOG_REPO
WHERE HI_HDR.HI_NO = LOG_REPO.GEN_VAL
)
Full outer joins used to exclude all matching rows can be an expensive query. You don't supply much detail, but perhaps using NOT EXISTS would be simpler and maybe it will produce a better explain plan. Something along these lines.
select
cola,colb,colc
from t_master m
where not exists (
select null from a where m.keycol = a.fk_to_m
)
and not exists (
select null from b where m.keycol = b.fk_to_m
)
and not exists (
select null from c where m.keycol = c.fk_to_m
)
union all
select
cola,colb,colc from a
where not exists (
select null from t_master m where a.fk_to_m = m.keycol
)
union all
select
cola,colb,colc from b
where not exists (
select null from t_master m where b.fk_to_m = m.keycol
)
union all
select
cola,colb,colc from c
where not exists (
select null from t_master m where c.fk_to_m = m.keycol
)
You could union the 13 a,b,c ... tables to simplify the coding, but that may not perform so well.
I was hoping someone could help me with the best way to do this in SQL.
If I have about 5 select statements
e.g.,
1) select name from payment a
join address b on a.id = b.id (if this statement score = 4)
2) select name from payment x
join address y on x.id = y.id (if this statement score = 7)
What is the best logic to use to know which select the person belongs to and how do I assign a numeric value to that name
If am not wrong you are looking for something like this
SELECT CASE
WHEN statement_score = 4 THEN 'statement_score_4'
WHEN statement_score = 7 THEN 'statement_score_7'
.....
END AS identifier,
name
FROM payment a
JOIN address b
ON a.id = b.id
AND statement_score IN( 4, 7,.. )
I don't know if I totally understand your question, but maybe you can select a value in each SELECT statement that indicates which query it came from. In other words,
select name, 4 AS score from payment a join address b on a.id = b.id (if this statement score = 4)
select name, 7 AS score from payment x join address y on x.id = y.id (if this statement score = 7)
My table looks like this (Totally different names)
ID Column1--Column2---Column3--------------Column30
X 0 2 6 0101 31
I want to find the second maximum value of Column1 to Column30 and Put the column_Name in a seperate column.
First row would look like :
ID Column1--Column2---Column3--------------Column30------SecondMax
X 0 2 6 0101 31 Column3
Query :
Update Table
Set SecondMax= (select Column_Name from table where ...)
with unpvt as (
select id, c, m
from T
unpivot (c for m in (c1, c2, c3, ..., c30)) as u /* <-- your list of columns */
)
update T
set SecondMax = (
select top 1 m
from unpvt as u1
where
u1.id = T.id
and u1.c < (
select max(c) from unpvt as u2 where u2.id = u1.id
)
order by c desc, m
)
I really don't like relying on top but this isn't a standard sql question anyway. And it doesn't do anything about ties other than returning the first column name by order of alphabetical sort.
You could use a modification via the condition below to get the "third maximum". (Obviously the constant 2 comes from 3 - 1.) Your version of SQL Server lets you use a variable there as well. I think SQL 2012 also supports the limit syntax if that's preferable to top. And since it should work for top 0 and top 1 as well, you might just be able to run this query in a loop to populate all of your "maximums" from first to thirty.
Once you start having ties you'll eventually get a "thirtieth maximum" that's null. Make sure you cover those cases though.
and u1.c < all (
select top 2 distinct c from unpvt as u2 where u2.id = u1.id
)
And after I think about it. If you're going to rank and update so many columns it would probably make even more sense to use a proper ranking function and do the update all at once. You'll also handle the ties a lot better even if the alphabetic sorting is still arbitrary.
with unpvt as (
select id, c, m, row_number() over (partition by id order by c desc, m) as nthmax
from T
unpivot (c for m in (c1, c2, c3, ..., c30)) as u /* <-- your list of columns */
)
update T set
FirstMax = (select c from unpvt as u where u.id = T.id and nth_max = 1),
SecondMax = (select c from unpvt as u where u.id = T.id and nth_max = 2),
...
