I am trying display all the relevant information for jobs done to a customer using a JOIN TABLE QUERY.
Here is my code...
SELECT Bill.BillID, Duty.TaskTime
FROM Invoice
LEFT OUTER JOIN Duty.JobID = Bill.JobID
WHERE Job.CustomerID = Customer.CustomerID
I keep getting this error...
'#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '.JobID WHERE Job.CustomerID = Customers.CustomerID' at line 3'
The problem is that you are trying to access tables that you haven't told the query about in both your WHERE and SELECT clauses. When you say Bill.BillID in your SELECT clause, you're saying that you want the Field BillID from the table called Bill.
The rule your syntax is breaking is that you can't use a table name in the SELECT or WHERE clauses, unless you've mentioned it in the FROM clause (or a JOIN).
So now, let's look at your query.
SELECT Bill.BillID, Duty.TaskTime
FROM Invoice
LEFT OUTER JOIN Duty.JobID = Bill.JobID
WHERE Job.CustomerID = Customer.CustomerID
This means that you want to pick fields from the tables named Bill and Duty, and filter the results based on fields from the Job and Customer tables. However, you've only mentioned one table by name in the FROM clause (Invoice). You've almost joined the Duty table, but you're joining it to a place in a table you haven't mentioned yet (Bill). I'm going to guess that you intend to use Bill as an alias for Invoice. That would mean that what you really want is more like:
// Still incorrect
SELECT Bill.BillID, Duty.TaskTime
FROM Invoice AS Bill
LEFT OUTER JOIN Duty ON Duty.JobID = Bill.JobID
WHERE Job.CustomerID = Customer.CustomerID
But we still haven't mentioned either the Job or Customer tables that are referenced in the WHERE clause. In order to use them, you need to JOIN those tables as well. We'd need to know more about your schema to figure out how to do that, but I can tell you that you'll need at least two more JOIN clauses. Assuming that you have a CustomerID field on the Invoice table, we probably want to join like this.
// speculative
SELECT Bill.BillID, Duty.TaskTime
FROM Invoice AS Bill
LEFT OUTER JOIN Duty ON Duty.JobID = Bill.JobID
JOIN Customer ON Customer.CustomerID = Bill.CustomerID
JOIN Job ON // Well, something...We don't know.
I strongly recommend you spend some time reading and studying the excellent Wikipedia entry on SQL JOINs. Good luck~
Your mistake is how you point your tables, maybe:
FROM Invoice as Bill LEFT OUTER JOIN NameTable2 as Duty ON Dury.JobID=Bill.JobID
Related
I have 2 tables, one is setting and one is accounts
setting has columns of: isVerified, customMessage, user
accounts has columns of: id, fullName, password, address, phone
I know I have to do join but how do I get only fullName from accounts table?
I did this
SELECT isVerified, customMessage, fullName
FROM setting FULL OUTER JOIN
accounts
ON setting.user = accounts.id;
but got error near the JOIN. What's wrong?
An inner join should suffice:
SELECT s.isVerified, s.customMessage, a.fullName
FROM setting s INNER JOIN
accounts a
ON s.user = a.id;
MySQL does not support FULL OUTER JOIN. Presumably, all accounts have settings and vice versa.
Note that I introduced table aliases so the query is easier to write and to read. And, in this query, all column names specify the table they come from.
I know I have to do join but how do I get only fullName from accounts
table?
If you only want fullName only specify fullName column in your select statement.
Select fullname FROM ....
As others have pointed out MySQL doesn't support FULL OUTER JOIN so change that to simply JOIN as Gordon Linoff has mentioned above.
Normally when you do a join you either want rows that match both the tables (setting and accounts in your case). Based on the columns you've described and depending on how you've designed your schema it's either a One to One relationship between two tables or One to Many. Your case sounds like one to one as each users account will have a setting.
You're joining on s.user = a.id but I don't see you mentioned s.user is actually same as a.id? What is the user field? Perhaps you need to name this better as s.id if it's actually an id. As others have pointed out please include your actual table definition so it's easier to figure out why you get the SQL error while running your query.
Good luck.
Good day! I'm searching the entire web for the purpose of 'on' statement in MySQL. But i can't find an exact answer about the purpose of it. For example:
SELECT Customers.CustomerName, Orders.OrderID
FROM Customers
INNER JOIN Orders
ON Customers.CustomerID=Orders.CustomerID
ORDER BY Customers.CustomerName;
What i'm trying to trace is to find the purpose of this:
ON Customers.CustomerID=Orders.CustomerID
You should not look for the ON syntax but for the inner join syntax and there you will find a lot explanations on line. E.g. http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_join_inner.asp
The 'ON' in this case is similar to 'Where' It defines on which fields the join is based.
I guess you are fooled by the fact that in your particular case, the joining field name is the same in both table: CustomerID.
That is not always the case, hence the necessity of specifying in SQL which fields are used for joining tables, in the ONclause.
You are joining two tables on customerId.
It means that you will join two tables side by side having same customerId from both the tables, so you could select customer and their order together at the same time.
i have two tables as below:
Table 1 "customer" with fields "Cust_id", "first_name", "last_name" (10 customers)
Table 2 "cust_order" with fields "order_id", "cust_id", (26 orders)
I need to display "Cust_id" "first_name" "last_name" "order_id"
to where i need count of order_id group by cust_id like list total number of orders placed by each customer.
I am running below query, however, it is counting all the 26 orders and applying that 26 orders to each of the customer.
SELECT COUNT(order_id), cus.cust_id, cus.first_name, cus.last_name
FROM cust_order, customer cus
GROUP BY cust_id;
Could you please suggest/advice what is wrong in the query?
You issue here is that you have told the database how these two tables are 'connected', or what they should be connected by:
Have a look at this image:
~IMAGE SOURCE
This effectively allows you to 'join' two tables together, and use a query between them.
so you might want to use something like:
SELECT COUNT(B.order_id), A.cust_id, A.first_name, A.last_name
FROM customer A
LEFT JOIN cust_order B //this is using a left join, but an inner may be appropriate also
ON (A.cust_id= B.Cust_id) //what links them together
GROUP BY A.cust_id; // the group by clause
As per your comment requesting some further info:
Left Join (right joins are almost identical, only the other way around):
The SQL LEFT JOIN returns all rows from the left table, even if there are no matches in the right table. This means that if the ON clause matches 0 (zero) records in right table, the join will still return a row in the result, but with NULL in each column from right table. ~Tutorials Point.
This means that a left join returns all the values from the left table, plus matched values from the right table or NULL in case of no matching join predicate.
LEFT joins will be used in the cases where you wish to retrieve all the data from the table in the left hand side, and only data from the right that match.
Execution Time
While the accepted answer in this case may work well in small datasets, it may however become 'heavy' in larger databases. This is because it was not actually designed for this type of operation.
This was the purpose of Joins to be introduced.
Much work in database-systems has aimed at efficient implementation of joins, because relational systems commonly call for joins, yet face difficulties in optimising their efficient execution. The problem arises because inner joins operate both commutatively and associatively. ~Wikipedia
In practice, this means that the user merely supplies the list of tables for joining and the join conditions to use, and the database system has the task of determining the most efficient way to perform the operation. A query optimizer determines how to execute a query containing joins. So, by allowing the dbms to choose the way your data is queried, you can save a lot of time.
Other Joins/Summary
AN INNER JOIN will return data from both tables where the keys in each table match
A LEFT JOIN or RIGHT JOIN will return all the rows from one table and matching data from the other table.
Use a join when you want to query multiple tables.
Joins are much faster than other ways of querying >=2 tables (speed can be seen much better on larger datasets).
You could try this one:
SELECT COUNT(cus_order.order_id), cus.cust_id, cus.first_name, cus.last_name
FROM cust_order cus_order, customer cus
WHERE cus_order.cust_id = cus.cust_id
GROUP BY cust_id;
Maybe an left join will help you
SELECT COUNT(order_id), cus.cust_id, cus.first_name, cus.last_name ]
FROM customer cus
LEFT JOIN cust_order co
ON (co.cust_id= cus.Cust_id )
GROUP BY cus.cust_id;
I need to perform a query SELECT that joins three tables (no problem with that). Nonetheless, the third table can, or NOT, have any element that match the joining KEY.
I want ALL data from the first two tables and if the ITEMS have ALSO information in the third table, fetch this data to.
For example, imagine that the first table have a person, the second table have his/her address (everyone lives anywhere), the third table stores the driving license (not everyone has this) - but I need to fetch all data whether or not people (all people) have driving license.
Thanks a lot for reading, if possible to give you suggestion / solution!
Use LEFT JOIN to join the third table. Using INNER JOIN a row has to exists. Using LEFT JOIN, the 'gaps' will be filled with NULLs.
SELECT
p.PersonID, -- NOT NULL
-- dl.PersonID, -- Can be null. Don't use this one.
p.FirstName,
p.LastName,
a.City,
a.Street,
dl.ValidUntilDate
FROM
Person p
INNER JOIN Addresse a ON a.AddressID = p.HomeAddressID
LEFT JOIN DrivingLicence dl ON dl.PersonId = p.PersonID
I have the following query:
SELECT c.*
FROM companies AS c
JOIN users AS u USING(companyid)
JOIN jobs AS j USING(userid)
JOIN useraccounts AS us USING(userid)
WHERE j.jobid = 123;
I have the following questions:
Is the USING syntax synonymous with ON syntax?
Are these joins evaluated left to right? In other words, does this query say: x = companies JOIN users; y = x JOIN jobs; z = y JOIN useraccounts;
If the answer to question 2 is yes, is it safe to assume that the companies table has companyid, userid and jobid columns?
I don't understand how the WHERE clause can be used to pick rows on the companies table when it is referring to the alias "j"
Any help would be appreciated!
USING (fieldname) is a shorthand way of saying ON table1.fieldname = table2.fieldname.
SQL doesn't define the 'order' in which JOINS are done because it is not the nature of the language. Obviously an order has to be specified in the statement, but an INNER JOIN can be considered commutative: you can list them in any order and you will get the same results.
That said, when constructing a SELECT ... JOIN, particularly one that includes LEFT JOINs, I've found it makes sense to regard the third JOIN as joining the new table to the results of the first JOIN, the fourth JOIN as joining the results of the second JOIN, and so on.
More rarely, the specified order can influence the behaviour of the query optimizer, due to the way it influences the heuristics.
No. The way the query is assembled, it requires that companies and users both have a companyid, jobs has a userid and a jobid and useraccounts has a userid. However, only one of companies or user needs a userid for the JOIN to work.
The WHERE clause is filtering the whole result -- i.e. all JOINed columns -- using a column provided by the jobs table.
I can't answer the bit about the USING syntax. That's weird. I've never seen it before, having always used an ON clause instead.
But what I can tell you is that the order of JOIN operations is determined dynamically by the query optimizer when it constructs its query plan, based on a system of optimization heuristics, some of which are:
Is the JOIN performed on a primary key field? If so, this gets high priority in the query plan.
Is the JOIN performed on a foreign key field? This also gets high priority.
Does an index exist on the joined field? If so, bump the priority.
Is a JOIN operation performed on a field in WHERE clause? Can the WHERE clause expression be evaluated by examining the index (rather than by performing a table scan)? This is a major optimization opportunity, so it gets a major priority bump.
What is the cardinality of the joined column? Columns with high cardinality give the optimizer more opportunities to discriminate against false matches (those that don't satisfy the WHERE clause or the ON clause), so high-cardinality joins are usually processed before low-cardinality joins.
How many actual rows are in the joined table? Joining against a table with only 100 values is going to create less of a data explosion than joining against a table with ten million rows.
Anyhow... the point is... there are a LOT of variables that go into the query execution plan. If you want to see how MySQL optimizes its queries, use the EXPLAIN syntax.
And here's a good article to read:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=377652
ON EDIT:
To answer your 4th question: You aren't querying the "companies" table. You're querying the joined cross-product of ALL four tables in your FROM and USING clauses.
The "j.jobid" alias is just the fully-qualified name of one of the columns in that joined collection of tables.
In MySQL, it's often interesting to ask the query optimizer what it plans to do, with:
EXPLAIN SELECT [...]
See "7.2.1 Optimizing Queries with EXPLAIN"
Here is a more detailed answer on JOIN precedence. In your case, the JOINs are all commutative. Let's try one where they aren't.
