I first need to query a table of people to find all the families I want. This query does the job nicely: (from m in Members where m.Lastname.StartsWith("A") select m.FamilyID).Distinct()
The above returns me a short list of FamilyIDs (integer). I need Distinct because a family can have more than one member.
How do I then join this list to another table to retrieve all rows in that second table where a column called FamilyID whose values are in the first list?
Is there something like IN in Transact-SQL?
Thanks.
Yes, Linq to sql has the Contains that does something similar. It is just really the other way around in syntax so you need to get used to it but it works like a charm.
Have a look here http://wekeroad.com/2008/02/27/creating-in-queries-with-linq-to-sql/
Related
I have table emails_grouping in that I have one column named 'to_ids' this column contains multiple employee Id's . Now I want to change that Id's with respective employee names. employee data is in employee table.
this is in mysql.
I tried multiple ways but I'm not able to replace id's with names because , that 'to_ids' column contains multiple 'Ids'.
description to_ids
'Inactive Employees with missing Last working day', '11041,11109,899,13375,1715,1026'
above is the column which I want to change Id's with employee names.
This problem should demonstrate to you why it's a bad idea to store "lists" of id's like you're doing. You should instead store one id per row.
You can join to your employee table like this:
SELECT e.name
FROM emails_grouping AS g
JOIN employee AS e
ON FIND_IN_SET(e.id, g.to_ids)
WHERE g.description = 'Inactive Employees with missing Last working day';
But be aware that joining using a function like this is not possible to optimize. It will have very slow performance, because it can't look up the respective employee id's using an index. It has to do a table-scan of the employee table, and evaluate the id's against your comma-separated list one by one.
This is just one reason why using comma-separated lists instead of normal columns is trouble. See my answer to Is storing a delimited list in a database column really that bad?
In MS access, I have a query that i filter with a list of keywords through a second query. The second select query (which acts as a filter) takes the original (data) query and a keyword table and selects from the data query only the entries that match one of the keywords in the list.
I want to edit a field in the resulting query but access doesnt let me. From what i gather from google & Co. My issue might be caused by not having a relationships between the data query and the keyword table. What can i do to enable editing of the data ? If i were to create a relationship between the keyword table and the data query, how would i design it since 1 keyword does not correspond to one entry in the data query.
Edit: here is the SQL code
Select Sales.saleID, Sales.saleText1, Sales.saleText2, Sales.clientFirstName, Sales.clientLastName, Sales.clientOk
From Sales, Keywords
Where (((Sales.saleText1) Like Keywords!Keyword)) or (((Sales.saleText2) Like Keywords!Keyword));
This returns the correct data but then i cannot edit the clientOk field in the datasheet view (clientOk is a number field)
Thanks in advance for the help
Try something like this:
Select
Sales.saleID, Sales.saleText1, Sales.saleText2, Sales.clientFirstName, Sales.clientLastName, Sales.clientOk
From
Sales
Where
(Sales.saleText1 In (Select [Keyword] From Keywords))
or
(Sales.saleText2 In (Select [Keyword] From Keywords));
I am trying to create a table that shows treatment information about patients (though I just wondered if would be better as a query) at a fictional hospital. The idea is that one row of this could be used to print an information sheet for the attending nurse(s).
I would like to make the attending_doctor column contain the name that corresponds with the employee_id.
|Patient_ID|Employee_ID|Attending_Doctor|Condition|Treatment|future_surgery|
Would appreciate any help. Thank you!
Just use a join in your query rather than have the employee name in 2 tables (which would mean updating in more than one location if they change name etc). For the sake of an example, this also gets the patients name from a 3rd table named patients.
eg
SELECT table1.*, employees.name, patients.name
FROM table1
LEFT JOIN employees ON employees.id = table1.employeeId
LEFT JOIN patients ON patients.id = table1.patientsId
Don't use directly this table, but build a view that contains the data you need. Then you can get the data from the view like it was a table.
Basically what you need is to have data in three tables. One table for patients, one table for for employees and one for the reports. Table with reports should contain only the employee_ID. Then you can either build a direct query over these three tables or build a view that will hide the complicated query.
I am trying to query a database to return some matching records and can't work out how to do it in the most efficient way. I have a TUsers table, a TJobsOffered table and a TJobsRequested table. The UserID is the primary key for the TUsers table and is used within the Job tables in a one to many relationship.
Ultimately I want to run a query that returns a list of all matching users based on a particular UserID (eg a matching user is one that has at least one matching record in both tables, eg if UserA has jobid 999 listed in TJobsOffered and UserB has jobid 999 listed in TJobsRequested then this is a match).
In order to try and get my head around it i've simplified it down a lot and am trying to match the records based on the jobids for the user in question, eg:
SELECT DISTINCT TJobsOffered.FUserID FROM TJobsOffered, TJobsRequested
WHERE TJobsOffered.FUserID=TJobsRequested.FUserID AND
(TJobsRequested.FJobID='12' OR TJobsRequested.FJobID='30') AND
(TJobsOffered.FJobID='86' OR TJobsOffered.FJobID='5')
This seems to work fine and returns the correct results however when I introduce the TUsers table (so I can access user information) it starts returning incorrect results. I can't work out why the following query doesn't return the same results as the one listed above as surely it's still matching the same information just with a different connector (or is the one above effectively many to many and the one below 2 sets of one to many comparisons)?
SELECT DISTINCT TUsers.Fid, TUsers.FName FROM TUsers, TJobsOffered, TJobsRequested
WHERE TUsers.Fid=TJobsRequested.FUserID AND TUsers.Fid=TJobsOffered.FUserID AND
(TJobsRequested.FJobID='12' OR TJobsRequested.FJobID='30') AND
(TJobsOffered.FJobID='86' OR TJobsOffered.FJobID='5')
If anyone could explain where i'm going wrong with the second query and how you should incorporate TUsers then that would be greatly appreciated as I can't get my head around the join. If you are able to give me any pointers as to how I can do this all in one query by just passing the user id in then that would be massively appreciated as well! :)
Thanks so much,
Dave
Try this
SELECT DISTINCT TJobsOffered.FUserID , TUsers.FName
FROM TJobsOffered
INNER JOIN TJobsRequested ON TJobsOffered.FUserID=TJobsRequested.FUserID
LEFT JOIN TUsers ON TUsers.Fid=TJobsOffered.FUserID
WHERE
(TJobsRequested.FJobID (12,30) AND
(TJobsOffered.FJobID IN (86 ,5)
You need to add "AND TJobsOffered.FUserID=TJobsRequested.FUserID" to your where clause.
I have three tables: students, interests, and interest_lookup.
Students has the cols student_id and name.
Interests has the cols interest_id and interest_name.
Interest_lookup has the cols student_id and interest_id.
To find out what interests a student has I do
select interests.interest_name from `students`
inner join `interest_lookup`
on interest_lookup.student_id = students.student_id
inner join `interests`
on interests.interest_id = interest_lookup.interest_id
What I want to do is get a result set like
student_id | students.name | interest_a | interest_b | ...
where the column name 'interest_a' is a value in interests.name and
the interest_ columns are 0 or 1 such that the value is 1 when
there is a record in interest_lookup for the given
student_id and interest_id and 0 when there is not.
Each entry in the interests table must appear as a column name.
I can do this with subselects (which is super slow) or by making a bunch of joins, but both of these really require that I first select all the records from interests and write out a dynamic query.
You're doing an operation called a pivot. #Slider345 linked to (prior to editing his answer) another SO post about doing it in Microsoft SQL Server. Microsoft has its own special syntax to do this, but MySQL does not.
You can do something like this:
SELECT s.student_id, s.name,
SUM(i.name = 'a') AS interest_a,
SUM(i.name = 'b') AS interest_b,
SUM(i.name = 'c') AS interest_c
FROM students s
INNER JOIN interest_lookup l USING (student_id)
INNER JOIN interests i USING (interest_id)
GROUP BY s.student_id;
What you cannot do, in MySQL or Microsoft or anything else, is automatically populate columns so that the presence of data expands the number of columns.
Columns of an SQL query must be fixed and hard-coded at the time you prepare the query.
If you don't know the list of interests at the time you code the query, or you need it to adapt to changing lists of interest, you'll have to fetch the interests as rows and post-process these rows in your application.
What your trying to do sounds like a pivot.
Most solutions seem to revolve around one of the following approaches:
Creating a dynamic query, as in Is there a way to pivot rows to columns in MySQL without using CASE?
Selecting all the attribute columns, as in How to pivot a MySQL entity-attribute-value schema
Or, identifying the columns and using either a CASE statement or a user defined function as in pivot in mysql queries
I don't think this is possible. Actually I think this is just a matter of data representatioin. I would try to use a component to display the data that would allow me to pivot the data (for instance, the same way you do on excel, open office's calc, etc).
To take it one step further, you should think again why you need this and probably try to solve it in the application not in the database.
I know this doesn't help much but it's the best I can think of :(