This question already exists:
Oracle SQL - how can I list infomation in the columns [duplicate]
Closed last month.
I'm trying to list for each counterparty their name, vendor no. and customer no. Similar to the table below
I wrote this SQL, which will have two rows for each counterparty and in the column value, it will have the Vendor no, and the Customer no. I want to have instead one row per counterparty and have the Vendor no, and the Customer no as separate columns.
SELECT par.short_name
,inf.value
FROM party_info inf
,party_info_types typ
,party par
WHERE inf.type_id = typ.type_id
AND inf.party_id = par.party_id
AND typ.type_id IN (
21185
,21186
) -- Vendor no / Customer no
This is the current output from the sequel
Apparently, 21185 and 21186 are entangled. For these particular rows you can achieve your goal like this:
select t21185.name as name21185,
t21185.value as value21185,
t21186.name as name21186,
t21186.value as value21186
from (
SELECT par.name
,inf.value
FROM party_info inf
,party_info_types typ
,party par
WHERE inf.type_id = typ.type_id
AND inf.party_id = par.party_id
AND typ.type_id = 21185
) t21185, (
SELECT par.name
,inf.value
FROM party_info inf
,party_info_types typ
,party par
WHERE inf.type_id = typ.type_id
AND inf.party_id = par.party_id
AND typ.type_id = 21186
) t21186
I have kept your query without a join for now, because I do not know enough about your schema to be comfortable doing large refactors. So, my understanding is that the entanglement of 21185 and 21186 is just an example and you have many such counterparts. If so, then you will need to somehow determine what makes two records counterparts of each-other.
I noticed though that in your example, an odd typ.type_id is on the left-hand-side, whereas a typ.type_id of a pair value being greater than the left-hand-side by exactly 1 is the right-hand-side. If that's a general pattern that you can safely use, then you can specify a criteria of
(t1.typ_id MOD 2 = 1) and (t2.typ_id = t1.typ_id + 1)
of course, you need some refactor to apply such a criteria, which I did not do for you in my answer, as I'm not yet sure that the pattern I have outlined in the criteria above applies to your problem-space.
Related
Consider the following tables:
Table A:
DOC_NUM
DOC_TYPE
RELATED_DOC_NUM
NEXT_STATUS
...
Table B:
DOC_NUM
DOC_TYPE
RELATED_DOC_NUM
NEXT_STATUS
...
The DOC_TYPE and NEXT_STATUS columns have different meanings between the two tables, although a NEXT_STATUS = 999 means "closed" in both. Also, under certain conditions, there will be a record in each table, with a reference to a corresponding entry in the other table (i.e. the RELATED_DOC_NUM columns).
I am trying to create a query that will get data from both tables that meet the following conditions:
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
A.DOC_TYPE = "ST"
B.DOC_TYPE = "OT"
A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999
A.DOC_TYPE = "ST" represents a transfer order to transfer inventory from one plant to another. B.DOC_TYPE = "OT" represents a corresponding receipt of the transferred inventory at the receiving plant.
We want to get records from either table where there is an ST/OT pair where either or both entries are not closed (i.e. NEXT_STATUS < 999).
I am assuming that I need to use a FULL OUTER join to accomplish this. If this is the wrong assumption, please let me know what I should be doing instead.
UPDATE (11/30/2021):
I believe that #Caius Jard is correct in that this does not need to be an outer join. There should always be an ST/OT pair.
With that I have written my query as follows:
SELECT <columns>
FROM A LEFT JOIN B
ON
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
WHERE
A.DOC_TYPE IN ('ST') AND
B.DOC_TYPE IN ('OT') AND
(A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999)
Does this make sense?
UPDATE 2 (11/30/2021):
The reality is that these are DB2 database tables being used by the JD Edwards ERP application. The only way I know of to see the table definitions is by using the web site http://www.jdetables.com/, entering the table ID and hitting return to run the search. It comes back with a ton of information about the table and its columns.
Table A is really F4211 and table B is really F4311.
Right now, I've simplified the query to keep it simple and keep variables to a minimum. This is what I have currently:
SELECT CAST(F4211.SDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8)) AS SO_NUM,
F4211.SDRORN AS RELATED_PO,
F4211.SDDCTO AS SO_DOC_TYPE,
F4211.SDNXTR AS SO_NEXT_STATUS,
CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8)) AS PO_NUM,
F4311.PDRORN AS RELATED_SO,
F4311.PDDCTO AS PO_DOC_TYPE,
F4311.PDNXTR AS PO_NEXT_STATUS
FROM PROD2DTA.F4211 AS F4211
INNER JOIN PROD2DTA.F4311 AS F4311
ON F4211.SDRORN = CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8))
WHERE F4211.SDDCTO IN ( 'ST' )
AND F4311.PDDCTO IN ( 'OT' )
The other part of the story is that I'm using a reporting package that allows you to define "virtual" views of the data. Virtual views allow the report developer to specify the SQL to use. This is the application where I am using the SQL. When I set up the SQL, there is a validation step that must be performed. It will return a limited set of results if the SQL is validated.
When I enter the query above and validate it, it says that there are no results, which makes no sense. I'm guessing the data casting is causing the issue, but not sure.
UPDATE 3 (11/30/2021):
One more twist to the story. The related doc number is not only defined as a string value, but it contains leading zeros. This is true in both tables. The main doc number (in both tables) is defined as a numeric value and therefore has no leading zeros. I have no idea why those who developed JDE would have done this, but that is what is there.
So, there are matching records between the two tables that meet the criteria, but I think I'm getting no results because when I convert the numeric to a string, it does not match, because one value is, say "12345", while the other is "00012345".
Can I pad the numeric -> string value with zeros before doing the equals check?
UPDATE 4 (12/2/2021):
Was able to finally get the query to work by converting the numeric doc num to a left zero padded string.
SELECT <columns>
FROM PROD2DTA.F4211 AS F4211
INNER JOIN PROD2DTA.F4311 AS F4311
ON F4211.SDRORN = RIGHT(CONCAT('00000000', CAST(F4311.PDDOCO AS VARCHAR(8))), 8)
WHERE F4211.SDDCTO IN ( 'ST' )
AND F4311.PDDCTO IN ( 'OT' )
AND ( F4211.SDNXTR < 999
OR F4311.PDNXTR < 999 )
You should write your query as follows:
SELECT <columns>
FROM A INNER JOIN B
ON
A.RELATED_DOC_NUM = B.DOC_NUM
WHERE
A.DOC_TYPE IN ('ST') AND
B.DOC_TYPE IN ('OT') AND
(A.NEXT_STATUS < 999 OR B.NEXT_STATUS < 999)
LEFT join is a type of OUTER join; LEFT JOIN is typically a contraction of LEFT OUTER JOIN). OUTER means "one side might have nulls in every column because there was no match". Most critically, the code as posted in the question (with a LEFT JOIN, but then has WHERE some_column_from_the_right_table = some_value) runs as an INNER join, because any NULLs inserted by the LEFT OUTER process, are then quashed by the WHERE clause
See Update 4 for details of how I resolved the "data conversion or mapping" error.
I have the following query:
SELECT DISTINCT
CAB.CODPARC,
PAR.RAZAOSOCIAL,
BAI.NOMEBAI,
SUM(VLRNOTA) AS AMOUNT
FROM TGFCAB CAB, TGFPAR PAR, TSIBAI BAI
WHERE CAB.CODPARC = PAR.CODPARC
AND PAR.CODBAI = BAI.CODBAI
AND CAB.TIPMOV = 'V'
AND STATUSNOTA = 'L'
AND PAR.CODCID = 5358
GROUP BY
CAB.CODPARC,
PAR.RAZAOSOCIAL,
BAI.NOMEBAI
Which the result is this. Company names and neighborhood hid for obvious reasons
The query at the moment, for those who don't understand Latin languages, is giving me clients, company name, company neighborhood, and the total value of movements.
in the WHERE clause it is only filtering sales movements of companies from an established city.
But if you notice in the Select statement, the column that is retuning the value that aggregates the total amount of value of sales is a SUM().
My goal is to return only the company that have the maximum value of this column, if its a tie, display both of em.
This is where i'm struggling, cause i can't seem to find a simple solution. I tried to use
WHERE AMOUNT = MAX(AMOUNT)
But as expected it didn't work
You tagged the question with the whole bunch of different databases; do you really use all of them?
Because, "PL/SQL" reads as "Oracle". If that's so, here's one option.
with temp as
-- this is your current query
(select columns,
sum(vrlnota) as amount
from ...
where ...
)
-- query that returns what you asked for
select *
from temp t
where t.amount = (select max(a.amount)
from temp a
);
You should be able to achieve the same without the need for a subquery using window over() function,
WITH T AS (
SELECT
CAB.CODPARC,
PAR.RAZAOSOCIAL,
BAI.NOMEBAI,
SUM(VLRNOTA) AS AMOUNT,
MAX(VLRNOTA) over() AS MAMOUNT
FROM TGFCAB CAB
JOIN TGFPAR PAR ON PAR.CODPARC = CAB.CODPARC
JOIN TSIBAI BAI ON BAI.CODBAI = PAR.CODBAI
WHERE CAB.TIPMOV = 'V'
AND STATUSNOTA = 'L'
AND PAR.CODCID = 5358
GROUP BY CAB.CODPARC, PAR.RAZAOSOCIAL, BAI.NOMEBAI
)
SELECT CODPARC, RAZAOSOCIAL, NOMEBAI, AMOUNT
FROM T
WHERE AMOUNT=MAMOUNT
Note it's usually (always) beneficial to join tables using clear explicit join syntax. This should be fine cross-platform between Oracle & SQL Server.
i want to group this query by project only because there are two records of same project but i only want one.
But when i add group by clause it asks me to add other columns as well by which grouping does not work.
*
DECLARE #Year varchar(75) = '2018'
DECLARE #von DateTime = '1.09.2018'
DECLARE #bis DateTime = '30.09.2018'
select new_projekt ,new_geschftsartname, new_mitarbeitername, new_stundensatz
from Filterednew_projektkondition ps
left join Filterednew_fakturierungsplan fp on ps.new_projekt = fp.new_hauptprojekt1
where ps.statecodename = 'Aktiv'
and fp.new_startdatum >= #von +'00:00:00'
and fp.new_enddatum <= #bis +'23:59:59'
--and new_projekt= Filterednew_projekt.new_
--group by new_projekt
*
look at the column new_projekt . row 2 and 3 has same project, but i want it to appear only once. Due to different other columns this is not possible.
if its of interested , there is another coluim projectcondition id which is unique for both
You can't ask a database to decide arbitrarily for you, which records should be thrown away when doing a group. You have to be precise and specific
Example, here is some data about a person:
Name, AddressZipCode
John Doe, 90210
John Doe, 12345
SELECT name, addresszipcode FROM person INNER JOIN address on address.personid = person.id
There are two addresses stored for this one guy, the person data is repeated in the output!
"I don't want that. I only want to see one line for this guy, together with his address"
Which address?
That's what you have to tell the database
"Well, obviously his current address"
And how do you denote that an address is current?
"It's the one with the null enddate"
SELECT name, addresszipcode FROM person INNER JOIN address on address.personid = person.id WHERE address.enddate = null
If you still get two addresses out, there are two address records that are null - you have data that is in violation of your business data modelling principles ("a person's address history shall have at most one adddress that is current, denoted by a null end date") - fix the data
"Why can't i just group by name?"
You can, but if you do, you still have to tell the database how to accumulate the non-name data that it shows you. You want an address data out of it, it has 2 it wants to show you, you have to tell it which to discard. You could do this:
SELECT name, MAX(addresszipcode) FROM person INNER JOIN address on address.personid = person.id GROUP BY name
"But I don't want the max zipcode? That doesn't make sense"
OK, use the MIN, the SUM, the AVG, anything that makes sense. If none of these make sense, then use something that does, like the address line that has the highest end date, or the lowest end date that is a future end date. If you only want one address on show you must decide how to boil that data down to just one record - you have to write the rule for the database to follow and no question about it you have to create a rule so make it a rule that describes what you actually want
Ok, so you created a rule - you want only the rows with the minimum new_stundenstatz
DECLARE #Year varchar(75) = '2018'
DECLARE #von DateTime = '1.09.2018'
DECLARE #bis DateTime = '30.09.2018'
select new_projekt ,new_geschftsartname, new_mitarbeitername, new_stundensatz
from
(SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITON BY new_projekt ORDER BY new_stundensatz) rown FROM Filterednew_projektkondition) ps
left join
Filterednew_fakturierungsplan fp on ps.new_projekt = fp.new_hauptprojekt1
where ps.statecodename = 'Aktiv'
and fp.new_startdatum >= #von +'00:00:00'
and fp.new_enddatum <= #bis +'23:59:59'
and ps.rown = 1
Here I've used an analytic operation to number the rows in your PS table. They're numbered in order of ascending new_stundensatz, starting with 1. The numbering restarts when the new_projekt changes, so each new_projekt will have a number 1 row.. and then we make that a condition of the where
(Helpful side note for applying this technique in future.. Ff it were the FP table we were adding a row number to, we would need to put AND fp.rown= 1 in the ON clause, not the WHERE clause, because putting it in the where would make the LEFT join behave like an INNER, hiding rows that don't have any FP matching record)
The database is Postgres but any SQL logic should help.
I am retrieving the set of sales quotations that contain a given product within the bill of materials. I'm doing that in two steps: step 1, retrieve all DISTINCT quote numbers which contain a given product (by product number).
The second step, retrieve the full quote, with all products listed for each unique quote number.
So far, so good. Now the tough bit. Some rows are duplicates, some are not. Those that are duplicates (quote number & quote version & line number) might or might not have maintenance on them. I want to pick the row that has maintenance greater than 0. The duplicate rows I want to exclude are those that have a 0 maintenance. The problem is that some rows, which have no duplicates, have 0 maintenance, so I can't just filter on maintenance.
To make this exciting, the database holds quotes over 20+ years. And the data scientists guys have just admitted that maybe the ETL process has some bugs...
--- step 0
--- cleanup the workspace
SET CLIENT_ENCODING TO 'UTF8';
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS product_quotes;
--- step 1
--- get list of Product Quotes
CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE product_quotes AS (
SELECT DISTINCT master_quote_number
FROM w_quote_line_d
WHERE item_number IN ( << model numbers >> )
);
--- step 2
--- Now join on that list
SELECT
d.quote_line_number,
d.item_number,
d.item_description,
d.item_quantity,
d.unit_of_measure,
f.ref_list_price_amount,
f.quote_amount_entered,
f.negtd_discount,
--- need to calculate discount rate based on list price and negtd discount (%)
CASE
WHEN ref_list_price_amount > 0
THEN 100 - (ref_list_price_amount + negtd_discount) / ref_list_price_amount *100
ELSE 0
END AS discount_percent,
f.warranty_months,
f.master_quote_number,
f.quote_version_number,
f.maintenance_months,
f.territory_wid,
f.district_wid,
f.sales_rep_wid,
f.sales_organization_wid,
f.install_at_customer_wid,
f.ship_to_customer_wid,
f.bill_to_customer_wid,
f.sold_to_customer_wid,
d.net_value,
d.deal_score,
f.transaction_date,
f.reporting_date
FROM w_quote_line_d d
INNER JOIN product_quotes pq ON (pq.master_quote_number = d.master_quote_number)
INNER JOIN w_quote_f f ON
(f.quote_line_number = d.quote_line_number
AND f.master_quote_number = d.master_quote_number
AND f.quote_version_number = d.quote_version_number)
WHERE d.net_value >= 0 AND item_quantity > 0
ORDER BY f.master_quote_number, f.quote_version_number, d.quote_line_number
The logic to filter the duplicate rows is like this:
For each master_quote_number / version_number pair, check to see if there are duplicate line numbers. If so, pick the one with maintenance > 0.
