SELECT info_cost.Ac_Year, info_paym.Ac_Year FROM info_paym FULL OUTER JOIN info_cost ON (info_cost.ID = info_paym.ID AND info_cost.Ac_Year = info_paym.Ac_Year) WHERE info_cost.ID=1882 OR info_paym.ID=1882
Thus I have a table of two columns which values either the same or one of them equals NULL:
Ac_Year Ac_Year
--------- -----------
NULL 1999-2000
NULL 2000-2001
2001-2002 2001-2002
2002-2003 2002-2003
Can I create a column in the query to join this two columns???
I have two colums within the same table. The 1st column contains name of products and the second column is used to rename the products so not every row is entered (omly those products we want to rename). I would like to create a new column which updates the name of the products. So if there is no new name it uses the old one, but if there is a new name use that one. I hope this makes sence?
I'm trying to eliminate all records that do not have one of two conditions. I'm using INNER JOIN on a derived "table", not a table in my database. The code below summarizes what I'm trying to do. Please note that this is an extremely simplified query.
---------------------------
SELECT * FROM jobs INNER JOIN ( SELECT contact_id FROM contacts WHERE deleted = 0 )AS ValidContacts ON (jobs.owner = ValidContacts.contact_id OR jobs.assignee = ValidContacts.contact_id)
---------------------------
This works fine when the the "SELECT contact_id FROM contacts WHERE deleted = 0" part returns a small number of records, however when that part returns a very large number of records, the query hangs and never completes. If I remove one of the conditions for the JOIN, it works fine, but I need both. Why doesn't this work?
Another possible solution is if I were to use "WHERE/IN" like this:
---------------------------
SELECT * FROM jobs WHERE owner IN (SELECT contact_id FROM contacts WHERE deleted = 0) OR assignee IN (SELECT contact_id FROM contacts WHERE deleted = 0)
---------------------------
This would work fine, but I don't want to have to run the "SELECT contact_id FROM contacts WHERE deleted = 0" part twice (since in my real code, it is much more complicated and performance is a big issue". Any help would be greatly appreceated.
After working with Oracle (can I say that out loud here? ) databases for a couple of years, our company recently switched to SQL2005. So far I really like it, and the switch has been relatively easy for me. Except for one thing...
I'm trying to find out how to join a subquery on multiple columns. In Oracle it would like this:
select * from #temp1 where (id_1, id_2) not in (select id_1, id_2 from #temp2)
But this doesn't work in SQL-T. I've temporarily solved it by doing this:
select * from #temp1 where id_1+id_2 not in (select id_1+id_2 from #temp2)
I don't like concat solutions for joins though (it always feels 'unsafe' to me). Plus, I can't believe there's no way to solve this.
I've searched the FAQ and BOL but I just can't seem to find the solution. Please help. I feel stupid.
Here's an oversimplified version of a query that I'm writing and wantedto know if there are any performance differences between the two versions.select *from table_a a , table_b bwhere a.col_1 = b.col_1and a.col_1 = 1000versusselect *from table_a a , table_b bwhere a.col_1 = 1000and b.col_1 = 1000All the tests show that they run at the same speed. But I have a verylarge query that joins 5 tables together and I'm trying to get as muchout of it as possible. Currently it runs at 2 seconds which I reallydon't like and would like to get it at under 1 second. So I'm lookingfor every little bit.I've already removed the DISTINCT, which in my test case doesn't doanything, but still took up one second.
I have a one to many relationships each claim we bill for a client has many status. Things like claim sent, claim received by insurance company, claim rejected. There are 80 different statuses all stored in tbl_status and I need to distill into three columns. I currently have the query below that returns only accepted claims and the date claim was released to insurance company.
I am struggling with how to have multiple columns released; paid, rejected each column can be represented by one or more of the 80 status in the status table.
