Hello chapsI have a theta join on two tables, a tiddler and a bigun. The tiddler is there to recode the values of a field in my main table. It consists of mutually exclusive ranges corrollated to a new code. I want to keep the data in a table for flexibility however I would like the performance of a case statement. I suspect that SQL Server would be a lot better at this if it knew that the ranges are mutually exclusive. Although I know how to set up a check constraint to enforce this rule SQL Server still will not be able to use this information. The optimiser estimates three rows returned for the clustered index scan - actual rows is 699609 - which equals (number of rows in little table) * (number of rows in big table).BTW - I've been chucking unique constraints at the tiddly table just to see if I can affect execution - I can't.Question:Can I make this more efficient while maintining flexibility or is this just the price of a theta join? I would prefer to avoid dynamic sql please (in reality the full query is pretty complex).Ta!USE tempdbgoSET NOCOUNT ON ------------------------------ SET STUFF UP ---------------------------------IF NOT EXISTS (SELECT NULL FROM sys.schemas WHERE name = N'welovepoots') BEGIN EXEC ('CREATE SCHEMA welovepoots')ENDGOIF EXISTS (SELECT NULL FROM sys.tables WHERE name = N'little_table' AND SCHEMA_NAME(schema_id) = 'welovepoots') BEGIN DROP TABLE welovepoots.little_tableEND IF EXISTS (SELECT NULL FROM sys.tables WHERE name = N'big_table' AND SCHEMA_NAME(schema_id) = 'welovepoots') BEGIN DROP TABLE welovepoots.big_tableENDCREATE TABLE welovepoots.little_table ( recode_this_lower DECIMAL(9, 3) NOT NULL , recode_this_upper DECIMAL(9, 3) NOT NULL , recode_this_recode TINYINT NOT NULL , CONSTRAINT pk_little_table PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED (recode_this_lower, recode_this_upper) WITH (FILLFACTOR = 100) , CONSTRAINT ix_little_table_u_nc UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED (recode_this_recode) WITH (FILLFACTOR = 100) , CONSTRAINT ix_little_table_u_c UNIQUE CLUSTERED (recode_this_lower, recode_this_upper, recode_this_recode) WITH (FILLFACTOR = 100) ) GOINSERT INTO welovepoots.little_table (recode_this_lower, recode_this_upper, recode_this_recode)SELECT 30, 999999.999, 0UNION ALLSELECT 16, 29.999, 2UNION ALLSELECT 1, 15.999, 1CREATE TABLE welovepoots.big_table ( my_id INT NOT NULL , recode_this DECIMAL(9, 3) , CONSTRAINT pk_big_table PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (my_id) WITH (FILLFACTOR = 100) )GOINSERT INTO welovepoots.big_table (my_id, recode_this)SELECT a.number * b.number , CASE WHEN MIN(a.number % 50.5) = 40.5 THEN NULL ELSE MIN(a.number % 50.5) ENDFROM dbo.numbers AS aCROSS JOIN dbo.numbers AS bWHERE a.number <= 650 AND b.number BETWEEN 651 AND 1300GROUP BY a.number * b.number------------------------------ END SET STUFF UP ---------------------------------SET NOCOUNT OFFSET STATISTICS IO ONSET STATISTICS TIME ONSET STATISTICS PROFILE ON--Inefficient but flexible SELECT recode_this , recode_this_recode FROM welovepoots.big_table AS bt LEFT OUTER JOIN welovepoots.little_table AS lt ON bt.recode_this BETWEEN lt.recode_this_lower AND lt.recode_this_upper--Efficient but inflexible SELECT recode_this , recode_this_recode = CASE WHEN recode_this BETWEEN 30 AND 999999.999 THEN 0 WHEN recode_this BETWEEN 16 AND 29.999 THEN 2 WHEN recode_this BETWEEN 1 AND 15.999 THEN 1 END FROM welovepoots.big_table AS btSET STATISTICS IO OFFSET STATISTICS TIME OFFSET STATISTICS PROFILE OFFSET NOCOUNT ON------------------------------ CLEAN UP ---------------------------------IF NOT EXISTS (SELECT NULL FROM sys.schemas WHERE name = N'welovepoots') BEGIN EXEC ('CREATE SCHEMA welovepoots')ENDGOIF EXISTS (SELECT NULL FROM sys.tables WHERE name = N'little_table' AND SCHEMA_NAME(schema_id) = 'welovepoots') BEGIN DROP TABLE welovepoots.little_tableEND IF EXISTS (SELECT NULL FROM sys.tables WHERE name = N'big_table' AND SCHEMA_NAME(schema_id) = 'welovepoots') BEGIN DROP TABLE welovepoots.big_tableEND------------------------------ END CLEAN UP ---------------------------------SET NOCOUNT OFF
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.
