Outer join in where clause

Similar Questions

• Outer joins and null in the 'where' clause condition

  Hi people,

  Please help me on this.

  Here's my query.

  with x

  (select 'a' as a dual union all col1)

  Select 'b' as col1 of union double all the

  Select 'c' as double col1

  ),

  y as

  (

  Select 'b' as col2 from dual Union all the

  Select 'c' as col2 from dual Union all the

  Select would be "as col2 from dual Union all the"

  Select 'e' as col2 from dual

  )

  Select * x y right outer join

  on x.col1 = y.col2 and y.col2 is null

  Get all the lines of 'COL1' as null. Why like this?

  Just add the condition to the WHERE clause for example

  WITH x AS
  (SELECT 'a' AS col1 FROM dual UNION ALL
  SELECT 'b' AS col1 FROM dual UNION ALL
  SELECT 'c' AS col1 FROM dual
  ),
  y AS
  (
  SELECT 'b' AS col2 FROM dual UNION ALL
  SELECT 'c' AS col2 FROM dual UNION ALL
  SELECT 'd' AS col2 FROM dual UNION ALL
  SELECT 'e' AS col2 FROM dual
  )
  SELECT * FROM x LEFT OUTER JOIN y
  ON x.col1=y.col2                     ----want to add "and y.col2 is null " condition to get value "a"
  where y.col2 is null
  

• Complex Inner Join and outer subquery where clause to join internal?

  The DDL for this post was too big and I had to put on my site:
  http://www.harbortownsolutions.com/DDLForDORTable.txt
  
  My goal is to create a report of sales data for 116 stores containing daily sales and count of comments in recent years. My challenge is that I am pulling data from the same table, but with different dates to get data from last year and the week in data from date of last year.
  
  
  The dates used for reports are:
  
  SalesDate = 06/04/2009
  SalesDateForLastYear = 2008-06-05
  SalesDateBeginningOfWeek = 01/06/2009
  SalesDateBginningOFWeekLastYear = 2008-06-02
  
  PSEUDOQUERYS:

  ---======= DOLLAR VARIANCE = You Said you have $100 worth of meat(inventory) but you only have $50 worth of meat
  SELECT 
      BUSI_DATE as BusinessDate, 
      ORACLE_KEY as StoreID,
      FIELD1  as Sales,
      FIELD2  as GuestCount,
      FIELD3  as DollarVariance,
      FIELD4  as Cars
  FROM MYDAILYTOTALS
  WHERE Busi_date = SalesDate
     AND ORACLE_KEY IN (SELECT StoreID From MyStores); 
  -======= ONLY Guest count and Sales are needed in comparisons against last year    
  ---======    Last YEar dates = corresponding dates for this year ie Tuesday of this 
  week matched to Tuesday of last year (except for leap year)
  SELECT 
      ORACLE_KEY as StoreID
      FIELD1  as SalesLastYear
      FIELD2  as GuestCountLastYear   
  FROM MYDAILYTOTALS
  WHERE Busi_date = SalesDateForLastYear 
     AND ORACLE_KEY IN (SELECT StoreID From MyStores);
         
  
  SELECT 
      ORACLE_KEY as StoreID
      SUM(FIELD1)  as WeekToDateSales
      SUM(FIELD2)  as WeekToDateGuestCount  
  FROM MYDAILYTOTALS
  WHERE Busi_date BETWEEN SalesDateBeginningOfWeek and SalesDate
     AND ORACLE_KEY IN (SELECT StoreID From MyStores) 
  GROUP BY ORACLE_KEY 
     --=======  
  SELECT 
      ORACLE_KEY as StoreID
      SUM(FIELD1)  as WeekToDateSalesLastYear
      SUM(FIELD2)  as WeekToDateGuestCountLastYear  
  FROM MYDAILYTOTALS
  WHERE Busi_date BETWEEN SalesDateBeginningOfWeekLastYear and SalesDateLastYear
     AND ORACLE_KEY IN (SELECT StoreID From MyStores) 
  GROUP BY ORACLE_KEY   

  Question: Since they all use the same store of nbrs, I specify on each request? Can't I just specify only once on outer query Where clause?
  
