I have 3 tables with the following schema
Table1 - plan
id | count
Table2 - subscription
id | plan_id
Table3 - users
id | subscription_id
I have to select count from plans where its plan.id matches with subscription.plan_id matches and users.subscription_id matches with subscription.id and users.id = '5'
How can I use a JOIN here?
I tried using with no JOIN as below:
SELECT count
FROM users, subscription, plan
WHERE users.id = '5' and users.subscription_id = subscription.id and subscription.plan_id = plan.id;
Try to avoid implicit sql joins rather use explicit joins (e.g. inner join,left join..) in order to retain readability.
A cleaner way would be the following:
SELECT
count
FROM
users
INNER JOIN subscription ON users.subscription_id = subscription.id
INNER JOIN plan ON subscription.plan_id = plan.id
WHERE users.id = '5'
Explicit vs implicit SQL joins
Related
There is an example request in which there are several joins.
SELECT DISTINCT ON(a.id_1) 1, a.name, b.task, c.created_at
FROM a
INNER JOIN b ON a.id_2 = b.id
INNER JOIN c ON a.ID_2 = c.id
WHERE a.deleted_at IS NULL
ORDER BY a.id_1 desc
In this case, the query will work, sorting by unique values of id_1 will take place. But I need to sort by the column a.name. In this case, postresql will swear with the words ERROR: SELECT DISTINCT ON expressions must match initial ORDER BY expressions.
The following query can serve as a solution to the problem:
SELECT *
FROM(
SELECT DISTINCT ON(a.id_1) a.name, b.task, c.created_at
FROM a
INNER JOIN b ON a.id_2 = b.id
INNER JOIN c ON a.ID_2 = c.id
WHERE a.deleted_at IS NULL
)
ORDER_BY a.name desc
But in reality the database is very large and such a query is not optimal. Are there other ways to sort by the selected column while keeping one uniqueness?
I have a many to many relation with three columns, (owner_id,property_id,ownership_perc) and for this table applies (many owners have many properties).
So I would like to find all the owner_id who has many properties (property_id) and connect them with other three tables (Table 1,3,4) in order to get further information for the requested result.
All the tables that I'm using are
Table 1: owner (id_owner,name)
Table 2: owner_property (owner_id,property_id,ownership_perc)
Table 3: property(id_property,building_id)
Table 4: building(id_building,address,region)
So, when I'm trying it like this, the query runs but it returns empty.
SELECT address,region,name
FROM owner_property
JOIN property ON owner_property.property_id = property.id_property
JOIN owner ON owner.id_owner = owner_property.owner_id
JOIN building ON property.building_id=building.id_building
GROUP BY owner_id,address,region,name
HAVING count(owner_id) > 1
ORDER BY owner_id;
Only when I'm trying the code below, it returns the owner_id who has many properties (see image below) but without joining it with the other three tables:
SELECT a.*
FROM owner_property a
JOIN (SELECT owner_id, COUNT(owner_id)
FROM owner_property
GROUP BY owner_id
HAVING COUNT(owner_id)>1) b
ON a.owner_id = b.owner_id
ORDER BY a.owner_id,property_id ASC;
So, is there any suggestion on what I'm doing wrong when I'm joining the tables? Thank you!
This query:
SELECT owner_id
FROM owner_property
GROUP BY owner_id
HAVING COUNT(property_id) > 1
returns all the owner_ids with more than 1 property_ids.
If there is a case of duplicates in the combination of owner_id and property_id then instead of COUNT(property_id) use COUNT(DISTINCT property_id) in the HAVING clause.
So join it to the other tables:
SELECT b.address, b.region, o.name
FROM (
SELECT owner_id
FROM owner_property
GROUP BY owner_id
HAVING COUNT(property_id) > 1
) t
INNER JOIN owner_property op ON op.owner_id = t.owner_id
INNER JOIN property p ON op.property_id = p.id_property
INNER JOIN owner o ON o.id_owner = op.owner_id
INNER JOIN building b ON p.building_id = b.id_building
ORDER BY op.owner_id, op.property_id ASC;
Always qualify the column names with the table name/alias.
You can try to use a correlated subquery that counts the ownerships with EXISTS in the WHERE clause.
SELECT b1.address,
b1.region,
o1.name
FROM owner_property op1
INNER JOIN owner o1
ON o1.id_owner = op1.owner_id
INNER JOIN property p1
ON p1.id_property = op1.property_id
INNER JOIN building b1
ON b1.id_building = p1.building_id
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT ''
FROM owner_property op2
WHERE op2.owner_id = op1.owner_id
HAVING count(*) > 1);
I'm trying to get lateral to work in a Postgres 9.5.3 query.
select b_ci."IdOwner",
ci."MinimumPlaces",
ci."MaximumPlaces",
(select count(*) from "LNK_Stu_CI" lnk
where lnk."FK_CourseInstanceId" = b_ci."Id") as "EnrolledStudents",
from "Course" c
join "DBObjectBases" b_c on c."Id" = b_c."Id"
join "DBObjectBases" b_ci on b_ci."IdOwner" = b_c."Id"
join "CourseInstance" ci on ci."Id" = b_ci."Id",
lateral (select ci."MaximumPlaces" - "EnrolledStudents") x
I want the right-most column to be the result of "MaximumPlaces" - "EnrolledStudents" for that row but am struggling to get it to work. At the moment PG is complaining that "EnrolledStudents" does not exist - which is exactly the point of "lateral", isn't it?
select b_ci."IdOwner",
ci."MinimumPlaces",
ci."MaximumPlaces",
(select count(*) from "LNK_Stu_CI" lnk
where lnk."FK_CourseInstanceId" = b_ci."Id") as "EnrolledStudents",
lateral (select "MaximumPlaces" - "EnrolledStudents") as "x"
from "Course" c
join "DBObjectBases" b_c on c."Id" = b_c."Id"
join "DBObjectBases" b_ci on b_ci."IdOwner" = b_c."Id"
join "CourseInstance" ci on ci."Id" = b_ci."Id"
If I try inlining the lateral clause (shown above) in the select it gets upset too and gives me a syntax error - so where does it go?
