I'm having trouble combining tables that have a one-to-many mapping using LEFT JOIN and GROUP BY.
I have the following table with a unique ID (in the illustrative example this is house_number)
Houses:
|house_number| bedrooms|
|0 | 4 |
|1 | 3 |
|2 | 1 |
And I want to LEFT JOIN with a second table USING the unique ID, where the second table may or may not have multiple entries per unique ID. E.g,
Occupants:
| house_number | occupant_id | type |
| 0 | 3 | 19 |
| 0 | 1 | 20 |
| 0 | 2 | 21 |
| 2 | 7 | 20 |
Now what I want to achieve is exactly ONE entry per house number, but giving a preference in the LEFT JOIN to occupants with a type of 20, whilst also keeping those houses which do not have any occupants listed, e.g,
|house_number| bedrooms| occupant_id | type |
|0 | 4 | 1 | 20 |
|1 | 3 | null | null |
|2 | 1 | 7 | 20 |
I can use a GROUP BY to achieve only one entry per house, however, I need to ensure that the occupant row returned with it (if it exists) has type = 20.
If I simply use a WHERE (type = 20), then I wouldn't get an entry returned for house_number = 1.
How would I achieve this final table?
What about trying WHERE (type = 20 OR type is null) condition instead?
SELECT h.house_number,h.bedrooms
, o.occupant_id,o.ztype
FROM houses h
LEFT JOIN occupants o ON h.house_number = o.house_number
AND o.ztype =20
;
BTW I had to replace "type" by "ztype" because type is a reserved word in Postgres.
Related
I created a table (t_subject) like this
| id | description | enabled |
|----|-------------|---------|
| 1 | a | 1 |
| 2 | b | 1 |
| 3 | c | 1 |
And another table (t_place) like this
| id | description | enabled |
|----|-------------|---------|
| 1 | d | 1 |
| 2 | e | 1 |
| 3 | f | 1 |
Right now data from t_subject is used for each of t_place records, to show HTML dropdowns, with all the results from t_subject.
So I simply do
SELECT * FROM t_subject WHERE enabled = 1
Now just for one of t_place records, one record from t_subject should be hidden.
I don't want to simply delete it with javascript, since I want to be able to customize all of the dropdowns if anything changes.
So the first thing I though was to add a place_id column to t_subject.
But this means I have to duplicate all of t_subject records, I would have 3 of each, except one that would have 2.
Is there any way to avoid this??
I thought adding an id_exclusion column to t_subject so I could duplicate records only whenever a record is excluded from another id from t_place.
How bad would that be?? This way I would have no duplicates, so far.
Hope all of this makes sense.
While you only need to exclude one course, I would still recommend setting up a full 'place-course' association. You essentially have a many-to-many relationship, despite not explicitly linking your tables.
I would recommend an additional 'bridging' or 'associative entity' table to represent which courses are offered at which places. This new table would have two columns - one foreign key for the ID of t_subject, and one for the ID of t_place.
For example (t_place_course):
| place_id | course_id |
|----------|-----------|
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 3 | 3 |
As you can see in my example above, place 3 doesn't offer course 2.
From here, you can simply query all of the courses available for a place by querying the place_id:
SELECT * from t_place_course WHERE place_id = 3
The above will return both courses 1 and 3.
You can optionally use a JOIN to get the other information about the course or place, such as the description:
SELECT `t_course`.`description`
FROM `t_course`
INNER JOIN `t_place_course`
ON `t_course`.`id` = `t_place_course`.`course_id`
INNER JOIN `t_place`
ON `t_place`.`id` = `place_id`
I have two tables in a MySQL database like this:
User:
userid |userid | Username | Plan(VARCHAR) | Status |
-----------+------------+--------------+---------------+---------+
1 | 1 | John | 1,2,3 |1 |
2 | 2 | Cynthia | 1,2 |1 |
3 | 3 | Charles | 2,3,4 |1 |
Plan: (planid is primary key)
planid(INT) | Plan_Name | Cost | status |
-------------+----------------+----------+--------------+
1 | Tamil Pack | 100 | ACTIVE |
2 | English Pack | 100 | ACTIVE |
3 | SportsPack | 100 | ACTIVE |
4 | KidsPack | 100 | ACTIVE |
OUTPUT
id |userid | Username | Plan | Planname |
---+-------+----------+------------+-------------------------------------+
1 | 1 | John | 1,2,3 |Tamil Pack,English Pack,SportsPack |
2 | 2 | Cynthia | 1,2 |Tamil Pack,English Pack |
3 | 3 | Charles | 2,3,4 |English Pack,Sportspack, Kidspack |
Since plan id in Plan table is integer and the user can hold many plans, its stored as comma separated as varchar, so when i try with IN condition its not working.
SELECT * FROM plan WHERE find_in_set(plan_id,(select user.planid from user where user.userid=1))
This get me the 3 rows from plan table but i want the desired output as above.
How to do that.? any help Please
A rewrite off your query what should work is as follows..
Query
SELECT
all columns you need
, GROUP_CONCAT(Plan.Plan_Name ORDER BY Plan.planid) AS Planname
FROM
Plan
WHERE
FIND_IN_SET(Plan.plan_id,(
SELECT
User.Plan
FROM
user
WHERE User.userid = 1
)
)
GROUP BY
all columns what are in the select (NOT the GROUP_CONCAT function)
You also can use FIND_IN_SET on the ON clause off a INNER JOIN.
One problem is that the join won't ever use indexes.
Query
SELECT
all columns you need
, GROUP_CONCAT(Plan.Plan_Name ORDER BY Plan.planid) AS Planname
FROM
User
INNER JOIN
Plan
ON
FIND_IN_SET(Plan.id, User.Plan)
WHERE
User.id = 1
GROUP BY
all columns what are in the select (NOT the GROUP_CONCAT function)
Like i said in the comments you should normalize the table structures and add the table User_Plan whats holds the relations between the table User and Plan.
I have problem with result when join 3 tables because I have in some place NULL a should be number or empty cell.
My tables in database:
Table nr 1: rysunek
id_rys | nazwa_rys | nazwa_klienta | ...
3 |01_116230_C0 |PHILIPS
7 |11_002177_A0 |P&G
20 |01_101854_B0 |MARS FOOD
333 |None |None
( + 7 columns which do not use in this query)
Table nr 2: artykul
id_art |id_rys |nazwa_art | id_status | ...
1 |3 |00_16_1234 | 1
2 |7 |00_16_1235 | 3
3 |7 |00_16_1236 | 0
4 |333 |00_16_1237 | 0
( + 10 columns which do not use in this query)
Table nr 3: statusy
id_status |kod_status
1 |IA
2 |NC
3 |861
Mysql query looks like this:
SELECT r.nazwa_klienta
, r.nazwa_rys
, a.nazwa_art
, s.kod_status
FROM artykul a
LEFT
JOIN rysunek r
ON a.id_rys = r.id_rys
LEFT
JOIN statusy s
ON a.id_status = s.id_status;
And result looks like this:
nazwa_klienta | nazwa_rys | nazwa_art | kod_status
NULL | NULL | 00_16_1234 | IA
NULL | NULL | 00_16_1235 | 861
P&G | 11_002177_A0 | 00_16_1236 | NULL
None | None | 00_16_1237 | NULL
I need to the result of query above look like this:
nazwa_klienta | nazwa_rys | nazwa_art | kod_status
PHILIPS | 01_116230_C0 | 00_16_1234 | IA
P&G | 11_002177_A0 | 00_16_1235 | 861
P&G | 11_002177_A0 | 00_16_1236 | [empty cell]
None | None | 00_16_1237 | [empty cell]
How should looks like my query? I tried all join methods but none of them work.
Maybe I should change structure of my tables? I'm waiting for some suggestion from somebody... :)
Left joins are going to create empty entries for your rysunek columns whenever there is no row in that table that matches artykul's. If you don't want them listed, then don't use an outer join between those two tables (I note you didn't list them in your desired output).
For the other NULLs, from kod_status, since it is a numeric column, pretty much your choices are: take the null; or turn it into a 0 with a COALESCE(kod_status,0), or cast the result to a string and turn its nulls into empty strings. There are command-line options in the mysql command-line tool (which your output appears to be from) (see http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/mysql-commands.html ) there may be a way to change how it outputs nulls if that would fit your use-model needs.
Some background: an 'image' is part of one 'photoshoot', and may be a part of zero or many 'galleries'. My tables:
'shoots' table:
+----+--------------+
| id | name |
+----+--------------+
| 1 | Test shoot |
| 2 | Another test |
| 3 | Final test |
+----+--------------+
'images' table:
+----+-------------------+------------------+
| id | original_filename | storage_location |
+----+-------------------+------------------+
| 1 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
| 2 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
| 3 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
+----+-------------------+------------------+
'shoot_images' table:
+----------+----------+
| shoot_id | image_id |
+----------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 |
+----------+----------+
'gallery_images' table:
+------------+----------+
| gallery_id | image_id |
+------------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 |
+------------+----------+
What I'd like to get back, so I can say 'For this photoshoot, there are X images in total, and these images are featured in Y galleries:
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| id | name | image_count | gallery_count |
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| 3 | Final test | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Another test | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | Test shoot | 2 | 4 |
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
I'm currently trying the SQL below, which appears to work correctly but only ever returns one row. I can't work out why this is happening. Curiously, the below also returns a row even when 'shoots' is empty.
SELECT shoots.id,
shoots.name,
COUNT(DISTINCT shoot_images.image_id) AS image_count,
COUNT(DISTINCT gallery_images.gallery_id) AS gallery_count
FROM shoots
LEFT JOIN shoot_images ON shoots.id=shoot_images.shoot_id
LEFT JOIN gallery_images ON shoot_images.image_id=gallery_images.image_id
ORDER BY shoots.id DESC
Thanks for taking the time to look at this :)
You are missing the GROUP BY clause:
SELECT
shoots.id,
shoots.name,
COUNT(DISTINCT shoot_images.image_id) AS image_count,
COUNT(DISTINCT gallery_images.gallery_id) AS gallery_count
FROM shoots
LEFT JOIN shoot_images ON shoots.id=shoot_images.shoot_id
LEFT JOIN gallery_images ON shoot_images.image_id=gallery_images.image_id
GROUP BY 1, 2 -- Added this line
ORDER BY shoots.id DESC
Note: The SQL standard allows GROUP BY to be given either column names or column numbers, so GROUP BY 1, 2 is equivalent to GROUP BY shoots.id, shoots.name in this case. There are many who consider this "bad coding practice" and advocate always using the column names, but I find it makes the code a lot more readable and maintainable and I've been writing SQL since before many users on this site were born, and it's never cause me a problem using this syntax.
FYI, the reason you were getting one row before, and not getting and error, is that in mysql, unlike any other database I know, you are allowed to omit the group by clause when using aggregating functions. In such cases, instead of throwing a syntax exception, mysql returns the first row for each unique combination of non-aggregate columns.
Although at first this may seem abhorrent to SQL purists, it can be incredibly handy!
You should look into the MySQL function group by.
I am trying to do multiple joins on the same MySQL table, but am not getting the results that I expect to get. Hopefully someone can point out my mistake(s).
Table 1 - cpe Table
|id | name
|----------
| 1 | cat
| 2 | dog
| 3 | mouse
| 4 | snake
-----------
Table 2 - AutoSelect
|id | name | cpe1_id | cpe2_id | cpe3_id |
|-----------------------------------------------
| 1 | user1 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 2 | user2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | user3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | user4 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
------------------------------------------------
I would like to see an output of
user1 | cat | mouse | snake |
user2 | mouse | snake | dog |
..etc
Here is what I have tried
SELECT * FROM AutoSelect
LEFT JOIN cpe ON
( cpe.id = AutoSelect.cpe1_id ) AND
( cpe.id = AutoSelect.cpe2_id ) AND
( cpe.id = AutoSelect.cpe3_id )
I get blank results. I thought i knew how to do these joins, but apparently when I'm trying to match cpe?_id with the name of the cpe table.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
You need left join 3 times as well. Currently your query only joins 1 time with 3 critieria as to the join. This should do:
SELECT a.name, cpe1.name, cpe2.name, cpe3.name FROM AutoSelect as a
LEFT JOIN cpe as cpe1 ON ( cpe1.id = a.cpe1_id )
LEFT JOIN cpe as cpe2 ON ( cpe2.id = a.cpe2_id )
LEFT JOIN cpe as cpe3 ON ( cpe3.id = a.cpe3_id )
And you probably mean to INNER JOIN rather than LEFT JOIN unless NULL values are allowed in your AutoSelect table.
I think your design is wrong.
With tables like that, you get it the way it's meant to be in relational databases :
table 1 : animal
id name
1 cat
2 dog
3 mouse
4 snake
table 2 : user
|id | name |
|--------------
| 1 | user1 |
| 2 | user2 |
| 3 | user3 |
| 4 | user4 |
table 3 : association
|id_user | id_animal|
|--------------------
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 3 |
| 1 | 4 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 3 | 2
| 4 | 4 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 4 | 1 |
---------------------
Then :
select u.name, a.name from user u, animal a, association ass where ass.user_id = u.id and ass.animal_id = a.id;
In this case, your solution won't produce a good dynamic database. There are other ways to make combinations of multiple tables. I can show you by my own database what you should use and when you should use this solution. The scheme is in dutch, but you'll probably understand the keywords.
Like you, I had to combine my windmills with a kWh-meter, which has to measure the energyproduction of my windmills. What you should do, is this case, is making another table(in my case molenkWhlink). Make sure your tables are INNODB-types(for making Foreign keys). What I've done is combining my meters and mills by putting a pointer(a foreign key) of their ID(in Dutch Volgnummer) in the new table. An advantage you may not need, but I certainly did, is the fact I was able to extend the extra table with connection and disconnection info like Timestamps and metervalues when linking or unlinking. This makes your database way more dynamic.
In my case, I Also had a table for meassurements(metingoverzicht). As you can see in the scheme, I've got 2 lines going from Metingoverzicht to molenkwhlink. The reason for this is quite simple. All meassurements I take, will be saved in table Metingoverzicht. Daily meassurements(which are scheduled) will have a special boolean put on, but unscheduled meassurements, will also me saved here, with the bollean turned off. When switching meters, I need the endvalue from the leaving meter and the startvalue from the new meter, to calculate the value of todays eneryproduction. This is where your solution comes in and an extra table won't work. Usually, when you need just one value from another table a JOIN will be used. The problem in this case is, I've got 2 meassurementIDs in 1 link(1 for connecting and 1 for disconnecting). They both point to the same tablecolumn, because they both need to hold the same type of information. That is when you can use a double JOIN from one table towards the other. Because, both values will only be used once, and just needed to be saved in a different place to avoid having 1 action stored on different locations, which should always be avoided.
http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/Manuel_Barcelona/media/schemedatabase.jpg.html