I created this stored procedure which is basically to return a list of offices with the type of activities that happen within each office. The results i reported to reportviewer but i noticed that for each activity return it creates a table - so i can have 5 different tables each with its own activity but all happen in the same office. I want the report to be a table for each office which will contain as many activites as there are for each office. So i thought that if i grouped in my stored procedure my results will be as what i want but i am getting column error saying: "...is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause."
I am not sure how to go about that but here is my select, from, where, group by statements:
SELECT
O.OfficeId,
O.OfficeName AS Office,
HT.Description AS HearingType,
H.HearingDate AS HearingDate,
CR.Description AS Court,
CT.[Description]AS CaseType
FROM Activity H
INNER JOIN ActivityEntry HE ON H.ActivityEntryId = HE.ActivityEntryId
INNER JOIN ActivityType HT ON H.ActivityTypeId = HT.ActivityTypeId
INNER JOIN [Case] C ON H.CaseId = C.CaseId
INNER JOIN [Office] O ON HE.CreatedByOfficeId = O.OfficeId
INNER JOIN [User] U ON C.CreatedByUserId = U.UserId
LEFT OUTER JOIN CaseType CT ON C.CaseTypeId = CT.CaseTypeId
LEFT OUTER JOIN Court CR ON C.CourtId = CR.CourtId
WHERE .dbo.DateOnly(HE.HearingDate)BETWEEN #BeginDate AND #EndDate
GROUP BY
O.OfficeId,
O.OfficeName,
HT.Description
ORDER BY O.OfficeId, HT.Description
GROUP BY requires that you have some kind of an aggregate function in your list of columns - a SUM, an AVG, a COUNT. GROUP BY only makes sense in combination with an aggregate.
Otherwise, just simply order your data with an ORDER BY statement.
You aren't using any aggregate functions (on first glance anyway) so you don't need a group by clause. You can do all your ordering in the order by and then extract it into different datasets as you process it on the application side.
Example:
select ... from ... order by OfficeID, Description
This returns a single result for all offices. Now you need to parse it in code
int OfficeID=-1;
while(recordset.moveToNextRow())
{
if(currentRecord.OfficeID!=OfficeID)
{
//This is a new office, do whatever you need to do to split the data up here
OfficeID=currentRecord.OfficeID;
}
//Process the record as a part of the current office here
}
So if you were building a table on a webpage, you'd maybe end the last table and start a new table every time you hit a new office ID. There's some additional logic you'll need here, but this should give you the idea.
Note that your problem has nothing to do with using a stored procedure and everything to do with how you are selecting and processing data.
I actually realized that my problem cannot be solved through my stored procedure as mentioned from some of the members. Since i am displaying results in my report so i re-organized my report and dataset information so that there is a parent and child relationship and from the dataset my information was organized properly. I used the solutions offered from this post to help guide me: post used to help guide me.
Related
I am in the process of creating an attendance system and have created 3 different reports to generate based on the content of 3 different MySQL tables: members, attendance, and absence.
I am having an issue though. One of the reports is working since I have the correct statement. However, I cannot get the other two to work, so I need some help on how to figure out the best SQL statement for these reports.
The first report I need has to look like this:
This report shows how many people in each precinct showed up to the event and how many excused absences are in that precinct. For this report, I will also need a "Totals" line at the very bottom to count the total number of attendees, excused absences and totals from each precinct (like this):
The second report is similar to the report that is already completed. The difference is instead of the member's email and phone address, I need to see if they were marked present and if they had an excused absence. I cannot show the report since there is real data about real people, however I can show you the SQL statement that the completed report is using:
SELECT
precinct, name, residential_address, member_email, member_phone, present, alternate
FROM
attendance INNER JOIN members ON members.id = attendance.member_id
WHERE
present = 1
ORDER BY
members.precinct
I've tried SQL COUNT statements and various JOIN queries to try and make the queries work, but nothing is working at all. What is the correct query and why?
UPDATE
Here is my table structure of the 3 tables involved in the report generation. Note that each table (other than Members) shares the Member ID column:
Members Table:
Attendance Table:
Absence Table:
This is untested against actual data, but should be close to what you're looking for.