So I want something like this
Select Case status €˜135€™ or €˜111€™ then Y else N AS Accepted Select Case status €˜123€™ or €˜444€™ then Y else N AS Released Select Case status €˜435€™ or €˜909€™ then Y else N AS Aprroved
Select distinct tp.ControlNo, tp.ClaimID, t1.StmtFromDate, sh135.StatusDate from claims.dbo.tbl_Patient tp Join (select tc.claimid, tc.StmtFromDate, from claims.dbo.tbl_Claim tc where (tc.Name = '6296U1' OR tc.Name = '6296H1') AND tc.PayerInd = 'A' AND tc.StmtFromDate BETWEEN '09/01/2006' AND '9/30/2006' AND tc.SystemCode <> -1 -- Deleted AND not exists ( Select * from claims.dbo.tbl_StatusHistory sh where sh.ClaimId = tc.ClaimID AND sh.StatusCode IN('210','844','995','5400','7310','7311','7320','A0','A1','A2','A5','P0','P1','P2','F0','F1','F3','F3F','F4') ) T1 On tp.ClaimID = T1.ClaimId Left join claims.dbo.tbl_StatusHistory sh135 ON T1.ClaimId = sh135.ClaimId AND sh135.StatusCode = '135'
I'm trying to join two columns together to form a new column
My code is basically in the form of can't post the actual since it would be cheating--school assignment
SELECT Column1Name,Column2Name, Column3Name,Column4Name, Column1Name+Column2Name AS NewColumn1 Column3Name+Column4Name AS NewColumn1 FROM OriginalTable
I have Table1 with 2 columns Label_ID and Athlete_ID, I have another Table2 with 3 columns Label_ID, Athlete_ID, Data. I need join this tables so the result table will have the same number of rows as Table1 and have extra column add Data which will correspond to Data in Table2 if Label_ID an Athlete_ID are matched and NULL if no matches found. I have following query which does not produce desired result
SELECT Table1.label_id, Table1.athlete_id, data FROM Table1 LEFT OUTER JOIN Table2 on (Table1.label_id = Table2.label_id AND Table1.athlete_id = Table2.athlete_id)
The end result of this is table with only rows where label_id and athlete_id are matched between tables but no results when they are not. I expected OUTER JOIN to have those result but it's not working for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure it's simple solution but can not figure out myself.
I've a table similar to the one below, with a SKU, Category and Cost, and need using a simple select command, split the cost in two columns one for each category (1,2), I used a self-join, and it works, but it doesn't show values not equal in both categories
Declare @Tmp_SKUCatValue Table( SKU char(7) ,Cetegory Int ,Unit_cost Decimal ); INSERT INTO @Tmp_SKUCatValue (SKU, Cetegory,Unit_cost) Values ('sku-001',1,120)
I have a subscriptions table that has many line items for each record. Each line item has a different type, dues, vol, Chapt.
101 dues Mem 100 101 Vol charity 200 101 chapt CHi 300
I want my end result to have one line item per record id, but I keep coming up with an error. I am pretty sure I am close, but need assistance before I can proceed.
101 mem 100 charity 200 chi 300
Error: Server: Msg 207, Level 16, State 3, Line 2 Invalid column name 'PRODUCT_CODE'. Server: Msg 207, Level 16, State 1, Line 2 Invalid column name 'product_code'. Server: Msg 207, Level 16, State 1, Line 2 Invalid column name 'product_code'.
SELECTp.ID, p.PRODUCT_CODE as Chapt, p.product_code as Dues, p.product_code as Vol from ( SELECT ID, product_code as Chapt, Null as dues, Null as Vol from subscriptions where prod_type = 'chapt' AND BALANCE > 0
union all
SELECT ID, Null as chapt, product_code as Dues, Null as vol from subscriptions where prod_type = 'dues' AND BALANCE > 0
union all
SELECT ID, Null as chapt, Null as dues, product_code as Vol from subscriptions where prod_type = 'vol' AND BALANCE > 0
I would like to compare values in the same table and get the single record with different values in the multiple columns.For table tab1, ID is my key column. If type1 is active (A) then i need to update X else blank on Code1 column and if type2 is active (A) then i need to update X else blank on code2 column. Both type1 and type2 comes from same table for same ID..Below is the example to understand my scenario clearly....
declare @tab1 table (ID varchar(20), dt date, status varchar(1), type varchar(10)) insert into @tab1 values ('55A', '2015-07-30', 'A', 'type1') insert into @tab1 values ('55A', '2015-07-30', 'C', 'type2') insert into @tab1 values ('55B', '2015-07-30', 'C', 'type1') insert into @tab1 values ('55B', '2015-07-30', 'A', 'type2')
SELECT EventID, Role, EventDuty, Qty, StartTime, EndTime, Hours FROM dbo.tblEventStaffRequired;
and SELECT EventID, Role, StartTime, EndTime, Hours, COUNT(ID) AS Booked FROM tblStaffBookings GROUP BY EventID, Role, StartTime, EndTime, Hours;
How can I join the results of the two by matching the columns EventID, Role, StartTime and EndTime in the two and have the following columns in output EventID, Role, EventDuty, Qty, StartTime, EndTime, Hours and Booked?
create table #myfirst (id int, city varchar(20)) insert into #myfirst values (500,'Newyork') insert into #myfirst values (100,'Ediosn') insert into #myfirst values (200,'Atlanta') insert into #myfirst values (300,'Greenwoods') insert into #myfirst values (400,'Hitchcok') insert into #myfirst values (700,'Walmart') insert into #myfirst values (800,'Madida')
-- My Second Data
create table #mySecond (id int, city varchar(20),Sector varchar(2)) insert into #mySecond values (1500,'Newyork','MK') insert into #mySecond values (5500,'Ediosn','HH') insert into #mySecond values (5060,'The Atlanta','JK') insert into #mySecond values (7500,'The Greenwoods','DF') insert into #mySecond values (9500,'Metro','KK') insert into #mySecond values (3300,'Kilapr','MK') insert into #mySecond values (9500,'Metro','NH')
--Third Second Data
create table #myThird (id int, city varchar(20),Sector varchar(2)) insert into #myThird values (33,'Walmart','PP') insert into #myThird values (20,'Ediosn','DD') select f.*,s.Sector from #myfirst f join #mySecond s on f.city = s.city /* idcitySector 500NewyorkMK 100EdiosnHH */
i have doubt on two things
1) How Can i compare the City names, by eliminating 'The ' at the beginning (if there is any in second tale city) between first and second
2) after comparing first and second if there is no match found in second them want to compare with third table values for those not found
--i tried below to solve first doubt, it is working but want to know any other wasys to do it
select f.*,s.Sector from #myfirst f join #mySecond s on replace (f.city, 'THE ','')= replace (s.city, 'THE ','')
--Expected results wull be
create table #ExpectResults (id int, city varchar(20),Sector varchar(2)) insert into #ExpectResults values (200,'Atlanta','JK') insert into #ExpectResults values (100,'Ediosn','HH') insert into #ExpectResults values (300,'Greenwoods','DF') insert into #ExpectResults values (500,'Newyork','MK') insert into #ExpectResults values (700, 'Walmart','PP') insert into #ExpectResults values (800, 'Madidar','')
What I would like to end up with is a pivot table of each account, the trigger code and service codes attached to that account, and the rate for each.
I have been able to dynamically get the pivot, but I'm not joining correctly, as its returning every dynamic column, not just the columns of a trigger code. The code below will return the account and trigger code, but also every service code, regardless of which trigger code they belong to, and just show null values.
What I would like to get is just the service codes and the appropriate trigger code for each account.
SELECT @cols = STUFF((SELECT DISTINCT ',' + ServiceCode FROM TriggerTable FOR XML PATH(''), TYPE ).value('(./text())[1]', 'VARCHAR(MAX)') ,1,2,'')
I am using stored procedure to load gridview,i want to show row specific values in coloumns , as i an working on daily timetable of college and There are three tables Week_Day,Daily_Timetable & Subject.Daily_Timetable has data which has week_day,class_id,Subject_id,Period_No.
Each day has 6 periods and each period is mapped with subject in daily timetable.From below sql i am getting 6 rows of monday.
But i want to show in a row weekname,period1_subject_id(Period_No=1),period2_subject_id(Period_No=2),period3_subject_id.......upto period6_subject_id.
Please see my query below:-
SELECT   Week_Day.Week_Day_name, Subject.Subject_Code,  Daily_Timetable.Period_No FROM     Week_Day LEFT JOIN            Daily_Timetable ON Week_Day.Week_Day_Id = Daily_Timetable.Week_Day_Id and Daily_Timetable.Class_Id=6  LEFT JOIN            Subject ON Daily_Timetable.Subject_Id = Subject.Subject_Id order by  Week_Day.Week_Day_Id ,Daily_Timetable.Period_No
Usually it is better to include the columns in the index that are in where clause, select list and join.I am thinking that the columns in the selected list is better to keep as index columns and the columns that are in the where clause is better to keep in key columns.Where do we use join column is it better to create as main key column or included column.
Case: Exporting Report to PDF/Printing/TIFF Report: Contains 1 table with 19 Columns. 1 column is static, the other 18 are visible at the users descretion. Report when printed/exported to pdf spans 2 pages naturally, 16 on the first page, 3 on the second, and the column widths have been adjusted to provide a perfect page span .
User A elects to hide two of the columns, and show the rest. The report complies and the viewable version is perfect, the excel export is perfect.. the PDF export on the first page causes every fith column, starting with the last column that was hidden to be expanded to take up additional width. On the spanned page, it renders the first column on that page correctly, then there is a white space gap equal to the width of the hidden columns and then the rest of the cells show with the last column expanded to take up the same width that the original 2 columns were going to take up, plus its width.
We have tried several different settings to see if it helps this issue or makes it worse. So far cangrow/canshrink/keep together have made no impact. It is not possible to increase the page size due to limited page size selection availablility for the client. There are far too many combinations of what the user can elect to show or hide to put together different tables to show and hide on the same report to remove this effect.
Any help or suggestion on this issue would be appreciated
Orders, with OrderID as primary key, a code for the client, and a code for the place of delivery/receipant.
Both the client and place of delivery should be linked to the table:
Relations, where each relation has it's own PrimaryID which is a auto-numbered ID. Now I want to substract my orders, with both the clientcode, and the place of delivery code linked to the relations table, so that for both the name and adress is shown.
I can link one of them by:
InnerJoin On Orders.ClientID = Relations.ClientID, but it's not possible to also link to the ReceipantsID. Is there a way to solve this?
I was writing a query using both left outer join and inner join. And the query was ....
SELECT Â Â Â Â Â Â Â S.companyname AS supplier, S.country,P.productid, P.productname, P.unitprice,C.categoryname FROM Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Production.Suppliers AS S LEFT OUTER JOIN Â Â Â Â Â Â (Production.Products AS P Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â INNER JOIN Production.Categories AS C
[code]....
However ,the result that i got was correct.But when i did the same query using the left outer join in both the cases
i.e..
SELECT Â Â Â Â Â Â Â S.companyname AS supplier, S.country,P.productid, P.productname, P.unitprice,C.categoryname FROM Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Production.Suppliers AS S LEFT OUTER JOIN (Production.Products AS P LEFT OUTER JOIN Production.Categories AS C ON C.categoryid = P.categoryid) ON S.supplierid = P.supplierid WHERE S.country = N'Japan';
The result i got was same,i.e
supplier   country   productid   productname   unitprice   categorynameSupplier QOVFD   Japan   9   Product AOZBW   97.00   Meat/PoultrySupplier QOVFD   Japan  10   Product YHXGE   31.00   SeafoodSupplier QOVFD   Japan  74   Product BKAZJ   10.00   ProduceSupplier QWUSF   Japan   13   Product POXFU   6.00   SeafoodSupplier QWUSF   Japan   14   Product PWCJB   23.25   ProduceSupplier QWUSF   Japan   15   Product KSZOI   15.50   CondimentsSupplier XYZ   Japan   NULL   NULL   NULL   NULLSupplier XYZ   Japan   NULL   NULL   NULL   NULL
and this time also i got the same result.My question is that is there any specific reason to use inner join when join the third table and not the left outer join.