Even in a CASE statement, I'm not sure how to write that.
Thoughts? The database is Postgres but any SQL logic should help.
I think you will want to use Window Functions. They are, in a word, awesome.
Here is a query that would "dedupe" based on your criteria:
select *
from (
select
* -- simplifying here to show the important parts
,row_number() over (
partition by master_quote_number, version_number
order by maintenance desc) as seqnum
from w_quote_line_d d
inner join product_quotes pq
on (pq.master_quote_number = d.master_quote_number)
inner join w_quote_f f
on (f.quote_line_number = d.quote_line_number
and f.master_quote_number = d.master_quote_number
and f.quote_version_number = d.quote_version_number)
) x
where seqnum = 1
The use of row_number() and the chosen partition by and order by criteria guarantee that only ONE row for each combination of quote_number/version_number will get the value of 1, and it will be the one with the highest value in maintenance (if your colleagues are right, there would only be one with a value > 0 anyway).
Can you do something like...
select
*
from
w_quote_line_d d
inner join
(
select
...
,max(maintenance)
from
w_quote_line_d
group by
...
) d1
on
d1.id = d.id
and d1.maintenance = d.maintenance;
Am I understanding your problem correctly?
Edit: Forgot the group by!
I'm not sure, but maybe you could Group By all other columns and use MAX(Maintenance) to get only the greatest.
What do you think?
I have a data set that lists the date and quantity of future stock of products. Occasionally our demand outstrips our future supply and we wind up with a negative future quantity. I need to factor that future negative quantity into previous supply so we don't compound the problem by overselling our supply.
In the following data set, I need to prepare for demand on 10-19 by applying the negative quantity up the chain until i'm left with a positive quantity:
"ID","SKU","DATE","SEASON","QUANTITY"
"1","001","2012-06-22","S12","1656"
"2","001","2012-07-13","F12","1986"
"3","001","2012-07-27","F12","-283"
"4","001","2012-08-17","F12","2718"
"5","001","2012-08-31","F12","-4019"
"6","001","2012-09-14","F12","7212"
"7","001","2012-09-21","F12","782"
"8","001","2012-09-28","F12","2073"
"9","001","2012-10-12","F12","1842"
"10","001","2012-10-19","F12","-12159"
I need to get it to this:
"ID","SKU","DATE","SEASON","QUANTITY"
"1","001","2012-06-22","S12","1656"
"2","001","2012-07-13","F12","152"
I have looked at using a while loop as well as an outer apply but cannot seem to find a way to do this yet. Any help would be much appreciated. This would need to work for sql server 2008 R2.
Here's another example:
"1","002","2012-07-13","S12","1980"
"2","002","2012-08-10","F12","-306"
"3","002","2012-09-07","F12","826"
Would become:
"1","002","2012-07-13","S12","1674"
"3","002","2012-09-07","F12","826"
You don't seem to get a lot of answers - so here's something if you won't get the right 'how-to do it in pure SQL'. Ignore this solution if there's anything SQLish - it's just a defensive coding, not elegant.
If you want to get a sum of all data with same season why deleting duplicate records - just get it outside, run a foreach loop, sum all data with same season value, update table with the right values and delete unnecessary entries. Here's one of the ways to do it (pseudocode):
productsArray = SELECT * FROM products
processed = array (associative)
foreach product in productsArray:
if product[season] not in processed:
processed[season] = product[quantity]
UPDATE products SET quantity = processed[season] WHERE id = product[id]
else:
processed[season] = processed[season] + product[quantity]
DELETE FROM products WHERE id = product[id]
Here is a CROSS APPLY - tested
SELECT b.ID,SKU,b.DATE,SEASON,QUANTITY
FROM (
SELECT SKU,SEASON, SUM(QUANTITY) AS QUANTITY
FROM T1
GROUP BY SKU,SEASON
) a
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT TOP 1 b.ID,b.Date FROM T1 b
WHERE a.SKU = b.SKU AND a.SEASON = b.SEASON
ORDER BY b.ID ASC
) b
ORDER BY ID ASC