Hello!
I have two tables
table1: table2:
person Manager
---------- -----------------
*id *id
*Manager_id *Name
*Branch *Title
Now I want to select person.* and Mangager.Name, where person.Manager_id=Manager.id.
Ok, that would be easy for me, but the point is, that the column person.Manager_id might be empty or =0 (as integer), and in that case I want to have the person.* data too.
So, something like Select person.*, Manager.id From person, Manager Where person.id=4 AND person.Manager=id=Manager.id doesn't work.
Can somebody explain me how to fix it? I'm using MS-SQL2000 if it is important....
Dear GroupI'd be grateful if you can send me on the right track in achieving this.I have three tables A,B,C outlined as follows:Table: AField: RowIDField: EntityIDField: TypeIdentifierTable: BField: RowIDField: NameTable: CField: RowIDField: NameLet's assume I've the following records:Table A:1,1,02,1,1Table B:1,SmithTable C:1,XYZCorporationThe table joins are as follows:A.EntityID = B.RowIDA.EntityID = C.RowIDI would like to select all records from Table A and display the Names fromeither Table B or Table C, depending on the Field TypeIdentifier.E.g.: SELECT Name FROM A JOIN B ON (A.EntityID = B.RowID) JOIN C ON(A.EntityID = C.RowID) IF TypeIdentifier = 0 SELECT Name FROM B IFTypeIdentifier = 1 SELECT Name FROM CResultset:SmithXYZCorporationIs this somehow possible?Thanks very much for your time & efforts!Martin
I'm trying to join two tables based on a like condition. The first table contains the full IP, e.g. '166.27.12.24' and the second contains a 2 octet range, e.g. '166.27', which I need to join.
I appreciate how difficult it is to resolve a problem without all theinformation but maybe someone has come across a similar problem.I have an 'extract' table which has 1853 rows when I ask for all rows whereperiod_ = 3. The allocation table for info has 210 rows.I have two scripts below. The first script where I specify a period on ajoin, brings back 1853 lines and works. The second script where I specifythe period in the where clause only brings back 1844 rows. I have locatedthe missing 9 rows and they don't look any different to the other 1844 rows.Can someone educate me as to the difference between specifying a conditionon a join and a condition in a where clause.SELECTa.costcentre_,b.nett_,a.*,b.*FROMextract aLEFT OUTER JOINallocation bONa.e_reg_ = b.reg_no_ANDb.period_ = 3WHEREa.period_ = 3--------------SELECTa.costcentre_,b.nett_,a.*,b.*FROMextract aLEFT OUTER JOINallocation bONa.e_reg_ = b.reg_no_WHEREa.period_ = 3ANDb.period_ = 3
Hi, I want to get join of two tables A and B in such a way that all the Data from A for a particular Date should be extracted and then from table B Reqired column should selected against that data (it can be null). But if i use the following query: 1) Select A.*,B.Reqired from A Left Outer Join B on A.Same=B.Same Where A.Date = '1/22/2008' it first joins the Table A and B (A contains millions of records) which takes a lot of time and then where is applied which takes a lot of time. And if I use the following query: 2)Select A.*,B.Reqired from A Left Outer Join B on A.Same=B.Same AND A.Date = '1/22/2008' in this case A.Date = '1/22/2008' has no effect and all the data from the table A comes. I have also tried first making the temp table for A.Date = '1/22/2008' and the joining with B but its cost is same as 1. For this purpose Oracle allows the use of (+) operator like: 3)Select A.*,B.Reqired from A,B Where A.Same=B.Same(+) AND A.Date = '1/22/2008' which means all data from A for '1/22/2008' Plus B.Required against it whether its null or not. Please let me know if there is a way around in MS SQL SERVER 2005. Thanx.
I was having a conversation with another developer about the order that the join conditions are placed. More specifically, about the order the tables are referenced in the join condition. There are two ways to do it, for example:-- Here the table that is referenced first was "declared" first. SELECT* FROM Logon LEFT OUTER JOIN Thread ON Logon.LogonID = Thread.LogonID LEFT OUTER JOIN Message ON Thread.ThreadID = Message.ThreadID
-- Here the table that is referenced first is the table being joined directly above it. SELECT* FROM Logon LEFT OUTER JOIN Thread ON Thread.LogonID = Logon.LogonID LEFT OUTER JOIN Message ON Message.ThreadID = Thread.ThreadID I realize this is not that big of a deal, but I was wondering if anyone had a good/valid reason for doing one versus the other.
