inner join of one table and prevent duplicate?










0















I have a table called



trade with the following column (removed alot of redundant data)



trade_id,buyer_company_code, seller_company_code, legacy_trade_number.



I intent to query all trade where there one trade's buyer_company_code = another trade's seller_company_code and the trade's seller_company_code = another buyer buyer_company code



I tried with the query that result in the screenshot below



select * from trade tradetable1 inner join trade tradetable2
on tradetable1.seller_company_code=tradetable2.buyer_company_code and tradetable1.buyer_company_code=tradetable2.seller_company_code
and tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number


enter image description here



It currently gives me the following (legacy_trade_number from one trade) and (legacy_trade_numbe from another trade) with duplicates (due to cartesian product)



5548 5554

5548 5555

5548 5556

5549 5554

5549 5555

5549 5556

5550 5554

5550 5555

5550 5556



but i requires it to be as follows



5548 5554

5549 5555

5550 5556



Where the two column have no duplicate value. Any suggestion/hint will be helpful! thanks










share|improve this question
























  • Your current sample result shows 5554, 5555, and 5556 in the second column next to 5548 in the first. It looks like you only want to see the lowest of those three second-column values. Is that correct? Please edit your question.

    – O. Jones
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:46











  • i wanted the two column combination to be unique with only one appearing on each side, without duplicate. Was wondering if this could be sql doable. I know i can easily use my query result i got above and filter them in my application code

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:50







  • 1





    It is doable of course. But you have not yet specified the problem well enough to solve in SQL. The problem is, several trade numbers in tradetable1 match the criterion tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number in your ON condition. Which of those several do you want to display? The least one? When working with SQL, you are describing sets of values.

    – O. Jones
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:54
















0















I have a table called



trade with the following column (removed alot of redundant data)



trade_id,buyer_company_code, seller_company_code, legacy_trade_number.



I intent to query all trade where there one trade's buyer_company_code = another trade's seller_company_code and the trade's seller_company_code = another buyer buyer_company code



I tried with the query that result in the screenshot below



select * from trade tradetable1 inner join trade tradetable2
on tradetable1.seller_company_code=tradetable2.buyer_company_code and tradetable1.buyer_company_code=tradetable2.seller_company_code
and tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number


enter image description here



It currently gives me the following (legacy_trade_number from one trade) and (legacy_trade_numbe from another trade) with duplicates (due to cartesian product)



5548 5554

5548 5555

5548 5556

5549 5554

5549 5555

5549 5556

5550 5554

5550 5555

5550 5556



but i requires it to be as follows



5548 5554

5549 5555

5550 5556



Where the two column have no duplicate value. Any suggestion/hint will be helpful! thanks










share|improve this question
























  • Your current sample result shows 5554, 5555, and 5556 in the second column next to 5548 in the first. It looks like you only want to see the lowest of those three second-column values. Is that correct? Please edit your question.

    – O. Jones
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:46











  • i wanted the two column combination to be unique with only one appearing on each side, without duplicate. Was wondering if this could be sql doable. I know i can easily use my query result i got above and filter them in my application code

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:50







  • 1





    It is doable of course. But you have not yet specified the problem well enough to solve in SQL. The problem is, several trade numbers in tradetable1 match the criterion tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number in your ON condition. Which of those several do you want to display? The least one? When working with SQL, you are describing sets of values.

    – O. Jones
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:54














0












0








0








I have a table called



trade with the following column (removed alot of redundant data)



trade_id,buyer_company_code, seller_company_code, legacy_trade_number.



I intent to query all trade where there one trade's buyer_company_code = another trade's seller_company_code and the trade's seller_company_code = another buyer buyer_company code



I tried with the query that result in the screenshot below



select * from trade tradetable1 inner join trade tradetable2
on tradetable1.seller_company_code=tradetable2.buyer_company_code and tradetable1.buyer_company_code=tradetable2.seller_company_code
and tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number


enter image description here



It currently gives me the following (legacy_trade_number from one trade) and (legacy_trade_numbe from another trade) with duplicates (due to cartesian product)



5548 5554

5548 5555

5548 5556

5549 5554

5549 5555

5549 5556

5550 5554

5550 5555

5550 5556



but i requires it to be as follows



5548 5554

5549 5555

5550 5556



Where the two column have no duplicate value. Any suggestion/hint will be helpful! thanks










share|improve this question
















I have a table called



trade with the following column (removed alot of redundant data)



trade_id,buyer_company_code, seller_company_code, legacy_trade_number.



