I have a table with id and score. I want to create a new set of data with a sampling method. The sampling method would be to order the id in decreasing order of the scores and sample the 3rd id, starting with the first form the beginning until we get 10k positive samples. And we would like to do the same in the other direction, starting from the end to get 10k negative samples.
id
score
24
0.55
58
0.43
987
0.93
How can I write a SQL query to execute this sampling and get the expected output?
To start with, this would be more straightforward to write an answer if you included the database you used (SQL Server, MySQL, etc). Different SQL versions have different syntax.
BACKGROUND
To answer this question, the main tools you need are the ability to sort, and an ability to take every 3rd row.
I'm using SQL Server here, so sorting includes
TOP modifier in SELECT statements - in other databases it's often LIMIT (e.g., SELECT * FROM Test LIMIT 1000)
ROW_NUMBER() which I believe is relatively common
To get every third row, I use the 'modulus' mathematical function - in SQL Server signified by a % symbol - so, for example
1 % 3 = 1
2 % 3 = 2
3 % 3 = 0
4 % 3 = 1
APPROACH
There is an example of this in this db<>fiddle - but note that it is only dealing with test data (1000 rows, selecting top and bottom 10).
Running through the steps - and assuming your data is stored in #DataTable:
The following command assigns a row number rn to the data, sorted by the score.
SELECT id, score, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY score, id) as rn
FROM #DataTable;
To get every third value, start with that data and take every third value (e.g., where the row number is a multiple of 3)
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT id, score, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY score, id) as rn
FROM #DataTable)
WHERE rn % 3 = 0;
To get the first 10,000 of them, use TOP (or LIMIT, etc)
SELECT TOP 10000 *
FROM (SELECT id, score, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY score, id) as rn
FROM #DataTable)
WHERE rn % 3 = 0
ORDER BY rn;
Note - to get it the other way/get the highest scores, take the ROW_NUMBER() in reverse order (e.g., ORDER BY score DESC, id DESC).
FINAL ANSWER
Take the above 10,000 rows, and do a similar for the other way (e.g., to get the highest scores) then UNION them together. Below it is done with a CTE.
WITH TopScores AS
(SELECT TOP 10000 id, score
FROM (SELECT id, score, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY score DESC, id DESC) as rn
FROM #DataTable
) AS RankedScores_down
WHERE RankedScores_down.rn % 3 = 0
ORDER BY RankedScores_down.rn
),
LowScores AS
(SELECT TOP 10000 id, score
FROM (SELECT id, score, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY score, id) as rn
FROM #DataTable
) AS RankedScores_up
WHERE RankedScores_up.rn % 3 = 0
ORDER BY RankedScores_up.rn
)
SELECT * FROM TopScores
UNION
SELECT * FROM LowScores
ORDER BY score, id;
Notes
I used 'UNION' rather than 'UNION ALL' because, in the chance that there is overlap (e.g., you have less than 60,000 datapoints) we only want to include each sample once
If you use a different database, you'll need to translate this! Here are the benefits of specifying the database you use.
Note that taking every third value (when sorted by score) is not really 'independent' sampling - one would ask why you just don't use all of the top/bottom 30,000 scores? If you to sample 1 in 3 of them, instead you could use id % 3 instead of rn % 3. But once again, why would you do this? Why not just collect fewer results and use them all?
Of course, one good reason is to use half the data to check the validity of stats e.g., take half the data, do your model - then check against the other half how good your model is.
Related
I have a sample table named assets which looks like this:
id
name
block_no
1
asset1
2
2
asset2
2
3
asset3
3
There can be any number of assets in a specific block. I need a minimum of 100 rows from the table, and containing all the data from the block_no. Like, if there are 95 rows to block_no 2 and around 20 on block_no 3, I need all 20 of block_no 3 as if I am fetching data in packets based on block_no.
Is this possible and feasible?
Postgres 13 or later
There is a dead simple solution using WITH TIES in Postgres 13 or later:
SELECT *
FROM assets
WHERE block_no >= 2 -- your starting block
ORDER BY block_no
FETCH FIRST 100 ROWS WITH TIES;
This will return at least 100 rows (if enough qualify), plus all peers of the 100th row.
If your table isn't trivially small, an index on (block_no) is essential for performance.
See:
Get top row(s) with highest value, with ties
Older versions
Use the window function rank() in a subquery:
SELECT (a).*
FROM (
SELECT a, rank() OVER (ORDER BY block_no) AS rnk
FROM assets a
) sub
WHERE rnk <= 100;
Same result.
I use a little trick with the row type to strip the added rnk from the result. That's an optional addition.
See:
PostgreSQL equivalent for TOP n WITH TIES: LIMIT "with ties"?
I have a table with the following fields
ID,Content,QuestionMarks,TypeofQuestion
350, What is the symbol used to represent Bromine?,2,MCQ
758,What is the symbol used to represent Bromine? ,2,MCQ
2425,What is the symbol used to represent Bromine?,3,Essay
2080,A quadrilateral has four sides, four angles ,1,MCQ
2614,A circular cone has a curved surface area of ,2,MCQ
2520,Two triangles have sides 5 cm, 11 cm, 2 cm . ,2,MCQ
2196,Life supporting process mediated by water? ,2,Essay
I would like to get random questions where total marks is an input number.
For example if I say 25, the result should be all the random questions whose Sum(QuestionMarks) is 25(+/-1)
Is this really possible using a SQL
select content,id,questionmarks,sum(questionmarks) from quiz_question
group by content,id,questionmarks;
Expected Input 25
Expected Result (Sum of Question Marks =25)
Update:
How do I ensure I get atleast 2 Essay Type Questions (this is just an example) I would extend this for other conditions. Thank you for all the help
S-Man's cumulative sum is the right approach. For your logic, though, I think you want to get up to the first row that is 24 or more. That logic is:
where total - questionmark < 24
If you have enough questions, then you could get exactly 25 using:
with q25 as (
select *
from (select t.*,
sum(questionmark) over (order by random()) as running_questionmark
from t
) t
where running_questionmark < 25
)
select q.ID, q.Content, q.QuestionMarks, q.TypeofQuestion
from q25 q
union all
(select t.ID, t.Content, t.QuestionMarks, t.TypeofQuestion
from t cross join
(select sum(questionmark) as questionmark_25 from q25) x
where not exists (select 1 from q25 where q25.id = t.id)
order by abs(questionmark - (25 - questionmark_25))
limit 1
)
This selects questions up to 25 but not at 25. It then tries to find one more to make the total 25.
Supposing, questionmark is of type integer. Then you want to get some records in random order whose questionmark sum is not more than 25:
You can use the consecutive SUM() window function. The order is random. The consecutive SUM() adds every current value to the previous sum. So, you could filter where SUM() <= <your value>:
demo:db<>fiddle
SELECT
*
FROM (
SELECT
*,
SUM(questionmark) OVER (ORDER BY random()) as total
FROM
t
)s
WHERE total <= 25
Note:
This returns a records list with no more than 25, but as close as possible to it with an random order.
To find an exact match of your value is some sort of combinatorical problem which shouldn't be solved in a database. Especially when there's a random factor. What if your current SUM is 22 and the next randomly chosen value is 4. Would you retry maybe until infinity to randomly find a value = 3? Or are you trying to remove an already counted record with value = 1?
I have a two column table currently, with the columns 'probability' and 'age'. I have a given probability, and I need to search the table and return the age related to the closest probability. It's already in ascending order next to age, for example:
20 0.01050
21 0.02199
22 0.03155
23 0.04710
The only thing I can think of doing right now is returning all ages with probabilities greater than the given probability, and taking the first one.
select age from mydb.mytest
where probability > givenProbability;
I'm sure there is a better approach to this than doing that, so I'm wondering what that would be.
What about something like this:
SELECT * FROM mytest
ORDER BY ABS( .0750 - probability )
LIMIT 1
Should return the top 1 closest value, based on a sorted list of the Absolute value of the Difference between Probability and givenProbability.
Different solutions will work for different DBMS. This one works in DB2 and is standard sql:
select age
from (
select age
, row_number() over (order by abs(probability - givenProbability)) as rn
from mydb.mytest
)
where rn = 1
Let's say I have this table
Table name: Traffic
Seq. Type Amount
1 in 10
2 out 30
3 in 50
4 out 70
What I need is to get the previous smaller and next larger amount of a value. So, if I have 40 as a value, I will get...
Table name: Traffic
Seq. Type Amount
2 out 30
3 in 50
I already tried doing it with MYSQL and quite satisfied with the results
(select * from Traffic where
Amount < 40 order by Amount desc limit 1)
union
(select * from Traffic where
Amount > 40 order by Amount desc limit 1)
The problem lies when I try to convert it to a SQL statement acceptable by AS400. It appears that the order by and fetch function (AS400 doesn't have a limit function so we use fetch, or does it?) is not allowed inside the select statement when I use it with a union. I always get a keyword not expected error. Here is my statement;
(select seq as sequence, type as status, amount as price from Traffic where
Amount < 40 order by price asc fetch first 1 rows only)
union
(select seq as sequence, type as status, amount as price from Traffic where
Amount > 40 order by price asc fetch first 1 rows only)
Can anyone please tell me what's wrong and how it should be? Also, please share if you know other ways to achieve my desired result.
How about a CTE? From memory (no machine to test with):
with
less as (select * from traffic where amount < 40),
more as (select * from traffic where amount > 40)
select * from traffic
where id = (select id from less where amount = (select max(amount from less)))
or id = (select id from more where amount = (select min(amount from more)))
I looked at this question from possibly another point of view. I have seen other questions about date-time ranges between rows, and I thought perhaps what you might be trying to do is establish what range some value might fall in.
If working with these ranges will be a recurring theme, then you might want to create a view for it.
create or replace view traffic_ranges as
with sorted as
( select t.*
, smallint(row_number() over (order by amount)) as pos
from traffic t
)
select b.pos range_seq
, b.id beg_id
, e.id end_id
, b.typ beg_type
, e.typ end_type
, b.amount beg_amt
, e.amount end_amt
from sorted b
join sorted e on e.pos = b.pos+1
;
Once you have this view, it becomes very simple to get your answer:
select *
from traffic_ranges
where 40 is between beg_amt and end_amt
Or to get only one range where the search amount happens to be an amount in your base table, you would want to pick whether to include the beginning value or ending value as part of the range, and exclude the other:
where beg_amt < 40 and end_amt >= 40
One advantage of this approach is performance. If you are finding the range for multiple values, such as a column in a table or query, then having the range view should give you significantly better performance than a query where you must aggregate all the records that are more or less than each search value.
Here's my query using CTE and union inspired by Buck Calabro's answer. Credits go to him and WarrenT for being SQL geniuses!
I won't be accepting my own answer. That will be unfair. hehe
with
apple(seq, type, amount) as (select seq, type, amount from traffic where amount < 40
order by amount desc fetch first 1 rows only),
banana(seq, type, amount) as (select seq, type, amount from traffic where
amount > 40 fetch first 1 rows only)
select * from apple
union
select * from banana
It's a bit slow but I can accept that since I'll only use it once in the progam.
This is just a sample. The actual query is a bit different.
Platform: SQL Server 2005 Express
Disclaimer: I’m quite a novice to SQL and so if you are happy to help with what may be a very simple question, then I won’t be offended if you talk slowly and use small words :-)
I have a table where I want to SUM the contents of multiple rows. However, I want to SUM one column only for the first occurrence of text in a different column.
Table schema for table 'tblMain'
fldOne {varchar(100)} Example contents: “Dandelion“
fldTwo {varchar(8)} Example contents: “01:00:00” (represents hh:mm:ss)
fldThree {numeric(10,0)} Example contents: “65”
Contents of table:
Row number fldOne fldTwo fldThree
------------------------------------------------
1 Dandelion 01:00:00 99
2 Daisy 02:15:00 88
3 Dandelion 00:45:00 77
4 Dandelion 00:30:00 10
5 Dandelion 00:15:00 200
6 Rose 01:30:00 55
7 Daisy 01:00:00 22
etc. ad nausium
If I use:
Select * from tblMain where fldTwo < ’05:00:00’ order by fldOne, fldTwo desc
Then all rows are correctly returned, ordered by fldOne and then fldTwo in descending order (although in the example data I've shown, all the data is already in the correct order!)
What I’d like to do is get the SUM of each fldThree, but only from the first occurrence of each fldOne.
So, SUM the first Dandelion, Daisy and Rose that I come across. E.g.
99+88+55
At the moment, I’m doing this programmatically; return a RecordSet from the Select statement above, and MoveNext through each returned row, only adding fldThree to my ‘total’ if I’ve never seen the text from fldOne before. It works, but most of the Select queries return over 100k rows and so it’s quite slow (slow being a relative term – it takes about 50 seconds on my setup).
The actual select statement (selecting about 100k rows from 1.5m total rows) completes in under a second which is fine. The current programatic loop is quite small and tight, it's just the number of loops through the RecordSet that takes time. I'm using adOpenForwardOnly and adLockReadOnly when I open the record set.
This is a routine that basically runs continuously as more data is added, and also the fldTwo 'times' vary, so I can't be more specific with the Select statement.
Everything that I’ve so far managed to do natively with SQL seems to run quickly and I’m hoping I can take the logic (and work) away from my program and get SQL to take the strain.
Thanks in advance
The best way to approach this is with window functions. These let you enumerate the rows within a group. However, you need some way to identify the first row. SQL tables are inherently unordered, so you need a column to specify the ordering. Here are some ideas.
If you have an id column, which is defined as an identity so it is autoincremented:
select sum(fldThree)
from (select m.*,
row_number() over (partition by fldOne order by id) as seqnum
from tblMain m
) m
where seqnum = 1
To get an arbitrary row, you could use:
select sum(fldThree)
from (select m.*,
row_number() over (partition by fldOne order by (select NULL as noorder)) as seqnum
from tblMain m
) m
where seqnum = 1
Or, if FldTwo has the values in reverse order:
select sum(fldThree)
from (select m.*,
row_number() over (partition by fldOne order by FldTwo desc) as seqnum
from tblMain m
) m
where seqnum = 1
Maybe this?
SELECT SUM(fldThree) as ExpectedSum
FROM
(SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY fldOne ORDER BY fldTwo DSEC) Rn
FROM tblMain) as A
WHERE Rn = 1