I have a view which was working fine when I was joining my main table:
LEFT OUTER JOIN OFFICE ON CLIENT.CASE_OFFICE = OFFICE.TABLE_CODE.
However I needed to add the following join:
LEFT OUTER JOIN OFFICE_MIS ON CLIENT.REFERRAL_OFFICE = OFFICE_MIS.TABLE_CODE
Although I added DISTINCT, I still get a "duplicate" row. I say "duplicate" because the second row has a different value.
However, if I change the LEFT OUTER to an INNER JOIN, I lose all the rows for the clients who have these "duplicate" rows.
What am I doing wrong? How can I remove these "duplicate" rows from my view?
Note:
This question is not applicable in this instance:
How can I remove duplicate rows?
DISTINCT won't help you if the rows have any columns that are different. Obviously, one of the tables you are joining to has multiple rows for a single row in another table. To get one row back, you have to eliminate the other multiple rows in the table you are joining to.
The easiest way to do this is to enhance your where clause or JOIN restriction to only join to the single record you would like. Usually this requires determining a rule which will always select the 'correct' entry from the other table.
Let us assume you have a simple problem such as this:
Person: Jane
Pets: Cat, Dog
If you create a simple join here, you would receive two records for Jane:
Jane|Cat
Jane|Dog
This is completely correct if the point of your view is to list all of the combinations of people and pets. However, if your view was instead supposed to list people with pets, or list people and display one of their pets, you hit the problem you have now. For this, you need a rule.
SELECT Person.Name, Pets.Name
FROM Person
LEFT JOIN Pets pets1 ON pets1.PersonID = Person.ID
WHERE 0 = (SELECT COUNT(pets2.ID)
FROM Pets pets2
WHERE pets2.PersonID = pets1.PersonID
AND pets2.ID < pets1.ID);
What this does is apply a rule to restrict the Pets record in the join to to the Pet with the lowest ID (first in the Pets table). The WHERE clause essentially says "where there are no pets belonging to the same person with a lower ID value).
This would yield a one record result:
Jane|Cat
The rule you'll need to apply to your view will depend on the data in the columns you have, and which of the 'multiple' records should be displayed in the column. However, that will wind up hiding some data, which may not be what you want. For example, the above rule hides the fact that Jane has a Dog. It makes it appear as if Jane only has a Cat, when this is not correct.
You may need to rethink the contents of your view, and what you are trying to accomplish with your view, if you are starting to filter out valid data.
So you added a left outer join that is matching two rows? OFFICE_MIS.TABLE_CODE is not unique in that table I presume? you need to restrict that join to only grab one row. It depends on which row you are looking for, but you can do something like this...
LEFT OUTER JOIN OFFICE_MIS ON
OFFICE_MIS.ID = /* whatever the primary key is? */
(select top 1 om2.ID
from OFFICE_MIS om2
where CLIENT.REFERRAL_OFFICE = om2.TABLE_CODE
order by om2.ID /* change the order to fit your needs */)
If the secondd row has one different value than it is not really duplicate and should be included.
Instead of using DISTINCT, you could use a GROUP BY.
Group by all the fields that you want to be returned as unique values.
Use MIN/MAX/AVG or any other function to give you one result for fields that could return multiple values.
Example:
SELECT Office.Field1, Client.Field1, MIN(Office.Field1), MIN(Client.Field2)
FROM YourQuery
GROUP BY Office.Field1, Client.Field1
You could try using Distinct Top 1 but as Hunter pointed out, if there is if even one column is different then it should either be included or if you don't care about or need the column you should probably remove it. Any other suggestions would probably require more specific info.
EDIT: When using Distinct Top 1 you need to have an appropriate group by statement. You would really be using the Top 1 part. The Distinct is in there because if there is a tie for Top 1 you'll get an error without having some way to avoid a tie. The two most common ways I've seen are adding Distinct to Top 1 or you could add a column to the query that is unique so that sql would have a way to choose which record to pick in what would otherwise be a tie.
Related
I need to brind a lot of columns from several tables using LEFT JOIN. My starting point is the orders table and I bring the vendor name from the "Address_table". Then I add another table with order details and then the shipping information of each order detail.
My problem is that I need to bring a different record from "Address_table" to refer onether id's detailed in shipment table as of "origin_id" and "destination_id".
In other words, "address_id", "origin_id" and "destination_id" are all records from "Address_table". I brought the first one related to the vendor, how can I retrieve the other two?
Example
Thanks in advance
Your question is not exactly clear in terms of the tables and their relationships. It is, however, clear what the problem is. You need to join against the same table twice using different columns.
In order to do that you need to use table aliases. For example, you can do:
select *
from shipment s
left join address_table a on a.address_id = s.origin_id
left join address_table b on b.address_id = s.destination_id
In this example the table address_table is joined twice against the table shipment; the first time we use a as an alias, the second time b. This way you can differentiate how to pick the right columns and make the joins work as you need them to.
