Basically, I want to do this:
update vehicles_vehicle v
join shipments_shipment s on v.shipment_id=s.id
set v.price=s.price_per_vehicle;
I'm pretty sure that would work in MySQL (my background), but it doesn't seem to work in postgres. The error I get is:
ERROR: syntax error at or near "join"
LINE 1: update vehicles_vehicle v join shipments_shipment s on v.shi...
^
Surely there's an easy way to do this, but I can't find the proper syntax. So, how would I write this In PostgreSQL?
The UPDATE syntax is:
[ WITH [ RECURSIVE ] with_query [, ...] ]
UPDATE [ ONLY ] table [ [ AS ] alias ]
SET { column = { expression | DEFAULT } |
( column [, ...] ) = ( { expression | DEFAULT } [, ...] ) } [, ...]
[ FROM from_list ]
[ WHERE condition | WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name ]
[ RETURNING * | output_expression [ [ AS ] output_name ] [, ...] ]
In your case I think you want this:
UPDATE vehicles_vehicle AS v
SET price = s.price_per_vehicle
FROM shipments_shipment AS s
WHERE v.shipment_id = s.id
Or if you need to join on two or more tables:
UPDATE table_1 t1
SET foo = 'new_value'
FROM table_2 t2
JOIN table_3 t3 ON t3.id = t2.t3_id
WHERE
t2.id = t1.t2_id
AND t3.bar = True;
The answer of Mark Byers is the optimal in this situation.
Though in more complex situations you can take the select query that returns rowids and calculated values and attach it to the update query like this:
with t as (
-- Any generic query which returns rowid and corresponding calculated values
select t1.id as rowid, f(t2, t2) as calculatedvalue
from table1 as t1
join table2 as t2 on t2.referenceid = t1.id
)
update table1
set value = t.calculatedvalue
from t
where id = t.rowid
This approach lets you develop and test your select query and in two steps convert it to the update query.
So in your case the result query will be:
with t as (
select v.id as rowid, s.price_per_vehicle as calculatedvalue
from vehicles_vehicle v
join shipments_shipment s on v.shipment_id = s.id
)
update vehicles_vehicle
set price = t.calculatedvalue
from t
where id = t.rowid
Note that column aliases are mandatory otherwise PostgreSQL will complain about the ambiguity of the column names.
Let me explain a little more by my example.
Task: correct info, where abiturients (students about to leave secondary school) have submitted applications to university earlier, than they got school certificates (yes, they got certificates earlier, than they were issued (by certificate date specified). So, we will increase application submit date to fit certificate issue date.
Thus. next MySQL-like statement:
UPDATE applications a
JOIN (
SELECT ap.id, ab.certificate_issued_at
FROM abiturients ab
JOIN applications ap
ON ab.id = ap.abiturient_id
WHERE ap.documents_taken_at::date < ab.certificate_issued_at
) b
ON a.id = b.id
SET a.documents_taken_at = b.certificate_issued_at;
Becomes PostgreSQL-like in such a way
UPDATE applications a
SET documents_taken_at = b.certificate_issued_at -- we can reference joined table here
FROM abiturients b -- joined table
WHERE
a.abiturient_id = b.id AND -- JOIN ON clause
a.documents_taken_at::date < b.certificate_issued_at -- Subquery WHERE
As you can see, original subquery JOIN's ON clause have become one of WHERE conditions, which is conjucted by AND with others, which have been moved from subquery with no changes. And there is no more need to JOIN table with itself (as it was in subquery).
For those actually wanting to do a JOIN you can also use:
UPDATE a
SET price = b_alias.unit_price
FROM a AS a_alias
LEFT JOIN b AS b_alias ON a_alias.b_fk = b_alias.id
WHERE a_alias.unit_name LIKE 'some_value'
AND a.id = a_alias.id;
You can use the a_alias in the SET section on the right of the equals sign if needed.
The fields on the left of the equals sign don't require a table reference as they are deemed to be from the original "a" table.
