Can anyone please help me in writing a single query joining these two queries.
I am using IBM DB2.
(SELECT
TABLE1.COLS,TBLE2.COLS,TABLE3.COLS
FROM
TABLE1,TABLE2,TABLE3,TABLE_PROB
WHERE
TABLE_PROB.COL=TABLE1.COL,OTHER_CLAUSE )
UNION
(SELECT
TABLE1.COLS,TBLE2.COLS,TABLE3.COLS
FROM
TABLE1,TABLE2,TABLE3,TABLE_PROB1
WHERE TABLE_PROB1.COL=TABLE1.COL,OTHER_CLAUSE )
The two queries before and after union are same except that instead of "TABLE_PROB" it is changed to "TABLE_PROB1". There are no columns is to be selected from both the tables, they are only used to filter in the where clause.
Can anyone tell me how to combine both into a single query.
This query can be considered for the following scenario.
There are few employee details table which contains details of all employees.
"TABLE_PROB" contains list of contract employees and "TABLE_PROB1" contains list of permanent employees. I need to get the details of both the contract and not contract employees based on few criteria.
Since the query has big Whereclause and select clause firing two queries by using union,increases the cost of the query. So I need to merge it by making a single query.
Thanks for the help in advance.
You cannot avoid the UNION because you still have to access both TABLE_PROB and TABLE_PROB1. Depending on your DB2 version, platform, and the system configuration this might perform a bit better:
SELECT
TABLE1.COLS,TBLE2.COLS,TABLE3.COLS
FROM
TABLE1,TABLE2,TABLE3
WHERE
OTHER_CLAUSE
AND
EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM TABLE_PROB
WHERE COL=TABLE1.COL
UNION
SELECT 1
FROM TABLE_PROB1
WHERE COL=TABLE1.COL
)
Depending on the contents of TABLE_PROB.COL and TABLE_PROB1.COL UNION ALL instead of UNION might also prove beneficial.
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 am trying to figure out why one can figure out the number of columns from using 'union SELECT'
For example, if you have a webpage http://www.vulnerable-site.com/index.php?firstArg=1
I learned that you can put
http://www.vulnerable-site.com/index.php?firstArg=1 union SELECT 1,2,3,4 --
to find out the number of columns in the table. Basically, you keep adding numbers to till you stop getting errors. Why is that?
Can anyone please help me with this basic question.
Thanks
I came to know that the number of columns on both sides of the UNION statement must match. So, this command can be used to find out the number of columns in a table.
UNION keyword can be used to retrieve data from other tables within the database. This results in an SQL injection UNION attack. so Determining the number of columns required in an SQL injection UNION attack. there are two effective methods to determine how many columns are being returned from the original query. "ORDER BY" and "UNION SELECT"
I have created a database as part of university assignment and I have hit a snag with the question in the title.
More likely I am being asked to find out how many films each company has made. Which suggests to me a group by query. But I have no idea where to begin. It is only a two mark question but the syntax is not clicking in my head.
My schema is:
CREATE TABLE Movie
(movieID CHAR(3) ,
title CHAR(36),
year NUMBER,
company CHAR(50),
totalNoms NUMBER,
awardsWon NUMBER,
DVDPrice NUMBER(5,2),
discountPrice NUMBER(5,2))
There are other tables but at first glance I don't think they are relevant to this question.
I am using sqlplus10
The answer you need comes from three basic SQL concepts, I'll step through them with you. If you need more assistance to create an answer from these hints, let me know and I can try to keep guiding you.
Group By
As you mentioned, SQL offers a GROUP BY function that can help you.
A SQL Query utilizing GROUP BY would look like the following.
SELECT list, fields, aggregate(value)
FROM tablename
--WHERE goes here, if you need to restrict your result set
GROUP BY list, fields
a GROUP BY query can only return fields listed in the group by statement, or aggregate functions acting on each group.
Aggregate Functions
Your homework question also needs an Aggregate function called Count. This is used to count the results returned. A simple query like the following returns the count of all records returned.
SELECT Count(*)
FROM tablename
The two can be combined, allowing you to get the Count of each group in the following way.
SELECT list, fields, count(*)
FROM tablename
GROUP BY list, fields
Column Aliases
Another answer also tried to introduce you to SQL column aliases, but they did not use SQLPLUS syntax.
SELECT Count(*) as count
...
SQLPLUS column alias syntax is shown below.
SELECT Count(*) "count"
...
I'm not going to provide you the SQL, but instead a way to think about it.
What you want to do is select where the company matches and count the total rows returned. That count is the number of films made by the specified company.
Hope that points you in the right direction.
Select company, count(*) AS count
from Movie
group by company
select * group by company won't work in Oracle.
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