I'm trying to write a JPQL query which should get a list which match atleast one of two conditions. When I construct the queries sepperatly they work as expected, but putting them together in an 'OR' returns a list which only match one of the conditions. I don't understand why this is.
This is the full query:
SELECT a FROM Article a WHERE ((a.ag.proteinPID.uniprot.AC LIKE :genProt)
OR (a.aid IN(SELECT a2.aid FROM Protein p JOIN p.articleList a2 WHERE p.uniprot.AC LIKE :genProt)))
And the sepperate ones:
1)
SELECT a FROM Article a WHERE a.aid IN(SELECT a2.aid FROM Protein p JOIN p.articleList a2 WHERE p.uniprot.AC LIKE :genProt)
2)
SELECT a FROM Article a WHERE a.ag.proteinPID.uniprot.AC LIKE :genProt
The full expression returns the same result as expression 2).
Try left joining the entities within the full query for the first condition:
SELECT a FROM Article a LEFT JOIN a.ag g LEFT JOIN g.proteinPID p LEFT JOIN p.uniport u WHERE ((u.AC LIKE :genProt)
OR (a.aid IN(SELECT a2.aid FROM Protein p JOIN p.articleList a2 WHERE p.uniprot.AC LIKE :genProt)))
Why this works: if do not explicitly left join, I suppose it makes an INNER JOIN which automatically will limit the results.
Related
we have some instances of code, similar to this simple example, located in views and itvfs. In some cases this is the most efficient code. The linter is throwing an error saying this is not sargable. My question, is this considered non-sargable?
SELECT *
FROM customer c
LEFT JOIN orders o ON o.order_id =
(SELECT MAX(o2.order_id) AS max_order_id
FROM orders o2
WHERE c.customer_id = o2.customer_id)
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 am attempting to link three tables together in postgres.
All three tables are generated from subqueries. The first table is linked to the second table by the variable call_sign as a FULL JOIN (because I want the superset of entries from both tables). The third table has an INNER JOIN with the second table also on call_sign (but theoretically could have been linked to the first table)
The query runs but is quite slow and I feel will become even slower as I add more data. I realize that there are certain things that I can do to speed things up - like not pulling unnecessary data in the subqueries and not converting text to numbers on the fly. But is there a better way to structure the JOINs between these three tables?
Any advice would be appreciated because I am a novice in postgres.
Here is the code:
select
(CASE
WHEN tmp1.frequency_assigned is NULL
THEN tmp2.lower_frequency
ELSE tmp1.frequency_assigned END) as master_frequency,
(CASE
WHEN tmp1.call_sign is NULL
THEN tmp2.call_sign
ELSE tmp1.call_sign END) as master_call_sign,
(CASE
WHEN tmp1.entity_type is NULL
THEN tmp2.entity_type
ELSE tmp1.entity_type END) as master_entity_type,
(CASE
WHEN tmp1.licensee_id is NULL
THEN tmp2.licensee_id
ELSE tmp1.licensee_id END) as master_licensee_id,
(CASE
WHEN tmp1.entity_name is NULL
THEN tmp2.entity_name
ELSE tmp1.entity_name END) as master_entity_name,
tmp3.market_name
FROM
(select cast(replace(frequency_assigned, ',','.') as decimal) AS frequency_assigned,
frequency_upper_band,
f.uls_file_number,
f.call_sign,
entity_type,
licensee_id,
entity_name
from combo_fr f INNER JOIN combo_en e
ON f.call_sign=e.call_sign
ORDER BY frequency_assigned DESC) tmp1
FULL JOIN
(select cast(replace(lower_frequency, ',','.') as decimal) AS lower_frequency,
upper_frequency,
e.uls_file_number,
mf.call_sign,
entity_type,
licensee_id,
entity_name
FROM market_mf mf INNER JOIN combo_en e
ON mf.call_sign=e.call_sign
ORDER BY lower_frequency DESC) tmp2
ON tmp1.call_sign=tmp2.call_sign
INNER JOIN
(select en.call_sign,
mk.market_name
FROM combo_mk mk
INNER JOIN combo_en en
ON mk.call_sign=en.call_sign) tmp3
ON tmp2.call_sign=tmp3.call_sign
ORDER BY master_frequency DESC;
you'll want to unwind those queries and do it all in one join, if you can. Soemthing like:
select <whatever you need>
from combo_fr f
JOIN combo_en e ON f.call_sign=e.call_sign
JOIN market_mf mf mf ON mf.call_sign=e.call_sign
JOIN combo_mk mk ON mk.call_sign=en.call_sign
I can't completely grok what you're doing, but some of the join clauses might have to become LEFT JOINs in order to deal with places where the call sign does or does not appear.
