If I execute both query individually it is not taking 4sec to get data, but when combine both I see query is deadslow. Any help much appreciated
Query1:
Select Med_Number,Med_Code,Member_Name,DOB FROM Med
WHERE Med.Med_Code=:Med_Code
Query2:
Select Red_Number,Red_Name,Red_Code FROM Red
WHERE Red.Red_Code =:Red_Code
Final One:Im passing one value at a time
Select Med_Number,Member_Name,Red_Number,Red_Name FROM Med M
LEFT JOIN Red R ON M.Med_Number=R.Red_Number
Where (Med.Med_Code=:Med_Code) OR (Red.Red_Code=:Red_Code)
If you look at the execution plan for all 3 statements, you'll figure it out. If you're not interested in figuring it out and you must execute only one query, then you can execute this, using src to determine which rows below to which row source assuming you have to know the difference and assuming the numbers and names are suitably equivalent data types:
Select 1 src, Med_Number,Member_Name,DOB
FROM Med
WHERE Med.Med_Number=:Med_Number
UNION ALL
Select 2 src, Red_Number,Red_Name, null
FROM Red
WHERE Red.Red_Number=:Red_Number
Of course, if the data types are equivalent and DOB is not allowed to be null, then this would suffice
Select Med_Number,Member_Name,DOB
FROM Med
WHERE Med.Med_Number=:Med_Number
UNION ALL
Select Red_Number,Red_Name, null
FROM Red
WHERE Red.Red_Number=:Red_Number
As you join your two tables on m.Med_number = R.Red_number, you don't need 2 parameters.
Select Med_Number,Member_Name,Red_Number,Red_Name FROM Med M
LEFT JOIN Red R ON M.Med_Number=R.Red_Number
Where M.Med_Number=:Number;
Related
I have two table of my store and working on Oracle. Image First table describe about my transaction in store, there are two types of transaction (MR & SR), MR means adding products in Store and SR means removing products from my storage. What I wanted to do get the final closing of my storage. After transaction final Quantity every products as shown in Image. I have tried many solution but can't finish it. so I could not show now. Please help me to sort this problem. Thanks
You can use case as below to decrease and increase the quantity based on type and then group by Name and find the sum of quantity derived from the case statement to get your desired result.
select row_number() over (order by a.Name) as Sl,a.Name, sum(a.qntity) as qntity
from
(select t2.Name,case when t1.type='MR' then t2.qntity else -(t2.qntity) end as qntity
from table1 t1,table2 t2 where t1.oid=t2.table01_oid) a
group by a.Name;
This query will provide result as below:
SL NAME QNTITY
1 Balls 0
2 Books 6
3 Pencil 13
I have a table created. With one column named states and another column called land area. I am using oracle 11g. I have looked at various questions on here and cannot find a solution. Here is what I have tried so far:
SELECT LandAreas, State
FROM ( SELECT LandAreas, State, DENSE_RANK() OVER (ORDER BY State DESC) sal_dense_rank
FROM Map )
WHERE sal_dense_rank >= 5;
This does not provide the top 5 land areas as far as number wise.
I have also tried this one but no go either:
SELECT * FROM Map order by State desc)
where rownum < 5;
Anyone have any suggestions to get me on the right track??
Here is a samle of the table
states land areas
michagan 15000
florida 25000
tennessee 10000
alabama 80000
new york 150000
california 20000
oregon 5000
texas 6000
utah 3000
nebraska 1000
Desired output from query:
States land area
new york 150000
alabama 80000
florida 25000
california 20000
Try:
Select * from
(SELECT State, LandAreas FROM Map ORDER BY LandAreas DESC)
where rownum < 6
Link to Fiddle
Use a HAVING clause and count the number state states larger:
SELECT m.state, m.landArea
FROM Map m
LEFT JOIN Map m2 on m2.landArea > m.landArea
GROUP BY m.state, m.landArea
HAVING count(*) < 5
ORDER BY m.landArea DESC
See SQLFiddle
This joins each state to every state whose area is greater, then uses a HAVING clause to return only those states where the number of larger states was less than 5.
Ties are all returned, leading to more than 5 rows in the case of a tie for 5th.
