I would like the resultset that consists of the union of queries performed based on each row of an outer SELECT query. How do I do this?
As an example:
create table Person
(
Id int,
Age int
)
create table Movie
(
Id int,
Title varchar(500),
AgeRestriction int
)
I would like a resultset that shows me, for every person, which movies that person would be allowed to watch.
UPDATE: Ok, so as it turns out there is no "equivalent" of SelectMany in TSQL since the model is completely different, as the author of the correct answer has pointed out an inner join will do the job just fine.
Your question is pretty unclear but it sounds like you might want CROSS APPLY
Random Example
SELECT DISTINCT ca.* /*DISTINCT for UNION semantics*/
FROM master..spt_values v
CROSS APPLY (SELECT TOP 2 *
FROM sys.columns c
WHERE c.name > v.name
ORDER BY c.name) ca
Edit. Following clarification you just need a JOIN
SELECT P.Id,
M.Title
FROM Person P
JOIN Movie M
ON M.AgeRestriction <= P.Age
Related
How can I simplify this query?
What I am trying to do is derive the column S9_Unlock via a subquery in which I only look for user_ids which are returned from the main query but this looks very awkward to me, especially as this query here is just an excerpt. In reality I am doing multiple of these subqueries to derive different columns...
SELECT userid, CAST(to_char(S9_unlock,'YYYY/MM/DD') AS timestamp) AS "S9_Unlock"
FROM (
SELECT ca.user_id AS userid
FROM shop_db.invoices AS inv
LEFT JOIN shop_db.carts AS ca ON inv.id = ca.invoice_id
LEFT JOIN shop_db.cart_items AS ci ON ca.id = ci.cart_id
WHERE (inv.created BETWEEN '2014-11-13' AND '2014-11-14' OR inv.created BETWEEN '2013-11-14' AND '2013-11-15')
AND inv.status <> 'do_not_book'
AND inv.id IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY user_id) AS master
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT MIN(s3.unl) AS "S9_Unlock", s3.user_id
FROM (
SELECT user_id, challenge_codes.created AS unl,
MAX /* Check if license contains Suite9 */
(CASE WHEN substring(bundle_article_code,1,6) = 'BuSu90' THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS "S9_Unlock"
FROM licensing_db.serial_numbers
LEFT JOIN licensing_db.licenses ON licenses.id = serial_numbers.license_id
LEFT JOIN user_db.users ON users.id = licenses.user_id
LEFT JOIN licensing_db.challenge_codes ON challenge_codes.serial_number_id = serial_numbers.id
WHERE user_id IN (
SELECT ca.user_id AS userid
FROM shop_db.invoices AS inv
LEFT JOIN shop_db.carts AS ca ON inv.id = ca.invoice_id
LEFT JOIN shop_db.cart_items AS ci ON ca.id = ci.cart_id
WHERE (inv.created BETWEEN '2014-11-13' AND '2014-11-14' OR inv.created BETWEEN '2013-11-14' AND '2013-11-15')
AND inv.status <> 'do_not_book'
AND inv.id IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY user_id
)
GROUP BY user_id, challenge_codes.created) AS s3
)
WHERE "S9_Unlock" = 1
AND s3.unl IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY s3.user_id) AS "S9_Unlock" ON "S9_Unlock".user_id = master.userid
In your query you have two sub-queries that are identical; this screams for a CTE.
