| |
Welcome to the dBforums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support.
If you prefer not to see double-underlined words and corresponding ads, place your cursor here for ContentLink opt out.
|
 |

10-25-07, 09:25
|
|
Gives Bad Advice
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 010101010110100
Posts: 706
|
|
|
Query that is not working properly. Gets some rows and not others.
|
I have a table called employee_Console. This table holds information on employees that start and end work, just like a timecard would.
I am using this query
Code:
SELECT t1.employee_Number_Seq AS employee
, t1.console_Stamp AS 'On'
, t2.console_Stamp AS 'Off'
FROM
employee_Console AS t1
Inner Join employee_Console AS t2 ON t1.employee_Number_Seq = t2.employee_Number_Seq
AND t2.console_Stamp =
(
SELECT MIN(console_Stamp)
FROM employee_Console
WHERE console_Status = 'Off'
AND console_Stamp > t1.console_Stamp
)
WHERE t1.console_Status = 'On'
AND t2.console_Status = 'Off'
The really strange thing about this query is that sometimes it will get the paired On and Off times and other times it won't -- even though there is data. Here is test data from the employee_Console table
Code:
status Emp# by stamp console_Seq
On 1 1 2007-10-25 00:41:22 1
On 2 1 2007-10-25 00:32:46 2
Off 1 1 2007-10-25 00:42:15 3
Off 2 1 2007-10-27 00:44:33 4
On 4 1 2007-10-25 00:45:37 5
On 7 1 2007-10-25 00:46:07 6
Off 4 1 2007-10-25 00:47:13 7
Off 7 1 2007-10-25 00:47:32 8
On 9 1 2007-10-25 00:52:45 9
Off 9 1 2007-10-25 00:53:09 10
On 1 1 2007-10-25 01:04:55 11
Off 1 1 2007-10-25 01:05:05 12
Here is the part I don't get. The data is below is what the query produced. Please notice that only employee numbers 1, 4, 9 and 1 are listed below but.. if you look at the test data above, you will see that the query completely missed the data for employees 2 and 7. Also, please notice that there is an "On" and "Off" stamp for both employees 2 and 7. Even though the data appears above, the query misses them for some reason.
Code:
1 2007-10-25 00:41:22 2007-10-25 00:42:15
4 2007-10-25 00:45:37 2007-10-25 00:47:13
9 2007-10-25 00:52:45 2007-10-25 00:53:09
1 2007-10-25 01:04:55 2007-10-25 01:05:05
__________________
I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
|
|

10-25-07, 09:48
|
|
SQL Consultant
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 13,556
|
|
subquery is missing a correlation to the same employee
Code:
AND t2.console_Stamp =
(
SELECT MIN(console_Stamp)
FROM employee_Console
WHERE console_Status = 'Off'
AND employee_Number_Seq = t1.employee_Number_Seq
AND console_Stamp > t1.console_Stamp
)
|
|

10-25-07, 09:52
|
|
SQL Apprentice
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: hiding
Posts: 8,145
|
|
|
For the benefit of anyone wanting to try this out too here is some "pick up and go" code
Code:
DECLARE @employee_Console table (
console_status char(3)
, employee_Number_Seq int
, console_Stamp datetime
)
INSERT INTO @employee_Console (console_status, employee_Number_Seq, console_Stamp)
SELECT 'On' , 1, '2007-10-25 00:41:22' UNION ALL
SELECT 'On' , 2, '2007-10-25 00:32:46' UNION ALL
SELECT 'Off', 1, '2007-10-25 00:42:15' UNION ALL
SELECT 'Off', 2, '2007-10-27 00:44:33' UNION ALL
SELECT 'On' , 4, '2007-10-25 00:45:37' UNION ALL
SELECT 'On' , 7, '2007-10-25 00:46:07' UNION ALL
SELECT 'Off', 4, '2007-10-25 00:47:13' UNION ALL
SELECT 'Off', 7, '2007-10-25 00:47:32' UNION ALL
SELECT 'On' , 9, '2007-10-25 00:52:45' UNION ALL
SELECT 'Off', 9, '2007-10-25 00:53:09' UNION ALL
SELECT 'On' , 1, '2007-10-25 01:04:55' UNION ALL
SELECT 'Off', 1, '2007-10-25 01:05:05'
SELECT t1.employee_Number_Seq As [employee]
, t1.console_Stamp As [On]
, t2.console_Stamp As [Off]
FROM @employee_Console As [t1]
INNER
JOIN @employee_Console As [t2]
ON t1.employee_Number_Seq = t2.employee_Number_Seq
AND t2.console_Stamp = (
SELECT Min(console_Stamp)
FROM @employee_Console
WHERE console_Status = 'Off'
AND console_Stamp > t1.console_Stamp
)
WHERE t1.console_Status = 'On'
AND t2.console_Status = 'Off'
EDIT: Sniped by Rudy.
Actually, he gave the answer and I was still busy thunking 
__________________
George
You only stop learning when you stop asking questions.
|
|

10-25-07, 10:16
|
|
Gives Bad Advice
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 010101010110100
Posts: 706
|
|
Wow. Rudy, it appears to work.. I'm not even gonna ask how you figured that out.
George.. what the hay is that?
EDIT:
Rudy, thank you so much!
__________________
I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
|
|

10-25-07, 10:36
|
|
SQL Apprentice
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: hiding
Posts: 8,145
|
|
It was what I wrote so I could toy with it and find the answer. It re-creates your scenario given the sample.
It's so others could try the problem at home too.
The answer seems so obvious now it's been pointed out; Rudy finds this stuff way to easy 
__________________
George
You only stop learning when you stop asking questions.
|
|

10-25-07, 10:43
|
|
Gives Bad Advice
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 010101010110100
Posts: 706
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by georgev
It was what I wrote so I could toy with it and find the answer. It re-creates your scenario given the sample.
It's so others could try the problem at home too.
The answer seems so obvious now it's been pointed out; Rudy finds this stuff way to easy 
|
Well.. I wish I could see it.. Why don't you do me a favor and try to explain it to me please. I think I wore Rudy out with all of my questions.

__________________
I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
|
|

10-25-07, 11:08
|
|
SQL Apprentice
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: hiding
Posts: 8,145
|
|
The subquery on the join has no relation to the outer tables.
Code:
(
SELECT MIN(console_Stamp)
FROM employee_Console
WHERE console_Status = 'Off'
AND console_Stamp > t1.console_Stamp
)
The highlighted above will look for the very smallest value, whereas you want the smallest value for each employee_seq pair in t1.
I'm not so good when it comes to explaining these bits - but I hope that helps instead of confuses further 
__________________
George
You only stop learning when you stop asking questions.
|
|

10-25-07, 11:21
|
|
SQL Consultant
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 13,556
|
|
the subquery that you had was returning the t2 row only when it happened to be the next one, for any employee, that was greater than the t1
simple, really 
|
|

10-25-07, 11:52
|
|
Gives Bad Advice
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 010101010110100
Posts: 706
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by r937
the subquery that you had was returning the t2 row only when it happened to be the next one, for any employee, that was greater than the t1
simple, really 
|
For some reason, VBulletin is not emailing me any updates on my subscriptions.. Anyway,
Yes, your right, the solution was easy because you know what you are doing.
I understand most of the query but after the inner join, things go south for me. I have never seen a query that uses a constrain like AND...
Inner Join .... AND --never seen it before. I always thought the AND was part of the WHERE clause.
Anyhow, Rudy, thank you very much for all of your help and I am now going to retire with my oversized wife where I can dream about sql for about the next 5 to 6 hours.
Thanks Georgie for your explanation. It was also good.
__________________
I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
|
|

10-25-07, 11:59
|
|
SQL Apprentice
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: hiding
Posts: 8,145
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fjm1967
Thanks Georgie for your explanation. It was also good.
|
Consolation prize... Score!! 
__________________
George
You only stop learning when you stop asking questions.
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|