Search Results

Search found 6550 results on 262 pages for 'join fu'.

Page 15/262 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

• How can you access two identically-named columns in a MySQL LEFT JOIN query?

  - by George Edison

  I have two tables. table_x: id INT(11) tag INT(11) table_tags: id INT(11) name VARCHAR(255) Then I use PHP to perform the following query: SELECT * FROM table_x LEFT JOIN table_tags ON table_x.tag = table_tags.id The only problem is: how do I access table_x.id and table_tags.id in the results? Here is the PHP code: $query = "SELECT * FROM table_x LEFT JOIN table_tags ON table_x.tag = table_tags.id"; $results = mysql_query($query); while($row = mysql_fetch_array($results)) { // how do I now access table_x.id and table_tags.id ??? }

  Read the article

• Inequality joins, Asynchronous transformations and Lookups : SSIS

  - by jamiet

  It is pretty much accepted by SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) developers that synchronous transformations are generally quicker than asynchronous transformations (for a description of synchronous and asynchronous transformations go read Asynchronous and synchronous data flow components). Notice I said “generally” and not “always”; there are circumstances where using asynchronous transformations can be beneficial and in this blog post I’ll demonstrate such a scenario, one that is pretty common when building data warehouses. Imagine I have a [Customer] dimension table that manages information about all of my customers as a slowly-changing dimension. If that is a type 2 slowly changing dimension then you will likely have multiple rows per customer in that table. Furthermore you might also have datetime fields that indicate the effective time period of each member record. Here is such a table that contains data for four dimension members {Terry, Max, Henry, Horace}: Notice that we have multiple records per customer and that the [SCDStartDate] of a record is equivalent to the [SCDEndDate] of the record that preceded it (if there was one). (Note that I am on record as saying I am not a fan of this technique of storing an [SCDEndDate] but for the purposes of clarity I have included it here.) Anyway, the idea here is that we will have some incoming data containing [CustomerName] & [EffectiveDate] and we need to use those values to lookup [Customer].[CustomerId]. The logic will be: Lookup a [CustomerId] WHERE [CustomerName]=[CustomerName] AND [SCDStartDate] <= [EffectiveDate] AND [EffectiveDate] <= [SCDEndDate] The conventional approach to this would be to use a full cached lookup but that isn’t an option here because we are using inequality conditions. The obvious next step then is to use a non-cached lookup which enables us to change the SQL statement to use inequality operators: Let’s take a look at the dataflow: Notice these are all synchronous components. This approach works just fine however it does have the limitation that it has to issue a SQL statement against your lookup set for every row thus we can expect the execution time of our dataflow to increase linearly in line with the number of rows in our dataflow; that’s not good. OK, that’s the obvious method. Let’s now look at a different way of achieving this using an asynchronous Merge Join transform coupled with a Conditional Split. I’ve shown it post-execution so that I can include the row counts which help to illustrate what is going on here: Notice that there are more rows output from our Merge Join component than on the input. That is because we are joining on [CustomerName] and, as we know, we have multiple records per [CustomerName] in our lookup set. Notice also that there are two asynchronous components in here (the Sort and the Merge Join). I have embedded a video below that compares the execution times for each of these two methods. The video is just over 8minutes long. View on Vimeo  For those that can’t be bothered watching the video I’ll tell you the results here. The dataflow that used the Lookup transform took 36 seconds whereas the dataflow that used the Merge Join took less than two seconds. An illustration in case it is needed: Pretty conclusive proof that in some scenarios it may be quicker to use an asynchronous component than a synchronous one. Your mileage may of course vary. The scenario outlined here is analogous to performance tuning procedural SQL that uses cursors. It is common to eliminate cursors by converting them to set-based operations and that is effectively what we have done here. Our non-cached lookup is performing a discrete operation for every single row of data, exactly like a cursor does. By eliminating this cursor-in-disguise we have dramatically sped up our dataflow. I hope all of that proves useful. You can download the package that I demonstrated in the video from my SkyDrive at http://cid-550f681dad532637.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/BlogShare/20100514/20100514%20Lookups%20and%20Merge%20Joins.zip Comments are welcome as always. @Jamiet Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