I intent to query all trade where there one trade's buyer_company_code = another trade's seller_company_code and the trade's seller_company_code = another buyer buyer_company code



I tried with the query that result in the screenshot below



select * from trade tradetable1 inner join trade tradetable2
on tradetable1.seller_company_code=tradetable2.buyer_company_code and tradetable1.buyer_company_code=tradetable2.seller_company_code
and tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number


enter image description here



It currently gives me the following (legacy_trade_number from one trade) and (legacy_trade_numbe from another trade) with duplicates (due to cartesian product)



5548 5554

5548 5555

5548 5556

5549 5554

5549 5555

5549 5556

5550 5554

5550 5555

5550 5556



but i requires it to be as follows



5548 5554

5549 5555

5550 5556



Where the two column have no duplicate value. Any suggestion/hint will be helpful! thanks







mysql sql






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 14 '18 at 17:46







ericlee

















asked Nov 14 '18 at 17:25









ericleeericlee

1,21163362




1,21163362












  • Your current sample result shows 5554, 5555, and 5556 in the second column next to 5548 in the first. It looks like you only want to see the lowest of those three second-column values. Is that correct? Please edit your question.

    – O. Jones
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:46











  • i wanted the two column combination to be unique with only one appearing on each side, without duplicate. Was wondering if this could be sql doable. I know i can easily use my query result i got above and filter them in my application code

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:50







  • 1





    It is doable of course. But you have not yet specified the problem well enough to solve in SQL. The problem is, several trade numbers in tradetable1 match the criterion tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number in your ON condition. Which of those several do you want to display? The least one? When working with SQL, you are describing sets of values.

    – O. Jones
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:54


















  • Your current sample result shows 5554, 5555, and 5556 in the second column next to 5548 in the first. It looks like you only want to see the lowest of those three second-column values. Is that correct? Please edit your question.

    – O. Jones
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:46











  • i wanted the two column combination to be unique with only one appearing on each side, without duplicate. Was wondering if this could be sql doable. I know i can easily use my query result i got above and filter them in my application code

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:50







  • 1





    It is doable of course. But you have not yet specified the problem well enough to solve in SQL. The problem is, several trade numbers in tradetable1 match the criterion tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number in your ON condition. Which of those several do you want to display? The least one? When working with SQL, you are describing sets of values.

    – O. Jones
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:54

















Your current sample result shows 5554, 5555, and 5556 in the second column next to 5548 in the first. It looks like you only want to see the lowest of those three second-column values. Is that correct? Please edit your question.

– O. Jones
Nov 14 '18 at 17:46





Your current sample result shows 5554, 5555, and 5556 in the second column next to 5548 in the first. It looks like you only want to see the lowest of those three second-column values. Is that correct? Please edit your question.

– O. Jones
Nov 14 '18 at 17:46













i wanted the two column combination to be unique with only one appearing on each side, without duplicate. Was wondering if this could be sql doable. I know i can easily use my query result i got above and filter them in my application code

– ericlee
Nov 14 '18 at 17:50






i wanted the two column combination to be unique with only one appearing on each side, without duplicate. Was wondering if this could be sql doable. I know i can easily use my query result i got above and filter them in my application code

– ericlee
Nov 14 '18 at 17:50





1




1





It is doable of course. But you have not yet specified the problem well enough to solve in SQL. The problem is, several trade numbers in tradetable1 match the criterion tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number in your ON condition. Which of those several do you want to display? The least one? When working with SQL, you are describing sets of values.

– O. Jones
Nov 14 '18 at 17:54






It is doable of course. But you have not yet specified the problem well enough to solve in SQL. The problem is, several trade numbers in tradetable1 match the criterion tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number in your ON condition. Which of those several do you want to display? The least one? When working with SQL, you are describing sets of values.

– O. Jones
Nov 14 '18 at 17:54













1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














if you don't want duplicated result for the column legacy_trade_number then instead of select * you should select only the columns you really need



select distinct tradetable1.legacy_trade_number from (
select * from trade
) tradetable1
inner join (
select *
from trade ) tradetable2 on tradetable1.seller_company_code=tradetable2.buyer_company_code
and tradetable1.buyer_company_code=tradetable2.seller_company_code
and tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number


any way the result could be obtained simple using



select disticnt t1.legacy_trade_number 
from trade t1
inner join trade t2 on on t1.seller_company_code=t2.buyer_company_code
and t1.buyer_company_code=t2.seller_company_code
and t1.legacy_trade_number<t2.legacy_trade_number


The duplication in evaluated at row level so .. if you need others column you should choose which value you want and use aggreagtion function for reduce the unuseful values



eg: using an aggregation function as min() you could



select t1.legacy_trade_number, min(t1.col1), min(t2.coln)
from trade t1
inner join trade t2 on on t1.seller_company_code=t2.buyer_company_code
and t1.buyer_company_code=t2.seller_company_code
and t1.legacy_trade_number<t2.legacy_trade_number
group by t1.legacy_trade_number





share|improve this answer

























  • thanks ! However, this approach result in only one column being shown 18/N00548 18/N00549 18/N00550

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:32












  • answer updated ..

