I'm currently writing a relatively complex SQL statement which selects data from multiple tables and has quite a few sub-statements and joins.
In my "final" data set, I want to return raw data as well as comparisons between the raw data. While I can do this when the raw data is found using a Join, is it possible to do this while the raw data is found in a sub-query?
For example:
If I have a query which is
SELECT
A
,(SELECT B FROM BETA WHERE Row = ALPHA.Betalink) B
FROM APLHA
WHERE A > 1
Can I add a column which compares A and B without adding another Select?
The only way I know to solve this would be to do the above select, then select on that:
SELECT
A
,B
,greater(A,B)
FROM
(SELECT A
,(SELECT B FROM BETA WHERE Row = ALPHA.Betalink) B
FROM APLHA
WHERE A > 1
)
TIA
I think you are looking for a with clause.
What is the most important- the query is ran once, while subquery is runned for every returned row.
You can read about it here:
subquery_factoring_clause
In your example it could look like this:
WITH SUBQ_DATA as (SELECT B,Row FROM BETA)
SELECT alpha.A
,sub.B
,greater(alpha.A,sub.B)
FROM ALPHA alpha
JOIN SUBQ_DATA sub on sub.Row = alpha.Betalink
WHERE A > 1
Related
I need to fetch 4 random values from each category. What should be the correct sql syntax for maria db. I have attached one image of table structure.
Please click here to check the structure
Should i write some procedure or i can do it with basic sql syntax?
You can do that with a SQL statement if you only have a few rows:
SELECT id, question, ... FROM x1 ORDER BY rand() LIMIT 1
This works fine if you have only a few rows - as soon as you have thousands of rows the overhead for sorting the rows becomes important, you have to sort all rows for getting only one row.
A trickier but better solution would be:
SELECT id, question from x1 JOIN (SELECT CEIL(RAND() * (SELECT(MAX(id)) FROM x1)) AS id) as id using(id);
Running EXPLAIN on both SELECTS will show you the difference...
If you need random value for different categories combine the selects via union and add a where clause
http://mysql.rjweb.org/doc.php/groupwise_max#top_n_in_each_group
But then ORDER BY category, RAND(). (Your category is the blog's province.)
Notice how it uses #variables to do the counting.
If you have MariaDB 10.2, then use one of its Windowing functions.
SELECT column FROM table WHERE category_id = XXX
ORDER BY RAND()
LIMIT 4
do it for all categories
I'm converting a SAS script to Python for a PostgreSQL environment. In a few places I've found a data statement in SAS, which looks something like this (in multiple scripts):
data dups;
set picc;
by btn wtn resp_ji;
if not (first.resp_ji and last.resp_ji);
run;
Obviously datasets aren't the same in python or SQL environments, and I'm having trouble determining what this specific statement is doing. To be clear, there are a number of scripts being converted which create a dataset in this manner with this same name. So my expectation would be that most of these would be overwritten over and over.
I'm also unclear as to what the postgres equivalent to the condition in the data dups statement would be.
Is there an obvious PostgreSQL statement that would work in its place? Something like this?:
CREATE TABLE dups AS
SELECT btn, wtn, resp_ji
WHERE /*some condition that matches the condition in the data statement*/
Does the
by btn wtn respji;
statement mean which columns are copied over, or is that the equivalent of an ORDER BY clause in PostgreSQL?
Thanks.
The statement is using what's called 'by group processing'. Before the step can run, it requires that the data is sorted by btn wtn resp_ji.
The first.resp_ji piece is checking to see if it's the first time it's seen the current value of resp_ji within the current btn/wtn combination. Likewise the last.resp_ji piece is checking if it's the final time that it will see the current value of resp_ji within the current btn/wtn combination.
Combining it all together the statement:
if not (first.resp_ji and last.resp_ji);
Is saying, if the current value of resp_ji occurs multiple times for the current combination of btn/wtn then keep the record, otherwise discard the record. The behaviour of the if statement when used like that implicitly keeps/discards the record.
