I have two tables: A (525,968 records) and B (517,831 records). I want to generate a table with all the rows from A and the matched records from B. Both tables has column "id" and column "year". The combination of id and year in table A is unique, but not in table B. So I wrote the following query:
SELECT
A.id,
A.year,
A.v1,
B.x1,
B.e1
FROM
A
LEFT JOIN B ON (A.id = B.id AND A.year = B.year);
I thought the result should contain the same total number of records in A, but it only returns about 517,950 records. I'm wondering what the possible cause may be.
Thanks!
First of all, I understand that this is an example, but postgres may hava an issues with capital letters in the table names.
Secondly, it may be a good idea to check how exactly you calculated 525,968 records. The thing is - if you use sime kind of client of database administration / queries - it may show you different / technical information about tables (there may be internal row counters in postgres that may actually differ from the number of records).
And finally to check yourself do something like
SELECT
count("A".id)
FROM
"A"
Related
So I have complicated query, to simplify let it be like
SELECT
t.*,
SUM(a.hours) AS spent_hours
FROM (
SELECT
person.id,
person.name,
person.age,
SUM(contacts.id) AS contact_count
FROM
person
JOIN contacts ON contacts.person_id = person.id
) AS t
JOIN activities AS a ON a.person_id = t.id
GROUP BY t.id
Such query works fine in MySQL, but Postgres needs to know that GROUP BY field is unique, and despite it actually is, in this case I need to GROUP BY all returned fields from returned t table.
I can do that, but I don't believe that will work efficiently with big data.
I can't JOIN with activities directly in first query, as person can have several contacts which will lead query counting hours of activity several time for every joined contact.
Is there a Postgres way to make this query work? Maybe force to treat Postgres t.id as unique or some other solution that will make same in Postgres way?
This query will not work on both database system, there is an aggregate function in the inner query but you are not grouping it(unless you use window functions). Of course there is a special case for MySQL, you can use it with disabling "sql_mode=only_full_group_by". So, MySQL allows this usage because of it' s database engine parameter, but you cannot do that in PostgreSQL.
I knew MySQL allowed indeterminate grouping, but I honestly never knew how it implemented it... it always seemed imprecise to me, conceptually.
So depending on what that means (I'm too lazy to look it up), you might need one of two possible solutions, or maybe a third.
If you intent is to see all rows (perform the aggregate function but not consolidate/group rows), then you want a windowing function, invoked by partition by. Here is a really dumbed down version in your query:
.
SELECT
t.*,
SUM (a.hours) over (partition by t.id) AS spent_hours
FROM t
JOIN activities AS a ON a.person_id = t.id
This means you want all records in table t, not one record per t.id. But each row will also contain a sum of the hours for all values that value of id.
For example the sum column would look like this:
Name Hours Sum Hours
----- ----- ---------
Smith 20 120
Jones 30 30
Smith 100 120
Whereas a group by would have had Smith once and could not have displayed the hours column in detail.
If you really did only want one row per t.id, then Postgres will require you to tell it how to determine which row. In the example above for Smith, do you want to see the 20 or the 100?
There is another possibility, but I think I'll let you reply first. My gut tells me option 1 is what you're after and you want the analytic function.
I have two non-partitioned tables:
q)s:([] date:(2019.07.01;2019.07.01;2019.07.02;2019.07.01;2019.07.05); co:`a`b`f`b`c)
q)t:([] date:(2019.07.01;2019.07.01;2019.07.02;2019.07.01;2019.07.07); co:`a`b`e`b`d)
In above table when I run below query it works perfectly fine.
q)select distinct co from s,t where date within 2019.07.01 2019.07.02
co
--
a
b
f
e
I have tables with same name which are partitioned by date, when I try to run same query on partitioned tables I get below error:
ERROR: 'par
(trying to update a physically partitioned table)
Why do we get above error in partitioned tables?
What is the optimized approach to get similar output as we got in non-partitioned tables?
One solution to for 2 which I feel as brute-force is:
select distinct co from((select distinct co from s where date within 2019.07.01 2019.07.02),select distinct co from t where date within 2019.07.01 2019.07.02)
I'm assuming you are only including the date name in the source tables to assist in queries. A date partitioned table will generate the virtual date column from the hdb structure, you shouldn't include it in the actual table being written to.
