Reputation: 45
I built a sql-query and don't get the results I expect. I try to explain what my steps to the sql-statement were.
First I have the sub-select that I use in the IN()-clause:
SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(job_id SEPARATOR ',') as job_ids
FROM candidate_job
WHERE candidate_id = 1111
GROUP BY candidate_id
The result is 1,7,37,38,39,135,136 and that's exactly what I expect. Then I use these concenated numbers in my outer sql-statement:
SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT(user_id) SEPARATOR ',') as user_ids
FROM user_job
WHERE job_id IN (1,7,37,38,39,135,136)
This gives me 139,539,1686,1759 and this is also exactly what I expect.
Now I combine both queries, the first one is the sub-select for the IN()-clause of the second one:
SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT(user_id) SEPARATOR ',') as user_ids
FROM user_job
WHERE job_id IN (
SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(job_id SEPARATOR ',') as job_ids
FROM candidate_job
WHERE candidate_id = 1111
GROUP BY candidate_id
)
The result is only 139,539 and I don't understand why it's not 139,539,1686,1759 as it should be.
Does anyone have an idea why this could be the case? Use a GROUP_CONCAT() column in IN() shouldn't be so rare, right?
Upvotes: 0
Views: 55
Reputation: 164139
The operator IN does not work with strings that are comma separated values.
What you want is FIND_IN_SET()
:
SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT user_id) as user_ids
FROM user_job
WHERE FIND_IN_SET(
job_id,
(SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(job_id) FROM candidate_job WHERE candidate_id = 1111)
)
SEPARATOR ','
is not needed because ','
is the default separator.
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 222582
group_concat()
gives you a comma-separated string; passing this as an operand to operator in
does not do what you want (it ends up searching for an exact match).
I would recommend exists
:
SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT(user_id) SEPARATOR ',') as user_ids
FROM user_job uj
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM candidate_job cj
WHERE cj.candidate_id = 1111 AND uj.job_id = cj.job_id
)
Upvotes: 1