I'm a Power Builder (PB) developer. I've migrated PB from 10 .5 to 12.5, and now I need to migrate the stored procedures from SQL Server 2005 to 2012 as well.I get a invalid expression error when I run the procedures in Power Builder. We have previously been using a lower database compatibility model in 2005, which allowed the procedures to work there. I have learned that =* is the old way to write right outer joins.
For example:
select *
from A
right outer join
B
[code]...
Is my approach correct, or do I need to add a WHERE condition to it? I don't have access to the production database to check. The development database is in SQL Server 2012 too, sO I will not be able to run the old version there to check.
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.
Can anyone please tell me how can i convert the following query in the old join syntax to the new join syntax so that it returns the same results? I tried converting it, but it returns different reuslts. please help me as it is urgent.
OLD Syntax: ===========
SELECT .................... ..<column_list>...... FROM dbo.ASSET_BOOK AL1, dbo.ASSET_BOOK AL2, dbo.ASSET_HEAD AL3, dbo.ASSET_BOOK AL4, dbo.ASSET_BOOK AL5 WHERE (AL1.U##ASSETNO =* AL3.U##ASSETNO AND AL3.U##ASSETNO *= AL2.U##ASSETNO AND AL4.U##ASSETNO =* AL3.U##ASSETNO AND AL3.U##ASSETNO *= AL5.U##ASSETNO) AND (AL1.U##BOOKCODE = 'USGAAP' AND AL2.U##BOOKCODE = 'CONSUSD' AND AL4.U##BOOKCODE = 'ICP' AND AL5.U##BOOKCODE = 'STETC' )
New Syntax: ===========
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM dbo.ASSET_BOOK AL1 RIGHT JOIN dbo.ASSET_HEAD AL3 on AL1.U##ASSETNO = AL3.U##ASSETNO LEFT JOIN dbo.ASSET_BOOK AL2 on AL3.U##ASSETNO = AL2.U##ASSETNO RIGHT JOIN dbo.ASSET_BOOK AL4 on AL4.U##ASSETNO = AL3.U##ASSETNO LEFT JOIN dbo.ASSET_BOOK AL5 on AL3.U##ASSETNO = AL5.U##ASSETNO AND AL1.U##BOOKCODE = 'USGAAP' AND AL2.U##BOOKCODE = 'CONSUSD' AND AL4.U##BOOKCODE = 'ICP' AND AL5.U##BOOKCODE = 'STETC'
I am now working on SQL Server 2000 having had previous experience ona different database. Both of the OUTER JOIN syntaxes is differentfrom what I am used to and I am finding it slightly confusing.For example, given two tables :wipm_tbl_miwipm_tbl_wi (which may not have data in it for a specific record thatexists in the first table.)If I use the old style syntax :SELECT mi.workitemid, wi.datavalueFROM wipm_tbl_mi mi , wipm_tbl_wi wiWHERE mi.workitemid *= wi.workitemidAND mi.workitemid = 1AND wi.dataname = 'XXX'I get back1,NULLwhen there is no matching record in wipm_tbl_wi, which is what Iexpect.However, if I try to use the SQL-92 syntaxSELECT mi.workitemid, wi.datavalueFROM wipm_tbl_mi miLEFT OUTER JOIN wipm_tbl_wi wiON mi.workitemid = wi.workitemidWHERE mi.workitemid = 1AND wi.dataname = 'XXX'I don't get anything back. Please can someone help me understand whatis wrong with the bottom query.Thank you,Martin
I apologize if this has been asked before- I searched google but couldnot find a concrete answer.I recently inherited a database whose t-sql code is written in a formatthat I find difficult to read (versus the format I have used foryears).I have tested the queries below using the SQL Profiler, and both haveidentical costs. Is there any advantage of one format over the other?Format 1:---------SELECT *FROM Customers c, Orders oWHERE c.CustomerID = o.CustomerIDFormat 2:---------SELECT *FROM Customers cINNER JOIN Orders AS o ON c.CustomerID = o.CustomerIDIs it just a matter of personal preference? Does the same hold true forusing OUTER JOIN versus the old *= or =* ?Thanks,Matt
I'm trying to run a SELECT on 3 tables: Class, Enrolled, Waiting. I want to select the name of the class, the count of the students enrolled, and the count of the students waiting to enroll.
My current query...
