I would like to know whether there's any difference between the queries below. More specifically, I am interested in the joins and what's the preferred way of inner joining '=' or the clause inner join. Thanks
select distinct gsm.mobile_no, par.name par
from ccare.customer cus, ccare.cu_partner par, service.contract contr, service.gsm gsm
where par.code = cus.partner_code
and contr.contract_no = gsm.contract_code
and gsm.code = sgcp.code
select distinct gsm.mobile_no, par.name par
from ccare.customer cus
inner join ccare.cu_partner par on par.code = cus.partner_code
inner join service.contract contr on contr.contract_no = service.gsm.contract_code
inner join charge.gsm_charge_plan sgcp on sgcp.service_code = gsm.code
These are just 2 different ways of joins.
First one is called THETA style of join while another one is known as ANSI style of join. Both are similar and it is up to you which method you choose.
Related
If I try to query my database with the following query, I get the intended result:
SELECT anime.anime, GROUP_CONCAT(themes.theme) AS themes
FROM anime
INNER JOIN anime_themes ON anime.id = anime_themes.anime_id
INNER JOIN themes ON themes.id = anime_themes.theme_id
GROUP BY anime.anime
ORDER BY anime.id;
Example Output:
"amnesia,bodyswitch,naturaldisaster,tragedy"
However, when I attempt to query more data at once using the following query, I get repeating data:
SELECT anime.*, directors.director, studios.studio,
GROUP_CONCAT(genres.genre) AS genres, GROUP_CONCAT(themes.theme) AS themes
FROM anime
INNER JOIN anime_directors ON anime.id = anime_directors.anime_id
INNER JOIN directors ON directors.id = anime_directors.director_id
INNER JOIN anime_studios ON anime.id = anime_studios.anime_id
INNER JOIN studios ON studios.id = anime_studios.studio_id
INNER JOIN anime_genres ON anime.id = anime_genres.anime_id
INNER JOIN genres ON genres.id = anime_genres.genre_id
INNER JOIN anime_themes ON anime.id = anime_themes.anime_id
INNER JOIN themes ON themes.id = anime_themes.theme_id
GROUP BY anime.anime
ORDER BY anime.id;
Example Output:
bodyswitch,naturaldisaster,tragedy,amnesia,bodyswitch,naturaldisaster,naturaldisaster,tragedy,amnesia,amnesia,bodyswitch,naturaldisaster,tragedy,tragedy,amnesia,bodyswitch"
The data doesn't even seem to be repeating in some coherent order with the second query. Why is the behavior different between the two queries, and how do I go about fixing this? Thanks.
Edit: Only 'themes' and 'genres' have repeating values while 'directors' and 'studios' don't, so I assume it has something to do with the GROUP_CONCAT function.
Just add DISTINCT.
Example:
GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT genres.genre) AS genres, GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT
themes.theme) AS themes
You are joining more table at second query, it may cause a record appear repeatedly.
Adding "DISTINCT" might remove the repeated values but that is not the best way to optimize this query.
You should also consider using subquery or left join.
I'm trying to study SQL.
I have a problem with JOIN
I want to display ref_id, pro_name, class_name but I couldn't.
I find EFFICIENT solution.
MY QUERY (DOESN'T WORK)
SELECT
ref_id, pro_name, class_name
FROM
RC, RP, PP, LP
WHERE
RC.ref_id = RP.ref_id
Avoid using commas be CROSS JOIN
You could use JOIN to instead of commas
like this.
SELECT
RP.ref_id, PP.pro_name, LP.class_name
FROM
RP
LEFT JOIN RC ON RC.ref_id = RP.ref_id
LEFT JOIN PP ON PP.pro_id = RP.pro_id
LEFT JOIN LP ON LP.lec_id = RP.lec_id
Never use commas in the FROM clause. Always use proper, explicit, standard JOIN syntax.
You would seem to want:
select rp.pro_id, pp.pro_name, lp.class_name
from rp left join
pp
on rp.pro_id = pp.pro_id left join
lp
on rp.lec_id = lp.lec_id;
Note the use of left join. This ensure that all rows are in the result set, even when one or the other joins doesn't find a matching record.
From what I can see, the table rc is not needed to answer this specific question.
