You should specify column names as below. It’s good practice and probably solve your problem EDIT: As you said employees has 112 columns (sic!) try to run below select to compare both tables’ columns and than you should upgrade your tables to have the same structure.
My guess is that you are using MySQL where the + operator does addition, along with silent conversion of the values to numbers. If a value does not start with a digit, then the converted value is 0. So try this: Two ways to add a space:
You are exceeding the SQL limit of 4000 bytes which applies to LISTAGG as well. As a workaround, you could use XMLAGG. For example, If you want to concatenate multiple columns which itself have 4000 bytes, then you can concatenate the XMLAGG output of each column to avoid the SQL limit of 4000 bytes. For example,
Primary Key: There can only be one primary key constraint in a table In some DBMS it cannot be NULL – e.g. MySQL adds NOT NULL Primary Key is a unique key identifier of the record Unique Key: Can be more than one unique key in one table Unique key can have NULL values It can be a candidate key … Read more
You need to use HAVING, not WHERE. The difference is: the WHERE clause filters which rows MySQL selects. Then MySQL groups the rows together and aggregates the numbers for your COUNT function. HAVING is like WHERE, only it happens after the COUNT value has been computed, so it’ll work as you expect. Rewrite your subquery as:
SQL supports qualifying a column by prefixing the reference with either the full table name: …or a table alias: The table alias is the recommended approach — why type more than you have to? Why Do These Queries Look Different? Secondly, my answers use ANSI-92 JOIN syntax (yours is ANSI-89). While they perform the same, … Read more
You need to specify what table you are deleting from. Here is a version with an alias:
SQL supports qualifying a column by prefixing the reference with either the full table name: …or a table alias: The table alias is the recommended approach — why type more than you have to? Why Do These Queries Look Different? Secondly, my answers use ANSI-92 JOIN syntax (yours is ANSI-89). While they perform the same, … Read more