Why do we get above error in partitioned tables?
There is no way to avoid having to access the data of a partitioned table except through an initial a select statement.. In this case you are directly trying to perform a , operation to the s and t tables
What is the optimized approach to get similar output as we got in non-partitioned tables?
In general, there may be a trade-off between the table size and the nature and frequency of the operations, sometimes it may be worth bringing the table into memory for frequent joins, or creating a top-level flat table with the relevant subset of data.
If this is just a generalized test case for larger operations then something along the following would be ideal
distinct raze {select distinct co from x where date within 2019.07.01 2019.07.02} each `s`t
This performance is not very different from your own query however, it's just a bit more succinct.
I'm trying to build a request to get the data from a table, but some of those columns have foreign keys I would like to replace by the associated keyword in one request.
Basically there's
table A with column 1:PKA-ID and column 2:name.
table B with column 1:PKB-ID, column 2:FKA-ID, column 3:amount.
I want to get all the lines in table B but with all foreign keys replaced by the associated names in table A.
I started building a request with a subrequest + alias to get that, but ofc I have more than one result per subrequest, yet I can't find a way to link that subrequest to the ID of table B [might be exhausted, dumb or both] from the main request. I did something like that:
SELECT (SELECT "NAME" FROM A JOIN B ON ID = FKA-ID) AS name, amount FROM TABLEB;
it feels so simple of a request yet...
You don't need a join in the subselect.
SELECT pkb_id,
(SELECT name FROM a WHERE a.pka_id = b.fka_id),
amount
FROM b;
(See it live in SQL Fiddle).
The subselect query runs for each and every row of its parent select and has the parent row available from the context.
You can also use a simple join.
SELECT b.pkb_id, a.name, b.amount
FROM b, a
WHERE a.pka_id = b.fka_id;
Note that the join version puts less restrictions on the PostgreSQL query optimizer so in some cases the join version might work faster. (For example, in PostgreSQL 9.6 the join might utilize multiple CPU units, cf. Parallel Query).
I am developing a t-sql query to return left join of two tables, but when I just select records from Table A, it gives me only 2 records. The problem though is when I left join it Table B, it gives me 4 records. How can I reduce this to just 2 records?
One problem though is that I am only aware of one PK/FK to link these two tables.
The field you are using for the join must exist more than once in table B - this is why multiple rows are being returned in the join. In order to reduce the row count you will have to either add further fields to the join, or add a where clause to filter out rows not required.
Alternatively you could use a GROUP BY statement to group the rows up, but this may not be what you need.
Remember that the left join brings you null fields from joined table.
Also you can use select(distinct), but i can't see well you issue. Can you give us more details?
SELECT DISTINCT tblJobReq.JobReqId
, tblJobReq.JobStatusId
, tblJobClass.JobClassId
, tblJobClass.Title
, tblJobReq.JobClassSubTitle
, tblJobAnnouncement.JobClassDesc
, tblJobAnnouncement.EndDate
, blJobAnnouncement.AgencyMktgVerbage
, tblJobAnnouncement.SpecInfo
, tblJobAnnouncement.Benefits
, tblSalary.MinRateSal
, tblSalary.MaxRateSal
, tblSalary.MinRateHour
, tblSalary.MaxRateHour
, tblJobClass.StatementEval
, tblJobReq.ApprovalDate
, tblJobReq.RecruiterId
, tblJobReq.AgencyId
FROM ((tblJobReq
LEFT JOIN tblJobAnnouncement ON tblJobReq.JobReqId = tblJobAnnouncement.JobReqId)
INNER JOIN tblJobClass ON tblJobReq.JobClassId = tblJobClass.JobClassId)
LEFT JOIN tblSalary ON tblJobClass.SalaryCode = tblSalary.SalaryCode
WHERE (tblJobReq.JobClassId in (SELECT JobClassId
from tblJobClass
WHERE tblJobClass.Title like '%Family Therapist%'))
When i try to execute the query it results in the following error.
