hi i have to different tables m_mp and m_answer
both have m_date and m_mdate which fills with time() function i want to select both entries but order by date
example:
first table: 'some text','6464647776'
second table 'some answer','545454545'
so i want to show first second table and then the first one
this is the code im using:
SELECT r.*,u.*
FROM `mensajes` as r
LEFT JOIN `m_answer` as u on r.id = u.id_m
WHERE r.id = '1'
ORDER BY m_date
and then display the result of each table using while-loop
I guess I get what you want to do.
You may force both grouping and ordering using ORDER BY, like this:
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/373d65/9
I know the solution is not optimal in terms of speed, but, given proper indices, I suspect performance to be acceptable, unless you are already aiming for millions of messages; when that time comes, you would like to either properly GROUPBY, or make subsequent queries for just the recently answered questions from the current page.
Related
I am trying to write an SQL query which is pretty complex. The requirements are as follows:
I need to return these fields from the query:
track.artist
track.title
track.seconds
track.track_id
track.relative_file
album.image_file
album.album
album.album_id
track.track_number
I can select a random track with the following query:
select
track.artist, track.title, track.seconds, track.track_id,
track.relative_file, album.image_file, album.album,
album.album_id, track.track_number
FROM
track, album
WHERE
album.album_id = track.album_id
ORDER BY RAND() limit 10;
Here is where I am having trouble though. I also have a table called "trackfilters1" thru "trackfilters10" Each row has an auto incrementing ID field. Therefore, row 10 is data for album_id 10. These fields are populated with 1's and 0's. For example, album #10 has 10 tracks, then trackfilters1.flags will contain "1111111111" if all tracks are to be included in the search. If track 10 was to be excluded, then it would contain "1111111110"
My problem is including this clause.
The latest query I have come up with is the following:
select
track.artist, track.title, track.seconds,
track.track_id, track.relative_file, album.image_file,
album.album, album.album_id, track.track_number
FROM
track, album, trackfilters1, trackfilters2
WHERE
album.album_id = track.album_id
AND
( (album.album_id = trackfilters1.id)
OR
(album.album_id=trackfilters2.id) )
AND
( (mid(trackfilters1.flags, track.track_number,1) = 1)
OR
( mid(trackfilters2.flags, track.track_number,1) = 1))
ORDER BY RAND() limit 2;
however this is causing SQL to hang. I'm presuming that I'm doing something wrong. Does anybody know what it is? I would be open to suggestions if there is an easier way to achieve my end result, I am not set on repairing my broken query if there is a better way to accomplish this.
Additionally, in my trials, I have noticed when I had a working query and added say, trackfilters2 to the FROM clause without using it anywhere in the query, it would hang as well. This makes me wonder. Is this correct behavior? I would think adding to the FROM list without making use of the data would just make the server procure more data, I wouldn't have expected it to hang.
There's not enough information here to determine what's causing the performance issue.
But here's a few suggestions and comments.
Ditch the old-school comma syntax for the join operations, and use the JOIN keyword instead. And relocate the join predicates to an ON clause.
And for heaven's sake, format the SQL so that it's decipherable by someone trying to read it.
There's some questions here... will there always be a matching row in both trackfilters1 and trackfilters2 for rows you want to return? Or could a row be missing from trackfilters2, and you still want to return the row if there's a matching row in trackfilters1? (The answer to that question determines whether you'd want to use an outer join vs an inner join to those tables.)
For best performance with large sets, having appropriate indexes defined is going to be critical.
Use EXPLAIN to see the execution plan.
I suggest you try writing your query like this:
SELECT track.artist
, track.title
, track.seconds
, track.track_id
, track.relative_file
, album.image_file
, album.album
, album.album_id
, track.track_number
FROM track
JOIN album
ON album.album_id = track.album_id
LEFT
JOIN trackfilters1
ON trackfilters1.id = album.album_id
LEFT
JOIN trackfilters2
ON trackfilters2.id = album.album_id
WHERE MID(trackfilters1.flags, track.track_number, 1) = '1'
OR MID(trackfilters2.flags, track.track_number, 1) = '1'
ORDER BY RAND()
LIMIT 2
And if you want help with performance, provide the output from EXPLAIN, and what indexes are defined.
I know other posts talk about this, but I haven't been able to apply anything to this situation.
This is what I have so far.