  Read the article

• SQL Server 2008: Comparing similar records - Need to still display an ID for a record when the JOIN has no matches

  - by aleppke

  I'm writing a SQL Server 2008 report that will compare genetic test results for animals. A genetic test consists of an animalId, a gene and a result. Not all animals will have the same genes tested but I need to be able to display the results side-by-side for a given set of animals and only include the genes that are present for at least one of the selected animals. My TestResult table has the following data in it: animalId gene result 1 a CC 1 b CT 1 d TT 2 a CT 2 b CT 2 c TT 3 a CT 3 b TT 3 c CC 3 d CC 3 e TT I need to generate a result set that looks like the following. Note that Animal 3 is not being displayed (user doesn't want to see its results) and neither are results for Gene "e" since neither Animal 1 nor Animal 2 have a result for that gene: SireID SireResult CalfID CalfResult Gene 1 CC 2 CT a 1 CT 2 CT b 1 NULL 2 TT c 1 TT 2 NULL d But I can only manage to get this: SireID SireResult CalfID CalfResult Gene 1 CC 2 CT a 1 CT 2 CT b NULL NULL 2 TT c 1 TT NULL NULL d This is the query I'm using. SELECT sire.animalId AS 'SireID' ,sire.result AS 'SireResult' ,calf.animalId AS 'CalfID' ,calf.result AS 'CalfResult' ,sire.gene AS 'Gene' FROM (SELECT s.animalId ,s.result ,m1.gene FROM (SELECT [animalId ] ,result ,gene FROM TestResult WHERE animalId IN (1)) s FULL JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT gene FROM TestResult WHERE animalId IN (1, 2)) m1 ON s.marker = m1.marker) sire FULL JOIN (SELECT c.animalId ,c.result ,m2.gene FROM (SELECT animalId ,result ,gene FROM TestResult WHERE animalId IN (2)) c FULL JOIN (SELECT DISTINCT gene FROM TestResult WHERE animalId IN (1, 2)) m2 ON c.gene = m2.gene) calf ON sire.gene = calf.gene How do I get the SireIDs and CalfIDs to display their values when they don't have a record associated with a particular Gene? I was thinking of using COALESCE but I can't figure out how to specify the correct animalId to pass in. Any help would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Can I join two tables whereby the joined table is sorted by a certain column?

  - by Ferdy

  I'm not much of a database guru so I need some help on a query I'm working on. In my photo community project I want to richly visualize tags by not only showing the tag name and counter (# of images inside them), I also want to show a thumb of the most popular image inside the tag (most karma). The table setup is as follow: Image table holds basic image metadata, important is the karma field Imagefile table holds multiple entries per image, one for each format Tag table holds tag definitions Tag_map table maps tags to images In my usual trial and error query authoring I have come this far: SELECT * FROM (SELECT tag.name, tag.id, COUNT(tag_map.tag_id) as cnt FROM tag INNER JOIN tag_map ON (tag.id = tag_map.tag_id) INNER JOIN image ON tag_map.image_id = image.id INNER JOIN imagefile on image.id = imagefile.image_id WHERE imagefile.type = 'smallthumb' GROUP BY tag.name ORDER BY cnt DESC) as T1 WHERE cnt > 0 ORDER BY cnt DESC [column clause of inner query snipped for the sake of simplicity] This query gives me somewhat what I need. The outer query makes sure that only tags are returned for which there is at least 1 image. The inner query returns the tag details, such as its name, count (# of images) and the thumb. In addition, I can sort the inner query as I want (by most images, alphabetically, most recent, etc) So far so good. The problem however is that this query does not match the most popular image (most karma) of the tag, it seems to always take the most recent one in the tag. How can I make sure that the most popular image is matched with the tag?

  Read the article

• How to join multiple tables using LINQ-to-SQL?

