Search Results

Search found 871 results on 35 pages for 'joins'.

Page 7/35 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • MySQL & PHP - Creating Multiple Parent Child Relations

    - by Ashok
    Hi, I'm trying to build a navigation system using categories table with hierarchies. Normally, the table would be defined as follows: id (int) - Primary key name (varchar) - Name of the Category parentid (int) - Parent ID of this Category referenced to same table (Self Join) But the catch is that I require that a category can be child to multiple parent categories.. Just like a Has and Belongs to Many (HABTM) relation. I know that if there are two tables, categories & items, we use a join table categories_items to list the HABTM relations. But here i'm not having two tables but only table but should somehow show HABTM relations to itself. Is this be possible using a single table? If yes, How? If not possible, what rules (table naming, fields) should I follow while creating the additional join table? I'm trying to achieve this using CakePHP, If someone can provide CakePHP solution for this problem, that would be awesome. Even if that's not possible, any solution about creating join table is appreciated. Thanks for your time.

    Read the article

  • Mysql - help me optimize this query

    - by sandeepan-nath
    About the system: -The system has a total of 8 tables - Users - Tutor_Details (Tutors are a type of User,Tutor_Details table is linked to Users) - learning_packs, (stores packs created by tutors) - learning_packs_tag_relations, (holds tag relations meant for search) - tutors_tag_relations and tags and orders (containing purchase details of tutor's packs), order_details linked to orders and tutor_details. For a more clear idea about the tables involved please check the The tables section in the end. -A tags based search approach is being followed.Tag relations are created when new tutors register and when tutors create packs (this makes tutors and packs searcheable). For details please check the section How tags work in this system? below. Following is a simpler representation (not the actual) of the more complex query which I am trying to optimize:- I have used statements like explanation of parts in the query select SUM(DISTINCT( t.tag LIKE "%Dictatorship%" )) as key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( t.tag LIKE "%democracy%" )) as key_2_total_matches, td., u., count(distinct(od.id_od)), if (lp.id_lp > 0) then some conditional logic on lp fields else 0 as tutor_popularity from Tutor_Details AS td JOIN Users as u on u.id_user = td.id_user LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Tag_Relations AS lptagrels ON td.id_tutor = lptagrels.id_tutor LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs AS lp ON lptagrels.id_lp = lp.id_lp LEFT JOIN `some other tables on lp.id_lp - let's call learning pack tables set (including Learning_Packs table)` LEFT JOIN Order_Details as od on td.id_tutor = od.id_author LEFT JOIN Orders as o on od.id_order = o.id_order LEFT JOIN Tutors_Tag_Relations as ttagrels ON td.id_tutor = ttagrels.id_tutor JOIN Tags as t on (t.id_tag = ttagrels.id_tag) OR (t.id_tag = lptagrels.id_tag) where some condition on Users table's fields AND CASE WHEN ((t.id_tag = lptagrels.id_tag) AND (lp.id_lp 0)) THEN `some conditions on learning pack tables set` ELSE 1 END AND CASE WHEN ((t.id_tag = wtagrels.id_tag) AND (wc.id_wc 0)) THEN `some conditions on webclasses tables set` ELSE 1 END AND CASE WHEN (od.id_od0) THEN od.id_author = td.id_tutor and some conditions on Orders table's fields ELSE 1 END AND ( t.tag LIKE "%Dictatorship%" OR t.tag LIKE "%democracy%") group by td.id_tutor HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 order by tutor_popularity desc, u.surname asc, u.name asc limit 0,20 ===================================================================== What does the above query do? Does AND logic search on the search keywords (2 in this example - "Democracy" and "Dictatorship"). Returns only those tutors for which both the keywords are present in the union of the two sets - tutors details and details of all the packs created by a tutor. To make things clear - Suppose a Tutor name "Sandeepan Nath" has created a pack "My first pack", then:- Searching "Sandeepan Nath" returns Sandeepan Nath. Searching "Sandeepan first" returns Sandeepan Nath. Searching "Sandeepan second" does not return Sandeepan Nath. ====================================================================================== The problem The results returned by the above query are correct (AND logic working as per expectation), but the time taken by the query on heavily loaded databases is like 25 seconds as against normal query timings of the order of 0.005 - 0.0002 seconds, which makes it totally unusable. It is possible that some of the delay is being caused because all the possible fields have not yet been indexed, but I would appreciate a better query as a solution, optimized as much as possible, displaying the same results ========================================================================================== How tags work in this system? When a tutor registers, tags are entered and tag relations are created with respect to tutor's details like name, surname etc. When a Tutors create packs, again tags are entered and tag relations are created with respect to pack's details like pack name, description etc. tag relations for tutors stored in tutors_tag_relations and those for packs stored in learning_packs_tag_relations. All individual tags are stored in tags table. ==================================================================== The tables Most of the following tables contain many other fields which I have omitted here. CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS users ( id_user int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, name varchar(100) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', surname varchar(155) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', PRIMARY KEY (id_user) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=636 ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tutor_details ( id_tutor int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, id_user int(10) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', PRIMARY KEY (id_tutor), KEY Users_FKIndex1 (id_user) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=51 ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS orders ( id_order int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, PRIMARY KEY (id_order), KEY Orders_FKIndex1 (id_user), ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=275 ; ALTER TABLE orders ADD CONSTRAINT Orders_ibfk_1 FOREIGN KEY (id_user) REFERENCES users (id_user) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS order_details ( id_od int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, id_order int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', id_author int(10) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', PRIMARY KEY (id_od), KEY Order_Details_FKIndex1 (id_order) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=284 ; ALTER TABLE order_details ADD CONSTRAINT Order_Details_ibfk_1 FOREIGN KEY (id_order) REFERENCES orders (id_order) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS learning_packs ( id_lp int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, id_author int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', PRIMARY KEY (id_lp), KEY Learning_Packs_FKIndex2 (id_author), KEY id_lp (id_lp) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 AUTO_INCREMENT=23 ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tags ( id_tag int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, tag varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id_tag), UNIQUE KEY tag (tag), KEY id_tag (id_tag), KEY tag_2 (tag), KEY tag_3 (tag) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=3419 ; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tutors_tag_relations ( id_tag int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', id_tutor int(10) DEFAULT NULL, KEY Tutors_Tag_Relations (id_tag), KEY id_tutor (id_tutor), KEY id_tag (id_tag) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; ALTER TABLE tutors_tag_relations ADD CONSTRAINT Tutors_Tag_Relations_ibfk_1 FOREIGN KEY (id_tag) REFERENCES tags (id_tag) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS learning_packs_tag_relations ( id_tag int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', id_tutor int(10) DEFAULT NULL, id_lp int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, KEY Learning_Packs_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1 (id_tag), KEY id_lp (id_lp), KEY id_tag (id_tag) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; ALTER TABLE learning_packs_tag_relations ADD CONSTRAINT Learning_Packs_Tag_Relations_ibfk_1 FOREIGN KEY (id_tag) REFERENCES tags (id_tag) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION; =================================================================================== Following is the exact query (this includes classes also - tutors can create classes and search terms are matched with classes created by tutors):- select count(distinct(od.id_od)) as tutor_popularity, CASE WHEN (IF((wc.id_wc 0), ( wc.wc_api_status = 1 AND wc.wc_type = 0 AND wc.class_date '2010-06-01 22:00:56' AND wccp.status = 1 AND (wccp.country_code='IE' or wccp.country_code IN ('INT'))), 0)) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END as 'classes_published', CASE WHEN (IF((lp.id_lp 0), (lp.id_status = 1 AND lp.published = 1 AND lpcp.status = 1 AND (lpcp.country_code='IE' or lpcp.country_code IN ('INT'))),0)) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END as 'packs_published', td . * , u . * from Tutor_Details AS td JOIN Users as u on u.id_user = td.id_user LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Tag_Relations AS lptagrels ON td.id_tutor = lptagrels.id_tutor LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs AS lp ON lptagrels.id_lp = lp.id_lp LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Categories AS lpc ON lpc.id_lp_cat = lp.id_lp_cat LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Categories AS lpcp ON lpcp.id_lp_cat = lpc.id_parent LEFT JOIN Learning_Pack_Content as lpct on (lp.id_lp = lpct.id_lp) LEFT JOIN Webclasses_Tag_Relations AS wtagrels ON td.id_tutor = wtagrels.id_tutor LEFT JOIN WebClasses AS wc ON wtagrels.id_wc = wc.id_wc LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Categories AS wcc ON wcc.id_lp_cat = wc.id_wp_cat LEFT JOIN Learning_Packs_Categories AS wccp ON wccp.id_lp_cat = wcc.id_parent LEFT JOIN Order_Details as od on td.id_tutor = od.id_author LEFT JOIN Orders as o on od.id_order = o.id_order LEFT JOIN Tutors_Tag_Relations as ttagrels ON td.id_tutor = ttagrels.id_tutor JOIN Tags as t on (t.id_tag = ttagrels.id_tag) OR (t.id_tag = lptagrels.id_tag) OR (t.id_tag = wtagrels.id_tag) where (u.country='IE' or u.country IN ('INT')) AND CASE WHEN ((t.id_tag = lptagrels.id_tag) AND (lp.id_lp 0)) THEN lp.id_status = 1 AND lp.published = 1 AND lpcp.status = 1 AND (lpcp.country_code='IE' or lpcp.country_code IN ('INT')) ELSE 1 END AND CASE WHEN ((t.id_tag = wtagrels.id_tag) AND (wc.id_wc 0)) THEN wc.wc_api_status = 1 AND wc.wc_type = 0 AND wc.class_date '2010-06-01 22:00:56' AND wccp.status = 1 AND (wccp.country_code='IE' or wccp.country_code IN ('INT')) ELSE 1 END AND CASE WHEN (od.id_od0) THEN od.id_author = td.id_tutor and o.order_status = 'paid' and CASE WHEN (od.id_wc 0) THEN od.can_attend_class=1 ELSE 1 END ELSE 1 END AND 1 group by td.id_tutor order by tutor_popularity desc, u.surname asc, u.name asc limit 0,20 Please note - The provided database structure does not show all the fields and tables as in this query

    Read the article

  • SQL: Join vs. subquery

    - by Col. Shrapnel
    I am an old-school MySQL user and always preferred JOIN over sub-query. But nowadays everyone uses sub-query and I hate it, dunno why. Though I've lack of theoretical knowledge to judge myself if there are any difference. Well, I am curious if sub-query as good as join and there is no thing to worry about?

    Read the article

  • Help with SQL Join on two tables

    - by bladefist
    I have two tables, one is a table of forum threads. It has a last post date column. Another table has PostID, UserId, and DateViewed. I want to join these tables so I can compare DateViewed and LastPostDate for the current user. However, if they have never viewed the thread, there will not be a row in the 2nd table. This seems easy but I cant wrap my head around it. Advice please. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Mysql - Help me alter this search query to get desired results

    - by sandeepan-nath
    Following is a dump of the tables and data needed to answer understand the system:- The system consists of tutors and classes. The data in the table All_Tag_Relations stores tag relations for each tutor registered and each class created by a tutor. The tag relations are used for searching classes. CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `Tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment, `tag` varchar(255) default NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `Tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `All_Tag_Relations` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL default '0', `id_tutor` int(10) default NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned default NULL, KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `All_Tag_Relations` (`id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 1, NULL), (2, 1, NULL), (3, 1, 1), (4, 1, 1), (6, 2, NULL), (7, 2, NULL), (5, 2, 2), (4, 2, 2); Following is my query:- This query searches for "first class" (tag for first = 3 and for class = 4, in Tags table) and returns all those classes such that both the terms first and class are present in the class name. SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =3)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =3 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 And it returns the class with id_wc = 1. But, I want the search to show all those classes such that all the search terms are present in the class name or its tutor name So that searching "Sandeepan class" (wtagrels.id_tag = 1,4) or "Sandeepan Nath" also returns the class with id_wc=1. And Searching. Searching "Bob First" should not return any classes. Please modify the above query or suggest a new query, if possible using MyIsam - fulltext search, but somehow help me get the result.

    Read the article

  • Rails named_scope across multiple tables

    - by wakiki
    I'm trying to tidy up my code by using named_scopes in Rails 2.3.x but where I'm struggling with the has_many :through associations. I'm wondering if I'm putting the scopes in the wrong place... Here's some pseudo code below. The problem is that the :accepted named scope is replicated twice... I could of course call :accepted something different but these are the statuses on the table and it seems wrong to call them something different. Can anyone shed light on whether I'm doing the following correctly or not? I know Rails 3 is out but it's still in beta and it's a big project I'm doing so I can't use it in production yet. class Person < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :connections has_many :contacts, :through => :connections named_scope :accepted, :conditions => ["connections.status = ?", Connection::ACCEPTED] # the :accepted named_scope is duplicated named_scope :accepted, :conditions => ["memberships.status = ?", Membership::ACCEPTED] end class Group < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :memberships has_many :members, :through => :memberships end class Connection < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :person belongs_to :contact, :class_name => "Person", :foreign_key => "contact_id" end class Membership < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :person belongs_to :group end I'm trying to run something like person.contacts.accepted and group.members.accepted which are two different things. Shouldn't the named_scopes be in the Membership and Connection classes? One solution is to just call the two different named scope something different in the Person class or even to create separate associations (ie. has_many :accepted_members and has_many :accepted_contacts) but it seems hackish and in reality I have many more than just accepted (ie. banned members, ignored connections, pending, requested etc etc)

    Read the article

  • Can this Query be corrected or different table structure needed? (database dumps provided)

    - by sandeepan
    This is a bit lengthy but I have provided sufficient details and kept things very clear. Please see if you can help. (I will surely accept answer if it solves my problem) I am sure a person experienced with this can surely help or suggest me to decide the tables structure. About the system:- There are tutors who create classes A tags based search approach is being followed Tag relations are created/edited when new tutors registers/edits profile data and when tutors create classes (this makes tutors and classes searcheable).For simplicity, let us consider only tutor name and class name are the fields which are matched against search keywords. In this example, I am considering - tutor "Sandeepan Nath" has created a class called "first class" tutor "Bob Cratchit" has created a class called "new class" Desired search results- AND logic to be appied on the search keywords and match against class and tutor data(class name + tutor name), in other words, All those classes be shown such that all the search terms are present in the class name or its tutor name. Example to be clear - Searching "first class" returns class with id_wc = 1. Working Searching "Sandeepan class" should also return class with id_wc = 1. Not working in System 2. Problem with profile editing and searching To tell in one sentence, I am facing a conflict between the ease of profile edition (edition of tag relations when tutor profiles are edited) and the ease of search logic. In the beginning, we had one table structure and search was easy but tag edition logic was very clumsy and unmaintainable(Check System 1 in the section below) . So we created separate tag relations tables to make profile edition simpler but search has become difficult. Please dump the tables so that you can run the search query I have given below and see the results. System 1 (previous system - search easy - profile edition difficult):- Only one table called All_Tag_Relations table had the all the tag relations. The tags table below is common to both systems 1 and 2. CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `all_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 1, 1, NULL), (2, 2, 1, NULL), (3, 1, 1, 1), (4, 2, 1, 1), (5, 3, 1, 1), (6, 4, 1, 1), (7, 6, 2, NULL), (8, 7, 2, NULL), (9, 6, 2, 2), (10, 7, 2, 2), (11, 5, 2, 2), (12, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); Please note that for every class, the tag rels of its tutor have to be duplicated. Example, for class with id_wc=1, the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 3 and 4 are actually extras if you compare with the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 1 and 2. System 2 (present system - profile edition easy, search difficult) Two separate tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations have the corresponding tag relations data (Please dump into a separate database)- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tutors_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `tutors_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`) VALUES (1, 1, 1), (2, 2, 1), (3, 6, 2), (4, 7, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `webclasses_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `webclasses_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `webclasses_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 3, 1, 1), (2, 4, 1, 1), (3, 5, 2, 2), (4, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,NULL from Tutors_Tag_Relations; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,id_wc from Webclasses_Tag_Relations; Here you can see how easily tutor first name can be edited only in one place. But search has become really difficult, so on being advised to use a Temporary table, I am creating one at every search request, then dumping all the necessary data and then searching from it, I am creating this All_Tag_Relations table at search run time. Here I am just dumping all the data from the two tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations. But, I am still not able to get classes if I search with tutor name This is the query which searches "first class". Running them on both the systems shows correct results (returns the class with id_wc = 1). SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =3)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =3 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 But, searching for "Sandeepan class" works only with the 1st system Here is the query which searches "Sandeepan class" SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =1)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =1 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 Can anybody alter this query and somehow do a proper join or something to get correct results. That solves my problem in a nice way. As you can figure out, the reason why it does not work in system 2 is that in system 1, for every class, one additional tag relation linking class and tutor name is present. e.g. for class first class, (records with id_tag_rel 3 and 4) which returns the class on searching with tutor name. So, you see the trade-off between the search and profile edition difficulty with the two systems. How do I overcome both. I have to reach a conclusion soon. So far my reasoning is it is definitely not good from a code maintainability point of view to follow the single tag rel table structure of system one, because in a real system while editing a field like "tutor qualifications", there can be as many records in tag rels table as there are words in qualification of a tutor (one word in a field = one tag relation). Now suppose a tutor has 100 classes. When he edits his qualification, all the tag rel rows corresponding to him are deleted and then as many copies are to be created (as per the new qualification data) as there are classes. This becomes particularly difficult if later more searcheable fields are added. The code cannot be robust. Is the best solution to follow system 2 (edition has to be in one table - no extra work for each and every class) and somehow re-create the all_tag_relations table like system 1 (from the tables tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations), creating the extra tutor tag rels for each and every class by a tutor (which is currently missing in system 2's temporary all_tag_relations table). That would be a time consuming logic script. I doubt that table can be recreated without resorting to PHP sript (mysql alone cannot do that). But the problem is that running all this at search time will make search definitely slow. So, how do such systems work? How are such situations handled? I thought about we can run a cron which initiates that PHP script, say every 1 minute and replaces the existing all_tag_relations table as per new tag rels from tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations (replaces means creates a new table, deletes the original and renames the new one as all_tag_relations, otherwise search won't work during that period- or is there any better way to that?). Anyway, the result would be that any changes by tutors will reflect in search in the next 1 minute and not immediately. An alternateve would be to initate that PHP script every time a tutor edits his profile. But here again, since many users may edit their profiles concurrently, will the creation of so many tables be a burden and can mysql make the server slow? Any help would be appreciated and working solution will be accepted as answer. Thanks, Sandeepan

    Read the article

  • Advice on how to complete specific MySQL JOIN

    - by Tim
    Hello, I have a mysql table jobs. This is the basic structure of jobs. id booked_user_id assigned_user_id I then also have another table, meta. Meta has the structure: id user_id first_name last_name How can I join these tables so that both booked_user_id and assigned_user_id can access meta.first_name? Thanks for your advice Tim

    Read the article

  • SQL joining 3 tables when 1 table is emty

    - by AdRock
    I am trying to write a query that connects 3 tables. The first table is info about each festival The second table is the number of votes for each festival The third table is reviews for each festival I want to join all 3 tables so i get all the feilds from table1, join table1 with table2 on the festivalid but i also need to count the number of records in table 3 that applys to each festival. The first 2 tables give me a result becuase they both have data in them but table 3 is empty becuase there are no reviews yet so adding that to my query fives me no results SELECT f.*, v.total, v.votes, v.festivalid, r.reviewcount as count FROM festivals f INNER JOIN vote v ON f.festivalid = v.festivalid INNER JOIN (SELECT festivalid, count(*) as reviewcount FROM reviews) GROUP BY festivalid) as r on r.festivalid = v.festivalid

    Read the article

  • PL/SQL - How to pull data from 3 tables based on latest created date

    - by Nancy
    Hello, I'm hoping someone can help me as I've been stuck on this problem for a few days now. Basically I'm trying to pull data from 3 tables in Oracle: 1) Orders Table 2) Vendor Table and 3) Master Data Table. Here's what the 3 tables look like: Table 1: BIZ_DOC2 (Orders table) OBJECTID (Unique key) UNIQUE_DOC_NAME (Document Name i.e. ORD-005) CREATED_AT (Date the order was created) Table 2: UDEF_VENDOR (Vendors Table): PARENT_OBJECT_ID (This matches up to the ObjectId in the Orders table) VENDOR_OBJECT_NAME (This is the name of the vendor i.e. Acme) Table 3: BIZ_UNIT (Master Data table) PARENT_OBJECT_ID (This matches up to the ObjectID in the Orders table) BIZ_UNIT_OBJECT_NAME (This is the name of the business unit i.e. widget A, widget B) Note: The Vendors Table and Master Data do not have a link between them except through the Orders table. I can join all of the data from the tables and it looks something like this: Before selecting latest order date: ORD-005 | Widget A | Acme | 3/14/10 ORD-005 | Widget B | Acme | 3/14/10 ORD-004 | Widget C | Acme | 3/10/10 Ideally I'd like to return the latest order for each vendor. However, each order may contain multiple business units (e.g. types of widgets) so if a Vendor's latest record is ORD-005 and the order contains 2 business units, here's what the result set should look like by the following columns: UNIQUE_DOC_NAME, BIZ_UNIT_OBJECT_NAME, VENDOR_OBJECT_NAME, CREATED_AT After selecting by latest order date: ORD-005 | Widget A | Acme | 3/14/10 ORD-005 | Widget B | Acme | 3/14/10 I tried using Select Max and several variations of sub-queries but I just can't seem to get it working. Any help would be hugely appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Can this Query can be corrected or different table structure needed? (question is clear, detailed, d

    - by sandeepan
    This is a bit lengthy but I have provided sufficient details and kept things very clear. Please see if you can help. (I will surely accept answer if it solves my problem) I am sure a person experienced with this can surely help or suggest me to decide the tables structure. About the system:- There are tutors who create classes A tags based search approach is being followed Tag relations are created/edited when new tutors registers/edits profile data and when tutors create classes (this makes tutors and classes searcheable).For simplicity, let us consider only tutor name and class name are the fields which are matched against search keywords. In this example, I am considering - tutor "Sandeepan Nath" has created a class called "first class" tutor "Bob Cratchit" has created a class called "new class" Desired search results- AND logic to be appied on the search keywords and match against class and tutor data(class name + tutor name), in other words, All those classes be shown such that all the search terms are present in the class name or its tutor name. Example to be clear - Searching "first class" returns class with id_wc = 1. Working Searching "Sandeepan class" should also return class with id_wc = 1. Not working in System 2. Problem with profile editing and searching To tell in one sentence, I am facing a conflict between the ease of profile edition (edition of tag relations when tutor profiles are edited) and the ease of search logic. In the beginning, we had one table structure and search was easy but tag edition logic was very clumsy and unmaintainable(Check System 1 in the section below) . So we created separate tag relations tables to make profile edition simpler but search has become difficult. Please dump the tables so that you can run the search query I have given below and see the results. System 1 (previous system - search easy - profile edition difficult):- Only one table called All_Tag_Relations table had the all the tag relations. The tags table below is common to both systems 1 and 2. CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `all_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 1, 1, NULL), (2, 2, 1, NULL), (3, 1, 1, 1), (4, 2, 1, 1), (5, 3, 1, 1), (6, 4, 1, 1), (7, 6, 2, NULL), (8, 7, 2, NULL), (9, 6, 2, 2), (10, 7, 2, 2), (11, 5, 2, 2), (12, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); Please note that for every class, the tag rels of its tutor have to be duplicated. Example, for class with id_wc=1, the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 3 and 4 are actually extras if you compare with the tag rel records with id_tag_rel = 1 and 2. System 2 (present system - profile edition easy, search difficult) Two separate tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations have the corresponding tag relations data (Please dump into a separate database)- CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tutors_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `tutors_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`) VALUES (1, 1, 1), (2, 2, 1), (3, 6, 2), (4, 7, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `webclasses_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `webclasses_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; INSERT INTO `webclasses_tag_relations` (`id_tag_rel`, `id_tag`, `id_tutor`, `id_wc`) VALUES (1, 3, 1, 1), (2, 4, 1, 1), (3, 5, 2, 2), (4, 4, 2, 2); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `tags` ( `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `tag` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag`), UNIQUE KEY `tag` (`tag`), KEY `id_tag` (`id_tag`), KEY `tag_2` (`tag`), KEY `tag_3` (`tag`), KEY `tag_4` (`tag`), FULLTEXT KEY `tag_5` (`tag`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=8 ; INSERT INTO `tags` (`id_tag`, `tag`) VALUES (1, 'Sandeepan'), (2, 'Nath'), (3, 'first'), (4, 'class'), (5, 'new'), (6, 'Bob'), (7, 'Cratchit'); CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `all_tag_relations` ( `id_tag_rel` int(10) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `id_tag` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `id_tutor` int(10) DEFAULT NULL, `id_wc` int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id_tag_rel`), KEY `All_Tag_Relations_FKIndex1` (`id_tag`), KEY `id_wc` (`id_wc`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,NULL from Tutors_Tag_Relations; insert into All_Tag_Relations select NULL,id_tag,id_tutor,id_wc from Webclasses_Tag_Relations; Here you can see how easily tutor first name can be edited only in one place. But search has become really difficult, so on being advised to use a Temporary table, I am creating one at every search request, then dumping all the necessary data and then searching from it, I am creating this All_Tag_Relations table at search run time. Here I am just dumping all the data from the two tables Tutors_Tag_Relations and Webclasses_Tag_Relations. But, I am still not able to get classes if I search with tutor name This is the query which searches "first class". Running them on both the systems shows correct results (returns the class with id_wc = 1). SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =3)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =3 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 But, searching for "Sandeepan class" works only with the 1st system Here is the query which searches "Sandeepan class" SELECT wtagrels.id_wc,SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =1)) AS key_1_total_matches, SUM(DISTINCT( wtagrels.id_tag =4)) AS key_2_total_matches FROM all_tag_relations AS wtagrels WHERE ( wtagrels.id_tag =1 OR wtagrels.id_tag =4 ) GROUP BY wtagrels.id_wc HAVING key_1_total_matches = 1 AND key_2_total_matches = 1 LIMIT 0, 20 Can anybody alter this query and somehow do a proper join or something to get correct results. That solves my problem in a nice way. As you can figure out, the reason why it does not work in system 2 is that in system 1, for every class, one additional tag relation linking class and tutor name is present. e.g. for class first class, (records with id_tag_rel 3 and 4) which returns the class on searching with tutor name. So, you see the trade-off between the search and profile edition difficulty with the two systems. How do I overcome both. I have to reach a conclusion soon. So far my reasoning is it is definitely not good from a code maintainability point of view to follow the single tag rel table structure of system one, because in a real system while editing a field like "tutor qualifications", there can be as many records in tag rels table as there are words in qualification of a tutor (one word in a field = one tag relation). Now suppose a tutor has 100 classes. When he edits his qualification, all the tag rel rows corresponding to him are deleted and then as many copies are to be created (as per the new qualification data) as there are classes. This becomes particularly difficult if later more searcheable fields are added. The code cannot be robust. Is the best solution to follow system 2 (edition has to be in one table - no extra work for each and every class) and somehow re-create the all_tag_relations table like system 1 (from the tables tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations), creating the extra tutor tag rels for each and every class by a tutor (which is currently missing in system 2's temporary all_tag_relations table). That would be a time consuming logic script. I doubt that table can be recreated without resorting to PHP sript (mysql alone cannot do that). But the problem is that running all this at search time will make search definitely slow. So, how do such systems work? How are such situations handled? I thought about we can run a cron which initiates that PHP script, say every 1 minute and replaces the existing all_tag_relations table as per new tag rels from tutor_tag_relations and webclasses_tag_relations (replaces means creates a new table, deletes the original and renames the new one as all_tag_relations, otherwise search won't work during that period- or is there any better way to that?). Anyway, the result would be that any changes by tutors will reflect in search in the next 1 minute and not immediately. An alternateve would be to initate that PHP script every time a tutor edits his profile. But here again, since many users may edit their profiles concurrently, will the creation of so many tables be a burden and can mysql make the server slow? Any help would be appreciated and working solution will be accepted as answer. Thanks, Sandeepan

    Read the article

  • How to preserve order of temp table rows when inner joined with another table?

    - by Triynko
    Does an SQL Server "join" preserve any kind of row order consistently (i.e. that of the left table or that of the right table)? Psuedocode: create table #p (personid bigint); foreach (id in personid_list) insert into #p (personid) values (id) select id from users inner join #p on users.personid = #p.id Suppose I have a list of IDs that correspond to person entries. Each of those IDs may correspond to zero or more user accounts (since each person can have multiple accounts). To quickly select columns from the users table, I populate a temp table with person ids, then inner join it with the users table. I'm looking for an efficient way to ensure that the order of the results in the join matches the order of the ids as they were inserted into the temp table, so that the user list that's returned is in the same order as the person list as it was entered. I've considered the following alternatives: using "#p inner join users", in case the left table's order is preserved using "#p left join users where id is not null", in case a left join preserves order and the inner join doesn't using "create table (rownum int, personid bigint)", inserting an incrementing row number as the temp table is populated, so the results can be ordered by rownum in the join using an SQL Server equivalent of the "order by order of [tablename]" clause available in DB2 I'm currently using option 3, and it works... but I hate the idea of using an order by clause for something that's already ordered. I just don't know if the temp table preserves the order in which the rows were inserted or how the join operates and what order the results come out in.

    Read the article

  • Two Tables Serving as one Model in Rails

    - by matsko
    Is is possible in rails to setup on model which is dependant on a join from two tables? This would mean that for the the model record to be found/updated/destroyed there would need to be both records in both database tables linked together in a join. The model would just be all the columns of both tables wrapped together which may then be used for the forms and so on. This way when the model gets created/updated it is just one form variable hash that gets applied to the model? Is this possible in Rails 2 or 3?

    Read the article

  • sql join question, how to select when value not in a set of values

    - by Elliott
    I have two tables, table1 and table2. Table1 is in a one to many relationship with table2 (one row in table1 maps to many rows in table2). There is a field in table2 called code. If none of the values of code in table2 equal some set of values (say 1, 2, and 3), I want to select the value in table1. I'm not sure how to write this kind of join. Assume the primary key in table1 is called id and the foreign key to which it maps is called did. Can you tell me how to write this kind of join? Thanks, Elliott

    Read the article

  • Removing duplicate SQL records to permit a unique key

    - by j pimmel
    I have a table ('sales') in a MYSQL DB which should have rightfully have had a unique constraint enforced to prevent duplicates. To first remove the dupes and set the constraint is proving a bit tricky. Table structure (simplified): 'id (unique, autoinc)' product_id The goal is to enforce uniqueness for product_id. The de-duping policy I want to apply is to remove all duplicate records except the most recently created, eg: the highest id Or to put another way, I would like to delete duplicate records, excluding the ids matched by the following query: select id from sales s inner join (select product_id, max(id) as maxId from sales group by product_id having count(product_id) > 1) groupedByProdId on s.product_id and s.id = groupedByProdId.maxId I've struggled with this on two fronts - writing the query to select the correct records to delete and then also the constraint in MYSQL where a subselect FROM clause of a DELETE cannot reference the same table from which data is being removed.

    Read the article

  • Rails: using find method to access joined tables for polymorphic relationships

    - by DJTripleThreat
    Ok, I have a generic TimeSlot model that deals with a start_at and an end_at for time spans. A couple models derive from this but I'm referring to one in this question: AppointmentBlock which is a collection of Appointments. I want to validate an AppointmentBlock such that no other AppointmentBlocks have been scheduled for a particular Employee in the same time frame. Since AppointmentBlock has a polymorphic association with TimeSlot, you have to access the AppointmentBlock's start_at and end_at through the TimeSlot like so: appt_block.time_slot.start_at This means that I need to have some kind of join in my :conditions for my find() method call. Here is my code so far: #inside my appointment_block.rb model validate :employee_not_double_booked def employee_not_double_booked unless self.employee_id # this find's condition is incorrect because I need to join time_slots to get access # to start_at and end_at. How can I do this? blocks = AppointmentBlock.find(:first, :conditions => ['employee_id = ? and (start_at between ? and ? or end_at between ? and ?)', self.employee_id, self.time_slot.start_at, self.time_slot.end_at, self.time_slot.start_at, self.time_slot.end_at]) # pseudo code: # collect a list of appointment blocks that end after this # apointment block starts or start before this appointment # block ends that are also associated with this appointment # blocks assigned employee # if the count is great then 0 the employee has been double # booked. # if a block was found that means this employee is getting # double booked so raise an error errors.add "AppointmentBlock", "has already been scheduled during this time" if blocks end end Since AppointmentBlock doesn't have a start_at or an end_at how can I join with the time_slots table to get those conditions to work?

    Read the article

  • SQLAlchemy & Complex Queries

    - by user356594
    I have to implement ACL for an existing application. So I added the a user, group and groupmembers table to the database. I defined a ManyToMany relationship between user and group via the association table groupmembers. In order to protect some ressources of the app (i..e item) I added a additional association table auth_items which should be used as an association table for the ManyToMany relationship between groups/users and the specific item. item has following columns: user_id -- user table group_id -- group table item_id -- item table at least on of user_id and group_id columns are set. So it's possible to define access for a group or for a user to a specific item. I have used the AssociationProxy to define the relationship between users/groups and items. I now want to display all items which the user has access to and I have a really hard time doing that. Following criteria are used: All items which are owned by the user should be shown (item.owner_id = user.id) All public items should be shown (item.access = public) All items which the user has access to should be shown (auth_item.user_id = user.id) All items which the group of the user has access to should be shown. The first two criteria are quite straightforward, but I have a hard time doing the 3rd one. Here is my approach: clause = and_(item.access == 'public') if user is not None: clause = or_(clause,item.owner == user,item.users.contains(user),item.groups.contains(group for group in user.groups)) The third criteria produces an error. item.groups.contains(group for group in user.groups) I am actually not sure if this is a good approach at all. What is the best approach when filtering manytomany relationships? How I can filter a manytomany relationship based on another list/relationship? Btw I am using the latest sqlalchemy (6.0) and elixir version Thanks for any insights.

    Read the article

  • CakePHP: Using two tables for a single model

    - by mwaterous
    I'm just picking up development in CakePHP right now so forgive me if this seems obvious; it did to me when I first read about has, belongsTo, hasMany, etc. The problem is I would like to associate two tables with a single model, and was wondering if there was a way to configure this so that when CakePHP did it's queries it automatically performed a join on the two tables. I don't want to create a separate model for the second table as it is merely a meta information table - the master table will contain the primary information required, the meta table will be populated with secondary information that is not required and therefore may or may not be set for every row of the master table.

    Read the article

  • Multiple foreign keys from one table linking to single primary key in second table

    - by croker10
    Hi all, I have a database with three tables, a household table, an adults table and a users table. The Household table contains two foreign keys, iAdult1ID and iAdult2ID. The Users table has a iUserID primary key and the Adult table has a corresponding iUserID foreign key. One of the columns in the Users table is strUsername, an e-mail address. I am trying to write a query that will allow me to search for an e-mail address for either adult that has a relation to the household. So I have two questions, assuming that all the values are not null, how can I do this? And two, in reality, iAdult2ID can be null, is it still possible to write a query to do this? Thanks for your help. Let me know if you need any more information.

    Read the article

  • Which field is explain telling me to index?

    - by shady
    I don't understand what this explain statement is saying. Which field needs an index?. The first line to me is confusing because ref is null. Here's the query I'm using: SELECT pp.property_id AS 'good_prop_id', pr.site_number AS 'pr.site_number', CONCAT(pr.site_street_name, ' ', pr.site_street_type) AS 'pr.partial_addr', pr.county FROM realval_newdb.preforeclosures AS pr INNER JOIN realval_newdb.properties_preforeclosures AS pp USE INDEX (mee_id) ON (pr.mee_id = pp.mee_id) INNER JOIN listings_copy AS lc ON (pr.site_number = lc.site_number) AND (lc.site_street_name = CONCAT(pr.site_street_name, ' ', pr.site_street_type)) WHERE lc.site_county = pr.county LIMIT 1; Can anyone help me optimize this query?

    Read the article

  • How to exclude rows where matching join is in an SQL tree

    - by Greg K
    Sorry for the poor title, I couldn't think how to concisely describe this problem. I have a set of items that should have a 1-to-1 relationship with an attribute. I have a query to return those rows where the data is wrong and this relationship has been broken (1-to-many). I'm gathering these rows to fix them and restore this 1-to-1 relationship. This is a theoretical simplification of my actual problem but I'll post example table schema here as it was requested. item table: +------------+------------+-----------+ | item_id | name | attr_id | +------------+------------+-----------+ | 1 | BMW 320d | 20 | | 1 | BMW 320d | 21 | | 2 | BMW 335i | 23 | | 2 | BMW 335i | 34 | +------------+------------+-----------+ attribute table: +---------+-----------------+------------+ | attr_id | value | parent_id | +---------+-----------------+------------+ | 20 | SE | 21 | | 21 | M Sport | 0 | | 23 | AC | 24 | | 24 | Climate control | 0 | .... | 34 | Leather seats | 0 | +---------+-----------------+------------+ A simple query to return items with more than one attribute. SELECT item_id, COUNT(DISTINCT(attr_id)) AS attributes FROM item GROUP BY item_id HAVING attributes > 1 This gets me a result set like so: +-----------+------------+ | item_id | attributes | +-----------+------------+ | 1 | 2 | | 2 | 2 | | 3 | 2 | -- etc. -- However, there's an exception. The attribute table can hold a tree structure, via parent links in the table. For certain rows, parent_id can hold the ID of another attribute. There's only one level to this tree. Example: +---------+-----------------+------------+ | attr_id | value | parent_id | +---------+-----------------+------------+ | 20 | SE | 21 | | 21 | M Sport | 0 | .... I do not want to retrieve items in my original query where, for a pair of associated attributes, they related like attributes 20 & 21. I do want to retrieve items where: the attributes have no parent for two or more attributes they are not related (e.g. attributes 23 & 34) Example result desired, just the item ID: +------------+ | item_id | +------------+ | 2 | +------------+ How can I join against attributes from items and exclude these rows? Do I use a temporary table or can I achieve this from a single query? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Multiple Foriegn Keys from One Table linking to single Primary Key in second Table

    - by croker10
    Hi all, I have a database with three tables, a household table, an adults table and a users table. The Household table contains two foreign keys, iAdult1ID and iAdult2ID. The Users table has a iUserID primary key and the Adult table has a corresponding iUserID foreign key. One of the columns in the Users table is strUsername, an e-mail address. I am trying to write a query that will allow me to search for an e-mail address for either adult that has a relation to the household. So I have two questions, assuming that all the values are not null, how can I do this? And two, in reality, iAdult2ID can be null, is it still possible to write a query to do this? Thanks for your help. Let me know if you need any more information.

    Read the article

  • SQL: Get count of rows returned from a left join

    - by Rogue Coder
    I have two tables, one called calendars and one called events. There can be multiple calendars, and multiple events in a calendar. I want to select every calendar, also getting the number of events in the calendar. Right now I have : SELECT C.*, COUNT(*) AS events FROM `calendars` AS C LEFT JOIN `events` E ON C.ID=E.calendar GROUP BY C.ID But that doesn't work. Items with no events still return 1. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • codeigniter active record and mysql

    - by sea_1987
    I am running a query with Active Record in a modal of my codeigniter application, the query looks like this, public function selectAllJobs() { $this->db->select('*') ->from('job_listing') ->join('job_listing_has_employer_details', 'job_listing_has_employer_details.employer_details_id = job_listing.id', 'left'); //->join('employer_details', 'employer_details.users_id = job_listing_has_employer_details.employer_details_id'); $query = $this->db->get(); return $query->result_array(); } This returns an array that looks like this, [0]=> array(13) { ["id"]=> string(1) "1" ["job_titles_id"]=> string(1) "1" ["location"]=> string(12) "Huddersfield" ["location_postcode"]=> string(7) "HD3 4AG" ["basic_salary"]=> string(19) "£20,000 - £25,000" ["bonus"]=> string(12) "php, html, j" ["benefits"]=> string(11) "Compnay Car" ["key_skills"]=> string(1) "1" ["retrain_position"]=> string(3) "YES" ["summary"]=> string(73) "Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry" ["description"]=> string(73) "Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry" ["job_listing_id"]=> NULL ["employer_details_id"]=> NULL } } The job_listing_id and employer_details_id return as NULL however if I run the SQL in phpmyadmin I get full set of results, the query i running in phpmyadmin is, SELECT * FROM ( `job_listing` ) LEFT JOIN `job_listing_has_employer_details` ON `job_listing_has_employer_details`.`employer_details_id` LIMIT 0 , 30 Is there a reason why I am getting differing results?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >