Search Results

Search found 7706 results on 309 pages for 'inner join'.

Page 10/309 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • C# LINQ join With Just One Row

    - by Soo
    I'm trying to make a query that grabs a single row from an SQL database and updates it. TableA AId AValue TableB BId AId BValue Ok, so TableA and TableB are linked by AId. I want to select a row in TableB based on AValue using a join. The following query is what I have and only grabs a value from TableB based on AId, I just don't know how to grab a row from TableB using AValue. I know you would need to use a join, but I'm not sure how to accomplish that. var row = DbObject.TableB.Single(x => x.AId == 1) row.BValue = 1; DbObject.SubmitChanges();

    Read the article

  • mysql select multiple rows in join

    - by julio
    Hi-- I have a simple mySQL problem-- I have two tables, one is a user's table, and one is a photos table (each user can upload multiple photos). I'd like to write a query to join these tables, so I can pull all photos associated with a user (up to a certain limit). However, when I do something obvious like this: SELECT *.a, *.b FROM user_table a JOIN photos_table b ON a.id = b.userid it returns a.id, a.name, a.email, a.address, b.id, b.userid, b.photo_title, b.location but it only returns a single photo. Is there a way to return something like: a.id, a.name, a.email, a.address, b.id, b.userid, b.photo_title, b.location, b.id2, b.photo_title2, b.location2 etc. . . for a given LIMIT of photos? Thanks for any ideas.

    Read the article

  • MySQL AND alternative for eatch table in a join

    - by Scott
    I have a simple join in a query however I need to have a condition on both of the tables "confirmed='yes'" but if one of the tables doesn't have any that match the query returns with no rows. Database: .----------parties----------. | id - party_id - confirmed | |---------------------------| | 1 1 yes | | 1 2 no | | 1 3 no | +---------------------------+ .-----------events----------. | id - event_id - confirmed | |---------------------------| | 1 1 no | +---------------------------+ Query: SELECT p.party_id, e.event_id FROM parties p LEFT JOIN events e ON p.id=e.id WHERE p.id = '1' AND p.party_id IN (1,2,3) AND e.event_id IN (1) AND p.confirmed='yes' AND e.confirmed='yes' It returns nothing but I want it to return party_id 1 with a empty event_id. I hope this make sense and I not missing anything, Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • MySQL AND alternative for each table in a join

    - by Scott
    I have a simple join in a query however I need to have a condition on both of the tables "confirmed='yes'" but if one of the tables doesn't have any that match the query returns with no rows. Database: .----------parties----------. | id - party_id - confirmed | |---------------------------| | 1 1 yes | | 1 2 no | | 1 3 no | +---------------------------+ .-----------events----------. | id - event_id - confirmed | |---------------------------| | 1 1 no | +---------------------------+ Query: SELECT p.party_id, e.event_id FROM parties p LEFT JOIN events e ON p.id=e.id WHERE p.id = '1' AND p.party_id IN (1,2,3) AND e.event_id IN (1) AND p.confirmed='yes' AND e.confirmed='yes' It returns nothing but I want it to return party_id 1 with a empty event_id. I hope this make sense and I not missing anything, Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • Join and sum not compatible matrices through data.table

