How can I make this SQL more Efficient
I have written this piece of SQL, I know there are ways to make it run faster, with the right practices.
SELECT DISTINCT
ACCOUNTNUM,
FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(PHONE + ' ' + CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
EMAIL,
(SELECT TOP 1 CREATEDDATE
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM
ORDER BY CREATEDDATE DESC) AS LASTVISIT, -- LAST VISIT,
(SELECT COUNT(TRANSACTIONID)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALVISITS, -- TOTAL VISITS,
(SELECT SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALSALES, -- TOTAL SALES,
(SELECT SUM(DISCAMOUNT)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS DISCOUNT
FROM
CUSTOMER
LEFT OUTER JOIN
RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE ON CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM
I know if I am using some sort of Joins, I don't have necessarily have to keep saying FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
every time (the code after Email
column). The code above works great for my requirement, but I know there are missing gaps in my knowledge, I just don't know what.
I am looking for in-depth answers as to why the above solution is not recommended, and why your solution is.
sql-server tsql relational-database
add a comment |
I have written this piece of SQL, I know there are ways to make it run faster, with the right practices.
SELECT DISTINCT
ACCOUNTNUM,
FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(PHONE + ' ' + CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
EMAIL,
(SELECT TOP 1 CREATEDDATE
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM
ORDER BY CREATEDDATE DESC) AS LASTVISIT, -- LAST VISIT,
(SELECT COUNT(TRANSACTIONID)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALVISITS, -- TOTAL VISITS,
(SELECT SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALSALES, -- TOTAL SALES,
(SELECT SUM(DISCAMOUNT)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS DISCOUNT
FROM
CUSTOMER
LEFT OUTER JOIN
RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE ON CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM
I know if I am using some sort of Joins, I don't have necessarily have to keep saying FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
every time (the code after Email
column). The code above works great for my requirement, but I know there are missing gaps in my knowledge, I just don't know what.
I am looking for in-depth answers as to why the above solution is not recommended, and why your solution is.
sql-server tsql relational-database
1
It's helpful to tag database questions with both the appropriate software (MySQL, Oracle, DB2, ...) and version, e.g.sql-server-2014
. Differences in syntax and features often affect the answers. Note thattsql
narrows the choices, but does not specify the database. Assuming that you are using SQL Server: See paste the plan for a way to include an execution plan in your question.
– HABO
Nov 22 '18 at 1:12
1
You used DISTINCT to cover up your logic error. There is NO reason to join Customer and Transaction when you do the equivalent as subqueries. And you used 4 separate subqueries to the same table for your calculations, each of which is a simple aggregate. That should have been a clue that you could calculate all 4 values with a single pass through the transaction table - as Tim demonstrates. lastly - [top 1 x order by x desc] is the same as max(). The latter is far more readable, more understandable, and less prone to error.
– SMor
Nov 22 '18 at 14:18
add a comment |
I have written this piece of SQL, I know there are ways to make it run faster, with the right practices.
SELECT DISTINCT
ACCOUNTNUM,
FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(PHONE + ' ' + CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
EMAIL,
(SELECT TOP 1 CREATEDDATE
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM
ORDER BY CREATEDDATE DESC) AS LASTVISIT, -- LAST VISIT,
(SELECT COUNT(TRANSACTIONID)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALVISITS, -- TOTAL VISITS,
(SELECT SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALSALES, -- TOTAL SALES,
(SELECT SUM(DISCAMOUNT)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS DISCOUNT
FROM
CUSTOMER
LEFT OUTER JOIN
RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE ON CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM
I know if I am using some sort of Joins, I don't have necessarily have to keep saying FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
every time (the code after Email
column). The code above works great for my requirement, but I know there are missing gaps in my knowledge, I just don't know what.
I am looking for in-depth answers as to why the above solution is not recommended, and why your solution is.
sql-server tsql relational-database
I have written this piece of SQL, I know there are ways to make it run faster, with the right practices.
SELECT DISTINCT
ACCOUNTNUM,
FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(PHONE + ' ' + CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
EMAIL,
(SELECT TOP 1 CREATEDDATE
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM
ORDER BY CREATEDDATE DESC) AS LASTVISIT, -- LAST VISIT,
(SELECT COUNT(TRANSACTIONID)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALVISITS, -- TOTAL VISITS,
(SELECT SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALSALES, -- TOTAL SALES,
(SELECT SUM(DISCAMOUNT)
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS DISCOUNT
FROM
CUSTOMER
LEFT OUTER JOIN
RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE ON CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM
I know if I am using some sort of Joins, I don't have necessarily have to keep saying FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
every time (the code after Email
column). The code above works great for my requirement, but I know there are missing gaps in my knowledge, I just don't know what.
