select * from (
select max(h.updated_datetime) as max, min(h.updated_datetime) as min from report r, report_history h, procedure_runtime_information PRI, study S
where
h.report_fk=r.pk and
r.study_fk=S.pk and
PRI.pk=S.procedure_runtime_fk and
extract(epoch from (max(h.updated_datetime) - min(h.updated_datetime) ) <=900 and
h.pk IN (
select pk from
(select * from report_history where report_fk=r.pk) as result
)
and r.status_fk =21 group by r.pk)as result1;
this is my query i have a syntax error can any one help me fix this
thanks in advance
As you didn't bother telling us what the error is I have to guess, that it's this line:
AND h.pk IN (SELECT pk FROM (SELECT * FROM report_history WHERE report_fk=r.pk) AS RESULT)
The nesting level for the where condition is "too deep" and I think it cannot see the r alias in the where clause.
But the nested select is totally useless in your case anyway, so you can rewrite that condition as:
AND h.pk IN (SELECT pk FROM report_history WHERE report_fk=r.pk)
Even if that doesn't solve your problem, it makes your query more readable.
Then you are using an aggregate in the where clause which is also not allowed, you have to move it to a having clause.
having extract(epoch from (max(h.updated_datetime) - min(h.updated_datetime))) <=900
The having clause comes after the group by
You were also missing a closing ) but that is hard to tell because of your formatting (which I find very hard to read)
You should also get used to explicit JOIN syntax. The implicit joins in the WHERE clause are error-prone and no longer recommended.
Related
Consider this query
select *
from documents d
where exists (select 1 as [1]
from (
select *
from (
select *
from ProductMediaDocuments
where d.id = MediaDocuments_Id
) as [dummy1]
) as [s2]
where exists(
select *
from ProductSkus psk
where psk.Product_Id = s2.MediaProducts_Id
)
)
Could someone tell me how this is being processed by SQL Server? When statements appears in parentheses, this means it will execute first. But does this also apply for the above statement? In this case I don't think so, because the sub queries needs values of outer queries. So, how does this works under the hood?
That's completely up to the database engine.
Since SQL is a declarative language, you specify WHAT you want, but the HOW part is up to the DB Engine and it really depends on many factors like indexes presence, type, fragmentation; row cardinality, statistics.
That's just to mention few, because the list can goes on.
Of course you can look to the execution plan but the point is that you can't know HOW it will be executed just reading the query.
The execution plan will tell you what the engine actually does. That is, the physical processing order. AFAIK, the query planner will rewrite your query if it finds a better way to express it to itself or the engine. If your question is, "Why is my query not working the way I think it should." then that is where you should start.
The doc says the logical processing order is:
FROM
ON
JOIN
WHERE
GROUP BY
WITH CUBE or WITH ROLLUP
HAVING
SELECT
DISTINCT
ORDER BY
TOP
It also has this note:
The [preceding] steps show the logical processing order, or binding order, for a SELECT statement. This order determines when the objects defined in one step are made available to the clauses in subsequent steps. For example, if the query processor can bind to (access) the tables or views defined in the FROM clause, these objects and their columns are made available to all subsequent steps. Conversely, because the SELECT clause is step 8, any column aliases or derived columns defined in that clause cannot be referenced by preceding clauses. However, they can be referenced by subsequent clauses such as the ORDER BY clause. Note that the actual physical execution of the statement is determined by the query processor and the order may vary from this list.
FROM would include inline views (subqueries) or CTE aliases. Each time it finds a subquery, it should start over from the beginning and evaluate that query.
I simplified your code a bit.
SELECT *
FROM documents d
WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT 1
FROM ProductMediaDocuments s2
WHERE d.id = MediaDocuments_Id
AND EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM ProductSkus psk
WHERE psk.Product_Id = s2.MediaProducts_Id
)
)
I think this code is clearer don't you??
SELECT d.*
FROM documents d
JOIN ProductMediaDocuments s2 ON d.id = MediaDocuments_Id
JOIN ProductSkus psk ON psk.Product_Id = s2.MediaProducts_Id
I need to show all clients entered into the system for a date range.
All clients are assigned to a group, but not necessarily to a staff.