Your first report (http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/191d8d/1) should be:
SELECT
m.precinct as 'precinct',
COUNT(at.member_id) as 'delagates_present',
COUNT(ab.member_id) as 'delegates_absent',
COUNT(at.member_id) + COUNT(ab.member_id) as 'total'
FROM
members m
LEFT JOIN attendance at ON at.member_id = m.id
LEFT JOIN absence ab ON ab.member_id = m.id
GROUP BY
m.precinct
WITH ROLLUP;
This selects all members, groups them by precinct, counts how many were present or absent, and then adds those together for the total column. Additionally, WITH ROLLUP will give you the sums of the columns (https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/group-by-modifiers.html) as the last row.
Then your second report (http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/191d8d/2) should be:
SELECT
precinct,
name,
residential_address,
IF(at.member_id IS NULL, 0, 1) as 'present',
IF(ab.member_id IS NULL, 0, 1) as 'absent',
alternate
FROM
members m
LEFT JOIN attendance at ON at.member_id = m.id
LEFT JOIN absence ab ON ab.member_id = m.id
ORDER BY
m.precinct,
m.id;
which selects all members and does a LEFT JOIN on the other 2 tables. Then we can use a condition in the SELECT to determine if they were present or absent. There are a number of ways that data could be represented and returned, but I've opted for a simple 1 or 0 in both of those columns.
I am trying to make a table that includes join between 3 tables in the MSSS 2008. There is a fact table, a date table, and a course table. I should join them to make a base table. In date table there is a one parameter that name is Academic Year lookup, and the values in this parameter is like 2000/1, 2001/2. This parameter in the base table should separate to three parameter such as CensusYear, StartYear, and ApplicationYear. Therefore, I need the data table multiple times. I executed a inner join query, and already I have four inner join statement, but I am getting some extra years, and I'm losing some years. I believe, my query should be wrong somewhere.
The attached file is include the design view that created in the MS Access, it'll help to see the tables, and understand what I need to create.
[Design View in Ms Access][1]
SELECT
A.[EventCount],
B.[AcademicYearLookup] AS [CensusYear],
C.[AcademicYearLookup] AS [StartYear],
D.[AcademicYearLookup] AS [ApplicationYear],
B.[CurrentWeekComparisonFlag],
B.[AcademicWeekOfYear],
case
when A.[ApplicationCensusSK] = 1 then 'Same Year'
when A.[ApplicationCensusSK] = 2 then 'Next Year'
when A.[ApplicationCensusSK] = 5 then 'Last Year'
ELSE 'Other'
END as [CensusYearDescription],
B.[CurrentAcademicYear],
A.[StudentCodeBK],
A.[ApplicationSequenceNoBK],
A.[CourseSK],
A.[CourseGroupSK],
A.[CourseMoaSK],
A.[CboSK],
A.[CourseTaughtAbroadSK],
A.[ApplicationStatusSK],
A.[ApplicationFeeStatusSK],
A.[DecisionResponseSK],
A.[NationalityCountrySK],
A.[DomicileCountrySK],
A.[TargetRegionSK],
A.[InternationalSponsorSK] INTO dbo.[BaseTable3yrs]
FROM Student.FactApplicationSnapshot A
INNER JOIN Conformed.DimDate AS B ON A.[CensusDateSK] = B.[DateSK]
INNER JOIN Conformed.DimDate AS C ON A.[AcademicYearStartDateSK] = C.[DateSK]
INNER JOIN Conformed.DimDate AS D ON A.[ApplicationDateSK] = D.[DateSK]
INNER JOIN Student.DimCourse ON A.CourseSK = Student.DimCourse.CourseSK
WHERE (((B.CurrentAcademicYear) In (0,-1))
AND ((A.ApplicationCensusSK) In (1,2,5))
AND ((Student.DimCourse.DepartmentShortName)= 'TEACH ED'));
/* the query to check that the result it's correct or not, and I check it by academic week of year, and I found that I am lossing some data, and I have some extra data, means maybe join is wrong*/
select * from [BaseTable3yrs]
where [StudentCodeBK]= '26002423'
AND [ApplicationSequenceNoBK] = '0101'
order by [AcademicWeekOfYear]
When doing recursive joins like this, it's easy to get duplicate records. You could try gathering the Conformed data separately into a table variable and then joining to it. This would also make your query more readable.
You might also try a SELECT DISTINCT on your main query.
I'm currently having a problem with a legacy app I just inherited on my new job. I have a SQL query that's way too long to respond and I need to find a way to fasten it.
This query acts on 3 tables:
SESSION contains all users visits
CONTACT contains all the messages people have been sending through a form and contains a "session_id" field that links back to the SESSION id field
ACCOUNT contains users accounts (people who registered on the website) and whose "id" field is linked back in SESSION (through a "SESSION.account_id" field). ACCOUNT and CONTACT are no linked in any way, besides the SESSION table (legacy app...).
I can't change this structure unfortunately.
My query tries to recover ALL the interesting sessions to serve to the administrator. I need to find all sessions that links back to an account OR a contact form.
Currently, the query is structured like that :
SELECT s.id
/* a few fields from ACCOUNT and CONTACT tables */
FROM session s
LEFT JOIN account act ON act.id = s.account_id
LEFT JOIN contact c on c.session_id = s.id
WHERE s.programme_id = :program_id
AND (
c.id IS NOT NULL
OR
act.id IS NOT NULL
)
Problem is, the SESSION table is growing pretty fast (as you can expect) and with 400k records it slows things down for some programs ( :programme_id in the query).
I tried to use an UNION query with two INNER JOIN query, one between SESSION and ACCOUNT and the other one between SESSION and CONTACT, but it doesn't give me the same number of records and I don't really understand why.
Can somebody help me to find a better way to make this query ?
Thanks a lot in advance.
I think you just need indexes. For this query:
SELECT s.id
/* a few fields from ACCOUNT and CONTACT tables */
FROM session s LEFT JOIN
account act
ON act.id = s.account_id LEFT JOIN
contact c
ON c.session_id = s.id
WHERE s.programme_id = :program_id AND
(c.id IS NOT NULL OR act.id IS NOT NULL);
You want indexes on session(programme_id, account_id, id), account(id) and contact(session_id).
It is important that programme_id be the first column in the index on session.
#Gordon already suggested you add an index, which is generally the easy and effective solution, so I'm going to answer a different part of your question.
I tried to use an UNION query with two INNER JOIN query, one between
SESSION and ACCOUNT and the other one between SESSION and CONTACT, but
it doesn't give me the same number of records and I don't really
understand why.
That part is rather simple: the JOIN returns a result set that contains the rows of both tables joined together. So in the first case you would end up with a result that looks like
session.id, session.column2, session.column3, ..., account.id, account.column2, account.column3, ....
and a second where
session.id, session.column2, session.column3, ..., contact.id, contact.column2, contact.column3, ....
Then an UNION will faill unless the contact and account tables have the same number of columns with correspoding types, which is unlikely. Otherwise, the database will be unable to perform a UNION. From the docs (emphasis mine):
The column names from the first SELECT statement are used as the column names for the results returned. Selected columns listed in corresponding positions of each SELECT statement should have the same data type. (For example, the first column selected by the first statement should have the same type as the first column selected by the other statements.)
Just perform both INNER JOINs seperately and compare the results if you're unsure.
If you want to stick to an UNION solution, make sure to perform a SELECT only on corresponding columns : doing SELECT s.id would be trivial but it should work, for instance.
I'm writing some reasonably complex queries for reporting for an app I am developing. I could probably achieve all of the following through using higher level PHP, but obviously I would like to get it all done with MySQL which will obviously simplify things greatly.
The report I need is a typical sales report type query, which will list a list of people, and some relevant totals relating to them. The only minor difference is that this system relates to freight/haulage, so the "sales people" are actually lorry drivers, and the "sales" are individual consignments. Also, consignments are only linked/tied to their respective driver through the creation of "routes", which record who delivers/collects what on a specific day.
Naturally, I could use an INNER JOIN to get a list of each driver, with all of the consignments they have delivered/collected, and SUM the revenue made off these. The problem comes however, when I need to show both a column for total delivery revenue and collection revenue. These figures can come from a consignments table, which lists every consignment. Each consignment can have a flag (ENUM "D","C") which donates whether it is a delivery or collection. This can almost be ascertained easily through using sub queries but still, there will be a lot of repetition.
What I have so far:
SELECT pr.driver_callsign, d.first_name, d.last_name, sum(pc.revenue) AS total_revenue
FROM pallet_routes AS pr
INNER JOIN drivers AS d ON d.driver_callsign = pr.driver_callsign
INNER JOIN pallet_consignments AS pc ON pc.route_id = pr.route_id
GROUP BY pr.driver_callsign
ORDER BY d.driver_callsign ASC
This obviously returns a list of each driver, with the total amount of revenue made from all consignments they have tied to them.
What would be the most efficient way to further split this revenue SUM field up to show a SUM(revenue) WHERE type = "C" and SUM(revenue) WHERE type="D"? Subqueries? UNION?
It may also be worth mentioning that the end query will be narrowed down to a date range. So for example there will be a WHERE date BETWEEN x AND y put against the pallet_routes table.
Any advice would be greatfully received. Please do ask if you want me to elaborate more.
I don't know where your column type is, but if it's on pallet_consignments, you can try the following:
SELECT pr.driver_callsign, d.first_name, d.last_name,
SUM(IF(pc.`type` = 'C', pc.revenue, 0)) collection_revenue,
SUM(IF(pc.`type` = 'D', pc.revenue, 0)) delivery_revenue
FROM pallet_routes AS pr
INNER JOIN drivers AS d ON d.driver_callsign = pr.driver_callsign
INNER JOIN pallet_consignments AS pc ON pc.route_id = pr.route_id
GROUP BY pr.driver_callsign
ORDER BY d.driver_callsign ASC
Otherwise, please mention where the column type is.
I just imported a large amount of data into two tables. Let's call them shipments and returns.
When trying to do a simple join (left or inner) based on any criteria in these two tables. query looks like it tries to do a cross join or find every combination instead of what the query should be pulling.
each table has an PK id field, but there is not FK relationship between the two other than some shared field.
I'm currently just trying to related them on shipment_id.
I feel this is a simple answer. Am I missing a reference or something obvious that is causing this? Thanks!
here's an example. This should returned under 100 rows. This instead returns hundreds of thousands.
SELECT r.*
FROM returns as r
left outer join shipments as s
on r.shipment_id = s.shipment_id
where r.date = '2011-06-20'
Here is a query that should work:
SELECT T0.*, T1.*
FROM shipments AS T0 LEFT JOIN returns AS T1 ON T0.shipment_id = T1.shipment_id
ORDER BY T0.shipment_id;
This query join assumes 1:1 on the shipment_id
It would be nice if you included the query you were using
You need to specify what you are joining on, otherwise it will do a cartesian join:
SELECT r.*
FROM returns as r
LEFT JOIN shipments as s ON s.shipment_id = r.shipment_id
where r.date = '2011-06-20'
Josh,
I would be interested in seeing what would happen if you forced a join to a specific record or set of records instead of the whole table. Assuming there is a shipment with an id of 5 in your table, you could try:
SELECT r.* FROM returns as r
left join shipments as s
ON 5 = r.shipment_id
WHERE r.date = '2011-06-20'
While just a fancy where clause, it would at least prove that the join you are attempting will eventually work correctly. The issue is that your on clause is always returning true, no matter what the value is. This could be because it's not interpreting the shipment_id as an integer, but instead as a true/false variable where any value evaluates to true.
Original Rejected Solution:
No Foreign Key relationship should be needed in order to make the joins happen. The PK id fields I'm assuming are an integer (or number, or whatever your rdms equivalent is)?
Can you past a snippet of your sql query?
Updating based on posted query:
I would add your explicit join criteria in order to rule out any funny business (my guess is since no criteria is specified, it's using 1=1, which always joins). So I would change your query to look like:
SELECT r.*
FROM returns as r
left join shipments as s ON
s.ShipId = R.ReturnId
where r.date = '2011-06-20'
The issue turned out to be very simple, just not readily apparent until going through all the columns. It turns out that the shipment ID was duplicated through every row as it hit the upper limit for the int datatype. This is why joins were returning every record.
After switching the datatype to bigint and reimporting, everything worked great. Thanks all for looking into it.