  - by user603245

  Hi! I'm quite new to linq, so please bear with me. I'm working on a asp.net webpage and I want to add a "search function" (textbox where user inputs name or surname or both or just parts of it and gets back all related information). I have two tables ("Person" and "Application") and I want to display some columns from Person (name and surname) and some from Application (score, position,...). I know how I could do it using sql, but I want to learn more about linq and thus I want to do it using linq. For now I got two main ideas: 1.) var person = dataContext.GetTable<Person>(); var application = dataContext.GetTable<Application>(); var p1 = from p in Person where(p.Name.Contains(tokens[0]) || p.Surname.Contains(tokens[1])) select new {Id = p.Id, Name = p.Name, Surname = p.Surname}; //or maybe without this line //I don't know how to do the following properly var result = from a in Application where a.FK_Application.Equals(index) //just to get the "right" type of application //this is not right, but I don't know how to do it better join p1 on p1.Id == a.FK_Person 2.) The other idea is just to go through "Application" and instead of "join p1 ..." to use var result = from a in Application where a.FK_Application.Equals(index) //just to get the "right" type of application join p from Person on p.Id == a.FK_Person where p.Name.Contains(tokens[0]) || p.Surname.Contains(tokens[1]) I think that first idea is better for queries without the first "where" condition, which I also intended to use. Regardless of what is better (faster), I still don't know how to do it using linq. Also in the end I wanted to display / select just some parts (columns) of the result (joined tables + filtering conditions). I really want to know how to do such things using linq as I'll be dealing also with some similar problems with local data, where I can use only linq. Could somebody please explain me how to do it, I spent days trying to figure it out and searching on the internet for answers. Thank you for your time.

  Read the article

• How can I join 3 tables with mysql & php?

  - by steven

  check out the page [url]http://www.mujak.com/test/test3.php[/url] It pulls the users Post,username,xbc/xlk tags etc which is perfect... BUT since I am pulling information from a MyBB bulletin board system, its quite different. When replying, people are are allowed to change the "Thread Subject" by simplying replying and changing it. I dont want it to SHOW the changed subject title, just the original title of all posts in that thread. By default it repies with "RE:thread title". They can easily edit this and it will show up in the "Subject" cell & people wont know which thread it was posted in because they changed their thread to when replying to the post. So I just want to keep the orginial thread title when they are replying. Make sense~?? Tables:mybb_users Fields:uid,username Tables:mybb_userfields Fields:ufid Tables:mybb_posts Fields:pid,tid,replyto,subject,ufid,username,uid,message Tables:mybb_threads Fields:tid,fid,subject,uid,username,lastpost,lastposter,lastposteruid I haev tried multiple queries with no success: $result = mysql_query(" SELECT * FROM mybb_users LEFT JOIN (mybb_posts, mybb_userfields, mybb_threads) ON ( mybb_userfields.ufid=mybb_posts.uid AND mybb_threads.tid=mybb_posts.tid AND mybb_users.uid=mybb_userfields.ufid ) WHERE mybb_posts.fid=42"); $result = mysql_query(" SELECT * FROM mybb_users LEFT JOIN (mybb_posts, mybb_userfields, mybb_threads) ON ( mybb_userfields.ufid=mybb_posts.uid AND mybb_threads.tid=mybb_posts.tid AND mybb_users.uid=mybb_posts.uid ) WHERE mybb_threads.fid=42"); $result = mysql_query(" SELECT * FROM mybb_posts LEFT JOIN (mybb_userfields, mybb_threads) ON ( mybb_userfields.ufid=mybb_posts.uid AND mybb_threads.tid=mybb_posts.tid ) WHERE mybb_posts.fid=42");

  Read the article

• T-SQL - Left Outer Joins - Filters in the where clause versus the on clause.