NthMax = (select c from unpvt as u where u.id = T.id and nth_max = N)
I'm trying to make a query to retrieve the region which got the most sales for sweet products. 'grupo_produto' is the product type, and 'regiao' is the region. So I got this query:
SELECT TOP 1 r.nm_regiao, (SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM Dw_Empresa
WHERE grupo_produto='1' AND
cod_regiao = d.cod_regiao) as total
FROM Dw_Empresa d
INNER JOIN tb_regiao r ON r.cod_regiao = d.cod_regiao ORDER BY total DESC
Then when i run the query, MS-Access asks for the "total" parameter. Why it doesn't consider the newly created 'column' I made in the select clause?
Thanks in advance!
Old Question I know, but it may help someone knowing than while you cant order by aliases, you can order by column index. For example, this will work without error :
SELECT
firstColumn,
IIF(secondColumn = '', thirdColumn, secondColumn) As yourAlias
FROM
yourTable
ORDER BY
2 ASC
The results would then be ordered by the values found in the second column wich is the Alias "yourAlias".
Aliases are only usable in the query output. You can't use them in other parts of the query. Unfortunately, you'll have to copy and paste the entire subquery to make it work.
You can do it like this
select * from(
select a + b as c, * from table)
order by c
Access has some differences compared to Sql Server.
Why it doesn't consider the newly
created 'column' I made in the select
clause?
Because Access (ACE/Jet) is not compliant with the SQL-92 Standard.
Consider this example, which is valid SQL-92:
SELECT a AS x, c - b AS y
FROM MyTable
ORDER
BY x, y;
In fact, x and y the only valid elements in the ORDER BY clause because all others are out of scope (ordinal numbers of columns in the SELECT clause are valid though their use id deprecated).
However, Access chokes on the above syntax. The equivalent Access syntax is this:
SELECT a AS x, c - b AS y
FROM MyTable
ORDER
BY a, c - b;
However, I understand from #Remou's comments that a subquery in the ORDER BY clause is invalid in Access.
Try using a subquery and order the results in an outer query.
SELECT TOP 1 * FROM
(
SELECT
r.nm_regiao,
(SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM Dw_Empresa
WHERE grupo_produto='1' AND cod_regiao = d.cod_regiao) as total
FROM Dw_Empresa d
INNER JOIN tb_regiao r ON r.cod_regiao = d.cod_regiao
) T1
ORDER BY total DESC
(Not tested.)
How about:
SELECT TOP 1 r.nm_regiao
FROM (SELECT Dw_Empresa.cod_regiao,
Count(Dw_Empresa.cod_regiao) AS CountOfcod_regiao
FROM Dw_Empresa
WHERE Dw_Empresa.[grupo_produto]='1'
GROUP BY Dw_Empresa.cod_regiao
ORDER BY Count(Dw_Empresa.cod_regiao) DESC) d
INNER JOIN tb_regiao AS r
ON d.cod_regiao = r.cod_regiao
I suggest using an intermediate query.
SELECT r.nm_regiao, d.grupo_produto, COUNT(*) AS total
FROM Dw_Empresa d INNER JOIN tb_regiao r ON r.cod_regiao = d.cod_regiao
GROUP BY r.nm_regiao, d.grupo_produto;
If you call that GroupTotalsByRegion, you can then do:
SELECT TOP 1 nm_regiao, total FROM GroupTotalsByRegion
WHERE grupo_produto = '1' ORDER BY total DESC
You may think it's extra work to create the intermediate query (and, in a sense, it is), but you will also find that many of your other queries will be based off of GroupTotalsByRegion. You want to avoid repeating that logic in many other queries. By keeping it in one view, you provide a simplified route to answering many other questions.
How about use:
WITH xx AS
(
SELECT TOP 1 r.nm_regiao, (SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM Dw_Empresa
WHERE grupo_produto='1' AND
cod_regiao = d.cod_regiao) as total
FROM Dw_Empresa d
INNER JOIN tb_regiao r ON r.cod_regiao = d.cod_regiao
) SELECT * FROM xx ORDER BY total