I have a sql query that I'd like to optimize. I'm not the designer of the database, so I have no way of altering structure, indexes or stored procedures.
I have a table that consists of invoices (called faktura) and each invoice has a unique invoice id. If we have to cancel the invoice a secondary invoice is created in the same table but with a field ("modpartfakturaid") referring to the original invoice id.
Example of faktura table:
invoice 1: Id=152549, modpartfakturaid=null
invoice 2: Id=152592, modpartfakturaid=152549
We also have a table called "BHLFORLINIE" which consists of services rendered to the customer. Some of the services have already been invoiced and match a record in the invoice (FAKTURA) table.
What I'd like to do is get a list of all services that either does not have an invoice yet or does not have an invoice that's been cancelled.
What I'm doing now is this:
`SELECT
dbo.BHLFORLINIE.LeveringsDato AS treatmentDate,
dbo.PatientView.Navn AS patientName,
dbo.PatientView.CPRNR AS patientCPR
FROM
dbo.BHLFORLINIE
INNER JOIN dbo.BHLFORLOEB
ON dbo.BHLFORLOEB.BhlForloebID = dbo.BHLFORLINIE.BhlForloebID
INNER JOIN dbo.PatientView
ON dbo.PatientView.PersonID = dbo.BHLFORLOEB.PersonID
INNER JOIN dbo.HENVISNING
ON dbo.HENVISNING.BhlForloebID = dbo.BHLFORLOEB.BhlForloebID
LEFT JOIN dbo.FAKTURA
ON dbo.BHLFORLINIE.FakturaId = FAKTURA.FakturaId
WHERE
(dbo.BHLFORLINIE.LeveringsDato >= '2017-01-01' OR dbo.BHLFORLINIE.FakturaId IS NULL) AND
dbo.BHLFORLINIE.ProduktNr IN (110,111,112,113,8050,4001,4002,4003,4004,4005,4006,4007,4008,4009,6001,6002,6003,6004,6005,6006,6007,6008,7001,7002,7003,7004,7005,7006,7007,7008) AND
((dbo.FAKTURA.FakturaType = 0 AND
dbo.FAKTURA.FakturaID NOT IN (
SELECT FAKTURA.ModpartFakturaID FROM FAKTURA WHERE FAKTURA.ModpartFakturaID IS NOT NULL
)) OR
dbo.FAKTURA.FakturaType IS NULL)
GROUP BY
dbo.PatientView.CPRNR,
dbo.PatientView.Navn,
dbo.BHLFORLINIE.LeveringsDato`
Is there a smarter way of doing this? Right now the added the query performs three times slower because of the "not in" subquery.
Any help is much appreciated!
Peter
You can use an outer join and check for null values to find non matches
SELECT customer.name, invoice.id
FROM invoices i
INNER JOIN customer ON i.customerId = customer.customerId
LEFT OUTER JOIN invoices i2 ON i.invoiceId = i2.cancelInvoiceId
WHERE i2.invoiceId IS NULL
Related
I would like to join tables . Could you please help?
Select Number, OwnerId from DNIS.numbers
select ID,Name from DNIS.owners
Thank you.
Normally, SQL servers allow you to join tables from different databases as long as the former all belong to them. Here is an example showing you how to do this (all you have to do is to explicitly write the database names associated to each table in the query):
SELECT N.Number, N.OwnerId, O.ID, O.Name
FROM DB1.[dbo].DNIS numbers N
JOIN DB2.[dbo].DNIS owners O ON O.ID = N.OwnerId
You can also use the following syntax:
SELECT N.Number, N.OwnerId, O.ID, O.Name
FROM DB1..DNIS numbers N
JOIN DB2..DNIS owners O ON O.ID = N.OwnerId
In order to accomplish that you will have to specify the table and column names in your join statement, like so:
SELECT db1.tablename.column, db2.tablename.column
FROM db1.tablename INNER JOIN db2.tablename
ON db1.tablename.id = db2.tablename.id;
I am having to convert code written by a former employee to work in a new database. In doing so I came across some joins I have never seen and do not fully understand how they work or if there is a need for them to be done in this fashion.
The joins look like this:
From Table A
Join(Table B
Join Table C
on B.Field1 = C.Field1)
On A.Field1 = B.Field1
Does this code function differently from something like this:
From Table A
Join Table B
On A.Field1 = B.Field1
Join Table C
On B.Field1 = C.Field1
If there is a difference please explain the purpose of the first set of code.
All of this is done in SQL Server 2012. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
I could create a temp table and then join that. But why use up the cycles\RAM on additional storage and indexes if I can just do it on the fly?
I ran across this scenario today in SSRS - a user wanted to see all the Individuals granted access through an AD group. The user was using a cursor and some temp tables to get the users out of AD and then joining the user to each SSRS object (Folders, reports, linked reports) associated with the AD group. I simplified the whole thing with Cross Apply and a sub query.
GroupMembers table
GroupName
UserID
UserName
AccountType
AccountTypeDesc
SSRSOjbects_Permissions table
Path
PathType
RoleName
RoleDesc
Name (AD group name)
The query needs to return each individual in an AD group associated with each report. Basically a Cartesian product of users to reports within a subset of data. The easiest way to do this looks like this:
select
G.GroupName, G.UserID, G.Name, G.AccountType, G.AccountTypeDesc,
[Path], PathType, RoleName, RoleDesc
from
GroupMembers G
cross apply
(select
[Path], PathType, RoleName, RoleDesc
from
SSRSOjbects_Permissions
where
Name = G.GroupName) S;
You could achieve this with a temp table and some outer joins, but why waste system resources?
I saw this kind of joins - it's MS Access style for handling multi-table joins. In MS Access you need to nest each subsequent join statement into its level brackets. So, for example this T-SQL join:
SELECT a.columna, b.columnb, c.columnc
FROM tablea AS a
LEFT JOIN tableb AS b ON a.id = b.id
LEFT JOIN tablec AS c ON a.id = c.id
you should convert to this:
SELECT a.columna, b.columnb, c.columnc
FROM ((tablea AS a) LEFT JOIN tableb AS b ON a.id = b.id) LEFT JOIN tablec AS c ON a.id = c.id
So, yes, I believe you are right in your assumption
I want to expand this question.
order by foreign key in activerecord
I'm trying to order a set of records based on a value in a really large table.
When I use join, it brings all the "other" records data into the objects.. As join should..
#table users 30+ columns
#table bids 5 columns
record = Bid.find(:all,:joins=>:users, :order=>'users.ranking DESC' ).first
Now record holds 35 fields..
Is there a way to do this without the join?
Here's my thinking..
With the join I get this query
SELECT * FROM "bids"
left join users on runner_id = users.id
ORDER BY ranking LIMIT 1
Now I can add a select to the code so I don't get the full user table, but putting a select in a scope is dangerous IMHO.
When I write sql by hand.
SELECT * FROM bids
order by (select users.ranking from users where users.id = runner_id) DESC
limit 1
I believe this is a faster query, based on the "explain" it seems simpler.
More important than speed though is that the second method doesn't have the 30 extra fields.
If I build in a custom select inside the scope, it could explode other searches on the object if they too have custom selects (there can be only one)
What you would like to achieve in active record writing is something along
SELECT b.* from bids b inner join users u on u.id=b.user_id order by u.ranking desc
In active record i would write such as:
Bids.joins("inner join users u on bids.user_id=u.id").order("u.ranking desc")
I think it's the only to make a join without fetching all attributes from the user models.
I have 3 table customer (customerid,name), customerbooking(bookingid,customerid), transact(transacted,bookingid,typeoftransaction)
I want to fetch the name of the ‘customer name’ who has the maximum typeoftransact=’current’. Customer table is linked to customerbooking via customerid, and customerbooking is linked to transact via bookingid. Using join I am able to get the individual records, but unable to get the Max value
Please try this to meet your scenerio
SELECT
C.Name
, Count(BookingID)
FROM Customer C
INNER JOIN customerbooking CB ON CB.CustomerID = C.customerId
INNER JOIN transact T ON T.bookingid = CB.BookingId
WHERE T.Typeoftransaction='current'
GROUP BY C.Name
Hope this helps
I'm needing to connect to a legacy database and pull a subset of data from a table that uses the entity-attribute-value model to store a contact's information. The table looks like the following:
subscriberid fieldid data
1 2 Jack
1 3 Sparrow
2 2 Dan
2 3 Smith
where fieldid is a foreign key to a fields table that lists custom fields a given customer can have (e.g. first name, last name, phone). The SQL involved is rather hairy as I have to join the table to itself for every field I want back (currently I need 6 fields) as well as joining to a master contact list that's based on the current user.
The SQL is something like this:
select t0.data as FirstName, t1.data as LastName, t2.data as SmsOnly
from subscribers_data t0 inner join subscribers_data t1
on t0.subscriberid = t1.subscriberid
inner join subscribers_data t2
on t2.subscriberid = t1.subscriberid
inner join list_subscribers ls
on (t0.subscriberid = ls.subscriberid and t1.subscriberid = ls.subscriberid)
inner join lists l
on ls.listid = l.listid
where l.name = 'My Contacts'
and t0.fieldid = 2
and t1.fieldid = 3;
How should I go about handling this with my RoR application? I would like to abstracat this away and still be able to use the normal "dot notation" for pulling the attributes out. Luckily the data is read-only for the foreseeable future.
This is exactly what #find_by_sql was designed for. I would reimplement #find to do what you need to do, something like this:
class Contact < ActiveRecord::Base
set_table_table "subscribers_data"
def self.find(options={})
find_by_sql <<EOS
select t0.data as FirstName, t1.data as LastName, t2.data as SmsOnly
from subscribers_data t0 inner join subscribers_data t1
on t0.subscriberid = t1.subscriberid
inner join subscribers_data t2
on t2.subscriberid = t1.subscriberid
inner join list_subscribers ls
on (t0.subscriberid = ls.subscriberid and t1.subscriberid = ls.subscriberid)
inner join lists l
on ls.listid = l.listid
where l.name = 'My Contacts'
and t0.fieldid = 2
and t1.fieldid = 3;
EOS
end
end
The Contact instances will have #FirstName and #LastName as attributes. You could rename them as AR expects too, such that #first_name and #last_name would work. Simply change the AS clauses of your SELECT.
I am not sure it is totally germane to your question, but you might want to take a look at MagicModel. It can generate models for you based on a legacy database. Might lower the amount of work you need to do.