Re: SQL help with EXISTS

[Charles Wilt <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

Given that I think mine was the other, I wanted to say I never meant to
imply that the end results would be distinct...

I was only giving him what he asked for, a small distinct set of keys
joined back to the original table...

Granted, now that I think a little more about it, the request doesn't make
much sense...

This would seem to give him what he wants...
select (distinct?) *
     from MISCCHG
   where ashPNBR = 'BN460619' and   ABLDNGD = '20120817'
         or ASHPNBR = 'WASH223305' and   ABLDNGD = '20121015'
         or ASHPNBR = '130000'     and   ABLDNGD = '20120803'
         or ASHPNBR = '2162821'    and   ABLDNGD = '20120801'
         or ASHPNBR = 'BN460619'   and   ABLDNGD = '20120817'
         or ASHPNBR = 'BNSF472050' and   ABLDNGD = '20120818'
         or ASHPNBR = 'CC95585B'   and   ABLDNGD = '20120711'
         or ASHPNBR = '2297051'    and   ABLDNGD = '20120831')

I've used statements similar to my original post in situations like so:
with tbl (select key, count(*) from mytable group by key having count(*) >
2)
select * from mytable join tbl using(key)

ie. figure out the keys that match some criteria.  Then get a list of all
records with those keys.
But since the OP's request has hard coded keys, there's no need for the CTE.

Charles


On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM, CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>    This is the second response offered in this thread, implying that a
> result set that is made distinct across some subset of columns which is
> then joined to the original full\non-distinct TABLE [as result set] on
> those same columns [although the quoted example removed one column for
> join-on] somehow will also become distinct.?