Cannot sort a row of size 8130, which is greater than the allowable maximum of 8094
I checked and didn't find any solution. The only way is to truncate (substring())the "tblJobAnnouncement.JobClassDesc" in the query which has column size of around 8000.
Do we have any work around so that i need not truncate the values. Or Can this query be optimised? Any setting in SQL Server 2000?
The [non obvious] reason why SQL needs to SORT is the DISTINCT keyword.
Depending on the data and underlying table structures, you may be able to do away with this DISTINCT, and hence not trigger this error.
You readily found the alternative solution which is to truncate some of the fields in the SELECT list.
Edit: Answering "Can you please explain how DISTINCT would be the reason here?"
Generally, the fashion in which the DISTINCT requirement is satisfied varies with
the data context (expected number of rows, presence/absence of index, size of row...)
the version/make of the SQL implementation (the query optimizer in particular receives new or modified heuristics with each new version, sometimes resulting in alternate query plans for various constructs in various contexts)
Yet, all the possible plans associated with a "DISTINCT query" involve *some form* of sorting of the qualifying records. In its simplest form, the plan "fist" produces the list of qualifying rows (records) (the list of records which satisfy the WHERE/JOINs/etc. parts of the query) and then sorts this list (which possibly includes some duplicates), only retaining the very first occurrence of each distinct row. In other cases, for example when only a few columns are selected and when some index(es) covering these columns is(are) available, no explicit sorting step is used in the query plan but the reliance on an index implicitly implies the "sortability" of the underlying columns. In other cases yet, steps involving various forms of merging or hashing are selected by the query optimizer, and these too, eventually, imply the ability of comparing two rows.
Bottom line: DISTINCT implies some sorting.
In the specific case of the question, the error reported by SQL Server and preventing the completion of the query is that "Sorting is not possible on rows bigger than..." AND, the DISTINCT keyword is the only apparent reason for the query to require any sorting (BTW many other SQL constructs imply sorting: for example UNION) hence the idea of removing the DISTINCT (if it is logically possible).
In fact you should remove it, for test purposes, to assert that, without DISTINCT, the query completes OK (if only including some duplicates). Once this fact is confirmed, and if effectively the query could produce duplicate rows, look into ways of producing a duplicate-free query without the DISTINCT keyword; constructs involving subqueries can sometimes be used for this purpose.
An unrelated hint, is to use table aliases, using a short string to avoid repeating these long table names. For example (only did a few tables, but you get the idea...)
SELECT DISTINCT JR.JobReqId, JR.JobStatusId,
tblJobClass.JobClassId, tblJobClass.Title,
JR.JobClassSubTitle, JA.JobClassDesc, JA.EndDate, JA.AgencyMktgVerbage,
JA.SpecInfo, JA.Benefits,
S.MinRateSal, S.MaxRateSal, S.MinRateHour, S.MaxRateHour,
tblJobClass.StatementEval,
JR.ApprovalDate, JR.RecruiterId, JR.AgencyId
FROM (
(tblJobReq AS JR
LEFT JOIN tblJobAnnouncement AS JA ON JR.JobReqId = JA.JobReqId)
INNER JOIN tblJobClass ON tblJobReq.JobClassId = tblJobClass.JobClassId)
LEFT JOIN tblSalary AS S ON tblJobClass.SalaryCode = S.SalaryCode
WHERE (JR.JobClassId in
(SELECT JobClassId from tblJobClass
WHERE tblJobClass.Title like '%Family Therapist%'))
FYI, running this SQL command on your DB can fix the problem if it is caused by space that needs to be reclaimed after dropping variable length columns:
DBCC CLEANTABLE (0,[dbo.TableName])
See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms174418.aspx
This is a limitation of SQL Server 2000. You can:
Split it into two queries and combine elsewhere
SELECT ID, ColumnA, ColumnB FROM TableA JOIN TableB
SELECT ID, ColumnC, ColumnD FROM TableA JOIN TableB
Truncate the columns appropriately
SELECT LEFT(LongColumn,2000)...
Remove any redundant columns from the SELECT
SELECT ColumnA, ColumnB, --IDColumnNotUsedInOutput
FROM TableA
Migrate off of SQL Server 2000