SELECT *
FROM ccParts, ccChild, ccFamily
WHERE parGC = '26' AND
parChild = chiId AND
chiFamily = famId
ORDER BY famName, chiName
What I need to do is see the total number of ccParts with the same ccFamily in the results. Then, sort by the total.
It looks like this is close to what you want:
SELECT f.famId, f.famName, pc.parCount
FROM (
SELECT c.chiFamily AS famId, count(*) AS parCount
FROM
ccParts p
JOIN ccChild c ON p.parChild = c.chiId
WHERE p.parGC ='26'
GROUP BY c.chiFamily
) pc
JOIN ccFamily f ON f.famId = pc.famId
ORDER BY pc.parCount
The inline view (between the parentheses) is the headliner: it does your grouping and counting. Note that you do not need to join table ccFamily there to group by family, as table ccChild already carries the family information. If you don't need the family name (i.e. if its ID were sufficient), then you can stick with the inline view alone, and there ORDER BY count(*). The outer query just associates family name with the results.
Additionally, MySQL provides a non-standard mechanism by which you could combine the outer query with the inline view, but in this case it doesn't help much with either clarity or concision. The query I provided should be accepted by any SQL implementation, and it's to your advantage to learn such syntax and approaches first.
In the SELECT, add something like count(ccParts) as count then ORDER BY count instead? Not sure about the structure of your tables so you might need to improvise.
I have a query which goes like this:
SELECT insanlyBigTable.description_short,
insanlyBigTable.id AS insanlyBigTable,
insanlyBigTable.type AS insanlyBigTableLol,
catalogpartner.id AS catalogpartner_id
FROM insanlyBigTable
INNER JOIN smallerTable ON smallerTable.id = insanlyBigTable.catalog_id
INNER JOIN smallerTable1 ON smallerTable1.catalog_id = smallerTable.id
AND smallerTable1.buyer_id = 'xxx'
WHERE smallerTable1.cont = 'Y' AND insanlyBigTable.type IN ('111','222','33')
GROUP BY smallerTable.id;
Now, when I run the query first time it copies the giant table into a temp table... I want to know how I can prevent that? I am considering a nested query, or even to reverse the join (not sure the effect would be to run faster), but that is well, not nice. Any other suggestions?
To figure out how to optimize your query, we first have to boil down exactly what it is selecting so that we can preserve that information while we change things around.
What your query does
So, it looks like we need the following
The GROUP BY clause limits the results to at most one row per catalog_id
smallerTable1.cont = 'Y', insanelyBigTable.type IN ('111','222','33'), and buyer_id = 'xxx' appear to be the filters on the query.
And we want data from insanlyBigTable and ... catalogpartner? I would guess that catalogpartner is smallerTable1, due to the id of smallerTable being linked to the catalog_id of the other tables.
I'm not sure on what the purpose of including the buyer_id filter on the ON clause was for, but unless you tell me differently, I'll assume the fact it is on the ON clause is unimportant.
The point of the query
I am unsure about the intent of the query, based on that GROUP BY statement. You will obtain just one row per catalog_id in the insanelyBigTable, but you don't appear to care which row it is. Indeed, the fact that you can run this query at all is due to a special non-standard feature in MySQL that lets you SELECT columns that do not appear in the GROUP BY statement... however, you don't get to select WHICH columns. This means you could have information from 4 different rows for each of your selected items.
My best guess, based on column names, is that you are trying to bring back a list of items that are in the same catalog as something that was purchased by a given buyer, but without any more than one item per catalog. In addition, you want something to connect back to the purchased item in that catalog, via the catalogpartner table's id.
So, something probably akin to amazon's "You may like these items because you purchased these other items" feature.
The new query
We want 1 row per insanlyBigTable.catalog_id, based on which catalog_id exists in smallerTable1, after filtering.
SELECT
ibt.description_short,
ibt.id AS insanlyBigTable,
ibt.type AS insanlyBigTableLol,
(
SELECT smallerTable1.id FROM smallerTable1 st
WHERE st.buyer_id = 'xxx'
AND st.cont = 'Y'
AND st.catalog_id = ibt.catalog_id
LIMIT 1
) AS catalogpartner_id
FROM insanlyBigTable ibt
WHERE ibt.id IN (
SELECT (
SELECT ibt.id AS ibt_id
FROM insanlyBigTable ibt
WHERE ibt.catalog_id = sti.catalog_id
LIMIT 1
) AS ibt_id
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT(catalog_id) FROM smallerTable1 st
WHERE st.buyer_id = 'xxx'
AND st.cont = 'Y'
AND EXISTS (
SELECT * FROM insanlyBigTable ibt
WHERE ibt.type IN ('111','222','33')
AND ibt.catalog_id = st.catalog_id
)
) AS sti
)
This query should generate the same result as your original query, but it breaks things down into smaller queries to avoid the use (and abuse) of the GROUP BY clause on the insanlyBigTable.
Give it a try and let me know if you run into problems.
I am confused on this MySQL select query, I get the correct information back except the COUNT(messages) and COUNT(project_ideas) are coming back twice as many.
SELECT
create_project.title,
image1,
create_project.description,
create_project.date,
create_project.active,
create_project.completed,
create_project.project_id,
categories.name,
messages.receiver_read,
project_ideas.project_id,
COUNT(messages.ideas_id) AS num_of_messages,
COUNT(project_ideas.ideas_id) AS num_of_ideas
FROM
create_project
LEFT JOIN project_ideas ON create_project.project_id = project_ideas.project_id
LEFT JOIN messages ON messages.project_id = create_project.project_id
JOIN categories ON create_project.category = categories.category_id
WHERE
create_project.user_id = {$_SESSION['user']['user_id']}
AND create_project.active = 1
AND create_project.completed = 1
GROUP BY project_ideas.project_id
ORDER BY create_project.date ASC
Any help would be appreciated thanks.
If there is more than one row in your create_project table that matches to a single row in your messages table, then the row in messages will show up once for each matching row in create_project. Additionally, since you have many joins, you have many places for duplicate rows to show up. If a project belongs to more than one category, for example, your join against categories will result in every row from the other tables being duplicated for each category that a project belongs to. I'd wager this is actually the source of your error. And what makes it so insidious is that the GROUP BY hides the duplication everywhere except in functions that do counting and summing.
#Wrikken's comment is correct and useful. If you remove the GROUP BY, you'll see every row included in the count. There you should see that rows from the messages table are repeated. As #Wrikken also said, you can mitigate this by using COUNT(DISTINCT ...). I would try, however, to make sure your joins are correct or that your table data is correct, before papering over the problem with a COUNT(DISTINCT ...). That is to say, make sure that COUNT(DISTINCT ...) really makes logical sense in terms of the data you are looking for.
Unrelated to your action question, I had to point out something that I see (and have done myself before I knew better). Although MySQL lets you include columns in your select list that are not in a GROUP BY or an aggregate function (e.g., COUNT()), it's bad practice to do so. The results are technically undefined (see: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/group-by-extensions.html). I think MySQL is wrong for doing this, but it's not my call. Other database systems would flag this as an error.
Try this:
COUNT(messages.ideas_id) OVER(PARTITION BY messages.project_id) AS num_of_messages,
COUNT(project_ideas.ideas_id) OVER(PARTITION BY project_ideas.project_id) AS num_of_ideas
I'm having an issue getting this SQL query to work properly.
I have the following query
SELECT apps.*,
SUM(IF(adtracking.appId = apps.id AND adtracking.id = transactions.adTrackingId, transactions.payoutAmount, 0)) AS 'revenue',
SUM(IF(adtracking.appId = apps.id AND adtracking.type = 'impression', 1, 0)) AS 'impressions'
FROM apps, adtracking, transactions
WHERE apps.userId = '$userId'
GROUP BY apps.id
Everything is working, HOWEVER for the 'impressions' column I am generating in the query, I am getting a WAY larger number than there should be. For example, one matching app for this query should only have 72 for 'Impressions' yet it is coming up with a value of over 3,000 when there aren't even that many rows in the adtracking table. Why is this? What is wrong here?
Your problem is you have no join conditions, so you are getting every row of every table being joined in your query result - called a cartesian product.
To fix, change your FROM clause to this:
FROM apps a
LEFT JOIN adtracking ad ON ad.appId = a.id
LEFT JOIN transactions t ON t.adTrackingId = ad.id
You haven't provided the schema for your tables, so I guessed the names of the relevant columns - you may have to adjust them. Also, your transaction table may join to adtracking - it's impossible to know from your question, so agin you have have to alter things slightly. Hopefully you get the idea.
Edit:
Note: your group-by clause is incorrect. You either need to list every column of apps (not recommended), or change your select to only select the id column from apps (recommended). Change your select to this:
SELECT apps.id,
-- rest of query the same
Otherwise you'll get weird, incorrect, results.