I have a table with "Number", "Name" and "Result" Column. Result is a 2D text Array and I need to create a Column with the name "Average" that sum all first values of Result Array and divide by 2, can somebody help me Pls, I must use the create function for this. Its look like this:
Table1
Number
Name
Result
Average
01
Kevin
{{2.0,10},{3.0,50}}
2.5
02
Max
{{1.0,10},{4.0,30},{5.0,20}}
5.0
Average = ((2.0+3.0)/2) = 2.5
= ((1.0+4.0+5.0)/2) = 5.0
First of all: You should always avoid storing arrays in the table (or generate them in a subquery if not extremely necessary). Normalize it, it makes life much easier in nearly every single use case.
Second: You should avoid more-dimensional arrays. The are very hard to handle. See Unnest array by one level
However, in your special case you could do something like this:
demo:db<>fiddle
SELECT
number,
name,
SUM(value) FILTER (WHERE idx % 2 = 1) / 2 -- 2
FROM mytable,
unnest(avg_result) WITH ORDINALITY as elements(value, idx) -- 1
GROUP BY number, name
unnest() expands the array elements into one element per record. But this is not an one-level expand: It expand ALL elements in depth. To keep track of your elements, you could add an index using WITH ORDINALITY.
Because you have nested two-elemented arrays, the unnested data can be used as follows: You want to sum all first of two elements, which is every second (the odd ones) element. Using the FILTER clause in the aggregation helps you to aggregate only exact these elements.
However: If that's was a result of a subquery, you should think about doing the operation BEFORE array aggregation (if this is really necessary). This makes things easier.
Assumptions:
number column is Primary key.
result column is text or varchar type
Here are the steps for your requirements:
Add the column in your table using following query (you can skip this step if column is already added)
alter table table1 add column average decimal;
Update the calculated value by using below query:
update table1 t1
set average = t2.value_
from
(
select
number,
sum(t::decimal)/2 as value_
from table1
cross join lateral unnest((result::text[][])[1:999][1]) as t
group by 1
) t2
where t1.number=t2.number
Explanation: Here unnest((result::text[][])[1:999][1]) will return the first value of each child array (considering you can have up to 999 child arrays in your 2D array. You can increase or decrease it as per your requirement)
DEMO
Now you can create your function as per your requirement with above query.
Related
I'm extracting a table of 2000+ rows which are park details. One of the columns is JSON type. Image of the table
We have about 15 attributes like this and we also have a documentation of pre-determined codes assigned to each attribute.
Each row in the extracted table has a different set of attributes that you can see in the image. Right now, I have cast(parks.services AS text) AS "details" to get all the attributes for a particular park or extract just one of them using the code below:
CASE
WHEN cast(parks.services AS text) LIKE '%uncovered%' THEN '2'
WHEN cast(parks.services AS text) LIKE '%{covered%' THEN '1' END AS "details"
This time around, I need to extract these attributes by assigning them the codes. As an example, let's just say
Park 1 - {covered, handicap_access, elevator} to be {1,3,7}
Park 2 - {uncovered, always_open, handicap_access} to be {2,5,3}
I have thought of using subquery to pre-assign the codes, but I cannot wrap my head around JSON operators - in fact, I don't know how to extract them on 2000+ rows.
It would be helpful if someone could guide me in this topic. Thanks a lot!
You should really think about normalizing your tables. Don't store arrays. You should add a mapping table to map the parks and the attribute codes. This makes everything much easier and more performant.
step-by-step demo:db<>fiddle
SELECT
t.name,
array_agg(c.code ORDER BY elems.index) as codes -- 3
FROM mytable t,
unnest(attributes) WITH ORDINALITY as elems(value, index) -- 1
JOIN codes c ON c.name = elems.value -- 2
GROUP BY t.name
Extract the array elements into one record per element. Add the WITH ORDINALITY to save the original order.
Join your codes on the elements
Create code arrays. To ensure the correct order, you can use the index values created by the WITH ORDINALITY clause.
I have a hive table in that I am having a column called paid_value in an array format for each record.
Now I want to filter the array such that the value must be between 1000 and 10000 for each record.
I don't know how to do it.
I know array_contains(Array<T>, value) function but this doesn't solve my problem since it accepts only one value as a checking criteria but I want like 'between 1000 and 10000'.
You can use LATERAL VIEW EXPLODE to explode the array and then do the filter subsequently. But if your array size is huge, your process will be slow.
Other option definitely needs a UDF to do the filter.
