Home/ Questions/Q 896975
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-15T14:48:56+00:00

I don’t even know what the name of my problem is called, so I’m

  • 0

I don’t even know what the name of my problem is called, so I’m just gonna put some sample data. I don’t mind fuzzy results on this (this is the best way I can think to express it. I don’t mind if I overlook some data, this is for approximated evaluation, not for detailed accounting, if that makes sense). But I do need every record in TABLE 1, and I would like to avoid the nulls case indicated below.

IS THIS POSSIBLE?

TABLE 1
acctnum sub fname  lname  phone
 12345   1   john   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx
 12346   0   jane   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx
 12347   0   rob    roy   xxx-xxx-xxxx
 12348   0   paul  smith  xxx-xxx-xxxx

TABLE 2
acctnum sub division
 12345   1   EAST
 12345   2   WEST
 12345   3   NORTH
 12346   1   TOP
 12346   2   BOTTOM
 12347   2   BALLOON
 12348   1   NORTH

So if we do a “regular outer” join, we’d get some results like this, since the sub 0’s don’t match the second table:

TABLE AFTER JOIN
acctnum sub fname  lname  phone         division
 12345   1   john   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx   EAST
 12346   0   jane   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx   null
 12347   0   rob    roy   xxx-xxx-xxxx   null
 12348   0   paul  smith  xxx-xxx-xxxx   null

But I would rather get

TABLE AFTER JOIN
acctnum sub fname  lname  phone         division
 12345   1   john   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx   EAST
 12346   0   jane   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx   TOP
 12347   0   rob    roy   xxx-xxx-xxxx   BALLOON
 12348   0   paul  smith  xxx-xxx-xxxx   NORTH

And I’m trying to avoid:

TABLE AFTER JOIN
acctnum sub fname  lname  phone         division
 12345   1   john   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx   EAST
 12345   1   john   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx   WEST
 12345   1   john   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx   NORTH
 12346   0   jane   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx   TOP
 12346   0   jane   doe   xxx-xxx-xxxx   BOTTOM
 12347   0   rob    roy   xxx-xxx-xxxx   BALOON
 12348   0   paul  smith  xxx-xxx-xxxx   NORTH

So I decided to go with using a union and two if conditions. I’ll accept a null for conditions where the sub account is defined in table 1 but not in table 2, and for everything else, I’ll just match against the min.

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    try to use 

    SELECT     MIN(Table_1.acctnum) as acctnum , MIN(Table_1.sub) as sub,MIN( Table_1.fname) as fname, MIN(Table_1.lname) as name, MIN(Table_1.phone) as phone, MIN(Table_2.division) as division 
FROM Table_1 INNER JOIN   Table_2 ON Table_1.acctnum = Table_2.acctnum AND Table_1.sub = Table_2.sub
where Table_1.sub>0
group by Table_1.acctnum 
union 
SELECT     MIN(Table_1.acctnum) as acctnum , MIN(Table_1.sub) as sub,MIN( Table_1.fname) as fname, MIN(Table_1.lname) as name, MIN(Table_1.phone) as phone, MIN(Table_2.division) as division 
FROM Table_1 INNER JOIN   Table_2 ON Table_1.acctnum = Table_2.acctnum 
where Table_1.sub=0
group by Table_1.acctnum

    this is the result

    12345   1   john        doe         xxxxxxxxxx  EAST      
12346   0   jane        doe         xxxxxxxxxx  BOTTOM    
12347   0   rob         roy         xxxxxxxxxx  BALLOON   
12348   0   paul        smith       xxxxxxxxxx  NORTH

    if you change min to max TOP will be insted of BOTTOM on the second row

    • 0