SQL UNION ALL but with lots of columns on BigQuery? - sql

Above image is a screenshot of my table just as a quick initial reference.
The focal point are the multiple mech columns (mech1, mech2, mech3, and mech4).
Board games in this tables have multiple attributes called mechanisms so I've separated them into 4 different columns.
So I've learned how to combine columns vertically via UNION ALL so that I can query the count of all unique game mechanisms in my table.
However, it got me wondering if there's a shorter and more efficient way to achieve what I've done:
WITH mechanism_info AS
(
WITH
mechanism_col_combined AS
(
SELECT mech1 AS all_mech_columns_combined
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
UNION ALL
## There's no IS NOT NULL condition defined for column 'mech1' since there's at least one mechanism noted for a game.
SELECT mech2
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
WHERE mech2 IS NOT NULL
UNION ALL
SELECT mech3
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
WHERE mech3 IS NOT NULL
UNION ALL
SELECT mech4
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
WHERE mech4 IS NOT NULL
)
## Temporary table with all mechanism column in the collection combined.
SELECT DISTINCT(all_mech_columns_combined) AS unique_mechanisms, COUNT(*) AS count
FROM mechanism_col_combined
GROUP BY all_mech_columns_combined
ORDER BY all_mech_columns_combined
)
SELECT *
FROM mechanism_info
By querying this temp. table, SQL returns the information that I've anticipated as below:
unique_mechanisms | count
Acting | 1
Action Points | 3
Action Queue | 1
Action Retrieval | 1
Area Movement | 1
Auction/Bidding | 5
Bag Building | 1
Betting & Bluffing| 2
Bingo | 1
Bluffing | 7
Now, I want to shorten my code and I know there has to be a way to shorten the repetitive process of combining columns with UNION ALL.
And if there's any other tips or methods on how to shorten my query, please let me know!
Thank you.

You can convert the multiple columns [mech1, mech2, ...] into a column of array mech_arr and then using UNNEST to convert the column to have scalar value in each row.
For example:
WITH table1 AS (
SELECT 'AA' AS mech1, 'BB' AS mech2, 'CC' AS mech3,
UNION ALL SELECT 'AA' AS mech1, 'CC' AS mech2, 'EE' AS mech3
),
table2 AS (SELECT [mech1, mech2, mech3] AS mech_arr FROM table1)
SELECT mech, COUNT(*) AS mech_counts
FROM table2, UNNEST(mech_arr) AS mech
GROUP BY mech
Output
mech mech_counts
AA 2
BB 1
CC 2
EE 1

You could send join into the table, but the performance would not improve and the query would be just as long.
You can simplify as follows:
SELECT
mech_column,
count(*) "number"
FROM (
SELECT mech1 AS mech_column
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
UNION ALL
SELECT mech2
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
UNION ALL
SELECT mech3
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
UNION ALL
SELECT mech4
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
) m
WHERE mech_column IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY mech_column
ORDER BY mech_column;

Didn't find a smoother way to query but I did find a way to remove the process of adding WHERE column IS NOT NULL for each and every columns that was used to vertically aggregate them into a single column:
mechanism_info AS
(
WITH
mechanism_col_combined AS
(
SELECT mech1 AS mech_columns
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
UNION ALL
SELECT mech2
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
UNION ALL
SELECT mech3
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
UNION ALL
SELECT mech4
FROM `ckda-portfolio-2022.bg_collection.base`
## Removed all WHERE clause from the above columns
and added it below instead.
)
## Temporary table with all mechanism columns in the collection combined.
SELECT DISTINCT(mech_columns) AS mechanisms, COUNT(*) AS count
FROM mechanism_col_combined
WHERE mech_columns IS NOT NULL ## <--- Added here!
GROUP BY mech_columns
ORDER BY mech_columns
)
SELECT *
FROM mechanism_info
Since mechanism_info is a nested temp. table, I can just add WHERE mech_columns IS NOT NULL clause and condition to the initial temp. table's setting.
I'm still looking to reduce this query down to something more efficient. It's unfortunate that UNION ALL can't select multiple columns with a single call :(