SELECT Class.Name, COUNT(Enrolled.StudentID) AS EnrolledCount, COUNT(Waiting.StudentID) AS WaitingCount FROM Class LEFT OUTER JOIN
Enrolled ON Class.ClassID = Enrolled.ClassID LEFT OUTER JOIN
Waiting ON Class.ClassID = Waiting.ClassID GROUP BY Class.Name
...results in identical counts for enrolled and waiting, which I know to be incorrect. Furthermore, it appears that the counts are being multiplied together (in one instance, enrolled should be 14, waiting should be 2, but both numbers come back as 28).
If I run this query without one of the joined tables, the counts are accurate. The problem only occurs when I try to pull counts from both the tables.
Can anyone find the problem with my query? Should I be using something other than a LEFT OUTER JOIN?
I need to convert a OUTER APPLY hint in my query to LEFT JOIN.How it can be done?The code which is presently is this: OUTER APPLY Additional Fields. nodes('/AdditionalFields/AdditionalField') AS AF (C)
I have tried all possible combinations of changing this. But was not able to make the results tally.I am giving you a part of the query, there are others queries involving 4 tables which are based on this same temporary table query.
SELECT c.juris_id, b.jrnl_mo_yr FROM a_trueup a, #t_mths b, r_rj c WHERE a.rlzd_mo_yr =* b.jrnl_mo_yr AND a.juris_id =* c.juris_id
[code]....
I tried using left outer join as mentioned in blogs but got a different result (14 rows).I also used set null off/on options but no luck ..
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 a service that inserts some rows into a parent table (P) and child table (C). This operation is atomic and performed within a transaction.
We also have a service that queries these tables such that rows are (should only be) returned from P where there are no children for that parent.
The SQL that performs this is simplified below:
SELECT P.SomeCol FROM P LEFT OUTER JOIN C ON P.PKofP_Value = C.PkofP_Value WHERE C.PkofPValue IS NULL AND P.SomeOtherCol=0
Our expectation is that the query service should only return rows from P where there are no rows in C.
However, this seems not to be the case, and occasionally we find that rows from P are returned where there are matching rows in C.
We are sure that the process that inserts rows into P and C does so within a single transaction.
We have traced this with SQLTrace and can see the txn stag and committing and all operations using the same transactionid within the transaction.
We are running the default isolation level committed.
In SQLTrace we can see the query process start, the inserter process start and complete and then the query process continue (after presumably being blocked).
So how can the query process "miss" the child rows and return the parent from the above query?
Is it possible that, in this isolation level, the inserter process can block the query process such that when the inserter process commits and when the query process continues it does not see the child rows inserted because they were inserted in the table/index "behind" where the query process has already read - some kind of phantom phenomenon?
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
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)
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 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?
) ) ) ) ) AS timeType, Sum([2007_hours].Hours) AS SumOfHours from................
how can you convert it to sql syntax
I need to have a nested If statment which I can't do in sql (in sql I have to have select and from Together for example ( I can't do this in sql): select ID, FName, LName if(SUBSTRING(FirstName, 1, 4)= 'Mike') Begin Replace(FirstNam,'Mike','MikeTest') if(SUBSTRING(LastName, 1, 4)= 'Kong') Begin Replace(LastNam,'Kong,'KongTest') if(SUBSTRING(Address, 1, 4)= '1245') Begin ......... End End
end
Case Statement might be the solution but i could not do it.
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,
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
Forgive the noob question, but i'm still learning SQL everyday and was wondering which of the following is faster? I'm just gonna post parts of the SELECT statement that i've made changes to:
INNER JOIN Facilities f ON e.Facility = f.FacilityID AND f.Name = @FacilityName
OR
WHERE f.Name = @FacilityName
My question is whether or not the query runs faster if i put the condition within the JOIN line as opposed to putting in the WHERE line? Both ways seems to return the same results but the time difference between methods is staggering? Putting the condition within the JOIN line makes the query run about 3 times faster?
Again, forgive my lack of understanding, but could someone agree or disagree and give me the cliff-notes version of why or why not?
Oi! What follows is a hypothetical situation, but it is a totally analogous to a real problem Im having, but provides an easier model to understand.
Imagine that you have database-driven battleship game and its time to render the board. Also imagine that you have to render more than one board and that the ships are all the size of one point on the grid.
