How To Get Optimized Join
Sep 30, 2006
Hi Experts,
I have following doubts on join condition
Table 1 primary key (id,sub)
Name id sub marks
xxx 61 maths 45
xxx 61 science 50
another table primary key ( id,language)
id language write
61 english yes
61 Hindi no
Output:
Xxx 61 maths 45 english yes
Xxx 61 maths 45 Hindi no
Xxx 61 science 50 english yes
Xxx 61 science 50 hindi no
how to join these tables to get
every information in 2 rows will it possible
xxx 61 maths 45 English yes
xxx 61 science 50 hindi no
please suggest me to right path
thanking u
please mail to me:nallisalmon@yahoo.co.in
View 1 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Jul 21, 2005
Is it some how The following sp can be optimized?
IF @groupID='812846'
BEGIN
IF (SELECT count(*) from Employee where SSN= @SSN and groupID=@groupID) > 0
BEGIN
UPDATE Employee
SET NameLast=@LastName,
NameFirst=@FirstName,
NameMiddle=@MI,
WHERE SSN= @SSN and GroupId=@GroupId
select @EmpId=EmpId from Employee where SSN= @SSN and groupID=@groupID
END
ElSE
BEGIN
insert into Employee (GroupId, NameLast, NameFirst, NameMiddle,SSN)
values (@GroupId, @LastName, @FirstName, @MI, @SSN)
select @EmpId = @@IDENTITY
END
END
else
BEGIN
insert into Employee (GroupId, NameLast, NameFirst, NameMiddle, SSN)
values
(@GroupId, @LastName, @FirstName, @MI, @SSN)
select @EmpId = @@IDENTITY
END
View 8 Replies
View Related
Jan 14, 2007
let said, i have a table which contains a column with value such as:
,1,2,3,4,5,6,
,3,4,5,
,1,2,4,
and then i use the query:
select col1, col2 from table (nolock) where (col3 like ',1,' or col3 like ',3,')
is there any function which can be used to speed up the query or which more optimized one? Maybe something similar to IN(xxxx,xxxx,xxxx)
View 8 Replies
View Related
Jun 13, 2008
I started with this query:
SELECT procs.name as ProcName,
params.name as ParameterName,
types.name as ParamType,
params.max_length,
params.precision,
params.scale,
params.is_output,
params.has_default_value
FROM sys.procedures procs
LEFT OUTER JOIN sys.all_parameters params
ON procs.object_id = params.object_id
LEFT OUTER JOIN sys.types types
ON params.system_type_id = types.system_type_id
AND params.user_type_id = types.user_type_id
WHERE procs.is_ms_shipped = 0
AND params.name = '@DISPOSAL_AREA_NAME'
AND procs.name = 'webservices_BENEFICIAL_USES_DM_SELECT'
ORDER BY procname,
params.parameter_id
Now, all I need from it is the column params.is_output.
I have modified it down to what I need, but I'm wondering if I can remove some of the joins or anything else for better performance without losing the proper results:
SELECT params.is_output
FROM sys.procedures procs
LEFT OUTER JOIN sys.all_parameters params
ON procs.object_id = params.object_id
LEFT OUTER JOIN sys.types types
ON params.system_type_id = types.system_type_id
AND params.user_type_id = types.user_type_id
WHERE procs.is_ms_shipped = 0
AND params.name = '@DISPOSAL_AREA_NAME'
AND procs.name = 'webservices_BENEFICIAL_USES_DM_SELECT'
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 21, 2007
is there a better code for this..?