Related

Split record into 2 records with distinct values based on a unique id

I have a table with some IDs that correspond to duplicate data that i would like to get rid of. They are linked by a groupid number. Currently my data looks like this:
|GroupID|NID1 |NID2 |
|S1 |644763|643257|
|T2 |4759 |84689 |
|W3 |96676 |585876|
In order for the software to run, I need the data in the following format:
|GroupID|NID |
|S1 |644763|
|S1 |643257|
|T2 |4759 |
|T2 |84689 |
|W3 |96676 |
|W3 |585876|
Thank you for your time.
You want union all :
select groupid, nid1 as nid
from table t
union all -- use "union" instead if you don't want duplicate rows
select groupid, nid2
from table t;
In Oracle 12C+, you can use lateral joins:
select t.groupid, v.nid
from t cross apply
(select t.nid1 as nid from dual union all
select t.nid2 as nid from dual
) v;
This is more efficient than union all because it only scans the table once.
You can also express this as:
select t.groupid,
(case when n.n = 1 then t.nid1 when n.n = 2 then t.nid2 end) as nid
from t cross join
(select 1 as n from dual union all select 2 from dual) n;
A little more complicated, but still only one scan of the table.

Recursive SQL Query or Just Multiple Unions? Or Something Else?

I'm trying to create a query grabbing data from 5 different tables. To return records for every date and every account, I have to create a 'master' table with date and account id.
Since I really don't have a reference table for the account_id, I was thinking of writing the query as such.
select tab1.calendar_date, tab1.cal_d, (0) as account_id from calendar.table
union all
select tab1.calendar_date, tab1.cal_d, (1) as account_id from calendar.table
union all
select tab1.calendar_date, tab1.cal_d, (2) as account_id from calendar.table
and so on to account id 5.
The resulting table is then mapped to 5 other tables to pull the other information. Is there another way for me to restructure this query so it's not doing 4/5 joins? A co-worker suggested a recursive table, but I'm not familiar with it. I'm almost referencing as the master 'fact' table.
Additional context. I need the resulting table to look like the following:
calendar_date_id calendar_date account_id
2766 2014-01-01 1
2766 2014-01-01 2
2766 2014-01-01 3
... 2014-01-01 6
After this table/result is generated, I will join it with other tables with other metrics/dimensions.
i suggest doing the zero to five thing using a recursive cte like so:
with zerotofive as (
select 0 as a
union all
select a+1 as a from zerotofive
where a<5
)
select tab1.calendar_date, tab1.cal_d, zerotofive.a as account_id
from calendar.table
cross join
zerotofive
and then join that with any other tables you may have
USE Recursive Common Table Expression like
;WITH CTEmaster AS(
select tab1.calendar_date, tab1.cal_d, 0 as account_id from calendar.table
union all
select tab1.calendar_date, tab1.cal_d, account_id+1 as account_id from CTEmaster
where account_id<5
)
select * from CTEmaster join (to your desired tables )

Select data from a table where only the first two columns are distinct

Background
I have a table which has six columns. The first three columns create the pk. I'm tasked with removing one of the pk columns.
I selected (using distinct) the data into a temp table (excluding the third column), and tried inserting all of that data back into the original table with the third column being '11' for every row as this is what I was instructed to do. (this column is going to be removed by a DBA after I do this)
However, when I went to insert this data back into the original table I get a pk constraint error. (shocking, I know)
The other three columns are just date columns, so the distinct select didn't create a unique pk for each record. What I'm trying to achieve is just calling a distinct on the first two columns, and then just arbitrarily selecting the three other columns as it doesn't matter which dates I choose (at least not on dev).
What I've tried
I found the following post which seems to achieve what I want:
How do I (or can I) SELECT DISTINCT on multiple columns?
I tried the answers from both Joel,and Erwin.
Attempt 1:
However, with Joels answer the set returned is too large - the inner join isn't doing what I thought it would do. Selecting distinct col1 and col2 there are 400 columns returned, however when I use his solution 600 rows are returned. I checked the data and in fact there were duplicate pk's. Here is my attempt at duplicating Joels answer:
select a.emp_no,
a.eec_planning_unit_cde,
'11' as area, create_dte,
create_by_emp_no, modify_dte,
modify_by_emp_no
from tempdb.guest.temp_part_time_evaluator b
inner join
(
select emp_no, eec_planning_unit_cde
from tempdb.guest.temp_part_time_evaluator
group by emp_no, eec_planning_unit_cde
) a
ON b.emp_no = a.emp_no AND b.eec_planning_unit_cde = a.eec_planning_unit_cde
Now, if I execute just the inner select statement 400 rows are returned. If I select the whole query 600 rows are returned? Isn't inner join supposed to only show the intersection of the two sets?
Attempt 2:
I also tried the answer from Erwin. This one has a syntax error and I'm having trouble googling the spec on the where clause (specifically, the trick he is using with (emp_no, eec_planning_unit_cde))
Here is the attempt:
select emp_no,
eec_planning_unit_cde,
'11' as area, create_dte,
create_by_emp_no,
modify_dte,
modify_by_emp_no
where (emp_no, eec_planning_unit_cde) IN
(
select emp_no, eec_planning_unit_cde
from tempdb.guest.temp_part_time_evaluator
group by emp_no, eec_planning_unit_cde
)
Now, I realize that the post I referenced is for postgresql. Doesn't T-SQL have something similar? Trying to google parenthesis isn't working too well.
Overview of Questions:
Why doesn't inner join return an intersection of two sets? From googling this is what I thought it was supposed to do
Is there another way to achieve the same method that I was trying in attempt 2 in t-sql?
It doesn't matter to me which one of these I use, or if I use another solution... how should I go about this?
A select distinct will be based on all columns so it does not guarantee the first two to be distinct
select pk1, pk2, '11', max(c1), max(c2), max(c3)
from table
group by pk1, pk2
You could TRY this:
SELECT a.emp_no,
a.eec_planning_unit_cde,
b.'11' as area,
b.create_dte,
b.create_by_emp_no,
b.modify_dte,
b.modify_by_emp_no
FROM
(
SELECT emp_no, eec_planning_unit_cde
FROM tempdb.guest.temp_part_time_evaluator
GROUP BY emp_no, eec_planning_unit_cde
) a
JOIN tempdb.guest.temp_part_time_evaluator b
ON a.emp_no = b.emp_no AND a.eec_planning_unit_cde = b.eec_planning_unit_cde
That would give you a distinct on those fields but if there is differences in the data between columns you might have to try a more brute force approch.
SELECT a.emp_no,
a.eec_planning_unit_cde,
a.'11' as area,
a.create_dte,
a.create_by_emp_no,
a.modify_dte,
a.modify_by_emp_no
FROM
(
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY emp_no, eec_planning_unit_cde) rownumber,
a.emp_no,
a.eec_planning_unit_cde,
a.'11' as area,
a.create_dte,
a.create_by_emp_no,
a.modify_dte,
a.modify_by_emp_no
FROM tempdb.guest.temp_part_time_evaluator
) a
WHERE rownumber = 1
I'll reply one by one:
Why doesn't inner join return an intersection of two sets? From googling this is what I thought it was supposed to do
Inner join don't do an intersection. Le'ts supose this tables:
T1 T2
n s n s
1 A 2 X
2 B 2 Y
2 C
3 D
If you join both tables by numeric column you don't get the intersection (2 rows). You get:
select *
from t1 inner join t2
on t1.n = t2.n;
| N | S |
---------
| 2 | B |
| 2 | B |
| 2 | C |
| 2 | C |
And, your second query approach:
select *
from t1
where t1.n in (select n from t2);
| N | S |
---------
| 2 | B |
| 2 | C |
Is there another way to achieve the same method that I was trying in attempt 2 in t-sql?
Yes, this subquery:
select *
from t1
where not exists (
select 1
from t2
where t2.n = t1.n
);
It doesn't matter to me which one of these I use, or if I use another solution... how should I go about this?
yes, using #JTC second query.

