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.
I know the data is unseen and my pose a problem visualizing whats going on here, and I will post sample data if needed, but Ill try first w/o data. I mainly need to know if/how I am incorrectly using EXISTS.
my key on vwAssays is LotID,AssayRank I am trying grab just the records out of vwAssays for each Lot with the greatest AssayRank
LotID AssayRank
1 0
1 1
1 2
2 0
2 1
2 2
3 0
3 1
3 2
#1
SELECT *
FROM vwAssays a
WHERE exists (select lotid, max(assayrank) assayrank from vwAssays l where a.lotid = l.lotid and a.assayrank = l.assayrank group by lotid ) and runid = 122
order by lotid
#2 SELECT *
FROM vwAssays a inner join (select lotid, max(assayrank) assayrank from vwAssays group by lotid) l on a.lotid = l.lotid and a.assayrank = l.assayrank
where runid = 122
order by a.lotid
#3
select lotid, max(assayrank) assayrank from vwAssays l where runid = 122 group by lotid
#1 does not work, it is showing all assayranks for each lotid
#2 works ok but Id like to use Exists instead
my actuall question is what needs to happen to #1 so that it does what #2 does.
Can i somehow use exists() function in JOIN ON clause? for example SELECT * FROM Table1 INNER JOIN ON Table1.Col1 = Table2.Col1 AND EXISTS(SELECT * FROM Table2 WHERE Table2.Col2 = Table1.Col2)
It doesn't work on my query. So, basically i want to do an inner join so that Table1 gets filtered. Then I make sure that every entry in the filtered Table1 has an existing related entry in Table2. i need to do exists because there could be more than one relation in Table2 for each entry in Table1, but i don't want multiple repetition of entries in the filtered Table1. (Not sure if i am making it clear!) I need distict selection, but i am adding NEWID() at the beginning of my query so distinct doesn't work for the rows. with my current query, i get repetitive entries of filtered Table1.
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
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
Is 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
This is on Sybase but I'm guessing that the same situation would happen on SQL Server. (Please confirm if you know).
I'm looking at these new databases and I'm seeing code similar to this all over the place:
if not exists (select 1 from dbo.t1 where f1 = @p1) begin select @errno = @errno | 1 end
There's a unique clustered in dex on t1.f1.
The execution plan shows this for this statement:
FROM TABLE dbo.t1 EXISTS TABLE : nested iteration. Table Scan. Forward scan. Positioning at start of table.
It's not using my index!!!!!
It seems to be the case with EXISTS statements. Can anybody confirm?
I also hinted to use the index but it still didn't use it.
If the existence check really doesn't use the index, what's a good code alternative to this check?
I did this and it's working great but I wonder if there's a better alternative. I don't really like doing the SET ROWCOUNT 1 and then SET ROWCOUNT 0 thing. SELECT TOP 1 won't work on Sybase, :-(.
SET ROWCOUNT 1 SELECT @cnt = (SELECT 1 FROM dbo.t1 (index ix01) WHERE f1 = @p1 ) SET ROWCOUNT 0
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