SELECT phase, stat, subject, CASE WHEN phase = 'Initial/Data Collection' THEN '1'
WHEN phase = 'Screening' THEN '2'
WHEN phase = 'Assessment and Selection' THEN '3'
WHEN phase = 'Placement' THEN 4 END AS PhaseSort
FROM (SELECT subject, stat, CASE WHEN stat = 'Application Received' THEN 'Initial/Data Collection'
WHEN stat = 'Shortlisted' OR
stat = 'For Screening' THEN 'Screening'
WHEN stat = 'For Assessment' OR
stat = 'Passed Initial Evaluation' OR
stat = 'Passed Profiles Exam' OR
stat = 'Passed Technical Exam' THEN 'Assessment and Selection'
WHEN stat = 'For Placement' THEN 'Placement' END AS phase
FROM (SELECT subject, CASE WHEN subject = 'Process Application' OR
subject = 'Application Received' THEN 'Application Received'
WHEN subject = 'Screen Application' THEN 'For Screening'
WHEN subject = 'Phone interview' THEN 'Shortlisted'
WHEN subject = 'Initial Interview' THEN 'For Assessment'
WHEN subject = 'Profiles assessment'THEN 'Passed Initial Evaluation'
WHEN subject = 'Technical Exam and Interview' THEN 'Passed Profiles exam'
WHEN subject = 'background and reference check' THEN 'Passed Technical Exam'
WHEN subject = 'Job Offer' OR
subject = 'Contract Signing' THEN 'For Placement' END AS stat
FROM dbo.filteredtask
WHERE (subject = 'application received') OR
(subject = 'process application') OR
(subject = 'screen application') OR
(subject = 'initial interview') OR
(subject = 'profiles assessment') OR
(subject = 'technical exam and interview') OR
subject = 'background and reference check' OR
subject = 'phone interview' OR
subject = 'shortlisted' OR
subject = 'For Placement' OR
subject = 'job offer' OR
subject = 'contract signing') Phases) stats
ORDER BY phasesort
__________________________________________________
Your future is made by the things you are presently doing.
Andrew
View 6 Replies
View Related
Feb 13, 2008
Any idea how I could do this efficiently?
For example, the SiteName & SLAClass field using select statements each time may bog down the system.
Also, I’d like to feed the CustID and Subject fields from another table call Profile instead of typing the CustID field each time.
The result of this statement is to search for customers in the subject line and if customer is found then add the customer information into the Detail table. The Profile table contains all customer information.
UPDATE [TEST3].[dbo].[Detail]
SET [CustID] = 'Book Fairs' /*fill in with field from the Profile table automatically*/
,[SiteName] = (SELECT distinct([Profile].[SiteName] )
FROM [TEST3].[dbo].[Profile], [TEST3].[dbo].[Detail]
WHERE [Profile].[CustID] = [Detail].[CustID])
,[SLAClass] = (SELECT distinct([Profile].[SLAClass])
FROM [TEST3].[dbo].[Profile], [TEST3].[dbo].[Detail]
WHERE [Profile].[CustID] = [Detail].[CustID])
WHERE [Detail].[CallID] IN
(SELECT [CallLog].[CallID] FROM [TEST3].[dbo].[CallLog], [TEST3].[dbo].[Subset], [TEST3].[dbo].[Asgnmnt]
WHERE [CallLog].[CallType] = 'DREAM' AND
[CallLog].[Subject] LIKE '%Book Fairs%' ) /*fill in with field from the Profile table automatically*/
View 6 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
I have two tables in SQL 6.5 database with identical fields and indexes. Onecontains the data of August 2003 and other July 2003. Now the august tableis larger ( about 40000 more rows ) than the july table but i've noticedthat the same queries perform much faster on the august table than the julytable. Ive tried this with many different queries so i'm wondering whats thereason behind this. Is there a way to optimize a table? Remember , I'm usingSQL 6.5thx
View 4 Replies
View Related
Nov 28, 2007
Hello All,
I have this query that is taking more than 5 minutes to run, granted it involves 7 tables, 4 of which have over 100000+ rows, but there must be a quicker way of executing this.
