| postid | ref_postid | title |
| 1 | 0 | Title 1 |
| 2 | 1 | |
| 3 | 1 | |
| 4 | 0 | Title 2 |
| 5 | 4 | |
It´s a table for a discussion forum. When ref_postid = 0, that means it is a main post. When ref_postid is not 0 it is a answer and references to a postid, see table example above. (Only main posts has a title.)
I want to select all rows in the table, but the problem is that I want to display the title for the discussion an answer refers to.
Example: Let´s say I want the row where postid = 2, I also want to get "Title 1" which is the name of the discussion.
I tried doing it with CASE but I just got errors. I´m not very good at this. Is it doable with one query? Or will I have to use two queries?
Thanks for your help!
select ifnull(q.title, a.title) title, ... (other columns)
from posts a
left join posts q on a.ref_postid <> 0 and a.ref_postid = q.postid
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`
This question already has answers here:
Selecting boolean in MySQL based on contents of another table
(2 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I need some help with a MySQL query which is bringing me a headache.
Basically I have two tables which are related. The first table is called 'books' and it contains the basic information about a book. Then I have an other table called 'user_books' which is related to the previous table and other table (which is irrelevant in the question). This is how the books table looks like:
| b_id | b_name | b_description |
---------------------------------------------------
| 1 | Book1 | Description1 |
| 2 | Book2 | Description2 |
The 'user_books' table has this content:
| ub_userid | ub_bookid | ub_rating | ub_default |
------------------------------------------------------
| 10 | 1 | 5 | 1 |
The user_books table has two primary keys: ub_userid and ub_bookid.
Now I need to make a query which returns all books of the books table and for each book the rating of a given user and a column that in case that there is a record for the book in the user_books table return 1 but if there isn't any book with that bookid return 0.
My desired output given the user 10 would be this:
| b_id | b_name | b_description | ub_default | active |
----------------------------------------------------------
| 1 | Book1 | Description1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Book2 | Description2 | 0 | 0 |
----------------------------------------------------------
I'm using MySQL 5.7
Thanks so much in advance for any kind of help.
select
b.b_id,
b.b_name,
b.b_description,
coalesce(ub.ub_default, 0) as ub_default,
case
when ub.ub_userid is null then 0
else 1
end as active
from books b left outer join
user_books ub
on ub.ub_bookid = b.b_id
where
ub.ub_userid = 10;
This doesn't do any aggregation, so if you have multiple user_books records for one books record, then the books record will be duplicated. But, it shows how to join against a missing row (outer join) and test for whether that outer join row is present or missing.
Here's a SQL Fiddle for MySQL 5.6 http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b70ff8/4/0
I try to merge two tables together and want to get a single table with SQL. My main problem is to overwrite existing values, because in the 2nd table (deltaTable) are some new revision rows, that have the same ID as in the first table (rootTable).
Example:
1) rootTable
ID | REV | NAME
1 | 0 | Part 1
2 | 0 | Part 2
3 | 0 | Part 3
4 | 0 | Part 4
5 | 0 | Part 5
2) deltaTable
ID | REV | NAME
2 | 1 | Part 2
4 | 2 | New Part 4
I want to have the following result:
ID | REV | NAME
1 | 0 | Part 1
2 | 1 | Part 2
3 | 0 | Part 3
4 | 2 | New Part 4
5 | 0 | Part 5
Can anyone help me or give me an hint how to manage the SQL code?
If I understand your question correctly, you could use an UPDATE query:
update
rootTable r inner join deltaTable d
on r.id = d.id
set
r.REV = d.REV,
r.NAME = d.NAME
Please see it working here.
As Hogan suggested, we could add something like where d.rev>r.rev since it should help giving better performances.
An alternative query, if you defined ID as a primary key, is:
insert into rootTable (ID, REV, NAME)
select * from deltaTable
on duplicate key update
REV=values(REV), NAME=values(NAME);
(this will update existing records, and add new ones).
Please see it here.
I have a table with the following (simplified) structure:
INT id,
INT type,
INT sort
What I need is a SELECT that sorts my data in a way, so that:
all rows of the same type are in sequency, sorted ascendingly by sort internally, and
all "blocks" of one type are sorted by their minimum sort.
Example:
If the table looks like this:
| id | type | sort |
| 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 2 | 4 |
| 5 | 1 | 2 |
| 6 | 2 | 6 |
The query should sort the result like this:
| id | type | sort |
| 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 2 | 3 | 5 |
| 5 | 1 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 4 | 2 | 4 |
| 6 | 2 | 6 |
I hope this makes it clear enough.
Looks to me, as this should be a very common requirement, but I didn't find any examples close enough to be able to transfer it to my use case on my own. I suppose I can't avoid at least one subquery, but I didn't figure it out on my own.
Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance.
By the way: I'm going to use this query with CakePHP 2.1, so if you know of a comfortable way to do it with Cake, please let me know.
This is simpler than it initially sounds. I believe the following should do the trick:
SELECT a.id, a.type, a.sort
FROM Some_Table as a
JOIN (SELECT type, MIN(sort) as min
FROM Some_Table
GROUP BY type) as b
ON b.type = a.type
ORDER BY b.min, a.type, a.sort
For best (fastest) results, you're probably going to want an index on (type, sort).
You want an additional sort by a.type (instead of (b.min, a.sort)), in case there are two groups with the same sort value (would result in mixed rows). If there are no duplicate values, you can remove it.
sort and type are reserved words on some databases and can cause you problems.
Have you tried?
ORDER BY TYPE DESC, SORT ASC
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