I have searched google/stack to find the right answer, but what I have tried so far is not working.
Here is the problem:
I have created a table with several combinations. I am trying to find the combination that minimizes total cost.
As an example, the table looks something like this:
Combo ID | Combination | Cost
1 | 345678 | 15
2 | 345678 | 15
3 | 345678 | 18
4 | 456343 | 12
5 | 456343 | 13
So: for the combination 345678, ID #1 and #2 both minimize the cost and #4 minimizes the cost for the 456343 combination. So hopefully the query can return either the IDs 1,2,4 or it can simply return the total cost that is the minimum for that combination eg { (345678, 15), (456343, 12) }
If you want to get the IDs, you have to have a sub query that first gets the Min cost. Then you can match the combination and cost to the original Table.
SELECT Table1.ID, Table1.Combo, Table1.Cost
FROM Query1 INNER JOIN Table1 ON (Query1.MinOfCost = Table1.Cost) AND (Query1.Combo = Table1.Combo)
Query 1 :SELECT Table1.Combo, Min(Table1.Cost) AS MinOfCost FROM Table1 GROUP BY Table1.Combo
Related
I have an MS Access Query which returns the following sample data:
+-----+------+------+
| Ref | ANS1 | ANS2 |
+-----+------+------+
| 123 | A | A |
| 234 | B | B |
| 345 | C | C |
| 456 | D | E |
| 567 | F | G |
| 678 | H | I |
+-----+------+------+
Is it possible to have Access return the overall percentage where ANS1 = ANS2?
So my new query would return:
50
I know how to get a count of the records returned by the original query, but not how to calculate the percentage.
Since you're looking for a percentage of some condition being met across the entire dataset, the task can be reduced to having a function return either 1 (when the condition is validated), or 0 (when the condition is not validated), and then calculating an average across all records.
This could be achieved in a number of ways, one example might be to use a basic iif statement:
select avg(iif(t.ans1=t.ans2,1,0)) from YourTable t
Or, using the knowledge that a boolean value in MS Access is represented using -1 (True) or 0 (False), the expression can be reduced to:
select -avg(t.ans1=t.ans2) from YourTable t
In each of the above, change YourTable to the name of your table.
If you know how to get a count, then apply that same knowledge twice:
SELECT Count([ANS1]) As MatchCount FROM [Data]
WHERE [ANS1] = [ANS2]
divided by the total count
SELECT Count([ANS1]) As AllCount FROM [Data]
To combine both of these in a basic SQL query, one needs a "dummy" query since Access doesn't allow selection of only raw data:
SELECT TOP 1
((SELECT Count([ANS1]) As MatchCount FROM [Data] WHERE [ANS1] = [ANS2])
/
(SELECT Count([ANS1]) As AllCount FROM [Data]))
AS MatchPercent
FROM [Data]
This of course assumes that there is at least one row... so it doesn't divide by zero.
For an assignment I have to write several SQL queries for a database stored in a PostgreSQL server running PostgreSQL 9.3.0. However, I find myself blocked with last query. The database models a reservation system for an opera house. The query is about associating the a spectator the other spectators that assist to the same events every time.
The model looks like this:
Reservations table
id_res | create_date | tickets_presented | id_show | id_spectator | price | category
-------+---------------------+---------------------+---------+--------------+-------+----------
1 | 2015-08-05 17:45:03 | | 1 | 1 | 195 | 1
2 | 2014-03-15 14:51:08 | 2014-11-30 14:17:00 | 11 | 1 | 150 | 2
Spectators table
id_spectator | last_name | first_name | email | create_time | age
---------------+------------+------------+----------------------------------------+---------------------+-----
1 | gonzalez | colin | colin.gonzalez#gmail.com | 2014-03-15 14:21:30 | 22
2 | bequet | camille | bequet.camille#gmail.com | 2014-12-10 15:22:31 | 22
Shows table
id_show | name | kind | presentation_date | start_time | end_time | id_season | capacity_cat1 | capacity_cat2 | capacity_cat3 | price_cat1 | price_cat2 | price_cat3
---------+------------------------+--------+-------------------+------------+----------+-----------+---------------+---------------+---------------+------------+------------+------------
1 | madama butterfly | opera | 2015-09-05 | 19:30:00 | 21:30:00 | 2 | 315 | 630 | 945 | 195 | 150 | 100
2 | don giovanni | opera | 2015-09-12 | 19:30:00 | 21:45:00 | 2 | 315 | 630 | 945 | 195 | 150 | 100
So far I've started by writing a query to get the id of the spectator and the date of the show he's attending to, the query looks like this.