The left join is needed for the case of the largest state, which has no other larger state to join to.
The ORDER BY is optional.
Try something like this
select m.states,m.landarea
from map m
where (select count(‘x’) from map m2 where m2.landarea > m.landarea)<=5
order by m.landarea
There are two bloomers in your posted code.
You need to use landarea in the DENSE_RANK() call. At the moment you're ordering the states in reverse alphabetical order.
Your filter in the outer query is the wrong way around: you're excluding the top four results.
Here is what you need ...
SELECT LandArea, State
FROM ( SELECT LandArea
, State
, DENSE_RANK() OVER (ORDER BY landarea DESC) as area_dr
FROM Maps )
WHERE area_dr <= 5
order by area_dr;
... and here is the SQL Fiddle to prove it. (I'm going with the statement in the question that you want the top 5 biggest states and ignoring the fact that your desired result set has only four rows. But adjust the outer filter as you will).
There are three different functions for deriving top-N result sets: DENSE_RANK, RANK and ROW_NUMBER.
Using ROW_NUMBER will always guarantee you 5 rows in the result set, but you may get the wrong result if there are several states with the same land area (unlikely in this case, but other data sets will produce such clashes). So: 1,2,3,4,5
The difference between RANK and DENSE_RANK is how they handle ties. DENSE_RANK always produces a series of consecutive numbers, regardless of how many rows there are in each rank. So: 1,2,2,3,3,3,4,5
RANK on the other hand will produce a sparse series if a given rank has more than one hit. So: 1,2,2,4,4,4.
Note that each of the example result sets has a different number of rows. Which one is correct? It depends on the precise question you want to ask.
Using a sorted sub-query with the ROWNUM pseudo-column will work like the ROW_NUMBER function, but I prefer using ROW_NUMBER because it is more powerful and more error-proof.
The easiest way to ask my question is with a Hypothetical Scenario.
Lets say we have 3 tables. Singapore_Prices, Produce_val, and Bosses_unreasonable_demands.
So Prices is a pretty simple table. Item column containing a name, and a Price column containing a number.
Produce_Val is also simple 2 column table. Type column containing what type the produce is (Fruit or veggie) and then Name column (Tomato, pineapple, etc.)
The Bosses_unreasonable_demands only contains one column, Fruit, which CAN contain the names of some fruits.
OK? Ok.
SO, My boss wants me to write a query that returns the prices for every fruit in his unreasonable demands table. Simple enough. BUT, if he doesn't have any entries in his table, he just wants me to output the prices of ALL fruits that exist in produce_val.
Now, assuming I don't know where the DBA who designed this silly hypothetical system lives (and therefore can't get him to fix this), our query would look like this:
if <Logic to determine if Bosses demands are empty>
Then
select Item, Price
from Singapore_Prices
where Item in (select Fruit from Bosses_Unreasonable_demands)
Else
select Item, Price
from Singapore_Prices
where Item in (select Name from Produce_val where type = 'Fruit')
end if;
(Well, we'd select those into a variable, and then output the variable, probably with bulk-collect shenanigans, but that's not important)
Which works. It is entirely functional, and won't be slow, even if we extend it out to 2000 other stores other than Singapore. (Well, no slower than anything else that touches 2000 some tables) BUT, I'm still doing two different select statements that are practically identical. My Comp Sci teacher rolls in their grave every time my fingers hit ctrl-V. I can cut this code in half and only do one select statement. I KNOW I can.
I just have no earthly idea how. I can't use cursors as an in statement, I can't use nested tables or varrays, I can't use cleverly crafted strings, I... I just... I don't know. I don't know how to do this. Is there a way? Does it exist?
Or do I have to copy/paste forever?
Your best bet would be dynamic SQL, because you can't parameterize table or column names.
You will have a SQL query template, have a logic to determine tables and columns that you want to query, then blend them together and execute.
