I want to do a full outer join in MySQL. Is this possible? Is a full outer join supported by MySQL?
-
4possible duplicate of MySQL Full Outer Join Syntax ErrorJoe Stefanelli– Joe Stefanelli2011-01-25 17:39:37 +00:00Commented Jan 25, 2011 at 17:39
-
6Beware of the answers here. The SQL standard says full join on is inner join on rows union all unmatched left table rows extended by nulls union all right table rows extended by nulls. Most answers here are wrong (see the comments) & the ones that aren't wrong don't handle the general case. Even though there are many (unjustified) upvotes. (See my answer.)philipxy– philipxy2018-08-11 22:28:54 +00:00Commented Aug 11, 2018 at 22:28
-
What about when you're trying to join by non-primary keys/grouped columns? like I have a query of sells per state "state", "sells" and another of expenses per state "state", "expenses", both queries use group by("state"). When I do the union between the left and right joins between to two queries I get a few rows with sells but no expenses, a few more with expenses but no sells, everything right up to this point, but I also get a few with both sells and expenses and a repeated "state" column... not much of a problem but doesn't feel right...Jairo Lozano– Jairo Lozano2019-04-12 18:31:34 +00:00Commented Apr 12, 2019 at 18:31
-
1@JairoLozano Constraints are not needed to query. Although when constraints hold extra queries return the desired answer that otherwise wouldn't. Constraints don't affect what full join on returns for given arguments. The problem you describe is that the query you wrote is the wrong query. (Presumably the common error where people want some joins, each possibly involving a different key, of some subqueries, each possibly involving join and/or aggregation, but they erroneously try to do all the joining then all the aggregating or to aggregate over previous aggregations.)philipxy– philipxy2020-02-07 05:57:57 +00:00Commented Feb 7, 2020 at 5:57
-
4all the answers doing UNION instead of UNION ALL are incorrect. all answers with subqueries or 3 unioned selects are inefficient. correct answers will do a union all of a left join with a select from the second table with a where not exists on the first table (or the equivalent outer join + where =NULL condition)ysth– ysth2020-08-16 06:33:09 +00:00Commented Aug 16, 2020 at 6:33
14 Answers
You don't have full joins in MySQL, but you can sure emulate them.
For a code sample transcribed from this Stack Overflow question you have:
With two tables t1, t2:
SELECT * FROM t1
LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
UNION
SELECT * FROM t1
RIGHT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
The query above works for special cases where a full outer join operation would not produce any duplicate rows. The query above depends on the UNION set operator to remove duplicate rows introduced by the query pattern. We can avoid introducing duplicate rows by using an anti-join pattern for the second query, and then use a UNION ALL set operator to combine the two sets. In the more general case, where a full outer join would return duplicate rows, we can do this:
SELECT * FROM t1
LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
UNION ALL
SELECT * FROM t1
RIGHT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
WHERE t1.id IS NULL
9 Comments
The answer that Pablo Santa Cruz gave is correct; however, in case anybody stumbled on this page and wants more clarification, here is a detailed breakdown.
Example Tables
Suppose we have the following tables:
-- t1
id name
1 Tim
2 Marta
-- t2
id name
1 Tim
3 Katarina
Inner Joins
An inner join, like this:
SELECT *
FROM `t1`
INNER JOIN `t2` ON `t1`.`id` = `t2`.`id`;
Would get us only records that appear in both tables, like this:
1 Tim 1 Tim
Inner joins don't have a direction (like left or right) because they are explicitly bidirectional - we require a match on both sides.
Outer Joins
Outer joins, on the other hand, are for finding records that may not have a match in the other table. As such, you have to specify which side of the join is allowed to have a missing record.
LEFT JOIN and RIGHT JOIN are shorthand for LEFT OUTER JOIN and RIGHT OUTER JOIN; I will use their full names below to reinforce the concept of outer joins vs inner joins.
Left Outer Join
A left outer join, like this:
SELECT *
FROM `t1`
LEFT OUTER JOIN `t2` ON `t1`.`id` = `t2`.`id`;
...would get us all the records from the left table regardless of whether or not they have a match in the right table, like this:
1 Tim 1 Tim
2 Marta NULL NULL
Right Outer Join
A right outer join, like this:
SELECT *
FROM `t1`
RIGHT OUTER JOIN `t2` ON `t1`.`id` = `t2`.`id`;
...would get us all the records from the right table regardless of whether or not they have a match in the left table, like this:
1 Tim 1 Tim
NULL NULL 3 Katarina
Full Outer Join
A full outer join would give us all records from both tables, whether or not they have a match in the other table, with NULLs on both sides where there is no match. The result would look like this:
1 Tim 1 Tim
2 Marta NULL NULL
NULL NULL 3 Katarina
However, as Pablo Santa Cruz pointed out, MySQL doesn't support this. We can emulate it by doing a UNION of a left join and a right join, like this:
SELECT *
FROM `t1`
LEFT OUTER JOIN `t2` ON `t1`.`id` = `t2`.`id`
UNION
SELECT *
FROM `t1`
RIGHT OUTER JOIN `t2` ON `t1`.`id` = `t2`.`id`;
You can think of a UNION as meaning "run both of these queries, then stack the results on top of each other"; some of the rows will come from the first query and some from the second.
