SELECT
EVENT_ID, COUNT(*), SEQUENCE_NBR
FROM
ALERTS
WHERE
ACKNOWLEDGED = 0
AND SRC_EXT = '7878'
GROUP BY
EVENT_ID
ORDER BY
COUNT(*) DESC;
Running this query to get id,count and sequence number. by group by event id and count i am getting sequence number first row .
+----------+--------------+
| EVENT_ID | SEQUENCE_NBR |
+----------+--------------+
| 150 | 9752 |
| 150 | 9764 |
| 150 | 9775 |
| 170 | 9755 |
| 170 | 9763 |
| 170 | 9774 |
| 217 | 9748 |
| 217 | 9759 |
| 217 | 9770 |
| 218 | 9751 |
| 218 | 9762 |
| 218 | 9773 |
| 273 | 9749 |
| 273 | 9760 |
| 273 | 9771 |
| 285 | 9750 |
| 285 | 9761 |
| 285 | 9772 |
+----------+--------------+
This is my data in db by using above query
+----------+----------+--------------+
| EVENT_ID | COUNT(*) | SEQUENCE_NBR |
+----------+----------+--------------+
| 150 | 3 | 9752 |
| 170 | 3 | 9755 |
| 217 | 3 | 9748 |
| 218 | 3 | 9751 |
| 273 | 3 | 9749 |
| 285 | 3 | 9750 |
+----------+----------+--------------+
i need data in same format with seuence number should
150 | 3 | 9775
Your query is malformed. You have SEQUENCE_NBR in the SELECT, but it is not in the GROUP BY. In most databases (including the more recent versions of MySQL), this generates an error. Happily that is so.
If you want the maximum SEQUENCE_NBR, then use the MAX() function:
SELECT EVENT_ID, COUNT(*), MAX(SEQUENCE_NBR) as SEQUENCE_NBR
FROM ALERTS
WHERE ACKNOWLEDGED = 0 AND
SRC_EXT = '7878'
GROUP BY EVENT_ID
ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC;
you can try like below
SELECT
EVENT_ID, COUNT(*), SEQUENCE_NBR
FROM
ALERTS
WHERE
ACKNOWLEDGED = 0
AND SRC_EXT = '7878'
GROUP BY
EVENT_ID
ORDER BY
COUNT(*) DESC,SEQUENCE_NBR desc;
I am trying to find a way to limit the first n groups returned. I have a scenario where I want to only select 10 groups of user data and no more. How would I limit 10 groups of user data where the group size for the user can vary. Some groups may have more than 4 records for a user, some may have less than 4 records for a user. But I only want to get 10 users at a time. I tried thinking about how ROW_NUMBER() and PARTITION BY could be leveraged or even FETCH FIRST N ROWS ONLY could be leveraged, but couldn't come up with a solution.
Below is some sample data. NOTE: The GROUP_NUMBER column doesn't exist in the data set I am working with. It is what I was thinking about creating via SQL so that I can leverage this to select where the "GROUP_NUMBER" < 11 for example. I am absolutely open to other solutions given my question, but this was one solution I was thinking about but didn't know how to do it.
+-----------+--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+------------------+--------------+
| REQUESTID | USERID | COMPANYID | FIRSTNAME | LASTNAME | EMAIL | GROUP_NUMBER |
+-----------+--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+------------------+--------------+
| 157 | test.bulkup1 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup1#test.com | 1 |
| 157 | test.bulkup1 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup1#test.com | 1 |
| 157 | test.bulkup1 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup1#test.com | 1 |
| 162 | test.bulkup2 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup2#test.com | 2 |
| 162 | test.bulkup2 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup2#test.com | 2 |
| 162 | test.bulkup2 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup2#test.com | 2 |
| 162 | test.bulkup2 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup2#test.com | 2 |
| 187 | test.bulkup3 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup3#test.com | 3 |
| 187 | test.bulkup3 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup3#test.com | 3 |
| 187 | test.bulkup3 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup3#test.com | 3 |
| 187 | test.bulkup3 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup3#test.com | 3 |
| 192 | test.bulkup4 | 44 | BulkUp | Test | bulkup4#test.com | 4 |
+-----------+--------------+-----------+-----------+----------+------------------+--------------+
You can use dense_rank(). I think you want:
select t.*
from (select t.*,
dense_rank() over (order by requestId) as seqnum
from t
) t
where seqnum <= 3;
I am trying to create a custom interface for a system that tracks tickets.
I have got tickets in a table of the form:
+----------------------+
| Section | Row | Seat |
+----------------------+
| 15 | A | 100 |
| 15 | A | 102 |
| 15 | A | 103 |
| 15 | A | 110 |
| 15 | A | 111 |
| 15 | B | 102 |
| 15 | B | 103 |
| 15 | B | 104 |
| 15 | C | 99 |
| 15 | C | 100 |
| 15 | C | 101 |
| 15 | C | 102 |
| 15 | C | 103 |
| 15 | C | 104 |
+----------------------+
I am trying to display the ticket 'blocks' where seats behind each other are marked as such. i.e. I'd like to be able to display:
+------------------------------------------------+
| Section | Row | Seat Range | Overlaps Previous |
+------------------------------------------------+
| 15 | A | 100 - 103 | No |
| 15 | B | 102 - 104 | Yes |
| 15 | C | 99 - 104 | Yes |
| 15 | A | 110 - 111 | No |
+------------------------------------------------+
Any thoughts?