Thanks,
Adam.
You are missing the point with LATERAL. It can access columns in tables in the FROM clause, but not aliases defined in SELECT clause.
If you want to access alias defined in SELECT clause, you need to add another query level, either using a subquery in FROM clause (AKA derived table) or using a CTE (Common Table Expression). As CTE in PostgreSQL acts as an optimization fence, I strongly recommend going with subquery in this case, like:
select
-- get all columns on the inner query
t.*,
-- get your new expression based on the ones defined in the inner query
t."MaximumPlaces" - t."EnrolledStudents" AS new_alias
from (
select b_ci."IdOwner",
ci."MinimumPlaces",
ci."MaximumPlaces",
(select count(*) from "LNK_Stu_CI" lnk
where lnk."FK_CourseInstanceId" = b_ci."Id") as "EnrolledStudents",
from "Course" c
join "DBObjectBases" b_c on c."Id" = b_c."Id"
join "DBObjectBases" b_ci on b_ci."IdOwner" = b_c."Id"
join "CourseInstance" ci on ci."Id" = b_ci."Id"
) t
I have a difficulty dealing with a SQL query. I use PostgreSQL.
The query says: Show the customers that have done at least an order that contains products from 3 different categories. The result will be 2 columns, CustomerID, and the amount of orders. I have written this code but I don't think it's correct.
select SalesOrderHeader.CustomerID,
count(SalesOrderHeader.SalesOrderID) AS amount_of_orders
from SalesOrderHeader
inner join SalesOrderDetail on
(SalesOrderHeader.SalesOrderID=SalesOrderDetail.SalesOrderID)
inner join Product on
(SalesOrderDetail.ProductID=Product.ProductID)
where SalesOrderDetail.SalesOrderDetailID in
(select DISTINCT count(ProductCategoryID)
from Product
group by ProductCategoryID
having count(DISTINCT ProductCategoryID)>=3)
group by SalesOrderHeader.CustomerID;
Here are the database tables needed for the query:
where SalesOrderDetail.SalesOrderDetailID in
(select DISTINCT count(ProductCategoryID)
Is never going to give you a result as an ID (SalesOrderDetailID) will never logically match a COUNT (count(ProductCategoryID)).
This should get you the output I think you want.
SELECT soh.CustomerID, COUNT(soh.SalesOrderID) AS amount_of_orders
FROM SalesOrderHeader soh
INNER JOIN SalesOrderDetail sod ON soh.SalesOrderID = sod.SalesOrderID
INNER JOIN Product p ON sod.ProductID = p.ProductID
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT p.ProductCategoryID) >= 3
GROUP BY soh.CustomerID
Try this :
select CustomerID,count(*) as amount_of_order from
SalesOrder join
(
select SalesOrderID,count(distinct ProductCategoryID) CategoryCount
from SalesOrderDetail JOIN Product using (ProductId)
group by 1
) CatCount using (SalesOrderId)
group by 1
having bool_or(CategoryCount>=3) -- At least on CategoryCount>=3
In SQL Server, I know for sure that the following query;
SELECT things.*
FROM things
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT thingreadings.thingid, reading
FROM thingreadings
INNER JOIN things on thingreadings.thingid = things.id
ORDER BY reading DESC LIMIT 1) AS readings
ON things.id = readings.thingid
WHERE things.id = '1'
Would join against thingreadings only once the WHERE id = 1 had restricted the record set down. It left joins against just one row. However in order for performance to be acceptable in postgres, I have to add the WHERE id= 1 to the INNER JOIN things on thingreadings.thingid = things.id line too.
This isn't ideal; is it possible to force postgres to know that what I am joining against is only one row without explicitly adding the WHERE clauses everywhere?
An example of this problem can be seen here;
I am trying to recreate the following query in a more efficient way;
SELECT things.id, things.name,
(SELECT thingreadings.id FROM thingreadings WHERE thingid = things.id ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1),
(SELECT thingreadings.reading FROM thingreadings WHERE thingid = things.id ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1)
FROM things
WHERE id IN (1,2)
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!15/a172c/2
Not really sure why you did all that work. Isn't the inner query enough?
SELECT t.*
FROM thingreadings tr
INNER JOIN things t on tr.thingid = t.id AND t.id = '1'
ORDER BY tr.reading DESC
LIMIT 1;
sqlfiddle demo
When you want to select the latest value for each thingID, you can do:
SELECT t.*,a.reading
FROM things t
INNER JOIN (
SELECT t1.*
FROM thingreadings t1
LEFT JOIN thingreadings t2
ON (t1.thingid = t2.thingid AND t1.reading < t2.reading)
WHERE t2.thingid IS NULL
) a ON a.thingid = t.id
sqlfiddle demo
The derived table gets you the record with the most recent reading, then the JOIN gets you the information from things table for that record.
The where clause in SQL applies to the result set you're requesting, NOT to the join.
What your code is NOT saying: "do this join only for the ID of 1"...
What your code IS saying: "do this join, then pull records out of it where the ID is 1"...
This is why you need the inner where clause. Incidentally, I also think Filipe is right about the unnecessary code.