  - by Greg Potter

  I am trying to compare two tables to find rows in each table that is not in the other. Table 1 has a groupby column to create 2 sets of data within table one. groupby number ----------- ----------- 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 Table 2 has only one column. number ----------- 1 3 4 So Table 1 has the values 1,2,4 in group 2 and Table 2 has the values 1,3,4. I expect the following result when joining for Group 2: `Table 1 LEFT OUTER Join Table 2` T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- 2 2 NULL `Table 2 LEFT OUTER Join Table 1` T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- NULL NULL 3 The only way I can get this to work is if I put a where clause for the first join: PRINT 'Table 1 LEFT OUTER Join Table 2, with WHERE clause' select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table1 LEFT OUTER join table2 --****************************** on table1.number = table2.number --****************************** WHERE table1.groupby = 2 AND table2.number IS NULL and a filter in the ON for the second: PRINT 'Table 2 LEFT OUTER Join Table 1, with ON clause' select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table2 LEFT OUTER join table1 --****************************** on table2.number = table1.number AND table1.groupby = 2 --****************************** WHERE table1.number IS NULL Can anyone come up with a way of not using the filter in the on clause but in the where clause? The context of this is I have a staging area in a database and I want to identify new records and records that have been deleted. The groupby field is the equivalent of a batchid for an extract and I am comparing the latest extract in a temp table to a the batch from yesterday stored in a partioneds table, which also has all the previously extracted batches as well. Code to create table 1 and 2: create table table1 (number int, groupby int) create table table2 (number int) insert into table1 (number, groupby) values (1, 1) insert into table1 (number, groupby) values (2, 1) insert into table1 (number, groupby) values (1, 2) insert into table2 (number) values (1) insert into table1 (number, groupby) values (2, 2) insert into table2 (number) values (3) insert into table1 (number, groupby) values (4, 2) insert into table2 (number) values (4) EDIT: A bit more context - depending on where I put the filter I different results. As stated above the where clause gives me the correct result in one state and the ON in the other. I am looking for a consistent way of doing this. Where - select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table1 LEFT OUTER join table2 --****************************** on table1.number = table2.number --****************************** WHERE table1.groupby = 2 AND table2.number IS NULL Result: T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- 2 2 NULL On - select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table1 LEFT OUTER join table2 --****************************** on table1.number = table2.number AND table1.groupby = 2 --****************************** WHERE table2.number IS NULL Result: T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- 1 1 NULL 2 2 NULL 1 2 NULL Where (table 2 this time) - select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table2 LEFT OUTER join table1 --****************************** on table2.number = table1.number AND table1.groupby = 2 --****************************** WHERE table1.number IS NULL Result: T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- NULL NULL 3 On - select table1.groupby as [T1_Groupby], table1.number as [T1_Number], table2.number as [T2_Number] from table2 LEFT OUTER join table1 --****************************** on table2.number = table1.number --****************************** WHERE table1.number IS NULL AND table1.groupby = 2 Result: T1_Groupby T1_Number T2_Number ----------- ----------- ----------- (0) rows returned

  Read the article

• Clean file separators in Ruby without File.join

  - by kerry

  I love anything that can be done to clean up source code and make it more readable.  So, when I came upon this post, I was pretty excited.  This is precisely the kind of thing I love. I have never felt good about ‘file separator’ strings b/c of their ugliness and verbosity. In Java we have: 1: String path = "lib"+File.separator+"etc"; And in Ruby a popular method is: 1: path = File.join("lib","etc") Now, by overloading the ‘/’ operator on a String in Ruby: 1: class String 2: def /(str_to_join) 3: File.join(self, str_to_join) 4: end 5: end We can now write: 1: path = 'lib'/'src'/'main' Brilliant!