The other workaround I can think of is doing with a brickhouse UDF is:
-- this will give you an array of numbers between start(st) and end(ed)
select collect_set(pe.i+1) as range_array
from
(SELECT 1000 as st, 1100 as ed) t
LATERAL VIEW posexplode(split(space(ed-st),' ')) pe AS i,x;
Then I use the brickhouse udf bhouse_intersect_array
select count(1)
from range_array cross join <source_tablename>
where size(bhouse_intersect_array(source_array, range_array)) > 0
I have data loaded in a table called Trades. Now I need to query this table, find elements that satisfy a particular condition and produce the trade value amount.
Here is the requirement
TradeAmt = 0
Loop for all Trades
{IF TradeId is 35
If type = 'I'
ADD (TradeAmt =TradeAmt + col_TradeAmt )
else
ADD (TradeAmt = TradeAmt + col_TradeAmtOverlap )
END-IF}
Return TradeAmt
Data:
Row1: tradeid=35, type=I, col_TradeAmt=10, col_TradeAmtOverlap=20
Row2: tradeid=35, type=S, col_TradeAmt=30, col_TradeAmtOverlap=40
Output: TradeAmt=50
How can i write this using SQL statements.
Well, in SQL you don't really loop over a sequence.
You write a statement that describes what you want to get from the set of data (e.g. the Trades table).
In your case, you want to accumulate all the elements in some way and provide that accumulation as a result, you can do that by using an aggregate function like SUM.
Something along these lines probably could work. Note that I'm nesting two queries here, the inner one to decide which column to treat as the "Amount" to accumulate depending on the Type of the trade and also to filter only the trade with Id 35, and the outer query performs the sum aggregate of all amounts:
SELECT SUM("Amount") FROM
(SELECT
CASE
WHEN Type = 'I' THEN col_TradeAmt
ELSE col_TradeAmtOverlap
END "Amount"
FROM Trades
WHERE TradeId = 35) "TradeAmt";
I have a database table with document names stored as a VARCHAR and I need a way to figure out what the lowest available sequence number is. There are many gaps.
name partial seq
A-B-C-0001 A-B-C- 0001
A-B-C-0017 A-B-C- 0017
In the above example, it would be 0002.
The distinct name values total 227,705. The number of "partial" combinations is quite large A=150, B=218, C=52 so 1,700,400 potential combinations.
I found a way to iterate through from min to max per distinct value and list all the "missing" (aka available) values, but this seems inefficient given we are not using anywhere close to the max potential partial combinations (10,536 out of 1,700,400).
I'd rather have a table based on existing data with a partial value, it's next available sequence value, and a non-existent partial means 0001.
Thanks
Hmmmm, you can try this:
select coalesce(min(to_number(seq)), 0) + 1
from t
where partial = 'A-B-C-' and
not exists (select 1
from t t2
where t2.partial = t.partial and
to_number(T2.seq) = to_number(t.seq) + 1
);
EDIT:
For all partials you need a group by:
You can use to_char() to convert it back to a character, if necessary.
select partial, coalesce(min(to_number(seq)), 0) + 1
from t
where not exists (select 1
from t t2
where t2.partial = t.partial and
to_number(T2.seq) = to_number(t.seq) + 1
)
group by partial;
I just stumbled over jOOQ's maxDistinct SQL aggregation function.
What does MAX(DISTINCT x) do different from just MAX(x) ?
maxDistinct and minDistinct were defined in order to keep consistency with the other aggregate functions where having a distinct option actually makes a difference (e.g., countDistinct, sumDistinct).
Since the maximum (or minimum) calculated between the distinct values of a dataset is mathematically equivalent with the simple maximum (or minimum) of the same set, these function are essentially redundant.
In short, there will be no difference. In case of MySQL, it's even stated in manual page:
Returns the maximum value of expr. MAX() may take a string argument;
in such cases, it returns the maximum string value. See Section 8.5.3,
“How MySQL Uses Indexes”. The DISTINCT keyword can be used to find the
maximum of the distinct values of expr, however, this produces the
same result as omitting DISTINCT.
The reason why it's possible - is because to keep compatibility with other platforms. Internally, there will be no difference - MySQL will just omit influence of DISTINCT. It will not try to do something with set of rows (i.e. produce distinct set first). For indexed columns it will be Select tables optimized away (thus reading one value from index, not a table), for non-indexed - full scan.
If i'm not wrong there are no difference
For Columns
ID
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
The OUTPUT for both quires are same 5
MAX(DISTINCT x)
// ID = 1,2,2,3,3,4,5,5
// DISTINCT = 1,2,3,4,5
// MAX = 5
// 1 row
and for
MAX(x)
// ID = 1,2,2,3,3,4,5,5
// MAX = 5
// 1 row
Theoretically, DISTINCT x ensures that every element is different from a certain set. The max operator selects the highest value from a set. In plain SQL there should be no difference between both.