For those wanting to do a JOIN that updates ONLY the rows your join returns use:
UPDATE a
SET price = b_alias.unit_price
FROM a AS a_alias
LEFT JOIN b AS b_alias ON a_alias.b_fk = b_alias.id
WHERE a_alias.unit_name LIKE 'some_value'
AND a.id = a_alias.id
--the below line is critical for updating ONLY joined rows
AND a.pk_id = a_alias.pk_id;
This was mentioned above but only through a comment..Since it's critical to getting the correct result posting NEW answer that Works
Here we go:
update vehicles_vehicle v
set price=s.price_per_vehicle
from shipments_shipment s
where v.shipment_id=s.id;
Simple as I could make it.
To add something quite important to all the great answers above, when you want to update a join-table, you may have 2 problems:
you cannot use the table you want to update to JOIN another one
Postgres wants a ON clause after the JOIN so you cannot only use where clauses.
This means that basically, the following queries are not valid:
UPDATE join_a_b
SET count = 10
FROM a
JOIN b on b.id = join_a_b.b_id -- Not valid since join_a_b is used here
WHERE a.id = join_a_b.a_id
AND a.name = 'A'
AND b.name = 'B'
UPDATE join_a_b
SET count = 10
FROM a
JOIN b -- Not valid since there is no ON clause
WHERE a.id = join_a_b.a_id
AND b.id = join_a_b.b_id
a.name = 'A'
AND b.name = 'B'
Instead, you must use all the tables in the FROM clause like this:
UPDATE join_a_b
SET count = 10
FROM a, b
WHERE a.id = join_a_b.a_id
AND b.id = join_a_b.b_id
AND a.name = 'A'
AND b.name = 'B'
It might be straightforward for some but I got stuck on this problem wondering what's going on so hopefully, it will help others.
Here's a simple SQL that updates Mid_Name on the Name3 table using the Middle_Name field from Name:
update name3
set mid_name = name.middle_name
from name
where name3.person_id = name.person_id;
The link below has a example that resolve and helps understant better how use update and join with postgres.
UPDATE product
SET net_price = price - price * discount
FROM
product_segment
WHERE
product.segment_id = product_segment.id;
See: http://www.postgresqltutorial.com/postgresql-update-join/
First Table Name: tbl_table1 (tab1).
Second Table Name: tbl_table2 (tab2).
Set the tbl_table1's ac_status column to "INACTIVE"
update common.tbl_table1 as tab1
set ac_status= 'INACTIVE' --tbl_table1's "ac_status"
from common.tbl_table2 as tab2
where tab1.ref_id= '1111111'
and tab2.rel_type= 'CUSTOMER';
To UPDATE one Table using another, in PostGRE SQL / AWS (SQL workbench).
In PostGRE SQL, this is how you need to use joins in UPDATE Query:
UPDATE TABLEA set COLUMN_FROM_TABLEA = COLUMN_FROM_TABLEB FROM TABLEA,TABLEB WHERE FILTER_FROM_TABLEA = FILTER_FROM_TABLEB;
Example:
Update Employees Set Date_Of_Exit = Exit_Date_Recorded , Exit_Flg = 1 From Employees, Employee_Exit_Clearance Where Emp_ID = Exit_Emp_ID
Table A - Employees Columns in Table A - Date_Of_Exit,Emp_ID,Exit_Flg Table B is - Employee_Exit_Clearance Columns in Table B - Exit_Date_Recorded,Exit_Emp_ID
1760 rows affected
Execution time: 29.18s
--goal: update selected columns with join (postgres)--
UPDATE table1 t1
SET column1 = 'data'
FROM table1
RIGHT JOIN table2
ON table2.id = table1.id
WHERE t1.id IN
(SELECT table2.id FROM table2 WHERE table2.column2 = 12345)
The first way is slower than the second way.