    - by leodido
    My goal is to "sum" two not compatible matrices (matrices with different dimensions) using (and preserving) row and column names. I've figured this approach: convert the matrices to data.table objects, join them and then sum columns vectors. An example: > M1 1 3 4 5 7 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 > M2 1 3 4 5 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 > M1 %ms% M2 1 3 4 5 7 8 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 This is my code: M1 <- matrix(c(0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), byrow = TRUE, ncol = 6) colnames(M1) <- c(1,3,4,5,7,8) M2 <- matrix(c(0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0), byrow = TRUE, ncol = 5) colnames(M2) <- c(1,3,4,5,8) # to data.table objects DT1 <- data.table(M1, keep.rownames = TRUE, key = "rn") DT2 <- data.table(M2, keep.rownames = TRUE, key = "rn") # join and sum of common columns if (nrow(DT1) > nrow(DT2)) { A <- DT2[DT1, roll = TRUE] A[, list(X1 = X1 + X1.1, X3 = X3 + X3.1, X4 = X4 + X4.1, X5 = X5 + X5.1, X7, X8 = X8 + X8.1), by = rn] } That outputs: rn X1 X3 X4 X5 X7 X8 1: 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2: 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3: 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 4: 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5: 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 6: 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Then I can convert back this data.table to a matrix and fix row and column names. The questions are: how to generalize this procedure? I need a way to automatically create list(X1 = X1 + X1.1, X3 = X3 + X3.1, X4 = X4 + X4.1, X5 = X5 + X5.1, X7, X8 = X8 + X8.1) because i want to apply this function to matrices which dimensions (and row/columns names) are not known in advance. In summary I need a merge procedure that behaves as described. there are other strategies/implementations that achieve the same goal that are, at the same time, faster and generalized? (hoping that some data.table monster help me) to what kind of join (inner, outer, etc. etc.) is assimilable this procedure? Thanks in advance. p.s.: I'm using data.table version 1.8.2 EDIT - SOLUTIONS @Aaron solution. No external libraries, only base R. It works also on list of matrices. add_matrices_1 <- function(...) { a <- list(...) cols <- sort(unique(unlist(lapply(a, colnames)))) rows <- sort(unique(unlist(lapply(a, rownames)))) out <- array(0, dim = c(length(rows), length(cols)), dimnames = list(rows,cols)) for (m in a) out[rownames(m), colnames(m)] <- out[rownames(m), colnames(m)] + m out } @MadScone solution. Used reshape2 package. It works only on two matrices per call. add_matrices_2 <- function(m1, m2) { m <- acast(rbind(melt(M1), melt(M2)), Var1~Var2, fun.aggregate = sum) mn <- unique(colnames(m1), colnames(m2)) rownames(m) <- mn colnames(m) <- mn m } BENCHMARK (100 runs with microbenchmark package) Unit: microseconds expr min lq median uq max 1 add_matrices_1 196.009 257.5865 282.027 291.2735 549.397 2 add_matrices_2 13737.851 14697.9790 14864.778 16285.7650 25567.448 No need to comment the benchmark: @Aaron solution wins. I'll continue to investigate a similar solution for data.table objects. I'll add other solutions eventually reported or discovered.

    Read the article

  • Hibernate Criteria: Perform JOIN in Subquery/DetachedCriteria

    - by Gilean
    I'm running into an issue with adding JOIN's to a subquery using DetachedCriteria. The code looks roughly like this: Criteria criteria = createCacheableCriteria(ProductLine.class, "productLine"); criteria.add(Expression.eq("productLine.active", "Y")); DetachedCriteria subCriteria = DetachedCriteria.forClass(Models.class, "model"); subCriteria.setProjection(Projections.rowCount()); subCriteria.createAlias("model.language", "modelLang"); criteria.add(Expression.eq("modelLang.language_code", "EN")); subCriteria.add(Restrictions.eqProperty("model.productLine.id","productLine.id")); criteria.add(Subqueries.lt(0, subCriteria)); But the logged SQL does not contain the JOIN in the subquery, but does include the alias which is throwing an error SELECT * FROM PRODUCT_LINES this_ WHERE this_.ACTIVE=? AND ? < (SELECT COUNT(*) AS y0_ FROM MODELS this0__ WHERE modelLang3_.LANGUAGE ='EN' AND this0__.PRODUCT_LINE_ID =this_.ID ) How can I add the joins to the DetachedCriteria? Hibernate version: 3.2.6.ga Hibernate core: 3.3.2.GA Hibernate annotations: 3.4.0.GA Hibernate commons-annotations: 3.3.0.ga Hibernate entitymanager: 3.4.0.GA Hibernate validator: 3.1.0.GA

    Read the article

  • solr JOIN query

    - by Sfairas
    I need to run a JOIN query on a solr index. I've got two xmls that I have indexed, person.xml and subject.xml. Person: <doc> <field name="id">P39126</field> <field name="family">Smith</field> <field name="given">John</field> <field name="subject">S1276</field> <field name="subject">S1312</field> </doc> Subject: <doc> <field name="id">S1276</field> <field name="topic">Abnormalities, Human</field> </doc> I need to only display information from the person doc but each query should match fields in both person and subject. In the case the query matches only the subject doc I need to display all docs from the person that have a matching id. Is this possible to do without running two seperate queries? Something like a JOIN query would do the job. Any help?

