I have a table called groups in my postgres production server, they have a column called manager_id. What I'm trying to do is to create simulated look up tables base off the ids of the manager. For example, if I have the following rows for table groups:
| id |manager_id| ... |
| 1 | 1 | .
| 2 | 3 | .
| 4 | 1 |
| 5 | 2 |
| 7 | 2 |
I would like to access make believe tables like group-1
| id |manager_id| ... |
| 1 | 1 | .
| 4 | 1 | .
Or group-2
| id |manager_id| ... |
| 5 | 2 | .
| 7 | 2 | .
I am not sure if this is possible, and yes I'm aware I could query for it, but for the purpose of the question (and my very specific needs, which I am having trouble finding a workaround), can I do something like that? If yes, can I do it without duplicating data, just picking up references from the original one?
Generally: just a use a where clause to filter on the manager you want the result from:
select *
from groups
where manager_id = 1
You could take one step forward and create views:
create view v_groups_1 as
select *
from groups
where manager_id = 1
create view v_groups_2 as
select *
from groups
where manager_id = 2
You can then run queries against the views just like you would do with a regular table.
Related
I have tables below as follows:
tbl_tasks
+---------+-------------+
| Task_ID | Assigned_ID |
+---------+-------------+
| 1 | 8 |
| 2 | 12 |
| 3 | 31 |
+---------+-------------+
tbl_resources
+---------+-----------+
| Task_ID | Source_ID |
+---------+-----------+
| 1 | 4 |
| 1 | 10 |
| 2 | 42 |
| 4 | 8 |
+---------+-----------+
A task is assigned to at least one person (denoted by the "assigned_ID") and then any number of people can be assigned as a source (denoted by "source_ID"). The ID numbers are all linked to names in another table. Though the ID numbers are named differently, they all return to the same table.
Would there be any way for me to combine the two tables based on ID such that I could search based on someone's ID number? For example- if I decide to search on or do a WHERE User_ID = 8, in order to see what Tasks that 8 is involved in, I would get back Task 1 and Task 4.
Right now, by joining all the tables together, I can easily filter on "Assigned" but not "Source" due to all the multiple entries in the table.
Use union all:
select distinct task_id
from ((select task_id, assigned_id as id
from tbl_tasks
) union all
(select task_id, source_id
from tbl_resources
)
) ti
where id = ?;
Note that this uses select distinct in case someone is assigned to the same task in both tables. If not, remove the distinct.
Problem: SQL Query that looks at the values in the "Many" relationship, and doesn't return values from the "1" relationship.
Tables Example: (this shows two different tables).
+---------------+----------------------------+-------+
| Unique Number | <-- Table 1 -- Table 2 --> | Roles |
+---------------+----------------------------+-------+
| 1 | | A |
| 2 | | B |
| 3 | | C |
| 4 | | D |
| 5 | | |
| 6 | | |
| 7 | | |
| 8 | | |
| 9 | | |
| 10 | | |
+---------------+----------------------------+-------+
When I run my query, I get multiple, unique numbers that show all of the roles associated to each number like so.
+---------------+-------+
| Unique Number | Roles |
+---------------+-------+
| 1 | C |
| 1 | D |
| 2 | A |
| 2 | B |
| 3 | A |
| 3 | B |
| 4 | C |
| 4 | A |
| 5 | B |
| 5 | C |
| 5 | D |
| 6 | D |
| 6 | A |
+---------------+-------+
I would like to be able to run my query and be able to say, "When the role of A is present, don't even show me the unique numbers that have the role of A".
Maybe if SQL could look at the roles and say, WHEN role A comes up, grab unique number and remove it from column 1.
Based on what I would "like" to happen (I put that in quotations as this might not even be possible) the following is what I would expect my query to return.
+---------------+-------+
| Unique Number | Roles |
+---------------+-------+
| 1 | C |
| 1 | D |
| 5 | B |
| 5 | C |
| 5 | D |
+---------------+-------+
UPDATE:
Query Example: I am querying 8 tables, but I condensed it to 4 for simplicity.
SELECT
c.UniqueNumber,
cp.pType,
p.pRole,
a.aRole
FROM c
JOIN cp ON cp.uniqueVal = c.uniqueVal
JOIN p ON p.uniqueVal = cp.uniqueVal
LEFT OUTER JOIN a.uniqueVal = p.uniqueVal
WHERE
--I do some basic filtering to get to the relevant clients data but nothing more than that.
