I have this database:
I have a problem, how to show the total number of products in 2 warehouse, if the products in warehouse 1 don't have in warehouse2 and vice versa
I have tried like this
select warehouse1.good_count+warehouse2.good_count
from warehouse1, warehouse2
join goods on (warehouse1.good_id = goods.id)
and (warehouse2.good_id=goods.id);
but it doesn't work
Either you misunderstood what your teacher wants, or your teacher asked the question in a wrong manner.
There should be only one WAREHOUSE table with additional column (e.g. WAREHOUSE_TYPE_ID whose values would then be "remote" or "nearby" or whichever comes next), possibly making a foreign key constraint to WAREHOUSE_TYPE table.
You'd then simply
select t.warehouse_type_name,
sum(w.good_count) summary
from warehouse w join warehouse_type t on t.warehouse_type_id = w.warehouse_type_id
group by t.warehouse_type_name;
I read comments you wrote. The fact that these are physically different warehouses (one in the city and one in its outskirts) doesn't change the fact that data model is wrong. Data they represent should be contained in the same table, a single table (as I explained earlier).
Because, what will you do when company builds yet another warehouse in some other city? Add another table? WRONG!
Anyway, if you insist, something like this might be what you're looking for in this wrong data model of yours:
select g.name,
sum(a.good_count + b.good_count) total_count
from goods g left join warehouse1 a on a.good_id = g.id
left join warehouse2 b on b.good_id = g.id
group by g.name
I am building a SQLite database and am not sure how to proceed with this scenario.
I'll use a real-world example to explain what I need:
I have a list products that are sold by many stores in various states. Not every Store sells a particular Product at all, and those that do, may only sell it in one State or another. Most stores sell a product in most states, but not all.
For example, let's say I am trying to buy a vacuum cleaner in Hawaii. Joe's Hardware sells vacuums in 18 states, but not in Hawaii. Walmart sells vacuums in Hawaii, but not microwaves. Burger King does not sell vacuums at all, but will give me a Whopper anywhere in the US.
So if I am in Hawaii and search for a vacuum, I should only get Walmart as a result. While other stores may sell vacuums, and may sell in Hawaii, they don't do both but Walmart does.
How do I efficiently create this type of relationship in a relational database (specifically, I am currently using SQLite, but need to be able to convert to MySQL in the future).
Obviously, I would need tables for Product, Store, and State, but I am at a loss on how to create and query the appropriate join tables...
If I, for example, query a certain Product, how would I determine which Store would sell it in a particular State, keeping in mind that Walmart may not sell vacuums in Hawaii, but they do sell tea there?
I understand the basics of 1:1, 1:n, and M:n relationships in RD, but I am not sure how to handle this complexity where there is a many-to-many-to-many situation.
If you could show some SQL statements (or DDL) that demonstrates this, I would be very grateful. Thank you!
An accepted and common way is the utilisation of a table that has a column for referencing the product and another for the store. There's many names for such a table reference table, associative table mapping table to name some.
You want these to be efficient so therefore try to reference by a number which of course has to uniquely identify what it is referencing. With SQLite by default a table has a special column, normally hidden, that is such a unique number. It's the rowid and is typically the most efficient way of accessing rows as SQLite has been designed this common usage in mind.
SQLite allows you to create a column per table that is an alias of the rowid you simple provide the column followed by INTEGER PRIMARY KEY and typically you'd name the column id.
So utilising these the reference table would have a column for the product's id and another for the store's id catering for every combination of product/store.
As an example three tables are created (stores products and a reference/mapping table) the former being populated using :-
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS _products(id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, productname TEXT, productcost REAL);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS _stores (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, storename TEXT);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS _product_store_relationships (storereference INTEGER, productreference INTEGER);
INSERT INTO _products (productname,productcost) VALUES
('thingummy',25.30),
('Sky Hook',56.90),
('Tartan Paint',100.34),
('Spirit Level Bubbles - Large', 10.43),
('Spirit Level bubbles - Small',7.77)
;
INSERT INTO _stores (storename) VALUES
('Acme'),
('Shops-R-Them'),
('Harrods'),
('X-Mart')
;
The resultant tables being :-
_product_store_relationships would be empty
Placing products into stores (for example) could be done using :-
-- Build some relationships/references/mappings
INSERT INTO _product_store_relationships VALUES
(2,2), -- Sky Hooks are in Shops-R-Them
(2,4), -- Sky Hooks in x-Mart
(1,3), -- thingummys in Harrods
(1,1), -- and Acme
(1,2), -- and Shops-R-Them
(4,4), -- Spirit Level Bubbles Large in X-Mart
(5,4), -- Spiirit Level Bubble Small in X-Mart
(3,3) -- Tartn paint in Harrods
;
The _product_store_relationships would then be :-
A query such as the following would list the products in stores sorted by store and then product :-
SELECT storename, productname, productcost FROM _stores
JOIN _product_store_relationships ON _stores.id = storereference
JOIN _products ON _product_store_relationships.productreference = _products.id
ORDER BY storename, productname
;
The resultant output being :-
This query will only list stores that have a product name that contains an s or S (as like is typically case sensitive) the output being sorted according to productcost in ASCending order, then storename, then productname:-
SELECT storename, productname, productcost FROM _stores
JOIN _product_store_relationships ON _stores.id = storereference
JOIN _products ON _product_store_relationships.productreference = _products.id
WHERE productname LIKE '%s%'
ORDER BY productcost,storename, productname
;
Output :-
Expanding the above to consider states.
2 new tables states and store_state_reference
Although no real need for a reference table (a store would only be in one state unless you consider a chain of stores to be a store, in which case this would also cope)
The SQL could be :-
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS _states (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, statename TEXT);
INSERT INTO _states (statename) VALUES
('Texas'),
('Ohio'),
('Alabama'),
('Queensland'),
('New South Wales')
;
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS _store_state_references (storereference, statereference);
INSERT INTO _store_state_references VALUES
(1,1),
(2,5),
(3,1),
(4,3)
;
If the following query were run :-
SELECT storename,productname,productcost,statename
FROM _stores
JOIN _store_state_references ON _stores.id = _store_state_references.storereference
JOIN _states ON _store_state_references.statereference =_states.id
JOIN _product_store_relationships ON _stores.id = _product_store_relationships.storereference
JOIN _products ON _product_store_relationships.productreference = _products.id
WHERE statename = 'Texas' AND productname = 'Sky Hook'
;
The output would be :-
Without the WHERE clause :-
make Stores-R-Them have a presence in all states :-
The following would make Stores-R-Them have a presence in all states :-
INSERT INTO _store_state_references VALUES
(2,1),(2,2),(2,3),(2,4)
;
Now the Sky Hook's in Texas results in :-
Note This just covers the basics of the topic.
You will need to create combine mapping table of product, states and stores as tbl_product_states_stores which will store mapping of products, state and store. The columns will be id, product_id, state_id, stores_id.
I have 3 (hypothetical) tables.
Photos (a list of photos)
Attributes (things describing the photos)
PhotosToAttributes (a table to link the first 2)
I want to retrieve the Names of all the Photos that have a list of attributes.
For example, all photos that have both dark lighting and are portraits (AttributeID 1 and 2). Or, for example, all photos that have dark lighting, are portraits and were taken at a wedding (AttributeID 1 and 2 and 5). Or any arbitrary number of attributes.
The scale of the database will be maybe 10,000 rows in Photos, 100 Rows in Attributes and 100,000 rows in PhotosToAttributes.
This question: SQL: Many-To-Many table AND query is very close. (I think.) I also read the linked answers about performance. That leads to something like the following. But, how do I get Name instead of PhotoID? And presumably my code (C#) will build this query and adjust the attribute list and count as necessary?
SELECT PhotoID
FROM PhotosToAttributes
WHERE AttributeID IN (1, 2, 5)
GROUP by PhotoID
HAVING COUNT(1) = 3
I'm a bit database illiterate (it's been 20 years since I took a database class); I'm not even sure this is a good way to structure the tables. I wanted to be able to add new attributes and photos at will without changing the data access code.
It is probably a reasonable way to structure the database. An alternate would be to keep all the attributes as a delimited list in a varchar field, but that would lead to performance issues as you search the field.
Your code is close, to take it to the final step you should just join the other two tables like this:
Select p.Name, p.PhotoID
From Photos As p
Join PhotosToAttributes As pta On p.PhotoID = pta.PhotoID
Join Attributes As a On pta.AttributeID = a.AttributeID
Where a.Name In ('Dark Light', 'Portrait', 'Wedding')
Group By p.Name, p.PhotoID
Having Count(*) = 3;
By joining the Attributes table like that it means you can search for attributes by their name, instead of their ID.
For first create view from your joins:
create view vw_PhotosWithAttributes
as
select
p.PhotoId,
a.AttributeID,
p.Name PhotoName,
a.Name AttributeName
from Photos p
inner join PhotosToAttributes pa on p.PhotoId = pa.PhotoId
inner join Attributes a on a.AttributeID = pa.AttributeID
You can easy ask for attribute, name, id but don't forget to properly index field.
I have two SQL tables, with deviations of the spellings of department names. I'm needing to combine those using case to create one spelling of the location name. Budget_Rc is the only one with same spelling in both tables. Here's an example:
Table-1 table-2
Depart_Name Room_Loc Depart_Name Room_Loc
1. Finance_P1 P144 1. Fin_P1 P1444
2. Budget_Rc R2c 2. Budget_Rc R2c
3. Payroll_P1_2 P1144 3. Finan_P1_1 P1444
4. PR_P1_2 P1140
What I'm needing to achieve is for the department to be 1 entity, with one room location. These should show as one with one room location in the main table (Table-1).
Depart_Name Room_Loc
1. Finance_P1 F144
2. Budget_Rc R2c
3. Payroll_P1_2 P1144
Many many thanks in advance!
I'd first try a
DECLARE #AllSpellings TABLE(DepName VARCHAR(100));
INSERT INTO #AllSpellings(DepName)
SELECT Depart_Name FROM tbl1 GROUP BY Depart_Name
UNION
SELECT Depart_Name FROM tbl2 GROUP BY Depart_Name;
SELECT DepName
FROM #AllSpellings
ORDER BY DepName
This will help you to find all existing values...
Now you create a clean table with all Departments with an IDENTITY ID-column.
Now you have two choices:
In case you cannot change the table's layout
Use the upper select-statement to find all existing entries and create a mapping table, which you can use as indirect link
Better: real FK-relation
Replace the department's names with the ID and let this be a FOREIGN KEY REFERENCE
Can more than one department be in a Room?
If so then its harder and you can't really write a dynamic query without having a list of all the possible one to many relationships such as Finance has the department key of FIN and they have these three names. You will have to define that table to make any sort of relationship.
For instance:
DEPARTMENT TABLE
ID NAME ROOMID
FIN FINANCE P1444
PAY PAYROLL P1140
DEPARTMENTNAMES
ID DEPARTMENTNAME DEPARTMENTID
1 Finance_P1 FIN
2 Payroll_P1_2 PAY
3 Fin_P1 FIN
etc...
This way you can correctly match up all the departments and their names. I would use this match table to get the data organized and normalized before then cleaning up all your data and then just using a singular department name. Its going to be manual but should be one time if you then clean up the data.
If the room is only ever going to belong to one department you can join on the room which makes it a lot easier.
Since there does not appear any solid rule for mapping department names from table one to table two, the way I would approach this is to create a mapping table. This mapping table will relate the two department names.
mapping
Depart_Name_1 | Depart_Name_2
-----------------------------
Finance_P1 | Fin_P1
Budget_Rc | Budget_Rc
Payroll_P1_2 | PR_P1_2
Then, you can do a three-way join to bring everything into a single result set:
SELECT t1.*, t2.*
FROM table1 t1
INNER JOIN mapping m
ON t1.Depart_Name = m.Depart_Name_1
INNER JOIN table2 t2
ON m.Depart_Name_2 = t2.Depart_Name
It may seem tedious to create the mapping table, but it may be unavoidable here. If you can think of a way to automate it, then this could cut down on the time spent there.
Web app is being written in classic ASP with a MSSQL backend. On this particular page, the admin can select 1 or any/all of the employees to assign the project to. I'm trying to figure out a simple way to store the employee IDs of the people assigned to it in one column.
The list of employees is generated from another table and can be dynamic (firing or hiring) so I want the program to be flexible enough to change based on these table changes.
Basically need to know how to assign multiple people to a project that can later be called up on a differen page or from a different query.
Sorry for the n00bish question, but thanks!
Don't store multiple ID's in one column! Create another table with the primary key of your existing table and a single ID that you want to store. You can then insert multiple rows into this new table, creating a 1:m (one to many) relationship. For example, let's look at an order table:
order:
order_id
order_date
and I have a product table...
product:
product_id
product_name
Now, you could go down the road of adding a column to order that let you list the products in the order, but that would be bad form. What you want instead is something like..
order_item:
order_item_id
order_id
product_id
quantity
unit_price
You can then perform a join to get all of the products for a particular order...
select
product.*
from orders
inner join order_item on order_item.order_id = order.order_id
inner join product on product.product_id = order_item.product_id
where orders.order_id = 5
Here's an example order_id of 5, and this will get all of the products in that order.
You need to create another table that stores these values such as. So this new table would store one row for each ID, and then link back to the original record with the original records ID.