I'll admit I'm a little out of my element with PostGIS and spatial geometries in a DB but here's what I'm after: I need to update a field with the determined intersected US State of a geom of an object if it doesn't yet already have one.
The DB structure is as follows:
Accomplishment
id
name
phys_state
poly_point_line_id (fk Accomplishment_Feature)
1
Test Accomp 1
AK
123
2
Test Accomp 2
456
3
Test Accomp 3
789
Accomplishment_Feature (technically not needed in the query AFAIK but included here just in case since it is a join table between the Accomplishment and its geometry types)
id
123
456
789
Accoomplishment_Poly
id (fk to Accomplishment_Feature)
geom
123
[multipolygon geometry]
Accoomplishment_Line
id (fk to Accomplishment_Feature)
geom
123
[multiline geometry]
Accoomplishment_Point
id (fk to Accomplishment_Feature)
geom
123
[multipoint geometry]
I need to determine the intersected US state of each of the geoms for Accomplishments that don't have a value in the physical_state column.
I currently have a table of US State geometries in another schema that I can use.
I currently have the following but it errors out and I'm obviously misunderstanding how to write the queries.
UPDATE accomplishment a
SET a.phys_state = us_state.abbrev
FROM support_gis.state_g us_state
LEFT JOIN accomplishment_poly poly on a.poly_point_line_id = poly.id
WHERE st_intersects(st_centroid(poly.geom), us_state.geom) AND a.phys_state is null
Any guidance or assistance would be greatly appreciated!
How the FROM clause in an UPDATE statement works is slightly different than in a SELECT - go figure. An alternative is to go old school: just put all involved tables in the FROM clause and solve the joins in the WHERE clause instead using JOINs.
UPDATE accomplishment
SET phys_state = us_state.abbrev
FROM support_gis.state_g us_state, accomplishment_poly poly
WHERE
ST_Intersects(ST_Centroid(poly.geom), us_state.geom) AND
phys_state IS NULL AND
poly_point_line_id = poly.id;
Related
I am new to SQL Server. I was trying to do query on a table which contains user list with location filter (multiple location). Below is the table.
User data table:
firstname lastname LocFilter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Riswan Parambath Lo_ID=251
Reda Dridi Lo_ID=733 or Lo_ID=758 or Lo_ID=783
Location table:
LocID LocationName
-----------------------
251 Qatar
733 Turkmenistan
758 Brunei
773 Iraq North
783 Iraq South
Now I am trying to query the table using inner join to get the country name using below code
SELECT
SecUsers.firstname,
Location.LocationName
FROM
SecUsers
INNER JOIN
Location on SecUsers.LocFilter = Location.LocID
But I am getting the error:
Msg 245, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Conversion failed when converting the nvarchar value 'Lo_ID=962' to data type int.
It will be great if someone can help to fix this issue.
SQL doesn't work like that. You don't want to store conditions as strings.
Instead, you want two separate tables:
Users:
UserId FirstName LastName
1 Riswan Parambath
2 Reda Dridi
UserLocations:
UserLocationId UserId LocationId
1 1 251
2 2 733
3 2 758
4 2 783
The latter table is called a junction table (or sometimes an association table). Your queries will be much faster and easier to construct.
Having three rules in single cell violates normal form. From your thread, I could see this as table that already exists. So, I am providing following solution that can solve your exception. But, you have to change your table design for scalable solution.
select Distinct
Users.firstname,
Location.LocationName
from
SecUsers
inner join
Location on SecUsers.LocFilter like ('%Lo_ID=' + CAST(Location.LocID as VARCHAR(5)) + '%')
I have two classes Apartment and AdditionalSpace representing tables as below.
Apartment table
ID AREA SOLD
---- ------ ----
1 100 1
2 200 0
AdditionalSpace table
ID AREA APARTMENTID
---- ------ -----------
10 10 1
11 10 1
12 10 1
20 20 2
21 20 2
As you can see Apartment's table has a one-to-many relation with AdditionalSpace table, i.e. Apartment.ID=AdditionalSpace.APARTMENTID.
Question:- How to retrieve total area of a sold apartment including its additional space area.
The SQL which I have used so far to retrieve similar result is :-
select sum(apt.area + ads.adsarea) from apartment apt left outer join (select sum(area) as adsarea, apartmentid from additionalspace group by apartmentid) ads on ads.apartmentid=apt.id where apt.sold=1
I am struggling to find a way in order to implement the above scenario via criteria instead of SQL/HQL. Please suggest. Thanks.