Build schema:
CREATE TABLE users (
name text
);
CREATE TABLE orders (
order_id text,
user_name text
);
CREATE TABLE shipments (
order_id text,
fulfiller text
);
Add data:
INSERT INTO users VALUES ('Bob'), ('Mary');
INSERT INTO orders VALUES ('order1', 'Bob');
INSERT INTO shipments VALUES ('order1', 'Fulfilling Mary');
Run query:
SELECT *
FROM users
LEFT OUTER JOIN orders
ON orders.user_name = users.name
JOIN shipments
ON shipments.order_id = orders.order_id
Result:
Only the Bob row is returned
Analysis:
In this query the LEFT OUTER JOIN was evaluated first and the JOIN was evaluated on the composite result of the LEFT OUTER JOIN.
Second query:
SELECT *
FROM users
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
orders
JOIN shipments
ON shipments.order_id = orders.order_id)
ON orders.user_name = users.name
Result:
One row for Bob (with the fulfillment data) and one row for Mary with NULLs for fulfillment data.
Analysis:
The parenthesis changed the evaluation order.
Further MySQL documentation is at https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/nested-join-optimization.html
SEE http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/join.html
AND start reading here:
Join Processing Changes in MySQL 5.0.12
Beginning with MySQL 5.0.12, natural joins and joins with USING, including outer join variants, are processed according to the SQL:2003 standard. The goal was to align the syntax and semantics of MySQL with respect to NATURAL JOIN and JOIN ... USING according to SQL:2003. However, these changes in join processing can result in different output columns for some joins. Also, some queries that appeared to work correctly in older versions must be rewritten to comply with the standard.
These changes have five main aspects:
The way that MySQL determines the result columns of NATURAL or USING join operations (and thus the result of the entire FROM clause).
Expansion of SELECT * and SELECT tbl_name.* into a list of selected columns.
Resolution of column names in NATURAL or USING joins.
Transformation of NATURAL or USING joins into JOIN ... ON.
Resolution of column names in the ON condition of a JOIN ... ON.
Im not sure about the ON vs USING part (though this website says they are the same)
As for the ordering question, its entirely implementation (and probably query) specific. MYSQL most likely picks an order when compiling the request. If you do want to enforce a particular order you would have to 'nest' your queries:
SELECT c.*
FROM companies AS c
JOIN (SELECT * FROM users AS u
JOIN (SELECT * FROM jobs AS j USING(userid)
JOIN useraccounts AS us USING(userid)
WHERE j.jobid = 123)
)
as for part 4: the where clause limits what rows from the jobs table are eligible to be JOINed on. So if there are rows which would join due to the matching userids but don't have the correct jobid then they will be omitted.
1) Using is not exactly the same as on, but it is short hand where both tables have a column with the same name you are joining on... see: http://www.java2s.com/Tutorial/MySQL/0100__Table-Join/ThekeywordUSINGcanbeusedasareplacementfortheONkeywordduringthetableJoins.htm
It is more difficult to read in my opinion, so I'd go spelling out the joins.
3) It is not clear from this query, but I would guess it does not.
2) Assuming you are joining through the other tables (not all directly on companyies) the order in this query does matter... see comparisons below:
Origional:
SELECT c.*
FROM companies AS c
JOIN users AS u USING(companyid)
JOIN jobs AS j USING(userid)
JOIN useraccounts AS us USING(userid)
WHERE j.jobid = 123
What I think it is likely suggesting:
SELECT c.*
FROM companies AS c
JOIN users AS u on u.companyid = c.companyid
JOIN jobs AS j on j.userid = u.userid
JOIN useraccounts AS us on us.userid = u.userid
WHERE j.jobid = 123
You could switch you lines joining jobs & usersaccounts here.
What it would look like if everything joined on company:
SELECT c.*
FROM companies AS c
JOIN users AS u on u.companyid = c.companyid
JOIN jobs AS j on j.userid = c.userid
JOIN useraccounts AS us on us.userid = c.userid
WHERE j.jobid = 123
This doesn't really make logical sense... unless each user has their own company.
4.) The magic of sql is that you can only show certain columns but all of them are their for sorting and filtering...
if you returned
SELECT c.*, j.jobid....
you could clearly see what it was filtering on, but the database server doesn't care if you output a row or not for filtering.