My query
select kc.prod_id, kc.prod_actv_ts
from kit_cmpnt kc ,kit_cmpnt_stock kcs, prod p
where kc.cmpnt_cd='016'
and kcs.kit_cmpnt_nbr= kc.kit_cmpnt_nbr
and kcs.stock_id=1
and kcs.prod_id=kc.prod_id
and kcs.prod_actv_ts=kc.prod_actv_ts
and p.prod_id= kc.prod_id
and p.prod_actv_ts= kc.prod_actv_ts
and p.prod_inactv_ts is null;
I want to get a distinct combination of kc.prod_id, kc.prod_actv_ts
like distinct(kc.prod_id, kc.prod_actv_ts)
But what i am getting is a combination of repeated prod_id and prod_actv_ts
please help
I'd restructure the query as follows :
select kc.prod_id, kc.prod_actv_ts
from kit_cmpnt kc
where kc.cmpnt_cd='016'
and exists
(select 1 from kit_cmpnt_stock kcs
where kcs.stock_id=1
and kcs.kit_cmpnt_nbr= kc.kit_cmpnt_nbr
and kcs.prod_id=kc.prod_id
and kcs.prod_actv_ts=kc.prod_actv_ts)
and exists
(select 1 from prod p
where p.prod_id= kc.prod_id
and p.prod_actv_ts= kc.prod_actv_ts
and p.prod_inactv_ts is null);
General principle is that you shouldn't have something in the FROM clause unless you are taking something from it. If you aren't taking anything from it, it is a filter and should be in the WHERE clause as a subquery.
Try using select * to find the reason for the duplicates.
use distinct to filter unique combination...
eg..
select distinct(a,b,c) from table
where
some condition
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 have the following tables:
Table1:
user_name Url
Rahul www.cric.info.com
ranbir www.rogby.com
sahil www.google.com
banit www.yahoo.com
Table2:
Keyword category
cric sports
footbal sports
google search
I want to search Table1 by matching the keyword in Table2. I can perform the same using case statement and the query works but it is not the right approach because each time I have to add the case statement when I will add new search keyword.
select user_name from table1
case when url like '%cric%' then sports
else 'undefined'
end as category
from table1;
Thanks find the soluntions for this approach. FIrst we need to do the Join and after that we need to filter the record.
select user_name,url,Keyword,catagory from(select table1.user_name,table1.url ,table2.keyword,table2.catagory from table1 left outer join table2)a where a.url like (concat('%',a.phrase,'%')
Not sure about more current versions, but I've run into a similar problem... the primary issue is that Hive only supports equi-join statements... when you apply logic to either side of the join, it has difficulty translating into a Map Reduce function.
The alternative method, if you have a reliably structured field, is that you can create a matching key from the larger field. For example, if you know that you're looking for your keyword to exist in the second position of a dot-delimited URI, you could do something like:
select
Uri
, split(Uri, "\\.")[1] as matchKey
from
Table1
join Table2 on Table2.keyword = Table1.matchKey
;
I need a list of users in one database that are not listed as the new_user_id in another. There are 112,815 matching users in both databases; user_id is the key in all queries tables.
Query #1 works, and gives me 111,327 users who are NOT referenced as a new_user_Id. But it requires querying the same data twice.
-- 111,327 GSU users are NOT listed as a CSS new user
-- 1,488 GSU users ARE listed as a new user in CSS
--
select count(gup.user_id)
from gsu.user_profile gup
join (select cud.user_id, cud.new_user_id, cud.user_type_code
from css.user_desc cud) cudsubq
on gup.user_id = cudsubq.user_id
where gup.user_id not in (select cud.new_user_id
from css.user_desc cud
where cud.new_user_id is not null);
Query #2 would be perfect... and I'm actually surprised that it's syntactically accepted. But it gives me a result that makes no sense.
-- This gives me 1,505 users... I've checked, and they are not
-- referenced as new_user_ids in CSS, but I don't know why the ones
-- that were excluded were excluded.
--
-- Where are the missing 109,822, and whatexcluded them?
--
select count(gup.user_id)
from gsu.user_profile gup
join (select cud.user_id, cud.new_user_id, cud.user_type_code
from css.user_desc cud) cudsubq
on gup.user_id = cudsubq.user_id
where gup.user_id not in (cudsubq.new_user_id);
What exactly is the where clause in the second query doing, and why is it excluding 109,822 records from the results?
Note The above query is a simplification of what I'm really after. There are other/better ways to do the above queries... they're just representative of the part of the query that's giving me problems.
Read this: http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::NO::P11_QUESTION_ID:442029737684
For what I understand, your cudsubq.new_user_id can be NULL even though both tables are joined by user_id, so, you won't get results using the NOT IN operator when the subset contains NULL values . Consider the example in the article:
select * from dual where dummy not in ( NULL )
This returns no records. Try using the NOT EXISTS operator or just another kind of join. Here is a good source: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/10/a-visual-explanation-of-sql-joins.html
And what you need is the fourth example:
SELECT COUNT(descr.user_id)
FROM
user_profile prof
LEFT OUTER JOIN user_desc descr
ON prof.user_id = descr.user_id
WHERE descr.new_user_id IS NULL
OR descr.new_user_id != prof.user_id
Second query is semantically different. In this case
where gup.user_id not in (cudsubq.new_user_id)
cudsubq.new_user_id is treated as expression (doc: IN condition), not as a subquery, thus the whole clause is basically equivalent to
where gup.user_id != cudsubq.new_user_id
So, in your first query, you're literally asking "show me all users in GUP, who also have entries in CSS and their GUP.ID is not matching ANY NOT NULL NEW_ID in CSS ".
However, the second query is "show me all users in GUP, who also have entries in CSS and their GUP.ID is not equal to their RESPECTIVE NULLABLE (no is not null clause, remember?) CSS.NEW_ID value".
And any (not) in (or equality/inequality) checks with nulls don't actually work.
12:07:54 SYSTEM#oars_sandbox> select * from dual where 1 not in (null, 2, 3, 4);
no rows selected
Elapsed: 00:00:00.00
This is where you lose your rows. I would probably rewrite your second query's where clause as
where cudsubq.new_user_id is null, assuming that non-matching users have null new_user_id.
Your second select compares gup.user_id with cud.new_user_id on current joining record. You can rewrite the query to get the same result
select count(gup.user_id)
from gsu.user_profile gup
join (select cud.user_id, cud.new_user_id, cud.user_type_code
from css.user_desc cud) cudsubq
on gup.user_id = cudsubq.user_id
where gup.user_id != cud.new_user_id or cud.new_user_id is null;
You mentioned you compare list of user in one database with a list of users in another. So you need to query data twice and you don't query the same data. Maybe you can use "minus" operator to avoid using "in"
select count(gup.user_id)
from gsu.user_profile gup
join (select cud.user_id from css.user_desc cud
minus
select cud.new_user_id from css.user_desc cud) cudsubq
on gup.user_id = cudsubq.user_id;
You want new_user_id's from table gup that don't match any new_user_id on table cud, right? It sounds like a job for a left join:
SELECT count(gup.user_id)
FROM gsu.user_profile gup LEFT JOIN css.user_desc cud
ON gup.user_id = cud.new_user_id
WHERE cud.new_user_id is NULL
The join keeps all rows of gup, matching them with a new_user_id if possible. The WHERE condition keeps only the rows that have no matching row in cud.
(Apologies if you know this already and you're only interested in the behavior of the not in query)
I have following query:
select id,
c1,
c2,
c3
from tbl t1
join
(select id
from tbl t2
where upper(replace(c5, ' ', '')) like upper(?)
) j
on j.id = t1.id
? is some wildcard parameter string like %test%.
c5 column has index on the function used to access it:
create index tbl_c5_idx on tbl(upper(replace(c5, ' ', '')))
When I run just inner query it uses tbl_c5_idx, however when I run the whole query it turns into full table scan which is much slower.
Are there any way to avoid full table scans? Hints or rewrite join condition. I can not rewrite whole query as inner query is constructed dynamically depending on the input conditions.
A very basic example to test your functionality
create table test(id number,value varchar2(200));
insert into test values(1,'gaurav is bad guy');
insert into test values(2,'gaurav is good guy');
SELECT *
FROM test
WHERE UPPER (REPLACE (VALUE, ' ', '')) LIKE UPPER ('%gauravisbad%');
before creating index this is doing a full table scan for obvious reason ,because no index get created.
create index tbl_c5_idx on test(upper(replace(value, ' ', '')));
The reason why i am asking you to avoid inner join on the same table because you're using the table twice once to get your records from your filter condition where your index are used and then join on the basis of id which is preventing of using index ,because you dont have index on id column,this can be done with a simple filter condition.
Please let me know if you're again finding out the same issue of full table scan ,or you're not getting the same result from this query .
if you're running the subquery only, it doesn't use the id column in the filters the way the parent query does, therefore the index can be used. In the parent query you are using the id as well, which prevents the index from being used. Maybe adding an index on (id, upper(replace(c5, ' ', ''))) would solve the problem.
Gaurav Soni is right: you don't need a subquery to achieve your goal.
always check performances rather than the explain plan. Performances might just be worst with your hint than without. Oracle is NOT stupid.
Seems I found solution, or at least a thing that helps.
I used index hint, so access is done with tbl_c5_idx.
That is how final query looks now:
select /*+ index(t1) */ id,
c1,
c2,
c3
from tbl t1
join
(select id
from tbl t2
where upper(replace(c5, ' ', '')) like upper(?)
) j
on j.id = t1.id
The RIGHT JOIN on this query causes a TABLE ACCESS FULL on lims.operator. A regular join runs quickly, but of course, the samples 'WHERE authorised_by IS NULL' do not show up.
Is there a more efficient alternative to a RIGHT JOIN in this case?
SELECT full_name
FROM (SELECT operator_id AS authorised_by, full_name
FROM lims.operator)
RIGHT JOIN (SELECT sample_id, authorised_by
FROM lims.sample
WHERE sample_template_id = 200)
USING (authorised_by)
NOTE: All columns shown (except full_name) are indexed and the primary key of some table.
Since you're doing an outer join, it could easily be that it actually is more efficient to do a full table scan rather than use the index.
If you are convinced the index should be used, force it with a hint:
SELECT /*+ INDEX (lims.operator operator_index_name)*/ ...
then see what happens...
No need to nest queries. Try this:
select s.full_name
from lims.operator o, lims.sample s
where o.operator_id = s.authorised_by(+)
and s.sample_template_id = 200
I didn't write sql for oracle since a while, but i would write the query like this:
SELECT lims.operator.full_name
FROM lims.operator
RIGHT JOIN lims.sample
on lims.operator.operator_id = lims.sample.authorized_by
and sample_template_id = 200
Does this still perform that bad?