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:34











  • added a sample for aggreagted result too.

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:35











  • yes i understood this, but there is nothing to aggregate it against. If i have miss out something, please do advice!. The end goal is to get the final two column in my question above.

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:37






  • 1





    the result you want is not based on a relational approach .. which is the logic .. for the result .. ?? .

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:39










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
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53305689%2finner-join-of-one-table-and-prevent-duplicate%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














if you don't want duplicated result for the column legacy_trade_number then instead of select * you should select only the columns you really need



select distinct tradetable1.legacy_trade_number from (
select * from trade
) tradetable1
inner join (
select *
from trade ) tradetable2 on tradetable1.seller_company_code=tradetable2.buyer_company_code
and tradetable1.buyer_company_code=tradetable2.seller_company_code
and tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number


any way the result could be obtained simple using



select disticnt t1.legacy_trade_number 
from trade t1
inner join trade t2 on on t1.seller_company_code=t2.buyer_company_code
and t1.buyer_company_code=t2.seller_company_code
and t1.legacy_trade_number<t2.legacy_trade_number


The duplication in evaluated at row level so .. if you need others column you should choose which value you want and use aggreagtion function for reduce the unuseful values



eg: using an aggregation function as min() you could



select t1.legacy_trade_number, min(t1.col1), min(t2.coln)
from trade t1
inner join trade t2 on on t1.seller_company_code=t2.buyer_company_code
and t1.buyer_company_code=t2.seller_company_code
and t1.legacy_trade_number<t2.legacy_trade_number
group by t1.legacy_trade_number





share|improve this answer

























  • thanks ! However, this approach result in only one column being shown 18/N00548 18/N00549 18/N00550

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:32












  • answer updated ..

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:34











  • added a sample for aggreagted result too.

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:35











  • yes i understood this, but there is nothing to aggregate it against. If i have miss out something, please do advice!. The end goal is to get the final two column in my question above.

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:37






  • 1





    the result you want is not based on a relational approach .. which is the logic .. for the result .. ?? .

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:39















3














if you don't want duplicated result for the column legacy_trade_number then instead of select * you should select only the columns you really need



select distinct tradetable1.legacy_trade_number from (
select * from trade
) tradetable1
inner join (
select *
from trade ) tradetable2 on tradetable1.seller_company_code=tradetable2.buyer_company_code
and tradetable1.buyer_company_code=tradetable2.seller_company_code
and tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number


any way the result could be obtained simple using



select disticnt t1.legacy_trade_number 
from trade t1
inner join trade t2 on on t1.seller_company_code=t2.buyer_company_code
and t1.buyer_company_code=t2.seller_company_code
and t1.legacy_trade_number<t2.legacy_trade_number


The duplication in evaluated at row level so .. if you need others column you should choose which value you want and use aggreagtion function for reduce the unuseful values



eg: using an aggregation function as min() you could



select t1.legacy_trade_number, min(t1.col1), min(t2.coln)
from trade t1
inner join trade t2 on on t1.seller_company_code=t2.buyer_company_code
and t1.buyer_company_code=t2.seller_company_code
and t1.legacy_trade_number<t2.legacy_trade_number
group by t1.legacy_trade_number





share|improve this answer

























  • thanks ! However, this approach result in only one column being shown 18/N00548 18/N00549 18/N00550

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:32












  • answer updated ..

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:34











  • added a sample for aggreagted result too.

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:35











  • yes i understood this, but there is nothing to aggregate it against. If i have miss out something, please do advice!. The end goal is to get the final two column in my question above.

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:37






  • 1





    the result you want is not based on a relational approach .. which is the logic .. for the result .. ?? .

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:39













3












3








3







if you don't want duplicated result for the column legacy_trade_number then instead of select * you should select only the columns you really need



select distinct tradetable1.legacy_trade_number from (
select * from trade
) tradetable1
inner join (
select *
from trade ) tradetable2 on tradetable1.seller_company_code=tradetable2.buyer_company_code
and tradetable1.buyer_company_code=tradetable2.seller_company_code
and tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number


any way the result could be obtained simple using



select disticnt t1.legacy_trade_number 
from trade t1
inner join trade t2 on on t1.seller_company_code=t2.buyer_company_code
and t1.buyer_company_code=t2.seller_company_code
and t1.legacy_trade_number<t2.legacy_trade_number


The duplication in evaluated at row level so .. if you need others column you should choose which value you want and use aggreagtion function for reduce the unuseful values



eg: using an aggregation function as min() you could



select t1.legacy_trade_number, min(t1.col1), min(t2.coln)
from trade t1
inner join trade t2 on on t1.seller_company_code=t2.buyer_company_code
and t1.buyer_company_code=t2.seller_company_code
and t1.legacy_trade_number<t2.legacy_trade_number
group by t1.legacy_trade_number





share|improve this answer















if you don't want duplicated result for the column legacy_trade_number then instead of select * you should select only the columns you really need



select distinct tradetable1.legacy_trade_number from (
select * from trade
) tradetable1
inner join (
select *
from trade ) tradetable2 on tradetable1.seller_company_code=tradetable2.buyer_company_code
and tradetable1.buyer_company_code=tradetable2.seller_company_code
and tradetable1.legacy_trade_number<tradetable2.legacy_trade_number


any way the result could be obtained simple using



select disticnt t1.legacy_trade_number 
from trade t1
inner join trade t2 on on t1.seller_company_code=t2.buyer_company_code
and t1.buyer_company_code=t2.seller_company_code
and t1.legacy_trade_number<t2.legacy_trade_number


The duplication in evaluated at row level so .. if you need others column you should choose which value you want and use aggreagtion function for reduce the unuseful values



eg: using an aggregation function as min() you could



select t1.legacy_trade_number, min(t1.col1), min(t2.coln)
from trade t1
inner join trade t2 on on t1.seller_company_code=t2.buyer_company_code
and t1.buyer_company_code=t2.seller_company_code
and t1.legacy_trade_number<t2.legacy_trade_number
group by t1.legacy_trade_number






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 14 '18 at 17:32

























answered Nov 14 '18 at 17:28









scaisEdgescaisEdge

96.1k105272




96.1k105272












  • thanks ! However, this approach result in only one column being shown 18/N00548 18/N00549 18/N00550

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:32












  • answer updated ..

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:34











  • added a sample for aggreagted result too.

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:35











  • yes i understood this, but there is nothing to aggregate it against. If i have miss out something, please do advice!. The end goal is to get the final two column in my question above.

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:37






  • 1





    the result you want is not based on a relational approach .. which is the logic .. for the result .. ?? .

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:39

















  • thanks ! However, this approach result in only one column being shown 18/N00548 18/N00549 18/N00550

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:32












  • answer updated ..

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:34











  • added a sample for aggreagted result too.

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:35











  • yes i understood this, but there is nothing to aggregate it against. If i have miss out something, please do advice!. The end goal is to get the final two column in my question above.

    – ericlee
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:37






  • 1





    the result you want is not based on a relational approach .. which is the logic .. for the result .. ?? .

    – scaisEdge
    Nov 14 '18 at 17:39
















thanks ! However, this approach result in only one column being shown 18/N00548 18/N00549 18/N00550

– ericlee
Nov 14 '18 at 17:32






thanks ! However, this approach result in only one column being shown 18/N00548 18/N00549 18/N00550

– ericlee
Nov 14 '18 at 17:32














answer updated ..

– scaisEdge
Nov 14 '18 at 17:34





answer updated ..

– scaisEdge
Nov 14 '18 at 17:34













added a sample for aggreagted result too.

– scaisEdge
Nov 14 '18 at 17:35





added a sample for aggreagted result too.

– scaisEdge
Nov 14 '18 at 17:35













yes i understood this, but there is nothing to aggregate it against. If i have miss out something, please do advice!. The end goal is to get the final two column in my question above.

– ericlee
Nov 14 '18 at 17:37





yes i understood this, but there is nothing to aggregate it against. If i have miss out something, please do advice!. The end goal is to get the final two column in my question above.

– ericlee
Nov 14 '18 at 17:37




1




1





the result you want is not based on a relational approach .. which is the logic .. for the result .. ?? .

– scaisEdge
Nov 14 '18 at 17:39





the result you want is not based on a relational approach .. which is the logic .. for the result .. ?? .

– scaisEdge
Nov 14 '18 at 17:39



















draft saved

draft discarded
















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53305689%2finner-join-of-one-table-and-prevent-duplicate%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Use pre created SQLite database for Android project in kotlin

Darth Vader #20

Ondo