Left join on condition has no effect in the left table itself? I have two tables: one named student
studentID studentName -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1 Jom 2 Jim 3 Tom 4 Kate 5 LinDa 6 DaiAnna
The other is grade table
studentID subject grade -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----------- 1 math 90 2 Chinese 90 1 Chinese 80 3 math 98 4 math 76
And I write two SQLs 1: select students.studentName , grades.grade as math_grade from student as students left outer join grade as grades on students.studentID = grades.studentID and grades.subject = 'math' 2: select students.studentName , grades.grade as math_grade from grade as grades left outer join student as students on students.studentID= grades.studentID and grades.subject = 'math'
After execute, the answer is 1: studentName math_grade -------------------------------------------------- ----------- Jom 90 Jim NULL Tom 98 Kate 76 LinDa NULL DaiAnna NULL
2: studentName math_grade -------------------------------------------------- ----------- Jom 90 NULL 90 NULL 80 Tom 98 Kate 76
The math_grade of the second answer is all the grade rows of the grade table. on grades.subjec='math' has no effect. Why SQL will act it like this? I know it's not a bug. But I really wanna know the inside work. Thanks in advance, with very appreciation.
Update WACTS_Inventory_Part_Loc_Tbl SET WIPLT_Part_New_Qty = WIPLT.WIPLT_Part_New_Qty + tmp.MATIN_QTY FROM
WACTS_Inventory_Part_Loc_Tbl WIPLT
INNER JOIN
Temp_MatIn_Data tmp
ON
WIPLT.WIPLT_Part_Number_MSBA=tmp.PARTS_ShortID
WHERE
WIPLT.WIPLT_Location_Code='MF'
I have a Problem with this satment becoz my Temp_Matin_Data_Tmp table contains two records with the same PartNumber that is (ShortId) and the two records have two different quantities.
The WACTS_Inventory_Part_Loc_Tbl has only one Part NUmber Record and the key is the PartNUmber and Location_Code.
Now when the Update Satement runs it updates the qty only from the first record of the temp table and does not update the quantity of the second record from tne source table.
Select SEC.EntryQty from Item.StockEntryChild SEC where SEC.CEntryNo = ( select SEM.EntryNumber from item.StockEntryMaster SEM where SEC.CBranchID=SEM.BranchID and SEC.CEntryNo=SEM.EntryNumber and SEM.MasterID=1 and SEM.isStockIn=1 )
I am looking for a query where in I can have a conditional statement within inner join after ON statement as shown below.
Declare @roleid int select @roleid = roleid from Role where Name ='Admin' select empid,empName,deptName from employee em inner department dm on CASE when @roleid>0 then 1=dm.RoleId else em.RoleId=dm.RoleId end
Using SqlServer :Query 1 :SELECT def.lID as IdDefinition,TDC_AUneValeur.VALEURDERETOUR as ValeurDeRetourFROM serveur.Data_tblDEFINITIONTABLEDECODES def,serveur.Data_tblTABLEDECODEAUNEVALEUR TDC_AUneValeurwhere def.TYPEDETABLEDECODES = 4and TDC_AUneValeur.PERIODE_ANNEEFISCALE_ID = 2and def.lID *= TDC_AUneValeur.DEFINITIONTABLEDECODES_DEFINITION_I DQuery 2 :SELECT def.lID as IdDefinition,TDC_AUneValeur.VALEURDERETOUR as ValeurDeRetourFROM serveur.Data_tblDEFINITIONTABLEDECODES def LEFT OUTER JOINserveur.Data_tblTABLEDECODEAUNEVALEUR TDC_AUneValeurON def.lID = TDC_AUneValeur.DEFINITIONTABLEDECODES_DEFINITION_I Dwhere def.TYPEDETABLEDECODES = 4and TDC_AUneValeur.PERIODE_ANNEEFISCALE_ID = 2The query 1 returns :IdDefinition ValeurDeRetour23 null24 null25 null29 36The query 2 returns :IdDefinition ValeurDeRetour29 36The first result is the good one.How is it that the second query doesn't return the same resultSet ?I've been told about problems comparing NULL ???What is the solution ???Thanks a lot.Damien
I want to join 2 tables, table a and table b where b is a lookup table by left outer join. my question is how can i generate a flag that show whether match or not match the join condition ?