In the sub-query on licensing issues you can filter out the valid licenses after the GROUP BY clause using a HAVING clause. Make that a WITH QUERY too and you end up with the rather more readable:
WITH inv AS (
SELECT ca.user_id AS userid
FROM shop_db.invoices AS inv
LEFT JOIN shop_db.carts AS ca ON ca.invoice_id = inv.id
LEFT JOIN shop_db.cart_items AS ci ON ci.cart_id = ca.id
WHERE (inv.created BETWEEN '2014-11-13' AND '2014-11-14' OR inv.created BETWEEN '2013-11-14' AND '2013-11-15')
AND inv.status <> 'do_not_book'
AND inv.id IS NOT NULL
), s3 AS (
SELECT u.user_id, min(cc.created) AS first_unlocked, bundle_article_code
FROM licensing_db.serial_numbers AS sn
LEFT JOIN licensing_db.licenses AS lic ON lic.id = sn.license_id
LEFT JOIN user_db.users AS u ON u.id = lic.user_id
LEFT JOIN licensing_db.challenge_codes AS cc ON cc.serial_number_id = sn.id
WHERE u.user_id IN (SELECT userid FROM inv)
GROUP BY u.user_id, bundle_article_code
HAVING bundle_article_code LIKE 'BuSu90%'
AND first_unlocked IS NOT NULL
)
SELECT userid, date_trunc('day', first_unlocked) AS "S9_Unlock"
FROM inv
LEFT JOIN s3 ON s3.user_id = inv.userid;
So the main query is now reduced to 3 lines and both the WITH-QUERY's perform a logically self-contained query of the database. The other sub-queries you refer to can similarly become a WITH-QUERY and then you assemble them in the main query. Remember that you can refer to earlier named queries in the list of with-queries, as is shown above with inv being referred to by s3. While such CTE's are syntactically not providing new functionality (except for the RECURSIVE variant), they do make complex queries much more readable and therefore easier to maintain.
Another approach would be to factor out logical sub-components (such as the inv sub-query) and make a VIEW out of those. Then you can simply reference the view in the main query. Making the whole thing a view is probably also a good idea if you want to make the query more flexible. What if you want to query for Suite9.1 ('BuSu91%') on 27 March 2014? Taken those literals out and then using them as WHERE clauses in a view makes your query more versatile; this can be either with sub-queries or with the complete CTE.
(Please check if the semantics are still right in the s3 with-query because without your table structures and sample data I ccannot test my code above.)
Instead of solving your problem as one big monolithic relational sql query, I would seriously consider going the "procedural" way, by using the built-in "plpgsql" language of postgresql. This could bring a lot of clarity in your application.
I have a table something like this:
ID|Value
01|1
02|4
03|12
01|5
02|14
03|22
01|9
02|32
02|62
01|13
03|92
I want to know how much progress have each id made (from initial or minimal value)
so in sybase I can type:
select ID, (value-min(value)) from table group by id;
ID|Value
01|0
01|4
01|8
01|12
02|0
02|10
02|28
02|58
03|0
03|10
03|80
But monetdb does not support this (I am not sure may be cz it uses SQL'99).
Group by only gives one column or may be average of other values but not the desired result.
Are there any alternative to group by in monetdb?
You can achieve this with a self join. The idea is that you build a subselect that gives you the minimum value for each id, and then join that to the original table by id.
SELECT a.id, a.value-b.min_value
FROM "table" a INNER JOIN
(SELECT id, MIN(value) AS min_value FROM "table" GROUP BY id) AS b
ON a.id = b.id;
chaps and chapettes
Just a quick question. I need to return only one row from a stored proc., but no matter where I place the WHERE clause, I get errors. Can somebody take a look at the (cut-down due to sheer length) code and let me know where it should go, please?
SELECT **values**
INTO **variables**
FROM **table**
_WHERE ROWNUM = 1_
INNER JOIN **other table**
ON **join target**
ORDER BY **sort criteria**;
_WHERE ROWNUM = 1_
Thanks
I believe this is the way to structure rownum queries
SELECT * FROM
INTO **Variables * *
( SELECT * FROM X
WHERE Y
ORDER BY Z
)
WHERE ROWNUM = 1;
You were almost correct. You put the WHERE clause after the JOINs, but before the ORDER BY.
SELECT **values**
INTO **variables**
FROM **table**
INNER JOIN **other table**
ON **join target**
_WHERE ROWNUM = 1_
ORDER BY **sort criteria**;
However, this won't do what you might think - the ORDER BY is evaluated AFTER the where clause; which means this will just pick the first record it finds (that satisfies the join criteria), and will then sort that row (which obviously is a no-op).
The other answers (e.g. IvoTops') give ideas of how to get the first record according to the sort criteria.
SELECT **values**
INTO **variables**
FROM
( SELECT **values**
, ROW_MUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY **sort criteria**) AS rn
FROM **table**
INNER JOIN **other table**
ON **join target**
) tmp
WHERE rn = 1 ;
Check also this blog post: Oracle: ROW_NUMBER() vs ROWNUM
little bit late, but I got a similar problem and I solved it like this:
SELECT **values**
INTO **variables**
FROM **table**
WHERE **condition**
ORDER BY **sort criteria**
FETCH FIRST 1 ROW ONLY;
Regards
I have one table, 'a', with id and timestamp. Another table, 'b', has N multiple rows referring to id, and each row has 'type', and "some other data".
I want a LINQ query to produce a single row with id, timestamp, and "some other data" x N. Like this:
1 | 4671 | 46.5 | 56.5
where 46.5 is from one row of 'b', and 56.5 is from another row; both with the same id.
I have a working query in SQLite, but I am new to LINQ. I dont know where to start - I don't think this is a JOIN at all.
SELECT
a.id as id,
a.seconds,
COALESCE(
(SELECT b.some_data FROM
b WHERE
b.id=a.id AND b.type=1), '') AS 'data_one',
COALESCE(
(SELECT b.some_data FROM
b WHERE
b.id=a.id AND b.type=2), '') AS 'data_two'
FROM a first
WHERE first.id=1
GROUP BY first.ID
you didn't mention if you are using Linq to sql or linq to entities. However following query should get u there
(from x in a
join y in b on x.id equals y.id
select new{x.id, x.seconds, y.some_data, y.type}).GroupBy(x=>new{x.id,x.seconds}).
Select(x=>new{
id = x.key.id,
seconds = x.Key.seconds,
data_one = x.Where(z=>z.type == 1).Select(g=>g.some_data).FirstOrDefault(),
data_two = x.Where(z=>z.type == 2).Select(g=>g.some_data).FirstOrDefault()
});
Obviously, you have to prefix your table names with datacontext or Objectcontext depending upon the underlying provider.
What you want to do is similar to pivoting, see Is it possible to Pivot data using LINQ?. The difference here is that you don't really need to aggregate (like a standard pivot), so you'll need to use Max or some similar method that can simulate selecting a single varchar field.
If I use a join, the Include() method is no longer working, eg:
from e in dc.Entities.Include("Properties")
join i in dc.Items on e.ID equals i.Member.ID
where (i.Collection.ID == collectionID)
select e
e.Properties is not loaded
Without the join, the Include() works
Lee
UPDATE: Actually I recently added another Tip that covers this, and provides an alternate probably better solution. The idea is to delay the use of Include() until the end of the query, see this for more information: Tip 22 - How to make include really include
There is known limitation in the Entity Framework when using Include().
Certain operations are just not supported with Include.
Looks like you may have run into one on those limitations, to work around this you should try something like this:
var results =
from e in dc.Entities //Notice no include
join i in dc.Items on e.ID equals i.Member.ID
where (i.Collection.ID == collectionID)
select new {Entity = e, Properties = e.Properties};
This will bring back the Properties, and if the relationship between entity and Properties is a one to many (but not a many to many) you will find that each resulting anonymous type has the same values in:
anonType.Entity.Properties
anonType.Properties
This is a side-effect of a feature in the Entity Framework called relationship fixup.
See this Tip 1 in my EF Tips series for more information.
Try this:
var query = (ObjectQuery<Entities>)(from e in dc.Entities
join i in dc.Items on e.ID equals i.Member.ID
where (i.Collection.ID == collectionID)
select e)
return query.Include("Properties")
So what is the name of the navigation property on "Entity" which relates to "Item.Member" (i.e., is the other end of the navigation). You should be using this instead of the join. For example, if "entity" add a property called Member with the cardinality of 1 and Member had a property called Items with a cardinality of many, you could do this:
from e in dc.Entities.Include("Properties")
where e.Member.Items.Any(i => i.Collection.ID == collectionID)
select e
I'm guessing at the properties of your model here, but this should give you the general idea. In most cases, using join in LINQ to Entities is wrong, because it suggests that either your navigational properties are not set up correctly, or you are not using them.
So, I realise I am late to the party here, however I thought I'd add my findings. This should really be a comment on Alex James's post, but as I don't have the reputation it'll have to go here.
So my answer is: it doesn't seem to work at all as you would intend. Alex James gives two interesting solutions, however if you try them and check the SQL, it's horrible.
The example I was working on is:
var theRelease = from release in context.Releases
where release.Name == "Hello World"
select release;
var allProductionVersions = from prodVer in context.ProductionVersions
where prodVer.Status == 1
select prodVer;
var combined = (from release in theRelease
join p in allProductionVersions on release.Id equals p.ReleaseID
select release).Include(release => release.ProductionVersions);
var allProductionsForChosenRelease = combined.ToList();
This follows the simpler of the two examples. Without the include it produces the perfectly respectable sql:
SELECT
[Extent1].[Id] AS [Id],
[Extent1].[Name] AS [Name]
FROM [dbo].[Releases] AS [Extent1]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [Extent2] ON [Extent1].[Id] = [Extent2].[ReleaseID]
WHERE ('Hello World' = [Extent1].[Name]) AND (1 = [Extent2].[Status])
But with, OMG:
SELECT
[Project1].[Id1] AS [Id],
[Project1].[Id] AS [Id1],
[Project1].[Name] AS [Name],
[Project1].[C1] AS [C1],
[Project1].[Id2] AS [Id2],
[Project1].[Status] AS [Status],
[Project1].[ReleaseID] AS [ReleaseID]
FROM ( SELECT
[Extent1].[Id] AS [Id],
[Extent1].[Name] AS [Name],
[Extent2].[Id] AS [Id1],
[Extent3].[Id] AS [Id2],
[Extent3].[Status] AS [Status],
[Extent3].[ReleaseID] AS [ReleaseID],
CASE WHEN ([Extent3].[Id] IS NULL) THEN CAST(NULL AS int) ELSE 1 END AS [C1]
FROM [dbo].[Releases] AS [Extent1]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [Extent2] ON [Extent1].[Id] = [Extent2].[ReleaseID]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [Extent3] ON [Extent1].[Id] = [Extent3].[ReleaseID]
WHERE ('Hello World' = [Extent1].[Name]) AND (1 = [Extent2].[Status])
) AS [Project1]
ORDER BY [Project1].[Id1] ASC, [Project1].[Id] ASC, [Project1].[C1] ASC
Total garbage. The key point to note here is the fact that it returns the outer joined version of the table which has not been limited by status=1.
This results in the WRONG data being returned:
Id Id1 Name C1 Id2 Status ReleaseID
2 1 Hello World 1 1 2 1
2 1 Hello World 1 2 1 1
Note that the status of 2 is being returned there, despite our restriction. It simply does not work.
If I have gone wrong somewhere, I would be delighted to find out, as this is making a mockery of Linq. I love the idea, but the execution doesn't seem to be usable at the moment.
Out of curiosity, I tried the LinqToSQL dbml rather than the LinqToEntities edmx that produced the mess above:
SELECT [t0].[Id], [t0].[Name], [t2].[Id] AS [Id2], [t2].[Status], [t2].[ReleaseID], (
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [t3]
WHERE [t3].[ReleaseID] = [t0].[Id]
) AS [value]
FROM [dbo].[Releases] AS [t0]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [t1] ON [t0].[Id] = [t1].[ReleaseID]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [t2] ON [t2].[ReleaseID] = [t0].[Id]
WHERE ([t0].[Name] = #p0) AND ([t1].[Status] = #p1)
ORDER BY [t0].[Id], [t1].[Id], [t2].[Id]
Slightly more compact - weird count clause, but overall same total FAIL.
Has anybody actually ever used this stuff in a real business application? I'm really starting to wonder...
Please tell me I've missed something obvious, as I really want to like Linq!
Try the more verbose way to do more or less the same thing obtain the same results, but with more datacalls:
var mydata = from e in dc.Entities
join i in dc.Items
on e.ID equals i.Member.ID
where (i.Collection.ID == collectionID)
select e;
foreach (Entity ent in mydata) {
if(!ent.Properties.IsLoaded) { ent.Properties.Load(); }
}
Do you still get the same (unexpected) result?
EDIT: Changed the first sentence, as it was incorrect. Thanks for the pointer comment!