ORDER BY
c.uniqueNumber
Table sizes: these tables can have anywhere from 50,000 rows to 500,000+
Pretending the table name is t and the column names are alpha and numb:
SELECT t.numb, t.alpha
FROM t
LEFT JOIN t AS s ON t.numb = s.numb
AND s.alpha = 'A'
WHERE s.numb IS NULL;
You can also do a subselect:
SELECT numb, alpha
FROM t
WHERE numb NOT IN (SELECT numb FROM t WHERE alpha = 'A');
Or one of the following if the subselect is materializing more than once (pick the one that is faster, ie, the one with the smaller subtable size):
SELECT t.numb, t.alpha
FROM t
JOIN (SELECT numb FROM t GROUP BY numb HAVING SUM(alpha = 'A') = 0) AS s USING (numb);
SELECT t.numb, t.alpha
FROM t
LEFT JOIN (SELECT numb FROM t GROUP BY numb HAVING SUM(alpha = 'A') > 0) AS s USING (numb)
WHERE s.numb IS NULL;
But the first one is probably faster and better[1]. Any of these methods can be folded into a larger query with multiple additional tables being joined in.
[1] Straight joins tend to be easier to read and faster to execute than queries involving subselects and the common exceptions are exceptionally rare for self-referential joins as they require a large mismatch in the size of the tables. You might hit those exceptions though, if the number of rows that reference the 'A' alpha value is exceptionally small and it is indexed properly.
There are many ways to do it, and the trade-offs depend on factors such as the size of the tables involved and what indexes are available. On general principles, my first instinct is to avoid a correlated subquery such as another, now-deleted answer proposed, but if the relationship table is small then it probably doesn't matter.
This version instead uses an uncorrelated subquery in the where clause, in conjunction with the not in operator:
select num, role
from one_to_many
where num not in (select otm2.num from one_to_many otm2 where otm2.role = 'A')
That form might be particularly effective if there are many rows in one_to_many, but only a small proportion have role A. Of course you can add an order by clause if the order in which result rows are returned is important.
There are also alternatives involving joining inline views or CTEs, and some of those might have advantages under particular circumstances.
Does anyone know of a query that gives me details on the last time a Netezza table was accessed for any of the operations (select, insert or update) ?
Depending on your setup you may want to try the following query:
select *
from _v_qryhist
where lower(qh_sql) like '%tablename %'
There are a collection of history views in Netezza that should provide the information you require.
Netezza does not track this information in the catalog, so you will typically have to mine that from the query history database, if one is configured.
Modern Netezza query history information is typically stored in a dedicated database. Depending on permissions, you may be able to see if history collection is enabled, and which database it is using with the following command. Apologies in advance for the screen-breaking wrap to come.
SYSTEM.ADMIN(ADMIN)=> show history configuration;
CONFIG_NAME | CONFIG_DBNAME | CONFIG_DBTYPE | CONFIG_TARGETTYPE | CONFIG_LEVEL | CONFIG_HOSTNAME | CONFIG_USER | CONFIG_PASSWORD | CONFIG_LOADINTERVAL | CONFIG_LOADMINTHRESHOLD | CONFIG_LOADMAXTHRESHOLD | CONFIG_DISKFULLTHRESHOLD | CONFIG_STORAGELIMIT | CONFIG_LOADRETRY | CONFIG_ENABLEHIST | CONFIG_ENABLESYSTEM | CONFIG_NEXT | CONFIG_CURRENT | CONFIG_VERSION | CONFIG_COLLECTFILTER | CONFIG_KEYSTORE_ID | CONFIG_KEY_ID | KEYSTORE_NAME | KEY_ALIAS | CONFIG_SCHEMANAME | CONFIG_NAME_DELIMITED | CONFIG_DBNAME_DELIMITED | CONFIG_USER_DELIMITED | CONFIG_SCHEMANAME_DELIMITED
-------------+---------------+---------------+-------------------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+---------------------------------------+---------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+---------------------+------------------+-------------------+---------------------+-------------+----------------+----------------+----------------------+--------------------+---------------+---------------+-----------+-------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------------
ALL_HIST_V3 | NEWHISTDB | 1 | 1 | 20 | localhost | HISTUSER | aFkqABhjApzE$flT/vZ7hU0vAflmU2MmPNQ== | 5 | 4 | 20 | 0 | 250 | 1 | f | f | f | t | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | | HISTUSER | f | f | f | f
(1 row)
Also make note of the CONFIG_VERSION, as it will come into play when crafting the following query example. In my case, I happen to be using the version 3 format of the query history database.
Assuming history collection is configured, and that you have access to the history database, you can get the information you're looking for from the tables and views in that database. These are documented here. The following is an example, which reports when the given table was the target of a successful insert, update, or delete by referencing the "usage" column. Here I use one of the history table helper functions to unpack that column.
