Msg 120, Level 15, State 1, Procedure Generate_Exame, Line 6,The select list for the INSERT statement contains fewer items than the insert list - sql

I want insert in question table that has these columns
C#_T_F_Id, C#_T_F_Q, C#_T_F_Choices, C#_Mcq_Id, C#_MCQ_Q, C#_Choices
After execute Generate_Exame procedure what should I do :
create procedure Generate_Exame
#course_id int
as
if #course_id = 600
begin
insert into [dbo].[Question](C#_T_F_Id, C#_T_F_Q, C#_T_F_Choices,
C#_Mcq_Id, C#_MCQ_Q, C#_Choices)
select *
from
(select top(3)
T.C#_T_F_Id, T.C#_T_F_Q, T.C#_T_F_Choices
from
C#_T_F T
order by
newid()) as t1
union all
select *
from
(select top(7)
C.C#_Mcq_Id C#_Q_id, C.C#_MCQ_Q C#_question, C.C#_Choices Choices
from
C#_MCQ C
order by
newid()) as t2)
end

If I understand well you want to:
Insert data into a table from a combined result set.
Combine two result sets side by side. The first one provides columns 1, 2, and 3, while the second one provides column 4, 5, and 6.
On top of this both result sets (left and right) do not have the same lenght. One has 3 rows, while the other has 7 rows. I assume these numbers may vary.
There's no set order for the rows on the left, or the rows on the right. You are producing them by ordering using a random UUID, so that can change every time you run the query.
In order to do this you need to produce a row number on each side. Then a simple full join will combine both result sets.
For example:
insert into [dbo].[Question] (
C#_T_F_Id, C#_T_F_Q, C#_T_F_Choices,
C#_Mcq_Id, C#_MCQ_Q, C#_Choices
)
select -- Step #4: produce combined rows, ready for insert
a.T.C#_T_F_Id, a.T.C#_T_F_Q, a.T.C#_T_F_Choices,
b.C#_Q_id, b.C#_question, b.Choices
from ( -- Step #1: Produce the left result set with row number (rn)
select *, row_number() over(order by ord) as rn
from (
select top(3)
T.C#_T_F_Id, T.C#_T_F_Q, T.C#_T_F_Choices,
newid() as ord
from C#_T_F T
order by ord
) x
) a
full join ( -- Step #2: Produce the right result set with row number (rn)
select *, row_number() over(order by ord) as rn
from (
select top(7)
C.C#_Mcq_Id C#_Q_id, C.C#_MCQ_Q C#_question, C.C#_Choices Choices,
newid() as ord
from C#_MCQ C
order by ord
) y
) b on a.rn = b.rn -- Step #3: Full join both result sets by row number (rn)

You are having six columns in the INSERT clause. But, you have only 3 columns coming out of the UNION query.
-- You are inserting 6 columns
insert into [dbo].[Question](C#_T_F_Id, C#_T_F_Q, C#_T_F_Choices,
C#_Mcq_Id, C#_MCQ_Q, C#_Choices)
-- You are selecting only 3 columns.
select *
from
(select top(3)
T.C#_T_F_Id, T.C#_T_F_Q, T.C#_T_F_Choices
from
C#_T_F T
order by
newid()) as t1
union all
select *
from
(select top(7)
C.C#_Mcq_Id C#_Q_id, C.C#_MCQ_Q C#_question, C.C#_Choices Choices
from
C#_MCQ C
order by
newid()) as t2)
If you need to have 6 columns, you need to join the two SELECT statements in some way, based on JOIN condition.

Related

SQL Using TOP n with UNION, but only want results of second query if first does not have enough records

I am trying to write a sql statement that works something like a store. I have two queries and I want n records from the first query, but if there is less than n, I want the rest from the second.
I tried using TOP n and UNION
SELECT TOP 20 FROM (
(SELECT * FROM t1)
UNION
(SELECT * FROM t2))
but the results are from both tables regardless of how many are in t1. Basically, I want the first query to have precedence. If 5 records exist there and I want them and I want the rest from t2.
Add a column that identifies the query, so the first one have precedence.
SELECT TOP 20 *
FROM ((SELECT 1 as query, * FROM t1)
UNION
(SELECT 2 as query, * FROM t2))
ORDER BY query
you can use a CTE to place a sort order on the two tables and then use that in an order by clause
declare #foo1 table(
bar INT
)
insert into #foo1
values (1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8),(9),(10)
--,(11),(12),(13),(14),(15),(16),(17),(18),(19),(20)
declare #foo2 table(
bar INT
)
insert into #foo2
values (101),(102),(103),(104),(105),(106),(107),(108),(109),(110),(111),(112),(113),(114),(115),(116),(117),(118),(119),(120)
;with base_data as (
select
0 as sort,
f1.bar
FROM #foo1 f1
UNION
SELECT
1 as sort,
f2.bar
FROM #foo2 f2
)
select top 20 bar
from base_data
order by sort, bar

