sorry for the late response.
For a key in table A, there may be 2 or more records present in tables B and C. That is, one another column in these tables will have a date value which would be making the keys unique. So I want to extract the record that has maximum date value. And that's why I am using the max function. I know that the subquery which I have coded should not be included in the ON clause and it would do the filtering before the join statement. So eventually I want to know how to mention the max clause in the query.
Example:
Table A
Key - AAAAA
Table B:
Record 1
Key - AAAAA
Date - 2017-10-01
Record 2
Key - AAAAA
Date - 2017-10-05
I want the only the record AAAAA/2017-10-05 to be selected from the table B
Basically records from table A where A.c3 = 'Y' should be extracted first (assume it gives 500 records)
Then join these 500 records with tables B and C (left outer, to have all the matching records and the non-matching records should have nulls in the columns from the tables B and C)
In tables B and C, if more than 1 record present with different dates, the maximum date field should be extracted.
Hence final output should contain 500 records.
This is all you need for what you describe
SELECT A.A1, A.A2, B.B1, B.B2, C.C1, C.C2
FROM TABLE1 A
LEFT OUTER JOIN TABLE2 B
ON A.A1 = B.B1
LEFT OUTER JOIN TABLE3 C
ON A.A1 = C.C1
WHERE A.C3 = ‘Y’
These lines are causing your problem...basically forcing your outer joins to an inner joins.
AND B.C3 = (SELECT MAX(B3) FROM TABLE2 T1
WHERE T1.B1 = B.B1)
AND C.C3 = (SELECT MAX(C3) FROM TABLE3 T1
WHERE T1.C1 = C.C1)
If there's no match in B or C , then B.C3 and/or C.C3 will be NULL and NULL can't be = to anything (or <> to anything for that matter)
What are you trying to accomplish with the above that you've not included in the question?
Just do it?
SELECT A.A1, A.A2, B.B1, B.B2, C.C1, C.C2
FROM TABLE1 A
LEFT OUTER JOIN TABLE2 B
ON A.A1 = B.B1
LEFT OUTER JOIN TABLE3 C
ON A.A1 = C.C1
WHERE A.C3 = 'Y' and (B.B1 is null or C.B1 is null)
Related
I've got the following problem. In my oracle db I have query as follows:
select * from table1 t1
inner join table2 t2 on
(t1.id_1= t2.id_1 or t1.id_2 = t2.id_2)
and it works perfectly.
Nowadays I need to re-write query on hive. I've seen that OR clause doesn't work in JOINS in hive (error warning : 'OR not supported in JOIN').
Is there any workaround for this except splitting query between two separate and union them?
Another way is to union two joins, e.g.,
select * from table1 t1
inner join table2 t2 on
(t1.id_1= t2.id_1)
union all
select * from table1 t1
inner join table2 t2 on
(t1.id_2 = t2.id_2)
Hive does not support non-equi joins. Common approach is to move join ON condition to the WHERE clause. In the worst case it will be the CROSS JOIN + WHERE filter, like this:
select *
from table1 t1
cross join table2 t2
where (t1.id_1= t2.id_1 or t1.id_2 = t2.id_2)
It may work slow because of rows multiplication by CROSS JOIN.
You can try to do two LEFT joins instead of CROSS and filter out cases when both conditions are false (like INNER JOIN in your query). This may perform faster than cross join because will not multiply all the rows. Also columns selected from second table can be calculated using NVL() or coalesce().
select t1.*,
nvl(t2.col1, t3.col1) as t2_col1, --take from t2, if NULL, take from t3
... calculate all other columns from second table in the same way
from table1 t1
left join table2 t2 on t1.id_1= t2.id_1
left join table2 t3 on t1.id_2 = t3.id_2
where (t1.id_1= t2.id_1 OR t1.id_2 = t3.id_2) --Only joined records allowed likke in your INNER join
As you asked, no UNION is necessary.
I have the need to join a huge table (10 million plus rows) to a lookup table (15k plus rows) with an OR condition. Something like:
SELECT t1.a, t1.b, nvl(t1.c, t2.c), nvl(t1.d, t2.d)
FROM table1 t1
JOIN table2 t2 ON t1.c = t2.c OR t1.d = t2.d;
This is because table1 can have c or d as NULL, and I'd like to join on whichever is available, leaving out the rest. The query plan says there is a Nested Loop, which I realize is because of the OR condition. Is there a clean, efficient way of solving this problem? I'm using Redshift.
EDIT: I am trying to run this with a UNION, but it doesn't seem to be any faster than before.
If you have a preferred column you can NVL() (aka COALESCE()) them and join on that.
SELECT t1.a, t1.b, nvl(t1.c, t2.c), nvl(t1.d, t2.d)
FROM table1 t1
JOIN table2 t2
ON t1.c = NVL(t2.c,t2.d);
I'd also suggest that you should set the lookup table to DISTSTYLE ALL to ensure that the larger table is not redistributed.
[ Also, 10 million rows isn't big for Redshift. Not trying to be snotty just saying that we get excellent performance on Redshift even when querying (and joining) tables with hundreds of billions of rows. ]
How about doing two (left) joins? With the small lookup table performance shouldn't be too bad even.
SELECT t1.a, t1.b, nvl(t1.c, t2.c), nvl(t1.d, t3.d)
FROM table1 t1
LEFT JOIN table2 t2 ON t1.d = t2.d and t1.c is null
LEFT JOIN table2 t3 ON t1.c = t3.c and t1.d is null
Your original query only returns rows that match at least one of c or d in the lookup table. If that's not guaranteed you may need to add filters...for example rows in t1 where both c and d are null or have values not present in table2.
Don't really need the null checks in the joins, but might be slightly faster.
I was trying to get only selected rows from table A(not all rows) and rows matching table A from table B, but it shows only matching rows from table A and table B, excluding rest of the selected rows from table A.
I used this condition,
SELECT A.CategoryName,B.discount
from A LEFT JOIN B ON A.CategoryCode = B.CategoryCode
WHERE A.itemtype='F' and B.party_code=2
i have 2 tables:
table 1: A with 3 columns
CategoryName,CategoryCode(PK),ItemType
table 2: B with 2 columns
CategoryCode(FK),Discount,PartyCode(FK)(from another table)
NOTE: working in access 2007
For non-matching rows from table B, party_code = NULL, so your where clause will evaluate to false and therefore the row won't be returned. So, you need to filter the "B" records before joining. Try
SELECT A.CategoryName,B.discount
from A LEFT JOIN B ON A.CategoryCode = B.CategoryCode and B.party_code=2
WHERE A.itemtype='F'
[EDIT] That doesn't work in Access. next try.
You can create a query to do your filter. Let's call it "B_filtered". This is just
SELECT * FROM B where party_code = 2
(You could make the "2" a parameter to make it more flexible).
Then, just use this query in your actual query.
SELECT A.CategoryName,B_filtered.discount
from A LEFT JOIN B_filtered ON A.CategoryCode = B_filtered.CategoryCode
WHERE A.itemtype='F'
[EDIT]
Just Googled - I think you can do this directly with a subquery.
SELECT A.CategoryName,B_filtered.discount
from A LEFT JOIN (SELECT * FROM B where party_code = 2) AS B_filtered ON A.CategoryCode = B_filtered.CategoryCode
WHERE A.itemtype='F'
What mlinth proposed is correct, and would work for most other SQL languages. The query below is the same basic concept but using a null condition.
Try:
SELECT A.CategoryName,B.discount
from A LEFT JOIN B ON A.CategoryCode = B.CategoryCode
WHERE A.itemtype='F' and (B.party_code=2 OR B.party_code IS NULL)
If party_code is nullable, switch to using the PK or another non-nullable field.
I am using hive 0.13.
I have two tables:
data table. columns: id, time. 1E10 rows.
mymap table. columns: id, name, start_time, end_time. 1E6 rows.
For each row in the data table I want to get the name from the mymap table matching the id and the time interval. So I want to do a join like:
select data.id, time, name from data left outer join mymap on data.id = mymap.id and time>=start_time and time<end_time
It is known that for every row in data there are 0 or 1 matches in mymap.
The above query is not supported in hive as it is a non-equi-join. Moving the inequality conditions into a where filter does not work cause the join explodes before the filter is applied:
select data.id, time, name from data left outer join mymap on data.id = mymap.id where mymap.id is null or (time>=start_time and time<end_time)
(I am aware that the queries are not exactly equivalent due to cases where there is a match for id but no matching interval. This can be solved as I describe here: Hive: work around for non equi left join)
How can I go about this?
You could perform your join and then query from that table. I didn't test this code, but it would read something like
select id
,time
,name
from (
select d.id
,d.time
,m.name
,m.start_time
,m.end_time
from data as d LEFT OUTER JOIN mymap as m
ON d.id = m.id
) x
where time>=start_time
AND time<end_time
You could potentially get around this issue by flattening out the data structure in table2 and using a UDF to process the joined records.
select
id,
time,
nameFinderUDF(b.name_list, time) as name
from
data a
LEFT OUTER JOIN
(
select
id,
collect_set(array(name,cast(start_time as string),cast(end_time as string))) as name_list
from
mymap
group by
id
) b
ON (a.id=b.id)
With a UDF that does something like:
public String evaluate(ArrayList<ArrayList<String>> name_list,Long time) {
for (int i;i<name_list.length;i++) {
if (time >= Long.parseLong(name_list[i][1]) && time <= Long.parseLong(name_list[i][2])) {
return name_list[i][0]
return null;
}
This approach should make the merge 1 to 1, but it could create a fairly large data structure repeated many times. It is still quite a bit more efficient than a straight join.
I have a hive table A with 5 columns, the first column(A.key) is the key and I want to keep all 5 columns. I want to select 2 columns from B, say B.key1 and B.key2 and 2 columns from C, say C.key1 and C.key2. I want to join these columns with A.key = B.key1 and B.key2 = C.key1
What I want is a new external table D that has the following columns. B.key2 and C.key2 values should be given NULL if no matching happened.
A.key, A_col1, A_col2, A_col3, A_col4, B.key2, C.key2
What should be the correct hive query command? I got a max split error for my initial try.
Does this work?
create external table D as
select A.key, A.col1, A.col2, A.col3, A.col4, B.key2, C.key2
from A left outer join B on A.key = B.key1 left outer join C on A.key = C.key2;
If not, could you post more info about the "max split error" you mentioned? Copy+paste specific error message text is good.