I was desperately trying harder and harder to get this thing done but didn`t yet succeed. I am getting repeated values when i run this query.
select
tbl_ShipmentStatus.ShipmentID
,Tbl_Contract.ContractID,
Tbl_Contract.KeyWinCountNumber,
Tbl_Item.ItemName,
Tbl_CountryFrom.CountryFromName,
Tbl_CountryTo.CountryToName,
Tbl_Brand.BrandName,
Tbl_Count.CountName,
Tbl_Seller.SellerName,
Tbl_Buyer.BuyerName,
Tbl_Contract.ContractNumber,
Tbl_Contract.ContractDate,
tbl_CountDetail.TotalQty,
tbl_CostUnit.CostUnitName,
tbl_Comission.Payment,
tbl_Port.PortName,
Tbl_Contract.Vans,
tbl_Comission.ComissionPay,
tbl_Comission.ComissionRcv,
tbl_CountDetail.UnitPrice,
tbl_Comission.ComissionRemarks,
tbl_CountDetail.Amount,
tbl_LCStatus.LCNumber,
tbl_ShipmentStatus.InvoiceNumber,
tbl_ShipmentStatus.InvoiceDate,
tbl_ShipmentStatus.BLNumber,
tbl_ShipmentStatus.BLDate,
tbl_ShipmentStatus.VesselName,
tbl_ShipmentStatus.DueDate
from tbl_ShipmentStatus
inner join tbl_LCStatus
on
tbl_LCStatus.LCID = tbl_ShipmentStatus.LCStatusID
inner join Tbl_Contract
on
tbl_LCStatus.ContractID = Tbl_Contract.ContractID
inner join Tbl_CountDetail
on Tbl_Contract.ContractID = Tbl_CountDetail.ContractId
inner join tbl_Comission
on
tbl_Comission.ContractID = Tbl_Contract.ContractID
inner join Tbl_Item
on
Tbl_Item.ItemID = Tbl_Contract.ItemID
inner join Tbl_Brand
on Tbl_Brand.BrandID = Tbl_Contract.BrandID
inner join Tbl_Buyer
on Tbl_Buyer.BuyerID = Tbl_Contract.BuyerID
inner join Tbl_Seller
on Tbl_Seller.SellerID = Tbl_Contract.SellerID
inner join Tbl_CountryFrom
on Tbl_CountryFrom.CountryFromID = Tbl_Contract.CountryFromID
inner join Tbl_CountryTo
on
Tbl_CountryTo.CountryToID = Tbl_Contract.CountryToID
inner join Tbl_Count
on
Tbl_Count.CountID = Tbl_CountDetail.CountId
inner join tbl_CostUnit
on tbl_Comission.CostUnitID = tbl_CostUnit.CostUnitID
inner join tbl_Port
on tbl_Port.PortID = tbl_Comission.PortID
where tbl_LCStatus.isDeleted = 0
and tbl_ShipmentStatus.isDeleted =0
and tbl_LCStatus.isDeleted = 0
and Tbl_CountDetail.isDeleted = 0
and Tbl_Contract.isDeleted = 0
and tbl_ShipmentStatus.LCStatusID = 5
I have also attached a picture of my result set of rows.
Any suggestions why this is happening would really be appreciable.
Result Set
Typically this happens when you have an implicit partial cross join (Cartesian product) between two of your tables. That's what it looks like to me here.
This happens most often when you have a many-to-many relationship. For example, if a single Album allows both multiple Artists and multiple Songs and the only relationship between Artists and Songs is Album, then there's essentially a many-to-many relationship between Artists and Songs. If you select from all three tables at once you're going to implicitly cross join Artists and Songs, and this may not be what you want.
Looking at your query, I see many-to-many between Tbl_CountDetail and tbl_Comission through Tbl_Contract. Try eliminating one of those joins to test to see if the behavior disappears.
Try using the DISTINCT keyword. It should solve your issue
Select DISTINCT ....
Wait as far as I can see your records are not duplicates.
HOWEVER
Notice the CountName column and Shipment ID column
The combination is unique for every row. Hence the values are unique as far as I can see. Try not selecting CountName.
Well if you have distinct rows its not a duplication problem. The issue is during the join a combination is occurring you don't want it to duplicating the results.
Either don't select CountName or you have a mistake in your data.
Only one of those rows should be true either 6 with Count2 or 6 with Count1. Likewise for 7. The fact that your getting both when your not supposed to indicates a logic mistake
I have this query:
SELECT hit.timestamp,hit.id,config.Name,hit.meter_id,levels.LevelName, pos.sm_pos , hit.hit_value
FROM pos,hit,controllers,levels,config
WHERE hit.id=config.id
AND hit.meter_id=levels.id
AND pos.id=hit.id
AND pos.controller_id=controllers.id;
How to make an inner join query from this? With aliases or something? I was looking and I can't find anything for multiple table query.
The way you are joining tables is outdated now. It was used eartlier, now we use keyword like INNER/NATURAL/LEFT OUTER/RIGHT OUTER/CROSS etc. to join tables on basis of requirement.
Refer Join in Mysql
SELECT hit.timestamp,
hit.id,
config.Name,
hit.meter_id,
levels.LevelName,
pos.sm_pos,
hit.hit_value
FROM hit
INNER JOIN config
ON hit.id = config.id
INNER JOIN levels
ON hit.meter_id = levels.id
INNER JOIN POS
ON pos.id = hit.id
INNER JOIN controllers
ON pos.controller_id = controllers.id;
Note : The query posted by you is according the SQL-89 standard and the second posted by me is according to SQL-92.
The SQL-92 standard introduced INNER JOIN .. ON and OUTER JOIN .. ON in order to replace the more complex(?) syntax of SQL-89.
If you want to reformat your query, you can do it like this:
SELECT
H.timestamp,
H.id,
F.Name,
H.meter_id,
L.LevelName,
P.sm_pos,
H.hit_value
FROM pos AS P
INNER JOIN controllers AS C ON P.controller_id = C.id
INNER JOIN hit AS H ON P.id = H.id
INNER JOIN levels AS L ON H.meter_id = L.id
INNER JOIN config AS F ON H.id =F.id;
Notice that I've taken the liberty to add aliases on your table names, this can simplify your queries alot.
To understand how joins work in MySQL, read about it here in the manual. A good tutorial about joins was written by Jeff Atwood, you can find it here.
I want to replace the subquery with a join, if possible.
SELECT `fftenant_farmer`.`person_ptr_id`, `fftenant_surveyanswer`.`text_value`
FROM `fftenant_farmer`
INNER JOIN `fftenant_person`
ON (`fftenant_farmer`.`person_ptr_id` = `fftenant_person`.`id`)
LEFT OUTER JOIN `fftenant_surveyanswer`
ON fftenant_surveyanswer.surveyquestion_id = 1
AND fftenant_surveyanswer.`surveyresult_id` IN (SELECT y.`surveyresult_id` FROM `fftenant_farmer_surveyresults` y WHERE y.farmer_id = `fftenant_farmer`.`person_ptr_id`)
I tried:
SELECT `fftenant_farmer`.`person_ptr_id`, `fftenant_surveyanswer`.`text_value`#, T5.`text_value`
FROM `fftenant_farmer`
INNER JOIN `fftenant_person`
ON (`fftenant_farmer`.`person_ptr_id` = `fftenant_person`.`id`)
LEFT OUTER JOIN `fftenant_farmer_surveyresults`
ON (`fftenant_farmer`.`person_ptr_id` = `fftenant_farmer_surveyresults`.`farmer_id`)
LEFT OUTER JOIN `fftenant_surveyanswer`
ON (`fftenant_farmer_surveyresults`.`surveyresult_id` = `fftenant_surveyanswer`.`surveyresult_id`)
AND fftenant_surveyanswer.surveyquestion_id = 1
But that gave me one record per farmer per survey result for that farmer. I only want one record per farmer as returned by the first query.
A join may be faster on most RDBMs, but the real reason I asked this question is I just can't seem to formulate a join to replace the subquery and I want to know if it's even possible.
You could use DISTINCT or GROUP BY, as mvds and Brilliand suggest, but I think it's closer to the query's design intent if you change the last join to an inner-join, but elevating its precedence:
SELECT farmer.person_ptr_id, surveyanswer.text_value
FROM fftenant_farmer AS farmer
INNER
JOIN fftenant_person AS person
ON person.id = farmer.person_ptr_id
LEFT
OUTER
JOIN
( fftenant_farmer_surveyresults AS farmer_surveyresults
INNER
JOIN fftenant_surveyanswer AS surveyanswer
ON surveyanswer.surveyresult_id = farmer_surveyresults.surveyresult_id
AND surveyanswer.surveyquestion_id = 1
)
ON farmer_surveyresults.farmer_id = farmer.person_ptr_id
Broadly speaking, this will end up giving the same results as the DISTINCT or GROUP BY approach, but in a more principled, less ad hoc way, IMHO.
Use SELECT DISTINCT or GROUP BY to remove the duplicate entries.
Changing your attempt as little as possible:
SELECT DISTINCT `fftenant_farmer`.`person_ptr_id`, `fftenant_surveyanswer`.`text_value`#, T5.`text_value`
FROM `fftenant_farmer`
INNER JOIN `fftenant_person`
ON (`fftenant_farmer`.`person_ptr_id` = `fftenant_person`.`id`)
LEFT OUTER JOIN `fftenant_farmer_surveyresults`
ON (`fftenant_farmer`.`person_ptr_id` = `fftenant_farmer_surveyresults`.`farmer_id`)
LEFT OUTER JOIN `fftenant_surveyanswer`
ON (`fftenant_farmer_surveyresults`.`surveyresult_id` = `fftenant_surveyanswer`.`surveyresult_id`)
AND fftenant_surveyanswer.surveyquestion_id = 1
the real reason I asked this question is I just can't seem to formulate a join to replace the subquery and I want to know if it's even possible
Then consider a much simpler example to begin with e.g.
SELECT *
FROM T1
WHERE id IN (SELECT id FROM T2);
This is known as a semi join and if desired may be re-written using (among other possibilities) a JOIN with a SELECT clause to a) project only from the 'outer' table, and b) return only DISTINCT rows:
SELECT DISTINCT T1.*
FROM T1
JOIN T2 USING (id);