I have data as following
STORE_NO STORE_ADDRESS STORE_TYPE STORE_OWNER STORE_HOURS
1 123 Drive Thru Harpo 24hrs
1 123 Curbside Harpo 24hrs
1 123 Counter Harpo 24hrs
2 456 Drive Thru Groucho 9 to 9
2 456 Counter Groucho 9 to 9
And I want to pivot it as following.
STORE_NO STORE_ADDRESS Drive Thru Curbside Counter STORE_OWNER STORE_HOURS
1 123 TRUE TRUE TRUE Harpo 24hrs
2 456 TRUE FALSE TRUE Groucho 9 to 9
Here is what I have
select *
from stores
pivot(count(STORE_TYPE) for STORE_TYPE in ('Drive Thru', 'Curbside', 'Counter'))
as store_flattened;
But this returns a 1 or a 0. How do I convert to TRUE / FALSE without making this a CTE?
If you are ok with putting column names rather then select *, then following can be used -
select STORE_NO,STORE_ADDRESS,STORE_OWNER,STORE_HOURS,
"'Drive Thru'"=1 as drivethru,
"'Curbside'"=1 as curbside,
"'Counter'"=1 as counter
from stores
pivot(count(STORE_TYPE) for STORE_TYPE in ('Drive Thru', 'Curbside', 'Counter'))
as store_flattened;
I honestly think you should leave it as is. Any attempt at a workaround will result in either complicating the pivot logic or having to manually specify the columns names in multiple places; especially with pivoted columns appearing before the rest. Having said that, if you must find a way to do this, here is an attempt.
I know you wanted to avoid a CTE, but I am using it for a purpose different than what you might had in mind. General idea in steps--
In a CTE, sub-select some of the columns you want to appear before
the pivoted columns. Create a flag based on whether store_type
(b.value) from the lateral flatten matches existing store_type
for a given row. You'll notice the values passed to input=> can be easily copy-pasted to the pivot clause
Pivot using max(flag) which will turn (false,true)->true and
(false,false)->false. You can run the CTE portion to see why that
matters and how it solves the main issue
Finally, use a natural join with the main table to append the rest of
the columns (this is the first time I found a natural join useful enough to keep it. I actively avoid them otherwise)
with cte (store_no, store_address, store_type, flag) as
(select store_no, store_address, b.value::string, b.value::string = store_type
from t, lateral flatten(input=>['Drive Thru', 'Curbside', 'Counter']) b)
select *
from cte pivot(max(flag) for store_type in ('Drive Thru', 'Curbside', 'Counter'))
natural join (select distinct store_no, store_owner, store_hours from t)
Outputs:
Related
This is how my query results look like currently. How can I get the MAX() value for each unique id ?
IE,
for 5267139 is 8.
for 5267145 is 4
5267136 5
5267137 8
5267137 2
5267139 8
5267139 5
5267139 3
5267141 4
5267141 3
5267145 4
5267145 3
5267146 1
5267147 2
5267152 3
5267153 3
5267155 8
SELECT DISTINCT st.ScoreID, st.ScoreTrackingTypeID
FROM ScoreTrackingType stt
LEFT JOIN ScoreTracking st
ON stt.ScoreTrackingTypeID = st.ScoreTrackingTypeID
ORDER BY st.ScoreID, st.ScoreTrackingTypeID DESC
GROUP BY will partition your table into separate blocks based on the column(s) you specify. You can then apply an aggregate function (MAX in this case) against each of the blocks -- this behavior applies by default with the below syntax:
SELECT First_column, MAX(Second_column) AS Max_second_column
FROM Table
GROUP BY First_column
EDIT: Based on the query above, it looks like you don't really need the ScoreTrackingType table at all, but leaving it in place, you could use:
SELECT st.ScoreID, MAX(st.ScoreTrackingTypeID) AS ScoreTrackingTypeID
FROM ScoreTrackingType stt
LEFT JOIN ScoreTracking st ON stt.ScoreTrackingTypeID = st.ScoreTrackingTypeID
GROUP BY st.ScoreID
ORDER BY st.ScoreID
The GROUP BY will obviate the need for DISTINCT, MAX will give you the value you are looking for, and the ORDER BY will still apply, but since there will only be a single ScoreTrackingTypeID value for each ScoreID you can pull it out of the ordering.
I want to define the start of ROW_NUMBER() as 3258170 instead of 1.
I am using the following SQL query
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() over(order by (select 3258170)) as 'idd'.
However, the above query is not working. When I say not working I mean its executing but its not starting from 3258170. Can somebody help me?
The reason I want to specify the row number is I am inserting Rows from one table to another. In the first Table the last record's row number is 3258169 and when I insert new records I want them to have the row number from 3258170.
Just add the value to the result of row_number():
select 3258170 - 1 + row_number() over (order by (select NULL)) as idd
The order by clause of row_number() is specifying what column is used for the order by. By specifying a constant there, you are simply saying "everything has the same value for ordering purposes". It has nothing, nothing at all to do with the first value chosen.
To avoid confusion, I replaced the constant value with NULL. In SQL Server, I have observed that this assigns a sequential number without actually sorting the rows -- an observed performance advantage, but not one that I've seen documented, so we can't depend on it.
I feel this is easier
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY Field) - 1 AS FieldAlias (To start from 0)
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY Field) + 3258169 AS FieldAlias (To start from 3258170)
Sometimes....
The ROW_NUMBER() may not be the best solution especially when there could be duplicate records in the underlying data set (for JOIN queries etc.). This may result in more rows returned than expected. You may consider creating a SEQUENCE which can be in some cases considered a cleaner solution.
i.e.:
CREATE SEQUENCE myRowNumberId
START WITH 1
INCREMENT BY 1
GO
SELECT NEXT VALUE FOR myRowNumberId AS 'idd' -- your query
GO
DROP SEQUENCE myRowNumberId; -- just to clean-up after ourselves
GO
The downside is that sequences may be difficult to use in complex queries with DISTINCT, WINDOW functions etc. See the complete sequence documentation here.
I had a situation where I was importing a hierarchical structure into an application where a seq number had to be unique within each hierarchical level and start at 110 (for ease of subsequent manual insertion). The data beforehand looked like this...
Level Prod Type Component Quantity Seq
1 P00210005 R NZ1500 57.90000000 120
1 P00210005 C P00210005M 1.00000000 120
2 P00210005M R M/C Operation 20.00000000 110
2 P00210005M C P00210006 1.00000000 110
2 P00210005M C P00210007 1.00000000 110
I wanted the row_number() function to generate the new sequence numbers but adding 10 and then multiplying by 10 wasn't achievable as expected. To force the sequence of arithmetic functions you have to enclose the entire row_number(), and partition clause in brackets. You can only perform simple addition and substraction on the row_number() as such.
So, my solution for this problem was
,10*(10+row_number() over (partition by Level order by Type desc, [Seq] asc)) [NewSeq]
Note the position of the brackets to allow the multiplication to occur after the addition.
Level Prod Type Component Quantity [Seq] [NewSeq]
1 P00210005 R NZ1500 57.90000000 120 110
1 P00210005 C P00210005M 1.00000000 120 120
2 P00210005M R M/C Operation 20.00000000 110 110
2 P00210005M C P00210006 1.00000000 110 120
2 P00210005M C P00210007 1.00000000 110 130
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY Field) - 1 AS FieldAlias (To start from 0)
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY Field) - 2862718 AS FieldAlias (To start from 2862718)
The order by clause of row_number() is specifying what column is used for the order by. By specifying a constant there, you are simply saying "everything has the same value for ordering purposes". It has nothing, nothing at all to do with the first value chosen.
I have health data relating to deaths. Individual should die once maximum. In the database they sometimes don't; probably because causes of death were changed but the original entry was not deleted. I don't really understand how this was allowed to happen, but it has. So, as a made up example, I have:
Row_number | Individual_ID | Cause_of_death | Date_of_death
------------+---------------+-----------------------+---------------
1 | 1 | Stroke | 3 march 2008
2 | 2 | Myocardial infarction | 1 jan 2009
3 | 2 | Pulmonary Embolus | 1 jan 2009
I want each individual to have only one cause of death.
In the example, I want a query that returns row 1 and either row 2 or row 3 (not both). I have to make an arbitrary choice between rows 2 and 3 because there is no timestamp in any of the fields that can be used to determine which is the revision; it's not ideal but is unavoidable.
I can't make the SQL work to do this. I've tried inner joining distinct Individual_ID to the other fields, but this still gives all the rows. I've tried adding a 'having count(Individual_ID) = 1' clause with it. This leaves out people with more than one cause of death completely. Suggestions on the internet seem to be based on using a timestamped field to choose the most recent, but I don't have that.
IBM DB2. Windows XP. Any thoughts gratefully received.
Have you tried using MIN (or MAX) against the cause of death. (and the date of death, if they died on two different dates)
SELECT IndividualID, MIN(Cause_Of_Death), MIN (Date_Of_Death)
from deaths
GROUP BY IndividualID
I don't know DB2 so I'll answer in general. There are two main approaches:
select *
from T
join (
select keys, min(ID) as MinID
from T
group by keys
) on T.ID = MinID
And
select *, row_number() over (partition by keys) as r
from T
where r = 1
Both return all rows, no matter if duplicate or not. But they returns only one duplicate per "key".
