Search Results

Search found 6841 results on 274 pages for 'outer join'.

Page 4/274 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • LINQ 2 SQL:Left outer join for my SQL statement

    - by Shyju
    Can any one tell me the LINQ 2 SQL version (in vb.net) of the below Left outer join query.I am trying to get all Employees with name "Shyju" and their address line 1 if it exist in the address table SELECT E.EMPLOYEE_NAME, E.AGE,A.ADRESS_LINE1 FROM EMPLOYEE_MASTER E LEFT OUTER JOIN ADDRESS_MASTER A ON E.ID=A.EMPLOYEE_ID WHERE E.EMPLOYEE_NAME='Shyju' Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Mulitple full joins in Postgres is slow

    - by blast83
    I have a program to use the IMDB database and am having very slow performance on my query. It appears that it doesn't use my where condition until after it materializes everything. I looked around for hints to use but nothing seems to work. Here is my query: SELECT * FROM name as n1 FULL JOIN aka_name ON n1.id = aka_name.person_id FULL JOIN cast_info as t2 ON n1.id = t2.person_id FULL JOIN person_info as t3 ON n1.id = t3.person_id FULL JOIN char_name as t4 ON t2.person_role_id = t4.id FULL JOIN role_type as t5 ON t2.role_id = t5.id FULL JOIN title as t6 ON t2.movie_id = t6.id FULL JOIN aka_title as t7 ON t6.id = t7.movie_id FULL JOIN complete_cast as t8 ON t6.id = t8.movie_id FULL JOIN kind_type as t9 ON t6.kind_id = t9.id FULL JOIN movie_companies as t10 ON t6.id = t10.movie_id FULL JOIN movie_info as t11 ON t6.id = t11.movie_id FULL JOIN movie_info_idx as t19 ON t6.id = t19.movie_id FULL JOIN movie_keyword as t12 ON t6.id = t12.movie_id FULL JOIN movie_link as t13 ON t6.id = t13.linked_movie_id FULL JOIN link_type as t14 ON t13.link_type_id = t14.id FULL JOIN keyword as t15 ON t12.keyword_id = t15.id FULL JOIN company_name as t16 ON t10.company_id = t16.id FULL JOIN company_type as t17 ON t10.company_type_id = t17.id FULL JOIN comp_cast_type as t18 ON t8.status_id = t18.id WHERE n1.id = 2003 Very table is related to each other on the join via foreign-key constraints and have indexes for all the mentioned columns. The query plan details: "Hash Left Join (cost=5838187.01..13756845.07 rows=15579622 width=835) (actual time=146879.213..146891.861 rows=20 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (t8.status_id = t18.id)" " -> Hash Left Join (cost=5838185.92..13542624.18 rows=15579622 width=822) (actual time=146879.199..146891.833 rows=20 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (t10.company_type_id = t17.id)" " -> Hash Left Join (cost=5838184.83..13328403.29 rows=15579622 width=797) (actual time=146879.165..146891.781 rows=20 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (t10.company_id = t16.id)" " -> Hash Left Join (cost=5828372.95..10061752.03 rows=15579622 width=755) (actual time=146426.483..146429.756 rows=20 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (t12.keyword_id = t15.id)" " -> Hash Left Join (cost=5825164.23..6914088.45 rows=15579622 width=731) (actual time=146372.411..146372.529 rows=20 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (t13.link_type_id = t14.id)" " -> Merge Left Join (cost=5825162.82..6699867.24 rows=15579622 width=715) (actual time=146372.366..146372.472 rows=20 loops=1)" " Merge Cond: (t6.id = t13.linked_movie_id)" " -> Merge Left Join (cost=5684009.29..6378956.77 rows=15579622 width=699) (actual time=144019.620..144019.711 rows=20 loops=1)" " Merge Cond: (t6.id = t12.movie_id)" " -> Merge Left Join (cost=5182403.90..5622400.75 rows=8502523 width=687) (actual time=136849.731..136849.809 rows=20 loops=1)" " Merge Cond: (t6.id = t19.movie_id)" " -> Merge Left Join (cost=4974472.00..5315778.48 rows=8502523 width=637) (actual time=134972.032..134972.099 rows=20 loops=1)" " Merge Cond: (t6.id = t11.movie_id)" " -> Merge Left Join (cost=1830064.81..2033131.89 rows=1341632 width=561) (actual time=63784.035..63784.062 rows=2 loops=1)" " Merge Cond: (t6.id = t10.movie_id)" " -> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=1417360.29..1594294.02 rows=1044480 width=521) (actual time=59279.246..59279.264 rows=1 loops=1)" " Join Filter: (t6.kind_id = t9.id)" " -> Merge Left Join (cost=1417359.22..1429787.34 rows=1044480 width=507) (actual time=59279.222..59279.224 rows=1 loops=1)" " Merge Cond: (t6.id = t8.movie_id)" " -> Merge Left Join (cost=1405731.84..1414378.65 rows=1044480 width=491) (actual time=59121.773..59121.775 rows=1 loops=1)" " Merge Cond: (t6.id = t7.movie_id)" " -> Sort (cost=1346206.04..1348817.24 rows=1044480 width=416) (actual time=58095.230..58095.231 rows=1 loops=1)" " Sort Key: t6.id" " Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 17kB" " -> Hash Left Join (cost=172406.29..456387.53 rows=1044480 width=416) (actual time=57969.371..58095.208 rows=1 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (t2.movie_id = t6.id)" " -> Hash Left Join (cost=104700.38..256885.82 rows=1044480 width=358) (actual time=49981.493..50006.303 rows=1 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (t2.role_id = t5.id)" " -> Hash Left Join (cost=104699.11..242522.95 rows=1044480 width=343) (actual time=49981.441..50006.250 rows=1 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (t2.person_role_id = t4.id)" " -> Hash Left Join (cost=464.96..12283.95 rows=1044480 width=269) (actual time=0.071..0.087 rows=1 loops=1)" " Hash Cond: (n1.id = t3.person_id)" " -> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.00..49.39 rows=7680 width=160) (actual time=0.051..0.066 rows=1 loops=1)" " -> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.00..17.04 rows=3 width=119) (actual time=0.038..0.041 rows=1 loops=1)" " -> Index Scan using name_pkey on name n1 (cost=0.00..8.68 rows=1 width=39) (actual time=0.022..0.024 rows=1 loops=1)" " Index Cond: (id = 2003)" " -> Index Scan using aka_name_idx_person on aka_name (cost=0.00..8.34 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=0.010..0.010 rows=0 loops=1)" " Index Cond: ((aka_name.person_id = 2003) AND (n1.id = aka_name.person_id))" " -> Index Scan using cast_info_idx_pid on cast_info t2 (cost=0.00..10.77 rows=1 width=41) (actual time=0.011..0.020 rows=1 loops=1)" " Index Cond: ((t2.person_id = 2003) AND (n1.id = t2.person_id))" " -> Hash (cost=463.26..463.26 rows=136 width=109) (actual time=0.010..0.010 rows=0 loops=1)" " -> Index Scan using person_info_idx_pid on person_info t3 (cost=0.00..463.26 rows=136 width=109) (actual time=0.009..0.009 rows=0 loops=1)" " Index Cond: (person_id = 2003)" " -> Hash (cost=42697.62..42697.62 rows=2442362 width=74) (actual time=49305.872..49305.872 rows=2442362 loops=1)" " -> Seq Scan on char_name t4 (cost=0.00..42697.62 rows=2442362 width=74) (actual time=14.066..22775.087 rows=2442362 loops=1)" " -> Hash (cost=1.12..1.12 rows=12 width=15) (actual time=0.024..0.024 rows=12 loops=1)" " -> Seq Scan on role_type t5 (cost=0.00..1.12 rows=12 width=15) (actual time=0.012..0.014 rows=12 loops=1)" " -> Hash (cost=31134.07..31134.07 rows=1573507 width=58) (actual time=7841.225..7841.225 rows=1573507 loops=1)" " -> Seq Scan on title t6 (cost=0.00..31134.07 rows=1573507 width=58) (actual time=21.507..2799.443 rows=1573507 loops=1)" " -> Materialize (cost=59525.80..63203.88 rows=294246 width=75) (actual time=812.376..984.958 rows=192075 loops=1)" " -> Sort (cost=59525.80..60261.42 rows=294246 width=75) (actual time=812.363..922.452 rows=192075 loops=1)" " Sort Key: t7.movie_id" " Sort Method: external merge Disk: 24880kB" " -> Seq Scan on aka_title t7 (cost=0.00..6646.46 rows=294246 width=75) (actual time=24.652..164.822 rows=294246 loops=1)" " -> Materialize (cost=11627.38..12884.43 rows=100564 width=16) (actual time=123.819..149.086 rows=41907 loops=1)" " -> Sort (cost=11627.38..11878.79 rows=100564 width=16) (actual time=123.807..138.530 rows=41907 loops=1)" " Sort Key: t8.movie_id" " Sort Method: external merge Disk: 3136kB" " -> Seq Scan on complete_cast t8 (cost=0.00..1549.64 rows=100564 width=16) (actual time=0.013..10.744 rows=100564 loops=1)" " -> Materialize (cost=1.08..1.15 rows=7 width=14) (actual time=0.016..0.029 rows=7 loops=1)" " -> Seq Scan on kind_type t9 (cost=0.00..1.07 rows=7 width=14) (actual time=0.011..0.013 rows=7 loops=1)" " -> Materialize (cost=412704.52..437969.09 rows=2021166 width=40) (actual time=3420.356..4278.545 rows=1028995 loops=1)" " -> Sort (cost=412704.52..417757.43 rows=2021166 width=40) (actual time=3420.349..3953.483 rows=1028995 loops=1)" " Sort Key: t10.movie_id" " Sort Method: external merge Disk: 90960kB" " -> Seq Scan on movie_companies t10 (cost=0.00..35214.66 rows=2021166 width=40) (actual time=13.271..566.893 rows=2021166 loops=1)" " -> Materialize (cost=3144407.19..3269057.42 rows=9972019 width=76) (actual time=65485.672..70083.219 rows=5039009 loops=1)" " -> Sort (cost=3144407.19..3169337.23 rows=9972019 width=76) (actual time=65485.667..68385.550 rows=5038999 loops=1)" " Sort Key: t11.movie_id" " Sort Method: external merge Disk: 735512kB" " -> Seq Scan on movie_info t11 (cost=0.00..212815.19 rows=9972019 width=76) (actual time=15.750..15715.608 rows=9972019 loops=1)" " -> Materialize (cost=207925.01..219867.92 rows=955433 width=50) (actual time=1483.989..1785.636 rows=429401 loops=1)" " -> Sort (cost=207925.01..210313.59 rows=955433 width=50) (actual time=1483.983..1654.165 rows=429401 loops=1)" " Sort Key: t19.movie_id" " Sort Method: external merge Disk: 31720kB" " -> Seq Scan on movie_info_idx t19 (cost=0.00..15047.33 rows=955433 width=50) (actual time=7.284..221.597 rows=955433 loops=1)" " -> Materialize (cost=501605.39..537645.64 rows=2883220 width=12) (actual time=5823.040..6868.242 rows=1597396 loops=1)" " -> Sort (cost=501605.39..508813.44 rows=2883220 width=12) (actual time=5823.026..6477.517 rows=1597396 loops=1)" " Sort Key: t12.movie_id" " Sort Method: external merge Disk: 78888kB" " -> Seq Scan on movie_keyword t12 (cost=0.00..44417.20 rows=2883220 width=12) (actual time=11.672..839.498 rows=2883220 loops=1)" " -> Materialize (cost=141143.93..152995.81 rows=948150 width=16) (actual time=1916.356..2253.004 rows=478358 loops=1)" " -> Sort (cost=141143.93..143514.31 rows=948150 width=16) (actual time=1916.344..2125.698 rows=478358 loops=1)" " Sort Key: t13.linked_movie_id" " Sort Method: external merge Disk: 29632kB" " -> Seq Scan on movie_link t13 (cost=0.00..14607.50 rows=948150 width=16) (actual time=27.610..297.962 rows=948150 loops=1)" " -> Hash (cost=1.18..1.18 rows=18 width=16) (actual time=0.020..0.020 rows=18 loops=1)" " -> Seq Scan on link_type t14 (cost=0.00..1.18 rows=18 width=16) (actual time=0.010..0.012 rows=18 loops=1)" " -> Hash (cost=1537.10..1537.10 rows=91010 width=24) (actual time=54.055..54.055 rows=91010 loops=1)" " -> Seq Scan on keyword t15 (cost=0.00..1537.10 rows=91010 width=24) (actual time=0.006..14.703 rows=91010 loops=1)" " -> Hash (cost=4585.61..4585.61 rows=245461 width=42) (actual time=445.269..445.269 rows=245461 loops=1)" " -> Seq Scan on company_name t16 (cost=0.00..4585.61 rows=245461 width=42) (actual time=12.037..309.961 rows=245461 loops=1)" " -> Hash (cost=1.04..1.04 rows=4 width=25) (actual time=0.013..0.013 rows=4 loops=1)" " -> Seq Scan on company_type t17 (cost=0.00..1.04 rows=4 width=25) (actual time=0.009..0.010 rows=4 loops=1)" " -> Hash (cost=1.04..1.04 rows=4 width=13) (actual time=0.006..0.006 rows=4 loops=1)" " -> Seq Scan on comp_cast_type t18 (cost=0.00..1.04 rows=4 width=13) (actual time=0.002..0.003 rows=4 loops=1)" "Total runtime: 147055.016 ms" Is there anyway to force the name.id = 2003 before it tries to join all the tables together? As you can see, the end result is 4 tuples but it seems like it should be a fast join by using the available index after it limited it down with the name clause, although very complex.

    Read the article

  • Display a ranking grid for game : optimization of left outer join and find a player

    - by Jerome C.
    Hello, I want to do a ranking grid. I have a table with different values indexed by a key: Table SimpleValue : key varchar, value int, playerId int I have a player which have several SimpleValue. Table Player: id int, nickname varchar Now imagine these records: SimpleValue: Key value playerId for 1 1 int 2 1 agi 2 1 lvl 5 1 for 6 2 int 3 2 agi 1 2 lvl 4 2 Player: id nickname 1 Bob 2 John I want to display a rank of these players on various SimpleValue. Something like: nickname for lvl Bob 1 5 John 6 4 For the moment I generate an sql query based on which SimpleValue key you want to display and on which SimpleValue key you want to order players. eg: I want to display 'lvl' and 'for' of each player and order them on the 'lvl' The generated query is: SELECT p.nickname as nickname, v1.value as lvl, v2.value as for FROM Player p LEFT OUTER JOIN SimpleValue v1 ON p.id=v1.playerId and v1.key = 'lvl' LEFT OUTER JOIN SimpleValue v2 ON p.id=v2.playerId and v2.key = 'for' ORDER BY v1.value This query runs perfectly. BUT if I want to display 10 different values, it generates 10 'left outer join'. Is there a way to simplify this query ? I've got a second question: Is there a way to display a portion of this ranking. Imagine I've 1000 players and I want to display TOP 10, I use the LIMIT keyword. Now I want to display the rank of the player Bob which is 326/1000 and I want to display 5 rank player above and below (so from 321 to 331 position). How can I achieve it ? thanks.

    Read the article

  • LEFT OUTER JOIN in NHibernate with SQL semantics

    - by Yuval
    Hi, Is it possible to use HQL/ICritera to produce a query with the same semantics as the following SQL query: select table1.A, table2.B, count(*) from table1 left join (select table2.parent_id, table2.B from table2 where table2.C = 'Some value') as table2 on table2.parent_id = table1.id group by table1.A, table2.B order by table1.A In particular, what I'd like is to receive rows (that is, objects) from table1 that have no matching rows in table2. However, I only get the rows from table1 that have matches in table2. Is this the meaning of 'LEFT JOIN' in HQL? And if so, how can I get it to join on a subquery? Tnx.

    Read the article

  • Linq To Sql Left outer join - filtering null results

    - by Harry
    I'd like to reproduce the following SQL into C# LinqToSql SELECT TOP(10) Keywords.* FROM Keywords LEFT OUTER JOIN IgnoreWords ON Keywords.WordID = IgnoreWords.ID WHERE (DomainID = 16673) AND (IgnoreWords.Name IS NULL) ORDER BY [Score] DESC The following C# Linq gives the right answer. But I can't help think I'm missing something (a better way of doing it?) var query = (from keyword in context.Keywords join ignore in context.IgnoreWords on keyword.WordID equals ignore.ID into ignored from i in ignored.DefaultIfEmpty() where i == null where keyword.DomainID == ID orderby keyword.Score descending select keyword).Take(10); the SQL produced looks something like this: SELECT TOP (10) [t0].[DomainID], [t0].[WordID], [t0].[Score], [t0].[Count] FROM [dbo].[Keywords] AS [t0] LEFT OUTER JOIN (SELECT 1 AS [test], [t1].[ID] FROM [dbo].[IgnoreWords] AS [t1]) AS [t2] ON [t0].[WordID] = [t2].[ID] WHERE ([t0].[DomainID] = 16673) AND ([t2].[test] IS NULL) ORDER BY [t0].[Score] DESC How can I get rid of this redundant inner selection? It's only slightly more expensive but every bit helps!

    Read the article

  • NHibernate Left Outer Join

    - by Matthew
    I'm looking to create a Left outer join Nhibernate query with multiple on statements akin to this: SELECT * FROM [Database].[dbo].[Posts] p LEFT JOIN [Database].[dbo].[PostInteractions] i ON p.PostId = i.PostID_TargetPost And i.UserID_ActingUser = 202 I've been fooling around with the critera and aliases, but I haven't had any luck figuring out how do to this. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Help using left outer joins in SQL...

    - by Waffles
    I'm trying to create a list of people, their friends, and their friends of friends. My table of people is this: People: NAME Jow Smith Sandy Phil Friends LIKER LIKEE jow smith smith jow sandy phil Now, what I want is a table like this: User Friend FriendofFriend Jow smith jow Smith jow smith sandy phil phil I'm trying to create a table using the following: SELECT P.NAME, F.LIKEE, F2.LIKEE FROM PEOPLE P LEFT OUTER JOIN FRIENDS F ON P.NAME = F.LIKER LEFT OUTER JOIN FRIENDS F2 ON F.LIKEE = F2.LIKER But the above isn't working. How can I get a table of people and their friends, regardless of whether or not they actually HAVE any friends?

    Read the article

  • Need some serious help with self join issue.

    - by kralco626
    Well as you may know, you cannot index a view with a self join. Well actually even two joins of the same table, even if it's not technically a self join. A couple of guys from microsoft came up with a work around. But it's so complicated I don't understand it!!! The solution to the problem is here: http://jmkehayias.blogspot.com/2008/12/creating-indexed-view-with-self-join.html The view I want to apply this work around to is: create VIEW vw_lookup_test WITH SCHEMABINDING AS select count_big(*) as [count_all], awc_txt, city_nm, str_nm, stru_no, o.circt_cstdn_nm [owner], t.circt_cstdn_nm [tech], dvc.circt_nm, data_orgtn_yr from ((dbo.dvc join dbo.circt on dvc.circt_nm = circt.circt_nm) join dbo.circt_cstdn o on circt.circt_cstdn_user_id = o.circt_cstdn_user_id) join dbo.circt_cstdn t on dvc.circt_cstdn_user_id = t.circt_cstdn_user_id group by awc_txt, city_nm, str_nm, stru_no, o.circt_cstdn_nm, t.circt_cstdn_nm, dvc.circt_nm, data_orgtn_yr go Any help would be greatly apreciated!!! Thanks so much in advance!

    Read the article

  • How can I join multiple .mpg movie files?

    - by Kapsh
    I create a lot of these small clips on my digital camera. These are in .mpg format and before I share them with others, I would love to just join, clip a few seconds here and there. I use Google Picassa to create new start and end points, but I dont know a good way to join mpgs yet. Whats the best free software i can use for this?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER 2008 JOIN hints

    - by Nai
    Hi all, Recently, I was trying to optimise this query UPDATE Analytics SET UserID = x.UserID FROM Analytics z INNER JOIN UserDetail x ON x.UserGUID = z.UserGUID Estimated execution plan show 57% on the Table Update and 40% on a Hash Match (Aggregate). I did some snooping around and came across the topic of JOIN hints. So I added a LOOP hint to my inner join and WA-ZHAM! The new execution plan shows 38% on the Table Update and 58% on an Index Seek. So I was about to start applying LOOP hints to all my queries until prudence got the better of me. After some googling, I realised that JOIN hints are not very well covered in BOL. Therefore... Can someone please tell me why applying LOOP hints to all my queries is a bad idea. I read somewhere that a LOOP JOIN is default JOIN method for query optimiser but couldn't verify the validity of the statement? When are JOIN hints used? When the sh*t hits the fan and ghost busters ain't in town? What's the difference between LOOP, HASH and MERGE hints? BOL states that MERGE seems to be the slowest but what is the application of each hint? Thanks for your time and help people! I'm running SQL Server 2008 BTW. The statistics mentioned above are ESTIMATED execution plans.

    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

  • query for inner join of table 4.

    - by amol kadam
    hi.... I'm facing the problem of inner join of table 4 following is query given plz see & give me solution select INSURED.FNAME + ' ' + INSURED.LNAME AS MNAME ,INSURED.MEMBCODE as MEMBERCODE ,INSURED.POLICYNO AS POLICYNO ,INSURED.POLICYFRMDATE AS POLICYFROMDATE ,INSURED.POLICYTODATE AS POLICYTODATE , MEMBERSHIP.MRKEXTNAME AS MARKETINGEXECUTIVE ,MEMBERSHIP.EMPLOYEECOUNT AS EMPLOYEECOUNT ,INSURED.CLAIMID AS CLAIMID ,POLICY.POLICYTYPE ,POLICY.COVAMTHOSPITAL as SUMINSURED ,ORGANIZATION.ORGANIZATIONNAME from ((INSURED inner join MEMBERSHIP on MEMBERSHIP.MEMBERSHIPID=INSURED.MEMBERSHIPID) inner join POLICY on MEMBERSHIP.POLICYNAME=POLICY.POLICYNAME) inner join ORGANIZATION on ORGANIZATION.ORGANIZATIONID=MEMBERSHIP.ORGANIZATIONID WHERE INSUREDID=427

    Read the article

  • nested join linq-to-sql queries

    - by ile
    var result = ( from contact in db.Contacts where contact.ContactID == id join referContactID in db.ContactRefferedBies on contact.ContactID equals referContactID.ContactID join referContactName in db.Contacts on contact.ContactID equals referContactID.ContactID orderby contact.ContactID descending select new ContactReferredByView { ContactReferredByID = referContactID.ContactReferredByID, ContactReferredByName = referContactName.FirstName + " " + referContactName.LastName }).Single(); Problem is in this line: join referContactName in db.Contacts on contact.ContactID equals referContactID.ContactID where referContactID.ContactID is called from the above join line. How to nest these two joins? Thanks in advance! Ile

    Read the article

  • Join 2 children tables with a parent tables without duplicated

    - by user1847866
    Problem I have 3 tables: People, Phones and Emails. Each person has an UNIQUE ID, and each person can have multiple numbers or multiple emails. Simplified it looks like this: +---------+----------+ | ID | Name | +---------+----------+ | 5000003 | Amy | | 5000004 | George | | 5000005 | John | | 5000008 | Steven | | 8000009 | Ashley | +---------+----------+ +---------+-----------------+ | ID | Number | +---------+-----------------+ | 5000005 | 5551234 | | 5000005 | 5154324 | | 5000008 | 2487312 | | 8000009 | 7134584 | | 5000008 | 8451384 | +---------+-----------------+ +---------+------------------------------+ | ID | Email | +---------+------------------------------+ | 5000005 | [email protected] | | 5000005 | [email protected] | | 5000008 | [email protected] | | 5000008 | [email protected] | | 5000008 | [email protected] | | 8000009 | [email protected] | | 5000004 | [email protected] | +---------+------------------------------+ I am trying to joining them together without duplicates. It works great, when I try to join only Emails with People or only Phones with People. SELECT People.Name, People.ID, Phones.Number FROM People LEFT OUTER JOIN Phones ON People.ID=Phones.ID ORDER BY Name, ID, Number; +----------+---------+-----------------+ | Name | ID | Number | +----------+---------+-----------------+ | Steven | 5000008 | 8451384 | | Steven | 5000008 | 24887312 | | John | 5000005 | 5551234 | | John | 5000005 | 5154324 | | George | 5000004 | NULL | | Ashley | 8000009 | 7134584 | | Amy | 5000003 | NULL | +----------+---------+-----------------+ SELECT People.Name, People.ID, Emails.Email FROM People LEFT OUTER JOIN Emails ON People.ID=Emails.ID ORDER BY Name, ID, Email; +----------+---------+------------------------------+ | Name | ID | Email | +----------+---------+------------------------------+ | Steven | 5000008 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | [email protected] | | George | 5000004 | [email protected] | | Ashley | 8000009 | [email protected] | | Amy | 5000003 | NULL | +----------+---------+------------------------------+ However, when I try to join Emails and Phones on People - I get this: SELECT People.Name, People.ID, Phones.Number, Emails.Email FROM People LEFT OUTER JOIN Phones ON People.ID = Phones.ID LEFT OUTER JOIN Emails ON People.ID = Emails.ID ORDER BY Name, ID, Number, Email; +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ | Name | ID | Number | Email | +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ | Steven | 5000008 | 8451384 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | 8451384 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | 8451384 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | 24887312 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | 24887312 | [email protected] | | Steven | 5000008 | 24887312 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | 5551234 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | 5551234 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | 5154324 | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | 5154324 | [email protected] | | George | 5000004 | NULL | [email protected] | | Ashley | 8000009 | 7134584 | [email protected] | | Amy | 5000003 | NULL | NULL | +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ What happens is - if a Person has 2 numbers, all his emails are shown twice (They can not be sorted! which means they can not be removed by @last) What I want: Bottom line, playing with the @last, I want to end up with somethig like this, but @last won't work if I don't arrange ORDER columns in the righ way - and this seems like a big problem..Orderin the email column. Because seen from the example above: Steven has 2 phone number and 3 emails. The JOIN Emails with Numbers happens with each email - thus duplicated values that can not be sorted (SORT BY does not work on them). **THIS IS WHAT I WANT** +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ | Name | ID | Number | Email | +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ | Steven | 5000008 | 8451384 | [email protected] | | | | 24887312 | [email protected] | | | | | [email protected] | | John | 5000005 | 5551234 | [email protected] | | | | 5154324 | [email protected] | | George | 5000004 | NULL | [email protected] | | Ashley | 8000009 | 7134584 | [email protected] | | Amy | 5000003 | NULL | NULL | +----------+---------+-----------------+------------------------------+ Now I'm told that it's best to keep emails and number in separated tables because one can have many emails. So if it's such a common thing to do, what isn't there a simple solution? I'd be happy with a PHP Solution aswell. What I know how to do by now that satisfies it, but is not as pretty. If I do it with GROUP_CONTACT I geat a satisfactory result, but it doesn't look as pretty: I can't put a "Email type = work" next to it. SELECT People.Ime, GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT Phones.Number), GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT Emails.Email) FROM People LEFT OUTER JOIN Phones ON People.ID=Phones.ID LEFT OUTER JOIN Emails ON People.ID=Emails.ID GROUP BY Name; +----------+----------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Name | GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT Phones.Number) | GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT Emails.Email) | +----------+----------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Steven | 8451384,24887312 | [email protected],[email protected],[email protected] | | John | 5551234,5154324 | [email protected],[email protected] | | George | NULL | [email protected] | | Ashley | 7134584 | [email protected] | | Amy | NULL | NULL | +----------+----------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

    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

  • SQL - How to join on similar (not exact) columns

    - by BlueRaja
    I have two tables which get updated at almost the exact same time - I need to join on the datetime column. I've tried this: SELECT * FROM A, B WHERE ABS(DATEDIFF(second, A.Date_Time, B.Date_Time) = ( SELECT MIN(ABS(DATEDIFF(second, A.Date_Time, B2.Date_Time))) FROM B AS B2 ) But it tells me: Multiple columns are specified in an aggregated expression containing an outer reference. If an expression being aggregated contains an outer reference, then that outer reference must be the only column referenced in the expression. How can I join these tables?

    Read the article

  • Inner Join with more than a field

    - by Leandro
    Precise to do a select with inner join that has relationship in more than a field among the tables Exemple: DataSet dt = new Select().From(SubConta.Schema) .InnerJoin(PlanoContabilSubConta.EmpSubContaColumn, SubConta.CodEmpColumn) .InnerJoin(PlanoContabilSubConta.FilSubContaColumn, SubConta.CodFilColumn) .InnerJoin(PlanoContabilSubConta.SubContaColumn, SubConta.TradutorColumn) .Where(PlanoContabilSubConta.Columns.EmpContabil).IsEqualTo(cEmp) .And(PlanoContabilSubConta.Columns.FilContabil).IsEqualTo(cFil) .And(PlanoContabilSubConta.Columns.Conta).IsEqualTo(cTrad) .ExecuteDataSet(); But the generated sql is wrong: exec sp_executesql N'/* GetDataSet() */ SELECT [dbo].[SubContas].[CodEmp], [dbo].[SubContas].[CodFil], [dbo].[SubContas].[Tradutor], [dbo].[SubContas].[Descricao], [dbo].[SubContas].[Inativa], [dbo].[SubContas].[DataImplantacao] FROM [dbo].[SubContas] INNER JOIN [dbo].[PlanoContabilSubContas] ON [dbo].[SubContas].[CodEmp] = [dbo].[PlanoContabilSubContas].[EmpSubConta] INNER JOIN [dbo].[PlanoContabilSubContas] ON [dbo].[SubContas].[CodFil] = [dbo].[PlanoContabilSubContas].[FilSubConta] INNER JOIN [dbo].[PlanoContabilSubContas] ON [dbo].[SubContas].[Tradutor] = [dbo].[PlanoContabilSubContas].[SubConta] WHERE EmpContabil = @EmpContabil0 AND FilContabil = @FilContabil1 AND Conta = @Conta2 ',N'@EmpContabil0 varchar(1),@FilContabil1 varchar(1),@Conta2 varchar(1)',@EmpContabil0='1',@FilContabil1='1',@Conta2='1' What should be made to generate this sql? exec sp_executesql N'/* GetDataSet() */ SELECT [dbo].[SubContas].[CodEmp], [dbo].[SubContas].[CodFil], [dbo].[SubContas].[Tradutor], [dbo].[SubContas].[Descricao], [dbo].[SubContas].[Inativa], [dbo].[SubContas].[DataImplantacao] FROM [dbo].[SubContas] INNER JOIN [dbo].[PlanoContabilSubContas] ON [dbo].[SubContas].[CodEmp] = [dbo].[PlanoContabilSubContas].[EmpSubConta] AND [dbo].[SubContas].[CodFil] = [dbo].[PlanoContabilSubContas].[FilSubConta] AND [dbo].[SubContas].[Tradutor] = [dbo].[PlanoContabilSubContas].[SubConta] WHERE EmpContabil = @EmpContabil0 AND FilContabil = @FilContabil1 AND Conta = @Conta2 ',N'@EmpContabil0 varchar(1),@FilContabil1 varchar(1),@Conta2 varchar(1)',@EmpContabil0='1',@FilContabil1='1',@Conta2='1'

    Read the article

  • Difference b/w putting condition in JOIN clause versus WHERE clause

    - by user244953
    Suppose I have 3 tables. Sales Rep Rep Code First Name Last Name Phone Email Sales Team Orders Order Number Rep Code Customer Number Order Date Order Status Customer Customer Number Name Address Phone Number I want to get a detailed report of Sales for 2010. I would be doing a join. I am interested in knowing which of the following is more efficient and why ? SELECT O.OrderNum, R.Name, C.Name FROM Order O INNER JOIN Rep R ON O.RepCode = R.RepCode INNER JOIN Customer C ON O.CustomerNumber = C.CustomerNumber WHERE O.OrderDate >= '01/01/2010' OR SELECT O.OrderNum, R.Name, C.Name FROM Order O INNER JOIN Rep R ON (O.RepCode = R.RepCode AND O.OrderDate >= '01/01/2010') INNER JOIN Customer C ON O.CustomerNumber = C.CustomerNumber

    Read the article

  • C# LINQ: Join and Group

    - by Soo
    I have two tables TableA aId aValue TableB bId aId bValue I want to join these two tables via aId, and from there, group them by bValue var result = from a in db.TableA join b in db.TableB on a.aId equals b.aId group b by b.bValue into x select new {x}; My code doesn't recognize the join after the group. In other words, the grouping works, but the join doesn't (or at least I can't figure out how to access all of the data after the join). Any help would be appreciated. I'm a n00b.

    Read the article

  • Left Join works with table but fails with query

    - by Frank Martin
    The following left join query in MS Access 2007 SELECT Table1.Field_A, Table1.Field_B, qry_Table2_Combined.Field_A, qry_Table2_Combined.Field_B, qry_Table2_Combined.Combined_Field FROM Table1 LEFT JOIN qry_Table2_Combined ON (Table1.Field_A = qry_Table2_Combined.Field_A) AND (Table1.Field_B = qry_Table2_Combined.Field_B); is expected by me to return this result: +--------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+ |Field_A | Field_B | Field_A | Field_B | Combined_Field | +--------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+ |1 | | | | | +--------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+ |1 | | | | | +--------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+ |2 |1 |2 |1 |John, Doe | +--------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+ |2 |2 | | | | +--------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+ [Table1] has 4 records, [qry_Table2_Combined] has 1 record. But it gives me this: +--------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+ |Field_A | Field_B | Field_A | Field_B | Combined_Field | +--------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+ |2 |1 |2 |1 |John, Doe | +--------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+ |2 |2 |2 | |, | +--------+---------+---------+---------+----------------+ Really weird is that the [Combined_Field] has a comma in the second row. I use a comma to concatenate two fields in [qry_Table2_Combined]. If the left join query uses a table created from the query [qry_Table2_Combined] it works as expected. Why does this left join query not give the same result for a query and a table? And how can i get the right results using a query in the left join?

    Read the article

  • alias some columns names as one field in oracle's join select query

    - by Marecky
    Hi We are developing something like a social networking website. I've got task to do 'follow me' functionality. In our website objects are users, teams, companies, channels and groups (please don't ask why there are groups and teams - it is complicated for me too, but teams are releated to user's talent) Users, teams, channels, companies and groups have all their own tables. I have a query which gets me all the follower's leaders like this select --fo.leader_id, --fo.leader_type, us.name as user_name, co.name as company_name, ch.title as channel_name, gr.name as group_name, tt.name as team_name from follow_up fo left join users us on (fo.leader_id = us.id and fo.leader_type = 'user') left join companies co on (fo.leader_id = co.user_id and fo.leader_type = 'company') left join channels ch on (fo.leader_id = ch.id and fo.leader_type = 'channel') left join groups gr on (fo.leader_id = gr.id and fo.leader_type = 'group') left join talent_teams tt on (fo.leader_id = tt.id and fo.leader_type = 'team') where follower_id = 83 I need to get all fields like: user_name, company_name, channel_name, group_name, team_name as one field in SELECT's product. I have tried to alias them all the same 'name' but Oracle numbered it. Please help :)

    Read the article

  • MySQL join not returning rows

    - by John
    I'm attempting to create an anti-bruteforcer for the login page on a website. Unfortunately, my query is not working as expected. I would like to test how many times an IP address has attempted to login, and also return the ID of the user for my next step in the login process. However, I'm having a problem with the query... for one thing, this would only return rows if it was the same user as they had been trying to login to before. I need it to be any user. Secondly, regardless of whether I use LEFT JOIN, RIGHT JOIN, INNER JOIN or JOIN, it will not return the user's ID unless there is a row for the user in login_attempts. SELECT COUNT(`la`.`id`), `u`.`id` FROM `users` AS `u` LEFT JOIN `login_attempts` AS `la` ON `u`.`id` = `la`.`user_id` WHERE `u`.`username` = 'admin' AND `la`.`ip_address` = '127.0.0.1' AND `la`.`timestamp` >= '1'

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >