I have two simple querys, but i need a little help to join them in one result
$query="SELECT * FROM USLUGE WHERE marka='1'";
And second query
$query2="SELECT * FROM USLUGE WHERE marka='2'";
I know the result from $query will give ALL from table USLUGE where marka=1, and result $query2 will give me ALL from table USLUGE wwhere marka=2
But i need to join this two querys in one query, and when i do a WHILE loop, to give me all result from both querys, not a two different WHILE loops, just one WHILE loops with results from both querys?
IS that possible, as example i gave a so simple query to understand :)
As long as the table structure is the same (more specifically, if both queries return the same number of fields and the same datatypes), you can use SQL UNION keyword, for example:
SELECT id, name FROM table1
UNION
SELECT id, name FROM table2
Note though that if the number of returned columns or datatypes do not match, then attempting to execute the query will result in an error, for example,
SELECT id, name, comment FROM table1
UNION
SELECT id, name FROM table2
will not work and will result in an error.
EDIT: with a rewritten question, using OR or IN in the WHERE clause is a much better solution:
SELECT * FROM USLUGE WHERE marka='1' OR marka='2'
or
SELECT * FROM USLUGE WHERE marka IN ('1', '2');
you can use union
SELECT * FROM USLUGE WHERE marka='1'
UNION
SELECT * FROM USLUGE WHERE marka='2'
however you should not use SELECT * type the column names instead
The more data is read from the tables, the slower the query will become. It increases the time it takes for the disk operations. Also when the database server is separate from the web server, you will have longer network delays due to the data having to be transferred between the servers.
It is a good habit to always specify which columns you need when you are doing your SELECT’s.
The question (as edited now) refers to only one table in which case
SELECT * FROM USLUGE WHERE marka='1' OR marka='2'
Would be better than doing a UNION
Related
I am new to mySQL.
I am following Mosh's tutorial to familiarize myself to SQL.
Here's my question for the following code.
SELECT *
FROM order_items
WHERE order_id = 6 AND unit_price*quantity > 30
When I looked up about SELECT *, it says: * means to return all all columns of the queried tables. Then I think SELECT * means that it grabs all tables from all schema.
My question is: Isn't it a bit inefficient and confusing to return all column provided my understanding is right? If the database become bigger and bigger, it will consume unnecessary effort to look up the keyword, so I think SELECT should specify what table it is referring to. Thanks for reading! 🥰
SELECT * does not fetch all tables from all schema. It only fetches the columns from the table you reference in your FROM clause. It only fetches the rows that match your WHERE clause.
The mistake is understandable given this statement in the MySQL documentation:
A select list consisting only of a single unqualified * can be used as shorthand to select all columns from all tables:
SELECT * FROM t1 INNER JOIN t2 ...
What they mean by "all tables" is only all tables referenced in this query. And only those in FROM or JOIN clauses. Not all tables everywhere.
I found this sample interview question and answer posted on toptal reproduced here. But I don't really understand the code. How can a UNION ALL turn into a UNIION (distinct) like that? Also, why is this code faster?
QUESTION
Write a SQL query using UNION ALL (not UNION) that uses the WHERE clause to eliminate duplicates. Why might you want to do this?
Hide answer
You can avoid duplicates using UNION ALL and still run much faster than UNION DISTINCT (which is actually same as UNION) by running a query like this:
ANSWER
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE a=X UNION ALL SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE b=Y AND a!=X
The key is the AND a!=X part. This gives you the benefits of the UNION (a.k.a., UNION DISTINCT) command, while avoiding much of its performance hit.
But in the example, the first query has a condition on column a, whereas the second query has a condition on column b. This probably came from a query that's hard to optimize:
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE a=X OR b=Y
This query is hard to optimize with simple B-tree indexing. Does the engine search an index on column a? Or on column b? Either way, searching the other term requires a table-scan.
Hence the trick of using UNION to separate into two queries for one term each. Each subquery can use the best index for each search term. Then combine the results using UNION.
But the two subsets may overlap, because some rows where b=Y may also have a=X in which case such rows occur in both subsets. Therefore you have to do duplicate elimination, or else see some rows twice in the final result.
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE a=X
UNION DISTINCT
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE b=Y
UNION DISTINCT is expensive because typical implementations sort the rows to find duplicates. Just like if you use SELECT DISTINCT ....
We also have a perception that it's even more "wasted" work if the two subset of rows you are unioning have a lot of rows occurring in both subsets. It's a lot of rows to eliminate.
But there's no need to eliminate duplicates if you can guarantee that the two sets of rows are already distinct. That is, if you guarantee there is no overlap. If you can rely on that, then it would always be a no-op to eliminate duplicates, and therefore the query can skip that step, and therefore skip the costly sorting.
If you change the queries so that they are guaranteed to select non-overlapping subsets of rows, that's a win.
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE a=X
UNION ALL
SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE b=Y AND a!=X
These two sets are guaranteed to have no overlap. If the first set has rows where a=X and the second set has rows where a!=X then there can be no row that is in both sets.
The second query therefore only catches some of the rows where b=Y, but any row where a=X AND b=Y is already included in the first set.
So the query achieves an optimized search for two OR terms, without producing duplicates, and requiring no UNION DISTINCT operation.
The most simple way is like this, especially if you have many columns:
SELECT *
INTO table2
FROM table1
UNION
SELECT *
FROM table1
ORDER BY column1
I guest this is right (Oracle):
select distinct * from (
select * from test_a
union all
select * from test_b
);
The question will be correct if the table has unique identifier - primary key. Otherwise every select can return many the same rows.
To understand why it can faster let's look at how database executes UNION ALL and UNION.
The first is simple joining results from two independent queries. These queries can be processed in parallel and taken to client one by one.
The second is joining + distinction. To distinct records from 2 queries db needs to have all them in memory or if memory is not enough db needs to store them to temporary table and next select unique ones. This is where performance degradation can be. DB's are pretty smart and distinction algorithms are developed good but for large result sets it could be a problem anyway.
UNION ALL + additional WHERE condition can be faster if an index will be used while filtering.
So, here the performance magic.
I guess it will work
select col1 From (
select row_number() over (partition by col1 order by col1) as b, col1
from (
select col1 From u1
union all
select col1 From u2 ) a
) x
where x.b =1
This will also do the same trick:
select * from (
select * from table1
union all
select * from table2
) a group by
columns
having count(*) >= 1
or
select * from table1
union all
select * from table2 b
where not exists (select 1 from table1 a where a.col1 = b.col1)
I have about 20 tables. These tables have only id (primary key) and description (varchar). The data is a lot reaching about 400 rows for one table.
Right now I have to get data of at least 15 tables at a time.
Right now I am calling them one by one. Which means that in one session I am giving 15 calls. This is making my process slow.
Can any one suggest any better way to get the results from the database?
I am using MySQL database and using Java Springs on server side. Will making view for all combined help me ?
The application is becoming slow because of this issue and I need a solution that will make my process faster.
It sounds like your schema isn't so great. 20 tables of id/varchar sounds like a broken EAV, which is generally considered broken to begin with. Just the same, I think a UNION query will help out. This would be the "View" to create in the database so you can just SELECT * FROM thisviewyoumade and let it worry about the hitting all the tables.
A UNION query works by having multiple SELECT stataements "Stacked" on top of one another. It's important that each SELECT statement has the same number, ordinal, and types of fields so when it stacks the results, everything matches up.
In your case, it makes sense to manufacturer an extra field so you know which table it came from. Something like the following:
SELECT 'table1' as tablename, id, col2 FROM table1
UNION ALL
SELECT 'table2', id, col2 FROM table2
UNION ALL
SELECT 'table3', id, col2 FROM table3
... and on and on
The names or aliases of the fields in the first SELECT statement are the field names that are used in the result set that is returned, so no worries about doing a bunch AS blahblahblah in subsequent SELECT statements.
The real question is whether this union query will perform faster than 15 individual calls on such a tiny tiny tiny amount of data. I think the better option would be to change your schema so this stuff is already stored in one table just like this UNION query outputs. Then you would need a single select statement against a single table. And 400x20=8000 is still a dinky little table to query.
To get a row of all descriptions into app code in a single roundtrip send a query kind of
select t1.description, ... t15.description
from t -- this should contain all needed ids
join table1 t1 on t1.id = t.t1id
...
join table1 t15 on t15.id = t.t15id
I cannot get you what you really need but here merging all those table values into single table
CREATE TABLE table_name AS (
SELECT *
FROM table1 t1
LEFT JOIN table2 t2 ON t1.ID=t2.ID AND
...
LEFT JOIN tableN tN ON tN-1.ID=tN.ID
)
Hi i have this query but its giving me an error of Operand should contain 1 column(s) not sure why?
Select *,
(Select *
FROM InstrumentModel
WHERE InstrumentModel.InstrumentModelID=Instrument.InstrumentModelID)
FROM Instrument
according to your query you wanted to get data from instrument and instrumentModel table and in your case its expecting "from table name " after your select * .when the subselect query runs to get its result its not finding table instrument.InstrumentModelId inorder to fetch result from both the table by matching you can use join .or you can also select perticuler fields by tableName.fieldName and in where condition use your condition.
like :
select Instrument.x,InstrumentModel.y
from instrument,instrumentModel
where instrument.x=instrumentModel.y
You can use a join to select from 2 connected tables
select *
from Instrument i
join InstrumentModel m on m.InstrumentModelID = i.InstrumentModelID
When you use subqueries in the column list, they need to return exactly one value. You can read more in the documentation
as a user commented in the documentation, using subqueries like this can ruin your performance:
when the same subquery is used several times, mysql does not use this fact to optimize the query, so be careful not to run into performance problems.
example:
SELECT
col0,
(SELECT col1 FROM table1 WHERE table1.id = table0.id),
(SELECT col2 FROM table1 WHERE table1.id = table0.id)
FROM
table0
WHERE ...
the join of table0 with table1 is executed once for EACH subquery, leading to very bad performance for this kind of query.
Therefore you should rather join the tables, as described by the other answer.
I have two tables.
I query like this:
SELECT * FROM (
Select requester_name,receiver_name from poem_authors_follow_requests as one
UNION
Select requester_name,receiver_name from poem_authors_friend_requests as two
) as u
where (LOWER(requester_name)=LOWER('user1') or LOWER(receiver_name)=LOWER('user1'))
I am using UNION because i want to get distinct values for each user if a user exists in the first table and in the second.
For example:
table1
nameofuser
peter
table2
nameofuser
peter
if peter is on either table i should get the name one time because it exists on both tables.
Still i get one row from first table and a second from table number two. What is wrong?
Any help appreciated.
There are two problems with your SQL:
(THis is not the question, but should be considered) by using WHERE over the UNION instead of the tables, you create a performance nightmare: MySQL will create a temporary table containing the UNION, then query it over the WHERE. Using a calculation on a field (LOWER(requester_name)) makes this even worse.
The reason you get two rows is, that UNION DISTINCT will only suppress real duplicates, so the tuple (someuser,peter) and the tuple (someotheruser, peter) will result in duplication.
Edit
To make (someuser, peter) a duplicate of (peter, someuser) you could use:
SELECT
IF(requester_name='peter', receiver_name, requester_name) AS otheruser
FROM
...
UNION
SELECT
IF(requester_name='peter', receiver_name, requester_name) AS otheruser
FROM
...
So you only select someuser which you already know : peter
You need the where clause on both selects:
select requester_name, receiver_name
from poem_authors_follow_requests
where LOWER(requester_name) = LOWER('user1') or LOWER(receiver_name) = LOWER('user1')
union
select requester_name, receiver_name
from poem_authors_friend_requests
where LOWER(requester_name) = LOWER('user1') or LOWER(receiver_name) = LOWER('user1')
The two queries are independent of each other, so you shouldn't try to connect them other than by union.
You can use UNION if you want to select rows one after the other from several tables or several sets of rows from a single table all as a single result set.
UNION is available as of MySQL 4.0. This section illustrates how to use it.
Suppose you have two tables that list prospective and actual customers, a third that lists vendors from whom you purchase supplies, and you want to create a single mailing list by merging names and addresses from all three tables. UNION provides a way to do this. Assume the three tables have the following contents:
http://w3webtutorial.blogspot.com/2013/11/union-in-mysql.html
You are doing the union before and then applying the where clause. So you would get a unique combination of "requester_name,receiver_name" and then the where clause would apply. Apply the where clause in each select...
Select requester_name,receiver_name from poem_authors_follow_requests
where (LOWER(requester_name)=LOWER('user1')
or LOWER(receiver_name)=LOWER('user1'))
UNION
Select requester_name,receiver_name from poem_authors_friend_requests
where (LOWER(requester_name)=LOWER('user1')
or LOWER(receiver_name)=LOWER('user1'))
In your where statement, reference the alias "u" for each field refence in your where statement.
So the beginning of your where statement would be like: where (LOWER(u.requester_name) = ...
This is simlar to the answer you can see in: WHERE statement after a UNION in SQL?
You should be able to use the INTERSECT keyword instead of doing a nested query on a UNION.
SELECT member_id, name FROM a
INTERSECT
SELECT member_id, name FROM b
can simply be rewritten to
SELECT a.member_id, a.name
FROM a INNER JOIN b
USING (member_id, name)
http://www.bitbybit.dk/carsten/blog/?p=71