All first name should randomly match with each other and when I tried to run query again the First Name should be match with others name. Not the match with FIRST time match.
For example I have 6 records in one table ...
First name column looks like:
JHON
LEE
SAM
HARRY
JIM
KRUK
So I want result like
First name1 First name2
Jhon. Harry
LEE. KRUK
HARRY SAM
The simplest solution is to first randomly sort the records, then calculate the grouping and a sequence number within the group and then finally select out the groups as rows.
You can follow along with the logic in this fiddle: https://dbfiddle.uk/9JlK59w4
DECLARE #Sorted TABLE
(
Id INT PRIMARY KEY,
FirstName varchar(30),
RowNum INT IDENTITY(1,1)
);
INSERT INTO #Sorted (Id, FirstName)
SELECT Id, FirstName
FROM People
ORDER BY NEWID();
WITH Pairs as
(
SELECT *
, (RowNum+1)/2 as PairNum
, RowNum % 2 as Ordinal
FROM #Sorted
)
SELECT
Person1.FirstName as [First name1], Person2.FirstName as [First name2]
FROM Pairs Person1
LEFT JOIN Pairs Person2 ON Person1.PairNum = Person2.PairNum AND Person2.Ordinal = 1
WHERE Person1.Ordinal = 0
ORDER BY Person1.PairNum
ORDER BY NEWID() is used here to randomly sort the records. Note that it is indeterminate and will return a new value with each execution. It's not very efficient, but is suitable for our requirement.
You can't easily use CTE's for producing lists of randomly sorted records because the result of a CTE is not cached. Each time the CTE is referenced in the subsequent logic can result in re-evaluating the expression. Run this fiddle a few times and watch how it often allocates the names incorrectly: https://dbfiddle.uk/rpPdkkAG
Due to the volatility of NEWID() this example stores the results in a table valued variable. For a very large list of records a temporary table might be more efficient.
PairNum uses the simple divide by n logic to assign a group number with a length of n
It is necessary to add 1 to the RowNum because the integer math will round down, see this in action in the fiddle.
Ordinal uses the modulo on the RowNumber and is a value we can use to differentiate between Person 1 and Person 2 in the pair. This helps us keep the rest of the logic determinate.
In the final SELECT we select first from the Pairs that have an Ordinal of 0, then we join on the Pairs that have an Ordinal of 1 matching by the PairNum
You can see in the fiddle I added a solution using groups of 3 to show how this can be easily extended to larger groupings.
Related
I have a table, Ellipses (...), represent multiple columns of a similar type
TABLE: diagnosis_info
COLUMNS: visit_id,
patient_diagnosis_code_1 ...
patient_diagnosis_code_100 -- char(100) with a value of ‘0’ or ‘1’
How do I find the most common diagnosis_code? There are 101 columns including the visit_id. The table is like a matrix table of 0s and 1s. How do I write something that can dynamically account for all the columns and count all the rows where the value is 1?
What I would normally do is not feasable as there are too many columns:
SELECT COUNT(patient_diagnostic_code_1), COUNT(patient_diagnostic_code_2),... FROM diagnostic_info WHERE patient_diagnostic_code_1 = ‘1’ and patient_diagnostic_code_2 = ‘1’ and ….
Then even if I typed all that out how would I select which column had the highest count of values = 1. The table is more column oriented instead of row oriented.
Unfortunately your data design is bad from the start. Instead it could be as simple as:
patient_id, visit_id, diagnosis_code
where a patient with 1 dignostic code would have 1 row, a patient with 100 diagnostic codes 100 rows and vice versa. At any given time you could transpose this into the format you presented (what is called a pivot or cross tab). Also in some databases, for example postgreSQL, you could put all those diagnostic codes into an array field, then it would look like:
patient_id, visit_id, diagnosis_code (data type -bool or int- array)
Now you need the reverse of it which is called unpivot. On some databases like SQL server there is UNPIVOT as an example.
Without knowing what your backend this, you could do that with an ugly SQL like:
select code, pdc
from
(
select 1 as code, count(*) as pdc
from myTable where patient_diagnosis_code_1=1
union
select 2 as code, count(*) as pdc
from myTable where patient_diagnosis_code_2=1
union
...
select 100 as code, count(*) as pdc
from myTable where patient_diagnosis_code_100=1
) tmp
order by pdc desc, code;
PS: This would return all the codes with their frequency ordered from most to least. You could limit to get 1 to get the max (with ties in case there are more than one code to match the max).
I have a large database and i'd like to pull info from a table (Term) where the Names are not linked to a PartyId for a certain SearchId. However:
There are multiple versions of the searches (sometimes 20-40 - otherwise I think SQL - Comparing two rows and two columns would work for me)
The PartyId will almost always be NULL for the first version for the search, and if the same Name for the same SearchId has a PartyId associated in a later version the NULL row should not appear in the results of the query.
I have 8 left joins to display the information requested - 3 of them are joined on the Term table
A very simplified sample of data is below
CASE statement? Join the table with itself for comparison? A temp table or do I just return the fields I'm joining on and/or want to display?
Providing sample data that yields no expected result is not as useful as providing data that gives an expected result..
When asking a question start with defining the problem in plain English. If you can't you don't understand your problem well enough yet. Then define the tables which are involved in the problem (including the columns) and sample data; the SQL you've tried, and what you're expected result is using the data in your sample. Without this minimum information we make many guesses and even with that information we may have to make assumptions; but without a minimum verifiable example showing illustrating your question, helping is problematic.
--End soap box
I'm guessing you're after only the names for a searchID which has a NULL partyID for the highest SearchVerID
So if we eliminated ID 6 from your example data, then 'Bob' would be returned
If we added ID 9 to your sample data for name 'Harry' with a searchID of 2 and a searchVerID of 3 and a null partyID then 'Harry' too would be returned...
If my understanding is correct, then perhaps...
WITH CTE AS (
SELECT Name, Row_Number() over (partition by Name order by SearchVersID Desc)
FROM Term
WHERE SearchID = 2)
SELECT Name
FROM CTE
WHERE RN = 1
and partyID is null;
This assigns a row number (RN) to each name starting at 1 and increasing by one for each entry; for searchID's of 2. The highest searchversion will always have a RN of 1. Then we filter to include only those RN which are 1 and have a null partyID. This would result in only those names having a searchID of 2 the highest search version and a NULL partyID
Ok So I took the question a different way too..
If you simply want all the names not linked to a PartyID for a given search.
SELECT A.*
FROM TERM A
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM TERM B
WHERE A.Name = B.Name
AND SearchID = 2) and partyID is not null)
AND searchID = 2
The above should return all term records associated to searchID 2
that have a partyId. This last method is the exists not exists and set logic I was talking about in comments.
I have an SQL Server 2012 table with ID, First Name and Last name. The ID is unique per person but due to an error in the historical feed, different people were assigned the same id.
------------------------------
ID FirstName LastName
------------------------------
1 ABC M
1 ABC M
1 ABC M
1 ABC N
2 BCD S
3 CDE T
4 DEF T
4 DEG T
In this case, the people with ID’s 1 are different (their last name is clearly different) but they have the same ID. How do I query and get the result? The table in this case has millions of rows. If it was a smaller table, I would probably have queried all ID’s with a count > 1 and filtered them in an excel.
What I am trying to do is, get a list of all such ID's which have been assigned to two different users.
Any ideas or help would be very appreciated.
Edit: I dont think I framed the question very well.
There are two ID's which are present multiple time. 1 and 4. The rows with id 4 are identical. I dont want this in my result. The rows with ID 1, although the first name is same, the last name is different for 1 row. I want only those ID's whose ID is same but one of the first or last names is different.
I tried loading ID's which have multiple occurrences into a temp table and tried to compare it against the parent table albeit unsuccessfully. Any other ideas that I can try and implement?
SELECT
ID
FROM
<<Table>>
GROUP BY
ID
HAVING
COUNT(*) > 1;
SELECT *
FROM myTable
WHERE ID IN (
SELECT ID
FROM myTable
GROUP BY ID
HAVING MAX(LastName) <> MIN(LastName) OR MAX(FirstName) <> MIN(FirstName)
)
ORDER BY ID, LASTNAME
I would like to see a most concise way to do what is outlined in this SO question: Sum values from multiple rows into one row
that is, combine multiple rows while summing a column.
But how to then delete the duplicates. In other words I have data like this:
Person Value
--------------
1 10
1 20
2 15
And I want to sum the values for any duplicates (on the Person col) into a single row and get rid of the other duplicates on the Person value. So my output would be:
Person Value
-------------
1 30
2 15
And I would like to do this without using a temp table. I think that I'll need to use OVER PARTITION BY but just not sure. Just trying to challenge myself in not doing it the temp table way. Working with SQL Server 2008 R2
Simply put, give me a concise stmt getting from my input to my output in the same table. So if my table name is People if I do a select * from People on it before the operation that I am asking in this question I get the first set above and then when I do a select * from People after the operation, I get the second set of data above.
Not sure why not using Temp table but here's one way to avoid it (tho imho this is an overkill):
UPDATE MyTable SET VALUE = (SELECT SUM(Value) FROM MyTable MT WHERE MT.Person = MyTable.Person);
WITH DUP_TABLE AS
(SELECT ROW_NUMBER()
OVER (PARTITION BY Person ORDER BY Person) As ROW_NO
FROM MyTable)
DELETE FROM DUP_TABLE WHERE ROW_NO > 1;
First query updates every duplicate person to the summary value. Second query removes duplicate persons.
Demo: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!3/db7aa/11
All you're asking for is a simple SUM() aggregate function and a GROUP BY
SELECT Person, SUM(Value)
FROM myTable
GROUP BY Person
The SUM() by itself would sum up the values in a column, but when you add a secondary column and GROUP BY it, SQL will show distinct values from the secondary column and perform the aggregate function by those distinct categories.
What the simplest way to sub-query a variable number of rows into fields of the parent query?
PeopleTBL
NameID int - unique
Name varchar
Data: 1,joe
2,frank
3,sam
HobbyTBL
HobbyID int - unique
HobbyName varchar
Data: 1,skiing
2,swimming
HobbiesTBL
NameID int
HobbyID int
Data: 1,1
2,1
2,2
The app defines 0-2 Hobbies per NameID.
What the simplest way to query the Hobbies into fields retrieved with "Select * from PeopleTBL"
Result desired based on above data:
NameID Name Hobby1 Hobby2
1 joe skiing
2 frank skiing swimming
3 sam
I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but if you want to fetch all the hobbies for a person in one row, the following query might be useful (MySQL):
SELECT NameID, Name, GROUP_CONCAT(HobbyName) AS Hobbies
FROM PeopleTBL
JOIN HobbiesTBL USING NameID
JOIN HobbyTBL USING HobbyID
Hobbies column will contain all hobbies of a person separated by ,.
See documentation for GROUP_CONCAT for details.
I don't know what engine are you using, so I've provided an example with MySQL (I don't know what other sql engines support this).
Select P.NameId, P.Name
, Min( Case When H2.HobbyId = 1 Then H.HobbyName End ) As Hobby1
, Min( Case When H2.HobbyId = 2 Then H.HobbyName End ) As Hobby2
From HobbyTbl As H
Join HobbiesTbl As H2
On H2.HobbyId = H.HobbyId
Join PeopleTbl As P
On P.NameId = H2.NameId
Group By P.NameId, P.Name
What you are seeking is called a crosstab query. As long as the columns are static, you can use the above solution. However, if you want to dynamic build the columns, you need to build the SQL statement in middle-tier code or use a reporting tool.