Search Results

Search found 20031 results on 802 pages for 'full outer join'.

Page 5/802 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • PostgreSQL: Full Text Search - How to search partial words ?

    - by Anthoni Gardner
    Hello, Following a question posted here about how I can increase the speed on one of my SQL Search methods, I was advised to update my table to make use of Full Text Search. This is what I have now done, using Gist indexes to make searching faster. On some of the "plain" queries I have noticed a marked increase which I am very happy about. However, I am having difficulty in searching for partial words. For example I have several records that contain the word Squire (454) and I have several records that contain Squirrel (173). Now if I search for Squire it only returns the 454 records but I also want it to return the Squirrel records as well. My query looks like this SELECT title FROM movies WHERE vectors @@ to_tsoquery('squire'); I thought I could do to_tsquery('squire%') but that does not work. How do I get it to search for partial matches ? Also, in my database I have records that are movies and others that are just TV Shows. These are differentiated by the "" over the name, so like "Munsters" is a TV Show, whereas The Munsters is the film of the show. What I want to be able to do is search for just the TV Show AND just the movies. Any idea on how I can achieve this ? Regards Anthoni

    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

  • Full-text search error during full-text index population : Error Code '0x80092003'

    - by user360074
    Dear All, I have problem with Full-Text Search service in production environment. Each time I rebuild full-text catalog, there is no error in User Interface, but there is no data in Full-Text Catalog Item Count : 0 Catalog size : 0 MB OS : Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition Service Pack2 SQL Server Version : Microsoft SQL Server 2005 - 9.00.1399.06 (Intel X86) Oct 14 2005 00:33:37 Copyright (c) 1988-2005 Microsoft Corporation Standard Edition on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790: Service Pack 2) It work on dev server (windows xp professional version 2002 service pack 3) but error on prod server (Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition Service Pack2) This is error log. Scrawl Log: 2010-06-02 03:51:31.06 spid24s Informational: Full-text Full population initialized for table or indexed view '[test1].[dbo].[test]' (table or indexed view ID '37575172', database ID '9'). Population sub-tasks: 1. 2010-06-02 03:51:31.06 spid24s Error '0x80092003' occurred during full-text index population for table or indexed view '[test1].[dbo].[test]' (table or indexed view ID '37575172', database ID '9'), full-text key value 0x00000006. Attempt will be made to reindex it. 2010-06-02 03:51:31.06 spid24s The component 'MSFTE.DLL' reported error while indexing. Component path 'D:\Program Files\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1\MSSQL\Binn\MSFTE.DLL'. 2010-06-02 03:51:31.06 spid24s Error '0x80092003' occurred during full-text index population for table or indexed view '[test1].[dbo].[test]' (table or indexed view ID '37575172', database ID '9'), full-text key value 0x00000005. Attempt will be made to reindex it.

    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

  • Tell me SQL Server Full-Text searcher is crazy, not me.

    - by Ian Boyd
    i have some customers with a particular address that the user is searching for: 123 generic way There are 5 rows in the database that match: ResidentialAddress1 ============================= 123 GENERIC WAY 123 GENERIC WAY 123 GENERIC WAY 123 GENERIC WAY 123 GENERIC WAY i run a FT query to look for these rows. i'll show you each step as i add more criteria to the search: SELECT ResidentialAddress1 FROM Patrons WHERE CONTAINS(Patrons.ResidentialAddress1, '"123*"') ResidentialAddress1 ========================= 123 MAPLE STREET 12345 TEST 123 MINE STREET 123 GENERIC WAY 123 FAKE STREET ... (30 row(s) affected) Okay, so far so good, now adding the word "generic": SELECT ResidentialAddress1 FROM Patrons WHERE CONTAINS(Patrons.ResidentialAddress1, '"123*"') AND CONTAINS(Patrons.ResidentialAddress1, '"generic*"') ResidentialAddress1 ============================= 123 GENERIC WAY 123 GENERIC WAY 123 GENERIC WAY 123 GENERIC WAY 123 GENERIC WAY (5 row(s) affected) Excellent. And now i'l add the final keyword that the user wants to make sure exists: SELECT ResidentialAddress1 FROM Patrons WHERE CONTAINS(Patrons.ResidentialAddress1, '"123*"') AND CONTAINS(Patrons.ResidentialAddress1, '"generic*"') AND CONTAINS(Patrons.ResidentialAddress1, '"way*"') ResidentialAddress1 ------------------------------ (0 row(s) affected) Huh? No rows? What if i query for just "way*": SELECT ResidentialAddress1 FROM Patrons WHERE CONTAINS(Patrons.ResidentialAddress1, '"way*"') ResidentialAddress1 ------------------------------ (0 row(s) affected) At first i thought that perhaps it's because of the *, and it's requiring that the root way have more characters after it. But that's not true: Searching for "123*" matches "123" Searching for "generic*" matches "generic" Books online says, The asterisk matches zero, one, or more characters What if i remove the * just for s&g: SELECT ResidentialAddress1 FROM Patrons WHERE CONTAINS(Patrons.ResidentialAddress1, '"way"') Server: Msg 7619, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 A clause of the query contained only ignored words. So one might think that you are just not allowed to even search for way, either alone, or as a root. But this isn't true either: SELECT * FROM Patrons WHERE CONTAINS(Patrons.*, '"way*"') AccountNumber FirstName Lastname ------------- --------- -------- 33589 JOHN WAYNE So sum up, the user is searching for rows that contain all the words: 123 generic way Which i, correctly, translate into the WHERE clauses: SELECT * FROM Patrons WHERE CONTAINS(Patrons.*, '"123*"') AND CONTAINS(Patrons.*, '"generic*"') AND CONTAINS(Patrons.*, '"way*"') which returns no rows. Tell me this just isn't going to work, that it's not my fault, and SQL Server is crazy. Note: i've emptied the FT index and rebuilt it.

    Read the article

  • How can Hosting Providers allow .NET Full Trust?

    - by Alex
    I wondered how certain .NET hosting providers can safely grant full trust to their customers? Doesn't this open up everybody who is hosting with that company to potential safety issues? Or is there a way to safely restrict each customer, despite giving full trust, to "their" space without giving them the abiliy to bring down the system or spy on other customers?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Excessive use of Inner Join for more than 3 tables

    - by Archangel08
    Good Day, I have 4 tables on my DB (not the actual name but almost similar) which are the ff: employee,education,employment_history,referrence employee_id is the name of the foreign key from employee table. Here's the example (not actual) data: **Employee** ID Name Birthday Gender Email 1 John Smith 08-15-2014 Male [email protected] 2 Jane Doe 00-00-0000 Female [email protected] 3 John Doe 00-00-0000 Male [email protected] **Education** Employee_ID Primary Secondary Vocation 1 Westside School Westshore H.S SouthernBay College 2 Eastside School Eastshore H.S NorthernBay College 3 Northern School SouthernShore H.S WesternBay College **Employment_History** Employee_ID WorkOne StartDate Enddate 1 StarBean Cafe 12-31-2012 01-01-2013 2 Coffebucks Cafe 11-01-2012 11-02-2012 3 Latte Cafe 01-02-2013 04-05-2013 Referrence Employee_ID ReferrenceOne Address Contact 1 Abraham Lincoln Lincoln Memorial 0000000000 2 Frankie N. Stein Thunder St. 0000000000 3 Peter D. Pan Neverland Ave. 0000000000 NOTE: I've only included few columns though the rest are part of the query. And below are the codes I've been working on for 3 consecutive days: $sql=mysql_query("SELECT emp.id,emp.name,emp.birthday,emp.pob,emp.gender,emp.civil,emp.email,emp.contact,emp.address,emp.paddress,emp.citizenship,educ.employee_id,educ.elementary,educ.egrad,educ.highschool,educ.hgrad,educ.vocational,educ.vgrad,ems.employee_id,ems.workOne,ems.estartDate,ems.eendDate,ems.workTwo,ems.wstartDate,ems.wendDate,ems.workThree,ems.hstartDate,ems.hendDate FROM employee AS emp INNER JOIN education AS educ ON educ.employee_id='emp.id' INNER JOIN employment_history AS ems ON ems.employee_id='emp.id' INNER JOIN referrence AS ref ON ref.employee_id='emp.id' WHERE emp.id='$id'"); Is it okay to use INNER JOIN this way? Or should I modify my query to get the results that I wanted? I've also tried to use LEFT JOIN but still it doesn't return anything .I didn't know where did I go wrong. You see, as I have thought, I've been using the INNER JOIN in correct manner, (since it was placed before the WHILE CLAUSE). So I couldn't think of what could've possible went wrong. Do you guys have a suggestion? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Oracle SQL outer join query puzzle

    - by user1651446
    So I am dumb and I have this: select whatever from bank_accs b1, bank_accs b2, table3 t3 where t3.bank_acc_id = t1.bank_acc_id and b2.bank_acc_number = b1.bank_acc_number and b2.currency_code(+) = t3.buy_currency and trunc(sysdate) between nvl(b2.start_date, trunc(sysdate)) and nvl(b2.end_date, trunc(sysdate)); My problem is with the date (actuality) check on b2. Now, I need to return a row for each t3xb1 (t3 = ~10 tables joined, of course), even if there are ONLY INVALID records (date-wise) in b2. How do I outer-join this bit properly? Can't use ANSI joins, must do in a single flat query. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • df shows partition as full, but du shows it as only 25% full

    - by Jakobud
    I have a humble linux server to do some stuff for me. I only have an old 16gig drive in it. df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/md1 16G 16G 0 100% / /dev/md0 121M 14M 101M 13% /boot tmpfs 502M 0 502M 0% /dev/shm but when I do: du -sh / 3.5G / So one says that my 16G drive is full. The other says only 3.5G is used. Why the discrepancy? I cannot write any new files as it says the drive is indeed full. But if I can't find the files taking up all the space on the file-system, how can I delete them to free up space?

    Read the article

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