ington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
www.the-infoshop.com
www.giiexpress.com
www.etudes-marche.com
>-Original Message-
>From: Jerry Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:26 AM
>To: 'Mysql'
>Subject:
I've found yet another oddity with this situation. If I leave the date test
off of both JOINs they give the same number of rows, but they give me the
wrong number! Neither one of them gives me 860 rows returned. I must not
understand how a LEFT JOIN works.
By the way, the EXPLAIN for both of my or
>From: Bill Newton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 2:09 PM
>To: Jerry Schwartz
>Cc: 'Mysql'
>Subject: Re: LEFT JOIN problem
>
>Hi Jerry,
>
>I think the problem is that NULL is not less than or greater than your
>prod_published date.
Hi Jerry,
I think the problem is that NULL is not less than or greater than your
prod_published date. So you probably have eo_pub_date set to NULL in 56
of your rows.
so for
eo_name_table.eo_pub_date > prod.prod_published
or
eo_name_table.eo_pub_date <= prod.prod_published
mysql will rer
I have a table, eo_name_table, that has exactly 860 unique titles in it.
Each record also has a date field, eo_pub_date:
+-+--+--+-+-+---+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-+--+--+-+-+
Yes, that is the correct behavior of a LEFT JOIN. A left join keeps
all the record from the original/left table and will link up any
related data from the right table, but if there is no related data,
it sets it to NULL. If you want the join to act as a filter, the just
use regular JOIN.
I am attempting to left join several tables. This was working at one time
but has seemed to stop just recently. I have checked and installed the
lastest version of mysql via Debian Etch apt-get. I am running version
5.0.32.
I have simplified the example down to just 3 tables but the problem exi
Hi,
> two tables gi_t and gi
>
> gi_t holds 5 records. gi holds ca. 1500.
>
> I need all from gi for each in gi_t ie LEFT JOIN!!!
> but this:
> SELECT gi.id AS id, overskrift,gidata FROM gi_t LEFT JOIN gi ON
> gi_t.id=gi.gitref WHERE bladref=137
> gives the same as
> SELECT gi.id AS id, oversk
hermer Didriksen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:39 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Left join problem
>
> Hi
> two tables gi_t and gi
>
> gi_t holds 5 records. gi holds ca. 1500.
>
> I need all from gi for each in gi_t ie LEFT JOIN
Hi
two tables gi_t and gi
gi_t holds 5 records. gi holds ca. 1500.
I need all from gi for each in gi_t ie LEFT JOIN!!!
but this:
SELECT gi.id AS id, overskrift,gidata FROM gi_t LEFT JOIN gi ON
gi_t.id=gi.gitref WHERE bladref=137
gives the same as
SELECT gi.id AS id, overskrift,gidata FROM gi_
On 2006-07-21 1:01 PM, "Gerald L. Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It is a join precedence issue. Use INNER Join instead of a comma.
Thanks Gerald.
Paul DuBois' polite suggestion to read the manual helped. Upon re-reading
the section about the change in precedence with
the comma operator
Stephen P. Fracek, Jr. wrote:
I'm trying to upgrade from MySQL 4.1 to MySQL 5.0.
A query that works in MySQL 4.1 does not work in MySQL 5.0 and I'm at a loss
as to how to proceed.
SELECT tab_a.item1, tab_b.item2, tab_c.item3, tab_d.item4, tab_e.item5,
tab_f.item6 FROM db.tab_a, db.tab_e, db.tab
At 12:47 PM -0500 7/21/06, Stephen P. Fracek, Jr. wrote:
I'm trying to upgrade from MySQL 4.1 to MySQL 5.0.
A query that works in MySQL 4.1 does not work in MySQL 5.0 and I'm at a loss
as to how to proceed.
SELECT tab_a.item1, tab_b.item2, tab_c.item3, tab_d.item4, tab_e.item5,
tab_f.item6 FROM
I'm trying to upgrade from MySQL 4.1 to MySQL 5.0.
A query that works in MySQL 4.1 does not work in MySQL 5.0 and I'm at a loss
as to how to proceed.
SELECT tab_a.item1, tab_b.item2, tab_c.item3, tab_d.item4, tab_e.item5,
tab_f.item6 FROM db.tab_a, db.tab_e, db.tab_f LEFT JOIN db.tab_b ON tab_b.i
: "Guy Brom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:28 AM
Subject: LEFT JOIN problem
> I have the following tables:
>
> languages
> language_id int,
> language_title varchar(80)
>
> objects
> object_id int
> object_language_id int
2005/11/5, Guy Brom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have the following tables:
>
> languages
> language_id int,
> language_title varchar(80)
>
> objects
> object_id int
> object_language_id int
> object_title varchar(100)
>
> I want to select ALL available languages, and match the translated object
>
I have the following tables:
languages
language_id int,
language_title varchar(80)
objects
object_id int
object_language_id int
object_title varchar(100)
I want to select ALL available languages, and match the translated object
(if it is exists) for a specific object_id. If it does not exists
olubchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:13 PM
> To: Dilipan Sebastiampillai
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 4.0.18 -> 4.1.7 LEFT JOIN problem
>
> Hi!
>
> On Nov 23, Dilipan Sebastiampillai wrote:
> > >
> > >
> &
Hi!
On Nov 23, Dilipan Sebastiampillai wrote:
> >
> >
> >Hi!
> >
> >On Nov 22, Dilipan Sebastiampillai wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I moved a db from 4.0.18 to 4.1.7 and I realise that the SAME sql query
> >>using LEFT JOIN gives me different result.
> >>The result from 4.0.18 does s real LEFT JOIN but 4.
Hi!
On Nov 22, Dilipan Sebastiampillai wrote:
I moved a db from 4.0.18 to 4.1.7 and I realise that the SAME sql query
using LEFT JOIN gives me different result.
The result from 4.0.18 does s real LEFT JOIN but 4.1.7 differs
sometimes and I don't want that.
I think it comes from an 'optimiza
Hi!
On Nov 22, Santino wrote:
> At 15:23 +0100 22-11-2004, Sergei Golubchik wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >On Nov 22, Dilipan Sebastiampillai wrote:
> >> I moved a db from 4.0.18 to 4.1.7 and I realise that the SAME sql query
> >> using LEFT JOIN gives me different result.
> >> The result from 4.0.18 does s
On Monday 22 November 2004 04:15 pm, Santino wrote:
I can confirm it anyway: I think we have a bug.. Unless someone else see
something, might want to take this to bugs.mysql.com
Welcome to the MySQL monitor. Commands end with ; or \g.
Your MySQL connection id is 578 to server version: 4.1.7-log
At 15:23 +0100 22-11-2004, Sergei Golubchik wrote:
Hi!
On Nov 22, Dilipan Sebastiampillai wrote:
I moved a db from 4.0.18 to 4.1.7 and I realise that the SAME sql query
using LEFT JOIN gives me different result.
The result from 4.0.18 does s real LEFT JOIN but 4.1.7 differs
sometimes and I don
Hi!
On Nov 22, Dilipan Sebastiampillai wrote:
> I moved a db from 4.0.18 to 4.1.7 and I realise that the SAME sql query
> using LEFT JOIN gives me different result.
> The result from 4.0.18 does s real LEFT JOIN but 4.1.7 differs
> sometimes and I don't want that.
>
> I think it comes from an
I moved a db from 4.0.18 to 4.1.7 and I realise that the SAME sql query
using LEFT JOIN gives me different result.
The result from 4.0.18 does s real LEFT JOIN but 4.1.7 differs
sometimes and I don't want that.
I think it comes from an 'optimization' how can I make a query
without using t
* Martijn Tonies
> * me
> > Huh? What would be invalid about it?
>
> That moving parts of the WHERE clause to the JOIN clause returns
> a different result set. But as I said: I don't have the full story ... oh
> wait, I found the first message in my mailbox somewhere.
>
> I guess "OUTER" is opti
> > * Martijn Tonies
> > > * Rory McKinley
> > > > Thanks Roger
> > > >
> > > > That fixed the problem.I was under the impression that I only
had
> to
> > > > put the linked columns n the ON and everything else in the
> WHERElive
> > > > an learn I guess.
> > >
> > > Ehm, I'm not completel
> * Martijn Tonies
> > * Rory McKinley
> > > Thanks Roger
> > >
> > > That fixed the problem.I was under the impression that I only had
to
> > > put the linked columns n the ON and everything else in the
WHERElive
> > > an learn I guess.
> >
> > Ehm, I'm not completely sure, but isn't th
* Martijn Tonies
> * Rory McKinley
> > Thanks Roger
> >
> > That fixed the problem.I was under the impression that I only had to
> > put the linked columns n the ON and everything else in the WHERElive
> > an learn I guess.
>
> Ehm, I'm not completely sure, but isn't this invalid behaviour?
> Thanks Roger
>
> That fixed the problem.I was under the impression that I only had to
put
> the linked columns n the ON and everything else in the WHERElive an
> learn I guess.
Ehm, I'm not completely sure, but isn't this invalid behaviour? Can you post
the DDL and INSERT INTO data for
those who understand binary and those who don't" (Unknown)
- Original Message -
From: "Roger Baklund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Rory McKinley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: LEF
* Rory McKinley
[...]
> SELECT a.line_number, a.category_value, IFNULL(b.parameter_trigger, 0)
> FROM DB1.Table 1 AS a LEFT JOIN DB2.Table 2 AS b ON
> a.category_name = b.parameter_value
> WHERE a.line_type = 13 AND b.parameter_ID = 13
>
> The only problem is that the query only returns the first t
Hi List
I am currently running a query that reads records from one table (Table 1) links these
records to an id value in another table (Table 2) and returns the result. The tables
are as follows, with sample data:
Table 1in DB 1:
line_number | category_name | category_value | line_type
1
I am having some problems seeing posts to the list so if anyone has already
received this mail I apologise. Anyway, I have a two table query where I
want to return records from the first table and if they have corresponding
details in my second table I wish to return those as well. A sample sql
sta
Hi,
I've got two tables, links and categories.
links ...
id int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment,
name text,
note text,
link text,
category1 int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
category2 int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
category3 int(11) NOT NULL default '0',
date_added timestamp(14) NOT NUL
Hi All,
I have a curious problem with a left join:-
create table foo (a int);
insert into foo values(1);
insert into foo values(2);
create table bar1 (a int, b datetime not null);
insert into bar1 values(1, '25-12-2001');
create table bar2 (a int, b datetime);
insert into bar2 values(1, '25-
* Miretsky, Anya
> Select distinct
> biblio.* from biblio left join keyword on
> biblio.p_biblio=keyword.fk_biblio
> where keyword="SOMESTRING";
Try swapping the tables:
Select distinct
biblio.* from keyword left join biblio on
biblio.p_biblio=keyword.fk_biblio
where keyword="SOMESTRING";
The l
possibly
-Original Message-
From: Miretsky, Anya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:32 PM
To: 'Rick Emery'
Subject: RE: Left Join problem - Please Help
When I do this without specifying a left join with just :select biblio.*
from biblio,keyword wher
he mysql list to see what the experts think.
-Original Message-
From: Miretsky, Anya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:17 PM
To: 'Rick Emery'
Subject: RE: Left Join problem - Please Help
Biblio has 11,901 and keyword has 87,971, also I indexed the
Show us your table structure, some table values and the SELECT statement
that works and the one that doesn't
-Original Message-
From: Miretsky, Anya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:13 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Left Join proble
Whenever I try to issue a query which has a left join for two tables and a
where clause for a column in the second table that is a varchar the query
runs indefinitely. If I change the where clause to search on a numeric type
column the query runs and returns expected values.
Does anyone know what
George Eric R Contr AFSPC/CVYZ writes:
> Ok, I can see that now. If the record doesn't exist in the tracked table,
> it can't meet the window criteria.
>
> The one way I see to get around this, in the absense of subselects, is to
> retrieve the tracked data that meets the window criteria into
-
From: George Eric R Contr AFSPC/CVYZ
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: Left Join problem
Ok, I can see that now. If the record doesn't exi
al Message-
From: Johnson, Gregert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 10:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Left Join problem
It looks to me as though the "tracked.window=137" condition is suppressing
output of any "available" rows which
From: George Eric R Contr AFSPC/CVYZ
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Left Join problem
I'm not getting the behavior I expect from t
I'm not getting the behavior I expect from this select.
SELECT available.target, tracked.sensor
FROM available LEFT JOIN tracked ON available.target=tracked.target
WHERE available.window=137 AND tracked.window=137 AND available.sensor=8;
Now, I know for this window, that there are 25 records for
I'm not currently on the mailing list so please reply directly.
I have three tables joined as follows (Table WORKPLACE is just a codes
lookup with wrk_id and name):
MEMBERS(A) | EMPLOY(B) | WORKPLACE(C)
--
mem_id >> mem_id
workpla
Duh why didn't I think of that.
Thank you graciously. :)
> -Original Message-
> From: Quentin Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 4:26 PM
> To: 'Roger Ramirez'; MySQL List
> Subject: RE: Query/Left Join problem
>
&g
=perms.id
WHERE newsletter_subscription.member_id<>0 AND (perms.id IS NULL OR
mass_mail='No');
Does that give you what you need?
Regards
Quentin
-Original Message-
From: Roger Ramirez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 16 February 2001 08:34
To: MySQL List
Subject: Query/Left Join pr
Hi there.
I'm having a problem with a couple of tables I'm using and finding some
missing records and I was hoping someone could help me.
Here is the setup.
I have a table that is called "perms". Within here I have a bunch of
columns, only 2 of which are important.
ID which is an auto incremen
50 matches
Mail list logo