I don't think this is possible in criteria. The closest I can see is to simply get the size of the apartment and the sum of the additional areas as two columns in your result, like this:
Criteria criteria = session.createCriteria(Apartment.class,"a");
criteria.createAlias("additionalSpaces", "ads");
criteria.setProjection(Projections.projectionList()
.add(Projections.property("area"))
.add(Projections.groupProperty("a.id"))
.add(Projections.sum("ads.area")));
Alternatively, if you still want to use Hibernate but are happy to write it in HQL, you can do the following:
select ads.apartment.id,max(a.area)+sum(ads.area)
from Apartment a
join a.additionalSpaces ads
group by ads.apartment.id
This works because HQL allows you to write the + to add together the two projections, but I don't know that an analogous method exists on the projections api.
I have aSQLite3 database with three tables. Sample data looks like this:
Original
id aName code
------------------
1 dog DG
2 cat CT
3 bat BT
4 badger BDGR
... ... ...
Translated
id orgID isTranslated langID aName
----------------------------------------------
1 2 1 3 katze
2 1 1 3 hund
3 3 0 3 (NULL)
4 4 1 3 dachs
... ... ... ... ...
Lang
id Langcode
-----------
1 FR
2 CZ
3 DE
4 RU
... ...
I want to select all data from Original and Translated in way that result would consist of all data in Original table, but aName of rows that got translation would be replaced with aName from Translated table, so then I could apply an ORDER BY clause and sort data in the desired way.
All data and table designs are examples just to show the problem. The schema does contain some elements like an isTranslated column or translation and original names in separate tables. These elements are required by application destination/design.
To be more specific this is an example rowset I would like to produce. It's all the data from table Original modified by data from Translated if translation is available for that certain id from Original.
Desired Result
id aName code isTranslated
---------------------------------
1 hund DG 1
2 katze CT 1
3 bat BT 0
4 dachs BDGR 1
... ... ... ...
This is a typcial application for the CASE expression:
SELECT Original.id,
CASE isTranslated
WHEN 1 THEN Translated.aName
ELSE Original.aName
END AS aName,
code,
isTranslated
FROM Original
JOIN Translated ON Original.id = Translated.orgID
WHERE Translated.langID = (SELECT id FROM Lang WHERE Langcode = 'DE')
If not all records in Original have a corresponding record in Translated, use LEFT JOIN instead.
If untranslated names are guaranteed to be NULL, you can just use IFNULL(Translated.aName, Original.aName) instead.
You should probably list the actual results you want, which would help people help you in the future.
In the current case, I'm guessing you want something along these lines:
SELECT Original.id, Original.code, Translated.aName
FROM Original
JOIN Lang
ON Lang.langCode = 'DE'
JOIN Translated
ON Translated.orgId = Original.id
AND Translated.langId = Lang.id
AND Translated.aName IS NOT NULL;
(Check out my example to see if these are the results you want).
In any case, the table set you've got is heading towards a fairly standard 'translation table' setup. However, there are some basic changes I'd make.
Original
Name the table to something specific, like Animal
Don't include a 'default' translation in the table (you can use a view, if necessary).
'code' is fine, although in the case of animals, genus/species probably ought to be used
Lang
'Lanugage' is often a reserved word in RDBMSs, so the name is fine.
Specifically name which 'language code' you're using (and don't abbreviate column names). There's actually (up to) three different ISO codes possible - just grab them all.
(Also, remember that languages have language-specific names, so language also needs it's own 'translation' table)
Translated
Name the table entity-specific, like AnimalNameTranslated, or somesuch.
isTranslated is unnecessary - you can derive it from the existence of the row - don't add a row if the term isn't translated yet.
Put all 'translations' into the table, including the 'default' one. This means all your terms are in one place, so you don't have to go looking elsewhere.
This morning I asked this very similar question, and it was answered beautifully.
However, after reviewing the play, I see that my actual problem is slightly more complicated than what I described in that question. Basically, I have 3 Postgres tables:
[myschema].[animals]
--------------------
animal_id
animal_attrib_type_id (foreign key to [myschema].[animal_attrib_types])
animal_attrib_value_id (foreign key to [myschema].[animal_attrib_values])
[myschema].[animal_attrib_types]
--------------------------------
animal_attrib_type_id
animal_attrib_type_name
[myschema].[animal_attrib_values]
--------------------------------
animal_attrib_value_id
animal_attrib_value_name
So, I might have an animal record like so:
[myschema].[animals]
--------------------
animal_id = 458
animal_attrib_type_id = 38
animal_attrib_value_id = 23
And the corresponding animal_attrib_type (with id = 38) has the following values:
[myschema].[animal_attrib_types]
--------------------------------
animal_attrib_type_id = 38
animal_attrib_type_name = 'animals.should-make-noise'
And the corresponding animal_attrib_value (with id = 23) has the following values:
[myschema].[animal_attrib_values]
--------------------------------
animal_attrib_type_id = 23
animal_attrib_type_name = 'true'
So, the same animal record can have multiple type/value pairs. In this case the animal had an animal_attrib_type_name of "animals.should-make-noise" corresponding to an animal_attrib_value_name of "true".