When I run the query as such:
SELECT
clients.name_lastfirst_cs,
to_char (clients.date_intake,'MM/DD/YY')AS Date_Created,
clients.client_id,
clients.display_intake,
staff.staff_name_cs,
groups.name
FROM
public.clients,
public.groups,
public.staff,
public.link_group
WHERE
clients.zrud_staff = staff.zzud_staff AND
clients.zzud_client = link_group.zrud_client AND
groups.zzud_group = link_group.zrud_group AND
clients.date_intake BETWEEN (now() - '8 days'::interval)::timestamp AND now()
ORDER BY
groups.name ASC,
clients.client_id ASC,
staff.staff_name_cs ASC
I get 121 entries
if I comment out:
SELECT
clients.name_lastfirst_cs,
to_char (clients.date_intake,'MM/DD/YY')AS Date_Created,
clients.client_id,
clients.display_intake,
-- staff.staff_name_cs, -- Line Commented out
groups.name
FROM
public.clients,
public.groups,
public.staff,
public.link_group
WHERE
-- clients.zrud_staff = staff.zzud_staff AND --Line commented out
clients.zzud_client = link_group.zrud_client AND
groups.zzud_group = link_group.zrud_group AND
clients.date_intake BETWEEN (now() - '8 days'::interval)::timestamp AND now()
ORDER BY
groups.name ASC,
clients.client_id ASC,
staff.staff_name_cs ASC
I get 173 entries
I know I need to do an outer join to capture all clients regardless of if there
is a staff assigned, but each attempt has failed. I have done outer joins with
two tables, but adding a third has twisted my brain.
Thanks for any suggestions
I have no way of testing this (or of knowing that it is right) but what I read in your query is that you want something similar to this:
SELECT --I just used short aliases. I choose something other than the table name so I know it is an alias "c" for client etc...
c.name_lastfirst_cs,
to_char (c.date_intake,'MM/DD/YY')AS Date_Created,
c.client_id,
c.display_intake,
s.staff_name_cs,
g.name,
l.zrud_client AS "link_client",--I'm selecting some data here so that I can debug later, you can just filter this out with another select if you need to
l.zzud_group AS "link_group" --Again, so I can see these relationships
FROM
public.clients c
LEFT OUTER JOIN staff s ON --is staff required? If it isn't then outer join (optional)
s.zzud_staff = c.zrud_staff --so we linked staff to clients here
LEFT OUTER JOIN public.link_group l ON --this looks like a lookup table to me so we select the lookup record
l.zrud_client = c.zzud_client -- this is how I define the lookup, a client id
LEFT OUTER JOIN public.groups g ON --then we use that to lookup a group
g.zzup_group = l.zrud_group --which is defined by this data here
WHERE -- the following must be true
c.date_intake BETWEEN (now() - '8 days'::interval)::timestamp AND now()
Now for the why: I've basically moved your where clause to JOIN x ON y=z syntax. In my experience this is a better way to write an maintain queries as it allows you to specify relationships between tables rather than doing a big-ol'-join and trying to filter that data with the where clause. Keep in mind each condition is REQUIRED not optional so when you say you want records with the following conditions you're going to get them (and if I read this right--I probably don't as I don't have a schema in-front of me) if a record is missing a link-table record OR a staff member you're going to filter it out.
Alternatively (possibly significantly slower) You can SELECT anything so you can chain it like:
SELECT
*
FROM
(
SELECT
*
FROM
public.clients
WHERE
x condition
)
WHERE
y condition
OR
SELECT * FROM x WHERE x.condition IN (SELECT * FROM y)
In your case this tactic probably won't be easier than a standard join syntax.
^And some serious opinion here: I recommend you use the join syntax I outlined above here. It is functionally the same as joining and specifying a where clause, but as you noted, if you don't understand the relationships it can cause a Cartesian join. http://www.tutorialspoint.com/sql/sql-cartesian-joins.htm . Lastly, I tend to specify what type of join I want. I write INNER JOIN and OUTER JOIN a lot in my queries because it helps the next person (usually me) figure out what the heck I meant. If it is optional use an outer join, if it is required use an inner join (default).
Good luck! There are much better SQL developers out there and there's probably another way to do it.
I'd like to check if a "couple" of attributes is in a the result of another request.
I tried the following query but the syntax isn't good.
SELECT ID
FROM Table1
WHERE (Col_01, Col_02) IN
(
SELECT Col_01, Col_02
FROM Table2
)
Is-it possible to do something like that in T-SQL ?
You can use EXISTS and a correlated subquery:
SELECT ID
FROM Table1 t1
WHERE EXISTS
(
SELECT *
FROM Table2 t2
WHERE t2.Col_01 = t1.Col_01 AND
t2.Col_02 = t1.Col_02
)
You initial attempt was a good one though - some database systems do allow us to use rowset constructors to create arbitrary tuples, and the syntax is quite similar to what you showed, but they're not supported in T-SQL in this part of the syntax, so you have to go this slightly more verbose route.
I have a query that uses a subquery and I am having a problem returning the expected results. The error I receive is..."Only one expression can be specified in the select list when the subquery is not introduced with EXISTS." How can I rewrite this to work?
