I am building a list of several company's with products they deliver to show on a map later on.
So every column is filled with a company in 1 column, and all of the products in another column seperated by ;
+-----------+--------------+
| Company | Products |
+-----------+--------------+
| 1 | a; b; c; d |
+-----------+--------------+
Expected outcome:
+-----------+--------------+
| Company | Products |
+-----------+--------------+
| 1 | a |
| | b |
| | c |
| | d |
+-----------+--------------+
Is there any way to achieve this?
In SQL Server (at least the more recent versions), you can use string_split():
select t.*, ltrim(s.value) as product
from t cross apply
string_split(t.products, ';') s
Related
I'm honestly not sure how to title this - so apologies if it is unclear.
I have two tables I need to compare. One table contains tree names and nodes that belong to that tree. Each Tree_name/Tree_node combo will have its own line. For example:
Table: treenode
| TREE_NAME | TREE_NODE |
|-----------|-----------|
| 1 | A |
| 1 | B |
| 1 | C |
| 1 | D |
| 1 | E |
| 2 | A |
| 2 | B |
| 2 | D |
| 3 | C |
| 3 | D |
| 3 | E |
| 3 | F |
I have another table that contains names of queries and what tree_nodes they use. Example:
Table: queryrecord
| QUERY | TREE_NODE |
|---------|-----------|
| Alpha | A |
| Alpha | B |
| Alpha | D |
| BRAVO | A |
| BRAVO | B |
| BRAVO | D |
| CHARLIE | A |
| CHARLIE | B |
| CHARLIE | F |
I need to create an SQL where I input the QUERY name, and it returns any ‘TREE_NAME’ that includes all the nodes associated with the query. So if I input ‘ALPHA’, it would return TREE_NAME 1 & 2. If I ask it for CHARLIE, it would return nothing.
I only have read access, and don’t believe I can create temp tables, so I’m not sure if this is possible. Any advice would be amazing. Thank you!
You can use group by and having as follows:
Select t.tree_name
From tree_node t
join query_record q
on t.tree_node = q.tree_node
WHERE q.query = 'ALPHA'
Group by t.tree_name
Having count(distinct t.tree_node)
= (Select count(distinct q.tree_node) query_record q WHERE q.query = 'ALPHA');
Using an IN condition (a semi-join, which saves time over a join):
with prep (tree_node) as (select tree_node from queryrecord where query = :q)
select tree_name
from treenode
where tree_node in (select tree_node from prep)
group by tree_name
having count(*) = (select count(*) from prep)
;
:q in the prep subquery (in the with clause) is the bind variable to which you will assign the various QUERY values at runtime.
EDIT
I don't generally set up the test case on online engines; but in a comment below this answer, the OP said the query didn't work for him. So, I set up the example on SQLFiddle, here:
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!4/b575e/2
A couple of notes: for some reason, SQLFiddle thinks table names should be at most eight characters, so I had to change the second table name to queryrec (instead of queryrecord). I changed the name in the query, too, of course. And, second, I don't know how I can give bind values on SQLFiddle; I hard-coded the name 'Alpha'. (Note also that in the OP's sample data, this query value is not capitalized, while the other two are; of course, text values in SQL are case sensitive, so one should pay attention when testing.)
You can do this with a join and aggregation. The trick is to count the number of nodes in query_record before joining:
select qr.query, t.tree_name
from (select qr.*,
count(*) over (partition by query) as num_tree_node
from query_record qr
) qr join
tree_node t
on t.tree_node = qr.tree_node
where qr.query = 'ALPHA'
group by qr.query, t.tree_name, qr.num_tree_node
having count(*) = qr.num_tree_node;
Here is a db<>fiddle.
There is a table where user_id is for each test taker, and choice is the answer for all the three questions. I would like to get all the different sequence of choices that test taker made and count the sequence. Is there a way to write sql query to achieve this? Thanks
----------------------------------
| user_id | Choice |
----------------------------------
| 1 | a |
----------------------------------
| 1 | b |
----------------------------------
| 1 | c |
----------------------------------
| 2 | b |
----------------------------------
| 2 | c |
----------------------------------
| 2 | a |
----------------------------------
Desire answer:
----------------------------------
| choice | count |
----------------------------------
| a,b,c | 1 |
----------------------------------
| b,c,a | 1 |
-----------------------------------
In BigQuery, you can use aggregation functions:
select choices, count(*)
from (select string_agg(choice order by ?) as choices, user_id
from t
group by user_id
) t
group by choices;
The ? is for the column that specifies the ordering of the table. Remember: tables represent unordered sets, so without such a column the choices can be in any order.
You can do something similar in SQL Server 2017+ using string_agg(). In earlier versions, you have to use an XML method, which is rather unpleasant.
I have the following data:
select * from art_skills_table;
+----+------+---------------------------+
| ID | Name | skills |
+----+------+---------------------------|
| 1 | Anna | ["painting","photography"]|
| 2 | Bob | ["drawing","sculpting"] |
| 3 | Cat | ["pastel"] |
+----+------+---------------------------+
select * from computer_table;
+------+------+-------------------------+
| ID | Name | skills |
+------+------+-------------------------+
| 1 | Anna | ["word","typing"] |
| 2 | Cat | ["code","editing"] |
| 3 | Bob | ["excel","code"] |
+------+------+-------------------------+
I would like to write an SQL statement which results in the following table.
+------+------+-----------------------------------------------+
| ID | Name | skills |
+------+------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Anna | ["painting","photography","word","typing"] |
| 2 | Bob | ["drawing","sculpting","excel","code"] |
| 3 | Cat | ["pastel","code","editing"] |
+------+------+-----------------------------------------------+
I've tried something like SELECT * from art_skills_table LEFT JOIN computer_table ON name. However it doesn't give what I need. I've read about array_cat but I'm having a bit of trouble implementing it.
if the skills column from both tables are arrays, then you should be able to get away with this:
SELECT a.ID, a.name, array_cat(a.skills, c.skills)
FROM art_skills_table a LEFT JOIN computer_table c
ON c.id = a.id
That said, While you used LEFT join in your sample, I think either an INNER or FULL (OUTER) join might serve you better.
First, i wondered why the data are stored in such a model.
Was of the opinion that NoSQL databases lack ability for joins and ...
... a semantic triple would be in the form of subject–predicate–object.
... a Key-value (KV) stores use associative arrays.
... a relational database would be normalized.
A few information about the use case would have helped.
Nevertheless, you can select the data with CONCAT and REPLACE for the desired form.
SELECT art_skills_table.ID, computer_table.name,
CONCAT(
REPLACE(art_skills_table.skills, '}',','),
REPLACE(computer_table.skills, '{','')
)
FROM art_skills_table JOIN computer_table ON art_skills_table.ID = computer_table.ID
The query returns the following result:
+----+------+--------------------------------------------+
| ID | Name | Skills |
+----+------+--------------------------------------------+
| 1 | Anna | {"painting","photography","word","typing"} |
| 2 | Cat | {"drawing","sculpting","code","editing"} |
| 3 | Bob | {"pastel","excel","code"} |
+----+------+--------------------------------------------+
I've used the ID for the JOIN, even though Bob has different values.
The JOIN should probably be done over the name.
JOIN computer_table ON art_skills_table.Name = computer_table.Name
BTW, you need to tell us what SQL engine you're running on.
I am working with SQL Server database and I have a table called companiesData with three columns: id, name, projects I want to get the values from the id and name without the repeated values.
Content of the tables:
| id | name | project |
| 1 | Company A | Project A |
| 2 | Company B | Project A |
| 3 | Company B | Project B |
| 4 | Company A | Project B |
If I write:
select distinct name from companiesData;
The query returns:
| name |
| Company A |
| Company B |
But like I said in the beginning I want the data from two columns of the same table (I only have one right now). So I write the next query to get the data:
select distinct id, company from companiesData;
And it returns:
| id | name |
| 1 | Company A |
| 2 | Company B |
| 3 | Company B |
| 4 | Company A |
So, I also tried with:
select id, company from companiesData group by id, company;
But this returns the same data of the second query. In others questions the answer to this problem is use distinct or group by but this is not working for me.