To do the equivalent in SQL, you could do something like:
Find all records to discard.
Discard those records from the original dataset.
So...
create table rows_to_discard as
select btn, wtn, resp_ji, count(*) as freq
from mytable
group by btn, wtn, resp_ji
having count(*) = 1
create table want as
select a.*
from mytable a
left join rows_to_discard b on b.btn = a.btn
and b.wtn = a.wtn
and b.resp_ji = a.resp_ji
where b.btn is null
EDIT : I should mention that there is no simple SQL equivalent. It may be possible by numbering rows in subqueries, and then building logic on top of that but it'd be ugh-ly. It may also depend on the specific flavour of SQL being used.
As someone that learned SAS before postgressql, I found the following much more similar to SAS first. last. logic:
--first.
select distinct on (resp_ji) from <table> order by resp_ji
--last.
select distinct on (resp_ji) from <table> order by resp_ji desc
A way to detect duplicates (when no extra differentiating field is available) is to use the ctid as tie-breaker:
CREATE TABLE dups
AS
SELECT * FROM pics p
WHERE EXISTS ( SELECT * FROM pics x
WHERE x.btn = p.btn
AND x.wtn = p.wtn
AND x.resp_ji = p.resp_ji
AND x.ctid <> p.ctid
);
I'm having some trouble figuring out any way to combine two SQL queries into a single one that expresses some greater idea.
For example, let's say that I have query A, and query B. Query A returns the total number of hours worked. Query B returns the total number of hours that were available for workers to work. Each one of these queries returns a single column with a single row.
What I really want, though, is essentially query A over query B. I want to know the percentage of capacity that was worked.
I know how to write query A and B independently, but my problem comes when I try to figure out how to use those prewritten queries to come up with a new SQL query that uses them together. I know that, on a higher level, like say in a report, I could just call both queries and then divide them, but I'd rather encompass it all into a single SQL query.
What I'm looking for is a general idea on how to combine these queries using SQL.
Thanks!
Unconstrained JOIN, Cartesian Product of 1 row by 1 row
SELECT worked/available AS PercentageCapacity
FROM ( SELECT worked FROM A ),
( SELECT available FROM B )
You can declare variables to store the results of each query and return the difference:
DECLARE #first INT
DECLARE #second INT
SET #first = SELECT val FROM Table...
SET #second = SELECT val FROM Table...
SELECT #first - #second
The answer depends on where the data is coming from.
If it's coming from a single table, it could be something as easy as:
select totalHours, availableHours, (totalHours - availableHours) as difference
from hoursTable
But if the data is coming from separate tables, you need to add some identifying column so that the rows can be joined together to provide some useful view of the data.
You may want to post examples of your queries so we know better how to answer your question.
You can query the queries:
SELECT
a.ID
a.HoursWorked/b.HoursAvailable AS UsedWork
FROM
( SELECT ID, HoursWorked FROM Somewhere ) a
INNER JOIN
( SELECT ID, HoursAvailable FROM SomewhereElse ) b
ON
a.ID = b.ID
I'm using sql-server 2005 and ASP.NET with C#.
I have Users table with
userId(int),
userGender(tinyint),
userAge(tinyint),
userCity(tinyint)
(simplified version of course)
I need to select always two fit to userID I pass to query users of opposite gender, in age range of -5 to +10 years and from the same city.
Important fact is it always must be two, so I created condition if ##rowcount<2 re-select without age and city filters.
Now the problem is that I sometimes have two returned result sets because I use first ##rowcount on a table. If I run the query.
Will it be a problem to use the DataReader object to read from always second result set? Is there any other way to check how many results were selected without performing select with results?
Can you simplify it by using SELECT TOP 2 ?
Update: I would perform both selects all the time, union the results, and then select from them based on an order (using SELECT TOP 2) as the union may have added more than two. Its important that this next select selects the rows in order of importance, ie it prefers rows from your first select.
Alternatively, have the reader logic read the next result-set if there is one and leave the SQL alone.