**The lookup table b for column id and country are always not null values, and both of them are the keys to join table a. This is because same id and country can have multiples rows in table a due to update date and posting date fields.
example table a id country area 1 China Asia 2 Thailand Asia 3 Jamaica SouthAmerica 4 Japan Asia
example table b id country area 1 China Asia 2 Thailand SouthEastAsia 3 Jamaica SouthAmerica 5 USA America
Expected output id country area Match 1 China Asia Y 2 Thailand SouthEastAsia Y 3 Jamaica SouthAmerica Y 4 Japan Asia N
Whenever I want help on a query, I get told my design is wrong, So thistime I'm posting a message during the design phase: How am I going toperfectly design the following?We want to be able to track time for users for multiple modules, fornow a Schedule module and a Punchlist module. These modules alreadyexist and there are dozens of other modules which we will add to thelist as well, two or three at a time - so it should be possibly to addto the list of related modules fairly easily.In my mind the natural key is the UserOrContactId (an id for aparticular person), the date the time is for and ReferenceId to themodule it is in, either PunchlistItemId or ScheduleTaskId. I haven'tdone the foreign keys yet and will do that once the table design issettled. The MinutesSpent is going to be the minutes the person spentdoing a particular schedule task or punchlist item, which will beconverted from hours and minutes to just minutes for the database witha constraint for total miuntes per day not being more than 24 hours.Create and Update User/Time is a standard thing we put on all ourtables for auditing purposes. The ForDate will be the date the hourshappen so if the natural key is done right that will take care ofchecking that two entries aren't made on the same day, i.e. the totalhorus should just be updated if an entry exists.The problem is that I can't make the natural key a primary key becauseyou can't have nulls in the primary key, i.e. it will be either aPunchlistItem OR a Schedule Task, but not both for a particular record.In the past I have done something like RefType = 'Schedule', RefId =ScheduleTaskId, but then foreign keys can't be applied.So what's the perfect solution so that I won't get heckled for designwhen I ask a query question about it in a few months? Celko, get it allout of your system - I don't understand database design, blah, blah,blah, but show me the perfect solution.CREATE TABLE [dbo].[TimeSpent]([UserOrContactId] [int] NOT NULL,[ForDate] [smalldatetime] NOT NULL,[PunchlistItemId] [int] NULL,[ScheduleTaskId] [int] NULL,[MinutesSpent] [int] NOT NULL,[Description] [varchar](100) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOTNULL,[Notes] [text] COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL,[CreateUser] [int] NOT NULL,[CreateTime] [smalldatetime] NOT NULL,[UpdateUser] [int] NOT NULL,[UpdateTime] [smalldatetime] NOT NULL) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]GOALTER TABLE [dbo].[TimeSpent] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [CK_RefIds]CHECK (([PunchlistItemId] IS NOT NULL OR [ScheduleTaskId] IS NOTNULL))GO
does anybody know where could i find a driver which would be able to connect database with BCK extension (as i know this is database written in natural language) from SQL Server 2000
does anybody know, is there any possible way to connect to database written in Natural ?? After evaluating everyday backups on that database all i can see is BCK data format. im trying to create datawarehouse running on sql server 2000 and gather all operational data from the systems that are working in my firm. I just managed to get data originating from Interbase and these with dbf and txt format . unfortunatelly my problem with bck data format is still open. As you can see im a beginner with that issue so if anybody could help i would be very gratefull.
I am extremely new to database design, and I ran into a problem that I know comes up often, however has many opinions...
Basically I have a table that is going to have 50+ columns. The natural key on this table is actually 8 columns wide, 4 of them being Varchar columns by default. (varchar(50)'s).
I have added an identity column, (1,1) to the table, however I put the clustered index on the 8 natural keys... My plan is to rebuild the clustered index once nightly when the system isn't in use (after 7 pm).
I know others would say it would be better to have the clustered key on the 1,1 column and then add indexes on the other 8 fields... However I don't quite understand why honestly...
