I am trying to use FULLTEXT search as a preliminary filter before fetching data from another table. Consecutive JOINs follow to further refine the query and to mix-and-match rows (in reality there are up to 6 JOINs of the main table).
The first "filter" returns the IDs of the rows that are useful, so after joining I have a subset to continue with. My issue is performance, however, and my lack of understanding of how the SQL query is executed in SQLite.
SELECT *
FROM mytbl AS t1
JOIN
(SELECT someid
FROM myftstbl
WHERE
myftstbl MATCH 'MATCHME') AS prior
ON
t1.someid = prior.someid
AND t1.othercol = 'somevalue'
JOIN mytbl AS t2
ON
t2.someid = prior.someid
/* Or is this faster? t2.someid = t1.someid */
My thought process for the query above is that first, we retrieve the matched IDs from the myftstbl table and use those to JOIN on the main table t1 to get a sub-selection. Then we again JOIN a duplicate of the main table as t2. The part that I am unsure of is which approach would be faster: using the IDs from the matches, or from t2?
In other words: when I refer to t1.someid inside the second JOIN, does that contain only the someids after the first JOIN (so only those at the intersection of prior and those for which t1.othercol = 'somevalue) OR does it contain all the original someids of the whole original table?
You can assume that all columns are indexed. In fact, when I use one or the other approach, I find with EXPLAIN QUERY PLAN that different indices are being used for each query. So there must be a difference between the two.
The query should be simplified to
SELECT *
FROM mytbl AS t1
JOIN myftstbl USING (someid) -- or ON t1.someid = myftstbl.someid
JOIN mytbl AS t2 USING (someid) -- or ON t1.someid = t2.someid
WHERE myftstbl.{???} MATCH 'MATCHME' -- replace {???} with correct column name
AND t1.othercol = 'somevalue'
PS. The query logic is not clear for me, so it is saved as-is.
This is the query i am running:
select /*+ index(V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS.orders.T0 IDX_ORDER_VERSION_3) */ *
from V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS
where EXCHANGE_SK = 32 and PRODUCT_SK = 1000169
And it uses a different index than the one i am ordering it to.
As you can see, I am querying from the view V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS, you can see its sql query here:
V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS view SQL Query:
SELECT AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.AMV_PLG_GET_SEGMENT(200, orders.ORDER_GLOBAL_DATE_TIME) AS ORDER_DATE_TIME,
SUM(orders.BASE_VOLUME) AS VOLUME,
SUM(orders.BASE_CURR_LIMIT_PRICE*orders.BASE_VOLUME)/SUM(orders.BASE_VOLUME) AS PRICE,
orders.PRODUCT_SK AS PRODUCT_SK,
orders.EXCHANGE_SK AS EXCHANGE_SK,
orders.DIRECTION_CD AS DIRECTION_CD,
orders.AGG_UNIT_CD AS AGG_UNIT_CD,
orders.TRADER_KEY AS EXECUTING_REPRESENTATIVE_KEY,
orders.ACCOUNT_KEY AS ACCOUNT_KEY,
a.BUSINESS_UNIT_CD AS BUSINESS_UNIT_CD
FROM AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.S_AMV_ORDER_VERSION_NEW orders
INNER JOIN AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.S_AMV_ACCOUNT a
ON a.ACCOUNT_KEY = orders.ACCOUNT_KEY
WHERE BASE_VOLUME > 0
GROUP BY AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.AMV_PLG_GET_SEGMENT(200, orders.ORDER_GLOBAL_DATE_TIME),
orders.PRODUCT_SK,
orders.EXCHANGE_SK,
orders.ACCOUNT_KEY,
a.BUSINESS_UNIT_CD,
orders.AGG_UNIT_CD,
orders.TRADER_KEY,
orders.DIRECTION_CD;
He is getting the data using the Synonym S_AMV_ORDER_VERSION_NEW, Which directs to another Scheme, to a view called V_AMV_ORDER_VERSION and refering to it as orders, its sql query here:
V_AMV_ORDER_VERSION view Sql query:
SELECT T1.ENTITY_KEY ,
T2.AGG_UNIT_CD ,
T0.BASE_CURR_LIMIT_PRICE ,
T7.DIRECTION_CD ,
T0.EXCHANGE_SK,
T0.ORDER_LOCAL_DATE_TIME ,
T0.PRODUCT_SK,
T18.ENTITY_KEY ,
T19.ENTITY_KEY ,
T0.NOTIONAL_VALUE2 ,
T0.NOTIONAL_VALUE ,
T0.ORDER_GLOBAL_DATE_TIME ,
T0.BASE_VOLUME ,
T31.TRANSACTION_STATUS_CD ,
T0.ORDER_VERSION_KEY
FROM ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.ORDER_VERSION T0
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.ENTITY T1
ON T0.ACCOUNT_SK = T1.ENTITY_SK
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.AGG_UNIT T2
ON T0.AGG_UNIT_SK = T2.ENTITY_SK
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.DIRECTION T7
ON T0.DIRECTION_SK = T7.ENTITY_SK
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.ENTITY T18
ON T0.LOCAL_TIME_ZONE_SK = T18.ENTITY_SK
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.ENTITY T19
ON T0.TRADER_SK = T19.ENTITY_SK
LEFT OUTER JOIN ETS_UDM_CDS_NEW.TRANSACTION_STATUS T31
ON T0.TRANSACTION_STATUS_SK = T31.ENTITY_SK;
Which takes its data from a table called ORDER_VERSION and refers to it as T0
this table has an index called IDX_ORDER_VERSION
The problem is that oracle ignores my hint, And uses a different index, Now, I have managed to use a hint to make oracle use an index i wanted when i was querying a view that gets data from a table, But this time I am querying a view which gets his data from another view which gets his data from a table.
And also, The second view in the line is on a different Scheme and i am using a synonym, So perhaps that is why i am missing something Cuz i tried many combinations of possible solutions i found on google but nothing seems to be working...
I would say that if i go one step forward and query directly from V_AMV_ORDER_VERSION (Without the synonym) IT works and i can make oracle work with any index i want, so this query works perfect:
select /*+ index(orders.T0 IDX_ORDER_VERSION_5) */ * from V_AMV_ORDER_VERSION orders
where EXCHANGE_SK =32 and PRODUCT_SK = 1000169
Well me and our company's DBA looked at it for a while, it seems like an Oracle bug in the Global Hint manifestation, We have created the view V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS using a regular join rather than an ANSI join, and now it works properly:
V_AMV_PLG_ORDER_HISTORY_200_MS view SQL Query:
SELECT AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.AMV_PLG_GET_SEGMENT(200, orders.ORDER_GLOBAL_DATE_TIME) AS ORDER_DATE_TIME,
SUM(orders.BASE_VOLUME) AS VOLUME,
SUM(orders.BASE_CURR_LIMIT_PRICE*orders.BASE_VOLUME)/SUM(orders.BASE_VOLUME) AS PRICE,
orders.PRODUCT_SK AS PRODUCT_SK,
orders.EXCHANGE_SK AS EXCHANGE_SK,
orders.DIRECTION_CD AS DIRECTION_CD,
orders.AGG_UNIT_CD AS AGG_UNIT_CD,
orders.TRADER_KEY AS EXECUTING_REPRESENTATIVE_KEY,
orders.ACCOUNT_KEY AS ACCOUNT_KEY,
a.BUSINESS_UNIT_CD AS BUSINESS_UNIT_CD
FROM AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.S_AMV_ORDER_VERSION_NEW orders,
AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.S_AMV_ACCOUNT a
WHERE BASE_VOLUME > 0 AND a.ACCOUNT_KEY = orders.ACCOUNT_KEY
GROUP BY AMV_PERF_PROFILES_FRONTEND.AMV_PLG_GET_SEGMENT(200, orders.ORDER_GLOBAL_DATE_TIME),
orders.PRODUCT_SK,
orders.EXCHANGE_SK,
orders.ACCOUNT_KEY,
a.BUSINESS_UNIT_CD,
orders.AGG_UNIT_CD,
orders.TRADER_KEY,
orders.DIRECTION_CD;
My question involves MVC + Linq query. I will try to make it simple without going into the details of the Model, View, etc.. Say I have 2 tables T1 & T2. T1 holds restaurants details & T2 holds restaurants image paths. T2 rows contain restaurantID. Now if T2 has more than one rows of image paths for a Restaurant and I only need the first image path from T2 in the linq query how would I form such query? I tried to simplify the question as in fact I have 6 table joins related to the Restaurants in the query. I formed a view model which only contains the fields I want to display. I am trying to populate the view model in the controller & the query is in the controller obviously.
When I join T2 to the query, I get all the Restaurants details together with the images. But the view repeats the same Restaurant as many times as the number of table rows in T2 which is not what I want. This is the problem from the way I set the query. The query uses joins. I only need the first row from T2 while I get all from the Restaurant details. I failed to find an example for such requirement on the web so far. Your directions will be much appreciated.
Serhat Albayoglu
On your join you can use an into and then in the select you can select the FirstOrDefault
var query = from t in context.T1
join t2 in context.T2 on t.Id equals t2.RestaurantID into tgroup
select
{
t2.FirstOrDefault().path
};
This is my SQL query
SELECT
sys.sysobjects.name Name,
sys.foreign_keys.*
FROM
sys.foreign_keys
inner join sys.sysobjects on
sys.foreign_keys.parent_object_id = sys.sysobjects.id
WHERE
referenced_object_id = OBJECT_ID(N'[dbo].[Country]')
I have installed Linqer to convert SQL to linq.
But I got an error:
SQL cannot be converted to LINQ: Table [foreign_keys] not found in the current Data Context.
I am a beginner in Linq. Can Anyone help me to convert SQL to Linq
The problem is that system views will not be picked up by Linqer. If you want to read these tables in your application, first create your own views on them, as was done here and write a query on these views.
CREATE VIEW SysObjectsView AS SELECT * FROM sys.sysobjects;
GO
CREATE VIEW SysForeignKeysView AS SELECT * FROM sys.foreign_keys;
GO
SELECT obj.name Name, fk.*
FROM SysForeignKeysView fk
INNER JOIN SysObjectsView obj ON fk.parent_object_id = obj.id
INNER JOIN SysObjectsView objfk ON fk.referenced_object_id = objfk.id
WHERE objfk.name = N'Country'
Linqer should be able to pick up these views.
I have a collection of IDs in memory, and I would like to fetch only rows from a DB matching those IDs.
In SQL, I could either write a query like SELECT * FROM mytable WHERE id IN (1,3,5,10) or do a join between tables.
My problem is that EF can't build a query where I join my EF-data with my local array or list.
(I'm using EF4.1, but I'm guessing the problem/solution would be similar in older versions, as well as with Linq-to-SQL.)
You can use Contains() with your ID collection myIDs to generate the equivalent WHERE id IN .. query:
var results = context.mytable.Where(x => myIds.Contains(x.Id));