| Author |
Topic |
|
kumaran4u
Starting Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-01 : 06:25:49
|
| Hi, i came across an Stored Procedure(SP) in which i found using multiple alias for a single table. Of coz it can be done using one alias name itself. I'm in to the task of modifying that SP. It has lengthy coding so it will take quite some time to remove all the alias name. I need to know if i leave the alias names as it is will there be any issues related to the performance of the query due to multiple alias names?? if it is yes then i need to remove the alias names else i will leave as it is..Regards.. |
|
|
visakh16
Very Important crosS Applying yaK Herder
52326 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-01 : 06:38:22
|
| i dont think there will be performance issues due to alias names, but to be honest your scenario is not much clear for me...may be some sample code will help |
 |
|
|
webfred
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
8781 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-01 : 06:59:44
|
Be careful.A table in a query can have only ONE alias name.If there are more than one alias then the table is joined repeated for some reason. No, you're never too old to Yak'n'Roll if you're too young to die. |
 |
|
|
mymatrix
Starting Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-01 : 07:21:02
|
| Just to clarify further:Implemented code may have equi-joins and inner joins to query the same table with multiple aliases. For example:This will return total units status wise with date criteria.select (select sum(b.units) from tab1 as b where b.status = a.status and b.scheduledate>getdate()) as 'TotalUnits', a.Statusfrom tab1 as agroup by a.StatusthnksGauravEven my blood group says be -ve to all the negatives. |
 |
|
|
visakh16
Very Important crosS Applying yaK Herder
52326 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-02 : 05:15:26
|
quote: Originally posted by mymatrix Just to clarify further:Implemented code may have equi-joins and inner joins to query the same table with multiple aliases. For example:This will return total units status wise with date criteria.select (select sum(b.units) from tab1 as b where b.status = a.status and b.scheduledate>getdate()) as 'TotalUnits', a.Statusfrom tab1 as agroup by a.StatusthnksGauravEven my blood group says be -ve to all the negatives.
why do you need subquery in this case? wont below be enough?select sum(case when scheduledate>getdate() then units else 0 end) as 'TotalUnits', Statusfrom tab1 group by Status |
 |
|
|
madhivanan
Premature Yak Congratulator
22864 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-02 : 05:25:33
|
| Also dont use single quotes around alias column namesMadhivananFailing to plan is Planning to fail |
 |
|
|
mymatrix
Starting Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-02 : 05:59:55
|
| I agree that subquery is not required.I have used subquery just to provide example of using multiple alias names. Though i should have stated some other better query. thanks anyways.**************************************Even my blood group says be -ve to all the negatives. |
 |
|
|
visakh16
Very Important crosS Applying yaK Herder
52326 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-02 : 06:12:07
|
quote: Originally posted by mymatrix I agree that subquery is not required.I have used subquery just to provide example of using multiple alias names. Though i should have stated some other better query. thanks anyways.**************************************Even my blood group says be -ve to all the negatives.
no problemyou're welcome |
 |
|
|
kumaran4u
Starting Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-03 : 00:45:08
|
Guys, I found some inner joins.. but it is for different tables rather for the same table.. below i have given the code Select xxxxxx from EveReq er join StatusMaster es on es.StatusID = er.StatusID left outer join EveMaster em on em.MasterID=er.EventTypeleft outer join EveMaster em2 on em2.MasterID=er.ActivityType left outer join EveMaster em3 on em3.MasterID=er.Area left outer join EveMaster em6 on em6.MasterID=er.PrimaryTechnology left outer join EveMaster em7 on em7.MasterID=er.AudienceType left outer join EveMaster em8 on em8.MasterID=er.Architecture left outer join EveMaster em9 on em9.MasterID=er.VerticalFocus left outer join EveMaster em10 on em10.MasterID=er.EventStakeHolders left outer join EveMaster em11 on em11.MasterID=er.PreferredFormofPayment left outer join EveMaster em12 on em12.MasterID=er.TemplateOptions left outer join EveMaster em13 on em13.MasterID=er.CopyBlocks left outer join EveMaster em14 on em14.MasterID=er.CISCOPhotos left outer join EveMaster em17 on em17.MasterID=er.VenueStatus left outer join EveMaster em18 on em18.MasterID=er.TechnicalRating left outer join EveMaster em19 on em19.MasterID=er.Vendor left outer join EveMaster em22 on em22.MasterID=er.SetupType left outer join EveMaster em23 on em23.MasterID=er.WhoShouldAttend left outer join UserMaster um1 on er.SalesRegion = um1.SalesRegionID and er.FMMgr = um1.EmailAddress left outer join UserMaster um2 on um1.UserID = um2.AmmID left outer join OOOMaster om on er.FieldMarketingManager = om.ApproverID and om.OOOflag=1 based on the discussions in this topic i believe this will not have any issues related to performance... pls suggest me..Regards.. |
 |
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2010-02-03 : 01:43:07
|
| " i believe this will not have any issues related to performance."Yes, its fine, although some/many would say that the design is faulty and there should be a separate "lookup" table for each type of Object, whereas this seems to be using the same EveMaster table for all of them.It is also possible that individual tables would be faster (fewer records to look through), but it could be faster (more of EveMaster cached in memory). |
 |
|
|
|