Notice, that both statements are pseudo-SQL.
The row_number() approach is probably preferable from a performance standpoint. Here is usr's example, in DB2 syntax:
select * from (
select T.*, row_number() over (partition by Individual_ID) as r
from T
)
where r=1;
Hi I know how to use the group by clause for sql. I am not sure how to explain this so Ill draw some charts. Here is my original data:
Name Location
----------------------
user1 1
user1 9
user1 3
user2 1
user2 10
user3 97
Here is the output I need
Name Location
----------------------
user1 1
9
3
user2 1
10
user3 97
Is this even possible?
The normal method for this is to handle it in the presentation layer, not the database layer.
Reasons:
The Name field is a property of that data row
If you leave the Name out, how do you know what Location goes with which name?
You are implicitly relying on the order of the data, which in SQL is a very bad practice (since there is no inherent ordering to the returned data)
Any solution will need to involve a cursor or a loop, which is not what SQL is optimized for - it likes working in SETS not on individual rows
Hope this helps
SELECT A.FINAL_NAME, A.LOCATION
FROM (SELECT DISTINCT DECODE((LAG(YT.NAME, 1) OVER(ORDER BY YT.NAME)),
YT.NAME,
NULL,
YT.NAME) AS FINAL_NAME,
YT.NAME,
YT.LOCATION
FROM YOUR_TABLE_7 YT) A
As Jirka correctly pointed out, I was using the Outer select, distinct and raw Name unnecessarily. My mistake was that as I used DISTINCT , I got the resulted sorted like
1 1
2 user2 1
3 user3 97
4 user1 1
5 3
6 9
7 10
I wanted to avoid output like this.
Hence I added the raw id and outer select
However , removing the DISTINCT solves the problem.
Hence only this much is enough
SELECT DECODE((LAG(YT.NAME, 1) OVER(ORDER BY YT.NAME)),
YT.NAME,
NULL,
YT.NAME) AS FINAL_NAME,
YT.LOCATION
FROM SO_BUFFER_TABLE_7 YT
Thanks Jirka
If you're using straight SQL*Plus to make your report (don't laugh, you can do some pretty cool stuff with it), you can do this with the BREAK command:
SQL> break on name
SQL> WITH q AS (
SELECT 'user1' NAME, 1 LOCATION FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user1', 9 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user1', 3 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user2', 1 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user2', 10 FROM dual
UNION ALL
SELECT 'user3', 97 FROM dual
)
SELECT NAME,LOCATION
FROM q
ORDER BY name;
NAME LOCATION
----- ----------
user1 1
9
3
user2 1
10
user3 97
6 rows selected.
SQL>
I cannot but agree with the other commenters that this kind of problem does not look like it should ever be solved using SQL, but let us face it anyway.
SELECT
CASE main.name WHERE preceding_id IS NULL THEN main.name ELSE null END,
main.location
FROM mytable main LEFT JOIN mytable preceding
ON main.name = preceding.name AND MIN(preceding.id) < main.id
GROUP BY main.id, main.name, main.location, preceding.name
ORDER BY main.id
The GROUP BY clause is not responsible for the grouping job, at least not directly. In the first approximation, an outer join to the same table (LEFT JOIN below) can be used to determine on which row a particular value occurs for the first time. This is what we are after. This assumes that there are some unique id values that make it possible to arbitrarily order all the records. (The ORDER BY clause does NOT do this; it orders the output, not the input of the whole computation, but it is still necessary to make sure that the output is presented correctly, because the remaining SQL does not imply any particular order of processing.)
As you can see, there is still a GROUP BY clause in the SQL, but with a perhaps unexpected purpose. Its job is to "undo" a side effect of the LEFT JOIN, which is duplication of all main records that have many "preceding" ( = successfully joined) records.
This is quite normal with GROUP BY. The typical effect of a GROUP BY clause is a reduction of the number of records; and impossibility to query or test columns NOT listed in the GROUP BY clause, except through aggregate functions like COUNT, MIN, MAX, or SUM. This is because these columns really represent "groups of values" due to the GROUP BY, not just specific values.
If you are using SQL*Plus, use the BREAK function. In this case, break on NAME.
If you are using another reporting tool, you may be able to compare the "name" field to the previous record and suppress printing when they are equal.
If you use GROUP BY, output rows are sorted according to the GROUP BY columns as if you had an ORDER BY for the same columns. To avoid the overhead of sorting that GROUP BY produces, add ORDER BY NULL:
SELECT a, COUNT(b) FROM test_table GROUP BY a ORDER BY NULL;
Relying on implicit GROUP BY sorting in MySQL 5.6 is deprecated. To achieve a specific sort order of grouped results, it is preferable to use an explicit ORDER BY clause. GROUP BY sorting is a MySQL extension that may change in a future release; for example, to make it possible for the optimizer to order groupings in whatever manner it deems most efficient and to avoid the sorting overhead.