SELECT Reservations.id_spectator, Shows.presentation_date
FROM Reservations
LEFT JOIN Shows ON Reservations.id_show = Shows.id_show;
Could someone help me understand better the problem and hint me towards finding a solution. Thanks in advance.
So the result I'm expecting should be something like this
id_spectator | other_id_spectators
-------------+--------------------
1| 2,3
Meaning that every time spectator with id 1 went to a show, spectators 2 and 3 did too.
Note based on comments: Wanted to make clear that this answer may be of limited use as it was answered in the context of SQL-Server (tag was present at the time)
There is probably a better way to do it, but you could do it with the 'stuff 'function. The only drawback here is that, since your ids are ints, placing a comma between values will involve a work around (would need to be a string). Below is the method I can think of using a work around.
SELECT [id_spectator], [id_show]
, STUFF((SELECT ',' + CAST(A.[id_spectator] as NVARCHAR(10))
FROM reservations A
Where A.[id_show]=B.[id_show] AND a.[id_spectator] != b.[id_spectator] FOR XML PATH('')),1,1,'') As [other_id_spectators]
From reservations B
Group By [id_spectator], [id_show]
This will show you all other spectators that attended the same shows.
Meaning that every time spectator with id 1 went to a show, spectators 2 and 3 did too.
In other words, you want a list of ...
all spectators that have seen all the shows that a given spectator has seen (and possibly more than the given one)
This is a special case of relational division. We have assembled an arsenal of basic techniques here:
How to filter SQL results in a has-many-through relation
It is special because the list of shows each spectator has to have attended is dynamically determined by the given prime spectator.
Assuming that (d_spectator, id_show) is unique in reservations, which has not been clarified.
A UNIQUE constraint on those two columns (in that order) also provides the most important index.
For best performance in query 2 and 3 below also create an index with leading id_show.
1. Brute force
The primitive approach would be to form a sorted array of shows the given user has seen and compare the same array of others:
SELECT 1 AS id_spectator, array_agg(sub.id_spectator) AS id_other_spectators
FROM (
SELECT id_spectator
FROM reservations r
WHERE id_spectator <> 1
GROUP BY 1
HAVING array_agg(id_show ORDER BY id_show)
#> (SELECT array_agg(id_show ORDER BY id_show)
FROM reservations
WHERE id_spectator = 1)
) sub;
But this is potentially very expensive for big tables. The whole table hast to be processes, and in a rather expensive way, too.
2. Smarter
Use a CTE to determine relevant shows, then only consider those
WITH shows AS ( -- all shows of id 1; 1 row per show
SELECT id_spectator, id_show
FROM reservations
WHERE id_spectator = 1 -- your prime spectator here
)
SELECT sub.id_spectator, array_agg(sub.other) AS id_other_spectators
FROM (
SELECT s.id_spectator, r.id_spectator AS other
FROM shows s
JOIN reservations r USING (id_show)
WHERE r.id_spectator <> s.id_spectator
GROUP BY 1,2
HAVING count(*) = (SELECT count(*) FROM shows)
) sub
GROUP BY 1;
#> is the "contains2 operator for arrays - so we get all spectators that have at least seen the same shows.
Faster than 1. because only relevant shows are considered.