I am looking for in-depth answers as to why the above solution is not recommended, and why your solution is.
sql-server tsql relational-database
sql-server tsql relational-database
edited Nov 22 '18 at 5:14
marc_s
572k12811061253
572k12811061253
asked Nov 22 '18 at 0:08
KushKush
97111
97111
1
It's helpful to tag database questions with both the appropriate software (MySQL, Oracle, DB2, ...) and version, e.g.sql-server-2014
. Differences in syntax and features often affect the answers. Note thattsql
narrows the choices, but does not specify the database. Assuming that you are using SQL Server: See paste the plan for a way to include an execution plan in your question.
– HABO
Nov 22 '18 at 1:12
1
You used DISTINCT to cover up your logic error. There is NO reason to join Customer and Transaction when you do the equivalent as subqueries. And you used 4 separate subqueries to the same table for your calculations, each of which is a simple aggregate. That should have been a clue that you could calculate all 4 values with a single pass through the transaction table - as Tim demonstrates. lastly - [top 1 x order by x desc] is the same as max(). The latter is far more readable, more understandable, and less prone to error.
– SMor
Nov 22 '18 at 14:18
add a comment |
1
It's helpful to tag database questions with both the appropriate software (MySQL, Oracle, DB2, ...) and version, e.g.sql-server-2014
. Differences in syntax and features often affect the answers. Note thattsql
narrows the choices, but does not specify the database. Assuming that you are using SQL Server: See paste the plan for a way to include an execution plan in your question.
– HABO
Nov 22 '18 at 1:12
1
You used DISTINCT to cover up your logic error. There is NO reason to join Customer and Transaction when you do the equivalent as subqueries. And you used 4 separate subqueries to the same table for your calculations, each of which is a simple aggregate. That should have been a clue that you could calculate all 4 values with a single pass through the transaction table - as Tim demonstrates. lastly - [top 1 x order by x desc] is the same as max(). The latter is far more readable, more understandable, and less prone to error.
– SMor
Nov 22 '18 at 14:18
1
1
It's helpful to tag database questions with both the appropriate software (MySQL, Oracle, DB2, ...) and version, e.g.
sql-server-2014
. Differences in syntax and features often affect the answers. Note that tsql
narrows the choices, but does not specify the database. Assuming that you are using SQL Server: See paste the plan for a way to include an execution plan in your question.– HABO
Nov 22 '18 at 1:12
It's helpful to tag database questions with both the appropriate software (MySQL, Oracle, DB2, ...) and version, e.g.
sql-server-2014
. Differences in syntax and features often affect the answers. Note that tsql
narrows the choices, but does not specify the database. Assuming that you are using SQL Server: See paste the plan for a way to include an execution plan in your question.– HABO
Nov 22 '18 at 1:12
1
1
You used DISTINCT to cover up your logic error. There is NO reason to join Customer and Transaction when you do the equivalent as subqueries. And you used 4 separate subqueries to the same table for your calculations, each of which is a simple aggregate. That should have been a clue that you could calculate all 4 values with a single pass through the transaction table - as Tim demonstrates. lastly - [top 1 x order by x desc] is the same as max(). The latter is far more readable, more understandable, and less prone to error.
– SMor
Nov 22 '18 at 14:18
You used DISTINCT to cover up your logic error. There is NO reason to join Customer and Transaction when you do the equivalent as subqueries. And you used 4 separate subqueries to the same table for your calculations, each of which is a simple aggregate. That should have been a clue that you could calculate all 4 values with a single pass through the transaction table - as Tim demonstrates. lastly - [top 1 x order by x desc] is the same as max(). The latter is far more readable, more understandable, and less prone to error.
– SMor
Nov 22 '18 at 14:18
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
You may rewrite your query as a join to a subquery which finds aggregates:
SELECT
c.ACCOUNTNUM,
c.FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
c.LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(c.PHONE + ' ' + c.CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
c.EMAIL,
a.LASTVISIT,
COALESCE(a.TOTALVISITS, 0) AS TOTALVISITS,
COALESCE(a.TOTALSALES, 0) AS TOTALSALES,
COALESCE(a.DISCOUNT, 0) AS DISCOUNT
FROM CUSTOMER c
LEFT JOIN
(
SELECT
CUSTACCOUNT,
MAX(CREATEDDATE) AS LASTVISIT,
COUNT(TRANSACTIONID) AS TOTALVISITS,
SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT) AS TOTALSALES,
SUM(DISCAMOUNT) AS DISCOUNT
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
GROUP BY CUSTACCOUNT
) a
ON c.ACCOUNTNUM = a.CUSTACCOUNT;
You should always use proper aliases when referring to columns in the SELECT
clause.
add a comment |
Tim's is definitely a good way to rewrite the query. But you can also make your version more efficient by getting rid of the count(distinct)
and outer join:
SELECT ACCOUNTNUM,
FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(PHONE + ' ' + CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
EMAIL,
(SELECT TOP 1 CREATEDDATE FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM ORDER BY CREATEDDATE DESC) AS LASTVISIT, -- LAST VISIT,
(SELECT COUNT(TRANSACTIONID) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALVISITS, -- TOTAL VISITS,
(SELECT SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALSALES, -- TOTAL SALES,
(SELECT SUM(DISCAMOUNT) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS DISCOUNT
FROM CUSTOMER c;
With the right indexes, this could even have better performance than the group by
/join
version.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2f53422169%2fhow-can-i-make-this-sql-more-efficient%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You may rewrite your query as a join to a subquery which finds aggregates:
SELECT
c.ACCOUNTNUM,
c.FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
c.LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(c.PHONE + ' ' + c.CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
c.EMAIL,
a.LASTVISIT,
COALESCE(a.TOTALVISITS, 0) AS TOTALVISITS,
COALESCE(a.TOTALSALES, 0) AS TOTALSALES,
COALESCE(a.DISCOUNT, 0) AS DISCOUNT
FROM CUSTOMER c
LEFT JOIN
(
SELECT
CUSTACCOUNT,
MAX(CREATEDDATE) AS LASTVISIT,
COUNT(TRANSACTIONID) AS TOTALVISITS,
SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT) AS TOTALSALES,
SUM(DISCAMOUNT) AS DISCOUNT
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
GROUP BY CUSTACCOUNT
) a
ON c.ACCOUNTNUM = a.CUSTACCOUNT;
You should always use proper aliases when referring to columns in the SELECT
clause.
add a comment |
You may rewrite your query as a join to a subquery which finds aggregates:
SELECT
c.ACCOUNTNUM,
c.FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
c.LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(c.PHONE + ' ' + c.CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
c.EMAIL,
a.LASTVISIT,
COALESCE(a.TOTALVISITS, 0) AS TOTALVISITS,
COALESCE(a.TOTALSALES, 0) AS TOTALSALES,
COALESCE(a.DISCOUNT, 0) AS DISCOUNT
FROM CUSTOMER c
LEFT JOIN
(
SELECT
CUSTACCOUNT,
MAX(CREATEDDATE) AS LASTVISIT,
COUNT(TRANSACTIONID) AS TOTALVISITS,
SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT) AS TOTALSALES,
SUM(DISCAMOUNT) AS DISCOUNT
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
GROUP BY CUSTACCOUNT
) a
ON c.ACCOUNTNUM = a.CUSTACCOUNT;
You should always use proper aliases when referring to columns in the SELECT
clause.
add a comment |
You may rewrite your query as a join to a subquery which finds aggregates:
SELECT
c.ACCOUNTNUM,
c.FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
c.LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(c.PHONE + ' ' + c.CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
c.EMAIL,
a.LASTVISIT,
COALESCE(a.TOTALVISITS, 0) AS TOTALVISITS,
COALESCE(a.TOTALSALES, 0) AS TOTALSALES,
COALESCE(a.DISCOUNT, 0) AS DISCOUNT
FROM CUSTOMER c
LEFT JOIN
(
SELECT
CUSTACCOUNT,
MAX(CREATEDDATE) AS LASTVISIT,
COUNT(TRANSACTIONID) AS TOTALVISITS,
SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT) AS TOTALSALES,
SUM(DISCAMOUNT) AS DISCOUNT
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
GROUP BY CUSTACCOUNT
) a
ON c.ACCOUNTNUM = a.CUSTACCOUNT;
You should always use proper aliases when referring to columns in the SELECT
clause.
You may rewrite your query as a join to a subquery which finds aggregates:
SELECT
c.ACCOUNTNUM,
c.FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
c.LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(c.PHONE + ' ' + c.CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
c.EMAIL,
a.LASTVISIT,
COALESCE(a.TOTALVISITS, 0) AS TOTALVISITS,
COALESCE(a.TOTALSALES, 0) AS TOTALSALES,
COALESCE(a.DISCOUNT, 0) AS DISCOUNT
FROM CUSTOMER c
LEFT JOIN
(
SELECT
CUSTACCOUNT,
MAX(CREATEDDATE) AS LASTVISIT,
COUNT(TRANSACTIONID) AS TOTALVISITS,
SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT) AS TOTALSALES,
SUM(DISCAMOUNT) AS DISCOUNT
FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE
GROUP BY CUSTACCOUNT
) a
ON c.ACCOUNTNUM = a.CUSTACCOUNT;
You should always use proper aliases when referring to columns in the SELECT
clause.
