I'm using a subquery for a join operation. When I hard-code parameters, things work fine. But those parameters must come from outer sql which I believe is referred to as correlated query. I would like to pass them in using table aliases but this results in invalid identifier.
Example invented for the purpose of question:
SELECT
PR.PROVINCE_NAME
,CO.COUNTRY_NAME
FROM
PROVINCE PR
JOIN (
SELECT COUNTRY_ID, COUNTRY_NAME
FROM COUNTRY
WHERE COUNTRY_ID=PR.COUNTRY_ID
) CO ON CO.COUNTRY_ID=PR.COUNTRY_ID
WHERE
PR.PROVINCE_ID IN (1,2)
This is typed in, so I hope I haven't introduced any syntax issues here. The question is specifically about COUNTRY_ID=PR.COUNTRY_ID following the WHERE clause. Are aliases legal in such subqueries?
You are using the alias in two different locations. For one it is legal, for the other it is not:
SELECT pr.province_name, co.country_name
FROM province pr
JOIN (
SELECT country_id, country_name
FROM country
WHERE country_id = pr.country_id --<< this reference to the outer table/alias is invalid
) co ON co.country_id = pr.country_id -- this is valid
WHERE pr.province_id IN (1,2)
With a (standard) join to a derived table, the inner select can't access an alias or table from the outer select. The "invalid identifier" that you get is cause by the line WHERE country_id = pr.country_id.
Given your JOIN condition you can safely remove that without changing the result. And the Oracle optimizer is smart enough to push that condition into the derived table.
In fact the optimizer will rewrite the query to:
SELECT pr.province_name, co.country_name
FROM province pr
JOIN country co ON co.country_id = pr.country_id
WHERE pr.province_id IN (1,2);
There is however a way of accessing table (or aliases) from the outer query in a derived table: it's called a lateral join.
This is part of the SQL standard, but you need Oracle 12 in order to be able to use it:
The following is legal:
SELECT pr.province_name,co.country_name
FROM province pr
JOIN LATERAL (
SELECT country_id, country_name
FROM country
WHERE country_id = pr.country_id
) co ON co.country_id = pr.country_id
WHERE pr.province_id IN (1,2)
Related
I want to retrieve users name and there responsibility_key where there end_date is null and i want to convert it to (sysdate+1) using nvl but i am only able to retrieve the responsibility_key not the name please help.
The error in the image says "column ambiguously defined". Take a close look. Your last END_DATE could refer to either the u alias or the table from the subquery. Change it to match the rest of your subquery (FIND_USER_GROUPS_DIRECT.END_DATE)
EDIT
Your query is
select u.USER_NAME, d.responsibility_key from FND_USER u,FND_RESPONSIBILITY_VL d
where responsibility_id in(
select responsibility_id from
FND_USER_RESP_GROUPS_DIRECT WHERE END_USER_RESP_GROUPS_DIRECT.END_DATE=nvl(END_DATE,sysdate+1)) and
u.END_DATE=nvl(END_DATE,SYSDATE + 1)
;
The query isn't formatted, which makes it hard to read.
Not all columns are qualified with table name (or aliases), as mentioned in the comments.
The query currently uses an implicit join.
The query is impossible to understand without seeing the table definitions (desc [table_name]).
For points 1 and 2, a properly formatted query will look something like
select u.user_name, d.responsibility_key
from
fnd_user u,
fnd_responsibility_vl d
where
d.responsibility_id in (
select urgd.responsibility_id
from
fnd_user_resp_groups_direct urgd
where
urgd.end_date = nvl(u.end_date, sysdate+1)
) and
u.end_date = nvl(urgd.end_date, sysdate + 1)
;
This makes it easier to read and in addition to this, you can see that without table definitions I guessed (see point 4) as to which tables the end_date column belongs in your query. If I had to guess, so does Oracle. That means you have an ambiguity problem. To fix it, take a close look at the end_date column as it appears in your original query and where you do not prefix it with anything, you need to prefix it with the appropriate alias (after you have aliased all your tables).
For point 3, you can write your query more clearly with an explicit join and by using aliases for all columns. As for the explicit join I have no idea what your tables look like but one possibility is something like
select u.user_name, d.responsibility_key
from fnd_user u
join fnd_responsibility_vl d
on u.id = d.user_id
where
d.responsibility_id in (
select responsibility_id
from fnd_user_resp_groups_direct urgd
where
urgd.end_date = nvl(u.end_date, sysdate+1)
) and
u.end_date = nvl(urgd.end_date, sysdate+1)
;
If you follow these points you will get to the root of the error.
I was just wondering how you select multiple records from a table column. Please see below the query.
SELECT DISTINCT DEPARTMENT_NAME, CITY, COUNTRY_NAME
FROM OEHR_DEPARTMENTS
NATURAL JOIN OEHR_EMPLOYEES
NATURAL JOIN OEHR_LOCATIONS
NATURAL JOIN OEHR_COUNTRIES
WHERE JOB_ID = 'SA_MAN' AND JOB_ID = 'SA_REP'
;
Basically, I want to be able to select records from the table column I have, however when you use AND it only displays SA_MAN and not SA_REP. I have also tried to use OR and it displays no rows selected. How would I actually be able to select both Job ID's without it just displaying one or the other.
Sorry this may sound like a stupid question (and probably not worded right), but I am pretty new to Oracle 11g SQL.
For your own comfort while debugging, I suggest you to use inner joins instead of natual joins.
That where clause is confusing, if not utterly wrong, because you don't make clear which tables' JOB_ID should be filtered. Use inner joins, give aliases to tables, and refer to those aliases in the where clause.
select distinct DEPARTMENT_NAME, CITY, COUNTRY_NAME
from OEHR_DEPARTMENTS t1
join OEHR_EMPLOYEES t2
on ...
join OEHR_LOCATIONS t3
on ...
join OEHR_COUNTRIES t4
on ...
where tn.JOB_ID = 'SA_MAN' AND tm.JOB_ID = 'SA_REP'
After rephrasing your query somehow like this, you'll have a clearer view on the logical operator you'll have to use in the where clause, which I bet will be an OR.
EDIT (after more details were given)
To list the departments that employ staff with both 'SA_MAN' and 'SA_REP' job_id, you have to join the departments table with the employees twice, once with the filter job_id='SA_MAN' and once with job_id='SA_REP'
select distinct DEPARTMENT_NAME, CITY, COUNTRY_NAME
from OEHR_DEPARTMENTS t1
join OEHR_EMPLOYEES t2
on t1.department_id = t2.department_id --guessing column names
join OEHR_EMPLOYEES t3
on t1.department_id = t3.department_id --guessing column names
join OEHR_LOCATIONS t4
on t1.location_id = t4.location_id --guessing column names
join OEHR_COUNTRIES t5
on t4.country_id = t5.country_id --guessing column names
where t2.job_id = 'SA_MAN' and t3.job_id = 'SA_REP'
order by 1, 2, 3
I am wondering what determines the order of columns returned in a SQL query.
For example, SELECT * FROM SOMETABLE;
SQ_ID |BUS_TYPE |VOIP |LOCAL_PHONE
--------|-----------|---------|-------------
SQ000001|Business |Y |N
I am guessing the attribute COLUMN_ID determines this. In the case of a table join, for example, SELECT * FROM SOMETABLE LEFT JOIN OTHERTABLE USING (SOME_COL); how is the order now determine.
The order of columns in SELECT * FROM some_table is determined by the column_id of each column, as seen in USER_TAB_COLUMNS.
The order of columns in SELECT * FROM some_table JOIN other_table is all the columns for each table starting with the leftmost table after the FROM clause. In other words, this ...
SELECT * FROM some_table JOIN other_table
... is equivalent to this ...
SELECT some_table.*, other_table.* FROM some_table JOIN other_table
Changing that inner join to LEFT JOIN or RIGHT JOIN won't change the projection.
This is, of course, theoretical. We should never use select * in production code. Explicit column declarations, with table aliases when joining, are always safer. Apart from better expression of intent, explicit projections protect our code from future changes to the tables such as adding a LOB column or a column name which creates ambiguity with a joined table's column.
You can list the order of the colums in the Select statement:
SELECT SOME_COL, SOME_OTHER_COL
FROM SOMETABLE LEFT JOIN OTHERTABLE USING (SOME_COL)
But you also speak of the ID influencing the order and of ordering in general. So I think you could also be looking for ORDER BY to order the rows:
SELECT *
FROM SOMETABLE LEFT JOIN OTHERTABLE USING (SOME_COL)
ORDER BY SOME_COL
What also comes quite handy in this case is the use of aliases. Especally when both tables have coloums with the same name:
SELECT s.some_col, o.some_col
FROM SOMETABLE s LEFT JOIN OTHERTABLE o ON(o.id = s.id)
ORDER BY o.SOME_COL
I use the ON JOIN syntax in this case, because i find this more intuive when using aliases but it should also work with USING.
Recently I fixed the some bug: there was rownum in the join condition.
Something like this: left join t1 on t1.id=t2.id and rownum<2. So it was supposed to return only one row regardless of the “left join”.
When I looked further into this, I realized that I don’t understand how Oracle evaluates rownum in the "left join" condition.
Let’s create two sampe tables: master and detail.
create table MASTER
(
ID NUMBER not null,
NAME VARCHAR2(100)
)
;
alter table MASTER
add constraint PK_MASTER primary key (ID);
prompt Creating DETAIL...
create table DETAIL
(
ID NUMBER not null,
REF_MASTER_ID NUMBER,
NAME VARCHAR2(100)
)
;
alter table DETAIL
add constraint PK_DETAIL primary key (ID);
alter table DETAIL
add constraint FK_DETAIL_MASTER foreign key (REF_MASTER_ID)
references MASTER (ID);
prompt Disabling foreign key constraints for DETAIL...
alter table DETAIL disable constraint FK_DETAIL_MASTER;
prompt Loading MASTER...
insert into MASTER (ID, NAME)
values (1, 'First');
insert into MASTER (ID, NAME)
values (2, 'Second');
commit;
prompt 2 records loaded
prompt Loading DETAIL...
insert into DETAIL (ID, REF_MASTER_ID, NAME)
values (1, 1, 'REF_FIRST1');
insert into DETAIL (ID, REF_MASTER_ID, NAME)
values (2, 1, 'REF_FIRST2');
insert into DETAIL (ID, REF_MASTER_ID, NAME)
values (3, 1, 'REF_FIRST3');
commit;
prompt 3 records loaded
prompt Enabling foreign key constraints for DETAIL...
alter table DETAIL enable constraint FK_DETAIL_MASTER;
set feedback on
set define on
prompt Done.
Then we have this query :
select * from master t
left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id
The result set is predictable: we have all the rows from the master table and 3 rows from the detail table that matched this condition d.ref_master_id=t.id.
Result Set
Then I added “rownum=1” to the join condition and the result was the same
select * from master t
left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id and rownum=1
The most interesting thing is that I set “rownum<-666” and got the same result again!
select * from master t
left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id and rownum<-666.
Due to the result set we can say that this condition was evaluated as “True” for 3 rows in the detail table. But if I use “inner join” everything goes as supposed to be.
select * from master t
join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id and rownum<-666.
This query doesn’t return any row,because I can't imagine rownum to be less then -666 :-)
Moreover, if I use oracle syntax for outer join, using “(+)” everything goes well too.
select * from master m ,detail t
where m.id=t.ref_master_id(+) and rownum<-666.
This query doesn’t return any row too.
Can anyone tell me, what I misunderstand with outer join and rownum?
ROWNUM is a pseudo-attribute of result sets, not of base tables. ROWNUM is defined after rows are selected, but before they're sorted by an ORDER BY clause.
edit: I was mistaken in my previous writeup of ROWNUM, so here's new information:
You can use ROWNUM in a limited way in the WHERE clause, for testing if it's less than a positive integer only. See ROWNUM Pseudocolumn for more details.
SELECT ... WHERE ROWNUM < 10
It's not clear what value ROWNUM has in the context of a JOIN clause, so the results may be undefined. There seems to be some special-case handling of expressions with ROWNUM, for instance WHERE ROWNUM > 10 always returns false. I don't know how ROWNUM<-666 works in your JOIN clause, but it's not meaningful so I would not recommend using it.