  Read the article

• MySQL 5 multiple JOIN syntax not working in MySQL 4

  - by draco

  Hello all, the current SQL query works fine locally on MAMP 1.8.4 running MySQL 5.1.37. SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU USING (users_id) JOIN events_admins EA USING (admins_id) ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 10 However, when I bring this query live to production server which is running MySQL 4.1.22-standard, the following error occurred (whether or not there are data in the entry). A Database Error Occurred Error Number: 1054 Unknown column 'sceclub_exclaim2007.EU.admins_id' in 'on clause' SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU USING (users_id) JOIN events_admins EA USING (admins_id) ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 20 This is based on CodeIgniter 1.7.2 and both production and development are running the same set of database. Database tables events_users: users_id users_name users_credits users_matric users_redeem events_admins: admins_id admins_email admins_name admins_pass admins_date admins_modified admins_last_login events_attendance: attendance_id users_id events_id events_events: events_id events_name events_venue events_time events_desc events_pass events_log:log_id admins_id log_actions log_date log_value users_id log_type I'm new to MySQL so I'm not aware of any difference in versions or what could be a possible cause, thank you in advance! Tried googling for MySQL4 difference to no avail too. Also tried using SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU where EL.users_id = EU.users_id JOIN events_admins EA USING EL.admins_id = EA.admins_id ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 10 But then I got the error in both production and development. A Database Error Occurred Error Number: 1064 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 'JOIN events_admins EA USING EL.admins_id = EA.admins_id ORDER BY' at line 8 SELECT EL.log_actions, EL.log_date, EL.log_value, EL.log_type, EA.admins_name, EU.users_name, EU.users_matric FROM events_log EL JOIN events_users EU where EL.users_id = EU.users_id JOIN events_admins EA USING EL.admins_id = EA.admins_id ORDER BY EL.log_id DESC LIMIT 0, 20 If you can point me to some resources where I can read up more on MySQL 4 syntax to achieve the same thing effect like I did with MySQL 5 syntax, please let me know. Thanks again!

  Read the article

• How to avoid Cartesian product in an INNER JOIN query?

  - by flhe

  I have 6 tables, let's call them a,b,c,d,e,f. Now I want to search all the colums (except the ID columns) of all tables for a certain word, let's say 'Joe'. What I did was, I made INNER JOINS over all the tables and then used LIKE to search the columns. INNER JOIN ... ON INNER JOIN ... ON.......etc. WHERE a.firstname ~* 'Joe' OR a.lastname ~* 'Joe' OR b.favorite_food ~* 'Joe' OR c.job ~* 'Joe'.......etc. The results are correct, I get all the colums I was looking for. But I also get some kind of cartesian product, I get 2 or more lines with almost the same results. How can i avoid this? I want so have each line only once, since the results should appear on a web search.

  Read the article

• PostgreSQL JOIN with array type with array elements order, how to implement?

  - by Adiasz

  Hello I have two tables in database: CREATE TABLE items( id SERIAL PRIMARy KEY, ... some other fields ); This table contains come data row with unique ID. CREATE TABLE some_choosen_data_in_order( id SERIAL PRIMARy KEY, id_items INTEGER[], ); This table contains array type field. Each row contains values of IDs from table "items" in specyfic order. For example: {2,4,233,5}. Now, I want to get data from table "items" for choosen row from table "some_choosen_data_in_order" with order for elements in array type. The my attempt is JOIN: SELECT I.* FROM items AS I JOIN some_choosen_data_in_order AS S ON I.id = ANY(S.id_items) WHERE S.id = ? Second attempt was subquery like: SELECT I.* FROM items AS I WHERE I.id = ANY (ARRAY[SELECT S.id_items FROM some_choosen_data_in_order WHERE id = ?]) But none of them keep IDs order in array field. Could You help me, how to get data from "items" table with correspond with array IDs order from "some_choosen_data_in_order" table for specyfic row?

  Read the article

• SQL: How to join a view with a table?

  - by gamerzfuse

  CREATE VIEW qtyorderedview AS SELECT titleditors.title_id, titleditors.ed_id, salesdetails.title_id, salesdetails.qty_shipped FROM titleditors, salesdetails WHERE titleditors.title_id = salesdetails.title_id I am using the above SQL statement to create a view. I need to show Editors First Name, Last Name, City where they shipped more than 50 books. The three tables I have are: create table editors ( ed_id char(11), ed_lname varchar(20), ed_fname varchar(20), ed_pos varchar(12), phone varchar(10), address varchar(30), city varchar(20), state char(2), zip char(5), ed_boss char(11)); create table titleditors ( ed_id char(11), title_id char(6), ed_ord integer); create table salesdetails ( sonum integer, qty_ordered integer, qty_shipped integer, title_id char(6), date_shipped date); Can anyone tell me what the second Join code would be to create this result? My first view works fine, but I don't know how to join it to the second table to achieve this result? I didn't make the tables, I just have to work with what I was given. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• How can I do a right outer join where both tables have a where clause?

