I have the following query:
SELECT PKID, QuestionText, Type
FROM Questions
WHERE PKID IN (
SELECT FirstQuestion
FROM Batch
WHERE BatchNumber IN (
SELECT BatchNumber
FROM User
WHERE RandomString = '$key'
)
)
I've heard that sub-queries are inefficient and that joins are preferred. I can't find anything explaining how to convert a 3+ tier sub-query to join notation, however, and can't get my head around it.
Can anyone explain how to do it?
SELECT DISTINCT a.*
FROM Questions a
INNER JOIN Batch b
ON a.PKID = b.FirstQuestion
INNER JOIN User c
ON b.BatchNumber = c.BatchNumber
WHERE c.RandomString = '$key'
The reason why DISTINCT was specified is because there might be rows that matches to multiple rows on the other tables causing duplicate record on the result. But since you are only interested on records on table Questions, a DISTINCT keyword will suffice.
To further gain more knowledge about joins, kindly visit the link below:
Visual Representation of SQL Joins
Try :
SELECT q.PKID, q.QuestionText, q.Type
FROM Questions q
INNER JOIN Batch b ON q.PKID = b.FirstQuestion
INNER JOIN User u ON u.BatchNumber = q.BatchNumber
WHERE u.RandomString = '$key'
select
q.pkid,
q.questiontext,
q.type
from user u
join batch b
on u.batchnumber = b.batchnumber
join questions q
on b.firstquestion = q.pkid
where u.randomstring = '$key'
Since your WHERE clause filters on the USER table, start with that in the FROM clause. Next, apply your joins backwards.
In order to do this correctly, you need distinct in the subquery. Otherwise, you might multiply rows in the join version:
SELECT q.PKID, q.QuestionText, q.Type
FROM Questions q join
(select distinct FirstQuestion
from Batch b join user u
on b.batchnumber = u.batchnumber and
u.RandomString = '$key'
) fq
on q.pkid = fq.FirstQuestion
As to whether the in or join version is better . . . that depends. In some cases, particularly if the fields are indexed, the in version might be fine.
Related
I'm really struggling with this query and I hope somebody can help.
I am querying across multiple tables to get the dataset that I require. The following query is an anonymised version:
SELECT main_table.id,
sub_table_1.field_1,
main_table.field_1,
main_table.field_2,
main_table.field_3,
main_table.field_4,
main_table.field_5,
main_table.field_6,
main_table.field_7,
sub_table_2.field_1,
sub_table_2.field_2,
sub_table_2.field_3,
sub_table_3.field_1,
sub_table_4.field_1,
sub_table_4.field_2
FROM main_table
INNER JOIN sub_table_4 ON sub_table_4.id = main_table.id
INNER JOIN sub_table_2 ON sub_table_2.id = main_table.id
INNER JOIN sub_table_3 ON sub_table_3.id = main_table.id
INNER JOIN sub_table_1 ON sub_table_1.id = main_table.id
WHERE sub_table_4.field_1 = '' AND sub_table_4.field_2 = '0' AND sub_table_2.field_1 != ''
The query works, the problem I have is sub_table_1 has a revision number (int 11). Currently I get duplicate records with different revision numbers and different versions of sub_table_1.field_1 which is to be expected, but I want to limit the result set to only include results limited by the latest revision number, giving me only the latest sub_table_1_field_1 and I really can not figure it out!
Can anybody lend me a hand?
Many Thanks.
It's always important to remember that a JOIN can be on a subquery as well as a table. You could build a subquery that returns the results you want to see then, once you've got the data you want, join it in the parent query.
It's hard to 'tailor' an answer that's specific to you problem, as it's too obfuscated (as you admit) to know what the data and tables really look like, but as an example:
Say table1 has four fields: id, revision_no, name and stuff. You want to return a distinct list of name values, with their latest version of stuff (which, we'll pretend varies by revision). You could do this in isolation as:
select t.* from table1 t
inner join
(SELECT name, max(revision_no) maxr
FROM table1
GROUP BY name) mx
on mx.name = t.name
and mx.maxr = t.revision_no;
(Note: see fiddle at the end)
That would return each individual name with the latest revision of stuff.
Once you've got that nailed down, you could then swap out
INNER JOIN sub_table_1 ON sub_table_1.id = main_table.id
....with....
INNER JOIN (select t.* from table1 t
inner join
(SELECT name, max(revision_no) maxr
FROM table1
GROUP BY name) mx
on mx.name = t.name
and mx.maxr = t.revision_no) sub_table_1
ON sub_table_1.id = main_table.id
...which would allow a join with a recordset that is more tailored to that which you want to join (again, don't get hung up on the actual query I've used, it's just there to demonstrate the method).
There may well be more elegant ways to achieve this, but it's sometimes good to start with a simple solution that's easier to replicate, then simplify it once you've got the general understanding of the what and why nailed down.
Hope that helps - as I say, it's as specific as I could offer without having an idea of the real data you're using.
(for the sake of reference, here is a fiddle with a working version of the above example query)
In your case where you only need one column from the table, make this a subquery in your select clause instead of than a join. You get the latest revision by ordering by revision number descending and limiting the result to one row.
SELECT
main_table.id,
(
select sub_table_1.field_1
from sub_table_1
where sub_table_1.id = main_table.id
order by revision_number desc
limit 1
) as sub_table_1_field_1,
main_table.field_1,
...
FROM main_table
INNER JOIN sub_table_4 ON sub_table_4.id = main_table.id
INNER JOIN sub_table_2 ON sub_table_2.id = main_table.id
INNER JOIN sub_table_3 ON sub_table_3.id = main_table.id
WHERE sub_table_4.field_1 = ''
AND sub_table_4.field_2 = '0'
AND sub_table_2.field_1 != '';
At work I came across this sort of query:
select distinct psv.pack_id from pack_store_variant psv, pack p
where p.id = psv.pack_id and p.store_id = 1 and psv.store_variant_id = 196;
Being new to the select from table1, table2 I did a bit of searching and found out this does basically a cartesian product of the two tables. I thought that this is unnecessarily creating NxM rows, we can just use a regular join and it should work. So I wrote this query:
SELECT DISTINCT pack_id from (SELECT pack_id, store_id, store_variant_id
FROM pack JOIN pack_store_variant ON pack.id = pack_store_variant.pack_id) as comb
where comb.store_id = 1 AND comb.store_variant_id = 196;
Surprisingly when I did the comparison, the first one was an order of magnitude faster than mine. Does my query suck somehow? Or am I not understanding the difference between cross join/inner join properly?
Your query is not so good. You split your query into two selects. The inner one creates a table, on which you then select again. That's not very efficient. This is how I would do it.
select distinct psv.pack_id from pack_store_variant as psv
Join pack as p on p.id = psv.pack_id
where p.store_id = 1 and psv.store_variant_id = 196;
I am working on a query with the following format:
I require all the columns from the Database 'A', while I only require the summed amount (sum(amount)) from the Database 'B'.
SELECT A.*, sum(B.CURTRXAM) as 'Current Transaction Amt'
FROM A
LEFT JOIN C
ON A.Schedule_Number = C.Schedule_Number
LEFT JOIN B
ON A.DOCNUMBR = B.DOCNUMBR
ON A.CUSTNMBR = B.CUSTNMBR
GROUP BY A
ORDER BY A.CUSTNMBR
My question is regarding the grouping statement, database A has about 12 columns and to group by each individually is tedious, is there a cleaner way to do this such as:
GROUP BY A
I am not sure if a simpler way exists as I am new to SQL, I have previously investigated GROUPING_ID statements but thats about it.
Any help on lumped methods of grouping would be helpful
Since the docnumber is the primary key - just use the following SQL:
SELECT A.*, sum(B.CURTRXAM) as 'Current Transaction Amt'
FROM A
LEFT JOIN C
ON A.Schedule_Number = C.Schedule_Number
LEFT JOIN B
ON A.DOCNUMBR = B.DOCNUMBR
ORDER BY RM20401.CUSTNMBR
GROUP BY A.DOCNUMBR
While working with following query on mysql, Its getting locked,
SELECT event_list.*
FROM event_list
INNER JOIN members
ON members.profilenam=event_list.even_loc
WHERE (even_own IN (SELECT frd_id
FROM network
WHERE mem_id='911'
GROUP BY frd_id)
OR even_own = '911' )
AND event_list.even_active = 'y'
GROUP BY event_list.even_id
ORDER BY event_list.even_stat ASC
The Inner query inside IN constraint has many frd_id, So because of that above query is slooow..., So please help.
Thanks.
Try this:
SELECT el.*
FROM event_list el
INNER JOIN members m ON m.profilenam = el.even_loc
WHERE el.even_active = 'y' AND
(el.even_own = 911 OR EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM network n WHERE n.mem_id=911 AND n.frd_id = el.even_own))
GROUP BY el.even_id
ORDER BY el.even_stat ASC
You don't need the GROUP BY on the inner query, that will be making the database engine do a lot of unneeded work.
If you put even_own = '911' before the select from network, then if even_own IS 911 then it will not have to do the subquery.
Also why do you have a group by on the subquery?
Also run explain plan top find out what is taking the time.
This might work better:
( SELECT e.*
FROM event_list AS e
INNER JOIN members AS m ON m.profilenam = e.even_loc
JOIN network AS n ON e.even_own = n.frd_id
WHERE n.mem_id = '911'
AND e.even_active = 'y'
ORDER BY e.even_stat ASC )
UNION DISTINCT
( SELECT e.*
FROM event_list AS e
INNER JOIN members AS m ON m.profilenam = e.even_loc
WHERE e.even_own = '911'
AND e.even_active = 'y' )
ORDER BY e.even_stat ASC
Since I don't know whether the JOINs one-to-many (or what), I threw in DISTINCT to avoid dups. There may be a better way, or it may be unnecessary (that is, UNION ALL).
Notice how I avoid two things that are performance killers:
OR -- turned into UNION
IN (SELECT...) -- turned into JOIN.
I made aliases to cut down on the clutter. I moved the ORDER BY outside the UNION (and added parens to make it work right).
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);