Is there any other way to get this data? Am I wrong in my queries?
Thanks in advance.
So you want "Company A" to appear once in your results, with one of the ids, and you don't care which one? How about:
select min(id), company from companiesData group by company
If this is a stupid question, forgive me, I'm not very familiar with PostgreSQL.
I've collected inventory data from used car dealerships in my area and stored it in a postgreSQL table. I've got a second table with particular details regarding certain makes and models. For example:
The dealership table is structured like so:
-----------------------------------------
| Dealership | Make | Model | Year | ID |
----------------------------------------|
| A | Ford | F250 | 2003 | 1 |
| A | Chevy| Cobalt| 2005 | 2 |
| B | Ford | F250 | 2003 | 1 |
| B | Dodge| Chrgr | 2012 | 3 |
-----------------------------------------
The details table is structured like so:
-----------------------------------------
| ID | DetailA| DetailB| DetailC|
-----------------------------------------
| 1 | data | data | data |
| 2 | data | data | data |
| 3 | data | data | data |
| 4 | data | data | data |
-----------------------------------------
My goal is to retrieve vehicle matches from multiple dealerships and display the appropriate details. In the above example, I would like to see:
-----------------------------------------------------
| Make | Model | Year | DetailA | DetailB | DetailC |
-----------------------------------------------------
| Ford | F250 | 2003 | data | data | data |
-----------------------------------------------------
With this result, I will know that both A and B havea 2003 Ford F250 for sale, and can view the related details of the vehicle.
I've tried many different queries, but most are variations on something like this:
SELECT DISTINCT
dealership_table.make,
dealership_table.model,
dealership_table.year
details_table.detaila,
details_table.detailb,
details_table.detailc
FROM
dealership_table
INNER JOIN
details_table
ON
dealership_table.id = details_table.id
WHERE
dealership_table.dealership = 'A'
OR
dealership_table.dealership = 'B'
However this returns all of the distinct matches from the table where dealership is either A or B. I've tried multiple inner-joins, but I an error complaining details_table is specified multiple times.
If I'm doing something really silly, I apologize. Like I said before, I'm pretty much an SQL noob.
What am I doing wrong? How should I go about retrieving the desired results? Any suggestions, solutions, or advice is greatly appreciated!
You can write:
SELECT dealership_table1.make,
dealership_table1.model,
dealership_table1.year,
details_table.detaila,
details_table.detailb,
details_table.detailc
FROM dealership_table dealership_table1
JOIN dealership_table dealership_table2
ON dealership_table1.make = dealership_table2.make
AND dealership_table1.model = dealership_table2.model
AND dealership_table1.year = dealership_table2.year
JOIN details_table
ON dealership_table.id = details_table.id
WHERE dealership_table1.dealership = 'A'
AND dealership_table1.dealership = 'B'
;
(Note that the FROM dealership_table dealership_table1 and JOIN dealership_table dealership_table2 set up distinct "aliases", so you can use the same table multiple different times in the same query without getting name-conflicts.)
I may be misunderstanding your table layout, but I think you should consider changing to a different structure. Here's what I would propose:
Vehicle:
----------------------------
| ID | Make | Model | Year |
----------------------------
| 1 | Ford | F250 | 2003 |
| 2 | Chevy| Cobalt| 2005 |
| 3 | Dodge| Chrgr | 2012 |
----------------------------
Dealership:
----------------------------
| Dealership | ID | Detail |
----------------------------
| A | 1 | data |
| A | 2 | data |
| B | 1 | data |
| B | 3 | data |
----------------------------
This way you're not storing vehicle information (make/model/year) in more than one place.
Here's how you would write your desired query given the above schema:
SELECT Make, Model, Year, A.Detail, B.Detail, C.Detail
FROM Vehicle V
LEFT OUTER JOIN Dealership A on A.Dealership = 'A' and A.id = V.id
LEFT OUTER JOIN Dealership B on B.Dealership = 'B' and B.id = V.id
LEFT OUTER JOIN Dealership C on C.Dealership = 'C' and C.id = V.id