    Read the article

  • using a JOIN in an UPDATE in SQL

    - by SDLFunTimes
    Hi, I'm having trouble formulating a legal statement to double the statuses of the suppliers (s) who have shipped (sp) more than 500 units. I've been trying: update s set s.status = s.status * 2 from s join sp on (sp.sno = s.sno) group by sno having sum(qty) > 500; however I'm getting this error from Mysql: ERROR 1064 (42000): You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'from s join sp on (sp.sno = s.sno) group by sno having sum(qty) > 500' at line 1 Does anyone have any ideas about what is wrong with this query? Here's my schema: create table s ( sno char(5) not null, sname char(20) not null, status smallint, city char(15), primary key (sno) ); create table p ( pno char(6) not null, pname char(20) not null, color char(6), weight smallint, city char(15), primary key (pno) ); create table sp ( sno char(5) not null, pno char(6) not null, qty integer not null, primary key (sno, pno) );

    Read the article

  • SQL statement to split a table based on a join

    - by williamjones
    I have a primary table for Articles that is linked by a join table Info to a table Tags that has only a small number of entries. I want to split the Articles table, by either deleting rows or creating a new table with only the entries I want, based on the absence of a link to a certain tag. There are a few million articles. How can I do this? Not all of the articles have any tag at all, and some have many tags. Example: table Articles primary_key id table Info foreign_key article_id foreign_key tag_id table Tags primary_key id It was easy for me to segregate the articles that do have the match right off the bat, so I thought maybe I could do that and then use a NOT IN statement but that is so slow running it's unclear if it's ever going to finish. I did that with these commands: INSERT INTO matched_articles SELECT * FROM articles a LEFT JOIN info i ON a.id = i.article_id WHERE i.tag_id = 5; INSERT INTO unmatched_articles SELECT * FROM articles a WHERE a.id NOT IN (SELECT m.id FROM matched_articles m); If it makes a difference, I'm on Postgres.

    Read the article

  • Filtering on a left join in SQLalchemy

    - by Adam Ernst
    Using SQLalchemy I want to perform a left outer join and filter out rows that DO have a match in the joined table. I'm sending push notifications, so I have a Notification table. This means I also have a ExpiredDeviceId table to store device_ids that are no longer valid. (I don't want to just delete the affected notifications as the user might later re-install the app, at which point the notifications should resume according to Apple's docs.) CREATE TABLE Notification (device_id TEXT, time DATETIME); CREATE TABLE ExpiredDeviceId (device_id TEXT PRIMARY KEY, expiration_time DATETIME); Note: there may be multiple Notifications per device_id. There is no "Device" table for each device. So when doing SELECT FROM Notification I should filter accordingly. I can do it in SQL: SELECT * FROM Notification LEFT OUTER JOIN ExpiredDeviceId ON Notification.device_id = ExpiredDeviceId.device_id WHERE expiration_time == NULL But how can I do it in SQLalchemy? sess.query( Notification, ExpiredDeviceId ).outerjoin( (ExpiredDeviceId, Notification.device_id == ExpiredDeviceId.device_id) ).filter( ??? ) Alternately I could do this with a device_id NOT IN (SELECT device_id FROM ExpiredDeviceId) clause, but that seems way less efficient.

    Read the article

  • JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT [..] substitute

    - by FRKT
    Hello, I'd like to find a substitute for using SELECT DISTINCT in a derived table. Let's say I have three tables: CREATE TABLE `trades` ( `tradeID` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `employeeID` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL, `corporationID` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL, `profit` int(11) NOT NULL, KEY `tradeID` (`tradeID`), KEY `employeeID` (`employeeID`), KEY `corporationID` (`corporationID`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 CREATE TABLE `corporations` ( `corporationID` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`corporationID`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 CREATE TABLE `employees` ( `employeeID` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`employeeID`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 Let's say I'd like to find out how much profit a specific employee has generated. Simple: SELECT SUM(profit) FROM trades JOIN employees ON trades.employeeID = employees.employeeID AND employees.employeeID = 1; It gets trickier if I'd like to query how much revenue a specific corporation has, however. I cannot simply replicate the aforementioned query, because two or more employees from the same company might be involved in the same trade. This query should do the trick: SELECT SUM(profit) FROM trades JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT tradeID FROM trades WHERE trades.corporationID = 1) ... unfortunately, DISTINCT JOINs seem crazy ineffective. Is there any alternative I can use to determine how much revenue a corporation has, taking into account that a corporation might be listed several times with the same tradeID?