Why does this right join return the same results as using a left (or even a full join)?There are 470 records in Account, and there are 1611 records in Contact. But any join returns 793 records.
select Contact.firstname, Contact.lastname, Account.[Account Name] from Contact right join Account on Contact.[Account Name] = Account.[Account Name] where Contact.[Account Name] = Account.[Account Name]
Is there a way to do a super-table join ie two table join with no matching criteria? I am pulling in a sheet from XL and joining to a table in SQLServer. The join should read something like €œfor every row in the sheet I need that row and a code from a table. 100 rows in the sheet merged with 10 codes from the table = 1000 result rows.
This is the simple sql (no join on the tables):
select 1.code, 2.rowdetail from tblcodes 1, tblelements 2
I read that merge joins work a lot faster than hash joins. How would you convert a hash join into a merge join? (Referring to output on Execution Plan diagrams.) THANKS
There is a table called "tblvZipCodes" that contain a zipcode of all cities, area code that are located in that zip code.
The problem I have with the inner join is that there are more than 1 cities in one zipcode code. Is there a way to just return only the 1st row and not return the rest of the rows from the tblvZipCodes in the INNER JOIN query?
Thanks..
Code:
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Year, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Make, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Model, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.ModelType, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Color, dbo.tblvZipCodes.ZIPCode, dbo.tblvZipCodes.City, dbo.tblvZipCodes.County, dbo.tblvZipCodes.State, dbo.tblvZipCodes.AreaCode, dbo.tblvZipCodes.Region, dbo.tblaAccounts.Name, dbo.tblaAccounts.PhoneOne, dbo.tblaAccounts.AccountID, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AcceptedID, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Series, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.BodyStyle, dbo.tblaAccounts.WebSite, dbo.tblaAccounts.SalesEmail, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.EmailTo, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.PhotoURL, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Mileage, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.RawID, dbo.tblvRegions.Name AS RegionName, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.VIN, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.Style, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.StockDate FROM dbo.tblPurchaseRaw INNER JOIN dbo.tblaAccounts ON dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AccountID = dbo.tblaAccounts.AccountID INNER JOIN dbo.tblvZipCodes ON dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.ZipCode = dbo.tblvZipCodes.ZIPCode INNER JOIN dbo.tblvRegions ON dbo.tblvZipCodes.Region = dbo.tblvRegions.RegionID WHERE (CONVERT(char, dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.StockDate, 101) <> '01/01/1900') AND (dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.SoldRawID IS NULL) AND (dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AcceptedID <> - 10) AND (dbo.tblPurchaseRaw.AcceptedID <> - 1) ORDER BY dbo.tblvZipCodes.ZIPCode
hello, i am running mysql server 5 and i have sql syntax like this: select sales.customerid as cid, name, count(saleid) from sales inner join customers on customers.customerid=sales.customerid group by sales.customerid order by sales.customerid; it works fine and speedy. but when i change inner join to right join, in order to get all customers even there is no sale, my server locks up. note: there is about 10000 customers and 15000 sales. what can be the problem? thanks,
I have 2 tables, I will add sample data to them to help me explain...Table1(Fields: A, B)=====1,One2,Two3,ThreeTable2(Fields: A,B)=====2,deux9,neufI want to create a query that will only return data so long as the key(Field A) is on both tables, if not, return nothing. How can I dothis? I am thnking about using a 'JOIN' but not sure how to implementit...i.e: 2 would return data- but 9 would not...any help would be appreciated.