You could have an additional relation that assignes all neighbouring seats to a given one. This will then also work better than any soly numerical scheme for any sort of separation of your seats. And you could allow for a neighbourhood across rows. From there you could then iteratively define any block of free seats.
If this is about supporting a cashier, I tend to think I would not solely address that in the database but seek for an integration with the GUI to identify the blocks via some backtracking upon a click on a first free seat.
What I'm trying to achieve: rolling total for quantity and amount for a given day, grouped by hour.
It's easy in most cases, but if you have some additional columns (dir and product in my case) and you don't want to group/filter on them, that's a problem.
I know there are extensions in Oracle and MSSQL specifically for that, and there's SELECT OVER PARTITION in Postgres.
At the moment I'm working on an app prototype, and it's backed by MySQL, and I have no idea what it will be using in production, so I'm trying to avoid vendor lock-in.
The entrire table:
> SELECT id, dir, product, date, hour, quantity, amount FROM sales
ORDER BY date, hour;
+------+-----+---------+------------+------+----------+--------+
| id | dir | product | date | hour | quantity | amount |
+------+-----+---------+------------+------+----------+--------+
| 2230 | 65 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-11 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| 2231 | 64 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-11 | 3 | 4 | 40 |
| 2232 | 64 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-11 | 5 | 5 | 50 |
| 2235 | 64 | ZZ | 2014-09-11 | 7 | 6 | 60 |
| 2233 | 64 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-11 | 7 | 6 | 60 |
| 2237 | 66 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-11 | 7 | 6 | 60 |
| 2234 | 64 | ZZ | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 11 |
| 2236 | 66 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
| 2227 | 64 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
| 2228 | 64 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-18 | 5 | 2 | 200 |
| 2229 | 64 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-18 | 7 | 3 | 300 |
+------+-----+---------+------------+------+----------+--------+
For a given date:
> SELECT id, dir, product, date, hour, quantity, amount FROM sales
WHERE date = '2014-09-18'
ORDER BY hour;
+------+-----+---------+------------+------+----------+--------+
| id | dir | product | date | hour | quantity | amount |
+------+-----+---------+------------+------+----------+--------+
| 2227 | 64 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
| 2236 | 66 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
| 2234 | 64 | ZZ | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 11 |
| 2228 | 64 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-18 | 5 | 2 | 200 |
| 2229 | 64 | ABCDEDF | 2014-09-18 | 7 | 3 | 300 |
+------+-----+---------+------------+------+----------+--------+
The results that I need, using sub-select:
> SELECT date, hour, SUM(quantity),
( SELECT SUM(quantity) FROM sales s2
WHERE s2.hour <= s1.hour AND s2.date = s1.date
) AS total
FROM sales s1
WHERE s1.date = '2014-09-18'
GROUP by date, hour;
+------------+------+---------------+-------+
| date | hour | sum(quantity) | total |
+------------+------+---------------+-------+
| 2014-09-18 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 2014-09-18 | 5 | 2 | 5 |
| 2014-09-18 | 7 | 3 | 8 |
+------------+------+---------------+-------+
My concerns for using sub-select:
once there are round million records in the table, the query may become too slow, not sure if it's subject to optimizations even though it has no HAVING statements.
if I had to filter on a product or dir, I will have to put those conditions to both main SELECT and sub-SELECT too (WHERE product = / WHERE dir =).
sub-select only counts a single sum, while I need two of them (sum(quantity) и sum(amount)) (ERROR 1241 (21000): Operand should contain 1 column(s)).
The closest result I were able to get using JOIN:
> SELECT DISTINCT(s1.hour) AS ih, s2.date, s2.hour, s2.quantity, s2.amount, s2.id
FROM sales s1
JOIN sales s2 ON s2.date = s1.date AND s2.hour <= s1.hour
WHERE s1.date = '2014-09-18'
ORDER by ih;
+----+------------+------+----------+--------+------+
| ih | date | hour | quantity | amount | id |
+----+------------+------+----------+--------+------+
| 3 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 2236 |
| 3 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 2227 |
| 3 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 2234 |
| 5 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 2236 |
| 5 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 2227 |
| 5 | 2014-09-18 | 5 | 2 | 200 | 2228 |
| 5 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 2234 |
| 7 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 2236 |
| 7 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 | 2227 |
| 7 | 2014-09-18 | 5 | 2 | 200 | 2228 |
| 7 | 2014-09-18 | 7 | 3 | 300 | 2229 |
| 7 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 2234 |
+----+------------+------+----------+--------+------+
I could stop here and just use those results to group by ih (hour), calculate the sum for quantity and amount and be happy. But something eats me up telling that this is wrong.
If I remove DISTINCT most rows become to be duplicated. Replacing JOIN with its invariants doesn't help.