answered Nov 22 '18 at 0:20
Tim BiegeleisenTim Biegeleisen
219k1388141
219k1388141
add a comment |
add a comment |
Tim's is definitely a good way to rewrite the query. But you can also make your version more efficient by getting rid of the count(distinct)
and outer join:
SELECT ACCOUNTNUM,
FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(PHONE + ' ' + CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
EMAIL,
(SELECT TOP 1 CREATEDDATE FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM ORDER BY CREATEDDATE DESC) AS LASTVISIT, -- LAST VISIT,
(SELECT COUNT(TRANSACTIONID) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALVISITS, -- TOTAL VISITS,
(SELECT SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALSALES, -- TOTAL SALES,
(SELECT SUM(DISCAMOUNT) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS DISCOUNT
FROM CUSTOMER c;
With the right indexes, this could even have better performance than the group by
/join
version.
add a comment |
Tim's is definitely a good way to rewrite the query. But you can also make your version more efficient by getting rid of the count(distinct)
and outer join:
SELECT ACCOUNTNUM,
FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(PHONE + ' ' + CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
EMAIL,
(SELECT TOP 1 CREATEDDATE FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM ORDER BY CREATEDDATE DESC) AS LASTVISIT, -- LAST VISIT,
(SELECT COUNT(TRANSACTIONID) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALVISITS, -- TOTAL VISITS,
(SELECT SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALSALES, -- TOTAL SALES,
(SELECT SUM(DISCAMOUNT) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS DISCOUNT
FROM CUSTOMER c;
With the right indexes, this could even have better performance than the group by
/join
version.
add a comment |
Tim's is definitely a good way to rewrite the query. But you can also make your version more efficient by getting rid of the count(distinct)
and outer join:
SELECT ACCOUNTNUM,
FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(PHONE + ' ' + CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
EMAIL,
(SELECT TOP 1 CREATEDDATE FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM ORDER BY CREATEDDATE DESC) AS LASTVISIT, -- LAST VISIT,
(SELECT COUNT(TRANSACTIONID) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALVISITS, -- TOTAL VISITS,
(SELECT SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALSALES, -- TOTAL SALES,
(SELECT SUM(DISCAMOUNT) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS DISCOUNT
FROM CUSTOMER c;
With the right indexes, this could even have better performance than the group by
/join
version.
Tim's is definitely a good way to rewrite the query. But you can also make your version more efficient by getting rid of the count(distinct)
and outer join:
SELECT ACCOUNTNUM,
FIRSTNAME AS NAME,
LASTNAME AS SURNAME,
(PHONE + ' ' + CELLULARPHONE) AS PHONENUM,
EMAIL,
(SELECT TOP 1 CREATEDDATE FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM ORDER BY CREATEDDATE DESC) AS LASTVISIT, -- LAST VISIT,
(SELECT COUNT(TRANSACTIONID) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALVISITS, -- TOTAL VISITS,
(SELECT SUM(PAYMENTAMOUNT) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS TOTALSALES, -- TOTAL SALES,
(SELECT SUM(DISCAMOUNT) FROM RBOTRANSACTIONTABLE WHERE CUSTACCOUNT = ACCOUNTNUM) AS DISCOUNT
FROM CUSTOMER c;
With the right indexes, this could even have better performance than the group by
/join
version.
answered Nov 22 '18 at 0:30
Gordon LinoffGordon Linoff
762k35296400
762k35296400
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.
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%2f53422169%2fhow-can-i-make-this-sql-more-efficient%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
1
It's helpful to tag database questions with both the appropriate software (MySQL, Oracle, DB2, ...) and version, e.g.
sql-server-2014
. Differences in syntax and features often affect the answers. Note thattsql
narrows the choices, but does not specify the database. Assuming that you are using SQL Server: See paste the plan for a way to include an execution plan in your question.– HABO
Nov 22 '18 at 1:12
1
You used DISTINCT to cover up your logic error. There is NO reason to join Customer and Transaction when you do the equivalent as subqueries. And you used 4 separate subqueries to the same table for your calculations, each of which is a simple aggregate. That should have been a clue that you could calculate all 4 values with a single pass through the transaction table - as Tim demonstrates. lastly - [top 1 x order by x desc] is the same as max(). The latter is far more readable, more understandable, and less prone to error.
– SMor
Nov 22 '18 at 14:18