It should be noted that a UNION in MySQL will eliminate exact duplicates: Tim would appear in both of the queries here, but the result of the UNION only lists him once. My database guru colleague feels that this behavior should not be relied upon. So to be more explicit about it, we could add a WHERE clause to the second query:
SELECT *
FROM `t1`
LEFT OUTER JOIN `t2` ON `t1`.`id` = `t2`.`id`
UNION
SELECT *
FROM `t1`
RIGHT OUTER JOIN `t2` ON `t1`.`id` = `t2`.`id`
WHERE `t1`.`id` IS NULL;
On the other hand, if you wanted to see duplicates for some reason, you could use UNION ALL.
11 Comments
FULL OUTER JOIN. There's nothing wrong with doing queries that way, and using UNION to remove those duplicates. But to really replicate a FULL OUTER JOIN, we need one of the queries to be an anti-join.UNION operation will remove those duplicates; but it also removes ALL duplicate rows, including duplicate rows that would be in the returned by a FULL OUTER JOIN. To emulate a FULL JOIN b, the correct pattern is (a LEFT JOIN b) UNION ALL (b ANTI JOIN a).Using a union query will remove duplicates, and this is different than the behavior of full outer join that never removes any duplicates:
[Table: t1] [Table: t2]
value value
----------- -------
1 1
2 2
4 2
4 5
This is the expected result of a full outer join:
value | value
------+-------
1 | 1
2 | 2
2 | 2
Null | 5
4 | Null
4 | Null
This is the result of using left and right join with union:
value | value
------+-------
Null | 5
1 | 1
2 | 2
4 | Null
My suggested query is:
select
t1.value, t2.value
from t1
left outer join t2
on t1.value = t2.value
union all -- Using `union all` instead of `union`
select
t1.value, t2.value
from t2
left outer join t1
on t1.value = t2.value
where
t1.value IS NULL
The result of the above query that is as the same as the expected result:
value | value
------+-------
1 | 1
2 | 2
2 | 2
4 | NULL
4 | NULL
NULL | 5
@Steve Chambers: [From comments, with many thanks!]
Note: This may be the best solution, both for efficiency and for generating the same results as a FULL OUTER JOIN. This blog post also explains it well - to quote from Method 2: "This handles duplicate rows correctly and doesn’t include anything it shouldn’t. It’s necessary to use UNION ALL instead of plain UNION, which would eliminate the duplicates I want to keep. This may be significantly more efficient on large result sets, since there’s no need to sort and remove duplicates."
I decided to add another solution that comes from full outer join visualization and math. It is not better than the above, but it is more readable:
Full outer join means
(t1 ∪ t2): all int1or int2(t1 ∪ t2) = (t1 ∩ t2) + t1_only + t2_only: all in botht1andt2plus all int1that aren't int2and plus all int2that aren't int1:
-- (t1 ∩ t2): all in both t1 and t2
select t1.value, t2.value
from t1 join t2 on t1.value = t2.value
union all -- And plus
-- all in t1 that not exists in t2
select t1.value, null
from t1
where not exists( select 1 from t2 where t2.value = t1.value)
union all -- and plus
-- all in t2 that not exists in t1
select null, t2.value
from t2
where not exists( select 1 from t1 where t2.value = t1.value)
2 Comments
FULL OUTER JOIN. This blog post also explains it well - to quote from Method 2: "This handles duplicate rows correctly and doesn’t include anything it shouldn’t. It’s necessary to use UNION ALL instead of plain UNION, which would eliminate the duplicates I want to keep. This may be significantly more efficient on large result sets, since there’s no need to sort and remove duplicates."None of the previous answers are actually correct, because they do not follow the semantics when there are duplicated values.