Another aproach, (still a lot of ctrl-v like code) is to use set construction UNION ALL:
select 1st query where boss_condition
union all
select 2nd query where not boss_condition
Try this:
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT s.*, 'BOSS' AS FRUIT_SOURCE
FROM BOSSES_UNREASONABLE_DEMANDS b
INNER JOIN SINGAPORE_FRUIT_LIST s
ON s.ITEM = b.FRUIT
CROSS JOIN (SELECT COUNT(*) AS BOSS_COUNT
FROM BOSSES_UNREASONABLE_DEMANDS)) x
UNION ALL
(SELECT s.*, 'NORMAL' AS FRUIT_SOURCE
FROM PRODUCE_VAL p
INNER JOIN SINGAPORE_FRUIT_LIST s
ON (s.ITEM = p.NAME AND
s.TYPE = 'Fruit')
CROSS JOIN (SELECT COUNT(*) AS BOSS_COUNT
FROM BOSSES_UNREASONABLE_DEMANDS)) n
WHERE (BOSS_COUNT > 0 AND FRUIT_SOURCE = 'BOSS') OR
(BOSS_COUNT = 0 AND FRUIT_SOURCE = 'NORMAL')
Share and enjoy.
I think you can use nested tables. Assume you have a schema-level nested table type FRUIT_NAME_LIST (defined using CREATE TYPE).
SELECT fruit
BULK COLLECT INTO my_fruit_name_list
FROM bosses_unreasonable_demands
;
IF my_fruit_name_list.count = 0 THEN
SELECT name
BULK COLLECT INTO my_fruit_name_list
FROM produce_val
WHERE type='Fruit'
;
END IF;
SELECT item, price
FROM singapore_prices
WHERE item MEMBER OF my_fruit_name_list
;
(or, WHERE item IN (SELECT column_value FROM TABLE(CAST(my_fruit_name_list AS fruit_name_list)) if you like that better)
Here's my original question:
merging two data sets
Unfortunately I omitted some intircacies, that I'd like to elaborate here.
So I have two tables events_source_1 and events_source_2 tables. I have to produce the data set from those tables into resultant dataset (that I'd be able to insert into third table, but that's irrelevant).
events_source_1 contain historic event data and I have to do get the most recent event (for such I'm doing the following:
select event_type,b,c,max(event_date),null next_event_date
from events_source_1
group by event_type,b,c,event_date,null
events_source_2 contain the future event data and I have to do the following:
select event_type,b,c,null event_date, next_event_date
from events_source_2
where b>sysdate;
How to put outer join statement to fill the void (i.e. when same event_type,b,c found from event_source_2 then next_event_date will be filled with the first date found
GREATLY APPRECIATE FOR YOUR HELP IN ADVANCE.
Hope I got your question right. This should return the latest event_date of events_source_1 per event_type, b, c and add the lowest event_date of event_source_2.
Select es1.event_type, es1.b, es1.c,
Max(es1.event_date),
Min(es2.event_date) As next_event_date
From events_source_1 es1
Left Join events_source_2 es2 On ( es2.event_type = es1.event_type
And es2.b = es1.b
And es2.c = es1.c
)
Group By c1.event_type, c1.b, c1.c
You could just make the table where you need to select a max using a group by into a virtual table, and then do the full outer join as I provided in the answer to the prior question.
Add something like this to the top of the query:
with past_source as (
select event_type, b, c, max(event_date)
from event_source_1
group by event_type, b, c, event_date
)
Then you can use past_source as if it were an actual table, and continue your select right after the closing parens on the with clause shown.
I end up doing two step process: 1st step populates the data from event table 1, 2nd step MERGES the data between target (the dataset from 1st step) and another source. Please forgive me, but I had to obfuscate table name and omit some columns in the code below for legal reasons. Here's the SQL:
INSERT INTO EVENTS_TARGET (VEHICLE_ID,EVENT_TYPE_ID,CLIENT_ID,EVENT_DATE,CREATED_DATE)
select VEHICLE_ID, EVENT_TYPE_ID, DEALER_ID,
max(EVENT_INITIATED_DATE) EVENT_DATE, sysdate CREATED_DATE
FROM events_source_1
GROUP BY VEHICLE_ID, EVENT_TYPE_ID, DEALER_ID, sysdate;
Here's the second step:
MERGE INTO EVENTS_TARGET tgt
USING (
SELECT ee.VEHICLE_ID VEHICLE_ID, ee.POTENTIAL_EVENT_TYPE_ID POTENTIAL_EVENT_TYPE_ID, ee.CLIENT_ID CLIENT_ID,ee.POTENTIAL_EVENT_DATE POTENTIAL_EVENT_DATE FROM EVENTS_SOURCE_2 ee WHERE ee.POTENTIAL_EVENT_DATE>SYSDATE) src
ON (tgt.vehicle_id = src.VEHICLE_ID AND tgt.client_id=src.client_id AND tgt.EVENT_TYPE_ID=src.POTENTIAL_EVENT_TYPE_ID)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET tgt.NEXT_EVENT_DATE=src.POTENTIAL_EVENT_DATE
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
insert (tgt.VEHICLE_ID,tgt.EVENT_TYPE_ID,tgt.CLIENT_ID,tgt.NEXT_EVENT_DATE,tgt.CREATED_DATE) VALUES (src.VEHICLE_ID, src.POTENTIAL_EVENT_TYPE_ID, src.CLIENT_ID, src.POTENTIAL_EVENT_DATE, SYSDATE)
;
I need to get the result of concatenating 2 similar querys' resulsets. For some reason had to split the original query in 2, both with their corresponding order by clause. Should be something like (this is an oversimplification of the original queries)
Query1: Select name, age from person where age=10
Resultset1:
Person1, 10
Person3, 10
Query2: Select name, age from person where age=20
Resultset1:
Person2, 20
Person6, 20
The expected result:
Person1, 10
Person3, 10
Person2, 20
Person6, 20
I can not simply use Query1 UNION Query2.
Below the 2 original querys:
(#1)
select cp.CP_ID, cpi.CI_DESCRIPCION, cp.CP_CODIGOJERARQUIZADO, cp.CP_ESGASTO as gasto, cp.CP_CONCEPTOPADRE, LEVEL
from TGCCP_ConceptoPagoIng cp
left join tgcci_ConceptoPagoIngIdioma cpi on cpi.CI_IDCONCEPTOPAGOING = cp.CP_ID and cpi.CI_IDIDIOMA = 1
start with ((CP_CONCEPTOPADRE is null) and (**cp.CP_ESGASTO = 1**))
connect by prior cp.CP_ID = cp.CP_CONCEPTOPADRE
order siblings by CP_CODIGOJERARQUIZADO
(#2)
select cp.CP_ID, cpi.CI_DESCRIPCION, cp.CP_CODIGOJERARQUIZADO, cp.CP_ESGASTO as gasto, cp.CP_CONCEPTOPADRE, LEVEL
from TGCCP_ConceptoPagoIng cp
left join tgcci_ConceptoPagoIngIdioma cpi on cpi.CI_IDCONCEPTOPAGOING = cp.CP_ID and cpi.CI_IDIDIOMA = 1
start with ((CP_CONCEPTOPADRE is null) and (**cp.CP_ESGASTO = 2**))
connect by prior cp.CP_ID = cp.CP_CONCEPTOPADRE
order siblings by CP_CODIGOJERARQUIZADO
I think you want a
select * from ( first query )
UNION ALL
select * from ( second query )
Where first query and second query are the queries from above, so you are turning them into subqueries, thus preserving the order by clauses.
OK, well, I'm not fully certain why you need it this way, but if Oracle won't allow you to do a UNION, or it screws up the ordering when you do, I would try creating a pipelined table function.
An example here
Basically, you'd create a procedure that ran both queries, first one, then the other, putting the results of each into the returned dataset.
It looks like you are looking for a MULTISET UNION. Which can only be used from version 10 upwards.
Regards,
Rob.
You could combine your queries as subqueries and do a single order by on the outer query:
select * from (
<query 1 with its order by>
UNION ALL
<query 2 with its order by>
)
order by column1, column2;
Alternatively, you can implement in PL/SQL the equivalent of a sort merge join with two cursors, but that's unnecessarily complicated.
this solution works perfectly:
select * from ( first query )
UNION ALL
select * from ( second query )
I appreciate everyone that have taken the time to answer.
regards.
For your example:
Select name, age from person where age in (10,20)
or
Select name, age from person where age = 10 or age = 20
However I'm guessing this is not what you need :)