    Read the article

  • Hibernate HQL m:n join problem

    - by smallufo
    I am very unfamiliar with SQL/HQL , and am currently stuck with this 'maybe' simple problem : I have two many-to-many Entities , with a relation table : Car , CarProblem , and Problem . One Car may have many Problems , One Problem may appear in many Cars, CarProblem is the association table with other properties . Now , I want to find Car(s) with specified Problem , how do I write such HQL ? All ids are Long type . I've tried a lot of join / inner-join combinations , but all in vain.. -- updated : Sorry , forget to mention : Car has many CarProblem Problem has many CarProblem Car and Problem are not directly connected in Java Object. -- update , java code below -- @Entity public class Car extends Model{ @OneToMany(mappedBy="car" , cascade=CascadeType.ALL) public Set<CarProblem> carProblems; } @Entity public class CarProblem extends Model{ @ManyToOne public Car car; @ManyToOne public Problem problem; ... other properties } @Entity public class Problem extends Model { other properties ... // not link to CarProblem , It seems not related to this problem // **This is a very stupid query , I want to get rid of it ...** public List<Car> findCars() { List<CarProblem> list = CarProblem.find("from CarProblem as cp where cp.problem.id = ? ", id).fetch(); Set<Car> result = new HashSet<Car>(); for(CarProblem cp : list) result.add(cp.car); return new ArrayList<Car>(result); } } The Model is from Play! framework , so these properties are all public .

    Read the article

  • SQL Standard Regarding Left Outer Join and Where Conditions

    - by Ryan
    I am getting different results based on a filter condition in a query based on where I place the filter condition. My questions are: Is there a technical difference between these queries? Is there anything in the SQL standard that explains the different resultsets in the queries? Given the simplified scenario: --Table: Parent Columns: ID, Name, Description --Table: Child Columns: ID, ParentID, Name, Description --Query 1 SELECT p.ID, p.Name, p.Description, c.ID, c.Name, c.Description FROM Parent p LEFT OUTER JOIN Child c ON (p.ID = c.ParentID) WHERE c.ID IS NULL OR c.Description = 'FilterCondition' --Query 2 SELECT p.ID, p.Name, p.Description, c.ID, c.Name, c.Description FROM Parent p LEFT OUTER JOIN Child c ON (p.ID = c.ParentID AND c.Description = 'FilterCondition') I assumed the queries would return the same resultsets and I was surprised when they didn't. I am using MS SQL2005 and in the actual queries, query 1 returned ~700 rows and query 2 returned ~1100 rows and I couldn't detect a pattern on which rows were returned and which rows were excluded. There were still many rows in query 1 with child rows with data and NULL data. I prefer the style of query 2 (and I think it is more optimal), but I thought the queries would return the same results.

    Read the article

  • Left Join only returning one row

    - by Adam
    I am trying to join two tables. I would like all the columns from the product_category table (there are a total of 6 now) and count the number of products, CatCount, that are in each category from the products_has_product_category table. My query result is 1 row with the first category and a total count of 68, when I am looking for 6 rows with each individual category's count. <?php $result = mysql_query(" SELECT a.*, COUNT(b.category_id) AS CatCount FROM `product_category` a LEFT JOIN `products_has_product_category` b ON a.product_category_id = b.category_id "); while($row = mysql_fetch_array($result)) { echo ' <li class="ui-shadow" data-count-theme="d"> <a href="' . $row['product_category_ref_page'] . '.php" data-icon="arrow-r" data-iconpos="right">' . $row['product_category_name'] . '</a><span class="ui-li-count">' . $row['CatCount'] . '</span></li>'; } ?> I have been working on this for a couple of hours and would really appreciate any help on what I am doing wrong.