I'm working in a large access database (Access 2010) and am trying to return records where two locations are different.
In my case, I have a large number of birds that have been observed on multiple dates and potentially on different islands. Each bird has a unique BirdID and also an actual physical identifier (unfortunately that may have changed over time). [I'm going to try addressing the changing physical identifier issue later]. I currently want to query individual birds where one or more of their observations is different than the "IslandAlpha" (the first island where they were observed). Something along the lines of a criteria for BirdID: WHERE IslandID [doesn't equal] IslandAlpha.
I then need a separate query to find where all observations DO equal where they were first observed. So where IslandID = IslandAlpha
I'm new to Access, so let me know if you need more information on how my tables/relationships are set up! Thanks in advance.
Assuming the following tables:
Birds table in which all individual birds have records with a unique BirdID and IslandAlpha.
Sightings table in which individual sightings are recorded, including IslandID.
Your first query would look something like this:
SELECT *
FROM Birds
INNER JOIN Sightings ON Birds.BirdID=Sightings.BirdID
WHERE Sightings.IslandID <> Birds.IslandAlpha
You second query would be the same but with = instead of <> in the WHERE clause.
Please provide us information about the tables and columns you are using.
I will presume you are asking this question because a simple join of tables and filtering where IslandAlpha <> ObsLoc is not possible because IslandAlpha is derived from first observation record for each bird. Pulling first observation record for each bird requires a nested query. Need a unique record identifier in Observations - autonumber should serve. Assuming there is an observation date/time field, consider:
SELECT * FROM Observations WHERE ObsID IN
(SELECT TOP 1 ObsID FROM Observations AS Dupe
WHERE Dupe.ObsBirdID = Observations.ObsBirdID ORDER BY Dupe.ObsDateTime);
Now use that query for subsequent queries.
SELECT * FROM Observations
INNER JOIN Query1 ON Observations.ObsBirdID = Query1.ObsBirdID
WHERE Observations.ObsLocID <> Query1.ObsLocID;
im very new to SQL and currently working with joins the first time in my life. What I am trying to figure out right now is trying to get the difference between to queries.
Query 1:
SELECT name
FROM actor
JOIN casting ON id = actorid
where (SELECT COUNT(ord) FROM casting join actor on actorid = actor.id AND ord=1) >= 30
GROUP BY name
Query 2:
SELECT name
FROM actor
JOIN casting ON id = actorid
AND (SELECT COUNT(ord) FROM casting WHERE actorid = actor.id AND ord=1)>=30)
GROUP BY name
So I would think that doing
FROM casting join actor on actorid = actor.id
in the subquery is the same as
FROM casting WHERE actorid = actor.id.
But apparently it is not. Could anyone help me out and explain why?
Edit: If anyone is wondering: The queries are based on question 13 from http://sqlzoo.net/wiki/More_JOIN_operations
Actually, the part that really looks like a "where" statement is only what's after the keyword ON. We sometimes fall on queries performing some data filtering directly at this stage, but its actual purpose is to specify the criteria used
A "join" is a very common operation that consists of associating the rows of two distinct tables according to a common criteria. For example, if you have, on one side, a table containing a client list in which each of them has a unique client number, and on a other side a order list table in which each order contains the client's number, then you may want to "resolve" the number of the latter table into its name, address, and so on.
Before SQL92 (26 years ago), the only way to achieve this was to write something like this :
SELECT client.name,
client.adress,
orders.product,
orders.totalprice
FROM client,orders
WHERE orders.clientNumber = client.clientNumber
AND orders.totalprice > 100.00
Selecting something from two (or more) tables induces a "cartesian product" which actually consists of associating every row from the first set which every row of the second one. This means that if your first table contains 3 rows and the second one 8 rows, the resulting set would be 24-row wide. And out of these, you use the WHERE clause to exclude basically everything and retain only rows in which the client number is the same on both side.
We understand that the size of the resulting set before filtering can grow exponentially if the contents of the different tables exceed a few rows (which is always the case) and it can get even worse if you imply more than two tables. Also, on the programmer's side, it rapidly becomes rather unreadable.
Therefore, if this is what you actually want to do, you now can explicitly tell the server about it, and specify the criteria at first, which will avoid unnecessary growing temporary subsets, while still letting you filter the results with WHERE if needed.
SELECT client.name,
client.adress,
orders.product,
orders.totalprice
FROM client
JOIN orders
ON orders.clientNumber = client.clientNumber
WHERE orders.totalprice > 100.00
It becomes critical when performing multiple JOIN in a single query, especially when performing both INNER and OUTER joins.
In the 2nd query your nested query takes the actor.id from its root query and only counts the results from that. In the 1st query your nested query counts results from all actors instead of only the specified one.
What my issue is:
I am constantly returning multiple values when I don't expect to. I am attempting to get a specific climate, determined by the state, county, and country.
