I have a book catalog where some books have more than one author, hence
I've made a one-to-many table where I have the book isbn matched up to
the author id.
I have a table called books that has the book title, etc. and an author
table that has the author info. I join these to on the book_to_author
table that has two columns, the isbn and the author id, where they match
up.
Now I want to do a search that pulls up all the titles written by one
author, so that if someone sees a book they like on our site, and they
want to pull up all the titles by that author, they click on the authors
name and all the titles they have written now appear on a scroll out
page.
I'm confused about how to write the join statements given the three
tables. So how would I write this?
Thanks for your help,
Bill
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
I have been changing the placement of the brackets in the SELECT after the JOIN but keet getting error messages (table "RE_1" not present, error on "ON" or befor "LEFT"). Here is the command:
SELECT TR_1.*, RE_1.* FROM (SELECT TR_1.ACCOUNT, TR_1.ACTIVITY,TR_1.DONOR,TR_1.COSTCENTER,SUM(CASE WHEN TR_1.TTYPE = 'U' THEN TR_1.AmountLCU*-1 ELSE 0 END) AS Budget,SUM(CASE WHEN TR_1.TTYPE <> 'U' THEN TR_1.AmountLCU*-1 ELSE 0 END) AS Actual,TR_1.TransactionDate TR_1 Date, YEAR(TR_1.TransactionDate) TR_1 Year FROM scalaDB.dbo.A_GL0601_PREVIOUS AS TR_1 WHERE NOT (TR_1.TTYPE='' OR TR_1.TTYPE='a' OR TR_1.TTYPE='c') AND NOT (TR_1.COSTCENTER=N'' OR TR_1.COSTCENTER=N'0000') AND ((TR_1.ACCOUNT>=N'26' AND TR_1.ACCOUNT<N'7100') OR (TR_1.ACCOUNT>N'7100' AND TR_1.ACCOUNT<=N'7999')) GROUP BY TR_1.COSTCENTER,TR_1.ACCOUNT,TR_1.ACTIVITY,TR_1.DONOR,TR_1.TransactionDate) LEFT OUTER JOIN ((SELECT RE_1.ACT RE-ACT,RE_1.DONOR RE-DONOR,RE_1.CC RE-CC,YEAR(RE_1.DTE) RE-1 Year,RE_1.SYMBOL,RE_1.DTE,RE_1.SPLIT_AMOUNT AS RE Split in CHF,RE_1.FOREIGN_AMOUNT AS RE Foreign Amnt FROM scalaDB.dbo.RE_Donor_Gift) RE_1) ON TR_1.COSTCENTER=RE_1.CC AND TR_1.DONOR=RE_1.DONOR AND TR_1.ACTIVITY=RE_1.ACT AND TR_1 Year=RE-1 Year
I have two tables, one is a minimal details, the other is a full details. I'm trying to join the two based on a parameter I'll be passing in later. It SHOULD return 5 rows, but instead its multiplying the entire full details table by 5, and giving me roughly 500,000 rows.
Here is my query (i is the min details, d is the full). Actually I'm not doing a join as of now, just trying to get this to work, I'll convert it later....
Code:
select i.parcel_id,i.building_number,d.parcel_id from site_info i,site_desc d where i.building_number in (select building_number from site_desc where building_number='523b')
I have two tables. Table A has 2162 rows and table B has 101 rows. There isn't any join keys that I can join on these two tables. But I need everything from table B and only one column (Col1) from table A. It will result in a cross join and retruns 218362 (2162 * 101) rows, which is correct. But this takes about 30 seconds to complete. Any workaround to accomplish this? Optimizer shows no predicate joins on the Nested Loop and to me it is correct.
Here is what I have so far.
SELECT B.*, A.col1 FROM TableB B LEFT JOIN TABLE A A ON 1 = 1
Hi again, all...here I am again, trying to work on my CloseIndex thang again...Same subject, different tack...
Basically, I have two tables...for the sake of simplicity, let me define them as:
PortfolioIndex PortfolioID int CreateDate smalldatetime CloseIndex float
PortfolioPerformance PortfolioID int CreateDate smalldatetime PrevDate smalldatetime DailyPerChg float
UPDATE PortfolioIndex SET CloseIndex = CASE WHEN PPI.CloseIndex IS NULL THEN 100.00 ELSE (PPI.CloseIndex + (PPI.CloseIndex * PP.DailyPerChg / 100)) END FROM PortfolioIndex AS P INNER JOIN PortfolioIndex AS PPI on (P.PortfolioID = PPI.PortfolioID), PortfolioPerformance AS PP WHERE (P.PortfolioID = PP.PortfolioID) AND ((P.CreateDate = PP.CreateDate) AND (P.CreateDate = @CreateDate) AND (PPI.CreateDate = PP.PrevDate))
What I am trying to do is...get the previous day's portfolioIndex row's CloseIndex and create a new one for today's row.
As ugly as it is, it works when I execute it in the SQL Query Analyzer, but when I try to create the stored procedure, the syntax check complains that the PortfolioIndex reference at the UPDATE... part is AMBIGUOUS...yet when I define it in the SP as P.PortfolioIndex, it fails at run time saying there is no object named P.PortfolioIndex (well, of course there isn't!).
How can I make this work (and if possible, make it prettier too! *L* ;) )
So I know that each employee should have 2 Type 1's and 4 Type 2's. I hope that makes sense, I'm trying to change my data because ours is very proprietary.
I need to identify employees who do not have all their stages and list the stages they are missing. The final report should only have employees and the associated missing types and stages.
I do a count by employee to see how many types they have to identify the ones that don't have all the types and stages.
My count would look something like this:
EmployeeNumber Type Total 100, 1, 2 100, 2, 2 200, 1, 1 200 1, 2
So I know that employee 100 should have 2 more Type 2's and employee 200 should have 1 more Type 1 and 2 more Type 2's based on the required list.
The problem I'm having is taking that required list and joining to my list of employees with missing data and pulling from it the types and stages that are missing by employee. I thought I could get a list of the employees that are missing information and right join it to the required list where the missing records would be nulls. But, that doesn't work because some employees do have the required information and so I'm not getting any nulls returned.
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.
