tables, join and summation

Similar Questions

• 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')
  

• BAD RESULTS WITH OUTER JOINS AND TABLES WITH A CHECK CONSTRAINT

  HII All,
  Could any such a me when we encounter this bug? Please help me with a simple example so that I can search for them in my PB.
  
  
  Bug:-8447623
  
  Bug / / Desc: BAD RESULTS WITH OUTER JOINS AND TABLES WITH a CHECK CONSTRAINT
  
  
  I ran the outer joins with check queries constraint 11G 11.1.0.7.0 and 10 g 2, but the result is the same. Need to know the scenario where I will face this bug of your experts and people who have already experienced this bug.
  
  
  Version: -.
  

  SQL> select * from v$version;
  
  BANNER
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.1.0.7.0 - 64bit Production
  PL/SQL Release 11.1.0.7.0 - Production
  CORE    11.1.0.7.0      Production
  TNS for Solaris: Version 11.1.0.7.0 - Production
  NLSRTL Version 11.1.0.7.0 - Production

  Why do you not use the description of the bug test case in Metalink (we obviously can't post it here because it would violate the copyright of Metalink)? Your test case is not a candidate for the elimination of the join, so he did not have the bug.

  Have you really read the description of the bug in Metalink rather than just looking at the title of the bug? The bug itself is quite clear that a query plan that involves the elimination of the join is a necessary condition. The title of bug nothing will never tell the whole story.

  If you try to work through a few tens of thousands of bugs in 11.1.0.7, of which many are not published, trying to determine whether your application would be affected by the bug? Wouldn't be order of magnitude easier to upgrade the application to 11.1.0.7 in a test environment and test the application to see what, if anything, breaks? Understand that the vast majority of the problems that people experience during an upgrade are not the result of bugs - they are the result of changes in behaviour documented as changes in query plans. And among those who encounter bugs, a relatively large fraction of the new variety. Even if you have completed the Herculean task of verifying each bug on your code base, which would not significantly easier upgrade. In addition, at the time wherever you actually performed this analysis, Oracle reportedly released 3 or 4 new versions.

  And at this stage would be unwise to consider an upgrade to 11.2?

  Justin

• 2-table join

  Dear all,

  I have 2 tables say, table 1 and table 2 that looks like this.

  TABLE1:

   

  REPORT_ID	Report_Name	Report_Created_By	Report_Created_On
  A	R1

  C1

  January 1, 2013

  B

  R2

  C2

  January 2, 2014

  C

  R3

  C3

  02_Feb-2012

  D

  R4

  C4

  3 March 2016

  TABLE2

   

  Sys_ID

  REPORT_ID

  Report_Run_On

  Report_Run_By

  1

  A

  January 1, 2015

  User1

  2

  B

  January 2, 2015

  User2

  3

  A

  02_Feb-2015

  Util_3

  4

  A

  March 3, 2015

  User4

  How can I join these tables so that my resulting table looks like this,

  RESULT

   

  REPORT_ID

  Report_Name

  Report_Run_On

  (The last execution date and time)

  Report_Run_By

  (The last execution user)

  A

  R1

  March 3, 2015

  User4

  B

  R2

  January 2, 2015

  User2

  C

  R3

  D

  R4

  Thanks in advance,

  Séverine Suresh

  Hey, Sebastian,

  Séverine Suresh - 3035408 wrote:

  Dear all,

  I have 2 tables say, table 1 and table 2 that looks like this.

  TABLE1:

  REPORT_ID	Report_Name	Report_Created_By	Report_Created_On
  A	R1	C1	January 1, 2013
  B	R2	C2	January 2, 2014
  C	R3	C3	02_Feb-2012
  D	R4	C4	3 March 2016

  TABLE2

  Sys_ID	REPORT_ID	Report_Run_On	Report_Run_By
  1	A	January 1, 2015	User1
  2	B	January 2, 2015	User2

  3

  A

  02_Feb-2015

  Util_3

  4

  A

  March 3, 2015

  User4

  How can I join these tables so that my resulting table looks like this,

  RESULT

  REPORT_ID

  Report_Name

  Report_Run_On

  (The last execution date and time)

  Report_Run_By

  (The last execution user)

  A

  R1

  March 3, 2015

  User4

  B

  R2

  January 2, 2015

  User2

  C

  R3

  D

  R4

  Thanks in advance,

  Séverine Suresh

  So, you want a row of output for each row in table1, even if there is no corresponding row in table2.  This looks like a job for an outer join.

  Also, you want to only 1 row of output for each report_id, even if there are 2 or more matching rows in table2.  This sounds like a job for GROUP BY.  (I know you asked only about how to join the tables, but I think there is no harm in mentioning also GROUP BY.)

  Here's a way to do it:

  SELECT t1.report_id

  t1.report_name

  MAX (t2.report_run_on) AS lasr_run

  MIN (t2.report_run_by)

  KEEP (DENSE_RANK LAST ORDER BY report_run_on) AS last_run_by

  FROM table1 t1

  LEFT OUTER JOIN table2 t2 ON t2.report_id = t1.report_id

  GROUP BY t1.report_id

  t1.report_name

  ORDER BY t1.report_id

  ;

  If you would care to post CREATE TABLE and INSERT starements for the sample data, and then I could test this.

• How to write a query to join and right join

  Hello

  With the help of 10 gr 2:

  I have a scenario where generate us a report by joining a few tables.

  same goes for ex:

  Select col1, col2, col5, col10 col22...

  from tableA, tableB.

  where tableA.col1 = tableB.col1 etc.

  I have a requirement where choose a flag in the front-end server must be a right join.  so, if the flag is N, I need to return the data returned by the join; but, if the flag is there I need to make a right join and returns all the data corresponding to table A and table B, as well as the data in table B.

  (I did mention only two tables, as they are, they main engines, there are very many other tables joined in this request)

  It is possible to write a query, so that the two scenarios can be addressed based on the flag?

  Thanks in advance

  Hello

  user565033 wrote:

  ... When Oracle treats of the WHERE clause that starts from the bottom or the top?  So it's best to put filters that reject the unnecessary lines at the beginning of the place where clause or end?  Is how important it? ...

  No, it does not matter.

  The optimizer evaluates what condition will be faster and/or more selective (that is, will eliminate the most lines) and make the first condition.

  If the optimzer cannot decide on what terms will be faster or more selective, it can arbitrarily don't close at the end of the WHERE clause first, but, even if you already knew for sure, this is exactly the kind of thing that is likely to change from one version to the other, or platform to another.

  The optimizer (in recent versions, at least) is very good.  If the optimizer can not say what conditions should apply first, then, chances are, there is really no significant difference, so it would be not serious of which one was made first.

  If you read something that indicates the order is important, it is very outdated.  Long ago (version 6), there was no cost-based optimizer and the order of the conditions in the WHERE clause was important.  The cost-based optimizer was introduced in Oracle 7 (1992) and has been greatly improved by Oracle 8.1 (1998).  Also later Oracle 10, the older optimizer ("regulated") was available for those who really want to continue to use it.

• Optimizer (?) excluded table join

  Hello

  I have a problem. We use 10.2.0.5.0 database. I discovered very weird behavior when running a very simple three-table join. I tried two forms of the same join. The first was:

  SELECT

  NVL(c.cen_za_ks,1) as a2,

  NVL(c.cen_za_kg,1) like a3

  Of

  vymenny_urad VIEW

  JOIN IN-HOUSE

  Krajina K ON vu.vymur_krj_id = K.KRJ_ID

  JOIN IN-HOUSE

  CENNIK_090 C ON C.CEN_KR_KOD = K.KRJ_KOD

  WHERE

  vu.vymur_id = AND c.cen_kategoria = 369 has '

  Execution plan for this selection is:

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

  | ID | Operation | Name               | Lines | Bytes | Cost (% CPU). Time |

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

  |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |                    |     4.    88.     5 (0) | 00:00:01 |

  |   1.  NESTED LOOPS |                    |     4.    88.     5 (0) | 00:00:01 |

  |*  2 |   INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | IX_PK_VYMENNY_URAD |     1.       |     1 (0) | 00:00:01 |

  |*  3 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL | CENNIK_090 |     4.    56.     3 (0) | 00:00:01 |

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

  Information descriptor (identified by the operation identity card):

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

  2 - access("VU".") VYMUR_ID "= 369)

  3 - filter("C".") CEN_KATEGORIA "(='D')"

  
  

  Thus, for specific settings, I had 8 rows

  
  

  If I added any column of krajina of table columns selected like this:

  
  

  SELECT

  krj_id,

  NVL(c.cen_za_ks,1) as a2,

  NVL(c.cen_za_kg,1) like a3

  Of

  vymenny_urad VIEW

  JOIN IN-HOUSE

  Krajina K ON vu.vymur_krj_id = K.KRJ_ID

  JOIN IN-HOUSE

  CENNIK_090 C ON C.CEN_KR_KOD = K.KRJ_KOD

  WHERE

  vu.vymur_id = AND c.cen_kategoria = 369 has '

  
  

  the execution plan has been changed to:

  
  

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

  | ID | Operation | Name               | Lines | Bytes | Cost (% CPU). Time |

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

  |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT |                    |     1.    29.     6 (0). 00:00:01 |

  |   1.  NESTED LOOPS |                    |     1.    29.     6 (0). 00:00:01 |

  |   2.   NESTED LOOPS |                    |     1.    15.     3 (0) | 00:00:01 |

  |*  3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | VYMENNY_URAD |     1.     8.     2 (0) | 00:00:01 |

  |*  4 |     INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | IX_PK_VYMENNY_URAD |     1.       |     1 (0) | 00:00:01 |

  |   5.    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | KRAJINA |   244.  1708.     1 (0) | 00:00:01 |

  |*  6 |     INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PK_KRAJINA |     1.       |     0 (0) | 00:00:01 |

  |*  7 |   TABLE ACCESS FULL | CENNIK_090 |     1.    14.     3 (0) | 00:00:01 |

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

  Information of predicates (identified by the operation identity card):

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

  3 - filter("VU".") VYMUR_KRJ_ID"< 2147483648)

  4 - access("VU".") VYMUR_ID "= 369)

  6 - access("VU".") VYMUR_KRJ_ID '=' K '. ("' KRJ_ID")

  7 - filter("C".") CEN_KATEGORIA "= A"AND "C". ". CEN_KR_KOD '=' K '. ("' KRJ_KOD")

  and result set had only 2 rows, because of the restriction imposed by the table "krajina", which was not in the first case considered by the optimizer.

  Y at - it a reasonable explanation for this behavior? Have someone at - he found a reliable solution?

  Thanks for help

  Miro

  I received your email

  I saw something strange in the, but then realize that the elimination was logically invalid and created a simple demo.

  If you look at the two surviving tables SEPARATELY it seems reasonable to eliminate the krajina - but when you look at the other two tables at the same time you realize that you have a line in krajina which corresponds to a line in vymenny_urad but not in cennik_090 and a line that does the opposite. In this case, the other two lines survive when you eliminate the krajina, but they disappear if krajina is located in the middle of the join.

  The problem is solved by 11.1.0.7

  Concerning

  Jonathan Lewis

• 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.

• ORA-01733 on update of version (view) table join

  I'm doing an update to a table with version of workspace manager (Workspace Manager replaces the table with his own point of view) using a line join view (because the merger does not display of INSTEAD of triggers). It works very well on a normal table and simple updates on the work of versioned table but when I try the join implementation update on a table with version, I get "ORA-01733: virtual column not allowed here."
  I do not understand why it gives ORA-01733 here. Can someone explain and help me get the join update to work?
  The version is 11.2.0.3
  
  I can use the update successfully while the table is not versioned.
  The Workspace Manager view isn't a self-join, and the column is not a function or an expression.
  I update the columns show also editable in user_updatable_columns
  I'm prototyping this for an application. I need to make large updates - there could be 10,000 rows with 80 columns updated, and I will do this for the 200 paintings, so I don't want to upgrade from postcode =(select...) set suppliers
  Here is a script to demonstrate the problem:
  

  create table suppliers (supplier varchar2(10) not null, postcode varchar2(10), v1 number, v2 number, v3 number, constraint suppliers_pk primary key (supplier));
  create table sup_data (supplier varchar2(10) not null, new_postcode varchar2(10), nv1 number, nv2 number, nv3 number, constraint sup_data_pk primary key (supplier));
  insert into suppliers values ('NORTH', null, 1, 2, 3);
  insert into sup_data values ('NORTH', '3000', 1.1, 2.2, 3.3);
  commit;
  update suppliers set postcode='1000', v1=0.1, v2=0.2, 
  update (select d.postcode, s.new_postcode , d.v1, d.v2, d.v3, s.nv1, s.nv2, s.nv3 from suppliers d join sup_data s on d.supplier = s.supplier)
  set postcode= new_postcode, v1 = nv1, v2 = nv2, v3 = nv3 ;
  -- That succeeded. Now try with the workspace manager versioning view.
  rollback;
  exec DBMS_WM.EnableVersioning ('suppliers', hist=> 'VIEW_WO_OVERWRITE');
  update (select d.postcode, s.new_postcode , d.v1, d.v2, d.v3, s.nv1, s.nv2, s.nv3 from suppliers d join sup_data s on d.supplier = s.supplier)
  set postcode= new_postcode, v1 = nv1, v2 = nv2, v3 = nv3 ;
  -- set postcode= new_postcode
  --     *
  -- ERROR at line 2:
  -- ORA-01733: virtual column not allowed here
  
  -- Try with an explicit view:
  create view sup_updt as select d.postcode, s.new_postcode , d.v1, d.v2, d.v3, s.nv1, s.nv2, s.nv3 from suppliers d join sup_data s on d.supplier = s.supplier;
  select * from user_updatable_columns where table_name = 'SUP_UPDT';
  
  select * from sup_updt;
  update sup_updt set postcode= new_postcode, v1 = nv1, v2 = nv2, v3 = nv3 ;
  -- update sup_updt set postcode= new_postcode, v1 = nv1, v2 = nv2, v3 = nv3
  --                     *
  -- ERROR at line 1:
  -- ORA-01733: virtual column not allowed here
   

  Thanks for your help
  
  Published by: davidp 2 on April 17, 2013 19:17

  Oracle development explained the ORA-1733:

  The update fails because the target (select d.postcode, s.new_postcode, d.v1, d.v2, d.v3, s.nv1, s.nv2, v_suppliers s.nv3 d join s on d.supplier = s.supplier sup_data) the update is a non merged display inline.  An update on a view must be translatable for an update on an underlying table. Thus, all the views mentioned in the update must be seen that can be merged. The same phenomenon occurs when you create instead of trigger on the view v_suppliers [was] not that can be merged, leading to the error downstream.

  For example, an (undocumented) ORA-1733 means "can not update display not merged."

• Difference between Inner join and right outer join...

  Which is precisely the difference between an Inner join and right outer join...

  JOIN INTERNAL:-to return all rows from the two tables where there is a football game. That is to say. the table resulting from all the rows and columns will have values.

  AND

  RIGHT OUTER JOIN:-Returns all rows in the second table, even if there is no match in the first table.

• the two equii join and natural join are equall.will both display the output of the same

  the two equii join and natural join are equall.will both display even
  
  output?

  Hello
  It keeps you a little test and check yourself?

  See the link below.

  http://psoug.org/reference/joins.html

  Connected to:
  Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.2.0.1.0 - Production
  With the Partitioning, OLAP, Data Mining and Real Application Testing options
  
  SQL> CREATE TABLE parents (
    2  person_id  NUMBER(5),
    3  adult_name VARCHAR2(20),
    4  comments   VARCHAR2(40))
    5  PCTFREE 0;
  
  Table created.
  
  SQL>
  SQL> CREATE TABLE children (
    2  parent_id    NUMBER(5),
    3  person_id    NUMBER(5),
    4  child_name   VARCHAR2(20),
    5  comments     VARCHAR2(40))
    6  PCTFREE 0;
  
  Table created.
  
  SQL>
  SQL> INSERT INTO parents VALUES (1, 'Dan', 'So What');
  
  1 row created.
  
  SQL> INSERT INTO parents VALUES (2, 'Jack', 'Who Cares');
  
  1 row created.
  
  SQL> INSERT INTO children VALUES (1, 2, 'Anne', 'Who Cares');
  
  1 row created.
  
  SQL> INSERT INTO children VALUES (1, 1, 'Julia', 'Yeah Right');
  
  1 row created.
  
  SQL> INSERT INTO children VALUES (2, 1, 'Marcella', 'So What');
  
  1 row created.
  
  SQL> COMMIT;
  
  Commit complete.
  
  SQL>
  SQL> SELECT adult_name, child_name
    2  FROM parents NATURAL JOIN children;
  
  ADULT_NAME           CHILD_NAME
  -------------------- --------------------
  Jack                 Anne
  Dan                  Marcella
  
  SQL> select adult_name,child_name from parents a, children b
    2  where a.person_id=b.person_id;
  
  ADULT_NAME           CHILD_NAME
  -------------------- --------------------
  Jack                 Anne
  Dan                  Julia
  Dan                  Marcella
  
  SQL> ed
  Wrote file afiedt.buf
  
    1  select adult_name,child_name from parents a, children b
    2* where a.person_id=b.parent_id
  SQL> /
  
  ADULT_NAME           CHILD_NAME
  -------------------- --------------------
  Dan                  Anne
  Dan                  Julia
  Jack                 Marcella
  
  SQL>
  

  Kind regards
  Avinash

• table join question

  I have two tables joined via a pk/fk relationship. The main table has a field that indicates if a person entered the House (that's a request for home detention for minors) and to the left, or if it is still in the House.
  
  1 = entered and left, 0 = always in the House.
  
  The two tables are related through three fields (ID of the person, House ID, date of entry in the House)
  
  I need a query to retrieve the records that exist in table 1 (the master) but do not exist in table 2 (retail) for (young) people who are STILL in the House. I need the query to run on the House n ° 2.
  
  I tried a number of relationships to join, but none has been successful.
  
  Any ideas on how to write this request will be appreciated.

  The next time after table descriptions...

  I think you're asking something like that:

  select pt.*
  from parent_table pt
  where pt.field = 0
    and pt.home = 2
    and not exists
    (select 'a child row for this parent row'
     from child_table ct
     where ct.person = pt.person
       and ct.home = pt.home
       and ct.entry_date = pt.entry_date);
  

• outer join and LignesMax problem left

  I'm having a problem with the method and an sql join. My left table includes some documents that I want in the list, max 25 per page. These records have some notes are related in another table that is outer joined. When I specify the method in my cfoutput tag it includes my external joined table rows. So I could only go 5 records in my table left and 20 of my attachment table. What I want is 25 records in my table on the left and however the number of records in the table on the other that could be associated with these 25 records. Is this possible?

  I make two requests and avoid the outer join in this case:

• Problem with Outer join and filter

  Hello
  
  I join two tables in the source using a left outer join. Outside of the join, I have a filter specified with condition TabA.C1 > TabB.C2.
  
  Now, when ODI generates the query it puts the left outer join on the filter condition as well. So he puts filter as
  
  where
  (1 = 1)
  And ((TabA.C1 = TabB.C1 (+)) AND)
  (TabA.C2 = TabB.C2 (+))
  And TabA.C10 > TabB.C14 (+)
  
  How to avoid this problem. I tried this performance on stage as well, always generated query remains the same.
  
  I use the incremental update of the IKM Oracle. My source and target are both on the same PB.
  
  
  ~ Chikk

  Hi Chikk,

  If you analyze the data, you'll see it's OK to have the "(+)" to the filter...

  Anyway, if you want to drop it, leave it as inner join and put the "(+)" manually to the join object.

  This help you?

• How do I click on a cell in a table control and display the value in a string?

  What I want to do is click on a cell in a table control and have the value of the cell in an indicator of the chain. Cell that ever I click on, I wish that the value to be displayed in the indicator.

  Thank you!

  Use the property "Change Position".

• Ribbon verses... file, editing, display, insert, tools, table, window, and help

  In windows, I have the tape but have not... the file edit, view, insert, tools, table, window, and help (with drop downs) as it did in the older version.  If it's hidden?

  hj714,
  You must search Desktop and personalization forum and post there is not to find and answer.  Be sure to include your version of Windows and what programs you encounter this problem with. Mike - Engineer Support Microsoft Answers
  Visit our Microsoft answers feedback Forum and let us know what you think.