Every single query against this table will use the 8 columns, and will NOT use the Identity column (1,1) because they are calls from other systems that do not know the Identity column....
Therefore if your database is set up for query speed, and every single query has to have a value for 8 columns to get a valid result, does it make sense to put a clustered index over the 8 columns?
If not why? Why is putting a clustered index on an identity column (that will literally never be used in a query) a better solution?
I am using stored procedure to load gridview but problem is that i am not getting all rows from first table[ Subject] on applying conditions on second table[ Faculty_Subject table] ,as you can see below if i apply condition :-
Faculty_Subject.Class_Id=@Class_Id
Then i don't get all subjects from subject table, how this can be achieved.
Sql Code:- GO ALTER Proc [dbo].[SP_Get_Subjects_Faculty_Details] @Class_Id int AS BEGIN
I'm having a problem... maybe it's very simple, but with soo many work, right now I can't think well...
I need to filter rows in a dataflow...
I created a condition spli to that... maybe there is a better solution...
And the condition is: Datex != NULL(DT_DATE)
(Some DATE != NULL)
[Eliminar Datex NULL [17090]] Error: The expression "Datex != NULL(DT_DATE)" on "output "Case 1" (17123)" evaluated to NULL, but the "component "Eliminar Datex NULL" (17090)" requires a Boolean results. Modify the error row disposition on the output to treat this result as False (Ignore Failure) or to redirect this row to the error output (Redirect Row). The expression results must be Boolean for a Conditional Split. A NULL expression result is an error.
I am trying to write an visibility function to have message shown based on two different IIF conditions:
If behavior is to Add a customer ( if message =NAME ALREADY EXISTS, return " NAME ALREADY EXISTS", otherwize return " NAME CREATED")If behavior is to Delete a customer (( if message =NAME DOES NOT EXIST, return "NAME DOES NOT EXIST", otherwize return "NAME SUCCESSFULLY DELETED") I tried the following which doesn't work: =IIF((UCase(First(Fields!Message.Value, "DataSetName")) = "NAME ALREADY EXISTS"), "WARNING: NAME ALREADY EXIST", "NAME CREATED"), IIF((UCase(First(Fields!Message.Value, "DataSetName")) = " NAME DOES NOT EXIST"), "WARNING: NAME DOES NOT EXIST", " NAME DELETED")
I am developing a scientific application (demographic forecasting) and have a situation where I need to update a variety of rows, say the ith, jth and kth row that meets a particular condition, say, x.
I also need to adjust rows, say mth and nth that meet condition , say y.
My current solution is laborious and has to be coded for each condition and has been set up below (If you select this entire piece of code it will create 2 databases, each with a table initialised to change the 2nd,4th,8th and 16th rows, with the first database ignoring the condition and with the second applying the change only to rows with 'type1=1' as the condition.)
This is an adequate solution, but if I want to change the second row meeting a second condition, say 'type1=2', I would need to have another WITH...SELECT...INNER JOIN...UPDATE and I'm sure this would be inefficient.
Would there possibly be a way to introduce a rank by type into the table, something like this added column which increments for each type:
ID Int1 Type1 Ideal Rank by Type
1 1 1 1
2 1 1 2
3 2 1 3
4 3 1 4
5 5 1 5
6 8 2 1
7 13 1 6
8 21 1 7
9 34 1 8
10 55 2 2
11 89 1 9
12 144 1 10
13 233 1 11
14 377 1 12
15 610 1 13
16 987 2 3
17 1597 1 14
18 2584 1 15
19 4181 1 16
20 6765 1 17
The solution would then be a simple update based on an innerjoin reflecting the condition and rank by type...
I hope this posting is clear, albeit long.
Thanks in advance
Greg
PS The code:
USE
master
GO
CREATE DATABASE CertainRowsToChange
GO
USE CertainRowsToChange
GO
CREATE TABLE InitialisedValues
(
InitialisedValuesID int identity(1 ,1) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
I was writing a query using both left outer join and inner join. And the query was ....
SELECT S.companyname AS supplier, S.country,P.productid, P.productname, P.unitprice,C.categoryname FROM Production.Suppliers AS S LEFT OUTER JOIN (Production.Products AS P 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 S.companyname AS supplier, S.country,P.productid, P.productname, P.unitprice,C.categoryname FROM 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?