help in sql count

Suppose I have a table with 2 columns (status and date) like the following:
status: U T U U L
date: 12 14 15 16 17
Can I (using only 1 SQL statement) count the number of distinct values in the status? That is:
count(U)=3
count(T)=1
count(L)=2
count(P)=0
Can I do this with 1 SQL query?
Note: I have static values in status. I can only have (U-T-L-P)
You need to use Group By:
SELECT Status, Count(Status)
FROM table
GROUP BY Status
This will not return P = 0 if P is not populated in the table. In your application logic you will need to check and if a certain status is not returned, it means there are no entries (i.e. 0).
SQL cannot query records that are not there.
This will return a row for every status and the count in the second column:
SELECT Status, COUNT(*) Cnt
FROM Tbl
GROUP BY Status
So it would return
Status Cnt
U 3
T 1
L 1
for your example (in no defined order). Use ORDER BY if you want to sort the results.
You can do this with a query which groups on your status column, e.g.
SELECT COUNT(*) as StatusCount, Status
FROM MyTable
GROUP BY Status
To get the zero for the status P, you have to do some devious stuff using a table that lists all the possible statuses.
SELECT COUNT(A.Status), B.Status
FROM AnonymousTable AS A RIGHT OUTER JOIN
(SELECT 'P' AS Status FROM Dual
UNION
SELECT 'U' AS Status FROM Dual
UNION
SELECT 'L' AS Status FROM Dual
UNION
SELECT 'T' AS Status FROM Dual
) AS B ON A.Status = B.Status
GROUP BY B.Status;
The 4-way UNION is one way of generating a list of values; your DBMS may provide more compact alternatives. I'm assuming that the table Dual contains just one row (as found in Oracle).
The COUNT(A.Status) counts the number of non-null values in A.Status. The RIGHT OUTER JOIN lists the row from B with Status = 'P' and joins it with a single NULL for the A.Status, which the COUNT(A.Status) therefore counts as zero. If you used COUNT(*), you'd get a 1 for the count.

Select values in SQL that do not have other corresponding values except those that i search for

I have a table in my database:
Name | Element
1 2
1 3
4 2
4 3
4 5
I need to make a query that for a number of arguments will select the value of Name that has on the right side these and only these values.
E.g.:
arguments are 2 and 3, the query should return only 1 and not 4 (because 4 also has 5). For arguments 2,3,5 it should return 4.
My query looks like this:
SELECT name FROM aggregations WHERE (element=2 and name in (select name from aggregations where element=3))
What do i have to add to this query to make it not return 4?
A simple way to do it:
SELECT name
FROM aggregations
WHERE element IN (2,3)
GROUP BY name
HAVING COUNT(element) = 2
If you want to add more, you'll need to change both the IN (2,3) part and the HAVING part:
SELECT name
FROM aggregations
WHERE element IN (2,3,5)
GROUP BY name
HAVING COUNT(element) = 3
A more robust way would be to check for everything that isn't not in your set:
SELECT name
FROM aggregations
WHERE NOT EXISTS (
SELECT DISTINCT a.element
FROM aggregations a
WHERE a.element NOT IN (2,3,5)
AND a.name = aggregations.name
)
GROUP BY name
HAVING COUNT(element) = 3
It's not very efficient, though.
Create a temporary table, fill it with your values and query like this:
SELECT name
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT name
FROM aggregations
) n
WHERE NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT 1
FROM (
SELECT element
FROM aggregations aii
WHERE aii.name = n.name
) ai
FULL OUTER JOIN
temptable tt
ON tt.element = ai.element
WHERE ai.element IS NULL OR tt.element IS NULL
)
This is more efficient than using COUNT(*), since it will stop checking a name as soon as it finds the first row that doesn't have a match (either in aggregations or in temptable)
This isn't tested, but usually I would do this with a query in my where clause for a small amount of data. Note that this is not efficient for large record counts.
SELECT ag1.Name FROM aggregations ag1
WHERE ag1.Element IN (2,3)
AND 0 = (select COUNT(ag2.Name)
FROM aggregatsions ag2
WHERE ag1.Name = ag2.Name
AND ag2.Element NOT IN (2,3)
)
GROUP BY ag1.name;
This says "Give me all of the names that have the elements I want, but have no records with elements I don't want"