Hi Can anybody explain me what is the difference between inner join and intersection?
I prepare a query but it shows the same results then why we need two functions like this to perform same operation
Thanx-Nagu
Hello
Can any one tell me the difference between Cross Join, inner join and outer join in laymans language
by just taking examples of two tables such as Customers and Customer Addresses
Thank You
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.
I needed to get a list of rows from a table that is not present inanother table.My problem lies in the fact that I only want SOME of the rows in table2 used in determining existance. This happens because table 2 containshistorical data (based on report date). Table 1 contains my productionlist.I am able to get most of the code done but cannot seem to incorporatethe reportdate column.Based on the code below my output should be as follows:ReportDate = '20031229'Output = 0 rowsReportDate = '20031230'Output = DIA, 123456789ReportDate = anything elseOutput = QQQ, abcdefghiDIA, 123456789CREATE TABLE [Indices] ([Symbol] VARCHAR(10),[Identity] VARCHAR(10))CREATE TABLE [ClearingIndices] ([ReportDate] DATETIME,[Symbol] VARCHAR(10),[Identity] VARCHAR(10))GOINSERT INTO [Indices] VALUES ('QQQ', '123456789')INSERT INTO [Indices] VALUES ('DIA', 'abcdefghi')INSERT INTO [ClearingIndices] VALUES ('20031229', 'QQQ', '123456789')INSERT INTO [ClearingIndices] VALUES ('20031229', 'DIA', 'abcdefghi')INSERT INTO [ClearingIndices] VALUES ('20031230', 'QQQ', 'abcdefghi')GOSELECTI.[Symbol], I.[Identity]FROM[Indices] ILEFT OUTER JOINClearingIndices CIONCI.[Symbol] = I.[Symbol]AND CI.[Identity] = I.[Identity]WHERE--CI.[ReportDate] = '20031230'CI.[Symbol] IS NULLAND CI.[Identity] IS NULL
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi,
I have got a query for you guys. Can any one temme the difference between
"FROM Table_A LEFT JOIN Table_B" and "FROM Table_B RIGHT JOIN Table_A"
;)
Thanks,
Rahul Jha
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
View 4 Replies View RelatedIs there any difference between explicit inner join and implicitinner joinExample of an explicit inner join:SELECT *FROM employeeINNER JOIN departmentON employee.DepartmentID = department.DepartmentIDExample of an implicit inner join:SELECT *FROM employee, departmentWHERE employee.DepartmentID = department.DepartmentID
View 11 Replies View RelatedWhat is the difference between Logical Join and Physical Join and there Types?
View 6 Replies View RelatedParwej writes "i have one table, fields are
cs_call_id , fromid , toid , body
----------------------------------
101 1 2 fg
101 3 2 df
101 4 2 fd
101 4 1 dfd
101 3 1 w3e
i would like to find
conversation between
2,3,4
means find the row or 2,3,4 (fromid or toid)"
Hello all,
I'm new to SQL and my Teach Yourself in Blah Blah Blah book doesn't index anything helpful to my task. I have a single
TABLE ratings (rid INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, mvid INTEGER, uid INTEGER, rating INTEGER)
with about 100,000,000 rows. I would ultimately like to be able to select rows that are the intersection of two mvid on uid or vice versa -- that is, all rows whose uid is present in the set of rows where mvid=a AND in the set where mvid=b (or vice versa). Something like:
ridmviduidrating
----------------------
1123763
2123314
3123442
4211652
5211764
6211445
7535933
8535762
SELECT * FROM ratings INTO @temp_table WHERE mvid=123
SELECT * FROM ratings WHERE uid IN @temp_table AND mvid=211returns
5211764
6211445
FIRST, I don't know how to accomplish this intersection at all and the only idea I've had is querying the first clause of the intersection and storing it in a temporary/variable table then selecting from that and the original table for the second clause (not that I know how to do this), but I'm afraid this will be very inefficient for the >O(n^2) queries I must perform, so SECOND, should I build derived intersection tables from the results so as to have ~O(1) when repeating the queries later, or will SQL be doing sufficient behind-the-scenes magic? Is there an efficient SQL statement that could generate table(s) of the set of intersections if necessary? Thanks
I'm trying to build dynamic sql from a string passed by a callingapplication. Let's assume for this discussion that the user can pass astring of letters with these logical operators ("and", "or", and "andnot") seperating them. Each letter can be rebuilt into a sub querythat will search for people in a table by their middle initial. Forexample,X and Y(select SSN from tblPerson where MiddleInitial = 'X') UNION(select SSN from tblPerson where MiddleInitial = 'Y')This seems pretty easy with the and operator (UNION) but how can I do"or" and "and not"? I remember from a SQL class I had 10 years agothat there was an INTERSECTION operator but it appears that T-SQLdoesn't support it. The closest option is EXIST and NOT EXIST butthese can not be simply inserted between two sub queries (I think),they require the user of a where clause. It would obviously work inthe example above but in the more complecated example below it wouldn'tbe an easy replacement of the operators and sub queries.X and (Y or J) and not LSo, the bottom line is that I have no problem replacing the letterswith the appropriate sub query but I'm looking for a way to replace thelogical operator with SQL syntax that will mimic the logical operator.I hope this makes sense. : )Will Wirtz
View 7 Replies View RelatedHi,
I have a deadlock situation with index intersection.
