I have the following SQL query but I got a problem:
When I execute it I got two of the same serial numbers from the "sn" column in the "products" table.
SELECT specifications.productname,
products.sn, specifications.year,
lendings.lending_date
FROM products
INNER JOIN lendings ON products.id = lendings.product_id
INNER JOIN specifications ON products.sn LIKE CONCAT(\'%\', specifications.sn, \'%\') OR products.type LIKE CONCAT(\'%\', specifications.type, \'%\')
WHERE lendings.user_id = ?
EDIT:
lendings table:
user_id product_id
1 1
1 2
2 3
Specifications table:
productname year type sn
name1 2012 1 1234
name2 2011 2 4321
name3 2010 3 3241
products table:
id sn
1 AAAAAAAA1234
2 BBBBBBBB4321
3 CCCCCCCC3241
EDIT2:
SELECT products.id,
specifications.productname,
products.sn,
specifications.year,
lendings.lending_date
FROM products
INNER JOIN lendings ON products.id = lendings.product_id
INNER JOIN specifications ON products2.sn LIKE CONCAT(specifications.sn, \'%\') OR products.type = specifications.type
WHERE lendings.user_id = ?
One of your Join on conditions is too slack then
for instance two lendings records pointing to the same product.
Usually, that means you don't have all the necesary join columns present in one of your joins and you are getting a cartesian product. In database terms, this means you are joining to a table and expected to join to a single row, but multiple rows match the criteria, so you are actually joining to more than one row. When this happens, you will get the same row multiple times (product row in your example) in your result.
It would have been better if you posted some test data so this scenario could be confirmed, but since you didn't, I would recommend checking each of your joins to make sure you are not getting multiple rows back for the given products row.
One part of your query I find particularly suspect is this join:
INNER JOIN specifications ON products.sn LIKE CONCAT(\'%\', specifications.sn, \'%\') OR products.type LIKE CONCAT(\'%\', specifications.type, \'%\')
You're joining using a LIKE operator, which seems to have a high chance of getting multiple rows.
Related
I have a select query that returns a huge result set (500k records). But for this example let's say it has only two records:
SELECT * FROM INVENTORY I
INNER JOIN PARTS P
ON I.partcode = P.partcode
ORDER BY I.partcode
The result will look more or less like this:
pk partcode genericname partname stock
1 001 mouse logitech 10
2 002 keyboard genius 8
I have to loop the result above and feed two tables (product and variant).
I first have to insert two of the columns into 'product' table, like this:
INSERT INTO PRODUCT
(p_code,product_name) values (partcode,genericname)
pk p_code product_name
5 001 mouse
6 001 keyboard
Then I have to grab the pk that was automatically generated into the table above (say ppk) and then insert it together with the other two columns into the 'variant' table, like this:
INSERT INTO VARIANT
(product_pk,variant_name,in_stock) values (ppk,partname,stock)
pk product_pk variant_name in_stock
10 5 logitech 10
11 6 genius 8
At the end I should have the product and the variant tables with 2 records each.
I could write a VB code to do that but I think that it can de done in pure SQL, and I just am not sure the best approach.
Someone could give me some help with this?
Thank you!
You could use a SQL cursor to loop through and insert a row at a time into PRODUCT and then use SCOPE_IDENTITY() to get the newly assigned identity value to insert a corresponding row into VARIANT, but best practice is to avoid cursors if there's another way. (There usually is, but not always.)
If the partcode/genericname combination will uniquely identify 1 record in PRODUCT, you could do this:
INSERT INTO PRODUCT (p_code,product_name)
SELECT partcode, genenricname
FROM INVENTORY I INNER JOIN PARTS P ON I.partcode = P.partcode
(I would eliminate the ORDER BY from your query unless you care about the order the identity values are assigned.)
Then, run this:
INSERT INTO VARIANT
(product_pk,variant_name,in_stock)
SELECT pr.ppk, i.partname, i.stock
FROM inventory i INNER JOIN parts p ON i.partcode = p.partcode
INNER JOIN product pr on i.partcode = pr.p_code and i.genericname = pr.product_name
You may have to clean up the aliases between i and p in the 2nd query. I can't tell which table (inventory or parts) the variant_name and in_stock fields are coming from so I just used i.
Again - this assumes that partcode/genericname combination is unique in the PRODUCT table.
I'm not exactly sure what the term is for this but, when you have a many-to-many relationship when joining 2 tables and you want to sum up one of the variables, I believe that you can sum the same values over and over again.
What I want to accomplish is to prevent this from happening. How do I make sure that my sum function is returning the correct number?
I'm using PostgreSQL
Example:
Table 1 Table 2
SampleID DummyName SampleID DummyItem
1 John 1 5
1 John 1 4
2 Doe 1 5
3 Jake 2 3
3 Jake 2 3
3 2
If I join these two tables ON SampleID, and I want to sum the DummyItem for each DummyName, how can I do this without double summing?
The solution is to first aggregate and then do the join:
select t1.sampleid, t1.dummyname, t.total_items
from table_1 t1
join (
select t2.sampleid, sum(dummyitem) as total_items
from table_2 t2
group by t2
) t ON t.sampleid = t1.sampleid;
The real question is however: why are the duplicates in table_1?
I would take a step back and try to assess the database design. Specifically, what rules allow such duplicate data?
To address your specific issue given your data, here's one option: create a temp table that contains unique rows from Table 1, then join the temp table with Table 2 to get the sums I think you are expecting.