SELECT
a.Part,
b.Location,
b.LeadTime
FROM
dbo.Parts a
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.Vendor b ON b.Part = a.Part
WHERE
b.Location IN ('A','B','C')
AND
Date IN (SELECT Location, MAX(Date) FROM dbo.Vendor GROUP BY Location)
GROUP BY
a.Part,
b.Location,
b.LeadTime
ORDER BY
a.Part
I think something like this may be what you're looking for. You didn't say what version of SQL Server--this works in SQL 2005 and up:
SELECT
p.Part,
p.Location, -- from *p*, otherwise if no match we'll get a NULL
v.LeadTime
FROM
dbo.Parts p
OUTER APPLY (
SELECT TOP (1) * -- * here is okay because we specify columns outside
FROM dbo.Vendor v
WHERE p.Location = v.Location -- the correlation part
ORDER BY v.Date DESC
) v
WHERE
p.Location IN ('A','B','C')
ORDER BY
p.Part
;
Now, your query can be repaired as is by adding the "correlation" part to change your query into a correlated subquery as demonstrated in Kory's answer (you'd also remove the GROUP BY clause). However, that method still requires an additional and unnecessary join, hurting performance, plus it can only pull one column at a time. This method allows you to pull all the columns from the other table, and has no extra join.
Note: this gives logically the same results as Lamak's answer, however I prefer it for a few reasons:
When there is an index on the correlation columns (Location, here) this can be satisfied with seeks, but the Row_Number solution has to scan (I believe).
I prefer the way this expresses the intent of the query more directly and succinctly. In the Row_Number method, one must get out to the outer condition to see that we are only grabbing the rn = 1 values, then bop back into the CTE to see what that is.
Using CROSS APPLY or OUTER APPLY, all the other tables not involved in the single-inner-row-per-outer-row selection are outside where (to me) they belong. We aren't squishing concerns together. Using Row_Number feels a bit like throwing a DISTINCT on a query to fix duplication rather than dealing with the underlying issue. I guess this is basically the same issue as the previous point worded in a different way.
The moment you have TWO tables from which you wish to pull the most recent value, the Row_Number() solution blows up completely. With this syntax, you just easily add another APPLY clause, and it's crystal clear what you're doing. There is a way to use Row_Number for the multiple tables scenario by moving the other tables outside, but I still don't prefer that syntax.
Using this syntax allows you to perform additional joins based on whether the selected row exists or not (in the case that no matching row was found). In the Row_Number solution, you can only reasonably do that NOT NULL checking in the outer query--so you are forced to split up the query into multiple, separated parts (you don't want to be joining to values you will be discarding!).
P.S. I strongly encourage you to use aliases that hint at the table they represent. Please don't use a and b. I used p for Parts and v for Vendor--this helps you and others make sense of the query more quickly in the future.
If I understood you corrrectly, you want the rows with the max date for locations A, B and C. Now, assuming SQL Server 2005+, you can do this:
;WITH CTE AS
(
SELECT
a.Part,
b.Location,
b.LeadTime,
RN = ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY a.Part ORDER BY [Date] DESC)
FROM
dbo.Parts a
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.Vendor b ON b.Part = a.Part
WHERE
b.Location IN ('A','B','C')
)
SELECT Part,
Location,
LeadTime
FROM CTE
WHERE RN = 1
ORDER BY Part
In your subquery you need to correlate the Location and Part to the outer query.
Example:
Date = (SELECT MAX(Date)
FROM dbo.Vender v
WHERE v.Location = b.Location
AND v.Part = b.Part
)
So this will bring back one date for each location and part
Why this simple query works fine in oracle but doesn't work in DB2:
select *
from
sysibm.dual d1
left join sysibm.dual d2 on 1=1 and exists (select 1 from sysibm.dual)
Moving subquery-involving condition to where clause may help, but that will restrain outer join into inner.
When I try to run the query you have, I get a -338 error, which according to Information Center (see link), there are the following restrictions on the ON clause:
An ON clause associated with a JOIN operator or in a MERGE statement
is not valid for one of the following reasons.
* The ON clause cannot include any subqueries.
* Column references in an ON clause must only reference columns
of tables that are in the scope of the ON clause.
* Scalar fullselects are not allowed in the expressions of an ON clause.
* A function referenced in an ON clause of a full outer join
must be deterministic and have no external action.
* A dereference operation (->) cannot be used.
* A SQL function or SQL method cannot be used.
* The ON clause cannot include an XMLQUERY or XMLEXISTS expression.
I'm not sure if it's possible with your query, but do you think perhaps you could re-write something like this:
select *
from
sysibm.dual d1
left join (
SELECT dl.*,
CASE WHEN EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM sysibm.dual)
THEN 1
ELSE 0
END AS jn
FROM sysibm.dual dl
) D2
on 1=1 and 1=d2.jn
This works in DB2 V10.1!
No fixpack installed.