I want to create table for book chapters where pk will be book_id and chapter_internal_number. I'm not sure how find next free chapter_internal_number value for new chapter insert (chapter can be deleted and it's chapter_internal_number value should be reused).
How to find first chapter_internal_number avaiable value for book? Avaiable value is next value that doesn't exist in ASC order.
Table book_chapter:
| pk | pk |
| book_id | chapter_internal_number |
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 1 | 5 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
Expected:
for book_id=1 is 3
for book_id=2 is 4
Basically, you want the first gap in the chapter numbers for each book. I don't think that you need generate_series() for this; you can just compare the current chapter to the next, using lead():
select book_id, min(chapter_internal_number) + 1
from (
select bc.*,
lead(chapter_internal_number) over(partition by book_id order by chapter_internal_number) lead_chapter_internal_number
from book_chapter bc
) bc
where lead_chapter_internal_number is distinct from chapter_internal_number + 1
group by book_id
This seems to be the most natural way to phrase your query, and I suspect that it should be more efficient that enumerating all possible values with generate_series() (I would be interested to know how both solutions comparatively perform against a large dataset).
We could also use distinct on rather than aggregation in the outer query:
select distinct on (book_id) book_id, chapter_internal_number + 1
from (
select bc.*,
lead(chapter_internal_number) over(partition by book_id order by chapter_internal_number) lead_chapter_internal_number
from book_chapter bc
) bc
where lead_chapter_internal_number is distinct from chapter_internal_number + 1
order by book_id, chapter_internal_number
Related
+----+------+-------+---------+---------+
| id | order| value | type | account |
+----+------+-------+---------+---------+
| 1 | 1 | a | 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 | b | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 3 | c | 4 | 1 |
| 1 | 4 | d | 2 | 1 |
| 1 | 5 | e | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 5 | f | 6 | 1 |
| 2 | 6 | g | 1 | 1 |
+----+------+-------+---------+---------+
I need get a select of all fields of this table but only getting 1 row for each combination of id+type (I don't care the value of the type). But I tried some approach without result.
At the moment that I make an DISTINCT I cant include rest of the fields to make it available in a subquery. If I add ROWNUM in the subquery all rows will be different making this not working.
Some ideas?
My better query at the moment is this:
SELECT ID, TYPE, VALUE, ACCOUNT
FROM MYTABLE
WHERE ROWID IN (SELECT DISTINCT MAX(ROWID)
FROM MYTABLE
GROUP BY ID, TYPE);
It seems you need to select one (random) row for each distinct combination of id and type. If so, you could do that efficiently using the row_number analytic function. Something like this:
select id, type, value, account
from (
select id, type, value, account,
row_number() over (partition by id, type order by null) as rn
from your_table
)
where rn = 1
;
order by null means random ordering of rows within each group (partition) by (id, type); this means that the ordering step, which is usually time-consuming, will be trivial in this case. Also, Oracle optimizes such queries (for the filter rn = 1).
Or, in versions 12.1 and higher, you can get the same with the match_recognize clause:
select id, type, value, account
from my_table
match_recognize (
partition by id, type
all rows per match
pattern (^r)
define r as null is null
);
This partitions the rows by id and type, it doesn't order them (which means random ordering), and selects just the "first" row from each partition. Note that some analytic functions, including row_number(), require an order by clause (even when we don't care about the ordering) - order by null is customary, but it can't be left out completely. By contrast, in match_recognize you can leave out the order by clause (the default is "random order"). On the other hand, you can't leave out the define clause, even if it imposes no conditions whatsoever. Why Oracle doesn't use a default for that clause too, only Oracle knows.
I Have a query that finds a table, here's an example one.
Name |Age |Hair |Happy | Sad |
Jon | 15 | Black |NULL | NULL|
Kyle | 18 |Blonde |YES |NULL |
Brad | 17 | Blue |NULL |YES |
Name and age come from one table in a database, hair color comes from a second which is joined, and happy and sad come from a third table.My goal would be to make the first line of the chart like this:
Name |Age |Hair |Happy |Sad |
Jon | 15 |Black |Yes |Yes |
Basically I want to get rid of the rows under the first and get the non NULL data joined to the right. The problem is that there is no column where the Yes values are on the Jon row, so I have no idea how to get them there. Any suggestions?
PS. With the data I am using I can't just put a 'YES' in the 'Jon' row and call it a day, I would need to find the specific value from the lower rows and somehow get that value in the boxes that are NULL.