    Read the article

  • How to simulate inner join on very large files in java (without running out of memory)

    - by Constantin
    I am trying to simulate SQL joins using java and very large text files (INNER, RIGHT OUTER and LEFT OUTER). The files have already been sorted using an external sort routine. The issue I have is I am trying to find the most efficient way to deal with the INNER join part of the algorithm. Right now I am using two Lists to store the lines that have the same key and iterate through the set of lines in the right file once for every line in the left file (provided the keys still match). In other words, the join key is not unique in each file so would need to account for the Cartesian product situations ... left_01, 1 left_02, 1 right_01, 1 right_02, 1 right_03, 1 left_01 joins to right_01 using key 1 left_01 joins to right_02 using key 1 left_01 joins to right_03 using key 1 left_02 joins to right_01 using key 1 left_02 joins to right_02 using key 1 left_02 joins to right_03 using key 1 My concern is one of memory. I will run out of memory if i use the approach below but still want the inner join part to work fairly quickly. What is the best approach to deal with the INNER join part keeping in mind that these files may potentially be huge public class Joiner { private void join(BufferedReader left, BufferedReader right, BufferedWriter output) throws Throwable { BufferedReader _left = left; BufferedReader _right = right; BufferedWriter _output = output; Record _leftRecord; Record _rightRecord; _leftRecord = read(_left); _rightRecord = read(_right); while( _leftRecord != null && _rightRecord != null ) { if( _leftRecord.getKey() < _rightRecord.getKey() ) { write(_output, _leftRecord, null); _leftRecord = read(_left); } else if( _leftRecord.getKey() > _rightRecord.getKey() ) { write(_output, null, _rightRecord); _rightRecord = read(_right); } else { List<Record> leftList = new ArrayList<Record>(); List<Record> rightList = new ArrayList<Record>(); _leftRecord = readRecords(leftList, _leftRecord, _left); _rightRecord = readRecords(rightList, _rightRecord, _right); for( Record equalKeyLeftRecord : leftList ){ for( Record equalKeyRightRecord : rightList ){ write(_output, equalKeyLeftRecord, equalKeyRightRecord); } } } } if( _leftRecord != null ) { write(_output, _leftRecord, null); _leftRecord = read(_left); while(_leftRecord != null) { write(_output, _leftRecord, null); _leftRecord = read(_left); } } else { if( _rightRecord != null ) { write(_output, null, _rightRecord); _rightRecord = read(_right); while(_rightRecord != null) { write(_output, null, _rightRecord); _rightRecord = read(_right); } } } _left.close(); _right.close(); _output.flush(); _output.close(); } private Record read(BufferedReader reader) throws Throwable { Record record = null; String data = reader.readLine(); if( data != null ) { record = new Record(data.split("\t")); } return record; } private Record readRecords(List<Record> list, Record record, BufferedReader reader) throws Throwable { int key = record.getKey(); list.add(record); record = read(reader); while( record != null && record.getKey() == key) { list.add(record); record = read(reader); } return record; } private void write(BufferedWriter writer, Record left, Record right) throws Throwable { String leftKey = (left == null ? "null" : Integer.toString(left.getKey())); String leftData = (left == null ? "null" : left.getData()); String rightKey = (right == null ? "null" : Integer.toString(right.getKey())); String rightData = (right == null ? "null" : right.getData()); writer.write("[" + leftKey + "][" + leftData + "][" + rightKey + "][" + rightData + "]\n"); } public static void main(String[] args) { try { BufferedReader leftReader = new BufferedReader(new FileReader("LEFT.DAT")); BufferedReader rightReader = new BufferedReader(new FileReader("RIGHT.DAT")); BufferedWriter output = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter("OUTPUT.DAT")); Joiner joiner = new Joiner(); joiner.join(leftReader, rightReader, output); } catch (Throwable e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } After applying the ideas from the proposed answer, I changed the loop to this private void join(RandomAccessFile left, RandomAccessFile right, BufferedWriter output) throws Throwable { long _pointer = 0; RandomAccessFile _left = left; RandomAccessFile _right = right; BufferedWriter _output = output; Record _leftRecord; Record _rightRecord; _leftRecord = read(_left); _rightRecord = read(_right); while( _leftRecord != null && _rightRecord != null ) { if( _leftRecord.getKey() < _rightRecord.getKey() ) { write(_output, _leftRecord, null); _leftRecord = read(_left); } else if( _leftRecord.getKey() > _rightRecord.getKey() ) { write(_output, null, _rightRecord); _pointer = _right.getFilePointer(); _rightRecord = read(_right); } else { long _tempPointer = 0; int key = _leftRecord.getKey(); while( _leftRecord != null && _leftRecord.getKey() == key ) { _right.seek(_pointer); _rightRecord = read(_right); while( _rightRecord != null && _rightRecord.getKey() == key ) { write(_output, _leftRecord, _rightRecord ); _tempPointer = _right.getFilePointer(); _rightRecord = read(_right); } _leftRecord = read(_left); } _pointer = _tempPointer; } } if( _leftRecord != null ) { write(_output, _leftRecord, null); _leftRecord = read(_left); while(_leftRecord != null) { write(_output, _leftRecord, null); _leftRecord = read(_left); } } else { if( _rightRecord != null ) { write(_output, null, _rightRecord); _rightRecord = read(_right); while(_rightRecord != null) { write(_output, null, _rightRecord); _rightRecord = read(_right); } } } _left.close(); _right.close(); _output.flush(); _output.close(); } UPDATE While this approach worked, it was terribly slow and so I have modified this to create files as buffers and this works very well. Here is the update ... private long getMaxBufferedLines(File file) throws Throwable { long freeBytes = Runtime.getRuntime().freeMemory() / 2; return (freeBytes / (file.length() / getLineCount(file))); } private void join(File left, File right, File output, JoinType joinType) throws Throwable { BufferedReader leftFile = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(left)); BufferedReader rightFile = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(right)); BufferedWriter outputFile = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(output)); long maxBufferedLines = getMaxBufferedLines(right); Record leftRecord; Record rightRecord; leftRecord = read(leftFile); rightRecord = read(rightFile); while( leftRecord != null && rightRecord != null ) { if( leftRecord.getKey().compareTo(rightRecord.getKey()) < 0) { if( joinType == JoinType.LeftOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.LeftExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullOuterJoin ) { write(outputFile, leftRecord, null); } leftRecord = read(leftFile); } else if( leftRecord.getKey().compareTo(rightRecord.getKey()) > 0 ) { if( joinType == JoinType.RightOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.RightExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullOuterJoin ) { write(outputFile, null, rightRecord); } rightRecord = read(rightFile); } else if( leftRecord.getKey().compareTo(rightRecord.getKey()) == 0 ) { String key = leftRecord.getKey(); List<File> rightRecordFileList = new ArrayList<File>(); List<Record> rightRecordList = new ArrayList<Record>(); rightRecordList.add(rightRecord); rightRecord = consume(key, rightFile, rightRecordList, rightRecordFileList, maxBufferedLines); while( leftRecord != null && leftRecord.getKey().compareTo(key) == 0 ) { processRightRecords(outputFile, leftRecord, rightRecordFileList, rightRecordList, joinType); leftRecord = read(leftFile); } // need a dispose for deleting files in list } else { throw new Exception("DATA IS NOT SORTED"); } } if( leftRecord != null ) { if( joinType == JoinType.LeftOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.LeftExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullOuterJoin ) { write(outputFile, leftRecord, null); } leftRecord = read(leftFile); while(leftRecord != null) { if( joinType == JoinType.LeftOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.LeftExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullOuterJoin ) { write(outputFile, leftRecord, null); } leftRecord = read(leftFile); } } else { if( rightRecord != null ) { if( joinType == JoinType.RightOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.RightExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullOuterJoin ) { write(outputFile, null, rightRecord); } rightRecord = read(rightFile); while(rightRecord != null) { if( joinType == JoinType.RightOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.RightExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullExclusiveJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullOuterJoin ) { write(outputFile, null, rightRecord); } rightRecord = read(rightFile); } } } leftFile.close(); rightFile.close(); outputFile.flush(); outputFile.close(); } public void processRightRecords(BufferedWriter outputFile, Record leftRecord, List<File> rightFiles, List<Record> rightRecords, JoinType joinType) throws Throwable { for(File rightFile : rightFiles) { BufferedReader rightReader = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(rightFile)); Record rightRecord = read(rightReader); while(rightRecord != null){ if( joinType == JoinType.LeftOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.RightOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.InnerJoin ) { write(outputFile, leftRecord, rightRecord); } rightRecord = read(rightReader); } rightReader.close(); } for(Record rightRecord : rightRecords) { if( joinType == JoinType.LeftOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.RightOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.FullOuterJoin || joinType == JoinType.InnerJoin ) { write(outputFile, leftRecord, rightRecord); } } } /** * consume all records having key (either to a single list or multiple files) each file will * store a buffer full of data. The right record returned represents the outside flow (key is * already positioned to next one or null) so we can't use this record in below while loop or * within this block in general when comparing current key. The trick is to keep consuming * from a List. When it becomes empty, re-fill it from the next file until all files have * been consumed (and the last node in the list is read). The next outside iteration will be * ready to be processed (either it will be null or it points to the next biggest key * @throws Throwable * */ private Record consume(String key, BufferedReader reader, List<Record> records, List<File> files, long bufferMaxRecordLines ) throws Throwable { boolean processComplete = false; Record record = records.get(records.size() - 1); while(!processComplete){ long recordCount = records.size(); if( record.getKey().compareTo(key) == 0 ){ record = read(reader); while( record != null && record.getKey().compareTo(key) == 0 && recordCount < bufferMaxRecordLines ) { records.add(record); recordCount++; record = read(reader); } } processComplete = true; // if record is null, we are done if( record != null ) { // if the key has changed, we are done if( record.getKey().compareTo(key) == 0 ) { // Same key means we have exhausted the buffer. // Dump entire buffer into a file. The list of file // pointers will keep track of the files ... processComplete = false; dumpBufferToFile(records, files); records.clear(); records.add(record); } } } return record; } /** * Dump all records in List of Record objects to a file. Then, add that * file to List of File objects * * NEED TO PLACE A LIMIT ON NUMBER OF FILE POINTERS (check size of file list) * * @param records * @param files * @throws Throwable */ private void dumpBufferToFile(List<Record> records, List<File> files) throws Throwable { String prefix = "joiner_" + files.size() + 1; String suffix = ".dat"; File file = File.createTempFile(prefix, suffix, new File("cache")); BufferedWriter writer = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(file)); for( Record record : records ) { writer.write( record.dump() ); } files.add(file); writer.flush(); writer.close(); }