Code Block
SELECT
ACP.COMPANY_NAME,
WOD.WO ,
WOH.SCHEDULED_DATE ,
WOH.JOB_ADDRESS_1,
WOH.JOB_ADDRESS_2,
WOH.CUSTOMER_CODE,
ARC.CUSTOMER_NAME,
ARC.BILL_TO_CUSTOMER_CODE,
APS.SUPPLIER_NAME,
APC.INVOICE_NUMBER as AP_INVOICE_NUMBER,
APC.INVOICE_DATE as AP_INVOICE_DATE,
APC.DATE_OF_RECORD as AP_DATE_OF_RECORD,
WOD.AMOUNT,
APC.CHEQUE_NUMBER,
WOH.INVOICE_NUMBER as AR_INVOICE_NUMBER,
ARI.DATE_OF_RECORD as AR_DATE_OF_RECORD
FROM
WO_WODDescription_tbl AS WOD
LEFT OUTER JOIN WO_Headers_tbl AS WOH ON WOD.COMPANY_CODE = WOH.COMPANY_CODE AND WOD.WO = WOH.WORK_ORDER_NUMBER
LEFT OUTER JOIN AP_CurrentDetails_tbl as APC ON WOD.COMPANY_CODE = APC.COMPANY_CODE AND WOD.DRILL_DOWN_NUMBER = APC.DRILL_DOWN AND WOD.AUDIT_NUMBER = APC.AUDIT_NUMBER
LEFT OUTER JOIN AR_CustomerMaster_tbl as ARC ON WOD.COMPANY_CODE = ARC.COMPANY_CODE AND WOH.CUSTOMER_CODE = ARC.CUSTOMER_CODE
LEFT OUTER JOIN AP_Suppliers_tbl as APS ON APC.COMPANY_CODE = APS.COMPANY AND APC.SUPPLIER_CODE = APS.SUPPLIER_CODE
LEFT OUTER JOIN ADM_CompanyProfile_tbl as ACP ON WOD.COMPANY_CODE = ACP.COMPANY_CODE
LEFT OUTER JOIN AR_InvoiceDetailCurrent_tbl as ARI ON WOD.COMPANY_CODE = ARI.COMPANY_CODE AND WOH.INVOICE_NUMBER = ARI.INVOICE_NUMBER
WHERE
(WOD.COMPANY_CODE = '01' OR WOD.COMPANY_CODE = '03')
AND APC.CHEQUE_NUMBER <> 'X%'
AND (APC.DATE_OF_RECORD < '20061101' AND ARI.DATE_OF_RECORD > '20061031')
ORDER BY WOD.COMPANY_CODE, WOD.WO
Can anyone give me any suggestions of how I could speed this up?
Also, I have noticed that sqlservr.exe is using more than 1.5GB of the 2GB in the machine while doing conversions from flat files to the database while the CPU is under 3% load, is this action typical of MSSQL2005?
Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Feb 1, 2005
Hi ,
I created a page that list the total of hours, lunch time and expenses for the employees of the company.
I am trying to optimize this stored procedure , but it still takes more than 40 seconds for 50 employees.
select @StartDate As DateLigne, TPerson.Name, TPerson.idperson,
(select sum(coalesce(hours,0) - coalesce(lunch,0)) FROM Thereport
WHERE etridperson=TPerson.idperson AND etridproject=TUserProject.etridproject AND DateDIFF(day, @StartDate, datereport) >= 0 AND DateDIFF(day, datereport, @endDate) >= 0 ) As hours,
(select sum(coalesce(nonbillable,0)) FROM Thereport
WHERE etridperson=TPerson.idperson AND etridproject=TUserProject.etridproject AND DateDIFF(day, @StartDate, datereport) >= 0 AND DateDIFF(day, datereport, @endDate) >= 0 ) As nonbillable,
(select sum((coalesce(miles,0)*@mil)+ coalesce(perdiem,0)+coalesce(supplies,0)+coalesce(airfare,0)+ coalesce( gas,0) + coalesce(autorental,0)+ coalesce(other,0) ) FROM ThereportWHERE etridperson=TPerson.idperson AND etridproject=TUserProject.etridproject AND DateDIFF(day, @StartDate, datereport) >= 0 AND DateDIFF(day, datereport, @endDate) >= 0 ) As Expenses
FROM TUserProject, TPerson
WHERE TUserProject.etridperson=TPerson.idperson AND etridproject =89
Do you have any idea of how I could optimize this stored procedure?
Thanks
View 8 Replies
View Related
Jul 12, 2007
What is the most optimized way to store Hashed values (obtained by Object.GetHashCode() method) in SQL Server?