At runtime, I will only have the animal_id (i.e, 458) and animal_attrib_type_id (i.e, 38). I need to be able to look up the appropriate animal_attrib_value_name corresponding to that given animal_id and animal_attrib_type_id only, and then update its value to some static text ('true' or 'false'); all from within the same UPDATE statement.
The answer in the above-referenced question was correct for the problem I stated, but since the same animal has 0+ type/value combos I actually need a slightly different SQL statement. Thanks in advance!
Make use of the FROM clause in the PostgreSQL UPDATE command. This is usually cleaner and faster.
UPDATE animal_attrib_values av
SET animal_attrib_value_name = 'true'
FROM animals a
WHERE a.animal_id = 458
AND a.animal_attrib_type_id = 38
AND a.animal_attrib_value_id = av.animal_attrib_value_id;
Since we already know the animal_attrib_type_id we don't have to include the third table animal_attrib_types at all. We could join to it additionally if needed ...
Also, do not table-qualify SET items in an UPDATE. That's a syntax error. I quote the manual on said page:
Do not include the table's name in the specification of a target
column — for example, UPDATE tab SET tab.col = 1 is invalid.
Bold emphasis mine.
The below SQL should do what you are asking:
UPDATE animal_attrib_values aav
SET animal_attrib_value_name= 'true'
WHERE aav.animal_attrib_value_id = (
SELECT a.animal_attrib_value_id
FROM animals a
WHERE a.animal_id = 458
AND a.animal_attrib_type_id = 38
)
;
I'm very new to SQL and I hope someone can help me with some SQL syntax. I have a database with these tables and fields,
DATA: data_id, person_id, attribute_id, date, value
PERSONS: person_id, parent_id, name
ATTRIBUTES: attribute_id, attribute_type
attribute_type can be "Height" or "Weight"
Question 1
Give a person's "Name", I would like to return a table of "Weight" measurements for each children. Ie: if John has 3 children names Alice, Bob and Carol, then I want a table like this
| date | Alice | Bob | Carol |
I know how to get a long list of children's weights like this:
select d.date,
d.value
from data d,
persons child,
persons parent,
attributes a
where parent.name='John'
and child.parent_id = parent.person_id
and d.attribute_id = a.attribute_id
and a.attribute_type = "Weight';
but I don't know how to create a new table that looks like:
| date | Child 1 name | Child 2 name | ... | Child N name |
Question 2
Also, I would like to select the attributes to be between a certain range.
Question 3
What happens if the dates are not consistent across the children? For example, suppose Alice is 3 years older than Bob, then there's no data for Bob during the first 3 years of Alice's life. How does the database handle this if we request all the data?
1) It might not be so easy. MS SQL Server can PIVOT a table on an axis, but dumping the resultset to an array and sorting there (assuming this is tied to some sort of program) might be the simpler way right now if you're new to SQL.
If you can manage to do it in SQL it still won't be enough info to create a new table, just return the data you'd use to fill it in, so some sort of external manipulation will probably be required. But you can probably just use INSERT INTO [new table] SELECT [...] to fill that new table from your select query, at least.
2) You can join on attributes for each unique attribute:
SELECT [...] FROM data AS d
JOIN persons AS p ON d.person_id = p.person_id
JOIN attributes AS weight ON p.attribute_id = weight.attribute_id
HAVING weight.attribute_type = 'Weight'
JOIN attributes AS height ON p.attribute_id = height.attribute_id
HAVING height.attribute_type = 'Height'
[...]
(The way you're joining in the original query is just shorthand for [INNER] JOIN .. ON, same thing except you'll need the HAVING clause in there)
3) It depends on the type of JOIN you use to match parent/child relationships, and any dates you're filtering on in the WHERE, if I'm reading that right (entirely possible I'm not). I'm not sure quite what you're looking for, or what kind of database you're using, so no good answer. If you're new enough to SQL that you don't know the different kinds of JOINs and what they can do, it's very worthwhile to learn them - they put the R in RDBMS.
when you do a select, you need to specify the exact columns you want. In other words you can't return the Nth child's name. Ie this isn't possible:
1/2/2010 | Child_1_name | Child_2_name | Child_3_name
1/3/2010 | Child_1_name
1/4/2010 | Child_1_name | Child_2_name
Each record needs to have the same amount of columns. So you might be able to make a select that does this:
1/2/2010 | Child_1_name
1/2/2010 | Child_2_name
1/2/2010 | Child_3_name
1/3/2010 | Child_1_name
1/4/2010 | Child_1_name
1/4/2010 | Child_2_name
And then in a report remap it to how you want it displayed