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).
Related
Is it possible to add a new column to an existing table from another table using insert or update in conjunction with full outer join .
In my main table i am missing some records in one column in the other table i have all those records i want to take the full record set into the maintable table. Something like this;
UPDATE maintable
SET all_records= othertable.records
FROM
FULL JOIN othertable on maintable.col = othertable.records;
Where maintable.col has same id a othertable.records.
I know i could simply join the tables but i have a lot of comments in the maintable i don't want to have to copy paste back in if possible. As i understand using where is equivalent of a left join so won't show me what i'm missing
EDIT:
What i want is effectively a new maintable.col with all the records i can then pare down based on presence of records in other cols from other tables
Try this:
UPDATE maintable
SET all_records = o.records
FROM othertable o
WHERE maintable.col = o.records;
This is the general syntax to use in postgres when updating via a join.
HTH
EDIT
BTW you will need to change this - I used your example, but you are updating the maintable with the column used for the join! Your set needs to be something like SET missingcol = o.extracol
AMENDED GENERALISED ANSWER (following off-line chat)
To take a simplified example, suppose that you have two tables maintable and subtable, each with the same columns, but where the subtable has extra records. For both tables id is the primary key. To fill maintable with the missing records, for pre 9.5 versions of Postgres you must use the following syntax:
INSERT INTO maintable (SELECT * FROM subtable s WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT 1 FROM maintable m WHERE m.id = s.id));
Since 9.5 there is a (preferred) alternative:
INSERT INTO maintable (SELECT * FROM subtable) ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING;
This is preferred because (apart from being simpler) it avoids the situation that has been known to arise in the former, where a race condition is created between the INSERT and the sub-SELECT.
Obviously when the columns are different, you need to specify in the INSERT statement which columns are inserted from which. Something like:
INSERT INTO maintable (id, ColA, ColB)
(SELECT id, ColE, ColG FROM subtable ....)
Similarly the common field might not be id in both tables. However, the simplified example should be enough to point you in the right direction.
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"
I don't understand why the following doesn't fail. How does the subquery have access to a column from a different table at the higher level?
drop table if exists temp_a;
create temp table temp_a as
(
select 1 as col_a
);
drop table if exists temp_b;
create temp table temp_b as
(
select 2 as col_b
);
select col_a from temp_a where col_a in (select col_a from temp_b);
/*why doesn't this fail?*/
The following fail, as I would expect them to.
select col_a from temp_b;
/*ERROR: column "col_a" does not exist*/
select * from temp_a cross join (select col_a from temp_b) as sq;
/*ERROR: column "col_a" does not exist
*HINT: There is a column named "col_a" in table "temp_a", but it cannot be referenced from this part of the query.*/
I know about the LATERAL keyword (link, link) but I'm not using LATERAL here. Also, this query succeeds even in pre-9.3 versions of Postgres (when the LATERAL keyword was introduced.)
Here's a sqlfiddle: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!10/09f62/5/0
Thank you for any insights.
Although this feature might be confusing, without it, several types of queries would be more difficult, slower, or impossible to write in sql. This feature is called a "correlated subquery" and the correlation can serve a similar function as a join.
For example: Consider this statement
select first_name, last_name from users u
where exists (select * from orders o where o.user_id=u.user_id)
Now this query will get the names of all the users who have ever placed an order. Now, I know, you can get that info using a join to the orders table, but you'd also have to use a "distinct", which would internally require a sort and would likely perform a tad worse than this query. You could also produce a similar query with a group by.
Here's a better example that's pretty practical, and not just for performance reasons. Suppose you want to delete all users who have no orders and no tickets.
delete from users u where
not exists (select * from orders o where o.user_d = u.user_id)
and not exists (select * from tickets t where t.user_id=u.ticket_id)
One very important thing to note is that you should fully qualify or alias your table names when doing this or you might wind up with a typo that completely messes up the query and silently "just works" while returning bad data.
The following is an example of what NOT to do.
select * from users
where exists (select * from product where last_updated_by=user_id)
This looks just fine until you look at the tables and realize that the table "product" has no "last_updated_by" field and the user table does, which returns the wrong data. Add the alias and the query will fail because no "last_updated_by" column exists in product.
I hope this has given you some examples that show you how to use this feature. I use them all the time in update and delete statements (as well as in selects-- but I find an absolute need for them in updates and deletes often)
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
I'm copying data from one database to another and massaging the data while I'm at it. Both databases have tables called Clients and Jobs.
However, in database "Alpha" the Jobs table does not have a relationship to the Clients table, where database "Epsilon" does. Alpha's Jobs table just has the Clients name in an nvarchar column.
I need a select statement to lookup the Client's ID in the Client table by their name while I am inserting it into the Jobs table in Epsilon.
My unfinished SQL statement looks like this:
insert into Epsilon.dbo.Jobs (ClientId, Name, Location, DateCreated)
select ????, Name, Location, DateCreated from Alpha.dbo.Jobs
How can I modify this so that the ???? contains the ClientId from the Clients table in Epsilon? I know I need to lookup the data using the Name column in Jobs, but I can't figure out the syntax for this.
What you need is a join. Joins, contrary to what pretty much everybody thinks when starting out, don't require defined relationships in the schema of the database. They just require that the two columns you're comparing have the same type (edit see comments).
The question is which join do you want. Because there isn't a relationship defined, there may be clients that have jobs and clients that don't, and jobs that have clients and jobs that don't.
I'm assuming that you want all JOBS that exist, and where a ClientId matches the CLIENTS table bring in the ClientId, and where that relationship doesn't exist to leave the ClientId null. We can do this with a LEFT JOIN. Jobs LEFT JOIN Clients will bring in all records on the LEFT, even where the relationship defined with Clients on the right doesn't exist. We could reverse the two and do a RIGHT JOIN, but that's not what people usually do. I'll leave it to you to read up on other types of joins and how they work.
So your select statement would look like:
select ClientId, Name, Location, DateCreated
from Alpha.dbo.Jobs as J LEFT JOIN
Alpha.dbo.Clients as C ON j.ClientName = c.ClientName
If Jobs.ClientName is not the same data type as c.ClientName, you can edit the schema before running the query to bring them in line with each other.
insert into Epsilon.dbo.Jobs (ClientId, Name, Location, DateCreated)
select c.ClientID, a.Name, a.Location, a.DateCreated from Alpha.dbo.Jobs a
join Epsilon.dbo.Client c on c.Name = a.ClientName
This is a pretty optimistic join, but even if it needs to be modified this should give you the general idea.
insert into Epsilon.dbo.Jobs
(ClientId, Name, Location,
DateCreated)
select c.ClientId, Name, Location, DateCreated from Alpha.dbo.Jobs as j
inner join Epsilon.dbo.Clients as c On
(j.ClientId = c.ClientId)