3. Real smart
To also exclude spectators that are not going to qualify early from the query, use a recursive CTE:
WITH RECURSIVE shows AS ( -- produces exactly 1 row
SELECT id_spectator, array_agg(id_show) AS shows, count(*) AS ct
FROM reservations
WHERE id_spectator = 1 -- your prime spectator here
GROUP BY 1
)
, cte AS (
SELECT r.id_spectator, 1 AS idx
FROM shows s
JOIN reservations r ON r.id_show = s.shows[1]
WHERE r.id_spectator <> s.id_spectator
UNION ALL
SELECT r.id_spectator, idx + 1
FROM cte c
JOIN reservations r USING (id_spectator)
JOIN shows s ON s.shows[c.idx + 1] = r.id_show
)
SELECT s.id_spectator, array_agg(c.id_spectator) AS id_other_spectators
FROM shows s
JOIN cte c ON c.idx = s.ct -- has an entry for every show
GROUP BY 1;
Note that the first CTE is non-recursive. Only the second part is recursive (iterative really).
This should be fastest for small selections from big tables. Row that don't qualify are excluded early. the two indices I mentioned are essential.
SQL Fiddle demonstrating all three.
It sounds like you have one half of the total question--determining which id_shows a particular id_spectator attended.
What you want to ask yourself is how you can determine which id_spectators attended an id_show, given an id_show. Once you have that, combine the two answers to get the full result.
So the final answer I got, looks like this :
SELECT id_spectator, id_show,(
SELECT string_agg(to_char(A.id_spectator, '999'), ',')
FROM Reservations A
WHERE A.id_show=B.id_show
) AS other_id_spectators
FROM Reservations B
GROUP By id_spectator, id_show
ORDER BY id_spectator ASC;
Which prints something like this:
id_spectator | id_show | other_id_spectators
-------------+---------+---------------------
1 | 1 | 1, 2, 9
1 | 14 | 1, 2
Which suits my needs, however if you have any improvements to offer, please share :) Thanks again everybody!
I'm trying to get a report of how many article have been sold, especially which one was sold more, both in terms of numbers and price.
I'm trying the above query, thinking that using the [PRICE]*[total] in the group by expression, it could worked. unluckily it does not. I've try also to put the alias in the group by expression, but nothing more, it only says that I need to use a grouping expression for the column: [PRICE]*[total] which is what I thought I have done.
SELECT TOP 20 ARTIC, Sum(TOTGIA) AS total, [PRICE]*[total] AS a
FROM Car
GROUP BY ARTIC, [PRICE]*[total]
ORDER BY Sum(TOTGIA) DESC;
anyone could lead me in the good direction?
the error is:
"You tried to execute a query that does not include the specified expression '[PRICE]*[total]' as part of an aggregate function."
the table is something like this:
|artic|totgia|price
+++++++++++++++++++
|aaa | 1 | 10
|aaa | 4 | 10
|bbb | 1 | 200
I would like to have:
|aaa| 5 | 50
|bbb| 1 | 200
so aaa is the first one for number of sells, but bbb is first for cash
The problem here is that you are trying to use the total alias in the select and in the group by. You do not have access to the alias at this time. Instead, you will either need to refer to the actual column values in place of total. In other cases, you can create a subselect and use the alias, but this does not apply to your query as it is written.
SELECT TOP 20 ARTIC, Sum(TOTGIA) AS total, PRICE*Sum(TOTGIA) AS a
FROM Car
GROUP BY ARTIC, PRICE
ORDER BY Sum(TOTGIA) DESC;
If you have an article listed with several different prices, this query will return several rows. So, this data:
|artic|totgia|price
+++++++++++++++++++
|aaa | 1 | 10
|aaa | 4 | 20
|bbb | 1 | 200
Would return these results:
|aaa| 1 | 10
|aaa| 4 | 80
|bbb| 1 | 200
This would happen because we have specifically told sql that we want the unique articles and prices as their own rows. However, this is probably a good thing because in the above scenario, you wouldn't want to return that aaa has a quantity of 5 with a value of 50, since the total value is 90. If this is a possible scenario for your data, you would make this query into a subselect and group all the data for the unique articles together.
I am running into a rather annoying thingy in Access (2007) and I am not sure if this is a feature or if I am asking for the impossible.
Although the actual database structure is more complex, my problem boils down to this:
I have a table with data about Units for specific years. This data comes from different sources and might overlap.
Unit | IYR | X1 | Source |
-----------------------------
A | 2009 | 55 | 1 |
A | 2010 | 80 | 1 |
A | 2010 | 101 | 2 |
A | 2010 | 150 | 3 |
A | 2011 | 90 | 1 |
...
Now I would like the user to select certain sources, order them by priority and then extract one data value for each year.
For example, if the user selects source 1, 2 and 3 and orders them by (3, 1, 2), then I would like the following result:
Unit | IYR | X1 | Source |
-----------------------------
A | 2009 | 55 | 1 |
A | 2010 | 150 | 3 |
A | 2011 | 90 | 1 |
I am able to order the initial table, based on a specific order. I do this with the following query
SELECT Unit, IYR, X1, Source
FROM TestTable
WHERE Source In (1,2,3)
ORDER BY Unit, IYR,
IIf(Source=3,1,IIf(Source=1,2,IIf(Source=2,3,4)))
This gives me the following intermediate result:
Unit | IYR | X1 | Source |
-----------------------------
A | 2009 | 55 | 1 |
A | 2010 | 150 | 3 |
A | 2010 | 80 | 1 |
A | 2010 | 101 | 2 |
A | 2011 | 90 | 1 |
Next step is to only get the first value of each year. I was thinking to use the following query:
SELECT X.Unit, X.IYR, first(X.X1) as FirstX1
FROM (...) AS X
GROUP BY X.Unit, X.IYR
Where (…) is the above query.
Now Access goes bananas. Whatever order I give to the intermediate results, the result of this query is.
Unit | IYR | X1 |
--------------------
A | 2009 | 55 |
A | 2010 | 80 |
A | 2011 | 90 |
In other words, for year 2010 it shows the value of source 1 instead of 3. It seems that Access does not care about the ordering of the nested query when it applies the FIRST() function and sticks to the original ordering of the data.
Is this a feature of Access or is there a different way of achieving the desired results?
Ps: Next step would be to use a self join to add the source column to the results again, but I first need to resolve above problem.
Rather than use first it may be better to determine the MIN Priority and then join back e.g.
SELECT
t.UNIT,
t.IYR,
t.X1,
t.Source ,
t.PrioritySource
FROM
(SELECT
Unit,
IYR,
X1,
Source,
SWITCH ( [Source]=3, 1,
[Source]=1, 2,
[Source]=2, 3) as PrioritySource
FROM
TestTable
WHERE
Source In (1,2,3)
) as t
INNER JOIN
(SELECT
Unit,
IYR,
MIN(SWITCH ( [Source]=3, 1,
[Source]=1, 2,
[Source]=2, 3)) as PrioritySource
FROM
TestTable
WHERE
Source In (1,2,3)
GROUP BY
Unit,
IYR ) as MinPriortiy
ON t.Unit = MinPriortiy.Unit and
t.IYR = MinPriortiy.IYR and
t.PrioritySource = MinPriortiy.PrioritySource
which will produce this result (Note I include Source and priority source for demonstration purposes only)
UNIT | IYR | X1 | Source | PrioritySource
----------------------------------------------
A | 2009 | 55 | 1 | 2
A | 2010 | 150 | 3 | 1
A | 2011 | 90 | 1 | 2
Note the first subquery is to handle the fact that Access won't let you join on a Switch
Yes, FIRST() does use an arbitrary ordering. From the Access Help:
These functions return the value of a specified field in the first or
last record, respectively, of the result set returned by a query. If
the query does not include an ORDER BY clause, the values returned by
these functions will be arbitrary because records are usually returned
in no particular order.
I don't know whether FROM (...) AS X means you are using an ORDER BY inline (assuming that is actually possible) or if you are using a VIEW ('stored Query object') here but either way I assume the ORDER BY is being disregarded (because an ORDER BY should only apply to the final result).
The alternative is to use MIN() (or possibly MAX()).
This is the most concise way I have found to write such queries in Access that require pulling back all columns that correspond to the first row in a group of records that are ordered in a particular way.
First, I added a UniqueID to your table. In this case, it's just an AutoNumber field. You may already have a unique value in your table, in which case you can use that.
This will choose the row with a Source 3 first, then Source 1, then Source 2. If there is a tie, it picks the one with the higher X1 value. If there is a further tie, it is broken by the UniqueID value:
SELECT t.* INTO [Chosen Rows]
FROM TestTable AS t
WHERE t.UniqueID=
(SELECT TOP 1 [UniqueID] FROM [TestTable]
WHERE t.IYR=IYR ORDER BY Choose([Source],2,3,1), X1 DESC, UniqueID)
This yields:
Unit IYR X1 Source UniqueID
A 2009 55 1 1
A 2010 150 3 4
A 2011 90 1 5
I recommend (1) you create an index on the IYR field -- this will dramatically increase your performance for this type of query, and (2) if you have a lot (>~100K) records, this isn't the best choice. I find it works quite well for tables in the 1-70K range. For larger datasets, I like to use my GroupIncrement function to partition each group (similar to SQL Server's ROW_NUMBER() OVER statement).
The Choose() function is a VBA function and may not be clear here. In your case, it sounds like there is some interactivity required. For that, you could create a second table called "Choices", like so:
Rank Choice
1 3
2 1
3 2
Then, you could substitute the following:
SELECT t.* INTO [Chosen Rows]
FROM TestTable AS t
WHERE t.UniqueID=(SELECT TOP 1 [UniqueID] FROM
[TestTable] t2 INNER JOIN [Choices] c
ON t2.Source=c.Choice
WHERE t.IYR=t2.IYR ORDER BY c.[Rank], t2.X1 DESC, t2.UniqueID);
Indexing Source on TestTable and Choice on the Choices table may be helpful here, too, depending on the number of choices required.
Q:
Can you get this to work without the need for surrogate key? For
example what if the unique key is the composite of
{Unit,IYR,X1,Source}
A:
If you have a compound key, you can do it like this-- however I think that if you have a large dataset, it will totally kill the performance of the query. It may help to index all four columns, but I can't say for sure because I don't regularly use this method.
SELECT t.* INTO [Chosen Rows]
FROM TestTable AS t
WHERE t.Unit & t.IYR & t.X1 & t.Source =
(SELECT TOP 1 Unit & IYR & X1 & Source FROM [TestTable]
WHERE t.IYR=IYR ORDER BY Choose([Source],2,3,1), X1 DESC, Unit, IYR)
In certain cases, you may have to coalesce some of the individual parts of the key as follows (though Access generally will coalesce values automatically):
t.Unit & CStr(t.IYR) & CStr(t.X1) & CStr(t.Source)
You could also use a query in your FROM statements instead of the actual table. The query itself would build a composite of the four fields used in the key, and then you'd use the new key name in the WHERE clause of the top SELECT statement, and in the SELECT TOP 1 [key] of the subquery.
In general, though, I will either: (a) create a new table with an AutoNumber field, (b) add an AutoNumber field, (c) add an integer and populate it with a unique number using VBA - this is useful when you get a MaxLocks error when trying to add an AutoNumber, or (d) use an already indexed unique key.
I am trying to figure out how to use multiple left outer joins to calculate average scores and number of cards. I have the following schema and test data. Each deck has 0 or more scores and 0 or more cards. I need to calculate an average score and card count for each deck. I'm using mysql for convenience, I eventually want this to run on sqlite on an Android phone.