One sql result you need is a list of all the points on the grid, regardless of whether or not there is a ship on it. This will make rendering much easier for you, because you can simply look at the record index to determine if a ship is present. The data that is stored about the position of the ships consists of one record containing the grid index and ship name.
One possible way to retrieve this data is to build a table that you will not change which contains a record for each point on the grid. Is it possible to union or join on this table to retrieve a list of results that contain both unoccupied locations and occupied ones?
Here is what I've come up with, but it contains results that have a null location when there are no ship records:
SELECT Grids.GridID, Ships.GridLocation, Ships.Name FROM Grids FULL OUTER JOIN Ships ON Ships.GridID = Grids.GridID WHERE Grids.PlayerID = 1
UNION-- (**not** UNION ALL)
SELECT Grids.GridID, GridLocations.GridLocation, (SELECT ShipName FROM Ships WHERE GridID = Grids.GridID AND GridLocation = GridLocations.GridLocation) FROM GridLocations, Grids WHERE Grids.PlayerID = 1
The following query doesn't work, it display 1 in leads column instead of 0:
select t.Tdate, count(l.id) as Leads, sum(t.shown) as Views from tracking t left outer join Leads l on r.clientid = t.clientid where l.clientid = 101 and l.Ldate >= 'April 2,2004' and t.Tdate >= 'April 2,2004' group by t.Tdate
The problem is that the Task data in tblLookup consists only of the first 5 chars of the same kind of data in tblRecords (e.g., if a field on that record in tblRecords says "BILLYGOAT", that field in tblLookup is entered only as "BILLY").
I am having problems with an outer join statement. I have written a procedure that tests a table for missing and corrupt data and to test my procedure, I take a table with 100% correct entries and corrupt them by hand. Then I test if my repaird data is looking like the correct data did. To do the test, I copy the correct data into a temp table "copy", join it with the "repaired" table and check if any fields look different. The problem is, that i don't get the missing data. The statement is looking like this:
select o.*,'#',k.* from repaired o right outer join copy k on (str(o.a) + 'A' + str(o.b) + 'A' + str(o.c) =str(k.a)+ 'A' + str(k.b) + 'A' + str(k.c) ) where o.D<>k.D or o.E<>k.E or o.F<>k.F or ...
I have dont the concatenation because I thougt, that a join with 3 fields could be responsible for not finding the missing data in table "copy". Before that it looked like:
... on (o.a=k.a and o.b=o.b and o.c = k.c) where ...
In table "copy" is a record missing that is in table "repaired". Why is my statement not printingout that missing record? Shouldn't be an outer join exactly what I have to use for finding missing data?
I want to see all of the Entity records with their corresponding Address and Phone records. (select e.name, a.street, a.zip, p.phone_number)But only show the Address record for that Entity if the mailing_flag is 'Y' and I only want to see the Top 1 Phone record where the phone_type_key = 'Home'. If the above criteria isn't met I just want to see nulls for the Address and Phone records.
My problem is getting ALL the Entity records to return. It only wants to give me the Entity records that have Address or Phone associated with them. That and somehow showing the Top 1 phone record for the Entity are my issues.
I have the following script which is *sort of working* !!
The problem I have is that I need to add an outer join to one of the tables and I don't know where to add it or what the syntax is.
Basically, anyone who has an 'STRA' role in the contacts_roles table does not usually have an email address (shown as communications.notes). However, because I don't have any outer joins in place, the script is ignoring everyone who has an 'STRA' role and only pulling back those with an 'STRE' role.
Any help would be much appreciated as to how and where I put my outer join.
Thanks so much.
Jon
SELECT contacts.label_name, contact_positions.position, contact_roles.role, contact_roles.organisation_number, communications.notes, organisations.status, organisations.name, addresses.address, addresses.town, addresses.county, addresses.postcode FROM bmf.dbo.addresses addresses, bmf.dbo.communications communications, bmf.dbo.contact_positions contact_positions, bmf.dbo.contact_roles contact_roles, bmf.dbo.contacts contacts, bmf.dbo.organisations organisations WHERE contact_roles.contact_number = contacts.contact_number AND communications.contact_number = contacts.contact_number AND organisations.organisation_number = contact_roles.organisation_number AND addresses.address_number = organisations.address_number AND contact_positions.contact_number = contacts.contact_number AND contact_positions.organisation_number = organisations.organisation_number AND ((contact_roles.role In ('STRE','STRA')) AND (organisations.status In ('BRAN','FULL','HOLD'))) ORDER BY organisations.name
Hi i am having problem getting a resultset in a specific format which i wanted
i am suppose to get this:
team_id|Student|student_not_yet_submitted Team 1|A,B,C|A Team 2|D,E,F|NULL
Where (team_id, student) and student_not_yet_submitted are from different tables. Issue of concatenating aside (i am able to do this with java loop), I derived them like this:
1st select=select team_id, student_name from team, student where (....) to get the 1st 2 columns.