OLEDB source 1 SELECT ... ,[MANUAL DCD ID] <-- this column set to sort order = 1 ... FROM [dbo].[XLSDCI] ORDER BY [MANUAL DCD ID] ASC
OLEDB source 2 SELECT ... ,[Bo Tkt Num] <-- this column set to sort order = 1 ... FROM ....[dbo].[FFFenics] ORDER BY [Bo Tkt Num] ASC
These two tasks are followed immediately by a MERGE JOIN
All columns in source1 are ticked, all column in source2 are ticked, join key is shown above. join type is left outer join (source 1 -> source 2)
result of source1 (..dcd column) ... 4-400-8000119 4-400-8000120 4-400-8000121 4-400-8000122 <--row not joining 4-400-8000123 4-400-8000124 ...
result of source2 (..tkt num column) ... 4-400-1000118 4-400-1000119 4-400-1000120 4-400-1000121 4-400-1000122 <--row not joining 4-400-1000123 4-400-1000124 4-400-1000125 ...
All other rows are joining as expected. Why is it failing for this one row?
I'm having trouble with a multi-table JOIN statement with more than one JOIN statement.
For each order, I need to return the following: CarsID, CarModelName, MakeID, OrderDate, ProductName, Total ordered the Car Category.
The carid (primary key) and carmodelname belong to the Cars table. The makeid and orderdate belong to the OrderDetails table. The productname and carcategory belong to the Product table.
The number of rows returned should be the same as the number of rows in OrderDetails.
Why would I use a left join instead of a inner join when the columns entered within the SELECT command determine what is displayed from the query results?
I have a merge join (full outer join) task in a data flow. The left input comes from a flat file source and then a script transformation which does some custom grouping. The right input comes from an oledb source. The script transformation output is asynchronous (SynchronousInputID=0). The left input has many more rows (200,000+) than the right input (2,500). I run it from VS 2005 by right-click/execute on the data flow task. The merge join remains yellow and the task never finishes. I do see a row count above the flat file destination that reaches a certain number and seems to get stuck there. When I test with a smaller file on the left it works OK. Any suggestions?
A piece of software I wrote starting timing out on a query that left outer joins a table to a view. Both the table and view have approximately the same number of rows (about 170000).
The table has 2 very similar columns, one is a varchar(1) and another is varchar(100). Neither are included in any index and beyond the size difference, the columns have the same properties. One of the employees here uses the varchar(1) column (called miscsearch) to tag large sets of rows to perform some action on. In this case, he had set 9000 rows miscsearch value to "g". The query then should join the table and view for all rows where miscsearch is set to g in the table. This query takes at least 20 minutes to run (I stopped it at this point).
If I remove the "where" clause and join all rows in the two tables, the query completes in about 20 seconds. If set the varchar(100) column (called descrip) to "g" for the same rows set via miscsearch, the query completes in about 20 seconds.
If I force the join type to a hash join, the query completes using miscsearch in about 30 seconds.
So, this works:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER HASH JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE miscsearch = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
and this works:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE descrip = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
But this does't:
SELECT di.File_No, prevPlacements, balance,'NOT PLACED' as status FROM Info di LEFT OUTER JOIN View_PP pp ON di.ram_file_no = pp.file_no WHERE miscsearch = 'g' ORDER BY balance DESC
What should I be looking for here to understand why this is happening?
We are trying to migrate from sql 2005 to 2012. I am changing one of the implicit join to explicit join. As soon as I change the join, the number of rows returned are fewer than before.
INSERT #RIF_TEMP1 (rf1_row_no,rf1_rif, rf1_key_id_no, rf1_last_date, rf1_start_date) SELECT currow.rf0_row_no, currow.rf0_rif, currow.rf0_key_id_no, prevrow.rf0_start_date, currow.rf0_start_date FROM #RIF_TEMP0 currow LEFT JOIN #RIF_TEMP0 prevrow ON (currow.rf0_row_no = prevrow.rf0_row_no + 1)
[Code] ....
the count returned from both the queries is different.
I am not sure what am I doing wrong. The count of #RIF_TEMP0 is always 32, it never changes, but the variable @countTemp is different for both the queries.
