Jump to content

select where "found here but not there" ~ possible?


Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

Is it possible to do this, and if so, could you help me write this correctly?

 

Select video.id, quiz.video_id from video, quiz, WHERE video.id "is NOT found in the quiz.video_id" row.

 

Basically I'd liike to know which "video.ids" are present in the video-table, but not present in the quiz-table. 

 

thank you for your help!

Ryan

 

Thank you very much Keith.

 

I googled "left join" and found a situation exactly like my own.  The query is the same as yours.

 

When run this though, I get: MySQL returned an empty result set (i.e. zero rows). (Query took 0.0054 sec)

 

Confusing..

 

The video.id is present in video-table, and non-existent in the quiz-table.  Is this query looking for the id, and a value of "unknown"? 

 

Or is it Selecting ids that are present in the video-table, but not present in the quiz-table----  or is that the same thing?

 

I appreciate the help and guidance.  Thanks again.

Ryan

I hate to write code for people, but this one is a toughy. Try this (I've been doing MSSQL for months so this may not work the way I expect)

 

SELECT video.id FROM video WHERE video.id NOT IN (SELECT quiz.id FROM quiz)

 

 

Or is it Selecting ids that are present in the video-table, but not present in the quiz-table----  or is that the same thing?

 

What it should get is every record from the video table and match that with the matching records from the quiz table. If there were 2 matching records on the quiz table then it would bring back the record from the video table twice, once for each quiz record ; if no matching records then it would bring back the record from the video table with the column from the quiz table being NULL. The  WHERE clause will then only return records where the field from the quiz table is NULL, hence only brings back records where there is no matching record on the quiz table.

 

Can you post some sample data?

 

The other suggestion using NOT IN will work but will be far less efficient.

 

All the best

 

Keith

Or is it Selecting ids that are present in the video-table, but not present in the quiz-table----  or is that the same thing?

 

What it should get is every record from the video table and match that with the matching records from the quiz table. If there were 2 matching records on the quiz table then it would bring back the record from the video table twice, once for each quiz record ; if no matching records then it would bring back the record from the video table with the column from the quiz table being NULL. The  WHERE clause will then only return records where the field from the quiz table is NULL, hence only brings back records where there is no matching record on the quiz table.

 

Can you post some sample data?

 

The other suggestion using NOT IN will work but will be far less efficient.

 

All the best

 

Keith

 

How is it less efficient? your way sounds like a lot of PHP processing to count how many times each is returned...

Thanks guys.  This works for what I needed.  And now I'm on to my next speed bump.... Having (count)...  which I'll start in a new thread.  thank you both so much for your help!  I'm learning a lot as I check and google my way through your input.

 

Ryan

On the question of efficiency between doing the join and the subquery- most modern SQL parsers are really good at figuring out what you're looking for whether you're selecting from multiple tables, doing a join, or using a subquery.  If you run an EXPLAIN for either kickstart or jesirose's query, you'll likely (though not always) see that they are both following the same query plan, making them identical in performance.

 

When the plans do differ, it's usually a toss up between which one is more efficient between the subquery and the join.

 

This didn't always use to be the case- earlier versions of MySQL isolated subqueries and came up with a separate plan, hence the oft-recommended practice of using a join instead of a subquery whenever possible.

On the question of efficiency between doing the join and the subquery- most modern SQL parsers are really good at figuring out what you're looking for whether you're selecting from multiple tables, doing a join, or using a subquery.  If you run an EXPLAIN for either kickstart or jesirose's query, you'll likely (though not always) see that they are both following the same query plan, making them identical in performance.

 

When the plans do differ, it's usually a toss up between which one is more efficient between the subquery and the join.

 

This didn't always use to be the case- earlier versions of MySQL isolated subqueries and came up with a separate plan, hence the oft-recommended practice of using a join instead of a subquery whenever possible.

 

:thumb-up:

Hi

 

Quick play on my development machine running Mysql 5.1 linking a table with ~970k records with another with ~170k records using a JOIN and a check for null takes just under 4 seconds on average (repeating the SQL several times). Doing the same using NOT IN syntax instead takes a bit over 5.5 seconds on average. In both cases no records were returned (and none should have been, I just used handy tables with lots of records).

 

A smaller difference than I expected to be honest.

 

All the best

 

Keith

Hi

 

Quick play on my development machine running Mysql 5.1 linking a table with ~970k records with another with ~170k records using a JOIN and a check for null takes just under 4 seconds on average (repeating the SQL several times). Doing the same using NOT IN syntax instead takes a bit over 5.5 seconds on average. In both cases no records were returned (and none should have been, I just used handy tables with lots of records).

 

A smaller difference than I expected to be honest.

 

All the best

 

Keith

 

If you haven't tossed the code, can you try it the way I suggested second? If not, I'll probably run a test myself sometime, I'm curious also. This is a neat question.

Hi

 

Afraid with the test data I used that solution would be unworkable (it is something I have used when SQL as otherwise got way too complicated). Don't think Mysql  would appreciate 197k elements within an IN clause.

 

Not sure what the limit is within MySQL for elements within an IN clause. Access has a limit of 255 I think (one of many issues with Access, unfortunately I do have to use it quite often), although you can get away with multiple IN clauses and just put an OR between them.

 

All the best

 

Keith

This thread is more than a year old. Please don't revive it unless you have something important to add.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.