SELECT FORMAT_TABLE_ACCESS(usage),
hq.submittime
FROM "$v_hist_queries" hq
INNER JOIN "$hist_table_access_3" hta
USING (NPSID, NPSINSTANCEID, OPID, SESSIONID)
WHERE hq.dbname = 'PROD'
AND hta.schemaname = 'ADMIN'
AND hta.tablename = 'TEST_1'
AND hq.SUBMITTIME > '01-01-2015'
AND hq.SUBMITTIME <= '08-06-2015'
AND
(
instr(FORMAT_TABLE_ACCESS(usage),'ins') > 0
OR instr(FORMAT_TABLE_ACCESS(usage),'upd') > 0
OR instr(FORMAT_TABLE_ACCESS(usage),'del') > 0
)
AND status=0;
FORMAT_TABLE_ACCESS | SUBMITTIME
---------------------+----------------------------
ins | 2015-06-16 18:32:25.728042
ins | 2015-06-16 17:46:14.337105
ins | 2015-06-16 17:47:14.430995
(3 rows)
You will need to change the digit at the end of the $v_hist_table_access_3 view to match your query history version.
I'm struggling a bit at creating an SQL query to select some records from an Access Database (using Excel VBA).
A cut of one of the tables (let's call it 'table1') has the following columns:
| my_id | your_id | phase |
| 1 | 1 | Open |
| 2 | 1 | Close |
| 3 | 2 | Open |
| 4 | 3 | Close |
| 5 | 2 | Close |
| 6 | 3 | Open |
The field 'my_id' will always be a unique value whereas the 'your_id' field may contain duplicates.
What I would like to do is select everything from the table for the most recent record of the 'your_id' where the phase is 'Close'. So that means in the above example table it would select 5, 4 & 2.
Hope this makes sense, sorry if not - I'm struggling to articulate what I mean!
Thanks
Although from ur example if u just add where conditin as phase='Close' u will get the records of 5,4 and 2. But I am assuming that there might be scenarios (not in ur example) where more than 1 record can come with status as Close for any given your_id so query should look like this
Select * from table1 where my_id in (
Select Max(My_Id) from table1 where phase='Close' group by your_id)
I've created a form in PHP that collects basic information. I have a list box that allows multiple items selected (i.e. Housing, rent, food, water). If multiple items are selected they are stored in a field called Needs separated by a comma.
I have created a report ordered by the persons needs. The people who only have one need are sorted correctly, but the people who have multiple are sorted exactly as the string passed to the database (i.e. housing, rent, food, water) --> which is not what I want.
Is there a way to separate the multiple values in this field using SQL to count each need instance/occurrence as 1 so that there are no comma delimitations shown in the results?
Your database is not in the first normal form. A non-normalized database will be very problematic to use and to query, as you are actually experiencing.
In general, you should be using at least the following structure. It can still be normalized further, but I hope this gets you going in the right direction:
CREATE TABLE users (
user_id int,
name varchar(100)
);
CREATE TABLE users_needs (
need varchar(100),
user_id int
);
Then you should store the data as follows:
-- TABLE: users
+---------+-------+
| user_id | name |
+---------+-------+
| 1 | joe |
| 2 | peter |
| 3 | steve |
| 4 | clint |
+---------+-------+
-- TABLE: users_needs
+---------+----------+
| need | user_id |
+---------+----------+
| housing | 1 |
| water | 1 |
| food | 1 |
| housing | 2 |
| rent | 2 |
| water | 2 |
| housing | 3 |
+---------+----------+
Note how the users_needs table is defining the relationship between one user and one or many needs (or none at all, as for user number 4.)
To normalise your database further, you should also use another table called needs, and as follows:
-- TABLE: needs
+---------+---------+
| need_id | name |
+---------+---------+
| 1 | housing |
| 2 | water |
| 3 | food |
| 4 | rent |
+---------+---------+
Then the users_needs table should just refer to a candidate key of the needs table instead of repeating the text.
-- TABLE: users_needs (instead of the previous one)
+---------+----------+
| need_id | user_id |
+---------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 3 |
+---------+----------+
You may also be interested in checking out the following Wikipedia article for further reading about repeating values inside columns:
Wikipedia: First normal form - Repeating groups within columns
UPDATE:
To fully answer your question, if you follow the above guidelines, sorting, counting and aggregating the data should then become straight-forward.
To sort the result-set by needs, you would be able to do the following:
SELECT users.name, needs.name
FROM users
INNER JOIN needs ON (needs.user_id = users.user_id)
ORDER BY needs.name;
You would also be able to count how many needs each user has selected, for example:
SELECT users.name, COUNT(needs.need) as number_of_needs
FROM users
LEFT JOIN needs ON (needs.user_id = users.user_id)
GROUP BY users.user_id, users.name
ORDER BY number_of_needs;
I'm a little confused by the goal. Is this a UI problem or are you just having trouble determining who has multiple needs?
The number of needs is the difference:
Len([Needs]) - Len(Replace([Needs],',','')) + 1
Can you provide more information about the Sort you're trying to accomplish?
UPDATE:
I think these Oracle-based posts may have what you're looking for: post and post. The only difference is that you would probably be better off using the method I list above to find the number of comma-delimited pieces rather than doing the translate(...) that the author suggests. Hope this helps - it's Oracle-based, but I don't see .