Connection1:
Updates a table T1 which has indexes I1 and I2
Connection2:
Selects from T1 (joining many other tables), SQL Server uses index intersection of I1 and I2.
The deadlock error log shows,
Connection1 has exclusive lock on I1 and waits on exclusive lock request on I2
Connection2 has a shared lock on I2 and waits on shared lock request on I1
Connection2 is selected as the deadlock victim.
The transaction isolation level is explicitly set to READ COMMITTED in ADO connection object.
I don't understand why SQL server needs to hold on the shared lock on I1 while waiting for a shared lock on I2.
Is there any index hint to prohibit SQL server from using index intersection other than explictly using INDEX=I1 or I2.
Thanks
Hi all !
I have a table with no keys (temp table) which looks like this :
col1|col2|col3
001|A|.087
001|B|.032
001|C|.345
002|A|.324
002|B|.724
003|A|.088
003|C|.899
001|A|.087
001|A|.234
001|B|.032
As you see, there is some duplicate entries in it. I would like to get a list of all the rows that have the same col1 and col2 BUT different col3 value. The result should return col1=001 col2=A but NOT col1=001 col2=B. I tried a lot of queries with EXISTS, HAVING, etc... but nothing seems to work.
Anyone have an idea how I can do it ?
Lets say that Dealers have ZipCodes, and that a Dealer can have more than one zipCode, and we want the list of dealers that have both 90210 and 90211 zip codes. BUT we don't want any dealers that have only one of the two ZipCodes in question
What I want to do is something like this
Select DealerID from DealerZips where Zip = '90210'
intersection
Select DealerID from DealerZips where Zip = '90211'
but I get this error msg:
Line 2: Incorrect syntax near 'intersection'
The following sql is silly, but it does run without error
Select DealerID from DealerZips
intersection
Select DealerID from DealerZips
So I am pretty sure my problem is with the Where clauses.
help!
Using SQL Server 2008 R2
I'm trying to create a report and chart for a a manufacturing resource's activity for a given period (typically 30-90 days)
Jobs are created for the length of the run (e.g. 4 days). If the weekend is not worked and the above jobs starts on a Friday, the resource's activity needs to show 1 day running, 2 days down, 3 days running without the production scheduler having to make it two jobs. (A job can have multiple interruptions due to downtime). I have the jobs' schedules in one table and the downtimes in another (so think of the downtime as a calendar table--non working hours). Unusually, the end time is supplied with the downtime factored in.
So I need the query to create 3 datetime ranges for this job: Fri running, Sat,Sun down, Mon,Tues,Wed Running. Been going round in circles on this for a while. i'm sure there's an elegant way to do it: I just can't find it. I've found several similar post, but can't apply any to my case (or at least can;t get them to work)
Below is some sample date and expected results. I hope the explanation and example data is clear.
-- Create tables to work with / Source and Destination
CREATE TABLE #Jobs
(
ResourceID int
,JobNo VARCHAR(10)
,startdate SMALLDATETIME
,enddate SMALLDATETIME
[Code] ....