Do you just want COALESCE()?
COALESCE(Happy, 'Yes') as happy
COALESCE() replaces a NULL value with another value.
If you want to join on a NULL value work with nested selects. The inner select gets an Id for NULLs, the outer select joins
select COALESCE(x.Happy, yn_table.description) as happy, ...
from
(select
t1.Happy,
CASE WHEN t1.Happy is null THEN 1 END as happy_id
from t1 ...) x
left join yn_table
on x.xhappy_id = yn_table.id
If you apply an ORDER BY to the query, you can then select the first row relative to this order with WHERE rownum = 1. If you don't apply an ORDER BY, then the order is random.
After reading your new comment...
the sense is that in my real data the yes under the other names will be a number of a piece of equipment. I want the numbers of the equipment in one row instead of having like 8 rows with only 4 ' yes' values and the rest null.
... I come to the conclusion that this a XY problem.
You are asking about a detail you think will solve your problem, instead of explaining the problem and asking how to solve it.
If you want to store several pieces of equipment per person, you need three tables.
You need a Person table, an Article table and a junction table relating articles to persons to equip them. Let's call this table Equipment.
Person
------
PersonId (Primary Key)
Name
optional attributes like age, hair color
Article
-------
ArticleId (Primary Key)
Description
optional attributes like weight, color etc.
Equipment
---------
PersonId (Primary Key, Foreign Key to table Person)
ArticleId (Primary Key, Foreign Key to table Article)
Quantity (optional, if each person can have only one of each article, we don't need this)
Let's say we have
Person: PersonId | Name
1 | Jon
2 | Kyle
3 | Brad
Article: ArticleId | Description
1 | Hat
2 | Bottle
3 | Bag
4 | Camera
5 | Shoes
Equipment: PersonId | ArticleId | Quantity
1 | 1 | 1
1 | 4 | 1
1 | 5 | 1
2 | 3 | 2
2 | 4 | 1
Now Jon has a hat, a camera and shoes. Kyle has 2 bags and one camera. Brad has nothing.
You can query the persons and their equipment like this
SELECT
p.PersonId, p.Name, a.ArticleId, a.Description AS Equipment, e.Quantity
FROM
Person p
LEFT JOIN Equipment e
ON p.PersonId = e.PersonId
LEFT JOIN Article a
ON e.ArticleId = a.ArticleId
ORDER BY p.Name, a.Description
The result will be
PersonId | Name | ArticleId | Equipment | Quantity
---------+------+-----------+-----------+---------
3 | Brad | NULL | NULL | NULL
1 | Jon | 4 | Camera | 1
1 | Jon | 1 | Hat | 1
1 | Jon | 5 | Shoes | 1
2 | Kyle | 3 | Bag | 2
2 | Kyle | 4 | Camera | 1
See example: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!4/7e05d/2/0
Since you tagged the question with the oracle tag, you could just use NVL(), which allows you to specify a value that would replace a NULL value in the column you select from.
Assuming that you want the 1st row because it contains the smallest age:
- wrap your query inside a CTE
- in another CTE get the 1st row of the query
- in another CTE get the max values of Happy and Sad of your query (for your sample data they both are 'YES')
- cross join the last 2 CTEs.
with
cte as (
<your query here>
),
firstrow as (
select name, age, hair from cte
order by age
fetch first row only
),
maxs as (
select max(happy) happy, max(sad) sad
from cte
)
select f.*, m.*
from firstrow f cross join maxs m
You can try this:
SELECT A.Name,
A.Age,
B.Hair,
C.Happy,
C.Sad
FROM A
INNER JOIN B
ON A.Name = B.Name
INNER JOIN C
ON A.Name = B.Name
(Assuming that Name is the key columns in the 3 tables)
I have a schema like the following in Oracle
Section:
+--------+----------+
| sec_ID | group_ID |
+--------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 |
+--------+----------+
Section_to_Item:
+--------+---------+
| sec_ID | item_ID |
+--------+---------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 2 | 4 |
+--------+---------+
Item:
+---------+------+
| item_ID | data |
+---------+------+
| 1 | a |
| 2 | b |
| 3 | c |
| 4 | d |
+---------+------+
Item_Version:
+---------+----------+--------+
| item_ID | start_ID | end_ID |
+---------+----------+--------+
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 2 | |
| 4 | 1 | 2 |
+---------+----------+--------+
Section_to_Item has FK into Section and Item on the *_ID columns.
