I have a list of selected accounts and a table of account records (may or may not be in the selected list) across 40 months. I am able to select all the selected accounts that appear at least once in the table, but I also want to see which accounts appear in all 40 months. Like, I am hoping to do something similar to out join partition by except I want a smaller set of the data.
How can I do that? Thank you!
example:
select distinct table1.acct_no
from table1
inner join selectedAcct
on table1.acct_no = selectedAcct.acct_no
Something lik (not compiled/tested):
with acct_month_list as
(
-- get list of accts/months with missing months
-- as null
select distinct a.acctno, m.monno
from acctrecs a, mons m
where m.monno = a.monno(+)
)
select a2.acctno
from accounts a2
where not exists ( -- any accounst with a null monno have a missing
-- month
select null
from acct_month_list al
where al.acctno = a2.acctno
and a1.monno is null )
and exists ( -- ignore ones that have no records at all
select null
from acctrecs ar
where ar.acctno = a2.acctno )
Related
I have two tables on Oracle database, one is named departments_table and the other is locations_table. The departments.table has dep_id, dep_name, location_id, staff_id, employer_id. The locations table consists of location_id, city_id, streetname_id and postcode_id. How do I calculate the number of departments that each location has?
This is the code below is what I have tried to replicate but have been unsuccessful. The error message below that is what shows once the code has submitted.
SELECT dep_name, location_id,
COUNT(*)
FROM departments_table
WHERE location_id => 1
GROUP BY dep_name;
The results of this is an error, " not a single group function "
If you want to count how many departments are in each location, then you must group by location, not by department name, right? Let's start with that.
Then, you don't need ANYTHING about the individual departments in the output of the query, do you? You just need the location id and the count of departments.
select location_id, count(*) as cnt
from departments_table
group by location_id
;
This does most of the work. You may want to add the location name (city, address, etc.), which is/are stored elsewhere - in the locations_table. So you will need a join. And there may be locations in that table that are not, in fact, the location of any department (their id doesn't appear in the departments_table at all). If so, you would need an OUTER join. Also for those departments you probably want to show a count of 0 (rather than null) - you can "fix" that with the nvl() function. So you will end up with something like
select l.*, nvl(g.cnt, 0) as department_count
from locations_table l
left outer join
( select location_id, count(*) as cnt
from departments_table
group by location_id
) g
on l.location_id = g.location_id
;
SELECT l.location_id, l.city, COUNT(d.DEPARTMENT_ID)
FROM OEHR_LOCATIONS l, OEHR_DEPARTMENTS d WHERE l.location_id = d.location_id
GROUP BY l.location_id, l.city ORDER BY l.city;
This method works. I created aliases and made minor changes. OEHR stands for the table names so ignore that.
I have an oracle query that uses a created table as part of the code. Every time I need to run a report I delete current data and import the new data I receive. This is one column of id's. I need to create a report on SSRS in which the user can input this data into said table as a parameter. I have designed a simple report that they can enter some of the id's into a parameter, but there may be times when they need to enter in a few thousand id's, and the report already runs long. Here is what the SSRS code currently says:
select distinct n.id, n.notes
from notes n
join (
select max(seq_num) as seqnum, id from notes group by id) maxresults
on n.id = maxresults.ID
where n.seq_num = maxresults.seqnum
and n.id in (#MyParam)
Is there a way to have MyParam insert data into a table I would join called My_ID, joining as Join My_Id id on n.id = id.id
I do not have permissions to create functions or procedures in the database.
Thank you
You may try the trick with MATERIALIZE hint which normally forces Oracle to create a temporary table :
WITH cte1 AS
( SELECT /*+ MATERIALIZE */ 1 as id FROM DUAL
UNION ALL
SELECT 2 DUAL
)
SELECT a.*
FROM table1 a
INNER JOIN cte1 b ON b.id = a.id
I'm an SQL newbie using VB6/Access 2000 and am trying to get a query which puts the sum of values from a table into another table.
VB6 does the job, but it's so slow.
I searched and tried in Access many times, just got lost with keywords IN, ON, (INNER) JOIN, each time getting a different error.
The core code should be as follows:
update t1
set t1.value = sum(t2.value)
where
val(t2.code)>89
and
t2.date=t1.date
t1.date is a date, no duplicates
t2.code is a variable string like '0081', '090'
values are single precision
After further searching i found a similar question here ( http://goo.gl/uqlw0U ) and tried that:
UPDATE t1
SET t1.value =
(
SELECT
SUM(t2.value)
FROM spese
WHERE
t1.date=t2.date
AND
val(t2.code)>89
)
but Access just says "updatable query needed" -- what does that mean?
Try this:
UPDATE t1
SET t1.value = SUM(t2.value)
FROM t1, t2
WHERE
val(t2.code)>89
AND
t2.date=t1.date
Think of my two tables have the same columns. One column is the ID, and the other one is the text. Is it possible to implement the following pseudo code in PLSQL?
Compare each row (They will have the same ID)
If anything is different about them
Run a couple of queries: an Update, and an Insert
ElseIf they are the same
Do nothing
Else the row does not exist
So add the row to the table compared on
Is it easy to do this using PLSQL or should I create a standalone application to do do this logic.
As your table have the same columns, by using NATURAL JOIN you can easily check if two corresponding rows are identical -- without need to update your code if a column is added to your table.
In addition, using OUTER JOIN allow you to find the rows present in one table but not in the other.
So, you can use something like that to achieve your purpose:
for rec in (
SELECT T.ID ID1,
U.ID ID2,
V.EQ
FROM T
FULL OUTER JOIN U ON T.ID = U.ID
FULL OUTER JOIN (SELECT ID, 1 EQ FROM T NATURAL JOIN U) V ON U.ID = V.ID)
loop
if rec.id1 is null
then
-- row in U but not in T
elsif rec.id2 is null
then
-- row in T but not in U
elsif rec.eq is null
-- row present in both tables
-- but content mismatch
end if
end loop
Else the row does not exist
So add the row to the table compared on
Is this condition means that rows can be missed in both tables? If only in one, then:
insert into t1 (id, text)
select id, text
from t2
minus
select id, text
from t1;
If missed records can be in both tables, you need the same query that inserts into table t2 rows from t1.
If anything is different about them
If you need one action for any amount of different rows, then use something like this:
select count(*)
into a
from t1, t2
where t1.id = t2.id and t1.text <> t2.text;
if a > 0 then
...
otherwise:
for i in (
select *
from t1, t2
where t1.id = t2.id and t1.text <> t2.text) loop
<do something>
end loop;
A 'merge' statement is what u needed.
Here is the syntax:
MERGE INTO TARGET_TABLE
USING SOURCE_TABLE
ON (CONDITION)
WHEN MATCHED THEN
UPDATE SET (DO YOUR UPDATES)
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
(INSERT YOUR NEW ROWS)
Google MERGE syntax for more about the statement.
Just use MINUS.
query_1
MINUS
query_2
In your case, if you really want to use PL/SQL, then select count into a local variable. Write a logic, if count > 0 then do other stuff.
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