Thread: Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table
Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table:
__START SCRIPT__
drop table product;
create table product (prod varchar, name varchar);
insert into product (prod, name) values ('A', 'Cat Food');
insert into product (prod, name) values ('B', 'Dog Food');
drop table sales;
create table sales (prod varchar, store integer, units integer);
insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 1, 50);
insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 2, 100);
\echo
\echo cat food in store 1:
select p.prod
, sum(s.units) as store_1
from product p
, sales s
where p.prod = s.prod and store=1 and p.prod='A'
group by p.prod;
\echo
\echo cat food in store 2:
select p.prod
, sum(s.units) as store_2
from product p
, sales s
where p.prod = s.prod and store=2 and p.prod='A'
group by p.prod;
\echo
\echo cat food in stores 1 & 2:
select p.prod
, sum(s1.units) as store_1
, sum(s2.units) as store_2
, sum(sAll.units) as store_All
from product p
, sales s1
, sales s2
, sales sAll
where p.prod = s1.prod and s1.store=1
and p.prod = s2.prod and s2.store=2
and p.prod = sAll.prod and sAll.store in (1,2)
and p.prod='A'
group by p.prod;
\echo
\echo cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
select sum(s1.units) as store_1
, sum(s2.units) as store_2
, sum(sAll.units) as store_All
from sales s1
, sales s2
, sales sAll
where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A'
and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A'
and s2.store in (1,2) and sAll.prod = 'A'
;
__END SCRIPT__
When run produces:
animals=# \i animal_food.sql
DROP
CREATE
INSERT 672972905 1
INSERT 672972906 1
DROP
CREATE
INSERT 672972934 1
INSERT 672972935 1
cat food in store 1:
prod | store_1
------+---------
A | 50
(1 row)
cat food in store 2:
prod | store_2
------+---------
A | 100
(1 row)
cat food in stores 1 & 2:
prod | store_1 | store_2 | store_all
------+---------+---------+-----------
A | 100 | 200 | 150
(1 row)
cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
store_1 | store_2 | store_all
---------+---------+-----------
100 | 200 | 150
(1 row)
You can see that store totals for 1 and 2 are not reported correctly
in the last two cases. I can see how this happens, however one would
expect the engine to keep s1, and s2 figures separate from sAll
figures.
How do I get around this? Thanks -dl
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
Stephan Szabo
sszabo@bigpanda.com
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, David Link wrote:
> Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table:
>
> __START SCRIPT__
>
> drop table product;
> create table product (prod varchar, name varchar);
> insert into product (prod, name) values ('A', 'Cat Food');
> insert into product (prod, name) values ('B', 'Dog Food');
>
> drop table sales;
> create table sales (prod varchar, store integer, units integer);
> insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 1, 50);
> insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 2, 100);
>
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in store 1:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s.units) as store_1
> from product p
> , sales s
> where p.prod = s.prod and store=1 and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in store 2:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s.units) as store_2
> from product p
> , sales s
> where p.prod = s.prod and store=2 and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from product p
> , sales s1
> , sales s2
> , sales sAll
> where p.prod = s1.prod and s1.store=1
> and p.prod = s2.prod and s2.store=2
> and p.prod = sAll.prod and sAll.store in (1,2)
> and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
> select sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from sales s1
> , sales s2
> , sales sAll
> where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store in (1,2) and sAll.prod = 'A'
> ;
>
In these last two the joins result in two rows.
s1.units is 50 in each row, s2.units is 100 in each
row. When you sum them you get 100 and 200.
If you want the queries to be separate, you probably
want subqueries in the general form
select p.prod, (select sum(s1.units) from store_1 where s1.store=1 and
s1.prod=p.prod), ... from product p where p.prod='A';
I think you have a conceptual problem here. Was happens is that the database
prforms your joins first to produce a virtual table of 8 rows, it then
applies your where lauses to chop that down and finally does the sum().
Of course, that is only the conceptual model. It's actually more intelligent
than that but it gives you an idea of why you're are getting the results you
are.
Subqueries may be what you're looking for. This is how SQL works and any
database will do the same.
Hope this helps,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:36:42PM -0700, David Link wrote:
> Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table:
>
> __START SCRIPT__
>
> drop table product;
> create table product (prod varchar, name varchar);
> insert into product (prod, name) values ('A', 'Cat Food');
> insert into product (prod, name) values ('B', 'Dog Food');
>
> drop table sales;
> create table sales (prod varchar, store integer, units integer);
> insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 1, 50);
> insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 2, 100);
>
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in store 1:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s.units) as store_1
> from product p
> , sales s
> where p.prod = s.prod and store=1 and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in store 2:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s.units) as store_2
> from product p
> , sales s
> where p.prod = s.prod and store=2 and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from product p
> , sales s1
> , sales s2
> , sales sAll
> where p.prod = s1.prod and s1.store=1
> and p.prod = s2.prod and s2.store=2
> and p.prod = sAll.prod and sAll.store in (1,2)
> and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
> select sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from sales s1
> , sales s2
> , sales sAll
> where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store in (1,2) and sAll.prod = 'A'
> ;
>
> __END SCRIPT__
>
> When run produces:
>
> animals=# \i animal_food.sql
> DROP
> CREATE
> INSERT 672972905 1
> INSERT 672972906 1
> DROP
> CREATE
> INSERT 672972934 1
> INSERT 672972935 1
>
> cat food in store 1:
> prod | store_1
> ------+---------
> A | 50
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in store 2:
> prod | store_2
> ------+---------
> A | 100
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in stores 1 & 2:
> prod | store_1 | store_2 | store_all
> ------+---------+---------+-----------
> A | 100 | 200 | 150
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
> store_1 | store_2 | store_all
> ---------+---------+-----------
> 100 | 200 | 150
> (1 row)
>
>
> You can see that store totals for 1 and 2 are not reported correctly
> in the last two cases. I can see how this happens, however one would
> expect the engine to keep s1, and s2 figures separate from sAll
> figures.
>
> How do I get around this? Thanks -dl
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that can do binary
> arithmetic and those that can't.
Incidently, this behavior is exactly the same in MySQL and M$
SQLServer.
Best I could do to resolve it is to create a complex sub-select in the
FROM clause repeating much of the main SQL statement.
I could also denormalize the table by having store=100 records for pre
calculated sums.
But still it strikes me as funny that this is the correct behavior. Or
is it a curious side effect?
--- David Link <dvlink@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table:
>
> __START SCRIPT__
>
> drop table product;
> create table product (prod varchar, name varchar);
> insert into product (prod, name) values ('A', 'Cat Food');
> insert into product (prod, name) values ('B', 'Dog Food');
>
> drop table sales;
> create table sales (prod varchar, store integer, units integer);
> insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 1, 50);
> insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 2, 100);
>
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in store 1:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s.units) as store_1
> from product p
> , sales s
> where p.prod = s.prod and store=1 and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in store 2:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s.units) as store_2
> from product p
> , sales s
> where p.prod = s.prod and store=2 and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from product p
> , sales s1
> , sales s2
> , sales sAll
> where p.prod = s1.prod and s1.store=1
> and p.prod = s2.prod and s2.store=2
> and p.prod = sAll.prod and sAll.store in (1,2)
> and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
> select sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from sales s1
> , sales s2
> , sales sAll
> where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store in (1,2) and sAll.prod = 'A'
> ;
>
> __END SCRIPT__
>
> When run produces:
>
> animals=# \i animal_food.sql
> DROP
> CREATE
> INSERT 672972905 1
> INSERT 672972906 1
> DROP
> CREATE
> INSERT 672972934 1
> INSERT 672972935 1
>
> cat food in store 1:
> prod | store_1
> ------+---------
> A | 50
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in store 2:
> prod | store_2
> ------+---------
> A | 100
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in stores 1 & 2:
> prod | store_1 | store_2 | store_all
> ------+---------+---------+-----------
> A | 100 | 200 | 150
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
> store_1 | store_2 | store_all
> ---------+---------+-----------
> 100 | 200 | 150
> (1 row)
>
>
> You can see that store totals for 1 and 2 are not reported correctly
> in the last two cases. I can see how this happens, however one would
> expect the engine to keep s1, and s2 figures separate from sAll
> figures.
>
> How do I get around this? Thanks -dl
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
Re: Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table
From
pgsql-gen@basebeans.com (pgsql-gen Newsgroup (@Basebeans.com))
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table
From: David Link <dvlink@yahoo.com>
===
Incidently, this behavior is exactly the same in MySQL and M$
SQLServer.
Best I could do to resolve it is to create a complex sub-select in the
FROM clause repeating much of the main SQL statement.
I could also denormalize the table by having store=100 records for pre
calculated sums.
But still it strikes me as funny that this is the correct behavior. Or
is it a curious side effect?
--- David Link <dvlink@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table:
>
> __START SCRIPT__
>
> drop table product;
> create table product (prod varchar, name varchar);
> insert into product (prod, name) values ('A', 'Cat Food');
> insert into product (prod, name) values ('B', 'Dog Food');
>
> drop table sales;
> create table sales (prod varchar, store integer, units integer);
> insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 1, 50);
> insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 2, 100);
>
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in store 1:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s.units) as store_1
> from product p
> , sales s
> where p.prod = s.prod and store=1 and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in store 2:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s.units) as store_2
> from product p
> , sales s
> where p.prod = s.prod and store=2 and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from product p
> , sales s1
> , sales s2
> , sales sAll
> where p.prod = s1.prod and s1.store=1
> and p.prod = s2.prod and s2.store=2
> and p.prod = sAll.prod and sAll.store in (1,2)
> and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
> select sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from sales s1
> , sales s2
> , sales sAll
> where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store in (1,2) and sAll.prod = 'A'
> ;
>
> __END SCRIPT__
>
> When run produces:
>
> animals=# \i animal_food.sql
> DROP
> CREATE
> INSERT 672972905 1
> INSERT 672972906 1
> DROP
> CREATE
> INSERT 672972934 1
> INSERT 672972935 1
>
> cat food in store 1:
> prod | store_1
> ------+---------
> A | 50
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in store 2:
> prod | store_2
> ------+---------
> A | 100
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in stores 1 & 2:
> prod | store_1 | store_2 | store_all
> ------+---------+---------+-----------
> A | 100 | 200 | 150
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
> store_1 | store_2 | store_all
> ---------+---------+-----------
> 100 | 200 | 150
> (1 row)
>
>
> You can see that store totals for 1 and 2 are not reported correctly
> in the last two cases. I can see how this happens, however one would
> expect the engine to keep s1, and s2 figures separate from sAll
> figures.
>
> How do I get around this? Thanks -dl
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> > \echo
> > \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2:
> > select p.prod
> > , sum(s1.units) as store_1
> > , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> > , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> > from product p
> > , sales s1
> > , sales s2
> > , sales sAll
> > where p.prod = s1.prod and s1.store=1
> > and p.prod = s2.prod and s2.store=2
> > and p.prod = sAll.prod and sAll.store in (1,2)
> > and p.prod='A'
> > group by p.prod;
> >
> > \echo
> > \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
> > select sum(s1.units) as store_1
> > , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> > , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> > from sales s1
> > , sales s2
> > , sales sAll
> > where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A'
> > and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A'
> > and s2.store in (1,2) and sAll.prod = 'A'
> > ;
> >
>
> In these last two the joins result in two rows.
> s1.units is 50 in each row, s2.units is 100 in each
> row. When you sum them you get 100 and 200.
>
> If you want the queries to be separate, you probably
> want subqueries in the general form
> select p.prod, (select sum(s1.units) from store_1 where s1.store=1
> and
> s1.prod=p.prod), ... from product p where p.prod='A';
Sorry, I didn't see this earlier.
Subquery in the SELECT Clause. I suppose. But then I have to repeat a
bunch of logic for each store (the real problem has more than just two
"stores").
I've created a subquery in the FROM Clause working as if it were a TEMP
table. something like this:
select sum(s1.units) as store_1
, sum(s2.units) as store_2
, sum(sAll.units) as store_All
from sales s1
, sales s2
, (select prod, units
from sales s
where s.prod = 'A'
and s.store in (1,2) ) as sAll
where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A'
and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A'
and s1.prod = sAll.prod
;
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
Re: Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table
From
pgsql-gen@basebeans.com (pgsql-gen Newsgroup (@Basebeans.com))
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table
From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
===
I think you have a conceptual problem here. Was happens is that the database
prforms your joins first to produce a virtual table of 8 rows, it then
applies your where lauses to chop that down and finally does the sum().
Of course, that is only the conceptual model. It's actually more intelligent
than that but it gives you an idea of why you're are getting the results you
are.
Subqueries may be what you're looking for. This is how SQL works and any
database will do the same.
Hope this helps,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 12:36:42PM -0700, David Link wrote:
> Screwy behavior with SUM and multiple joins to same table:
>
> __START SCRIPT__
>
> drop table product;
> create table product (prod varchar, name varchar);
> insert into product (prod, name) values ('A', 'Cat Food');
> insert into product (prod, name) values ('B', 'Dog Food');
>
> drop table sales;
> create table sales (prod varchar, store integer, units integer);
> insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 1, 50);
> insert into sales (prod, store, units) values ('A', 2, 100);
>
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in store 1:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s.units) as store_1
> from product p
> , sales s
> where p.prod = s.prod and store=1 and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in store 2:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s.units) as store_2
> from product p
> , sales s
> where p.prod = s.prod and store=2 and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2:
> select p.prod
> , sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from product p
> , sales s1
> , sales s2
> , sales sAll
> where p.prod = s1.prod and s1.store=1
> and p.prod = s2.prod and s2.store=2
> and p.prod = sAll.prod and sAll.store in (1,2)
> and p.prod='A'
> group by p.prod;
>
> \echo
> \echo cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
> select sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from sales s1
> , sales s2
> , sales sAll
> where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store in (1,2) and sAll.prod = 'A'
> ;
>
> __END SCRIPT__
>
> When run produces:
>
> animals=# \i animal_food.sql
> DROP
> CREATE
> INSERT 672972905 1
> INSERT 672972906 1
> DROP
> CREATE
> INSERT 672972934 1
> INSERT 672972935 1
>
> cat food in store 1:
> prod | store_1
> ------+---------
> A | 50
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in store 2:
> prod | store_2
> ------+---------
> A | 100
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in stores 1 & 2:
> prod | store_1 | store_2 | store_all
> ------+---------+---------+-----------
> A | 100 | 200 | 150
> (1 row)
>
>
> cat food in stores 1 & 2 (sans products):
> store_1 | store_2 | store_all
> ---------+---------+-----------
> 100 | 200 | 150
> (1 row)
>
>
> You can see that store totals for 1 and 2 are not reported correctly
> in the last two cases. I can see how this happens, however one would
> expect the engine to keep s1, and s2 figures separate from sAll
> figures.
>
> How do I get around this? Thanks -dl
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
> http://finance.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that can do binary
> arithmetic and those that can't.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
> > If you want the queries to be separate, you probably
> > want subqueries in the general form
> > select p.prod, (select sum(s1.units) from store_1 where s1.store=1
> > and
> > s1.prod=p.prod), ... from product p where p.prod='A';
>
> Sorry, I didn't see this earlier.
> Subquery in the SELECT Clause. I suppose. But then I have to repeat a
> bunch of logic for each store (the real problem has more than just two
> "stores").
>
> I've created a subquery in the FROM Clause working as if it were a TEMP
> table. something like this:
>
> select sum(s1.units) as store_1
> , sum(s2.units) as store_2
> , sum(sAll.units) as store_All
> from sales s1
> , sales s2
> , (select prod, units
> from sales s
> where s.prod = 'A'
> and s.store in (1,2) ) as sAll
> where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A'
> and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A'
> and s1.prod = sAll.prod
> ;
Given the data you gave before, I don't believe this will work any
better. The join and where still give 2 rows out.
The first part
from sales s1 where s1.store=1 and s1.prod='A' returns one row.
The second part
from sales s2 where s2.store=2 and s2.prod='A' returns one row.
The third part
from (select ...) as sAll where s1.prod=sAll.prod returns two
rows.
When you do the join, you end up with two rows out where
the s1 and s2 parts get duplicated.
Maybe something like:
select sum(s1.units) as store_1
, sum(s2.units) as store_2
, sum(sAll.units) as store_All
from sales s1
, sales s2
, (select prod, sum(units)
from sales s
where s.prod = 'A'
and s.store in (1,2)
group by s.prod) as sAll
where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A'
and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A'
and s1.prod = sAll.prod
That'll make the inner subselect give
one row I think.
--- Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> wrote: > > Maybe something like: > select sum(s1.units) as store_1 > , sum(s2.units) as store_2 > , sum(sAll.units) as store_All > from sales s1 > , sales s2 > , (select prod, sum(units) > from sales s > where s.prod = 'A' > and s.store in (1,2) > group by s.prod) as sAll > where s1.store=1 and s1.prod = 'A' > and s2.store=2 and s2.prod = 'A' > and s1.prod = sAll.prod > > That'll make the inner subselect give > one row I think. > Yes, you are absolutely right: with the SUM() in the subselect to get back only one row and that's what I have. c/ , (select prod, sum(units) / , (select prod, sum(units) as units __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com