Item_version is indexed on item_ID but has no FK to Item.item_ID (ran out of space in the snapshot group).
I have code that receives a list of version IDs and I want to get all items in sections in a given group that are valid for at least one of the versions passed in. If an item has no end_ID, it's valid for anything starting with start_ID. If it has an end_id, it's valid for anything up until (not including) end_ID.
What I currently have is:
SELECT Items.data
FROM Section, Section_to_Items, Item, Item_Version
WHERE Section.group_ID = 1
AND Section_to_Item.sec_ID = Section.sec_ID
AND Item.item_ID = Section_to_Item.item_ID
AND Item.item_ID = Item_Version.item_ID
AND exists (
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT 2 AS version FROM DUAL
UNION ALL SELECT 3 AS version FROM DUAL
) passed_versions
WHERE Item_Version.start_ID <= passed_versions.version
AND (Item_Version.end_ID IS NULL or Item_Version.end_ID > passed_version.version)
)
Note that the UNION ALL statement is dynamically generated from the list of passed in versions.
This query currently does a cartesian join and is very slow.
For some reason, if I change the query to join
AND Item_Version.item_ID = Section_to_Item.item_ID
which is not a FK, the query does not do the cartesian join and is much faster.
A) Can anyone explain why this is?
B) Is this the right way to be joining this sequence of tables (I feel weird about joining Item.item_ID to two different tables)
C) Is this the right way to get versions between start_ID and end_ID?
Edit
Same query with inner join syntax:
SELECT Items.data
FROM Item
INNER JOIN Section_to_Items ON Section_to_Items.item_ID = Item.item_ID
INNER JOIN Section ON Section.sec_ID = Section_to_Items.sec_ID
INNER JOIN Item_Version ON Item_Version.item_ID = Item_.item_ID
WHERE Section.group_ID = 1
AND exists (
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT 2 AS version FROM DUAL
UNION ALL SELECT 3 AS version FROM DUAL
) passed_versions
WHERE Item_Version.start_ID <= passed_versions.version
AND (Item_Version.end_ID IS NULL or Item_Version.end_ID > passed_version.version)
)
Note that in this case the performance difference comes from joining on Item_Version first and then joining Section_to_Item on Item_Version.item_ID.
In terms of table size, Section_to_Item, Item, and Item_Version should be similar (1000s) while Section should be small.
Edit
I just found out that apparently, the schema has no FKs. The FKs specified in the schema configuration files are ignored. They're just there for documentation. So there's no difference between joining on a FK column or not. That being said, by changing the joins into a cascade of SELECT INs, I'm able to avoid joining the entire Item table twice. I don't love the resulting query, and I don't really understand the difference, but the stats indicate it's much less work (changes the A-Rows returned from the inner most scan on Section from 656,000 to 488 (it used to be 656k starts returning 1 row, now it's 488 starts returning 1 row)).
Edit
It turned out to be stale statistics - the two queries were equivalent the whole time but with the incomplete statistics, the DB happened to notice the correct plan only in the second instance. After updating statistics, both queries generated the same plan.
I'm not sure if this is the best idea but this seems to avoid the cartesian join:
select data
from Item
where item_ID in (
select item_ID
from Item_Version
where item_ID in (
select item_ID
from Section_to_Item
where sec_ID in (
select sec_ID
from Section
where group_ID = 1
)
)
and exists (
select 1
from (
select 2 as version
from dual
union all
select 3 as version
from dual
) versions
where versions.version >= start_ID
and (end_ID is null or versions.version <)
)
)
I have an "insert only" database, wherein records aren't physically updated, but rather logically updated by adding a new record, with a CRUD value, carrying a larger sequence. In this case, the "seq" (sequence) column is more in line with what you may consider a primary key, but the "id" is the logical identifier for the record. In the example below,
This is the physical representation of the table:
seq id name | CRUD |
----|-----|--------|------|
1 | 10 | john | C |
2 | 10 | joe | U |
3 | 11 | kent | C |
4 | 12 | katie | C |
5 | 12 | sue | U |
6 | 13 | jill | C |
7 | 14 | bill | C |
This is the logical representation of the table, considering the "most recent" records:
seq id name | CRUD |
----|-----|--------|------|
2 | 10 | joe | U |
3 | 11 | kent | C |
5 | 12 | sue | U |
6 | 13 | jill | C |
7 | 14 | bill | C |
In order to, for instance, retrieve the most recent record for the person with id=12, I would currently do something like this:
SELECT
*
FROM
PEOPLE P
WHERE
P.ID = 12
AND
P.SEQ = (
SELECT
MAX(P1.SEQ)
FROM
PEOPLE P1
WHERE P.ID = 12
)
...and I would receive this row:
seq id name | CRUD |
----|-----|--------|------|
5 | 12 | sue | U |
What I'd rather do is something like this:
WITH
NEW_P
AS
(
--CTE representing all of the most recent records
--i.e. for any given id, the most recent sequence
)
SELECT
*
FROM
NEW_P P2
WHERE
P2.ID = 12
The first SQL example using the the subquery already works for us.
Question: How can I leverage a CTE to simplify our predicates when needing to leverage the "most recent" logical view of the table. In essence, I don't want to inline a subquery every single time I want to get at the most recent record. I'd rather define a CTE and leverage that in any subsequent predicate.
P.S. While I'm currently using DB2, I'm looking for a solution that is database agnostic.
This is a clear case for window (or OLAP) functions, which are supported by all modern SQL databases. For example:
WITH
ORD_P
AS
(
SELECT p.*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( PARTITION BY id ORDER BY seq DESC) rn
FROM people p
)
,
NEW_P
AS
(
SELECT * from ORD_P
WHERE rn = 1
)
SELECT
*
FROM
NEW_P P2
WHERE
P2.ID = 12
PS. Not tested. You may need to explicitly list all columns in the CTE clauses.
I guess you already put it together. First find the max seq associated with each id, then use that to join back to the main table:
WITH newp AS (
SELECT id, MAX(seq) AS latestseq
FROM people
GROUP BY id
)
SELECT p.*
FROM people p
JOIN newp n ON (n.latestseq = p.seq)
ORDER BY p.id
What you originally had would work, or moving the CTE into the "from" clause. Maybe you want to use a timestamp field rather than a sequence number for the ordering?
Following up from #Glenn's answer, here is an updated query which meets my original goal and is on par with #mustaccio's answer, but I'm still not sure what the performance (and other) implications of this approach vs the other are.
WITH
LATEST_PERSON_SEQS AS
(
SELECT
ID,
MAX(SEQ) AS LATEST_SEQ
FROM
PERSON
GROUP BY
ID
)
,
LATEST_PERSON AS
(
SELECT
P.*
FROM
PERSON P
JOIN
LATEST_PERSON_SEQS L
ON
(
L.LATEST_SEQ = P.SEQ)
)
SELECT
*
FROM
LATEST_PERSON L2
WHERE
L2.ID = 12
I have a simple Parts database which I'd like to use for calculating costs of assemblies, and I need to keep a cost history, so that I can update the costs for parts without the update affecting historic data.
So far I have the info stored in 2 tables:
tblPart:
PartID | PartName
1 | Foo
2 | Bar
3 | Foobar
tblPartCostHistory
PartCostHistoryID | PartID | Revision | Cost
1 | 1 | 1 | £1.00
2 | 1 | 2 | £1.20
3 | 2 | 1 | £3.00
4 | 3 | 1 | £2.20
5 | 3 | 2 | £2.05
What I want to end up with is just the PartID for each part, and the PartCostHistoryID where the revision number is highest, so this:
PartID | PartCostHistoryID
1 | 2
2 | 3
3 | 5
I've had a look at some of the other threads on here and I can't quite get it. I can manage to get the PartID along with the highest Revision number, but if I try to then do anything with the PartCostHistoryID I end up with multiple PartCostHistoryIDs per part.
I'm using MS Access 2007.
Many thanks.
Mihai's (very concise) answer will work assuming that the order of both
[PartCostHistoryID] and
[Revision] for each [PartID]
are always ascending.
A solution that does not rely on that assumption would be
SELECT
tblPartCostHistory.PartID,
tblPartCostHistory.PartCostHistoryID
FROM
tblPartCostHistory
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT
PartID,
MAX(Revision) AS MaxOfRevision
FROM tblPartCostHistory
GROUP BY PartID
) AS max
ON max.PartID = tblPartCostHistory.PartID
AND max.MaxOfRevision = tblPartCostHistory.Revision
SELECT PartID,MAX(PartCostHistoryID) FROM table GROUP BY PartID
Here is query
select PartCostHistoryId, PartId from tblCost
where PartCostHistoryId in
(select PartCostHistoryId from
(select * from tblCost as tbl order by Revision desc) as tbl1
group by PartId
)
Here is SQL Fiddle http://sqlfiddle.com/#!2/19c2d/12