Below is some sample data
|--------------------------J1------------------------------------| running
|----D1-----| |-------D2-------| down
|--J1--|----D1-----|-------J1------|-------D2-------|-----J1-----| result
|-----------------J1-----------------------| running
|----D1-------| down
|-----------------J1-----------------------| |----D1-------| result
SSAS 2008 R2
Is it possible to filter out a measure only at the intersection of Two dimension members? I have a date dimension, Â a Hospital dimension and a wait time measure.
For Example, is it possible to filter out Wait time for Bayside Hospital for the Month of June 2015?
I want Wait time to continue to be displayed for all other months and roll up into the totals without the filtered value.
I'd like to create a report with the folloiwng format:
DATE1 DATE2 DATE3 DATE4 DATE5 [fixed 5 dates across the top, from today to T+5]
THING1 x x x x
THING2 x x x x
THING3 x x x x
THING4 x x x x
my raw data looks like this:
THING1, DATE1, TEXT VALUE 1
THING1, DATE2, TEXT VALUE 2
&c&c.
Now: there may be 0, 1 or several (by which I mean 2-5 max) text values to display at each intersection. If there are zero I'd like it to be blank, if there are one or several, i'd like to display them in a little list within the cell.
Is this possible?
what is difference between outer apply and outer join ,both return rows from left input as well as right input . isnt it?
View 3 Replies View RelatedQuestion is in the subject.
Thanks in advance
-Jamie
hi,
what is the main difference of using join or using exists.
e.g.1.
select t1.id, t1.name from table1 t1
join table2 t2
t2.id = t1.id
join table3 t3
t2.id = t3.id
where
t1.name like '%something'
e.g.2.
select t1.id, t1.name from table t1
where t1.name like '%something'
and (select t2.id from table2 t2
join table3 t3
t2.id = t3.id)
what is the main difference and how does this impact on the output?
thanx
I have two xml source and i need only left restricted data.
how can i perform left restricted join?
I have two select statements, in between select statement taking UNION ALL . I need to avoid the error
Warning: The join order has been enforced because a local join hint is used.
Scenario:
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?
View 4 Replies View RelatedI 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?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI'm using SQL Server 2005.
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?
Thanks,
john
Awesome! I don't alway get the email notification of whoever reply to the posting. I think it only work after I log off of the forum.
Scott
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.
Below is my Implict join query
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 , #RIF_TEMP0 prevrow
[Code] ....
and below is explict join query
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]
Hi guys,
I'll appreciate any help with the following problem:
I need to retrieve data from 3 tables. 2 master tables and 1 transaction table.
1. Master table TBLOC contain 2 records :
rcd 1. S01
rcd 2. S02
2. Master table TBCODE contain 5 records:
rcd 1. C1
rcd 2. C2
rcd 3. C3
rcd 4. C4
rcd 5. C5
3. Transaction table TBITEM contain 4 records which link to 2 master table:
rcd 1. S01, C1, CAR
rcd 2. S01, C4, TOY
rcd 3. S01, C5, KEY
rcd 4. S02, C2, CAR
I use Left Join & Right Join to retrieve result below (using non-ASNI method) but it doesn't work.
Right Join method:
SELECT C.LOC, B.CODE, A.ITEM FROM TBITEM A RIGHT JOIN TBCODE B ON A.CODE = B.CODE
RIGHT JOIN TBLOC C ON A.LOC = C.LOC
GROUP BY C.LOC, B.CODE, A.ITEM ORDER BY C.LOC, B.CODE
When I use Non-ASNI method it work:
SELECT C.LOC, B.CODE, A.ITEM FROM TBITEM A, TBCODE B, TBLOC C
WHERE A.CODE =* B.CODE AND A.LOC =* C.LOC
GROUP BY C.LOC, B.CODE, A.ITEM ORDER BY C.LOC, B.CODE
Result:
LOC CODE ITEM
-----------------------------
S01 C1 NULL
S01 C2 NULL
S01 C3 CAR
S01 C4 TOY
S01 C5 KEY
S02 C1 NULL
S02 C2 CAR
S02 C3 NULL
S02 C4 NULL
S02 C5 NULL
Please Help.
Thanks.
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
But how to do this in SSIS?
Thanks - Ken
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