  Also, how would fit the following of HOEK script:
  See how I put 1 field based on another field value
  
  He reads a record for each store of 116 stores in the database. There are 2 situations that have been addressed by Hoeks code:
  For each of the 116 stores in the store table, there must be 1 and only
  registration of 1 stock to match the record of MyStoreTotals. However, sometimes there is no record of inventory.
  and sometimes there will be 2 (in a case where a manager of database updates)
  After daily treatment) files. If so, the record with Is_posted = 1
  is the one that should be included in the query. The following text accomplishes this:
  -chr (39) is the single quote
  

   Select StoreId, 
           DollarVariance 
    from   (select store.storeid, 
                     case
                            when inv.storeid is null then 'None'
                            when inv.is_posted = 0 then 'NP'
                            else chr(39)||inv.total_dol_var||chr(39)
                      end as DollarVariance, 
                      row_number() over (partition by store.storeid order by inv.is_posted desc) rn  
                 from  myInven inv 
                 right outer join mystores  store
                                on store.storeid = inv.fk_str_main_id
                                and inv.busi_date = to_date(SalesDate, 'dd-mon-yyyy'))
        where rn = 1;      

  Can I put this request on the place where clause of the outer to query I put on a JOIN clause?

  So I guess that's why you used the MAX.

  That is right.
  I used CASES to identify and complete the necessary columns since the first set of results (WITH).
  So then I more or less "swivels somehow" lines of this result set to the columns, each store will appear once the most.

• left outer join and the where clause for the table to the right

  I want to join two tables a and b, where a is a must and b is a result set in option. When I use a left outer join to a to b, I want to achieve:
  
  1. Select a single column, two columns of b (not the join columns)
  2 - even if theres no friendly on the join column does not return data from one.
  3. If there is a match applies when the criteria on column b (table in option)
  
  so, how can I avoid no_data_found in this case? When I apply where criteria for b, so it does not return the data from one, which is a must.

  Sounds like a regular outer join to me...

  select a.col1, b.col2, b.col2
  from   tableA a
         left outer join tableB b
         on (a.id = b.id and b.colX = 'X')
  

• Question about the order of evaluation of the clause WHERE CLAUSE when the Oracle OF the syntax used to join tables

  Hello

  Oracle version: 11.1.0.7.0 - 64 bit

  I read the documentation online at joins. The page is avialable here: joins at

  My question is about the join order of evaluation of the conditions in clause and the conditions of those

  are not the join conditions and are placed in the WHERE clause.

  Consider the following pseudocode

  SELECT

  T1. Col1,

  T2.Col1

  Of

  Table1 t1 LEFT OUTER JOIN table2 t2

  WE

  (condition_expression1)

  WHERE

  (condition_expression2)

  Is it correct to say that if there is no column on the status of join (condition_expression1) in condition_expression2, then condition_expression2 is executed before condition_expression1? In other words, oracle always trying to filter based on the WHERE clause individually each table as much as possible before joining them based on the conditions on the article?

  Thanks in advance,

  Hello

  dariyoosh wrote:

  Hello

  Oracle version: 11.1.0.7.0 - 64 bit

  I read the documentation online at joins. The page is avialable here: joins at

  My question is about the join order of evaluation of the conditions in clause and the conditions of those

  are not the join conditions and are placed in the WHERE clause.

  Consider the following pseudocode

  SELECT

  T1. Col1,

  T2.Col1

  Of

  Table1 t1 LEFT OUTER JOIN table2 t2

  WE

  (condition_expression1)

  WHERE

  (condition_expression2)

  Is it correct to say that if there is no column on the status of join (condition_expression1) in condition_expression2, then condition_expression2 is executed before condition_expression1? In other words, oracle always trying to filter based on the WHERE clause individually each table as much as possible before joining them based on the conditions on the article? ...

  The reverse is actually closer to the truth, but we can't really make general statements like that.

  SQL is not a language of the proceedings.  Looking at the code SQL, we could say that the code does, but we cannot say much about how that code it.  In other words, SQL is a language that describes the results you get, not the way to get them.

  The optimizer will do everything what he thinks is faster if it does not change the results.  If any order in which they are applied (in outer joins or CONNECT BY queries, for example), then think of the join is done first, and the value of the WHERE clause is applied to the result of the join.

  Here is a query looks very much like you posted:

  SELECT d.deptno

  e.ename, e.sal

  OF scott.dept d

  LEFT OUTER JOIN scott.emp e ON e.deptno = d.deptno

  WHERE e.sal > = 3000

  ORDER BY d.deptno

  ;

  Output:

  DEPTNO ENAME SAL

  ---------- ---------- ----------

  10 KING 5000

  20 FORD 3000

  20 3000 SCOTT

  The scott.dept table contains deptnos 30 and 40; Why are they not in the result set?  The query behaves as if the outer join is made first (production 15 rows), then the WHERE clause has been applied.  All lines with deptno = 30 had sals down han 3000 and all single line with deptno = 40 was NULL in the sal column, then these lines are excluded (as well as other lines of deptnos 10 and 20), and only 3 lines above are left.

• Difference-conditions (join and a Where Clause)

  Hi people,

  I need to clearly agree on what a difference exactly when we put any condition in INNER JOIN and the WHERE Clause.

  I have tried both way and found the same results. Even in the statistics Plan not much differences.  Any help would be appreciated.

  As:

  1 here, I use filter store in the join condition - Inner

  "SELECT i., Gl * Sc1.Item I.

  Inner Join Sc1.Part P

  On P.Part_Id = I.Part_Id

  Inner Join Sc1.Location Gl

  On Gl.Location_Id = I.Location_Id

  And Gl.Location_Id in (1767, 1747,202,1625)

  Inner Join Sc1.Condition C

  On C.Condtion_Id = Gl.Condition_Id

  Where I.Inactive_Ind = 0

  And I.Condition_Id! = 325

  2. here I use filter store in Where clause-

  SELECT i., Gl * Sc1.Item I

  Inner Join Sc1.Part P

  On P.Part_Id = I.Part_Id

  Inner Join Sc1.Location Gl

  On Gl.Location_Id = I.Location_Id

  Inner Join Sc1.Condition C

  On C.Condtion_Id = Gl.Condition_Id

  Where I.Inactive_Ind = 0

  and I.LOCATION_ID in (1767, 1747,202,1625)

  And I.Condition_Id! = 325

  Thank you

  Mark
  

  
  

  
  

  Hello

  MarkCooper wrote:

  Hi guys,.

  To reply to all - I understand.

  1. its good practice to use conditions / filter (except CLAUSE) in the WHERE Clause rather Inner join? bon ?

  2. now, in my previous example. We could use the location code in where clause as it was in the two tables.

  What is the best practice to use the code to location here ( 1 /2) ?

  1. here I use filter store in the Inner join condition ( guess the location code is not in the article table)).

  "SELECT i., Gl * Sc1.Item I.

  Inner Join Sc1.Part P

  On P.Part_Id = I.Part_Id

  Inner Join Sc1.Location Gl

  On Gl.Location_Id = I.Location_Id

    And Gl.Location_Id in (1767, 1747,202,1625)

  Inner Join Sc1.Condition C

  On C.Condtion_Id = Gl.Condition_Id

  Where I.Inactive_Ind = 0

  And I.Condition_Id! = 325

  2. here I use filter store in Where clause (assume that the location code is not in the article table)-

  SELECT i., Gl * Sc1.Item I

  Inner Join Sc1.Part P

  On P.Part_Id = I.Part_Id

  Inner Join Sc1.Location Gl

  On Gl.Location_Id = I.Location_Id

  Inner Join Sc1.Condition C

  On C.Condtion_Id = Gl.Condition_Id

  Where I.Inactive_Ind = 0

    And Gl.Location_Id in (1767, 1747,202,1625)

  And I.Condition_Id! = 325

  Thank you

  If location_id isn't in the item table, then the join condition

  On Gl.Location_Id = I.Location_Id

  will cause an error.

  Once more, it should not affect results or performance if a condition like

  Gl.Location_Id in (1767, 1747,202,1625)

  is in the clause or the WHERE clause.  No matter if it is be a column called location_id in any other table, or if the same column Gl.Location_Id is used in other conditions.

  As this condition only refers to a table (GI), I recommend you put it in a WHERE clause, just to make the code clearer.

  Yet once, this applies only to the inner joins, not for outer joins and not to CONNECT BY queries.

• outer join on query with the GOLD clause

  Hi all, I have a problem outerjoining a clause or a request with
  Here's my data
  

  WITH table1 AS
  (
   SELECT  'test' txt1, 'pak' txt2, 'ced' txt3, 'su' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   SELECT  null txt1, 'pak' txt2, 'ced2' txt3, 'su2' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   SELECT  null txt1, NULL txt2, 'ced3' txt3, 'su3' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   SELECT  null txt1, NULL txt2, null txt3, 'su3' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   SELECT  'text5' txt1, NULL txt2, null txt3, 'su3' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   SELECT  null txt1, NULL txt2, null txt3, null txt4 FROM dual 
  
  
  )
  ,table2 AS
  (
   SELECT 111 pid, 'test' txt1, 'pak4' txt2, 'ced' txt3, 'su' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   SELECT 222 pid, 'test1' txt1, 'pak' txt2, 'ced2' txt3, 'su2' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   SELECT 333 pid, 'test2' txt1, 'pak3' txt2, 'ced3' txt3, 'su4' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
    SELECT 444 pid, 'test2' txt1, 'pak3' txt2, 'ced4' txt3, 'su3' txt4 FROM dual 
  
  )
  SELECT b.pid, a.*
  from table1 a, table2 b
  WHERE (a.txt1 = b.txt1 OR
         a.txt1 IS NULL AND a.txt2=b.txt2 OR
         Nvl(a.txt2, a.txt1) IS NULL AND a.txt3 = b.txt3 OR
         Nvl(a.txt2, a.txt1) IS NULL  AND a.txt3 IS NULL AND a.txt4 = b.txt4
         ) 

  as you can see I am attaching the table 1 and table 2. I join with txt1, if txt1 is null, then join by txt2, if null, then reach by txt3 and so on.
  the above produces this output code
  

  PID     TXT1     TXT2     TXT3     TXT4
  ===     ====     ===   ==== ====
  111     test     pak      ced     su
  222             pak      ced2     su2
  333                     ced3     su3
  444                          su3

  This output is partially correct. only 4 lines were in display and two has been left out

   SELECT  'text5' txt1, NULL txt2, null txt3, 'su3' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   SELECT  null txt1, NULL txt2, null txt3, null txt4 FROM dual 

  I tried to use the outer join, but oracle will complain that I can't use outerjoin with the GOLD clause.
  
  can someone modify my query to display the output below?
  

  PID     TXT1     TXT2     TXT3     TXT4
  ===    ====      ===   ====  ====
  111     test     pak      ced     su
  222             pak      ced2     su2
  333                     ced3     su3
  444                          su3
  NULL  NULL   NULL    NULL   NULL
       test5 

  Not sure you can do it with the style of the Oracle of outer joins, but open ANSI style joins is simple, in fact exactly as you had it.

  SQL> set null null;
  SQL> WITH table1 AS (
    2   SELECT  'test' txt1, 'pak' txt2, 'ced' txt3, 'su' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
    3   SELECT  null txt1, 'pak' txt2, 'ced2' txt3, 'su2' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
    4   SELECT  null txt1, NULL txt2, 'ced3' txt3, 'su3' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
    5   SELECT  null txt1, NULL txt2, null txt3, 'su3' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
    6   SELECT  'text5' txt1, NULL txt2, null txt3, 'su3' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
    7   SELECT  null txt1, NULL txt2, null txt3, null txt4 FROM dual),
    8  table2 AS (
    9   SELECT 111 pid, 'test' txt1, 'pak4' txt2, 'ced' txt3, 'su' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   10   SELECT 222 pid, 'test1' txt1, 'pak' txt2, 'ced2' txt3, 'su2' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   11   SELECT 333 pid, 'test2' txt1, 'pak3' txt2, 'ced3' txt3, 'su4' txt4 FROM dual UNION ALL
   12   SELECT 444 pid, 'test2' txt1, 'pak3' txt2, 'ced4' txt3, 'su3' txt4 FROM dual)
   13  SELECT b.pid, a.*
   14  from table1 a
   15     LEFT JOIN table2 b
   16        ON (a.txt1 = b.txt1 OR
   17            a.txt1 IS NULL AND a.txt2=b.txt2 OR
   18            Nvl(a.txt2, a.txt1) IS NULL AND a.txt3 = b.txt3 OR
   19            Nvl(a.txt2, a.txt1) IS NULL  AND a.txt3 IS NULL AND a.txt4 = b.txt4);
  
         PID TXT1   TXT2   TXT3   TXT4
  ---------- ------ ------ ------ ------
         111 test   pak    ced    su
         222 null   pak    ced2   su2
         333 null   null   ced3   su3
         444 null   null   null   su3
  null       text5  null   null   su3
  null       null   null   null   null
  

  John

• Update statement with joins of tables and where Clause

  Hi, I have MS SQL background and I try to execute an update statement in Oracle with joins of tables. However, the syntax below does not work but I think it works for MS SQL.
  
