When I want to select all columns expect foo and bar, what I normally do is just explicitly list all the other columns in select statement.
select a, b, c, d, ... from ...
But if table has dozen columns, this is tedious process for simple means. What I would like to do instead, is something like the following pseudo statement:
select * except(foo, bar) from ...
I would also like to know, if there is a function to filter out rows from the result consisting of multiple columns, if multiple rows has same content in all corresponding columns. In other words duplicate rows would be filtered out.
------------------------
A | B | C
------------------------ ====> ------------------------
A | B | C A | B | C
------------------------ ------------------------
You can query INFORMATION_SCHEMA db and get the list of columns (except two) for that table, e.g.:
SELECT REPLACE(GROUP_CONCAT(COLUMN_NAME), '<foo,bar>,', '')
FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS
WHERE TABLE_NAME = '<your_table>' AND TABLE_SCHEMA = '<database>';
Once you get the list of columns, you can use that in your select query.
You can create view based on this table with all columns except these two columns and then use this view everytime with
select * from view
simple group by on all column will remove such duplicates. there are other options as well - distinct and row_number.
select * except(foo, bar) from
This is a frequently requested feature on SO. However, it has not made it to the SQL Standard and I don't know of any SQL products that support it. I guess when the product managers ask their developers, MVPs, usergroups, etc to measure enthusiasm for this prospective feature, they mostly hear, "SELECT * FROM is considered dangerous, we need to protect new users who don't know what they are doing, etc."
You may find it useful to use NATURAL JOIN rather than INNER JOIN etc which removes what would be duplicated columns from the resulting table expression e.g.
SELECT *
FROM Table1 t1
INNER JOIN Table2 t2
ON t1.foo = t2.foo
AND t1.bar = t2.bar;
will result in two columns named foo and two named bar (and possibly other repeated names), probably de-duplicated in some way e.g. by suffixing the range variable names t1 and t2 that INNER JOIN forced you into using.
Whereas:
SELECT *
FROM Table1 NATURAL JOIN Table2;
doesn't require the use of range variables (a good thing) because there will only be one column named foo and one named bar in the result.
And to remove duplicated rows as well as columns changed the implied SELECT ALL * into the explicit SELECT DISTINCT * e.g.
SELECT DISTINCT *
FROM Table1 NATURAL JOIN Table2;
Doing this may reduce your need for the SELECT ALL BUT { these columns } feature you desire.
Of course, if you do that you will be told, "NATURAL JOIN is considered dangerous, we need to protect you from yourself in case you don't know what you are doing, etc." :)
Related
How can i use in table field values in the url
SQL Query wherein all 3 tables are joined
select * from nfojm_usedcar_variants cv
inner join nfojm_usedcar_products cp
inner join nfojm_usedcar_categories cc on
cc.id=cp.prod_cat_id and
cp.id=cv.v_prod_id and
cv.state='1' order by cv.id desc
Output as checked
Then it combines all 3 tables
nfojm_usedcar_variants
nfojm_usedcar_products
nfojm_usedcar_categories
However - all 3 tables have unique field i.e id (but with different values)
I need to pass on value of id and v_prod_id in a url
say url been :-
<a href="index.php?option=com_usedcar&pid='.$row->v_prod_id.'&vid='.$row->id.'">
But id been common field in most of the tables hence its not picking in correctly from nfojm_usedcar_variants,
Can some one help to modify a function so as to fetch in value of id and v_prod_id from the respective table of nfojm_usedcar_variants
thanks
If you have multiple tables in a join that share a common column name, and you need them, then alias them. Such as:
select a.id as aid,a.theName,b.id as bid,b.year
from tableA a
join tableB b
on b.id=a.id
then refer to those columns as aid and bid in your code that follows.
Try to avoid Ever doing a select *. Be explicit. You never know what comes flying out of a select * typically. And odds are you don't need it all. Select * is fine for messing around, but not for production code. And you can't control common column names with select *. We like to control things afterall, no?
I have got 5 tables of which the structures are the same. Only the PAGEVISITS field is unique
ie. table 1:
ITEM | PAGEVISITS | Commodity
1813 50 Griddle
1851 10 Griddle
11875 100 Refrigerator
2255 25 Refrigerator
ie. table 2:
ITEM | PAGEVISITS | Commodity
1813 0 Griddle
1851 10 Griddle
11875 25 Refrigerator
2255 10 Refrigerator
I want it to add up the Commodity to spit out:
table1 | table2 | Commodity
60 10 Griddle
125 35 Refrigerator
Some of the data is actually correct but some are WAY off given the below query:
SELECT
SUM(MT.PAGEVISITS) as table1,
SUM(CT1.PAGEVISITS) as table2,
SUM(CT2.PAGEVISITS) as table3,
SUM(CT3.PAGEVISITS) as table4,
SUM(CT4.PAGEVISITS) as table5,
(COUNT(DISTINCT MT.ITEM)) + (COUNT(DISTINCT CT1.ITEM)) + (COUNT(DISTINCT CT2.ITEM)) + (COUNT(DISTINCT CT3.ITEM)) + (COUNT(DISTINCT CT4.ITEM)) as Total,
MT.Commodity
FROM table1 as MT
LEFT JOIN table2 CT1
on MT.ITEM = CT1.ITEM
LEFT JOIN table3 CT2
on MT.ITEM = CT2.ITEM
LEFT JOIN table4 CT3
on MT.ITEM = CT3.ITEM
LEFT JOIN table5 CT4
on MT.ITEM = CT4.ITEM
GROUP BY Commodity
I believe this may be cause by using the LEFT JOIN incorrectly. I have also tried the INNER JOIN with the same inconsistent results.
I would do a UNION on all five of those tables to get them as one rowset (inline view), and then run a query on that, start with something like this...
SELECT SUM(IF(t.source='MT',t.pagevisits,0)) AS table1
, SUM(IF(t.source='CT1',t.pagevisits,0)) AS table2
, t.commodity
FROM ( SELECT 'MT' as source, table1.* FROM table1
UNION ALL
SELECT 'CT1', table2.* FROM table2
UNION ALL
SELECT 'CT2', table3.* FROM table3
UNION ALL
SELECT 'CT3', table4.* FROM table4
UNION ALL
SELECT 'CT4', table5.* FROM table5
) t
GROUP BY t.commodity
(But I would specify the column list for each of those tables, rather than using the '.*' and having my query dependent on no one adding/dropping/renaming/reordering columns in any of those tables.)
I include an "extra" literal value (aliased as "source") to identify which table the row came from. I can use a conditional test in an expression in the SELECT list, to figure out whether the row came from a particular table.
This approach is particularly flexible, and can be used to get more complicated resultsets. For example, if I also wanted to get a total number page visits from table3, 4 and 5 added together, along with the individual counts.
SUM(IF(t.source IN ('CT2','CT3','CT4'),t.pagevisits,0) AS total_345
To get the equivalent of your COUNT(DISTINCT item) + COUNT(DISTINCT item) + ... expression...
I would use an expression that makes a single value from both the "source" and "item" columns, being careful to have some sort of guarantee that any particular "source"+"item" will not create a duplicate of some other "source"+"item". (If we just concatenate strings, for example, we don't have any way to distinguish between 'A'+'11' and 'A1'+'1'.) The most common approach I see here is a carefully chosen delimiter which is guaranteed not to appear in either value. We can distinguish between 'A::11' and 'A1::1', so something like this will work:
COUNT(DISINCT CONCAT(t.source,'::',t.item))
In your current query, if item is NULL, then the row doesn't get included in the COUNT. To fully replicate that behavior, you would need something like this:
COUNT(DISINCT IF(t.item IS NOT NULL,CONCAT(t.source,'::',t.item),NULL)) AS Total
Or course, getting a count of distinct item values over the whole set of five tables is much simpler (but then, it does return a different result)
COUNT(DISINCT t.item)
But to answer your question about the use of the LEFT JOIN, the left side table is the "driver" so a matching row has to be in that table for a corresponding row to be retrieved from a table on the right. That is, unmatched rows from the tables on the right side will not be returned.
If what you have is basically five "partitions", and you want to process all of the rows whether or not a matching row appears in any of the other "partitions", I would go with the UNION ALL approach to simply concatenate all of the rows from all of those tables together, and process the rows as if they were from a single table.
NOTE: For very large tables, this may not be a feasible approach, since MySQL is going to have to materialize that inline view. There are other approaches which don't require concatenating all of the rows together.
Specifying a list of only the columns you need, in the SELECT from each table, may help performance, if there are columns in those tables you don't need to reference in your query.
I need to gather posts from two mysql tables that have different columns and provide a WHERE clause to each set of tables. I appreciate the help, thanks in advance.
This is what I have tried...
SELECT
blabbing.id,
blabbing.mem_id,
blabbing.the_blab,
blabbing.blab_date,
blabbing.blab_type,
blabbing.device,
blabbing.fromid,
team_blabbing.team_id
FROM
blabbing
LEFT OUTER JOIN
team_blabbing
ON team_blabbing.id = blabbing.id
WHERE
team_id IN ($team_array) ||
mem_id='$id' ||
fromid='$logOptions_id'
ORDER BY
blab_date DESC
LIMIT 20
I know that this is messy, but i'll admit, I am no mysql veteran. I'm a beginner at best... Any suggestions?
You could put the where-clauses in subqueries:
select
*
from
(select * from ... where ...) as alias1 -- this is a subquery
left outer join
(select * from ... where ...) as alias2 -- this is also a subquery
on
....
order by
....
Note that you can't use subqueries like this in a view definition.
You could also combine the where-clauses, as in your example. Use table aliases to distinguish between columns of different tables (it's a good idea to use aliases even when you don't have to, just because it makes things easier to read). Example:
select
*
from
<table> as alias1
left outer join
<othertable> as alias2
on
....
where
alias1.id = ... and alias2.id = ... -- aliases distinguish between ids!!
order by
....
Two suggestions for you since a relative newbie in SQL. Use "aliases" for your tables to help reduce SuperLongTableNameReferencesForColumns, and always qualify the column names in a query. It can help your life go easier, and anyone AFTER you to better know which columns come from what table, especially if same column name in different tables. Prevents ambiguity in the query. Your left join, I think, from the sample, may be ambigous, but confirm the join of B.ID to TB.ID? Typically a "Team_ID" would appear once in a teams table, and each blabbing entry could have the "Team_ID" that such posting was from, in addition to its OWN "ID" for the blabbing table's unique key indicator.
SELECT
B.id,
B.mem_id,
B.the_blab,
B.blab_date,
B.blab_type,
B.device,
B.fromid,
TB.team_id
FROM
blabbing B
LEFT JOIN team_blabbing TB
ON B.ID = TB.ID
WHERE
TB.Team_ID IN ( you can't do a direct $team_array here )
OR B.mem_id = SomeParameter
OR b.FromID = AnotherParameter
ORDER BY
B.blab_date DESC
LIMIT 20
Where you were trying the $team_array, you would have to build out the full list as expected, such as
TB.Team_ID IN ( 1, 4, 18, 23, 58 )
Also, not logical "||" or, but SQL "OR"
EDIT -- per your comment
This could be done in a variety of ways, such as dynamic SQL building and executing, calling multiple times, once for each ID and merging the results, or additionally, by doing a join to yet another temp table that gets cleaned out say... daily.
If you have another table such as "TeamJoins", and it has say... 3 columns: a date, a sessionid and team_id, you could daily purge anything from a day old of queries, and/or keep clearing each time a new query by the same session ID (as it appears coming from PHP). Have two indexes, one on the date (to simplify any daily purging), and second on (sessionID, team_id) for the join.
Then, loop through to do inserts into the "TempJoins" table with the simple elements identified.
THEN, instead of a hard-coded list IN, you could change that part to
...
FROM
blabbing B
LEFT JOIN team_blabbing TB
ON B.ID = TB.ID
LEFT JOIN TeamJoins TJ
on TB.Team_ID = TJ.Team_ID
WHERE
TB.Team_ID IN NOT NULL
OR B.mem_id ... rest of query
What I ended up doing is;
I added an extra column to my blabbing table called team_id and set it to null as well as another field in my team_blabbing table called mem_id
Then I changed the insert script to also insert a value to the mem_id in team_blabbing.
After doing this I did a simple UNION ALL in the query:
SELECT
*
FROM
blabbing
WHERE
mem_id='$id' OR
fromid='$logOptions_id'
UNION ALL
SELECT
*
FROM
team_blabbing
WHERE
team_id
IN
($team_array)
ORDER BY
blab_date DESC
LIMIT 20
I am open to any thought on what I did. Try not to be too harsh though:) Thanks again for all the info.
Basically, there is an attribute table and translation table - many translations for one attribute.
I need to select id and value from translation for each attribute in a specified language, even if there is no translation record in that language. Either I am missing some join technique or join (without involving language table) is not working here since the following do not return attributes with non-existing translations in the specified language.
select a.attribute, at.id, at.translation
from attribute a left join attributeTranslation at on a.id=at.attribute
where al.language=1;
So I am using subqueries like this, problem here is making two subqueries to the same table with the same parameters (feels like performance drain unless MySQL groups those, which I doubt since it makes you do many similar subqueries)
select attribute,
(select id from attributeTranslation where attribute=a.id and language=1),
(select translation from attributeTranslation where attribute=a.id and language=1),
from attribute a;
I would like to be able to get id and translation from one query, so I concat columns and get the id from string later, which is at least making single subquery but still not looking right.
select attribute,
(select concat(id,';',title)
from offerAttribute_language
where offerAttribute=a.id and _language=1
)
from offerAttribute a
So the question part.
Is there a way to get multiple columns from a single subquery or should I use two subqueries (MySQL is smart enough to group them?) or is joining the following way to go:
[[attribute to language] to translation] (joining 3 tables seems like a worse performance than subquery).
Yes, you can do this. The knack you need is the concept that there are two ways of getting tables out of the table server. One way is ..
FROM TABLE A
The other way is
FROM (SELECT col as name1, col2 as name2 FROM ...) B
Notice that the select clause and the parentheses around it are a table, a virtual table.
So, using your second code example (I am guessing at the columns you are hoping to retrieve here):
SELECT a.attr, b.id, b.trans, b.lang
FROM attribute a
JOIN (
SELECT at.id AS id, at.translation AS trans, at.language AS lang, a.attribute
FROM attributeTranslation at
) b ON (a.id = b.attribute AND b.lang = 1)
Notice that your real table attribute is the first table in this join, and that this virtual table I've called b is the second table.
This technique comes in especially handy when the virtual table is a summary table of some kind. e.g.
SELECT a.attr, b.id, b.trans, b.lang, c.langcount
FROM attribute a
JOIN (
SELECT at.id AS id, at.translation AS trans, at.language AS lang, at.attribute
FROM attributeTranslation at
) b ON (a.id = b.attribute AND b.lang = 1)
JOIN (
SELECT count(*) AS langcount, at.attribute
FROM attributeTranslation at
GROUP BY at.attribute
) c ON (a.id = c.attribute)
See how that goes? You've generated a virtual table c containing two columns, joined it to the other two, used one of the columns for the ON clause, and returned the other as a column in your result set.
I have 2 tables, say table A and table B and I want to perform a join, but the matching condition has to be where a column from A 'is like' a column from B meaning that anything can come before or after the column in B:
for example: if the column in A is 'foo'. Then the join would match if column in B is either: 'fooblah', 'somethingfooblah', or just 'foo'. I know how to use the wildcards in a standard like statement, but am confused when doing a join. Does this make sense? Thanks.
Using INSTR:
SELECT *
FROM TABLE a
JOIN TABLE b ON INSTR(b.column, a.column) > 0
Using LIKE:
SELECT *
FROM TABLE a
JOIN TABLE b ON b.column LIKE '%'+ a.column +'%'
Using LIKE, with CONCAT:
SELECT *
FROM TABLE a
JOIN TABLE b ON b.column LIKE CONCAT('%', a.column ,'%')
Mind that in all options, you'll probably want to drive the column values to uppercase BEFORE comparing to ensure you are getting matches without concern for case sensitivity:
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT UPPER(a.column) 'ua'
TABLE a) a
JOIN (SELECT UPPER(b.column) 'ub'
TABLE b) b ON INSTR(b.ub, a.ua) > 0
The most efficient will depend ultimately on the EXPLAIN plan output.
JOIN clauses are identical to writing WHERE clauses. The JOIN syntax is also referred to as ANSI JOINs because they were standardized. Non-ANSI JOINs look like:
SELECT *
FROM TABLE a,
TABLE b
WHERE INSTR(b.column, a.column) > 0
I'm not going to bother with a Non-ANSI LEFT JOIN example. The benefit of the ANSI JOIN syntax is that it separates what is joining tables together from what is actually happening in the WHERE clause.
In MySQL you could try:
SELECT * FROM A INNER JOIN B ON B.MYCOL LIKE CONCAT('%', A.MYCOL, '%');
Of course this would be a massively inefficient query because it would do a full table scan.
Update: Here's a proof
create table A (MYCOL varchar(255));
create table B (MYCOL varchar(255));
insert into A (MYCOL) values ('foo'), ('bar'), ('baz');
insert into B (MYCOL) values ('fooblah'), ('somethingfooblah'), ('foo');
insert into B (MYCOL) values ('barblah'), ('somethingbarblah'), ('bar');
SELECT * FROM A INNER JOIN B ON B.MYCOL LIKE CONCAT('%', A.MYCOL, '%');
+-------+------------------+
| MYCOL | MYCOL |
+-------+------------------+
| foo | fooblah |
| foo | somethingfooblah |
| foo | foo |
| bar | barblah |
| bar | somethingbarblah |
| bar | bar |
+-------+------------------+
6 rows in set (0.38 sec)
If this is something you'll need to do often...then you may want to denormalize the relationship between tables A and B.
For example, on insert to table B, you could write zero or more entries to a juncion table mapping B to A based on partial mapping. Similarly, changes to either table could update this association.
This all depends on how frequently tables A and B are modified. If they are fairly static, then taking a hit on INSERT is less painful then repeated hits on SELECT.
Using conditional criteria in a join is definitely different than the Where clause. The cardinality between the tables can create differences between Joins and Where clauses.
For example, using a Like condition in an Outer Join will keep all records in the first table listed in the join. Using the same condition in the Where clause will implicitly change the join to an Inner join. The record has to generally be present in both tables to accomplish the conditional comparison in the Where clause.
I generally use the style given in one of the prior answers.
tbl_A as ta
LEFT OUTER JOIN tbl_B AS tb
ON ta.[Desc] LIKE '%' + tb.[Desc] + '%'
This way I can control the join type.
When writing queries with our server LIKE or INSTR (or CHARINDEX in T-SQL) takes too long, so we use LEFT like in the following structure:
select *
from little
left join big
on left( big.key, len(little.key) ) = little.key
I understand that might only work with varying endings to the query, unlike other suggestions with '%' + b + '%', but is enough and much faster if you only need b+'%'.
Another way to optimize it for speed (but not memory) is to create a column in "little" that is "len(little.key)" as "lenkey" and user that instead in the query above.