  - by cdeszaq

  Here's the scenario: I have 2 tables: CREATE TABLE dbo.API_User ( id int NOT NULL, name nvarchar(255) NOT NULL, authorization_key varchar(255) NOT NULL, is_active bit NOT NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] CREATE TABLE dbo.Single_Sign_On_User ( id int NOT NULL IDENTITY (1, 1), API_User_id int NOT NULL, external_id varchar(255) NOT NULL, user_id int NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] What I am trying to return is the following: is_active for a given authorization_key The Single_Sign_On_User.id that matches the external_id/API_User_id pair if it exists or NULL if there is no such pair When I try this query: SELECT Single_Sign_On_User.id, API_User.is_active FROM API_User LEFT OUTER JOIN Single_Sign_On_User ON Single_Sign_On_User.API_User_id = API_User.id WHERE Single_Sign_On_User.external_id = 'test_ext_id' AND API_User.authorization_key = 'test' where the "test" API_User record exists but the "test_ext_id" record does not, and with no other values in either table, I get no records returned. When I use: SELECT Single_Sign_On_User.id, API_User.is_active FROM API_User LEFT OUTER JOIN Single_Sign_On_User ON Single_Sign_On_User.API_User_id = API_User.id WHERE API_User.authorization_key = 'test' I get the results I expect (NULL, 1), but that query doesn't allow me to find the "test_ext_id" record if it exists but would give me all records associated with the "test" API_User record. How can I get the results I am after?

  Read the article

• Is using Natural Join or Implicit column names not a good practice when writing SQL in a programming

  - by Jian Lin

  When we use Natural Join, we are joining the tables when both table have the same column names. But what if we write it in PHP and then the DBA add some more fields to both tables, then the Natural Join can break? The same goes for Insert, if we do a insert into gifts values (NULL, "chocolate", "choco.jpg", now()); then it will break the code as well as contaminating the table when the DBA adds some fields to the table (example as column 2 or 3). So it is always best to spell out the column names when the SQL statements are written inside a programming language and stored in a file in a big project.

  Read the article

• What is difference between Where and Join in linq ?

  - by Freshblood

  hello What is difference between of these 2 queries ? they are completely equal ? from order in myDB.OrdersSet from person in myDB.PersonSet from product in myDB.ProductSet where order.Persons_Id==person.Id && order.Products_Id==product.Id select new { order.Id, person.Name, person.SurName, product.Model,UrunAdi=product.Name }; and from order in myDB.OrdersSet join person in myDB.PersonSet on order.Persons_Id equals person.Id join product in myDB.ProductSet on order.Products_Id equals product.Id select new { order.Id, person.Name, person.SurName, product.Model,UrunAdi=product.Name };

  Read the article

• How do I do a left outer join in LINQ?

  - by avinash-nitk

  Can anybody can explain in detail how to implement a left outer join in LINQ?

  Read the article

• How should I join these 3 SQL queries in Oracle?

  - by Nazgulled

  I have these 3 queries: SELECT title, year, MovieGenres(m.mid) genres, MovieDirectors(m.mid) directors, MovieWriters(m.mid) writers, synopsis, poster_url FROM movies m WHERE m.mid = 1; SELECT AVG(rating) FROM movie_ratings WHERE mid = 1; SELECT COUNT(rating) FROM movie_ratings WHERE mid = 1; And I need to join them into a single query. I was able to do it like this: SELECT title, year, MovieGenres(m.mid) genres, MovieDirectors(m.mid) directors, MovieWriters(m.mid) writers, synopsis, poster_url, AVG(rating) average, COUNT(rating) count FROM movies m INNER JOIN movie_ratings mr ON m.mid = mr.mid WHERE m.mid = 1 GROUP BY title, year, MovieGenres(m.mid), MovieDirectors(m.mid), MovieWriters(m.mid), synopsis, poster_url; But I don't really like that "huge" GROUP BY, is there a simpler way to do it?

  Read the article

• MySQL : select/join on strings as fieldnames - is this possible?

  - by Dylan

  I can retrieve all column names from table 'categories' with : SELECT col.column_name FROM information_schema.columns AS col WHERE col.table_schema= database() and col.table_name = "categories" This produces a resultset like this : column_name ----------------- categoryID name description I can retrieve all values for a specific category with : SELECT * FROM categories AS c WHERE c.categoryID=12345 this results in a resultset like this: categoryID | name | description ------------------------------------------------ 12345 | test | this is a test Now I would like to get some kind of join of above selects to get a resultset that looks something like this : fieldname | value ---------------------------------------- categoryID | 12345 name | test description | this is a test Does anyone know if this is possible ? Can you do a join on strings that come from another select ?? The reason for this is that I'm writing a universal stored procedure that outputs all fields + their values from a table, without knowing what fields there are in the table. (The tablename is given in a parameter)

  Read the article

• What is wrong with my SQL syntax for an UPDATE with a JOIN?

  - by Phil H

  I have two tables, related by a common key. So TableA has key AID and value Name and TableB has keys AID, BID and values Name, Value: AID Name 74 Alpha AID BID Name Value 74 4 Beta Brilliance I would like to update the TableB Value here from Brilliance to Barmy, using just the Name fields. I thought I could do it via an UPDATE containing a JOIN, but Access (I know...) is complaining with 'Syntax error (missing operator) in query expression ' and then everything from 'Barmy' here: UPDATE tB SET tB.BValue='Barmy' FROM TableB tB INNER JOIN TableA tA ON tB.AID=tA.AID WHERE tB.Name='Beta' AND tA.Name='Alpha'; What is my heinous crime? Or is it just Access not conforming?

  Read the article

• Want to avoid the particular rows from select join query... See description

  - by OM The Eternity

  I have a Select Left Join Query whis displays me the rows for the latest changedone(its a time) column name ("field" should not be equal) column name ("trackid" should not be equal), and column name "Operation should be "UPDATE" ", below is the query I am talking about... SELECT j1. * FROM jos_audittrail j1 LEFT OUTER JOIN jos_audittrail j2 ON ( j1.trackid != j2.trackid AND j1.field != j2.field AND j1.changedone < j2.changedone ) WHERE j1.operation = 'UPDATE' AND j2.id IS NULL Now here I don't want a row to be displayed with a two particular column's value i.e. "field's value" the value is "LastvisitDate" and "hits" Now if if append the condition in the above query that " AND j1.field != 'lastvistDate' AND j1.field != 'hits' " theni do not get any result... The table structure is jos_audittrail: id trackid operation oldvalue newvalue table_name live changedone(its a time) I hope i have given the details properly If u still find something missing I will try to provide it more better way... Pls help me to avoid those two rows with those to mentioned value of "field"

  Read the article

• How can I do a left outer join where both tables have a where clause?

  - by cdeszaq

  Here's the scenario: I have 2 tables: CREATE TABLE dbo.API_User ( id int NOT NULL, name nvarchar(255) NOT NULL, authorization_key varchar(255) NOT NULL, is_active bit NOT NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] CREATE TABLE dbo.Single_Sign_On_User ( id int NOT NULL IDENTITY (1, 1), API_User_id int NOT NULL, external_id varchar(255) NOT NULL, user_id int NULL ) ON [PRIMARY] What I am trying to return is the following: is_active for a given authorization_key The Single_Sign_On_User.id that matches the external_id/API_User_id pair if it exists or NULL if there is no such pair When I try this query: SELECT Single_Sign_On_User.id, API_User.is_active FROM API_User LEFT OUTER JOIN Single_Sign_On_User ON Single_Sign_On_User.API_User_id = API_User.id WHERE Single_Sign_On_User.external_id = 'test_ext_id' AND API_User.authorization_key = 'test' where the "test" API_User record exists but the "test_ext_id" record does not, and with no other values in either table, I get no records returned. When I use: SELECT Single_Sign_On_User.id, API_User.is_active FROM API_User LEFT OUTER JOIN Single_Sign_On_User ON Single_Sign_On_User.API_User_id = API_User.id WHERE API_User.authorization_key = 'test' I get the results I expect (NULL, 1), but that query doesn't allow me to find the "test_ext_id" record if it exists but would give me all records associated with the "test" API_User record. How can I get the results I am after?

  Read the article

• Multiple JOIN and SELECT Statements from eight tables

  - by user1486004

  I am trying to make an SQL statement that takes eight different numbers and searches eight different tables from one database for the corresponding value. I keep getting invalid syntax, but I can't figure out why. Here is my code: SELECT cable_length.ID, drawing.ID, optional.ID, output_type.ID, pressure_range.ID, pressure_type.ID, series.ID, termination.ID FROM ( SELECT value AS cable_length FROM A1 WHERE A1.id = %s JOIN SELECT value AS drawing FROM A2 WHERE A2.id = %s, JOIN SELECT value AS optional FROM A3 WHERE A3.id = %s, JOIN SELECT value AS output_type FROM A4 WHERE A4.id = %s, JOIN SELECT value AS pressure_range FROM A5 WHERE A5.id = %s, JOIN SELECT value AS pressure_type FROM A6 WHERE A6.id = %s, JOIN SELECT value AS series FROM A7 WHERE A7.id = %s, JOIN SELECT value AS termination FROM A8 WHERE A8.id = %s ); The %s will be changed to numbers only. The column name in each database is "ID" and "Value". I want to search by "ID" and return "Value". Any help is greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Python os.path.join on Windows

  - by Jim

  I am trying to learn python and am making a program that will output a script. I want to use os.path.join, but am pretty confused. According to the docs if I say: os.path.join('c:', 'sourcedir') I get "C:sourcedir". According to the docs, this is normal, right? But when I use the copytree command, Python will output it the desired way, for example: import shutil src = os.path.join('c:', 'src') dst = os.path.join('c':', 'dst') shutil.copytree(src, dst) Here is the error code I get: WindowsError: [Error 3] The system cannot find the path specified: 'C:src/*.*' If I wrap the os.path.join with os.path.normpath I get the same error. If this os.path.join can't be used this way, then I am confused as to its purpose. According to the pages suggested by Stack Overflow, slashes should not be used in join—that is correct, I assume?

  Read the article

• SQL "JOIN" vs. "INNER JOIN"?

  - by froadie

  I recently came across a query that implements a join using just the "JOIN" keyword. On researching I saw that when using a join in SQL without specifying INNER or OUTER, the default is an INNER JOIN. I've never come across this syntax before; all the SQL I've written/read/worked with specifies INNER or some sort of OUTER (LEFT, RIGHT, FULL...). Is there any reason not to rely on the default? Is the plain JOIN widely used? What are the coding standards regarding JOIN vs. INNER JOIN?

  Read the article

• double left MYSQL join?

  - by Haroldo

  I've been trying left joins but as there are 2 joins, i think the problem is the 2nd join roots from table_B not table_A. i am not getting any results where there is the required data in the db. I am not getting a query error the query (simplified) SELECT events.*, ven.*, events_genres.* FROM events LEFT JOIN ven //OPTIONAL JOIN ON events.ven_id = ven.ven_id //OPTIONAL JOIN LEFT JOIN events_genres //REQUIRED JOIN ON events.event_id = events_genres.event_id //REQUIRED JOIN WHERE events.date >= '$this->now' AND WHERE events_genres.g_id = $g_id //REQUIRED MATCH ORDER BY date ven = optional, i'll have the info if its there. events_genres = required, i dont want any results that do not have a genre

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >