how to concert SQL query to LINQ with count , group by and isnull clause
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have the following SQL Query which I am trying to translate to LINQ Query
SELECT C.NAME,C.MOBILEPHONE,ISNULL (SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0) AS
PAYAMOUNT,BILLAMOUNT ,B.ID,BILLNO , BILLDATE FROM CUSTOMERS C
JOIN BILLS B ON B.CUSTOMERID=C.ID
LEFT JOIN BILLPAYMENTS P ON P.BILLID=B.ID
GROUP BY C.NAME ,B.BILLAMOUNT,B.ID,BILLNO,BILLDATE,C.MOBILEPHONE
HAVING B.BILLAMOUNT> ( ISNULL(SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0))
How do you represent this in LINQ ?
I have seen the typical implementation this
var query = from c in db.Customers
join b in db.Bills on c.Id equals b.CustomerId
join p in db.BillPayments on b.Id equals p.BillId into cs
from xx in cs.DefaultIfEmpty()
group xx by new { c.Name, c.MobilePhone, b.BillAmount, b.BillNo, b.Id, b.BillDate } into g
where g.Sum(p => p.PaymentAmount) < g.Key.BillAmount
select new
{
Received = g.Key,
ReceivedTotal = g.Sum(p => p.PaymentAmount)
};
but am unsure how to implement the following :
HAVING B.BILLAMOUNT> ( ISNULL(SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0))
entity-framework linq sql-to-linq-conversion
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have the following SQL Query which I am trying to translate to LINQ Query
SELECT C.NAME,C.MOBILEPHONE,ISNULL (SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0) AS
PAYAMOUNT,BILLAMOUNT ,B.ID,BILLNO , BILLDATE FROM CUSTOMERS C
JOIN BILLS B ON B.CUSTOMERID=C.ID
LEFT JOIN BILLPAYMENTS P ON P.BILLID=B.ID
GROUP BY C.NAME ,B.BILLAMOUNT,B.ID,BILLNO,BILLDATE,C.MOBILEPHONE
HAVING B.BILLAMOUNT> ( ISNULL(SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0))
How do you represent this in LINQ ?
I have seen the typical implementation this
var query = from c in db.Customers
join b in db.Bills on c.Id equals b.CustomerId
join p in db.BillPayments on b.Id equals p.BillId into cs
from xx in cs.DefaultIfEmpty()
group xx by new { c.Name, c.MobilePhone, b.BillAmount, b.BillNo, b.Id, b.BillDate } into g
where g.Sum(p => p.PaymentAmount) < g.Key.BillAmount
select new
{
Received = g.Key,
ReceivedTotal = g.Sum(p => p.PaymentAmount)
};
but am unsure how to implement the following :
HAVING B.BILLAMOUNT> ( ISNULL(SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0))
entity-framework linq sql-to-linq-conversion
HAVING clause is basically the same as WHERE clause, but only used with GROUP BY clause.
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:56
reading: old.devkimchi.com/2014/09/02/…
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:57
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I have the following SQL Query which I am trying to translate to LINQ Query
SELECT C.NAME,C.MOBILEPHONE,ISNULL (SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0) AS
PAYAMOUNT,BILLAMOUNT ,B.ID,BILLNO , BILLDATE FROM CUSTOMERS C
JOIN BILLS B ON B.CUSTOMERID=C.ID
LEFT JOIN BILLPAYMENTS P ON P.BILLID=B.ID
GROUP BY C.NAME ,B.BILLAMOUNT,B.ID,BILLNO,BILLDATE,C.MOBILEPHONE
HAVING B.BILLAMOUNT> ( ISNULL(SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0))
How do you represent this in LINQ ?
I have seen the typical implementation this
var query = from c in db.Customers
join b in db.Bills on c.Id equals b.CustomerId
join p in db.BillPayments on b.Id equals p.BillId into cs
from xx in cs.DefaultIfEmpty()
group xx by new { c.Name, c.MobilePhone, b.BillAmount, b.BillNo, b.Id, b.BillDate } into g
where g.Sum(p => p.PaymentAmount) < g.Key.BillAmount
select new
{
Received = g.Key,
ReceivedTotal = g.Sum(p => p.PaymentAmount)
};
but am unsure how to implement the following :
HAVING B.BILLAMOUNT> ( ISNULL(SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0))
entity-framework linq sql-to-linq-conversion
I have the following SQL Query which I am trying to translate to LINQ Query
SELECT C.NAME,C.MOBILEPHONE,ISNULL (SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0) AS
PAYAMOUNT,BILLAMOUNT ,B.ID,BILLNO , BILLDATE FROM CUSTOMERS C
JOIN BILLS B ON B.CUSTOMERID=C.ID
LEFT JOIN BILLPAYMENTS P ON P.BILLID=B.ID
GROUP BY C.NAME ,B.BILLAMOUNT,B.ID,BILLNO,BILLDATE,C.MOBILEPHONE
HAVING B.BILLAMOUNT> ( ISNULL(SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0))
How do you represent this in LINQ ?
I have seen the typical implementation this
var query = from c in db.Customers
join b in db.Bills on c.Id equals b.CustomerId
join p in db.BillPayments on b.Id equals p.BillId into cs
from xx in cs.DefaultIfEmpty()
group xx by new { c.Name, c.MobilePhone, b.BillAmount, b.BillNo, b.Id, b.BillDate } into g
where g.Sum(p => p.PaymentAmount) < g.Key.BillAmount
select new
{
Received = g.Key,
ReceivedTotal = g.Sum(p => p.PaymentAmount)
};
but am unsure how to implement the following :
HAVING B.BILLAMOUNT> ( ISNULL(SUM(P.PAYMENTAMOUNT),0))
entity-framework linq sql-to-linq-conversion
entity-framework linq sql-to-linq-conversion
asked Nov 20 at 5:33
Amir Mohammad Firoozi
12
12
HAVING clause is basically the same as WHERE clause, but only used with GROUP BY clause.
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:56
reading: old.devkimchi.com/2014/09/02/…
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:57
add a comment |
HAVING clause is basically the same as WHERE clause, but only used with GROUP BY clause.
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:56
reading: old.devkimchi.com/2014/09/02/…
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:57
HAVING clause is basically the same as WHERE clause, but only used with GROUP BY clause.
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:56
HAVING clause is basically the same as WHERE clause, but only used with GROUP BY clause.
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:56
reading: old.devkimchi.com/2014/09/02/…
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:57
reading: old.devkimchi.com/2014/09/02/…
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:57
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
So you have a sequence of Customers
, where every Customer
has zero or more Bills
, and every Bill
belongs to exactly one Customer
: a straightforward one-to-many relation.
Furthermore, every Bill
has zero or more BillPayments
, where every BillPayment
belongs to exactly one Bill
, also a one-to-many relation.
Alas you forgot to tell us your classes. If you followed the entity framework code first conventions, you'll have something similar to:
class Customer
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
...
// every Customer has zero or more Bills (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<Bill> Bills {get; set;}
}
class Bill
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public int BillNo {get; set;}
public decimal BillAmount {get; set;}
...
// every Bill belongs to exactly one Customer, using foreign key
public int CustomerId {get; set;}
public virtual Customer Customer {get; set;}
// every Bill has zero or more BillPayments (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<BillPayment> BillPayments {get; set;}
}
class BillPayment
{
public int Id {get; set;}
...
// every BillPayment belongs to exactly one Bill, using foreign key
public int BillId {get; set;}
public virtual Bill Bill{get; set;}
// every Bill has zero or more BillPayments (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<BillPayment> BillPayments {get; set;}
}
In entity framework, the columns of your table are represented by non-virtual properties, the virtual properties represent the relations between the tables.
You also forgot the requirements of your query. It seems to me, that you want the following:
Give me certain properties of Bills (Id, BillNo, BillDate, BillAmount), with certain properties of the Customer of this Bill (Name and MobilePhone), of all Bills that are not fully paid yet. Or in other words, of all Bills where the sum of all payments is less than the BillAmount.
One of the nice things about entity framework, is that you don't have to do the joins yourself, you can use the virtual properties. Entity Framework knows the relations between the tables and does the proper joins for you.
Just for fun, we'll add the original BillAmount, the AmountPaid, and the RemainingAmount, so you can tell your Customer how much he still has to pay when you phone him on his mobile phone
In the requirement you see the central role of Bills
, so let's use that as starting point:
// (1) from all bills, calculate the AmountPaid; remember the original bill data:
var notFullyPaidBills = myDbContext.Bills
.Select(bill => new
{
BillData = bill,
AmountPaid = bill.BillPayments
.Select(billPayment => billPayment.PaymentAmount)
.Sum(),
})
// (2) Keep only those bills that are not fully paid yet
.Where(bill => bill.Bil.BillAmount > bill.AmountPaid)
// (3) from the remaining bills select the required properties:
.Select(bill => new
{
// Customer properties:
CustomerName = bill.BillData.Customer.Name,
MobilePhone = bill.BillData.Customer.MobilePhone,
// bill properties:
BillId = bill.BillData.Id,
BillNo = bill.BillData.BillNo,
BillDate = bill.BillData.Date,
// Amounts:
BillAmount = bill.BillData.BillAmount,
AmountPaid = bill.AmountPaid,
RemainingAmount = bill.BillData.BillAmount - bill.AmountPaid,
});
See? When using the virtual properties of your entity framework classes, the queries will look much simpler and more intuitive than when you are doing the (group)joins yourself.
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
So you have a sequence of Customers
, where every Customer
has zero or more Bills
, and every Bill
belongs to exactly one Customer
: a straightforward one-to-many relation.
Furthermore, every Bill
has zero or more BillPayments
, where every BillPayment
belongs to exactly one Bill
, also a one-to-many relation.
Alas you forgot to tell us your classes. If you followed the entity framework code first conventions, you'll have something similar to:
class Customer
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
...
// every Customer has zero or more Bills (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<Bill> Bills {get; set;}
}
class Bill
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public int BillNo {get; set;}
public decimal BillAmount {get; set;}
...
// every Bill belongs to exactly one Customer, using foreign key
public int CustomerId {get; set;}
public virtual Customer Customer {get; set;}
// every Bill has zero or more BillPayments (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<BillPayment> BillPayments {get; set;}
}
class BillPayment
{
public int Id {get; set;}
...
// every BillPayment belongs to exactly one Bill, using foreign key
public int BillId {get; set;}
public virtual Bill Bill{get; set;}
// every Bill has zero or more BillPayments (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<BillPayment> BillPayments {get; set;}
}
In entity framework, the columns of your table are represented by non-virtual properties, the virtual properties represent the relations between the tables.
You also forgot the requirements of your query. It seems to me, that you want the following:
Give me certain properties of Bills (Id, BillNo, BillDate, BillAmount), with certain properties of the Customer of this Bill (Name and MobilePhone), of all Bills that are not fully paid yet. Or in other words, of all Bills where the sum of all payments is less than the BillAmount.
One of the nice things about entity framework, is that you don't have to do the joins yourself, you can use the virtual properties. Entity Framework knows the relations between the tables and does the proper joins for you.
Just for fun, we'll add the original BillAmount, the AmountPaid, and the RemainingAmount, so you can tell your Customer how much he still has to pay when you phone him on his mobile phone
In the requirement you see the central role of Bills
, so let's use that as starting point:
// (1) from all bills, calculate the AmountPaid; remember the original bill data:
var notFullyPaidBills = myDbContext.Bills
.Select(bill => new
{
BillData = bill,
AmountPaid = bill.BillPayments
.Select(billPayment => billPayment.PaymentAmount)
.Sum(),
})
// (2) Keep only those bills that are not fully paid yet
.Where(bill => bill.Bil.BillAmount > bill.AmountPaid)
// (3) from the remaining bills select the required properties:
.Select(bill => new
{
// Customer properties:
CustomerName = bill.BillData.Customer.Name,
MobilePhone = bill.BillData.Customer.MobilePhone,
// bill properties:
BillId = bill.BillData.Id,
BillNo = bill.BillData.BillNo,
BillDate = bill.BillData.Date,
// Amounts:
BillAmount = bill.BillData.BillAmount,
AmountPaid = bill.AmountPaid,
RemainingAmount = bill.BillData.BillAmount - bill.AmountPaid,
});
See? When using the virtual properties of your entity framework classes, the queries will look much simpler and more intuitive than when you are doing the (group)joins yourself.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
So you have a sequence of Customers
, where every Customer
has zero or more Bills
, and every Bill
belongs to exactly one Customer
: a straightforward one-to-many relation.
Furthermore, every Bill
has zero or more BillPayments
, where every BillPayment
belongs to exactly one Bill
, also a one-to-many relation.
Alas you forgot to tell us your classes. If you followed the entity framework code first conventions, you'll have something similar to:
class Customer
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
...
// every Customer has zero or more Bills (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<Bill> Bills {get; set;}
}
class Bill
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public int BillNo {get; set;}
public decimal BillAmount {get; set;}
...