In any case, this doesn't help you to fetch the first detail row for each given master row.
To solve this you can use analytic functions and PARTITION, and combine it with Common Table Expressions so you can access the row-number column in a further WHERE condition.
WITH numbered_cte AS (
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY t.id ORDER BY d.something) AS rn
FROM master t LEFT OUTER JOIN detail d ON d.ref_master_id = t.id
)
SELECT *
FROM numbered_cte
WHERE rn = 1;
if you want to get the first three values from the join condition change the select statement like this.
select *
from (select *
from master t left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id)
where rownum<3;
You will get the required output. Take care on unambigiously defined column names when using *
Let me give an absolute answer which u can run directly with out making any changes to the code.
select *
from (select t.id,t.name,d.id,d.ref_master_id,d.name
from master t left join detail d on d.ref_master_id=t.id)
where rownum<3;
A ROWNUM filter doesn't make any sense in a join, but it isn't being rejected as invalid.
The explain plan will either include the ROWNUM filter or exclude it. If it includes it, it will apply the filter to the detail table after applying the other join condition(s). So if you put in ROWNUM=100 (which will never be satisfied) all the detail rows are excluded and then the outer join kicks in.
If you put in ROWNUM=1 it seems to drop the filter.
And if you query
with
a as (select rownum a_val from dual connect by level < 10),
b as (select rownum*2 b_val from dual connect by level < 10)
select * from a left join b on a_val < b_val and rownum in (1,3);
you get something totally weird.
It probably should be rejected as an error, so expect nonsensical things to happen
select ma.TITLE,ma.ID as aid,ur.USER_ID
from LEO_MENU_ACTIVITY_RELATION mr
inner join LEO_MENU_MASTER mm on mm.ID=mr.MENU_ID
INNER join LEO_MENUACTIVITY ma on mr.ACTIVITY_ID=ma.ID
LEFT OUTER JOIN LEO_USER_RIGHTS ur on ma.ID=ur.MENU_RELATION_ID and ur.MENU_ID=mm.ID and ur.USER_ID='141'
where mm.ID='1'
UNION (SELECT
'List' as TITLE,
1 as ID,
case (WHEN ur.MENU_RELATION_ID=1 THEN NULL ELSE USER_ID END)as USER_ID
from
LEO_USER_RIGHTS)
In the UNION i want perform a conditional select like if ur.MENU_RELATION_ID=1 then the USER_ID should be selected as NULL otherwise the the original value from the 'LEO_USER_RIGHTS' table must be retrieved.
How can i do this ? Please help
Krishnik
If you want to combine in a UNION something based on the first table I think you can only do it by repeating the whole thing like this:
select ma.TITLE,ma.ID as aid,ur.USER_ID
from LEO_MENU_ACTIVITY_RELATION mr
inner join LEO_MENU_MASTER mm on mm.ID=mr.MENU_ID
INNER join LEO_MENUACTIVITY ma on mr.ACTIVITY_ID=ma.ID
LEFT OUTER JOIN LEO_USER_RIGHTS ur on ma.ID=ur.MENU_RELATION_ID and ur.MENU_ID=mm.ID and ur.USER_ID='141'
where mm.ID='1'
UNION (SELECT
'List' as TITLE,
1 as ID,
case (WHEN ur.MENU_RELATION_ID=1 THEN NULL ELSE USER_ID END)as USER_ID
from
LEO_MENU_ACTIVITY_RELATION mr
inner join LEO_MENU_MASTER mm on mm.ID=mr.MENU_ID
INNER join LEO_MENUACTIVITY ma on mr.ACTIVITY_ID=ma.ID
LEFT OUTER JOIN LEO_USER_RIGHTS ur on ma.ID=ur.MENU_RELATION_ID and ur.MENU_ID=mm.ID and ur.USER_ID='141'
where mm.ID='1'
)
If this is used often I would create a view to avoid duplicate code. In ORACLE (I do not know for other SQL dialects) there is a WITH statement enables you to make a sort of "temporary view".