Apology in advance for a long question, but doing this just for the sake of learning:
i'm new to SQL and researching on JOIN for now. I'm getting two different behaviors when using INNER and OUTER JOIN. What I know is, INNER JOIN gives an intersection kind of result while returning only common rows among tables, and (LEFT/RIGHT) OUTER JOIN is outputting what is common and remaining rows in LEFT or RIGHT tables, depending upon LEFT/RIGHT clause respectively.
While working with MS Training Kit and trying to solve this practice: "Practice 2: In this practice, you identify rows that appear in one table but have no matches in another. You are given a task to return the IDs of employees from the HR.Employees table who did not handle orders (in the Sales.Orders table) on February 12, 2008. Write three different solutions using the following: joins, subqueries, and set
operators. To verify the validity of your solution, you are supposed to return employeeIDs: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9."
I'm successful doing this with subqueries and set operators but with JOIN is returning something not expected. I've written the following query:
USE TSQL2012;
SELECT
E.empid
FROM
HR.Employees AS H
JOIN Sales.Orders AS O
ON H.empid = O.empid
AND O.orderdate = '20080212'
JOIN HR.Employees AS E
ON E.empid <> H.empid
ORDER BY
E.empid
;
I'm expecting results as: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 (6 rows)
But what i'm getting is: 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,5,6,6,7,7,7,8,8,9,9,9 (24 rows)
I tried some videos but could not understand this side of INNER/OUTER JOIN. I'll be grateful if someone could help this side of JOIN, why is it so and what should I try to understand while working with JOIN.
you can also use left outer join to get not matching
*** The LEFT JOIN keyword returns all rows from the left table (table1), with the matching rows in the right table (table2). The result is NULL in the right side when there is no match.
SELECT
H.empid
FROM
HR.Employees AS H
LEFT OUTER JOIN Sales.Orders AS O
ON H.empid = O.empid
AND O.orderdate = '20080212'
WHERE O.empid IS NULL
Above script will return emp id who did not handle orders on specify date
here you can see all kind of join
Diagram taken from: http://dsin.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/sql-join-cheat-sheet/
adjust your query to be like this
USE TSQL2012;
SELECT
E.empid
FROM
HR.Employees AS H
JOIN Sales.Orders AS O
ON H.empid = O.empid
where O.orderdate = '2008-02-12' AND O.empid IN null
ORDER BY
E.empid
;
USE TSQL2012;
SELECT
distinct E.empid
FROM
HR.Employees AS H
JOIN Sales.Orders AS O
ON H.empid = O.empid
AND O.orderdate = '20080212'
JOIN HR.Employees AS E
ON E.empid <> H.empid
ORDER BY
E.empid
;
Primary things to always remind yourself when working with SQL JOINs:
INNER JOINs require a match in the join in order for result set rows produced prior to the INNER JOIN to remain in the result set. When no match is found for a row, the row is discarded from the result set.
For a row fed to an INNER JOIN that matches to ONLY one row, only one copy of that row fed to the result set is delivered.
For a row fed to an INNER JOIN that matches to multiple rows, the row will be delivered multiple times, once for each row match from the INNER JOIN table.
OUTER JOINs will not discard rows fed to them in the result set, whether or not the OUTER JOIN results in a match or not.
Just like INNER JOINs, if an OUTER JOIN matches to more than one row, it will increase the number of rows in the result set by duplicating rows equal to the number of rows matched from the OUTER JOIN table.
Ask yourself "if I get NO match on the JOIN, do I want the row discarded or not?" If the answer is NO, use an OUTER JOIN. If the answer is YES, use an INNER JOIN.
If you don't need to reference any of the columns from a JOIN table, don't perform a JOIN at all. Instead, use a WHERE EXISTS, WHERE NOT EXISTS, WHERE IN, WHERE NOT IN, etc. or similar, depending on your database engine in use. Don't rely on the database engine to be smart enough to discard unreferenced columns resulting from JOINs from the result set. Some databases may be smart enough to do that, some not. There's no reason to pull columns into a result set only to not reference them. Doing so increases chance of reduced performance.
Your JOIN of:
JOIN HR.Employees AS E
ON E.empid <> H.empid
...is matching to all Employees rows with a DIFFERENT EMPID to all rows fed to that join. Use of NOT EQUAL on an INNER JOIN is a very rare thing to do or need, especially if the JOIN predicate is testing only ONE condition. That is why your getting duplicate rows in the result set.
On DB2, we could perform an EXCEPTION JOIN to accomplish that using a JOIN alone. Normally, on DB2, I would use a WHERE NOT EXISTS for that. On SQL Server you could do a JOIN to a query where the query set is all employees without orders in SALES.ORDERS on the specified date, but I don't know if that violates the rules of your tutorial.
Naveen posted the solution it appears your tutorial is looking for!
Can someone explain multiple left join logic?
For example i have 3 tables: Company, company_text, company_rank.
Company has 4 records (id's: 1,2,3,4), company_text has 4 records with company names (1-a,2-b,3-c, 4-d), company_rank has following (1-1st, 2-2nd, 3-3rd). Note that company_rank table is not having 4th record. Now i want records of all companies using LEFT join. In case if there is no rank, display as 'zzzz' and sort in the descending order of rank and when rank is null sort by descending order of id.
select * from company
LEFT JOIN company_text ON company.id = company_text.id
LEFT JOIN company_rank ON company_text.id = company_rank.id
order by isnull(company_rank.rank,'zzzz'), rank desc
Will this work?
Basically i am trying to understand how LEFT JOIN works if there are many left joins? This doc. has good info on joins: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/10/a-visual-explanation-of-sql-joins.html but it don't have information on how multiple LEFT JOINS work? In case if multiple joins are present, how records data will be pulled?
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?