    Read the article

  • How can I join conditionally in LINQ queries?

    - by Steve Crane
    If I have two tables; Drivers keyed by DriverId and Trips with foreign keys DriverId and CoDriverId, and I want to find all trips where a driver was either the driver or co-driver I could code this in Transact-SQL as select d.DriverId, t.TripId from Trips t inner join Drivers d on t.DriverId = d.DriverId or t.CoDriverId = d.DriverId How could this be coded as a LINQ query?

    Read the article

  • Why would I do an inner join on a non-distinct field?

    - by froadie
    I just came across a query that does an inner join on a non-distinct field. I've never seen this before and I'm a little confused about this usage. Something like: SELECT distinct all, my, stuff FROM myTable INNER JOIN myOtherTable ON myTable.nonDistinctField = myOtherTable.nonDistinctField (WHERE some filters here...) I'm not quite sure what my question is or how to phrase it, or why exactly this confuses me, but I was wondering if anyone could explain why someone would need to do an inner join on a non-distinct field and then select only distinct values...? Is there ever a legitimate use of an inner join on a non-distinct field? What would be the purpose? And if there's is a legitimate reason for such a query, can you give examples of where it would be used?

    Read the article

  • SQL is this equvelent to a LEFT JoIn?

    - by Jim
    Is this equvelent to a LEFT JOIN? select distinct a.name, b.name from tableA a, (select name from tableB) as b It seems as though there is no link between the two tables. Is there an easier / more efficient way to write this?

    Read the article

  • How to do a join that removes values?

    - by Georg
    Customers Holidays id | name customer_id | start | end ---+------ ------------+--------+------ 1 | Peter 1 | 5 | 10 2 | Simon 1 | 15 | 20 3 | Mary 2 | 5 | 20 How should my SQL query look that out of start=11,end=14 I get these customers: Peter Mary Is this even manageable with a simple SQL join, or do I need to use sub-queries?

    Read the article

  • Self join to a table

    - by Mohit
    I have a table like Employee ================== name salary ================== a 10000 b 20000 c 5000 d 40000 i want to get all the employee whose salary is greater than A's salary. I don't want to use any nested or sub query. It has been asked in an interview and hint was to use self join. I really can't figure out how to achieve the same.

    Read the article

  • Mysql Left Join Null Result

    - by Ozzy
    I have this query SELECT articles.*, users.username AS `user` FROM `articles` LEFT JOIN `users` ON articles.user_id = users.id ORDER BY articles.timestamp Basically it returns the list of articles and the username that the article is associated to. Now if there is no entry in the users table for a particular user id, the users var is NULL. Is there anyway to make it that if its null it returns something like "User Not Found"? or would i have to do this using php?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >