I checked many posts with related questions, but couldnt find an answer.
I have 2 tables which have a one to many relationship. One is customers and the other one is projects. One customer can have many projects. their PK and FK are customer.customer_id and project_customer_id.
Now when I use the following SQL
SELECT *, COUNT(project.project_id) AS totalProjects
FROM `customer` LEFT JOIN `project`
ON `project`.`customer_id` = `customer`.`customer_id`
ORDER BY `customer`.`date_created` DESC
However when I get all my customers now it only returns the customers which actually have a project. I used inner, outer, left, union and right joins but no luck. I also tried DISTINCT but didnt work either.
Does anyone have any idea for such a query that it returns all customers even if they have no projects?
thanks in advance,
Rodney
Since you are only concerned with the count of projects "if I understood correctly from your question", either create a function to get you this count, or write a sub query like the example below...
SELECT
*,
(
SELECT COUNT(project.project_id) from project
WHERE
project.customer_id = customer.customer_id
) AS totalProjects
FROM
customer
ORDER BY customer.date_created DESC
Use this query:
SELECT *, COUNT(project.project_id) AS totalProjects FROM `customer` LEFT JOIN `project` ON `project`.`project_customer_id` = `customer`.`customer_id` GROUP BY `customer`.`customer_id` ORDER BY `customer`.`date_created` DESC
Not clear from your question, but I think you are trying to list all customers and if there are any projects associated with a customer then list the number of 'projects'? If that's your question then the below should solve it for you:
SELECT *, ISNULL((SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Project WHERE CustomerID = C.CustomerID),0) AS ProjectCount
FROM Customer C
ORDER BY C.Date_Created DESC
Related
I have this query I need to optimize further since it requires too much cpu time and I can't seem to find any other way to write it more efficiently. Is there another way to write this without altering the tables?
SELECT category, b.fruit_name, u.name
, r.count_vote, r.text_c
FROM Fruits b, Customers u
, Categories c
, (SELECT * FROM
(SELECT *
FROM Reviews
ORDER BY fruit_id, count_vote DESC, r_id
) a
GROUP BY fruit_id
) r
WHERE b.fruit_id = r.fruit_id
AND u.customer_id = r.customer_id
AND category = "Fruits";
This is your query re-written with explicit joins:
SELECT
category, b.fruit_name, u.name, r.count_vote, r.text_c
FROM Fruits b
JOIN
(
SELECT * FROM
(
SELECT *
FROM Reviews
ORDER BY fruit_id, count_vote DESC, r_id
) a
GROUP BY fruit_id
) r on r.fruit_id = b.fruit_id
JOIN Customers u ON u.customer_id = r.customer_id
CROSS JOIN Categories c
WHERE c.category = 'Fruits';
(I am guessing here that the category column belongs to the categories table.)
There are some parts that look suspicious:
Why do you cross join the Categories table, when you don't even display a column of the table?
What is ORDER BY fruit_id, count_vote DESC, r_id supposed to do? Sub query results are considered unordered sets, so an ORDER BY is superfluous and can be ignored by the DBMS. What do you want to achieve here?
SELECT * FROM [ revues ] GROUP BY fruit_id is invalid. If you group by fruit_id, what count_vote and what r.text_c do you expect to get for the ID? You don't tell the DBMS (which would be something like MAX(count_vote) and MIN(r.text_c)for instance. MySQL should through an error, but silently replacescount_vote, r.text_cbyANY_VALUE(count_vote), ANY_VALUE(r.text_c)` instead. This means you get arbitrarily picked values for a fruit.
The answer hence to your question is: Don't try to speed it up, but fix it instead. (Maybe you want to place a new request showing the query and explaining what it is supposed to do, so people can help you with that.)
Your Categories table seems not joined/related to the others this produce a catesia product between all the rows
If you want distinct resut don't use group by but distint so you can avoid an unnecessary subquery
and you dont' need an order by on a subquery
SELECT category
, b.fruit_name
, u.name
, r.count_vote
, r.text_c
FROM Fruits b
INNER JOIN Customers u ON u.customer_id = r.customer_id
INNER JOIN Categories c ON ?????? /Your Categories table seems not joined/related to the others /
INNER JOIN (
SELECT distinct fruit_id, count_vote, text_c, customer_id
FROM Reviews
) r ON b.fruit_id = r.fruit_id
WHERE category = "Fruits";
for better reading you should use explicit join syntax and avoid old join syntax based on comma separated tables name and where condition
The next time you want help optimizing a query, please include the table/index structure, an indication of the cardinality of the indexes and the EXPLAIN plan for the query.
There appears to be absolutely no reason for a single sub-query here, let alone 2. Using sub-queries mostly prevents the DBMS optimizer from doing its job. So your biggest win will come from eliminating these sub-queries.
The CROSS JOIN creates a deliberate cartesian join - its also unclear if any attributes from this table are actually required for the result, if it is there to produce multiples of the same row in the output, or just an error.
The attribute category in the last line of your query is not attributed to any of the tables (but I suspect it comes from the categories table).
Further, your code uses a GROUP BY clause with no aggregation function. This will produce non-deterministic results and is a bug. Assuming that you are not exploiting a side-effect of that, the query can be re-written as:
SELECT
category, b.fruit_name, u.name, r.count_vote, r.text_c
FROM Fruits b
JOIN Reviews r
ON r.fruit_id = b.fruit_id
JOIN Customers u ON u.customer_id = r.customer_id
ORDER BY r.fruit_id, count_vote DESC, r_id;
Since there are no predicates other than joins in your query, there is no scope for further optimization beyond ensuring there are indexes on the join predicates.
As all too frequently, the biggest benefit may come from simply asking the question of why you need to retrieve every single row in the tables in a single query.
I have the following problem with my query:
I have two tables:
Customer
Subscriber
linked together by customer.id=subscriber.customer_id
in the subscriber table, I have records with id_customer=0 (these are email records, that do not have a full customer account)
Now i want to show how many customers I have per day, and how many subscribers with id_customer, and how many subscribers WITH id_customer=0 (emailonlies i call them)
Somehow, i cannot manage to get those emailonlies.
Perhaps it has something to do with not using the right join type.
When i use left join, i get the right amount of customers, but not the right amount of emailonlies. When I use inner join i get the wrong amount of customers. Am i using the group function correctly? i think it has something to do with that.
THIS IS MY QUERY:
` SELECT DATE(c.date_register),
COUNT(DISTINCT c.id) AS newcustomers,
COUNT(DISTINCT s.customer_id) AS newsubscribedcustomers,
COUNT(DISTINCT s.subscriber_id AND s.customer_id=0) AS emailonlies
FROM customer c
LEFT JOIN subscriber s ON s.customer_id=c.id
GROUP BY DATE(c.date_register)
ORDER BY DATE(c.date_register) DESC
LIMIT 10
;`
I'm not entirely sure, but I think in DISTINCT s.subscriber_id AND s.customer_id=0, it runs the AND before the DISTINCT, so the DISTINCT only ever sees true and false.
Why don't you just take
COUNT(DISTINCT s.subscriber_id) - (COUNT(DISTINCT s.customer_id) - 1)?
(The -1 is there because DISTINCT s.customer_id will count 0.)
Got it, only risk is that i get no email onlies if there are no customers on this day, becuase of the left join. But this one works:
SELECT customers.regdatum,customers.customersqty,subscribers.emailonlies
FROM (
(SELECT DATE(c.date_register) AS regdatum,COUNT(DISTINCT c.id) AS customersqty
FROM customer c
GROUP BY DATE(c.date_register)
) AS customers
LEFT JOIN
(SELECT DATE(s.added) AS voegdatum,COUNT(DISTINCT s.subscriber_id) AS emailonlies
FROM subscriber s
WHERE s.customer_id=0
GROUP BY DATE(s.added)
) AS subscribers
ON customers.regdatum=subscribers.voegdatum
)
ORDER BY customers.regdatum DESC
;
I have these tables and queries as defined in sqlfiddle.
First my problem was to group people showing LEFT JOINed visits rows with the newest year. That I solved using subquery.
Now my problem is that that subquery is not using INDEX defined on visits table. That is causing my query to run nearly indefinitely on tables with approx 15000 rows each.
Here's the query. The goal is to list every person once with his newest (by year) record in visits table.
Unfortunately on large tables it gets real sloooow because it's not using INDEX in subquery.
SELECT *
FROM people
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT *
FROM visits
ORDER BY visits.year DESC
) AS visits
ON people.id = visits.id_people
GROUP BY people.id
Does anyone know how to force MySQL to use INDEX already defined on visits table?
Your query:
SELECT *
FROM people
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT *
FROM visits
ORDER BY visits.year DESC
) AS visits
ON people.id = visits.id_people
GROUP BY people.id;
First, is using non-standard SQL syntax (items appear in the SELECT list that are not part of the GROUP BY clause, are not aggregate functions and do not sepend on the grouping items). This can give indeterminate (semi-random) results.
Second, ( to avoid the indeterminate results) you have added an ORDER BY inside a subquery which (non-standard or not) is not documented anywhere in MySQL documentation that it should work as expected. So, it may be working now but it may not work in the not so distant future, when you upgrade to MySQL version X (where the optimizer will be clever enough to understand that ORDER BY inside a derived table is redundant and can be eliminated).
Try using this query:
SELECT
p.*, v.*
FROM
people AS p
LEFT JOIN
( SELECT
id_people
, MAX(year) AS year
FROM
visits
GROUP BY
id_people
) AS vm
JOIN
visits AS v
ON v.id_people = vm.id_people
AND v.year = vm.year
ON v.id_people = p.id;
The: SQL-fiddle
A compound index on (id_people, year) would help efficiency.
A different approach. It works fine if you limit the persons to a sensible limit (say 30) first and then join to the visits table:
SELECT
p.*, v.*
FROM
( SELECT *
FROM people
ORDER BY name
LIMIT 30
) AS p
LEFT JOIN
visits AS v
ON v.id_people = p.id
AND v.year =
( SELECT
year
FROM
visits
WHERE
id_people = p.id
ORDER BY
year DESC
LIMIT 1
)
ORDER BY name ;
Why do you have a subquery when all you need is a table name for joining?
It is also not obvious to me why your query has a GROUP BY clause in it. GROUP BY is ordinarily used with aggregate functions like MAX or COUNT, but you don't have those.
How about this? It may solve your problem.
SELECT people.id, people.name, MAX(visits.year) year
FROM people
JOIN visits ON people.id = visits.id_people
GROUP BY people.id, people.name
If you need to show the person, the most recent visit, and the note from the most recent visit, you're going to have to explicitly join the visits table again to the summary query (virtual table) like so.
SELECT a.id, a.name, a.year, v.note
FROM (
SELECT people.id, people.name, MAX(visits.year) year
FROM people
JOIN visits ON people.id = visits.id_people
GROUP BY people.id, people.name
)a
JOIN visits v ON (a.id = v.id_people and a.year = v.year)
Go fiddle: http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!2/d67fc/20/0
If you need to show something for people that have never had a visit, you should try switching the JOIN items in my statement with LEFT JOIN.
As someone else wrote, an ORDER BY clause in a subquery is not standard, and generates unpredictable results. In your case it baffled the optimizer.
Edit: GROUP BY is a big hammer. Don't use it unless you need it. And, don't use it unless you use an aggregate function in the query.
Notice that if you have more than one row in visits for a person and the most recent year, this query will generate multiple rows for that person, one for each visit in that year. If you want just one row per person, and you DON'T need the note for the visit, then the first query will do the trick. If you have more than one visit for a person in a year, and you only need the latest one, you have to identify which row IS the latest one. Usually it will be the one with the highest ID number, but only you know that for sure. I added another person to your fiddle with that situation. http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!2/4f644/2/0
This is complicated. But: if your visits.id numbers are automatically assigned and they are always in time order, you can simply report the highest visit id, and be guaranteed that you'll have the latest year. This will be a very efficient query.
SELECT p.id, p.name, v.year, v.note
FROM (
SELECT id_people, max(id) id
FROM visits
GROUP BY id_people
)m
JOIN people p ON (p.id = m.id_people)
JOIN visits v ON (m.id = v.id)
http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!2/4f644/1/0 But this is not the way your example is set up. So you need another way to disambiguate your latest visit, so you just get one row per person. The only trick we have at our disposal is to use the largest id number.
So, we need to get a list of the visit.id numbers that are the latest ones, by this definition, from your tables. This query does that, with a MAX(year)...GROUP BY(id_people) nested inside a MAX(id)...GROUP BY(id_people) query.
SELECT v.id_people,
MAX(v.id) id
FROM (
SELECT id_people,
MAX(year) year
FROM visits
GROUP BY id_people
)p
JOIN visits v ON (p.id_people = v.id_people AND p.year = v.year)
GROUP BY v.id_people
The overall query (http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!2/c2da2/1/0) is this.
SELECT p.id, p.name, v.year, v.note
FROM (
SELECT v.id_people,
MAX(v.id) id
FROM (
SELECT id_people,
MAX(year) year
FROM visits
GROUP BY id_people
)p
JOIN visits v ON ( p.id_people = v.id_people
AND p.year = v.year)
GROUP BY v.id_people
)m
JOIN people p ON (m.id_people = p.id)
JOIN visits v ON (m.id = v.id)
Disambiguation in SQL is a tricky business to learn, because it takes some time to wrap your head around the idea that there's no inherent order to rows in a DBMS.
The following sql call works fine, returns the correct total retail for customers:
SELECT customer.id,
customer.first_name,
customer.last_name,
SUM(sales_line_item_detail.retail) AS total_retail
FROM sales_line_item_detail
INNER JOIN sales_header
ON sales_header.id = sales_line_item_detail.sales_header_id
INNER JOIN customer
ON customer.id = sales_header.customer_id
GROUP BY sales_header.customer_Id
ORDER BY total_Retail DESC
LIMIT 10
However, i need it to return the customers telephone and email addresses as well.. please keep in mind that not all customers have an email address and telephone number. whenever i left join the email and numbers tables, it throws the total_retail amount off by thousands and I am not sure why.
The following query gives completely wrong results for the total_retail field:
SELECT customer.id,
customer.first_name,
customer.last_name,
IF(
ISNULL( gemstore.customer_phone_numbers.Number),
'No Number..',
gemstore.customer_phone_numbers.Number
) AS Number,
IF(
ISNULL(gemstore.customer_emails.Email),
'No Email...',
gemstore.customer_emails.Email
) AS Email,
SUM(sales_line_item_detail.retail) AS total_retail,
FROM sales_line_item_detail
INNER JOIN sales_header
ON sales_header.id = sales_line_item_detail.sales_header_id
INNER JOIN customer
ON customer.id = sales_header.customer_id
LEFT JOIN gemstore.customer_emails
ON gemstore.customer_emails.Customer_ID = gemstore.customer.ID
LEFT JOIN gemstore.customer_phone_numbers
ON gemstore.customer_phone_numbers.Customer_ID = gemstore.customer.ID
GROUP BY sales_header.customer_Id
ORDER BY total_Retail DESC
LIMIT 10
Any help figuring out why it is throwing off my results is greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Is it possible that there are multiple records for a Customer_ID in either the customer_emails or customer_phone_numbers tables?
You'll be matching too many records. Try the query without the group by clause and you'll see which ones and how. Most likely the left join's will duplicate order rows on every customer email/phone match.
I am not totally sure, as i can't test this, but the following might be happening.
If there are more than one email or phone number per customer the final result might get multiplied, because of the new joins.
Imagine the query without the group_by and join to sales:
CustomerId Email phoneNumber
1 test#gmx.com 0122233
1 mail#yahoo.com 0122233
The user in this example has 2 mailadresses.
If you would now add the join to sales and the group by, you would have doubled total_retail.
If this should be the case, replacing the LEFT JOIN with an LEFT OUTER JOIN should do the trick. In that case you will however only see the first email/phonenumer of the customer.
I have two tables that I am trying to join. One contains a list of customers, the other is a list of orders. I am trying to formulate a query that will allow me to select all of the customers listed in the table customers who have at least one order in the table orders. However, I do not want to get duplicates for those customers who have multiple orders. Any suggestions how I can accomplish this?
I know this is probably a common issue, however I have no idea what this type of query would be called so that I could search for an answer. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
It's much simpler than you may think:
select distinct(customer_id) from orders;
Edit: If you actually want to get the full info on the customer,
select * from customers where customer_id in (select distinct(customer_id) from orders);
Use:
SELECT c.*
FROM CUSTOMERS c
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT NULL
FROM ORDERS o
WHERE o.custeromid = c.id)
The IN clause is an alternative, but EXISTS works better for duplicates because it returns true on the first duplicate so it doesn't process the entire table.
select customers.id, customers.name, count(orders.id)
from customers
inner join orders on orders.customer_id = customers.Id
group by customers.id, customers.name
having count(orders.id) > 0
SELECT
c.id,
c.name
FROM
customer c
INNER JOIN order o ON o.customer_id = c.id
GROUP BY
c.id,
c.name
HAVING
COUNT(o.id) >= 1
Can't remember if HAVING or GROUP BY comes first.