Once I remove s2.id from statement you get a complete mess with disappearing/collapsion meaningful rows (e.g. ids 2236/2227 got collapsed):
> SELECT DISTINCT(s1.hour) AS ih, s2.date, s2.hour, s2.quantity, s2.amount
FROM sales s1
JOIN sales s2 ON s2.date = s1.date AND s2.hour <= s1.hour
WHERE s1.date = '2014-09-18'
ORDER by ih;
+----+------------+------+----------+--------+
| ih | date | hour | quantity | amount |
+----+------------+------+----------+--------+
| 3 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
| 3 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 11 |
| 5 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
| 5 | 2014-09-18 | 5 | 2 | 200 |
| 5 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 11 |
| 7 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 100 |
| 7 | 2014-09-18 | 5 | 2 | 200 |
| 7 | 2014-09-18 | 7 | 3 | 300 |
| 7 | 2014-09-18 | 3 | 1 | 11 |
+----+------------+------+----------+--------+
Summing doesn't help, and it adds up to the mess.
First row (hour = 3) should have SUM(s2.quantity) equal 3, but it has 9. What does SUM(s1.quantity) shows is a complete mystery to me.
> SELECT DISTINCT(s1.hour) AS hour, sum(s1.quantity), s2.date, SUM(s2.quantity)
FROM sales s1 JOIN sales s2 ON s2.date = s1.date AND s2.hour <= s1.hour
WHERE s1.date = '2014-09-18'
GROUP BY hour;
+------+------------------+------------+------------------+
| hour | sum(s1.quantity) | date | sum(s2.quantity) |
+------+------------------+------------+------------------+
| 3 | 9 | 2014-09-18 | 9 |
| 5 | 8 | 2014-09-18 | 5 |
| 7 | 15 | 2014-09-18 | 8 |
+------+------------------+------------+------------------+
Bonus points/boss level:
I also need a column that will show total_reference, the same rolling total for the same periods for a different date (e.g. 2014-09-11).
If you want a cumulative sum in MySQL, the most efficient way is to use variables:
SELECT date, hour,
(#q := q + #q) as cumeq, (#a := a + #a) as cumea
FROM (SELECT date, hour, SUM(quantity) as q, SUM(amount) as a
FROM sales s
WHERE s.date = '2014-09-18'
GROUP by date, hour
) dh cross join
(select #q := 0, #a := 0) vars
ORDER BY date, hour;
If you are planning on working with databases such as Oracle, SQL Server, and Postgres, then you should use a database more similar in functionality and that supports that ANSI standard window functions. The right way to do this is with window functions, but MySQL doesn't support those. Postgres, SQL Server, and Oracle all have free versions that yo can use for development purposes.
Also, with proper indexing, you shouldn't have a problem with the subquery approach, even on large tables.
Ok, so i'm trying to write a complex query (at least complex to me) and need some pro help. This is my database setup:
Table: MakeList
| MakeListId | Make |
| 1 | Acura |
| 2 | Chevy |
| 3 | Pontiac |
| 4 | Scion |
| 5 | Toyota |
Table: CustomerMake
| CustomerMakeId | CustomerId | _Descriptor |
| 1 | 123 | Acura |
| 2 | 124 | Chevy |
| 3 | 125 | Pontiac |
| 4 | 126 | Scion |
| 5 | 127 | Toyota |
| 6 | 128 | Acura |
| 7 | 129 | Chevy |
| 8 | 130 | Pontiac |
| 9 | 131 | Scion |
| 10 | 132 | Toyota |
Table: Customer
| CustomerId | StatusId |
| 123 | 1 |
| 124 | 1 |
| 125 | 1 |
| 126 | 2 |
| 127 | 1 |
| 128 | 1 |
| 129 | 2 |
| 130 | 1 |
| 131 | 1 |
| 132 | 1 |
What i am trying to end up with is this...
Desired Result Set:
| Make | CustomerId|
| Acura | 123 |
| Chevy | 124 |
| Pontiac | 125 |
| Scion | 131 |
| Toyota | 127 |
I am wanting a list of unique Makes with one active (StatusId = 1) CustomerId to go with it. I'm assuming i'll have to do some GROUP BYs and JOINS but i haven't been able to figure it out. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if i haven't given enough info for my question. Thanks!
UPDATE: The script doesn't have to be performant - it will be used one time for testing purposes.
Something like this:
select cm._Descriptor,
min(cu.customerid)
from CustomerMake cm
join Customer cu on cuo.CustomerId = cm.CustomerId and cu.StatusId = 1
group by cm._Descriptor
I left out the MakeList table as it seems unnecessary because you are storing the full make name as _Descriptorin the CustomerMake table anyway (so the question is what is the MakeList table for? Why don't you store a FK to it in the CustomerMake table?)
You want to
(a) join the customer and customermake tables
(b) filter on customer.statusid
(c) group by customermake._descriptor
Depending on your RDBMS, you may need to explicitly apply a group function to customer.customerid to include it in the select list. Since you don't care which particular customerid is displayed, you could use MIN or MAX to just pick an essentially arbitrary value.