I am trying to create a table that shows treatment information about patients (though I just wondered if would be better as a query) at a fictional hospital. The idea is that one row of this could be used to print an information sheet for the attending nurse(s).
I would like to make the attending_doctor column contain the name that corresponds with the employee_id.
|Patient_ID|Employee_ID|Attending_Doctor|Condition|Treatment|future_surgery|
Would appreciate any help. Thank you!
Just use a join in your query rather than have the employee name in 2 tables (which would mean updating in more than one location if they change name etc). For the sake of an example, this also gets the patients name from a 3rd table named patients.
eg
SELECT table1.*, employees.name, patients.name
FROM table1
LEFT JOIN employees ON employees.id = table1.employeeId
LEFT JOIN patients ON patients.id = table1.patientsId
Don't use directly this table, but build a view that contains the data you need. Then you can get the data from the view like it was a table.
Basically what you need is to have data in three tables. One table for patients, one table for for employees and one for the reports. Table with reports should contain only the employee_ID. Then you can either build a direct query over these three tables or build a view that will hide the complicated query.
Related
I have table emails_grouping in that I have one column named 'to_ids' this column contains multiple employee Id's . Now I want to change that Id's with respective employee names. employee data is in employee table.
this is in mysql.
I tried multiple ways but I'm not able to replace id's with names because , that 'to_ids' column contains multiple 'Ids'.
description to_ids
'Inactive Employees with missing Last working day', '11041,11109,899,13375,1715,1026'
above is the column which I want to change Id's with employee names.
This problem should demonstrate to you why it's a bad idea to store "lists" of id's like you're doing. You should instead store one id per row.
You can join to your employee table like this:
SELECT e.name
FROM emails_grouping AS g
JOIN employee AS e
ON FIND_IN_SET(e.id, g.to_ids)
WHERE g.description = 'Inactive Employees with missing Last working day';
But be aware that joining using a function like this is not possible to optimize. It will have very slow performance, because it can't look up the respective employee id's using an index. It has to do a table-scan of the employee table, and evaluate the id's against your comma-separated list one by one.
This is just one reason why using comma-separated lists instead of normal columns is trouble. See my answer to Is storing a delimited list in a database column really that bad?
I have two tables that have different data that I need to merge. They do have similarities such as: Order number, Name, type or product. But they have separate data as well like: Order date, and Engravings.
Would I do two separate Append queries in Access into a merged table? Or one Append queries? Or just keep the data separate?
I am new to Access and trying to find the best way to approach this.
Merging the two tables into one completely defeats the purpose of using a database and you're better off using excel at that point. You want to split the data as much as possible along logical lines so that you can find, say... all the orders that Mr X has ever made for a specific product. And in that case you're going to want to have separate tables for customers, orders, engravings and the like.
The best practice from a design standpoint is to place fields that each table has in common into a third "master" table, then create relationships from that table to the existing tables and delete the data that has been transferred to the main table (except for the primary keys, which have to be common with your master table).
To create the master table, use a Make Table query to generate the master table based on one of your tables, then an append query to add any products in the master table that might not be common to both, based on the other table. Finally, delete queries for each table would rid you of redundant data in both original tables.
However, I strongly suggest you use Microsoft's tutorials and download the NorthWind sample database so you can get an idea of what a properly structured database looks like. The beginner's learning curve for access is very steep and having well built example databases is almost a requisite.
Make a backup of your database(s) and play with it until it turns out right. Do not make the mistake of playing with live data until you know what you're doing.
As you have similar fields on either table, take the Order number field from both tables using a union query. Something like:
SELECT tbl_Delivery_Details.OrderNo
FROM tbl_Delivery_Details
GROUP BY tbl_Delivery_Details.OrderNo
UNION
SELECT tbl_Delivery_Header.[Order number]
FROM tbl_Delivery_Header
GROUP BY tbl_Delivery_Header.[Order number];
This would take the order numbers from the delivery details table and from the delivery header table and merge them into one list with only one instance of each order number. Save the query.
You could then use this query in a new query. Bring in your 2 tables to this query and insert the fields from either table that you require.
As users add records to the tables they will be added to the union selet query when it is next run.
PB
It depends on what you want to do. Let's assume you have tables A (with 50 records) and B (with 75) records, and both tables have a similar column called OrderID.
Appending Rows:
If you want to create a table with 125 total records by combining records (rows) from A and records (rows) from B, run the following two queries:
Query 1:
SELECT A.ORDER_NUMBER, A.TEXT_FIELD1 as DATA INTO C
FROM A;
Query 2:
INSERT INTO C ( ORDER_NUMBER, DATA )
SELECT B.ORDER_NUMBER, B.TEXT_FIELD2
FROM B;
Appending Columns: If you want to create a table with 75 total records where you are appending columns from A to the columns in B, then run the following query:
SELECT B.ORDER_NUMBER, A.TEXT_FIELD1, B.TEXT_FIELD2 INTO C
FROM A RIGHT JOIN B ON A.ORDER_NUMBER = B.ORDER_NUMBER;
... in a similar way, you can append columns in B to columns in A in a new table C with a total of 50 records by running the following query:
SELECT A.ORDER_NUMBER, A.TEXT_FIELD1, B.TEXT_FIELD2 INTO C
FROM A LEFT JOIN B ON A.ORDER_NUMBER = B.ORDER_NUMBER;
I have a MySQL statement that I want to use that will display the data in two different tables, but not have any duplicated data.
SELECT Customer.firstName, Customer.lastName, Purchase.productName, Purchase.productPrice
FROM Purchase
INNER JOIN Customer
This is currently the MySQL I am using and it does work, but it loads duplicated data which I do not want. I have looked around but not seeing a simple solution. Sorry in advance if it is a simple solution, been working for awhile and brain isn't really working.
You have to bind those tables via related columns.
Let's assume primary column of table Customer is named ID and customer ID is being held in a column named customerID in table Purchase:
SELECT Customer.firstName, Customer.lastName, Purchase.productName, Purchase.productPrice
FROM Purchase
INNER JOIN Customer
ON Custormer.ID=Purchase.customerID
Here is my Database structure (basic relations):
I'm attempting to formulate a one-line query that will populate the clients_ID, Job_id, tech_id, & Part_id and return back all the work orders present. Nothing more nothing less.
Thus far I've struggled to generate this Query:
SELECT cli.client_name, tech.tech_name, job.Job_Name, w.wo_id, w.time_started, w.part_id, w.job_id, w.tech_id, w.clients_id, part.Part_name
FROM work_orders as w, technicians as tech, clients as cli, job_types as job, parts_list as part
LEFT JOIN technicians as techy ON tech_id = techy.tech_name
LEFT JOIN parts_list party ON part.part_id = party.Part_Name
LEFT JOIN job_types joby ON job_id = joby.Job_Name
LEFT JOIN clients cliy ON clients_id = cliy.client_name
Apparently, once all the joining happens it does not even populate the correct foreign key values according to their reference.
[some values came out as the actual foreign key id, not even
corresponding value.]
It just goes on about 20-30 times depending on largest row of a table that I have (one of the above).
I only have two work orders created, So ideally it should return just TWO Records, and columns, and fields with correct information. What could I be doing wrong? Haven't been with MySQL too long but am learning as much as I can.
Your join conditions are wrong. Join on tech_id = tech_id, not tech_id = tech_name. Looks like you do this for all your joins, so they all need to be fixed.
I really don't follow the text of your question, so I am basing my answer solely on your query.
Edit
Replying to your comment here. You said you want to "load up" the tech name column. I assume you mean you want tech name to be part of your result set.
The SELECT part of the query is what determines the columns that are in the result set. As long as the table where the column lives is referenced in the FROM/JOIN clauses, you can SELECT any column from that table.
Think of a JOIN statement as a way to "look up" a value in one table based on a value in another table. This is a very simplified definition, but it's a good way to start thinking about it. You want tech name in your result set, so you look it up in the Technicians table, which is where it lives. However, you want to look it up by a value that you have in the Work Orders table. The key (which is actually called a foreign key) that you have in the Work Orders table that relates it to the Technicians table is the tech_id. You use the tech_id to look up the related row in the Technicians table, and by doing so can include any column in that table in your result set.
some help here please with (advanced) mysql. Example illustrates the issue much better. So..
I have a predefined value pair table PARTNERS with partner1 and partner2 columns. And then there is another table PROJECTS which has partner1 and partner2 columns.
So, I want to select all PROJECTS where columns partner1 and partner2 are within the actual partners table described above.
Obviously, I cannot simply indicate "where partner1=... and/or partner2=..." because there would be no check of whether those two are partners (as defined in the PARTNERS table). (Just in case: there are projects with partner1 and partner2 not in the partner relationships.)
I don't think that kind of query is possible at all since it has the condition stored in the result. But would be happy if one can prove otherwise.
Thanks
It sounds like you need a query that will give you rows from PROJECTS where partner 1 and partner 2 are both the same as they are in any row in PARTNERS. So do an inner join:
SELECT * FROM projects
INNER JOIN partners
ON projects.partner1 = partners.partner1
AND projects.partner2 = partners.partner2
If you're up for restructuring your tables, it might make more sense to assign a unique ID to every row in PARTNERS, and use that ID in the PROJECTS table. That way instead of storing two columns of redundant data, you just have one column indicating which pair of students is on the project.