Thanks.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Aug 16, 2007
Hi,
I am used to writing Sub-Correlated queries within my main queries. Although they work fine but i have read alot that they have performance hits. Also, as with time our data has increased, a simple SELECT statement with a few Sub-Queries tends to run slower which may be between 10-15 seconds. Following will be a simple example of what i mostly do:
SELECT DISTINCT C.CusID, C.Name, C.Age,
(
SELECT SUM (Price)
FROM CusotmerOrder
WHERE CusID_fk = CO.CusID_fk
) Total_Order_Price,
(
SELECT SUM (Concession)
FROM CusotmerOrder
WHERE CusID_fk = CO.CusID_fk
) Total_Order_Concession,
(
SELECT SUM (Price) - SUM (Concession)
FROM CusotmerOrder
WHERE CusID_fk = CO.CusID_fk
) Total_Difference
FROM Customer C
INNER JOIN CustomerOrder CO
ON C.CusID = CO.CusID_fk
......
WHERE (conditions...)
My question is what would be a better way to handle the above query? How can i write a better yet simple query with optimized performance. I would also mention that in some of my asp.net applications, i use inline queries assigned to SqlCommand Object. The reason i mention it that since these queries are written in some class files, how would we still accomplish what i have mentioned above. Kindly could any Query Guru guide me writing better queries. I shall be obliged...
View 9 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
Hello :-)My question is: If I query a partitioned view, but don't know the valuesin the "where x in(<expression>)" clause, i.e.: select * from viewAwhere intVal in(select intVal from tbl1) . Compared to: select * fromviewA where intVal in(5,6).Of course "intVal" is partitioning column.Will this result in an optimized query that searches only the relevanttables?*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 18, 2008
I have a question concerning where to put certain database files for the followinig RAID configurations. The server has 2 RAID configs: 2 hds in a RAID 1 and 4 hds in a RAID 10. The server will host 4 database instances: A replicated db, a Reporting Services db (which technically constitutes 2 db instances) and an application db.
In order to get the best performance, should I put the OS, SQL binary and log files on the RAID 1 config with the data and tempdb on the RAID 10? If not, please explain the best solution. Thank you!
View 3 Replies
View Related
Nov 2, 2007
We have a situation where queries against a partitioned view ignore a suitable index and perform a table scan (against 200+MB of data), where the same query on the underlying table(s) results in a 4 page index seek. I can€™t find any mention of the situation, so I€™m trying a post here.
We€™re running SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition sp2 on Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition sp1 on a two node cluster, and it also occurs on a stand-alone development box with Developer edition. We have four tables, named Options#0, Options#1, Options#2, and Options#3. All are almost identical (script generated by SSMS and edited down a bit):
SET ANSI_NULLS OFF
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Options#0](
[ControlID] [tinyint] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_Options#0__ControlID] DEFAULT ((0)),
[ModelCode] [char](8) NOT NULL,
[EquipmentID] [int] NOT NULL,
[AdjustmentContextID] [int] NOT NULL,
[EquipmentCode] [char](2) NOT NULL,
[EquipmentTypeCode] [char](1) NOT NULL,
[Description] [varchar](50) NOT NULL,
[DisplayOrder] [smallint] NOT NULL,
[IsStandard] [bit] NOT NULL,
[Priority] [tinyint] NOT NULL,
[Status] [bit] NOT NULL,
[Adjustment] [int] NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Options#0] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[ModelCode] ASC,
[EquipmentID] ASC,
[AdjustmentContextID] ASC,
[ControlID] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
) ON [PRIMARY]
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Options#0] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [CK_Options#0__ControlID] CHECK (([ControlID]=(0)))
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Options#0] CHECK CONSTRAINT [CK_Options#0__ControlID]
The only differences between the tables are in the names and in the value defaulted to and CHECKed, which matches the table name (to support the partitioned view, of course).
We receive and load data ever week and every two month, and use an unlikely algorithm to load and manage its availability by running an ATLER on the view (to maintain the access rights defined for the hosting environment). Scripted out via SSMS, the view looks like:
SET ANSI_NULLS ON
SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON
CREATE VIEW [dbo].[Options] AS select * from Options#1 union all select * from Options#3
The problem is that when we issue a query like
SELECT count(*)
from Options
where ControlID = 1
and ModelCode = '2004NIC9'
The resulting query (as checked via the query plan and SET STATISTICS IO on) will get €œpartitioned€?, running against the proper table, but it will ignore the query, perform a table scan, and churn through 200+MB of data. A Similar query run against the underlying table
SELECT count(*)
from Options#1
where ControlID = 1
and ModelCode = '2004NIC9'
(with or without the ControlID = 1 clause) will perform a Clustered Index Seek and read maybe 4 pages.
