I have SQL query (code below) which selects some rows from subquery. In subquery I perform ORDER BY.
The question is: will order of subquery be preserved in parent query?
Is there some spec/document or something which proves that?
SELECT sub.id, sub.name, ot.field
FROM (SELECT t.id, t.name
FROM table t
WHERE t.something > 10
ORDER BY t.id
LIMIT 25
) sub
LEFT JOIN other_table ot ON ot.table_id = sub.id
/**order by id?**/```
will order of subquery be preserved in parent query
It might happen, but you can not rely on that.
For example, if the optimizer decides to use a hash join between your derived table and other_table then the order of the derived table will not be preserved.
If you want a guaranteed sort order, then you have to use an order by in the outer query as well.
Related
I'm wondering if Postgres has any support optimizing for following fundamental problem.
I want to do a search a agains two columns on different tables joined via a foreign key. I have created an index for each column. If I do my join query and have a where condition for either one or the other column, the respective index is used to filter the result and the query performance is great. If use two where clause combined by an OR for one field on each table, the query gets very slow and no indexes are used. Presumably this is because the optimizer sees no other way than doing a full table join and scan to resolve. The query looks something like this:
select table1.id
from table1
left join table2 on table1.fk = table2.id
where table1.haystack ilike '%needle%' or table2.haystack ilike '%needle%'
The operation (ilike) isn't the issue and interchangeable, I have a working Trigram index setup. I just want to find out if there is any other way to make this type of query performant beside denormalizing all searched fields into one table.
I would be very greateful for any ideas.
No, there is no special support in the database to optimize this. Do it yourself:
SELECT table1.id
FROM table1
JOIN table2 ON table1.fk = table2.id
WHERE table1.haystack ILIKE '%needle%'
UNION
SELECT table1.id
FROM table1
JOIN table2 ON table1.fk = table2.id
WHERE table2.haystack ILIKE '%needle%'
Provided both conditions are selective and indexed with a trigram index, and you have indexes on the join condition, that will be faster.
I am having trouble using the LIMIT Statement. I would really appreciate your help.
I am trying to INNER JOIN three tables and use the LIMIT statement to only query a few lines because the tables are so huge.
So, basically, this is what I am trying to accomplish:
SELECT *
FROM ((scheme1.table1
INNER JOIN scheme1.table2
ON scheme1.table1.column1 = scheme1.table2.column1 LIMIT 1)
INNER JOIN scheme1.table3
ON scheme1.table1.column1 = scheme1.table3.column1)
LIMIT 1;
I get an syntax error on the LIMIT from the first INNER JOIN. Why? How can I limit the results I get from each of the INNER JOINS. If I only use the second "LIMIT 1" at the bottom, I will query the entire table.
Thanks a lot!
LIMIT can only be applied to queries, not to a table reference. So you need to use a complete SELECT query for table2 in order to be able to use the LIMIT clause:
SELECT *
FROM schema1.table1 as t1
INNER JOIN (
select *
from schema1.table2
order by ???
limit 1
) as t2 ON t1.column1 = t2.column1
INNER JOIN schema1.table3 as t3 on ON t1.column1 = t3.column1
order by ???
limit 1;
Note that LIMIT without an ORDER BY typically makes no sense as results of a query have no inherent sort order. You should think about applying the necessary ORDER BY in the derived table (aka sub-query) and the outer query to get consistent and deterministic results.
I'm trying to implement a many-to-many relationship using PostgreSQL's Array type, because it scales better for my use case than a join table would. I have two tables: table1 and table2. table1 is the parent in the relationship, having the column child_ids bigint[] default array[]::bigint[]. A single row in table1 can have upwards of tens of thousands of references to table2 in the table1.child_ids column, therefore I want to try to limit the amount returned by my query to a maximum of 10. How would I structure this query?
My query to dereference the child ids is SELECT *, json_agg(table2.*) as children FROM table1 INNER JOIN table2 ON table2 = ANY(table1.child_ids). I don't see a way I could set a limit without limiting the entire response as a whole. Is there a way to either limit this INNER JOIN, or at least utilize a subquery to that I can use LIMIT to restrict the amount of results from table2?
This would have been dead simple with properly normalized tables, but here goes with arrays:
SELECT *
FROM table1 t1, LATERAL (
SELECT json_agg(*) AS children
FROM table2
WHERE id = ANY (t1.child_ids)
LIMIT 10) t2;
Of course, you have no influence over which 10 rows per id of table2 will be selected.