First:
DO $$
DECLARE
page int := 10000;
min_id bigint; max_id bigint;
BEGIN
SELECT max(id),min(id) INTO max_id,min_id FROM opportunities;
FOR j IN min_id..max_id BY page LOOP
UPDATE opportunities SET sec_type = 'Unsec'
FROM opportunities AS opp
INNER JOIN accounts AS acc
ON opp.account_id = acc.id
WHERE acc.borrower = true
AND opp.sec_type IS NULL
AND opp.id >= j AND opp.id < j+page;
COMMIT;
END LOOP;
END; $$;
Second:
DO $$
DECLARE
page int := 10000;
min_id bigint; max_id bigint;
BEGIN
SELECT max(id),min(id) INTO max_id,min_id FROM opportunities;
FOR j IN min_id..max_id BY page LOOP
UPDATE opportunities AS opp
SET sec_type = 'Unsec'
FROM accounts AS acc
WHERE opp.account_id = acc.id
AND opp.sec_type IS NULL
AND acc.borrower = true
AND opp.id >= j AND opp.id < j+page;
COMMIT;
END LOOP;
END; $$;
WORKS PERFECT!!!
POSTGRE SQL - UPDATE With a JOIN
BELOW CODE - Check the positioning of columns and IDs as below:
If you place it exactly as below, then only it will work!
---IF you want to update FIRST table
UPDATE table1
SET attribute1 = table2.attribute1
FROM table2
WHERE table2.product_ID = table1.product_ID;
OR
---IF you want to update SECOND table
UPDATE table2
SET attribute1 = table1.attribute1
FROM table1
WHERE table1.product_ID = table2.product_ID;
My query is working but it takes time to display the data. Can you help me to make it quick.
$sql="SELECT allinvty3.*, stock_transfer_tb.* from stock_transfer_tb
INNER JOIN allinvty3 on stock_transfer_tb.in_code = allinvty3.in_code
where stock_transfer_tb.in_code NOT IN (SELECT barcode.itemcode from barcode where stock_transfer_tb.refnumber = barcode.refitem)";
I would recommend using the following query:
SELECT
a.*,
s.*
FROM stock_transfer_tb s
INNER JOIN allinvty3 a
ON s.in_code = a.in_code
WHERE
NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM barcode b
WHERE s.refnumber = b.refitem AND s.in_code = b.itemcode);
If this still doesn't give you the performance you want, then you should look into adding indices on all columns involved in the join and where clause.
In SQL Server, I know for sure that the following query;
SELECT things.*
FROM things
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT thingreadings.thingid, reading
FROM thingreadings
INNER JOIN things on thingreadings.thingid = things.id
ORDER BY reading DESC LIMIT 1) AS readings
ON things.id = readings.thingid
WHERE things.id = '1'
Would join against thingreadings only once the WHERE id = 1 had restricted the record set down. It left joins against just one row. However in order for performance to be acceptable in postgres, I have to add the WHERE id= 1 to the INNER JOIN things on thingreadings.thingid = things.id line too.
This isn't ideal; is it possible to force postgres to know that what I am joining against is only one row without explicitly adding the WHERE clauses everywhere?
An example of this problem can be seen here;
I am trying to recreate the following query in a more efficient way;
SELECT things.id, things.name,
(SELECT thingreadings.id FROM thingreadings WHERE thingid = things.id ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1),
(SELECT thingreadings.reading FROM thingreadings WHERE thingid = things.id ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1)
FROM things
WHERE id IN (1,2)
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!15/a172c/2
Not really sure why you did all that work. Isn't the inner query enough?
SELECT t.*
FROM thingreadings tr
INNER JOIN things t on tr.thingid = t.id AND t.id = '1'
ORDER BY tr.reading DESC
LIMIT 1;
sqlfiddle demo
When you want to select the latest value for each thingID, you can do:
SELECT t.*,a.reading
FROM things t
INNER JOIN (
SELECT t1.*
FROM thingreadings t1
LEFT JOIN thingreadings t2
ON (t1.thingid = t2.thingid AND t1.reading < t2.reading)
WHERE t2.thingid IS NULL
) a ON a.thingid = t.id
sqlfiddle demo
The derived table gets you the record with the most recent reading, then the JOIN gets you the information from things table for that record.