For a query such as (from this duplicate):
SELECT * FROM t1 FULL OUTER JOIN t2 ON t1.Name = t2.Name;
The correct equivalent is:
SELECT t1.*, t2.*
FROM (SELECT name FROM t1 UNION -- This is intentionally UNION to remove duplicates
SELECT name FROM t2
) n LEFT JOIN
t1
ON t1.name = n.name LEFT JOIN
t2
ON t2.name = n.name;
If you need this to work with NULL values (which may also be necessary), then use the NULL-safe comparison operator, <=> rather than =.
Comments
MySQL does not have FULL-OUTER-JOIN syntax. You have to emulate it by doing both LEFT JOIN and RIGHT JOIN as follows:
SELECT * FROM t1
LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
UNION
SELECT * FROM t1
RIGHT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
But MySQL also does not have a RIGHT JOIN syntax. According to MySQL's outer join simplification, the right join is converted to the equivalent left join by switching the t1 and t2 in the FROM and ON clause in the query. Thus, the MySQL query optimizer translates the original query into the following -
SELECT * FROM t1
LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
UNION
SELECT * FROM t2
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t2.id = t1.id
Now, there is no harm in writing the original query as is, but say if you have predicates like the WHERE clause, which is a before-join predicate or an AND predicate on the ON clause, which is a during-join predicate, then you might want to take a look at the devil; which is in details.
The MySQL query optimizer routinely checks the predicates if they are null-rejected.
Now, if you have done the RIGHT JOIN, but with WHERE predicate on the column from t1, then you might be at a risk of running into a null-rejected scenario.
For example, the query
SELECT * FROM t1
LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
WHERE t1.col1 = 'someValue'
UNION
SELECT * FROM t1
RIGHT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
WHERE t1.col1 = 'someValue'
gets translated to the following by the query optimizer:
SELECT * FROM t1
LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
WHERE t1.col1 = 'someValue'
UNION
SELECT * FROM t2
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t2.id = t1.id
WHERE t1.col1 = 'someValue'
So the order of tables has changed, but the predicate is still applied to t1, but t1 is now in the 'ON' clause. If t1.col1 is defined as NOT NULL
column, then this query will be null-rejected.
Any outer-join (left, right, full) that is null-rejected is converted to an inner-join by MySQL.
Thus the results you might be expecting might be completely different from what the MySQL is returning. You might think its a bug with MySQL's RIGHT JOIN, but that’s not right. Its just how the MySQL query optimizer works. So the developer in charge has to pay attention to these nuances when he/she is constructing the query.
2 Comments
I modified shA.t's query for more clarity:
-- t1 left join t2
SELECT t1.value, t2.value
FROM t1 LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.value = t2.value
UNION ALL -- include duplicates
-- t1 right exclude join t2 (records found only in t2)
SELECT t1.value, t2.value
FROM t1 RIGHT JOIN t2 ON t1.value = t2.value
WHERE t1.value IS NULL
Comments
In SQLite you should do this:
SELECT *
FROM leftTable lt
LEFT JOIN rightTable rt ON lt.id = rt.lrid
UNION
SELECT lt.*, rl.* -- To match column set
FROM rightTable rt
LEFT JOIN leftTable lt ON lt.id = rt.lrid
3 Comments
You can just convert a full outer join, e.g.
SELECT fields
FROM firsttable
FULL OUTER JOIN secondtable ON joincondition
into:
SELECT fields
FROM firsttable
LEFT JOIN secondtable ON joincondition
UNION ALL
SELECT fields -- replacing any fields from firsttable with NULL
FROM secondtable
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM firsttable WHERE joincondition)
Or if you have at least one column, say foo, in firsttable that is NOT NULL, you can do:
SELECT fields
FROM firsttable
LEFT JOIN secondtable ON joincondition
UNION ALL
SELECT fields
FROM firsttable
RIGHT JOIN secondtable ON joincondition
WHERE firsttable.foo IS NULL
Comments
You can do the following:
(SELECT
*
FROM
table1 t1
LEFT JOIN
table2 t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
WHERE
t2.id IS NULL)
UNION ALL
(SELECT
*
FROM
table1 t1
RIGHT JOIN
table2 t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
WHERE
t1.id IS NULL);
2 Comments
Full outer join between table L and R consists of:
- rows from
L x Rwhere on predicate matches, asl<col1, col2, ...>, r<col1, col2, ...> - remaining rows from
Lif any, asl<col1, col2, ...>, r<null, null, ...> - remaining rows from
Rif any, asl<null, null, ...>, r<col1, col2, ...>
To emulate this behavior:
- Set #1 and #2 combined could be achieved with a
left join - Set #3 could be achieved with a
not exists - Combine both sets using
union all
query
select l.*, r.*
from employee as l
left join department as r on l.fk = r.id
union all
select null, null, null, r.*
from department as r
where not exists (
select 1
from employee as l
where l.fk = r.id
)
sample data and result
create table department (
id varchar(100) not null primary key,
name varchar(100)
)
insert into department (id, name) values
('d1', 'programming'),
('d2', 'designing'),
('d3', 'accounting')
create table employee (
id varchar(100) not null primary key,
name varchar(100),
fk varchar(100)
)
insert into employee (id, name, fk) values
('e1', 'john', 'd1'),
('e2', 'jane', 'd2'),
('e4', 'zack', null)
| id | name | fk | id | name |
|------|------|------|------|-------------|
| e1 | john | d1 | d1 | programming |
| e2 | jane | d2 | d2 | designing |
| e4 | zack | null | null | null |
| null | null | null | d3 | accounting |
Comments
You can use union all instead of full join. I'd do something like this:
select
name, sum(num1) num1, sum(num2) num2
from
(
select name, num1, 0 num2 from table1
union all
select name, 0 num1, num2 from table2
) t
group by name
Here, the "name" column is equivalent to the column to join. The advantage of this is you don't need to join twice, you only need to group by once.
Comments
SELECT
a.name,
b.title
FROM
author AS a
LEFT JOIN
book AS b
ON a.id = b.author_id
UNION
SELECT
a.name,
b.title
FROM
author AS a
RIGHT JOIN
book AS b
ON a.id = b.author_id
1 Comment
Use:
SELECT * FROM t1 FULL OUTER JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id;
It can be recreated as follows:
SELECT t1.*, t2.*
FROM (SELECT * FROM t1 UNION SELECT name FROM t2) tmp
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t1.id = tmp.id
LEFT JOIN t2 ON t2.id = tmp.id;
Using a UNION or UNION ALL answer does not cover the edge case where the base tables have duplicated entries.
Explanation:
There is an edge case that a UNION or UNION ALL cannot cover. We cannot test this on MySQL as it doesn't support full outer joins, but we can illustrate this on a database that does support it:
WITH cte_t1 AS
(
SELECT 1 AS id1
UNION ALL SELECT 2
UNION ALL SELECT 5
UNION ALL SELECT 6
UNION ALL SELECT 6
),
cte_t2 AS
(
SELECT 3 AS id2
UNION ALL SELECT 4
UNION ALL SELECT 5
UNION ALL SELECT 6
UNION ALL SELECT 6
)
SELECT * FROM cte_t1 t1 FULL OUTER JOIN cte_t2 t2 ON t1.id1 = t2.id2;
This gives us this answer:
id1 id2
1 NULL
2 NULL
NULL 3
NULL 4
5 5
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
The UNION solution:
SELECT * FROM cte_t1 t1 LEFT OUTER JOIN cte_t2 t2 ON t1.id1 = t2.id2
UNION
SELECT * FROM cte_t1 t1 RIGHT OUTER JOIN cte_t2 t2 ON t1.id1 = t2.id2
Gives an incorrect answer:
id1 id2
NULL 3
NULL 4
1 NULL
2 NULL
5 5
6 6
The UNION ALL solution:
SELECT * FROM cte_t1 t1 LEFT OUTER join cte_t2 t2 ON t1.id1 = t2.id2
UNION ALL
SELECT * FROM cte_t1 t1 RIGHT OUTER JOIN cte_t2 t2 ON t1.id1 = t2.id2
Is also incorrect.
id1 id2
1 NULL
2 NULL
5 5
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
NULL 3
NULL 4
5 5
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
Whereas this query:
SELECT t1.*, t2.*
FROM (SELECT * FROM t1 UNION SELECT name FROM t2) tmp
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t1.id = tmp.id
LEFT JOIN t2 ON t2.id = tmp.id;
Gives the following:
id1 id2
1 NULL
2 NULL
NULL 3
NULL 4
5 5
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
The order is different, but otherwise matches the correct answer.
5 Comments
UNION ALL solution. Also, it presents a solution using UNION which would be slower on large source tables because of the required de-duplication. Finally, it wouldn't compile, because the field id doesn't exist in the subquery tmp.UNION ALL solution: ... Is also incorrect." The code you present leaves out the intersection-exclusion from the right-join (where t1.id1 is null) that must be provided in the UNION ALL. Which is to say, your solution trumps all the others, only when one of those other solutions is incorrectly implemented. On "cuteness," point taken. That was gratuitous, my apologies.It is also possible, but you have to mention the same field names in select.
SELECT t1.name, t2.name FROM t1
LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.id
UNION
SELECT t1.name, t2.name FROM t2
LEFT JOIN t1 ON t1.id = t2.id