  Basically, the base table must be attached to a master table trend with monthly snapshots, an account will be only an entry for a given date monthly. Where clause must be limited to accounts within a certain range of interest rates.
  
  The first approach returns command SQL ORA-00933 not correctly completed, and the second approach returns ORA-01427 row below query returns multiple rows. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance!
  
  
  
  1:
  
  Update PenaltyAll
  Set a.indicator = month (b.)
  of PenaltyAll an inner join Master b on a.acctno = b.accountnumber
  where a.monthend='01/31/2009' and b.date='12/31/2008' and b.apr < 20
  
  2:
  
  Update PenaltyAll
  adjustment indicator =
  (select to_char (b., 'MM')
  of PenaltyAll an inner join Master b on a.acctno = b.accountnumber
  "where to_char (a.monthend,'mm/dd/yyyy ') = 31 January 2009"
  (et to_char(b.date,'mm/dd/yyyy') = December 31, 2008 "
  and b.apr < 20)
  
  Published by: sqlrookie on August 21, 2009 07:04

  I edited my post, that was my mistake, ANC you try now?

• using outer joins if the two column is null? Use only (+)

  Hi all

  create the table xxc_tr_num (tl_number number, tr_no number tl_no_id);

  insert into xxc_tr_num values (123,100,222);

  insert into xxc_tr_num values (124,100,333);

  create the table xxc_od_tab (tl_number number, tl_id number);

  insert into xxc_od_tab values (123,001);

  insert into xxc_od_tab values (null, null);

  create table xxc_oth_tab (name varchar2 (10), number of tl_id);

  insert into xxc_oth_tab values('abc',,001);

  insert into xxc_oth_tab values (null, null);

  Wait it out put

  tr_no tl_no_id name

  100 222 abc

  100 333

  using outer joins if the two column is null? use only please of outer joins

  And I tried to use outer joins on both tl_id column but not get values and I use have County (tr_no ) > 1

  Rajesh123 wrote:

  Thank you Kiss it is not possible to use having clause?

  You need to understand the functioning of the group. If you will not be asked this question.

  Check this box

  SQL> select tr_no,
    2         tl_no_id,
    3         count(*)
    4    from xxc_tr_num a,
    5         xxc_od_tab b,
    6         xxc_oth_tab c
    7   where a.tl_number = b.tl_number(+)
    8     and b.tl_id = c.tl_id(+)
    9   group
   10      by tr_no
   11       , tl_no_id;
  
       TR_NO   TL_NO_ID   COUNT(*)
  ---------- ---------- ----------
         100        333          1
         100        222          1
  

  See what returns the count? You have grouped according to TR_NO and TL_NO_ID. You must take into consideration the TL_NO_ID just put COUNT (TR_NO) does not increase the NUMBER of the whole group. To get the NUMBER on the whole group, I used the analytical function and did. Like this, see the number of the analytical function here

  SQL> select tr_no,
    2         tl_no_id,
    3         count(*),
    4         count(*) over(partition by tr_no)
    5    from xxc_tr_num a,
    6         xxc_od_tab b,
    7         xxc_oth_tab c
    8   where a.tl_number = b.tl_number(+)
    9     and b.tl_id = c.tl_id(+)
   10   group
   11      by tr_no
   12       , tl_no_id;
  
       TR_NO   TL_NO_ID   COUNT(*) COUNT(*)OVER(PARTITIONBYTR_NO)
  ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------------------------
         100        222          1                              2
         100        333          1                              2
  

  So to answer your question, yes you can't do in the HAVING clause...

• ORA-01719: outer join operator (+) not allowed in operand of GOLD or IN

  I'm migrating a stored procedure (package) in Oracle 11 g.  The SQL has an outer join, combined with a "GOLD":

  Select a.row1, a.row2, b.row3, b.row4, c.row5, c.row6

  schema1.table1 a, schema1.table2 b, schema2.table3 c

  where

  ((c.orgunit = a.org (+) and b.newaccount (+) and TO_CHAR(c.createdatetime,'MM/DD/YYYY = c.account and c.feed = 'FOO' ') = TO_CHAR (SYSDATE, ' DD/MM/YYYY'))

  or

  ((c.feed = 'BAR' and c.orgunit = a.org (+) and c.account b.newaccount (+) and TO_CHAR(c.createdatetime,'MM/DD/YYYY =') = TO_CHAR (SYSDATE, ' DD/MM/YYYY'));

  The error is:

  ORA-01719: outer join operator not allowed in operand of GOLD or IN

  * Cause: Outer join appears in a clause or.

  * Action: If A and B are predicates, to achieve the effect of (has or B).

  I do not understand how to apply the suggested action to my query above.  Can anyone provide a solution or a workaround?

  Thank you.

  your base table is c, a and b must be attached to the left

  Select a.row1, a.row2, b.row3, b.row4, c.row5, c.row6

  of schema2.table3 c

  Join schema1.table1 left a c.orgunit on = a.org

  c.account left join schema1.table2 b = b.newaccount

  where c.createdatetime > = trunc (sysdate)

  and c.createdatetime<>

  and (c.feed = 'FOO' or c.feed = 'BAR');

• May I ask where clause to satisfy two conditions at the same time (and)

  Hello

  I wrote a few joins and usually in the final stage where condition with certain conditions be satisfied in where clause. In all conditions where I only want one and condition fulfilled only if both are collected.

  If we look at the this funciton is I should meet (get_order_type (ogr.order_number) <>'R')) AND wh1.third_party_warehouse! = 'Y') but I'm not get rid off both that if order_type is 'R' they are removed and if tooling_group is yes then ther are removed the result. I'm trying with both below pointed out together how can check these conditions? I can do in where clause?

  ((sg.tooling_stock_group <> 'Y'))

  and

  (get_order_type (ogr.order_number) <>'R'))

  Of order_goods_received ogr

  LEFT JOIN part_master pm

  On ogr.part_number = pm.part_number

  -stock_groups sg left join

  SG stock_groups left join

  on pm.stock_group = sg.stock_group

  and ((sg.tooling_stock_group! = 'Y'))

  and (get_order_type (ogr.order_number)! = 'R'))

  -Pm.stock_group = sg.stock_group

  LEFT JOIN batch_record_1 br1

  -A FEW MORE CODE HERE-

  WHERE ((ogr.delivery_date > = trunc (date_départ)))

  AND

  ((ogr.delivery_date < = trunc (end_date)))

  AND

  OGR.goods_received_number <>'1' AND

  get_order_type (OGR.order_number) NOT IN ('L') AND

  OGR.returned_to_supplier_indicator not in('S','L') and

  -sg.tooling_stock_group <>'Y '.

  -((sg.tooling_stock_group <> 'Y') and (get_order_type (ogr.order_number) not in ('R')))

  -(get_order_type (OGR.order_number) <>'R' AND sg.tooling_stock_group <>'Y')

  ((sg.tooling_stock_group <> 'Y'))

  and

  (get_order_type (ogr.order_number) <>'R'))

  AND wh1.third_party_warehouse! = « Y »

  UNION

  (

  Thank you.

  Whenever you have a problem with such logic, you should try and draw a logic state diagram:

  In your case, you are looking to two variables, with two possible States (equal to a value or is not it)

  Then, take this sense of the sg.tooling_stock_group T and O as being the get_order_type (ogr.order_number) and create a state diagram logical based on your description of what you want.  We will use a value of "Y" to indicate we want to record and a value of "N" to indicate the folder should not be returned.

  Start with an empty logical diagram...

  T = 'Y' T! = « Y »
  +---------+---------+
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  |         |         | O = 'R '.
  |         |         |
  |         |         |

  
  +---------+---------+
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  |         |         | O! = « R »
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  +---------+---------+

  First of all, you said: "If there is the result returned by the defined user function is"R"and the table that has the tooling_stock_group y then it should avoid this record."

  T = 'Y' T! = « Y »
  +---------+---------+
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  |    N    |         | O = 'R '.
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  +---------+---------+
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  |         |         | O! = « R »
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  +---------+---------+

  Then you said: "If order_type does not return" R' but the tooling_stock_group is 'Y', then I should not avoid recording ".

  T = 'Y' T! = « Y »
  +---------+---------+
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  |    N    |         | O = 'R '.
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  +---------+---------+
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  |    Y    |         | O! = « R »
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  +---------+---------+

  Now, you have not given any logic for the rest of the diagram, so I made the assumption that you do not want to avoid these records...

  T = 'Y' T! = « Y »
  +---------+---------+
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  |    N    |    Y    | O = 'R '.
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  +---------+---------+
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  |    Y    |    Y    | O! = « R »
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  +---------+---------+

  Now there are different ways to determine the location of the clause of this diagram.
  We could say that we want the records for all of the T column! = "Y" or all the records for all of the O line! " = R...

  where (sg.tooling_stock_group! = 'Y' or get_order_type (ogr.order_number)! = 'R')

  We say we want to EXCLUDE (using DO NOT) all records where T = "Y" AND O = "O" "

  If not (sg.tooling_stock_group = 'Y' and (ogr.order_number) get_order_type = 'R')

  Those are the two most logical ways to do.
  (In my previous answer, that we can see in this diagram, there is no need of the "or get_order_type (ogr.order_number).) (= 'R' "part, which is superfluous, but would not break it)

  Now let's look at your logic to see what it looks like to in the diagram...

  where ((sg.tooling_stock_group <> «Y»))
  and (get_order_type (ogr.order_number) <> 'R')
  )

  In a logic diagram that looks to...

  T = 'Y' T! = « Y »
  +---------+---------+
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  |    N    |    N    | O = 'R '.
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  +---------+---------+
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  |    N    |    Y    | O! = « R »
  |         |         |
  |         |         |
  +---------+---------+

  As you can see, your logic was only targeting one of the 4 possible results for select records and excluding 3.

• Outer joins to the left... Please help!

  Hmm. Ive had trouble with this one for a while and have read and re-read docs etc.

  IM under 11.2 XE and its Apex 4.2 application...

  Its a simple query with outer joins... but I can't simply to do it right after several hours of trying! ID be very grateful if anyone can lend a hand...

  For the query below. I am looking for the following:

  Complete list of entities, a sum of the values if they exist (and obviously empty if they don't), filtered by a table of SUM choice only the records that match a value in the lookup table.

  Select

  e.ENTITY as ENTITY,

  Sum (p.amount) as Forecast_Income,

  Sum (BR.bri_credit) as Actual_Income,

  Sum (BR.bri_debit) as Actual_Expenses

  Of

  e entities

  LEFT OUTER JOIN payments p

  WE (e.entity_id = p.entity_id)

  LEFT OUTER JOIN pmt_stat_lookup ps

  WE (p.status_id = ps.status_id

  and ps.forecast = 'Y')

  LEFT OUTER JOIN bri_recon br

  WE (e.entity_id = br.entity_id)

  E.entity group

  My problem with the join where I join p.status_id for ps.status_id and ps.forecast = 'Y '...   If I run the above statement, it seems does not account for this filter criteria and summarizes all records of PAYMENTS, regardless of...  If I move outside the outer join clause, it only brings back the records of PAYMENTS where there is a join. Ive tried to join in a different order etc... but in vain...

  If someone could help, Id be very grateful.

  Kind regards

  Richard

  Hello Richard

  Try this query:

  SELECT e.entity as ENTITY

  sum (PO.amount) as Forecast_Income

  sum (br.bri_credit) as Actual_Income

  sum (br.bri_debit) as Actual_Expenses

  Of

  E ENTITIES

  LEFT OUTER

  JOIN (SELECT P.entity_id )

  P.amount

  PAYMENTS P

  JOIN PMT_STAT_LOOKUP PS

  ON p.status_id = ps.status_id

  AND ps.forecast = 'Y '.

  ) IN.

  WE e.entity_id = in. entity_id

  LEFT OUTER

  JOIN BR BRI_RECON

  ON e.entity_id = br.entity_id

  E.entity GROUP

  ;

  I hope it helps.

  Best regards, David

  Post edited by: David Berger

• Need for outer join

  Hi gurus

  Need your advice once again.

  I have following script.

  Table creation and Insertion.

  drop table full_data;

  drop table not_full_data;

  create the table full_data

  (

  GRP varchar2 (10)

  )

  ;

  insert into full_data

  (

  Select '100' across double Union

  Select '200' of any double union

  Select '300' of the double

  );

  create the table not_full_data

  (

  GRP varchar2 (10),

  cvg_code varchar2 (10),

  line_type varchar2 (1)

  );

  insert into not_full_data

  (

  Select '100', '0', 'L' from dual

  Union of all the

  Select '200', '20130801', 'L' from dual

  );

  Select * from not_full_data has.

  full_data b

  where = b.grp a.grp (+)

  and line_type (+) = 'L '.

  and (cvg_code (+) = '0'

  or cvg_code > = '20120101')

  ;

  I'm putting the outer join to get all rows in full_data but when I try to put the outer join, then oracle does not allow me to put it and gives me below error:

  Error

  ORA-01719: outer join operator not allowed in operand of GOLD or IN

  01719 00000 - "outer join operator not allowed in GOLD or IN the operand.

  * Cause: Outer join appears in a clause or.

  * Action: If A and B are predicates, to achieve the effect of (has or B).

  Try (where select them (a and not B)) Union all the (where select them (B)).

  Error on line: column 33: 17

  I do not want to use full join and need this using the outer join. Thanks in advance

  Concerning

  Shu

  This is the required query

  SELECT *.

  Not_full_data a, full_data b

  WHERE a.grp (+) = b.grp

  AND line_type (+) = 'L '.

  AND (cvg_code = '0' OR cvg_code > = '20120101' OR cvg_code is NULL)

• outer join with the additional constraint

  Hello

  With the help of Oracle 11 g R2.

  I would of outer join tables 2 together and put down restrictions on the types of records that are returned in the query result. Here's a mock-up of the tables and data.

  create table aaa (col1 number not null, col2 number not null)

  create table bbb (col1 number not null, col2 number not null)

  insert into values of aaa (1: 80)

  insert into values aaa (2, 90)

  insert into values aaa (3, 80)

  insert into values aaa (4, 90)

  insert into values aaa (5, 80)

  
  insert into bbb values (3, 600)

  insert into values of bbb (4, 700)

  This is the query

  
  select a.col1, a.col2, b.col1, b.col2
  from aaa a, bbb b
  where a.col1 = b.col1 (+)
  and   (a.col2, b.col2) <> ((90, 700))
  

  The result of the query is as follows.

  col1 col1 col2 col2

  1 80

  3 80 3 600

  5 80

  Where col1 = 4 has been deleted, which is an expected result. However, where col1 = 2 has also been removed, which is not a desired outcome. Your response is appreciated.

  Hello

  Here is a way that works for the given sample data:

  SELECT *.

  AAA a

  LEFT OUTER JOIN bbb b ON a.col1 = b.col1

  WHERE the NVL (a.col2, 0) <> 90

  OR NVL (b.col2, 0) <> 700

  ;

  I don't know if that will satisfy your requirements with other data, since you didn't say what your needs are.

  Whenever you have a WHERE clause is applied after the outer join, all columns of the table in option (table bbb in this example) must be used in an NVL, NVL2 or something like a CASE expression that takes into account null values; otherwise, the effect will be the same as an inner join.

• use an outer join in RowMatch

  Hello world

  I have an Obj from view to both entities like this:

  SELECT t1.rowno, t2.type

  OF table_ t1, t2 from table_2

  WHERE t1.rowno (+) = t2.rowno

  and t1.userId (+) =: bindVar

  table_1 (Rowno, UserID)

  table_2 (Rowno, type)

  I have a table on this view of Obj on my page, when I add a new line of this view Obj, this line showed in the table while he should not appear (depending on where the view clause Obj).

  according to this post https://forums.oracle.com/thread/2576480 I can use RowMatch, but here I don't know how to use an outer join in RowMatch.

  
  

  Habib
  

  
  

  Post edited by: Habib.Eslami

  I guess that joy cannot use matching line in this case as it only lines matching already in memory, but without an outer join. This must be done before.

  What you can try is to build the sql criteria yourself and add it to the query.  An example on how to do this at http://wp.me/pcBZk-5O

  The example shows how to add a sql custom as a criterion.

  Timo