Analyzing the execution plan shows that the table query work like you€™d think, but for the query against the view we get a Clustered Index Scan, with predicate:
[DBName].[dbo].[Options#1].[ControlID]=(1) AND CONVERT_IMPLICIT(char(8),[ DBName].[dbo].[Options#1].[ModelCode],0)=€™2004NIC9€™
I get the same results when explicitly listing all columns in the view. The code page on the view and tables is the same (as determined by checking properties via SSMS).
Why is the table data column being implicitly converted to the data type that it already is? Why does this occur when working with the partitioned view but not with the actual table? Can this behavior be controlled or modified without losing the (incredibly useful) data loading management benefits of the partitioned view? I€™m guessing (and hoping) it€™s some subtle quirk or mis-setting, please set me on the right path!
Philip Kelley
View 7 Replies
View Related
Feb 18, 2015
I'm just beginning to experiment with memory optimised tables.
I have two sets of near identical tables - one set normal, the other set memory optimised with DURABILITY=SCHEMA_ONLY - and am running test queries against these. When I say that the two sets are "near identical", I mean that they are the same except for the primary keys: for the normal tables these are defined as PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED whereas for the memory-optimed ones they are defined as PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED HASH WITH (BUCKET_COUNT=nnnn) as per the requirements for such tables.
I then run a pair of test queries, again identical but one referencing the normal tables and the other referencing the memory optimised ones.
(The query uses an inner join on three tables with row counts of approx 3m rows, 100000 rows and 5000 rows.)
The query against the normal tables runs noticeably faster than that against the memory optimised ones. To try to find out why, I examined the execution plans. the plan for the memory optimised query suggests that I have a missing index: but of course I can't create this againsty a memory optimised table. Is this a bug or am I missing something? Why the performance between the two should be so different?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Apr 28, 2015
I read this: [URL] ....
Which says you must drop the database to remove the filegroup.
I deleted all the objects and then backed up the DB and restored it and the filegroup is still there.
I was skeptical but some of the comments made me think this might work.
Do I really have to restore from a pre-memory optimized state?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Aug 26, 2014
We are planning to upgrade. We are using Sql 2008R2 now. Which is the better option migrating to SQL 2012 or migrating to 2014?I am thinking 2014 has memory optimized tables and updatable column stored index. So it is better option.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jan 28, 2015
I have this table
CREATE TABLE [Sales].[Test_inmem]
(
[c1] [int] NOT NULL,
[c2] [nvarchar](20) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL,
[ModifiedDate] [datetime2](7) NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [IMDF_Test_ModifiedDate] DEFAULT (sysdatetime()),
[Code] ....
I have to generate 1000000 random records into it. I tried various ways to insert records, but not being a developer could not do it. I hope to make the C1 as a serial number, C2 can be anything, C3 I want to be the timestamp.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jun 11, 2015
How do i find Total allocated space and used space of a memory optimized filegroup?
use memory_optimized_db
Go
select (SUM(size)*8.0)/1024.0 as Space,
FILEGROUP_NAME ( data_space_id ) , type_desc from sys.database_files
group by data_space_id,type_desc;
above query gives "current used size of the container " of memory optimized file group but doesn't give Total space detail.
View 0 Replies
View Related
Sep 19, 2015
I've been having some trouble getting a single-column "varchar(5)" field to reliably use a table seek instead of a table scan. The production table in this case contains 25 million rows. As impressive as it is to scan 25 million rows in 35 seconds, the query should run much faster.
Here's a partial table description:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Summaries_MO]
(
[SummaryId] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[zipcode] [char](5) COLLATE Latin1_General_100_BIN2 NOT NULL,
[Golf] [bit] NULL,
[Homeowner] [bit] NULL,
[Code] .....
Typically, this table is accessed with a query that includes:
SELECT ...