Take this query:
SELECT c.CustomerID, c.AccountNumber, COUNT(*) AS CountOfOrders,
SUM(s.TotalDue) AS SumOfTotalDue
FROM Sales.Customer AS c
INNER JOIN Sales.SalesOrderheader AS s ON c.CustomerID = s.CustomerID
GROUP BY c.CustomerID, c.AccountNumber
ORDER BY c.CustomerID;
I expected COUNT(*) to count the rows in Sales.Customer but to my surprise it counts the number of rows in the joined table.
Any idea why this is? Also, is there a way to be explicit in specifying which table COUNT() should operate on?
Query Processing Order...
The FROM clause is processed before the SELECT clause -- which is to say -- by the time SELECT comes into play, there is only one (virtual) table it is selecting from -- namely, the individual tables after their joined (JOIN), filtered (WHERE), etc.
If you just want to count over the one table, then you might try a couple of things...
COUNT(DISTINCT table1.id)
Or turn the table you want to count into a sub-query with count() inside of it
I have a query that uses a subquery and I am having a problem returning the expected results. The error I receive is..."Only one expression can be specified in the select list when the subquery is not introduced with EXISTS." How can I rewrite this to work?
SELECT
a.Part,
b.Location,
b.LeadTime
FROM
dbo.Parts a
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.Vendor b ON b.Part = a.Part
WHERE
b.Location IN ('A','B','C')
AND
Date IN (SELECT Location, MAX(Date) FROM dbo.Vendor GROUP BY Location)
GROUP BY
a.Part,
b.Location,
b.LeadTime
ORDER BY
a.Part
I think something like this may be what you're looking for. You didn't say what version of SQL Server--this works in SQL 2005 and up:
SELECT
p.Part,
p.Location, -- from *p*, otherwise if no match we'll get a NULL
v.LeadTime
FROM
dbo.Parts p
OUTER APPLY (
SELECT TOP (1) * -- * here is okay because we specify columns outside
FROM dbo.Vendor v
WHERE p.Location = v.Location -- the correlation part
ORDER BY v.Date DESC
) v
WHERE
p.Location IN ('A','B','C')
ORDER BY
p.Part
;
Now, your query can be repaired as is by adding the "correlation" part to change your query into a correlated subquery as demonstrated in Kory's answer (you'd also remove the GROUP BY clause). However, that method still requires an additional and unnecessary join, hurting performance, plus it can only pull one column at a time. This method allows you to pull all the columns from the other table, and has no extra join.
Note: this gives logically the same results as Lamak's answer, however I prefer it for a few reasons:
When there is an index on the correlation columns (Location, here) this can be satisfied with seeks, but the Row_Number solution has to scan (I believe).
I prefer the way this expresses the intent of the query more directly and succinctly. In the Row_Number method, one must get out to the outer condition to see that we are only grabbing the rn = 1 values, then bop back into the CTE to see what that is.
Using CROSS APPLY or OUTER APPLY, all the other tables not involved in the single-inner-row-per-outer-row selection are outside where (to me) they belong. We aren't squishing concerns together. Using Row_Number feels a bit like throwing a DISTINCT on a query to fix duplication rather than dealing with the underlying issue. I guess this is basically the same issue as the previous point worded in a different way.
The moment you have TWO tables from which you wish to pull the most recent value, the Row_Number() solution blows up completely. With this syntax, you just easily add another APPLY clause, and it's crystal clear what you're doing. There is a way to use Row_Number for the multiple tables scenario by moving the other tables outside, but I still don't prefer that syntax.
Using this syntax allows you to perform additional joins based on whether the selected row exists or not (in the case that no matching row was found). In the Row_Number solution, you can only reasonably do that NOT NULL checking in the outer query--so you are forced to split up the query into multiple, separated parts (you don't want to be joining to values you will be discarding!).
P.S. I strongly encourage you to use aliases that hint at the table they represent. Please don't use a and b. I used p for Parts and v for Vendor--this helps you and others make sense of the query more quickly in the future.
If I understood you corrrectly, you want the rows with the max date for locations A, B and C. Now, assuming SQL Server 2005+, you can do this:
;WITH CTE AS
(
SELECT
a.Part,
b.Location,
b.LeadTime,
RN = ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY a.Part ORDER BY [Date] DESC)
FROM
dbo.Parts a
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.Vendor b ON b.Part = a.Part
WHERE
b.Location IN ('A','B','C')
)
SELECT Part,
Location,
LeadTime
FROM CTE
WHERE RN = 1
ORDER BY Part
In your subquery you need to correlate the Location and Part to the outer query.
Example:
Date = (SELECT MAX(Date)
FROM dbo.Vender v
WHERE v.Location = b.Location
AND v.Part = b.Part
)
So this will bring back one date for each location and part