To get the 3rd column, my second select is the same as 1st select but it has an additional condition based on results from 1st select stmt (using the team_id passed in)
2nd select=select team_id, student_name from team where (..... and student_name not in (a 3rd query stmt with result based on team_id from 1st select statement))
i am trying to use left outer join on student_name to join the 2 stmt together, but i am stuck because the 2nd select statement (or rather the 3rd inner query) requires input from the 1st. is there a more efficient way of doing this?
Below is my query. I am a relative novice to SQL. I'd like to rewrite this with joins. All should be inner joins except for the last one Aritem to shmast. That should be a left outer join because not all of our invoices (in the Aritem tables) have actually been shipped.
How would I do this? I have already read through 2 SQL books, but the examples they give are much simpler than what I need to do. Here's the Query:
SELECT DISTINCT Ardist.fcacctnum, Ardist.fcrefname, Ardist.fccashid, Ardist.fcstatus, Armast.fcinvoice, Armast.fbcompany, Armast.fcustno, Ardist.fddate, Ardist.fnamount * -1 as fnAmount, glmast.fcdescr, shmast.fcstate, slcdpm.fcompany as CompanyName FROM ardist, glmast, armast, slcdpm, shmast, aritem WHERE Glmast.fcacctnum = Ardist.fcacctnum AND Armast.fcinvoice = SUBSTRING(Ardist.fccashid,8,20) AND Ardist.fnamount <> 0 AND ((Ardist.fcrefname = 'INV' OR Ardist.fcrefname = 'CRM' OR Ardist.fcrefname = 'VOID') AND Glmast.fccode = 'R') AND armast.fcustno = slcdpm.fcustno AND armast.fcinvoice = aritem.fcinvoice AND left(aritem.fshipkey,6) = shmast.fshipno
what is difference between inner join and outer join also right and left join can you explain with simple example(because i m fresher) and the query which are there in previous forum will work for the mainframe environment?
In my (admittedly brief) sojurn as an SQL programmer I've often admired"outer joins" in textbooks but never really understood their use. I'vefinally come across a problem that I think is served by an outer join.-- This table stores the answer to each test questionCREATE TABLE TestResults (studentIdvarchar (15)NOT NULL,testIdintNOT NULL REFERENCES Tests(testId),qIdintNOT NULL REFERENCES TestQuestions(qId),responseintNOT NULL REFERENCES TestDistractors(dId),CONSTRAINT PK_TestResultsPRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED (testId, studentId, qId),)-- This table defines which questions are on which testsCREATE TABLE TestQuestions_Tests (testIdintNOT NULL REFERENCESTests(testId),qIdintNOT NULL REFERENCESTestQuestions(qId),)(Table Tests contains housekeeping information about a particular test,TestQuestions defines individual questions, TestDistractors lists thepossible responses.)In schematic form, the simplest form of my problem is to find all thequestions that haven't been answered. That would be:SELECT tqt.qIdFROM TestResults AS trRIGHT OUTER JOIN TestQuestions_Tests AS tqtON tr.testId = tqt.testId AND tr.qId = tqt.qIdWHERE tr.qId is NULLSo far I think this is pretty straightforward and an efficient solution.Agreed?But my real problem is a little bit more complex. What I really want toknow is "for a given student, on a given test, which questions haven'tbeen answered?"So now I have:SELECT tqt.qIdFROM TestResults AS trRIGHT OUTER JOIN TestQuestions_Tests AS tqtON tr.testId = tqt.testId AND tr.qId = tqt.qIdWHERE tqt.testId = '1' AND tr.studentId = '7' AND tr.qId IS NULLIs this the canonical form of the solution to my problem? It seems tome like it is generating a whole slew of rows and then filtering them.Is there a more elegant or efficient way to do it?-- Rick