For full information - http://academy.comingweek.com/sql-groupby-clause/
SQL GROUP BY STATEMENT
SQL GROUP BY clause is used in collaboration with the SELECT statement to arrange identical data into groups.
Syntax:
1. SELECT column_nm, aggregate_function(column_nm) FROM table_nm WHERE column_nm operator value GROUP BY column_nm;
Example :
To understand the GROUP BY clauserefer the sample database.Below table showing fields from “order” table:
1. |EMPORD_ID|employee1ID|customerID|shippers_ID|
Below table showing fields from “shipper” table:
1. | shippers_ID| shippers_Name |
Below table showing fields from “table_emp1” table:
1. | employee1ID| first1_nm | last1_nm |
Example :
To find the number of orders sent by each shipper.
1. SELECT shipper.shippers_Name, COUNT (orders.EMPORD_ID) AS No_of_orders FROM orders LEFT JOIN shipper ON orders.shippers_ID = shipper.shippers_ID GROUP BY shippers_Name;
1. | shippers_Name | No_of_orders |
Example :
To use GROUP BY statement on more than one column.
1. SELECT shipper.shippers_Name, table_emp1.last1_nm, COUNT (orders.EMPORD_ID) AS No_of_orders FROM ((orders INNER JOIN shipper ON orders.shippers_ID=shipper.shippers_ID) INNER JOIN table_emp1 ON orders.employee1ID = table_emp1.employee1ID)
2. GROUP BY shippers_Name,last1_nm;
| shippers_Name | last1_nm |No_of_orders |
for more clarification refer my link
http://academy.comingweek.com/sql-groupby-clause/
If we have a table called FollowUp and has rows [ ID(int) , Value(Money) ]
and we have some rows in it, for example
ID --Value
1------70
2------100
3------150
8------200
20-----250
45-----280
and we want to make one SQL Query that get each row ID,Value and the previous Row Value in which data appear as follow
ID --- Value ---Prev_Value
1 ----- 70 ---------- 0
2 ----- 100 -------- 70
3 ----- 150 -------- 100
8 ----- 200 -------- 150
20 ---- 250 -------- 200
45 ---- 280 -------- 250
i make the following query but i think it's so bad in performance in huge amount of data
SELECT FollowUp.ID, FollowUp.Value,
(
SELECT F1.Value
FROM FollowUp as F1 where
F1.ID =
(
SELECT Max(F2.ID)
FROM FollowUp as F2 where F2.ID < FollowUp.ID
)
) AS Prev_Value
FROM FollowUp
So can anyone help me to get the best solution for such a problem ?
This sql should perform better then the one you have above, although these type of queries tend to be a little performance intensive... so anything you can put in them to limit the size of the dataset you are looking at will help tremendously. For example if you are looking at a specific date range, put that in.
SELECT followup.value,
( SELECT TOP 1 f1.VALUE
FROM followup as f1
WHERE f1.id<followup.id
ORDER BY f1.id DESC
) AS Prev_Value
FROM followup
HTH
You can use the OVER statement to generate nicely increasing row numbers.
select
rownr = row_number() over (order by id)
, value
from your_table
With the numbers, you can easily look up the previous row:
with numbered_rows
as (
select
rownr = row_number() over (order by id)
, value
from your_table
)
select
cur.value
, IsNull(prev.value,0)
from numbered_rows cur
left join numbered_rows prev on cur.rownr = prev.rownr + 1
Hope this is useful.
This is not an answer to your actual question.
Instead, I feel that you are approaching the problem from a wrong direction:
In properly normalized relational databases the tuples ("rows") of each table should contain references to other db items instead of the actual values. Maintaining these relations between tuples belongs to the data insertion part of the codebase.
That is, if containing the value of a tuple with closest, smaller id number really belongs into your data model.
If the requirement to know the previous value comes from the view part of the application - that is, a single view into the data that needs to format it in certain way - you should pull the contents out, sorted by id, and handle the requirement in view specific code.
In your case, I would assume that knowing the previous tuples' value really would belong in the view code instead of the database.
EDIT: You did mention that you store them separately and just want to make a query for it. Even still, application code would probably be the more logical place to do this combining.
What about pulling the lines into your application and computing the previous value there?
Create a stored procedure and use a cursor to iterate and produce rows.
You could use the function 'LAG'.
SELECT ID,
Value,
LAG(value) OVER(ORDER BY ID) AS Prev_Value
FROM FOLLOWUP;