mysql> select * from deck;
+----+-------+
| id | name |
+----+-------+
| 1 | one |
| 2 | two |
| 3 | three |
+----+-------+
mysql> select * from score;
+---------+-------+---------------------+--------+
| scoreId | value | date | deckId |
+---------+-------+---------------------+--------+
| 1 | 6.58 | 2009-10-05 20:54:52 | 1 |
| 2 | 7 | 2009-10-05 20:54:58 | 1 |
| 3 | 4.67 | 2009-10-05 20:55:04 | 1 |
| 4 | 7 | 2009-10-05 20:57:38 | 2 |
| 5 | 7 | 2009-10-05 20:57:41 | 2 |
+---------+-------+---------------------+--------+
mysql> select * from card;
+--------+-------+------+--------+
| cardId | front | back | deckId |
+--------+-------+------+--------+
| 1 | fron | back | 2 |
| 2 | fron | back | 1 |
| 3 | f1 | b2 | 1 |
+--------+-------+------+--------+
I run the following query...
mysql> select deck.name, sum(score.value)/count(score.value) "Ave",
-> count(card.front) "Count"
-> from deck
-> left outer join score on deck.id=score.deckId
-> left outer join card on deck.id=card.deckId
-> group by deck.id;
+-------+-----------------+-------+
| name | Ave | Count |
+-------+-----------------+-------+
| one | 6.0833333333333 | 6 |
| two | 7 | 2 |
| three | NULL | 0 |
+-------+-----------------+-------+
... and I get the right answer for the average, but the wrong answer for the number of cards. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong before I pull my hair out?
Thanks!
John
It's running what you're asking--it's joining card 2 and 3 to scores 1, 2, and 3--creating a count of 6 (2 * 3). In card 1's case, it joins to scores 4 and 5, creating a count of 2 (1 * 2).
If you just want a count of cards, like you're currently doing, COUNT(Distinct Card.CardId).
select deck.name, coalesce(x.ave,0) as ave, count(card.*) as count -- card.* makes the intent more clear, i.e. to counting card itself, not the field. but do not do count(*), will make the result wrong
from deck
left join -- flatten the average result rows first
(
select deckId,sum(value)/count(*) as ave -- count the number of rows, not count the column name value. intent is more clear
from score
group by deckId
) as x on x.deckId = deck.id
left outer join card on card.deckId = deck.id -- then join the flattened results to cards
group by deck.id, x.ave, deck.name
order by deck.id
[EDIT]
sql has built-in average function, just use this:
select deckId, avg(value) as ave
from score
group by deckId
What's going wrong is that you're creating a Cartesian product between score and card.
Here's how it works: when you join deck to score, you may have multiple rows match. Then each of these multiple rows is joined to all of the matching rows in card. There's no condition preventing that from happening, and the default join behavior when no condition restricts it is to join all rows in one table to all rows in another table.
To see it in action, try this query, without the group by:
select *
from deck
left outer join score on deck.id=score.deckId
left outer join card on deck.id=card.deckId;
You'll see a lot of repeated data in the columns that come from score and card. When you calculate the AVG() over data that has repeats in it, the redundant values magically disappear (as long as the values are repeated uniformly). But when you COUNT() or SUM() them, the totals are way off.
There may be remedies for inadvertent Cartesian products. In your case, you can use COUNT(DISTINCT) to compensate:
select deck.name, avg(score.value) "Ave", count(DISTINCT card.front) "Count"
from deck
left outer join score on deck.id=score.deckId
left outer join card on deck.id=card.deckId
group by deck.id;
This solution doesn't solve all cases of inadvertent Cartesian products. The more general-purpose solution is to break it up into two separate queries:
select deck.name, avg(score.value) "Ave"
from deck
left outer join score on deck.id=score.deckId
group by deck.id;
select deck.name, count(card.front) "Count"
from deck
left outer join card on deck.id=card.deckId
group by deck.id;
Not every task in database programming must be done in a single query. It can even be more efficient (as well as simpler, easier to modify, and less error-prone) to use individual queries when you need multiple statistics.
Using left joins isn't a good approach, in my opinion. Here's a standard SQL query for the result you want.
select
name,
(select avg(value) from score where score.deckId = deck.id) as Ave,
(select count(*) from card where card.deckId = deck.id) as "Count"
from deck;