So, I am working in Visual Studio 2013. And I have a table like this:
id | fk | data
----------------------
1 | 1 | something1
2 | 1 | something2
3 | 1 | something3
. | . | ...
. | . | ...
6 | 2 | ...
The fk is a foreign key to another table. I want to select all the rows which have the same fk. There is an undefined number of the same fk entries (there could be 5 rows with value 1 and 3 rows with value 2, etc.) But, I want to be able to switch said fk in my program so that when i put the DB in a Form in Visual Studio, clicking a button next would get me the next value of the fk. For example, I would like the first result to come out like this:
id | fk | data
----------------------
1 | 1 | something1
2 | 1 | something2
3 | 1 | something3
And when I click next to get me to the next entry, the result would be:
id | fk | data
----------------------
6 | 2 | ....
7 | 2 | ....
Is there a way in SQL to combine just the results with the same fk value? All of the solutions I have found so far gave me all of the fk values (all entries). I haven't found a way to get just all the entries with a single, unique value in the fk column.
You're looking for a basic SELECT statement with a WHERE clause:
SELECT
id, fk, data
FROM
your_table_name
WHERE
fk = 1
I can't help you with the VisualStudio stuff though, but you'll just have to repeat the same query incrementing the fk value in the WHERE clause
Related
I have a table from which I would like to extract all of the column values for all rows. However, the query needs to be able to skip the first entry for each unique value of id_customer. It can be assumed that there will always be at least two rows containing the same id_customer.
I've compiled some sample data which can be found here: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/c85b73/1
The results I would like to achieve are something like this:
id_customer | id_cart | date
----------- | ------- | -------------------
1 | 102 | 2017-11-12 12:41:16
2 | 104 | 2015-09-04 17:23:54
2 | 105 | 2014-06-05 02:43:42
3 | 107 | 2011-12-01 11:32:21
Please let me know if any more information/better explanation is required, I expect it's quiet a niche solution.
One method is:
select c.*
from carts c
where c.date > (select min(c2.date) from carts c2 where c2.id_customer = c.id_customer);
If your data is large, you want an index on carts(id_customer, date).
I am moving an old Mantis table that had a varchar(64) category_id column to a new Mantis table that has a int(10) category_id column.
The simplified structure is as follows
bug_table (Old DB)
+----+-------------+-------------+--------+
| id | project_id | category_id | report |
+----+-------------+-------------+--------+
| 1 | 0 | Server | crash |
| 2 | 0 | Database | error |
| 3 | 1 | Server | bug |
| 4 | 1 | Server | crash |
+----+-------------+-------------+--------+
category_table (New DB)
+----+------------+----------+
| id | project_id | name |
+----+------------+----------+
| 0 | 1 | Server |
| 1 | 1 | Database |
| 2 | 2 | Server |
| 3 | 2 | Database |
+----+------------+----------+
I need a magical query that will replace category_id in the bug_table with the numerical category_id in the category_table. Thankfully I am able to match rows by project_id and categories by name.
Here is the query I am working on but have gotten stuck in the complexity
UPDATE bug_table b SET b.category_id = c.id USING category_table WHERE b.category_id = c.name
I like to approach such a task a little differently than you do for a new lookup/reference table.
To me, the new category table would only have id and name columns. There are only two rows based on the sample data: Server and Database. Yes, I realize there could be other names, but those can easily be added, and should be added, before proceeding to maximize the id matching that follows.
Next I would add a new column to the bug table that could be called 'category_new' with the data type that will store the new category id. Alternatively, you could rename the existing category_id column to category, and the new column for the id's could then be column_id.
After all that is done then you can update the new column by joining the category on names and set the id that matches: (note this assumes the non-alternative approach mentioned in step 2)
UPDATE bug_table JOIN category_table ON bug_table.category_id = category_table.name
SET bug_table.category_new = category_table.id
After that runs, check the new column to verify the updated id's.
Finally, after successful update, now the old category_id column (with the names) from the bugs_table can be dropped, and the category_new column can be renamed as the category_id.
=====
Note that if you decide to go with the alternative column approach mentioned, of course the query will be similar but differ slightly. Then only a column drop is needed at the end
If there are other tables to apply the same category changes, the operation (basically steps 2 through 5) would be similar for those tables too.
I have two tables
one as td_job which has these structure
|---------|-----------|---------------|----------------|
| job_id | job_title | job_skill | job_desc |
|------------------------------------------------------|
| 1 | Job 1 | 1,2 | |
|------------------------------------------------------|
| 2 | Job 2 | 1,3 | |
|------------------------------------------------------|
The other Table is td_skill which is this one
|---------|-----------|--------------|
|skill_id |skill_title| skill_slug |
|---------------------|--------------|
| 1 | PHP | 1-PHP |
|---------------------|--------------|
| 2 | JQuery | 2-JQuery |
|---------------------|--------------|
now the job_skill in td_job is actualy the list of skill_id from td_skill
that means the job_id 1 has two skills associated with it, skill_id 1 and skill_id 2
Now I am writing a query which is this one
SELECT * FROM td_job,td_skill
WHERE td_skill.skill_id IN (SELECT td_job.job_skill FROM td_job)
AND td_skill.skill_slug LIKE '%$job_param%'
Now when the $job_param is PHP it returns one row, but if $job_param is JQuery it returns empty row.
I want to know where is the error.
The error is that you are storing a list of id's in a column rather than in an association/junction table. You should have another table, JobSkills with one row per job/skill combination.
The second and third problems are that you don't seem to understand how joins work nor how in with a subquery works. In any case, the query that you seem to want is more like:
SELECT *
FROM td_job j join
td_skill s
on find_in_set(s.skill_id, j.job_skill) > 0 and
s.skill_slug LIKE '%$job_param%';
Very bad database design. You should fix that if you can.
I'm not very good at joining tables in mysql and I'm still learning,
So I wanted to ask, when joining two tables....
I have 2 tables
So for the first table I want to join the 2 of its columns (id & path) on the second table.
But on the second table there's no column name id and path, there is a column name pathid & value. The field of the pathid column is the same as the id.
it looks like this.
first table
| id | path |
---------------------
| 1 | country/usa |
| 2 | country/jpn |
| 3 | country/kor |
second table
| pathid | value |
-------------------
| 3 | 500 |
| 1 | 10000 |
| 2 | 2000 |
So on the first table, it indicates that for usa the id is 1, japan is 2, korea is 3.
And on the table it says that for pathid no. 3 ( which is the id for korea) the value is 500 and so on with the others.
I want it to look like this. So then the path will be joined on the second table on its corresponding value. How can I do this on mysql? Thank You
Desired Result
| id | path | value |
------------------------------
| 1 | country/usa | 10000 |
| 2 | country/jpn | 2000 |
| 3 | country/kor | 500 |
You can join on the columns irrespective of the column name as long as the data type match.
SELECT id, path, value
FROM firstTable, secondTable
WHERE id = pathid
If you have same column names on both tables then you need to qualify the name using alias. Say the column names for id were same on both tables then whenever you use id you should mention which table you are referring to. other wise it will complain about the ambiguity.
SELECT s.id, path, value
FROM firstTable f, secondTable s
WHERE f.id = s.pathid
Note that I ommited s. on other columns in select, it will work as long as the second table doesn't have columns with same name.
I have table:
+----+--------+----------+
| id | doc_id | next_req |
+----+--------+----------+
| 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 |
+----+--------+----------+
id - auto incerement primary key.
nex_req - represent an order of records. (next_req = id of record)
How can I build a SQL query get records in this order:
+----+--------+----------+
| id | doc_id | next_req |
+----+--------+----------+
| 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 |
+----+--------+----------+
Explains:
record1 with id=1 and next_req=4 means: next must be record4 with id=4 and next_req=2
record4 with id=5 and next_req=2 means: next must be record2 with id=2 and next_req=3
record2 with id=2 and next_req=3 means: next must be record3 with id=1 and next_req=0
record3 with id=3 and next_req=0: means that this is a last record
I need to store an order of records in table. It's important fo me.
If you can, change your table format. Rather than naming the next record, mark the records in order so you can use a natural SQL sort:
+----+--------+------+
| id | doc_id | sort |
+----+--------+------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 |
+----+--------+------+
Then you can even cluster-index on doc_id,sort for if you need to for performance issues. And honestly, if you need to re-order rows, it is not any more work than a linked-list like you were working with.
Am able to give you a solution in Oracle,
select id,doc_id,next_req from table2
start with id =
(select id from table2 where rowid=(select min(rowid) from table2))
connect by prior next_req=id
fiddle_demo
I'd suggest to modify your table and add another column OrderNumber, so eventually it would be easy to order by this column.
Though there may be problems with this approach:
1) You have existing table and need to set OrderNumber column values. I guess this part is easy. You can simply set initial zero values and add a CURSOR for example moving through your records and incrementing your order number value.
2) When new row appears in your table, you have to modify your OrderNumber, but here it depends on your particular situation. If you only need to add items to the end of the list then you can set your new value as MAX + 1. In another situation you may try writing TRIGGER on inserting new items and calling similar steps to point 1). This may cause very bad hit on performance, so you have to carefully investigate your architecture and maybe modify this unusual construction.