Link to home
Create AccountLog in
Avatar of SidFishes
SidFishesFlag for Canada

asked on

1-Many join with duplicate id's in one table

Have a table (from our accounting software so I can't change the way it works)

inItems
101-00002      AP Flour      
101-00003      Salt

I have another table that lists the possible Units Of Measure for each item

inUOM
101-00002      BG22
101-00002      GR
101-00002      KG
101-00003      BX25
101-00003      GR
101-00003      KG

I need to get the item details & the UOM's that are not GR or KG

101-00002      AP Flour      BG22
101-00003      Salt               BX25

Tried a bunch of different Join combinations but all return everything

ideas?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of Scott Pletcher
Scott Pletcher
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
Create an account to see this answer
Signing up is free. No credit card required.
Create Account
first thing you have given us the table names but not the column names,

SO I assuming the below

100-0001 will be under the column itemID
BG22,KG,GR.... will be under the column UOM

if that is not correct, change them respectively in the below query

ok try this

select i.*,U.UOM 
from inItems i
JOIN inUOM U
ON i.itemID = U.itemID
AND u.UOM not in( 'KG','GR')

Open in new window

Hi,

If the first column named "id", and second column named "detail" of every table. You can try this:

Select * from inUOM
Left join inItems on inUOM.id = inItems.id
Where inUOM.detail <> 'GR' and inUOM.detail <> 'KG'
Avatar of SidFishes

ASKER

Quick & exactly correct. Thanks
Avatar of didnthaveaname
didnthaveaname

I'm going to propose one slight variation to Scott's answer:

SELECT
    i.item, u.UOM
FROM dbo.inItems i
INNER JOIN dbo.inUOM u ON
    u.item = i.item AND
    u.uom <> 'GR' AND
    u.uom <> 'KG'
ORDER BY
    i.item, u.UOM

He may want to weigh in on this, but it's my understanding that the IN will evaluate as logical ORs, which will expand the execution plans and could result in a sub-optimal execution plan being used.

Edit: just a proposed potential optimization to his answer which was, as you already said, spot on =)
@didnthaveaname
do you really think the person asking this question needs the optimization of the query, in most of the cases over here they dont. The need the job done.
I might be wrong though, but this is my understanding for being a memeber from last one month.
The question's closed. The points are assigned (correctly).  It was merely suggested to try and be helpful.
SQL should produce exactly the same query plan from either coding.  I think the NOT IN is easier to code, read and maintain, so I prefer it to multiple <>s connected by AND, which I think is much less intuitively understandable.