// every Bill belongs to exactly one Customer, using foreign key
public int CustomerId {get; set;}
public virtual Customer Customer {get; set;}
// every Bill has zero or more BillPayments (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<BillPayment> BillPayments {get; set;}
}
class BillPayment
{
public int Id {get; set;}
...
// every BillPayment belongs to exactly one Bill, using foreign key
public int BillId {get; set;}
public virtual Bill Bill{get; set;}
// every Bill has zero or more BillPayments (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<BillPayment> BillPayments {get; set;}
}
In entity framework, the columns of your table are represented by non-virtual properties, the virtual properties represent the relations between the tables.
You also forgot the requirements of your query. It seems to me, that you want the following:
Give me certain properties of Bills (Id, BillNo, BillDate, BillAmount), with certain properties of the Customer of this Bill (Name and MobilePhone), of all Bills that are not fully paid yet. Or in other words, of all Bills where the sum of all payments is less than the BillAmount.
One of the nice things about entity framework, is that you don't have to do the joins yourself, you can use the virtual properties. Entity Framework knows the relations between the tables and does the proper joins for you.
Just for fun, we'll add the original BillAmount, the AmountPaid, and the RemainingAmount, so you can tell your Customer how much he still has to pay when you phone him on his mobile phone
In the requirement you see the central role of Bills
, so let's use that as starting point:
// (1) from all bills, calculate the AmountPaid; remember the original bill data:
var notFullyPaidBills = myDbContext.Bills
.Select(bill => new
{
BillData = bill,
AmountPaid = bill.BillPayments
.Select(billPayment => billPayment.PaymentAmount)
.Sum(),
})
// (2) Keep only those bills that are not fully paid yet
.Where(bill => bill.Bil.BillAmount > bill.AmountPaid)
// (3) from the remaining bills select the required properties:
.Select(bill => new
{
// Customer properties:
CustomerName = bill.BillData.Customer.Name,
MobilePhone = bill.BillData.Customer.MobilePhone,
// bill properties:
BillId = bill.BillData.Id,
BillNo = bill.BillData.BillNo,
BillDate = bill.BillData.Date,
// Amounts:
BillAmount = bill.BillData.BillAmount,
AmountPaid = bill.AmountPaid,
RemainingAmount = bill.BillData.BillAmount - bill.AmountPaid,
});
See? When using the virtual properties of your entity framework classes, the queries will look much simpler and more intuitive than when you are doing the (group)joins yourself.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
So you have a sequence of Customers
, where every Customer
has zero or more Bills
, and every Bill
belongs to exactly one Customer
: a straightforward one-to-many relation.
Furthermore, every Bill
has zero or more BillPayments
, where every BillPayment
belongs to exactly one Bill
, also a one-to-many relation.
Alas you forgot to tell us your classes. If you followed the entity framework code first conventions, you'll have something similar to:
class Customer
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
...
// every Customer has zero or more Bills (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<Bill> Bills {get; set;}
}
class Bill
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public int BillNo {get; set;}
public decimal BillAmount {get; set;}
...
// every Bill belongs to exactly one Customer, using foreign key
public int CustomerId {get; set;}
public virtual Customer Customer {get; set;}
// every Bill has zero or more BillPayments (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<BillPayment> BillPayments {get; set;}
}
class BillPayment
{
public int Id {get; set;}
...
// every BillPayment belongs to exactly one Bill, using foreign key
public int BillId {get; set;}
public virtual Bill Bill{get; set;}
// every Bill has zero or more BillPayments (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<BillPayment> BillPayments {get; set;}
}
In entity framework, the columns of your table are represented by non-virtual properties, the virtual properties represent the relations between the tables.
You also forgot the requirements of your query. It seems to me, that you want the following:
Give me certain properties of Bills (Id, BillNo, BillDate, BillAmount), with certain properties of the Customer of this Bill (Name and MobilePhone), of all Bills that are not fully paid yet. Or in other words, of all Bills where the sum of all payments is less than the BillAmount.
One of the nice things about entity framework, is that you don't have to do the joins yourself, you can use the virtual properties. Entity Framework knows the relations between the tables and does the proper joins for you.
Just for fun, we'll add the original BillAmount, the AmountPaid, and the RemainingAmount, so you can tell your Customer how much he still has to pay when you phone him on his mobile phone
In the requirement you see the central role of Bills
, so let's use that as starting point:
// (1) from all bills, calculate the AmountPaid; remember the original bill data:
var notFullyPaidBills = myDbContext.Bills
.Select(bill => new
{
BillData = bill,
AmountPaid = bill.BillPayments
.Select(billPayment => billPayment.PaymentAmount)
.Sum(),
})
// (2) Keep only those bills that are not fully paid yet
.Where(bill => bill.Bil.BillAmount > bill.AmountPaid)
// (3) from the remaining bills select the required properties:
.Select(bill => new
{
// Customer properties:
CustomerName = bill.BillData.Customer.Name,
MobilePhone = bill.BillData.Customer.MobilePhone,
// bill properties:
BillId = bill.BillData.Id,
BillNo = bill.BillData.BillNo,
BillDate = bill.BillData.Date,
// Amounts:
BillAmount = bill.BillData.BillAmount,
AmountPaid = bill.AmountPaid,
RemainingAmount = bill.BillData.BillAmount - bill.AmountPaid,
});
See? When using the virtual properties of your entity framework classes, the queries will look much simpler and more intuitive than when you are doing the (group)joins yourself.
So you have a sequence of Customers
, where every Customer
has zero or more Bills
, and every Bill
belongs to exactly one Customer
: a straightforward one-to-many relation.
Furthermore, every Bill
has zero or more BillPayments
, where every BillPayment
belongs to exactly one Bill
, also a one-to-many relation.
Alas you forgot to tell us your classes. If you followed the entity framework code first conventions, you'll have something similar to:
class Customer
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
...
// every Customer has zero or more Bills (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<Bill> Bills {get; set;}
}
class Bill
{
public int Id {get; set;}
public int BillNo {get; set;}
public decimal BillAmount {get; set;}
...
// every Bill belongs to exactly one Customer, using foreign key
public int CustomerId {get; set;}
public virtual Customer Customer {get; set;}
// every Bill has zero or more BillPayments (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<BillPayment> BillPayments {get; set;}
}
class BillPayment
{
public int Id {get; set;}
...
// every BillPayment belongs to exactly one Bill, using foreign key
public int BillId {get; set;}
public virtual Bill Bill{get; set;}
// every Bill has zero or more BillPayments (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<BillPayment> BillPayments {get; set;}
}
In entity framework, the columns of your table are represented by non-virtual properties, the virtual properties represent the relations between the tables.
You also forgot the requirements of your query. It seems to me, that you want the following:
Give me certain properties of Bills (Id, BillNo, BillDate, BillAmount), with certain properties of the Customer of this Bill (Name and MobilePhone), of all Bills that are not fully paid yet. Or in other words, of all Bills where the sum of all payments is less than the BillAmount.
One of the nice things about entity framework, is that you don't have to do the joins yourself, you can use the virtual properties. Entity Framework knows the relations between the tables and does the proper joins for you.
Just for fun, we'll add the original BillAmount, the AmountPaid, and the RemainingAmount, so you can tell your Customer how much he still has to pay when you phone him on his mobile phone
In the requirement you see the central role of Bills
, so let's use that as starting point:
// (1) from all bills, calculate the AmountPaid; remember the original bill data:
var notFullyPaidBills = myDbContext.Bills
.Select(bill => new
{
BillData = bill,
AmountPaid = bill.BillPayments
.Select(billPayment => billPayment.PaymentAmount)
.Sum(),
})
// (2) Keep only those bills that are not fully paid yet
.Where(bill => bill.Bil.BillAmount > bill.AmountPaid)
// (3) from the remaining bills select the required properties:
.Select(bill => new
{
// Customer properties:
CustomerName = bill.BillData.Customer.Name,
MobilePhone = bill.BillData.Customer.MobilePhone,
// bill properties:
BillId = bill.BillData.Id,
BillNo = bill.BillData.BillNo,
BillDate = bill.BillData.Date,
// Amounts:
BillAmount = bill.BillData.BillAmount,
AmountPaid = bill.AmountPaid,
RemainingAmount = bill.BillData.BillAmount - bill.AmountPaid,
});
See? When using the virtual properties of your entity framework classes, the queries will look much simpler and more intuitive than when you are doing the (group)joins yourself.
answered Nov 20 at 12:43
Harald Coppoolse
11.1k12958
11.1k12958
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53386816%2fhow-to-concert-sql-query-to-linq-with-count-group-by-and-isnull-clause%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
HAVING clause is basically the same as WHERE clause, but only used with GROUP BY clause.
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:56
reading: old.devkimchi.com/2014/09/02/…
– JohnB
Nov 20 at 5:57