Hi,Just curious. Would you use ANSI style table joining or the 'oldfashion' table joining; especially if performance is the main concern?What I meant is illustrated below:ANSI Styleselect * from a join b on a.id = b.idOld Styleselect * from a, b where a.id = b.idI noticed that in some SQL, the ANSI is much faster but sometimes, theold style looks much better.It's ridiculous to try out both styles to see which is better wheneverwe want to write an SQL statement.Please comment.Thanks in advance.
Hello, everyoneI have one question about the standard join and inner join, which oneis faster and more reliable? Can you recommend me to use? Please,explain me...ThanksChamnap
Where function_code is the function of the area e.g. Auditorium, Classrom, etc, etc. And not all components are available for all functions e.g. Carpeting is available for Classrooms but not Power Plants or Warehouses.
I need to self join the above table to itself on system_code and system_component_code and find out which rows are missing from each side.
A query that I've been banging away at with no success is:
SELECT c1.*, c2.* FROM [dbo].[component_multiplier_table] c1 FULL OUTER JOIN [dbo].[component_multiplier_table] c2 ON (c1.system_component_code = c2.system_component_code) AND (c1.[system_code] = c2.[system_code]) WHERE c1.function_code = '2120' AND c2.[function_code] = '2750' AND (c1.[system_code] IS NULL OR c2.system_code IS NULL);
I added the is null conditions, no joy. I've tried every flavor of outer join w/o success.
Could any T-SQL gurus out there help me figure out how to do this in a set before I start coding
SELECT * FROM a LEFT OUTER JOIN b ON a.id = b.id instead of
SELECT * FROM a LEFT JOIN b ON a.id = b.id
generates a different execution plan?
My query is more complex, but when I change "LEFT OUTER JOIN" to "LEFT JOIN" I get a different execution plan, which is absolutely baffling me! Especially considering everything I know and was able to research essentially said the "OUTER" is implied in "LEFT JOIN".
We have two tables that have somewhat of a parent-child relationship. We are trying to use a SQL-92 outer join that returns the same results as a TSQL *= outer join. The difficulty we are having is that some of the parent records do not have any corresponding child records, but we still want to see those parent records with 0 (zero) for the count. How can we accomplish this with a SQL-92 compliant join (if it is even possible)? In the query results below, we would like the first set of results.
Thanks in advance for any help. -David Edelman
Test script below, followed by results =========================================== create table parent (p_id int NOT NULL) go create table child (p_id int NOT NULL, c_type varchar(6) NULL) go insert parent values (1) insert parent values (2) insert parent values (3) insert parent values (4) insert parent values (5) insert parent values (6) insert parent values (7) insert parent values (8) insert parent values (9) insert parent values (10) go
I have this table called "Playlist_Items". It has different "media types" in it. An MP3 is "1", a video is "2", etc.
I want to make a query that gets all the items in the playlist and gets common properties between them, like the name, user, etc.
The only problem is that the tables aren't normalized, so I have to do something like, if the "MediaType" is 1 then look in the MP3 table and get this column, otherwise if its 2 then look in the video table. Etc.
Hi,I have 2 tables: tblStatements and tblLines (one to many) AnytblStatements record can have many associated records in tblLines.The search criteria is against tblLines (ie tblLines.fldDateofService
Cod_Lingua - Des_Lingua ------------------------------ ITA Italian GER German ENG English FRA French
and another table with product/description
ProductID - Cod_Lingua - Description ------------------------------------------- 1 ITA Mia Descrizione 1 ENG My Description
I've this SELECT:
SELECT Tab_Lingue.Cod_Lingua, Descrizioni_Lingua.Description FROM Descrizioni_Lingua RIGHT OUTER JOIN Tab_Lingue ON Tab_Lingue.Cod_Lingua=Descrizioni_Lingua.Cod_Lingua WHERE Descrizioni_Lingua.ProductID=1
I get these results: ITA - Mia Descrizione ENG - My Description
I don't want this. I'd like to have this: ITA - Mia Descrizione ENG - My Description GER - (null) FRA - (null)