To avoid getting two separate result sets you can do your first SELECT into a table variable and then do your ##ROWCOUNT check. If >= 2 then just select from the table variable on its own otherwise select the results of the table variable UNION ALLed with the results of the second query.
Edit: There is a slight overhead to using table variables so you'd need to balance whether this was cheaper than Adam's suggestion just to perform the 'UNION' as a matter of routine by looking at the execution stats for both approaches
SET STATISTICS IO ON
Would something along the following lines be of use...
SELECT *
FROM (SELECT 1 AS prio, *
FROM my_table M1 JOIN my_table M2
WHERE M1.userID = supplied_user_id AND
M1.userGender <> M2.userGender AND
M1.userAge - 5 >= M2.userAge AND
M1.userAge + 15 <= M2.userAge AND
M1.userCity = M2.userCity
LIMIT TO 2 ROWS
UNION
SELECT 2 AS prio, *
FROM my_table M1 JOIN my_table M2
WHERE M1.userID = supplied_user_id AND
M1.userGender <> M2.userGender
LIMIT TO 2 ROWS)
ORDER BY prio
LIMIT TO 2 ROWS;
I haven't tried it as I have no SQL Server and there may be dialect issues.
I was looking at sql inner queries (bit like the sql equivalent of a C# anon method), and was wondering, can I return more than one value from a query?
For example, return the number of rows in a table as one output value, and also, as another output value, return the distinct number of rows?
Also, how does distinct work? Is this based on whether one field may be the same as another (thus classified as "distinct")?
I am using Sql Server 2005. Would there be a performance penalty if I return one value from one query, rather than two from one query?
Thanks
You could do your first question by doing this:
SELECT
COUNT(field1),
COUNT(DISTINCT field2)
FROM table
(For the first field you could do * if needed to count null values.)
Distinct means the definition of the word. It eliminates duplicate returned rows.
Returning 2 values instead of 1 would depend on what the values were, if they were indexed or not and other undetermined possible variables.
If you are meaning subqueries within the select statement, no you can only return 1 value. If you want more than 1 value you will have to use the subquery as a join.
If the inner query is inline in the SELECT, you may struggle to select multiple values. However, it is often possible to JOIN to a sub-query instead; that way, the sub-query can be named and you can get multiple results
SELECT a.Foo, a.Bar, x.[Count], x.[Avg]
FROM a
INNER JOIN (SELECT COUNT(1) AS [Count], AVG(something) AS [Avg]) x
ON x.Something = a.Something
Which might help.
DISTINCT does what it says. IIRC, you can SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT Foo) etc to query distinct data.
you can return multiple results in 3 ways (off the top of my head)
By having a select with multiple values eg: select col1, col2, col3
With multiple queries eg: select 1 ; select "2" ; select colA. you would get to them in a datareader by calling .NextRecord()
Using output parameters, declare the parameters before exec the query then get the value from them afterwards. eg: set #param1 = "2" . string myparam2 = sqlcommand.parameters["param1"].tostring()
Distinct, filters resulting rows to be unique.
Inner queries in the form:
SELECT * FROM tbl WHERE fld in (SELECT fld2 FROM tbl2 WHERE tbl.fld = tbl2.fld2)
cannot return multiple rows. When you need multiple rows from a secondary query, you usually need to do an inner join on the other query.
rows:
SELECT count(*), count(distinct *) from table
will return a dataset with one row containing two columns. Column 1 is the total number of rows in the table. Column 2 counts only distinct rows.
Distinct means the returned dataset will not have any duplicate rows. Distinct can only appear once usually directly after the select. Thus a query such as:
SELECT distinct a, b, c FROM table
might have this result:
a1 b1 c1
a1 b1 c2
a1 b2 c2
a1 b3 c2
Note that values are duplicated across the whole result set but each row is unique.
I'm not sure what your last question means. You should return from a query all the data relevant to the query. As for faster, only benchmarking can tell you which approach is faster.