After creating indexes on call_sign for all four involved tables, try this:
WITH nodup AS (
SELECT call_sign FROM market_mf
EXCEPT SELECT call_sign FROM combo_fr
) SELECT
CAST(REPLACE(u.master_frequency_string, ',','.') AS DECIMAL)
AS master_frequency,
u.call_sign AS master_call_sign,
u.entity_type AS master_entity_type,
u.licensee_id AS master_licensee_id,
u.entity_name AS master_entity_name,
combo_mk.market_name
FROM (SELECT frequency_assigned AS master_frequency_string, call_sign,
entity_type, licensee_id, entity_name
FROM combo_fr
UNION ALL SELECT lower_frequency, call_sign,
entity_type, licensee_id, entity_name
FROM market_mf INNER JOIN nodup USING (call_sign)
) AS u
INNER JOIN combo_en USING (call_sign)
INNER JOIN combo_mk USING (call_sign)
ORDER BY 1 DESC;
I post this because this is the simplest way to understand what you need.
If there are no call_sign values which appear in both market_mf and
combo_fr, WITH nodup ... and INNER JOIN nodup ... can be omitted.
I am making the assumption that call_sign is unique in both combo_fr and market_mf ( = there are no two records in each table with the same value), even if there can be values which can appear in both tables.
It is very unfortunate that you order by a computed column, and that the computation is so silly. A certain optimization would be to convert the frequency strings once and for all in the table itself. The steps would be:
(1) add numeric frequncy columns to your tables (2) populate them with the values converted from the current text columns (3) convert new values directly into the new columns, by inputting them with a locale which has the desired decimal separator.
I've got the following JPQL :
SELECT a.b.id, a.b.name, a.c.id,a.c.name
left join a.b left join a.c
group by a.b.id,a.b.name,a.c.id,a.c.name
now b and c are both referencing the same table.
the generated SQL is doing the left join I asked, and another join for a.b.name and a.c.name
(which is unnecessary because the left join includes the name, and it retrieves more results than expected)
how do I make the SQL generated not include the unnecessary join?
1 solution came up is not select the names and retrieve them individually by a different query.. but it's not the most elegant way I suppose..
(btw I tried selecting a.b,a.c and group by a.b,a.c but it throws ORA not a group by expression because the generated sql retrieves all rows but group by is only by ID)
and the left join is necessary since I want to allow null values.
Thanks a lot.
SELECT a.b.id, a.b.name, a.c.id,a.c.name
The above implicitly creates an inner join between a abd b,a nd another inner join between a and c. The query should be
select b.id, b.name, c.id, c.name
from A a
left join a.b b
left join a.c c
The group by clause doesn't make any sense, since you have no aggregate in your select clause. group by would be useful if you had, for example
select b.id, b.name, c.id, c.name, count(c.foo)
from A a
left join a.b b
left join a.c c
group by b.id, b.name, c.id, c.name
I have a stored procedure which is running quite slow. Therefore I want to extract some of the query in a separate view.
My code looks something like this:
DECLARE #tmpTable TABLE(..)
INSERT INTO #tmpTable (..) *query* (returns 3000 rows)
Select ... from table1
inner join table2
inner join table3
inner join #tmpTable
...
I then extract (copy-paste) the *query* and put it in a view - i.e. vView.
Doing this will then give me a different result:
Select ... from table1
inner join table2
inner join table3
inner join vView
...
Why? I can see that the vView and the #tmpTable both returns 3000 rows, so they should match (also did a except query to check).
Any comments would be much appriciated as I feel quite stuck with this..
EDITED:
This is the full query for getting the result (using #tmpTable or vView gives me different results, although the appear the same):
select dep.sid as depsid, dep.[name], COUNT(b.sid) as possiblelogins, count(ls.clientsid) as logins
from department dep
inner join relationship r on dep.sid=r.primarysid and r.relationshiptypeid=27 and r.validto is null
inner join [user] u on r.secondarysid=u.sid
inner join relationship r2 on u.sid=r2.secondarysid and r2.validto is null and r2.relationshiptypeid in (1,37)
inner join client c on r2.primarysid=c.sid
inner join ***#tmpTable or vView*** b on b.sid = c.sid
left outer join (select distinct clientsid from logonstatistics) as ls on b.sid=ls.clientsid
GROUP BY dep.sid, dep.[name],dep.isdepartment
HAVING dep.isdepartment=1
You maybe don't need the view/table if you change to this.
It joins on to client c and appears to be there only to JOIN onto logonstatistics
--remove inner join ***#tmpTable or vView*** b on b.sid = c.sid
--change JOIN
left outer join (select distinct clientsid from logonstatistics) as ls on c.sid=ls.clientsid
And change COUNT(b.sid) to COUNT(c.sid) in the SELECT clause
Otherwise, if you get different results you have two options I can see:
Table and view have different data. Have you run a line by line comparsion?
One has NULL, one has a value (especially for the sid column which will affect the JOIN)
Finally, when you says "different results" do you mean you get x2 or x3 rows? A different COUNT? What?