What I've tried:
The code given below. I am unsure as to what is wrong with it specifically. I do know that it is returning multiple values. But why? I specify that STATE_ABBREVIATION = PROV_TERR_STATE_LOC and with the inner joins that I do, shouldn't that create rows that are similar except for their different CLIMATE_IDs?
SELECT
...<code>...
(SELECT locations.CLIMATE_ID
FROM REF_CLIMATE_LOCATION locations, SED_BANK_TST.dbo.STATIONS stations
INNER JOIN REF_STATE states ON STATE_ID = states.STATE_ID
INNER JOIN REF_COUNTY counties ON COUNTY_ID = counties.COUNTY_ID
INNER JOIN REF_COUNTRY countries ON COUNTRY_ID = countries.COUNTRY_ID
WHERE STATE_ABBREVIATION = PROV_TERR_STATE_LOC) AS CLIMATE_ID
...<more code>...
FROM SED_BANK_TST.dbo.STATIONS stations
I've been at this for hours, looking up different questions on SO, but I cannot figure out how to make this subquery return a single value.
All those inner joins don't reduce the result set if the IDs you're testing exist in the REF tables. Apart from that you're doing a Cartesian product between locations and stations (which may be an old fashioned inner join because of the where clause).
You'll only get a single row if you only have a single row in the locations table that matches a single row in the stations table under the condition that STATE_ABBREVIATION = PROV_TERR_STATE_LOC
Your JOINs show a hierarchy of locations: Country->State->County, but your WHERE clause only limits by the state abbreviation. By joining the county you'll get one record for every county in that state. You CAN limit your results by taking the TOP 1 of the results, but you need to be very careful that that's really what you want. If you're looking for a specific county, you'll need to include that in the WHERE clause. You get some control with the TOP 1 in that it will give the top 1 based on an ORDER BY clause. I.e., if you want the most recently added, use:
SELECT TOP 1 [whatever] ORDER BY [DateCreated] DESC;
For your subquery, you can do something like this:
SELECT TOP 1
locations.CLIMATE_ID
FROM REF_CLIMATE_LOCATION locations ,
SED_BANK_TST.dbo.STATIONS stations
INNER JOIN REF_STATE states ON STATE_ID = states.STATE_ID
INNER JOIN REF_COUNTY counties ON COUNTY_ID = counties.COUNTY_ID
INNER JOIN REF_COUNTRY countries ON COUNTRY_ID = countries.COUNTRY_ID
WHERE STATE_ABBREVIATION = PROV_TERR_STATE_LOC
Just be sure to either add an ORDER BY at the end or be okay with it choosing the TOP 1 based on the "natural order" on the tables.
If you are expecting to have a single value on your sub-query, probably you need to use DISTINCT. The best way to see it is you run your sub-query separately and see the result. If you need to include other columns from the tables you used, you may do so to check what makes your result have multiple rows.
You can also use MAX() or MIN() or TOP 1 to get a single value on the sub-query but this is dependent to the logic you want to achieve for locations.CLIMATE_ID. You need to answer the question, "How is it related to the rest of the columns retrieved?"
The database is quite simple. Below there is a part of a schema relevant to this question
ROUND (round_id, round_number)
TEAM (team_id, team_name)
MATCH (match_id, match_date, round_id)
OUTCOME (team_id, match_id, score)
I have a problem with query to retrieve data for all matches played. The simple query below gives of course two rows for every match played.
select *
from round r
inner join match m on m.round_id = r.round_id
inner join outcome o on o.match_id = m.match_id
inner join team t on t.team_id = o.team_id
How should I write a query to have the match data in one row?
Or maybe should I redesign the database - drop the OUTCOME table and modify the MATCH table to look like this:
MATCH (match_id, match_date, team_away, team_home, score_away, score_home)?
You can almost generate the suggested change from the original tables using a self join on outcome table:
select o1.team_id team_id_1,
o2.team_id team_id_2,
o1.score score_1,
o2.score score_2,
o1.match_id match_id
from outcome o1
inner join outcome o2 on o1.match_id = o2.match_id and o1.team_id < o2.team_id
Of course, the information for home and away are not possible to generate, so your suggested alternative approach might be better after all. Also, take note of the condition o1.team_id < o2.team_id, which gets rid of the redundant symmetric match data (actually it gets rid of the same outcome row being joined with itself as well, which can be seen as the more important aspect).
In any case, using this select as part of your join, you can generate one row per match.
you fetch 2 rows for every matches played but team_id and team_name are differents :
- one for team home
- one for team away
so your query is good
Using the match table as you describe captures the logic of a game simply and naturally and additionally shows home and away teams which your initial model does not.
You might want to add the round id as a foreign key to round table and perhaps a flag to indicate a match abandoned situation.
drop outcome. it shouldn't be a separate table, because you have exactly one outcome per match.
you may consider how to handle matches that are cancelled - perhaps scores are null?