The where clause in SQL applies to the result set you're requesting, NOT to the join.
What your code is NOT saying: "do this join only for the ID of 1"...
What your code IS saying: "do this join, then pull records out of it where the ID is 1"...
This is why you need the inner where clause. Incidentally, I also think Filipe is right about the unnecessary code.
I've got two tables in my database. One of them, 'orders', contains a set of columns with an integer which represents what the order should contain (like 5 of A and 15 of B). The second table, 'production_work', contains those same order columns, and a date, so whenever somebody completes part of an order, I track it.
So now i need a fast way to know which orders are completed, and I'm hoping to avoid a 'completed' table on the first column as orders are editable and it's just more logic to keep correct.
This query works, but it's horribly written. What's a better way to do this? There are actually 12 of these columns that go into this query...I'm just showing 3 of them for the example.
SELECT *
FROM orders o
WHERE ud = (SELECT SUM(ud) FROM production_work WHERE order_id = o.ident)
AND dp = (SELECT SUM(dp) FROM production_work WHERE order_id = o.ident)
AND swrv = (SELECT SUM(swrv) FROM production_work WHERE order_id = o.ident)
select o.*
from
orders o
inner join
(
select order_id, sum(ud) as ud, sum(dp) as dp, sum(swrv) as swrv
from production_work
group by order_id
) pw on o.ident = pw.order_id
where
o.ud = pw.ud
and o.dp = pw.dp
and o.swrv = pw.swrv
I'm not sure what this type of query is called so I've been unable to search for it properly. I've got two tables, Table A has about 10,000 rows. Table B has a variable amount of rows.
I want to write a query that gets all of Table A's results but with an added column, the value of that column is a boolean that says whether the result also appears in Table B.
I've written this query which works but is slow, it doesn't use a boolean but rather a count that will be either zero or one. Any suggested improvements are gratefully accepted:
SELECT u.number,u.name,u.deliveryaddress,
(SELECT COUNT(productUserid)
FROM ProductUser
WHERE number = u.number and productid = #ProductId)
AS IsInPromo
FROM Users u
UPDATE
I've run the query with actual execution plan enabled, I'm not sure how to show the results but various costs are:
Nested Loops (left semi join): 29%]
Clustered Index scan (User Table): 41%
Clustered Index Scan (ProductUser table): 29%
NUMBERS
There are 7366 users in the users table and currently 18 rows in the productUser table (although this will change and could be in the thousands)
You can use EXISTS to short circuit after the first row is found rather than COUNT-ing all matching rows.
SQL Server does not have a boolean datatype. The closest equivalent is BIT
SELECT u.number,
u.name,
u.deliveryaddress,
CASE
WHEN EXISTS (SELECT *
FROM ProductUser
WHERE number = u.number
AND productid = #ProductId) THEN CAST(1 AS BIT)
ELSE CAST(0 AS BIT)
END AS IsInPromo
FROM Users u
RE: "I'm not sure what this type of query is called". This will give a plan with a semi join. See Subqueries in CASE Expressions for more about this.
Which management system are you using?
Try this:
SELECT u.number,u.name,u.deliveryaddress,
case when COUNT(p.productUserid) > 0 then 1 else 0 end
FROM Users u
left join ProductUser p on p.number = u.number and productid = #ProductId
group by u.number,u.name,u.deliveryaddress
UPD: this could be faster using mssql
;with fff as
(
select distinct p.number from ProductUser p where p.productid = #ProductId
)
select u.number,u.name,u.deliveryaddress,
case when isnull(f.number, 0) = 0 then 0 else 1 end
from Users u left join fff f on f.number = u.number
Since you seem concerned about performance, this query can perform faster as this will cause index seek on both tables versus an index scan:
SELECT u.number,
u.name,
u.deliveryaddress,
ISNULL(p.number, 0) IsInPromo
FROM Users u
LEFT JOIN ProductUser p ON p.number = u.number
WHERE p.productid = #ProductId