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.
Related
my current problem is in 11g, but I am also interested in how this might be solved smarter in later versions.
I want to join two tables. Table A has 10 million rows, Table B is huge and has a billion of records across about a thousand partitions. One partition has around 10 million records. I am not joining on the partition key. For most rows of Table A, one or more rows in Table B will be found.
Example:
select * from table_a a
inner join table_b b on a.ref = b.ref
The above will return about 50 million rows, whereas the results come from about 30 partitions of table b. I am assuming a hash join is the correct join here, hashing table a and FTSing/index-scanning table b.
So, 970 partitions were scanned for no reason. And, I have a third query that could tell oracle which 30 partitions to check for the join.
Example of third query:
select partition_id from table_c
This query gives exactly the 30 partitions for the query above.
To my question:
In PL/SQL one can solve this by
select the 30 partition_ids into a variable (be it just a select listagg(partition_id,',') ... into v_partitions from table_c
Execute my query like so:
execute immediate 'select * from table_a a
inner join table_b b on a.ref = b.ref
where b.partition_id in ('||v_partitions||')' into ...
Let's say this completes in 10 minutes.
Now, how can I do this in the same amount of time with pure SQL?
Just simply writing
select * from table_a a
inner join table_b b on a.ref = b.ref
where b.partition_id in (select partition_id from table_c)
does not do the trick it seems, or I might be aiming at the wrong plan.
The plan I think I want is
hash join
table a
nested loop
table c
partition pruning here
table b
But, this does not come back in 10 minutes.
So, how to do this in SQL and what execution plan to aim at? One variation I have not tried yet that might be the solution is
nested loop
table c
hash join
table a
partition pruning here (pushed predicate from the join to c)
table b
Another feeling I have is that the solution might lie in joining table a to table c (not sure on what though) and then joining this result to table b.
I am not asking you to type everything out for me. Just a general concept of how to do this (getting partition restriction from a query) in SQL - what plan should I aim at?
thank you very much! Peter
I'm not an expert at this, but I think Oracle generally does the joins first, then applies the where conditions. So you might get the plan you want by moving the partition pruning up into a join condition:
select * from table_a a
inner join table_b b on a.ref = b.ref
and b.partition_id in (select partition_id from table_c);
I've also seen people try to do this sort of thing with an inline view:
select * from table_a a
inner join (select * from table_b
where partition_id in (select partition_id from table_c)) b
on a.ref = b.ref;
thank you all for your discussions with me on this one. In my case this was solved (not by me) by adding a join-path between table_c and table_a and by overloading the join conditions as below. In my case this was possible by adding column partition_id to table_a:
select * from
table_c c
JOIN table_a a ON (a.partition_id = c.partition_id)
JOIN table_b b ON (b.partition_id = c.partition_id and b.partition_id = a.partition_id and b.ref = a.ref)
And this is the plan you want:
leading(c,b,a) use_nl(c,b) swap_join_inputs(a) use_hash(a)
So you get:
hash join
table a
nested loop
table c
partition list iterator
table b
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 've got this problem:
I have a select statement, which is rather time consuming.
I have to join the result with itself.
I want to do something like this:
Select table1.*, table2.Consumption
from (heavy select statement) table1 left outer join
(same heavy statement) table2
on table1."id" = table2."id" and table1."Year" -1 = table2."Year"
I don't want to catch the same data 2 times. I would rather like to do something like table1 table2. Is this possible?
I need this for an application, which executes querys but isn't able to use create or something like this, otherwise i would store the data in a table.
You can use a common table expression (CTE) and materialize the results of the heavy select statement:
WITH heavy AS ( SELECT /*+ MATERIALIZE */ ... (heavy select statemenet) )
Select table1.*, table2.Consumption
from heavy table1 left outer join
heavy table2
on table1."id" = table2."id" and table1."Year" -1 = table2."Year"
I have this table F_Flight which I am trying to insert into from 3 different tables. The first, fourth and fifth columns are from the same, and the second and third columns from different tables. When I execute the code, I get a "single-row subquery returns more than one row" error.
insert when 1 = 1 then into F_Flight (planeid, groupid, dateid, flightduration, kmsflown) values
(planeid, (select b.groupid from BridgeTable b where exists (select p.p1id from pilotkeylookup p where b.pilotid = p.p1id)),
(select dd.id from D_Date dd where exists (select p.launchtime from PilotKeyLookup p where dd."Date" = p.launchtime)),
flightduration, kmsflown) select * from PilotKeyLookup p;
Your subqueries get multiple rows back, which is what the error message says. There is no correlation between the various bits of data and subqueries you're trying to insert into a single row.
This can be done as a much simpler insert...select with joins, something like:
insert into f_flight (planeid, groupid, dateid, flightduration, kmsflown)
select pkl.planeid, bt.groupid, dd.id, pkl.flightduration, pkl.kmsflown
from pilotkeylookup pkl
join bridgetable bt on bt.pilotid = pkl.p1id
join d_date dd on dd."Date" = pkl.launchtime;
This joins the main PilotKeyLookup table to the other two on the keys you used in your subqueries.
Storing an ID value instead of an actual date is unusual, and if launchtime has a time component - which seems likely from the name - and your d_date entries are just dates (i.e. all with time at midnight) then you won't find matches; you might need to do:
join d_date dd on dd."Date" = trunc(pkl.launchtime);
It also seems like this could be a view, as you're storing duplicate data - everything in f_flight could, obviously, be found from the other tables.
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