FROM SummaryTable
WHERE ixZIP IN (SELECT ZipCode FROM @ZipCodesForMO)
This query insists on using a table scan. I've tried WITH (FORCESEEK) for example, but that just makes the query fail.
As I've investigated this issue I also tried:
SELECT * FROM Summaries WHERE ZipCode IN ('xxxxx', 'xxxxx', 'xxxxx')
When I run this query with 64 or fewer (actual, valid) ZIP codes, the query uses a table seek.But when I give it 65 or more ZIP codes it uses a table scan.
To summarize, the production query always uses a table scan, and when I specify 65 or more ZIP codes the query also uses a table scan. I'm wondering if the data type of the indexed column (Latin1_General_100_BIN2) is somehow the problem. I'll likely try converting the ZIP codes to an integer to see what happens.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Oct 2, 2014
I have the following setup:
- An MSSQL 2014 Standard server that houses multiple small databases (in excess of a hundred).
- These databases are frequently dropped and restored by an application that uses this SQL Server.
- There is a business need for this setup at this time, so I can't get away from it. Therefore answers like "don't have so many small databases that are frequently dropped and restored" would be somewhat unuseful
This is the problem I have:
- When I connect SSMS 2014 to the server and expand the "Databases" node, it takes forever to display. In comparison, SSMS 2008 connected to SQL 2008R2 server with the same number of databases displays the Databases tree very quickly.
I ran a trace to see what exactly SSMS 2014 is doing. When the "Databases" node is expanded, it runs a query that checks each database for Memory-Optimized Tables (new and wonderful feature of SQL 2014 for sure, but I'm not using it, at least yet). Naturally, when you have to loop through over a hundred DBs, it takes time. Worse yet, if one of these DBs is in process of being restored, the query sits and waits to time out before proceeding to the next DB. Sometimes this causes outright timeouts. Here is the query:
use [MyDatabase]
SELECT
ISNULL((select top 1 1 from sys.filegroups FG where FG.[type] = 'FX'), 0) AS [HasMemoryOptimizedObjects]
To be sure, this is NOT a SQL Server performance issue. This server processes a rather heavy workload and has been doing so for over a month, and the workload completes within expected time limits or better. Even so I've done some basic performance measuring, and the server itself is quite all right.
Moreover, if I connect SSMS 2008 to it, I get an error message (Index out of bounds or somesuch), but SSMS 2008 does connect, and displays the Databases tree much faster than SSMS 2014.
I'd like to turn off the option to check for Memory Optimized Objects altogether, as I'm not using the feature.
View 3 Replies
View Related
May 7, 2015
In SQL Server 2014, how big for the block size is better for performance? 64 KB? 4 KB?
For normal database files, best practise is 64 KB disk block size. Not sure if it is same for memory-optimized filegroup.
View 12 Replies
View Related
Aug 26, 2013
I try to load data into a memOpt table (INSERT INTO ... SELECT ... FROM ...). The source table has a size about 1 Gb and 13 Mio Rows. During this load the LDF File grows to size of 350 GB (until the space if the disk is run out of space). The Server has about 110 GB Memory for the SQL Server reserved. The tempdB doesn't grow. The Bucket Size in the create statement has a size of 262144. The Hash key as 4 fields`(2 fields have the datatype int,1 has smallint, 1 has varchar(200). ) The disk for the datafiles has still space for the datafiles (incl. the hekaton files).
How can I reduce the size of the ldf files during the load of the data ?
View 9 Replies
View Related
Apr 30, 2008
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
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jun 15, 2015
I've a database with a memory optimized filegroup on it. How can I remove it?I have removed the memory optimized table I had on it, but when I try to remove the filegroup I receive an error.
View 12 Replies
View Related
May 22, 2015
I have two xml source and i need only left restricted data.
how can i perform left restricted join?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Oct 8, 2015
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.
View 5 Replies
View Related
Dec 23, 2014
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.
View 9 Replies
View Related
Aug 10, 2007
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?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Apr 14, 2015
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.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Aug 9, 2013
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 Related
Jun 5, 2006
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?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jul 25, 2007
I'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
View 1 Replies
View Related