select N-1 records for update

I have a query where I want to update n-1 records from result set. Can this be done without loops?
If my query is like this:
with cte(id, count)
as
(
select e.id, count(*) as count
from data
where id in (multiple values)
group by id
having count(*) >1
)
Now I want to update the rows in another table with the resulting id's but only any n-1 rows for each id value from the above query. Something like this:
update top( count-1 or n-1) from data2
inner join cte on data2.id = cte.id
set somecolumn = 'some value'
where id in (select id from cte)
The id column is not unique. There are multiple rows with the same id values in table data 2.
This query will do what you want. It uses two CTEs; the first generates the list of eligible id values to update, and the second generates row numbers for id values in data2 which match those in the first CTE. The second CTE is then updated if the row number is greater than 1 (so only n-1 rows get updated):
with cte(id, count) as (
select id, count(*) as count
from data
where id in (2, 3, 4, 6, 7)
group by id
having count(*) >1
),
cte2 as (
select d.id, d.somecolumn,
row_number() over (partition by d.id order by rand()) as rn
from data2 d
join cte on cte.id = d.id
)
update cte2
set somecolumn = 'some value'
where rn > 1
Note I've chosen to order row numbers randomly, you might have some other scheme for deciding which n-1 values you want to update (e.g. ordered by id, or ...).
Is this what you're looking for? The CTE identifies ALL of the source rows, but the WHEREclause in the UPDATE statement limits the updates to n-1.
WITH cte AS
(
SELECT
id,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY (SELECT 0)) AS RowNum
FROM data
)
UPDATE t
SET t.<whatever> = <whateverElse>
FROM
otherTable AS t
JOIN
cte AS c
ON t.id = c.id
WHERE
c.RowNum > 1;
I believe this would work just fine
;with cte(id, count)
as
(
select e.id, count(*) as count
from data
where id in (multiple values)
group by id
having count(*) >1
)
update data
set soemcolumn = 'some value'
from data join cte on cte.id = data.id
;

How to join two tables with the same number of rows in SQLite?

I have almost the same problem as described in this question. I have two tables with the same number of rows, and I would like to join them together one by one.
The tables are ordered, and I would like to keep this order after the join, if it is possible.
There is a rowid based solution for MSSql, but in SQLite rowid can not be used if the table is coming from a WITH statement (or RECURSIVE WITH).
It is guaranteed that the two tables have the exact same number of rows, but this number is not known beforehand. It is also important to note, that the same element may occur more than twice. The results are ordered, but none of the columns are unique.
Example code:
WITH
table_a (n) AS (
SELECT 2
UNION ALL
SELECT 4
UNION ALL
SELECT 5
),
table_b (s) AS (
SELECT 'valuex'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuey'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuez'
)
SELECT table_a.n, table_b.s
FROM table_a
LEFT JOIN table_b ON ( table_a.rowid = table_b.rowid )
The result I would like to achieve is:
(2, 'valuex'),
(4, 'valuey'),
(5, 'valuez')
SQLFiddle: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!5/9eecb7/6888
This is quite complicated in SQLite -- because you are allowing duplicates. But you can do it. Here is the idea:
Summarize the table by the values.
For each value, get the count and offset from the beginning of the values.
Then use a join to associate the values and figure out the overlap.
Finally use a recursive CTE to extract the values that you want.
The following code assumes that n and s are ordered -- as you specify in your question. However, it would work (with small modifications) if another column specified the ordering.
You will notice that I have included duplicates in the sample data:
WITH table_a (n) AS (
SELECT 2 UNION ALL
SELECT 4 UNION ALL
SELECT 4 UNION ALL
SELECT 4 UNION ALL
SELECT 5
),
table_b (s) AS (
SELECT 'valuex' UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuey' UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuey' UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuez' UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuez'
),
a as (
select a.n, count(*) as a_cnt,
(select count(*) from table_a a2 where a2.n < a.n) as a_offset
from table_a a
group by a.n
),
b as (
select b.s, count(*) as b_cnt,
(select count(*) from table_b b2 where b2.s < b.s) as b_offset
from table_b b
group by b.s
),
ab as (
select a.*, b.*,
max(a.a_offset, b.b_offset) as offset,
min(a.a_offset + a.a_cnt, b.b_offset + b.b_cnt) - max(a.a_offset, b.b_offset) as cnt
from a join
b
on a.a_offset + a.a_cnt - 1 >= b.b_offset and
a.a_offset <= b.b_offset + b.b_cnt - 1
),
cte as (
select n, s, offset, cnt, 1 as ind
from ab
union all
select n, s, offset, cnt, ind + 1
from cte
where ind < cnt
)
select n, s
from cte
order by n, s;
Here is a DB Fiddle showing the results.
I should note that this would be much simpler in almost any other database, using window functions (or perhaps variables in MySQL).
Since the tables are ordered, you can add row_id values by comparing n values.
But still the best way in order to get better performance would be inserting the ID values while creating the tables.
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!5/9eecb7/7014
WITH
table_a_a (n, id) AS
(
WITH table_a (n) AS
(
SELECT 2
UNION ALL
SELECT 4
UNION ALL
SELECT 5
)
SELECT table_a.n, (select count(1) from table_a b where b.n <= table_a.n) id
FROM table_a
) ,
table_b_b (n, id) AS
(
WITH table_a (n) AS
(
SELECT 'valuex'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuey'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuez'
)
SELECT table_a.n, (select count(1) from table_a b where b.n <= table_a.n) id
FROM table_a
)
select table_a_a.n,table_b_b.n from table_a_a,table_b_b where table_a_a.ID = table_b_b.ID
or convert the input set to comma separated list and try like this:
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!5/9eecb7/7337
WITH RECURSIVE table_b( id,element, remainder ) AS (
SELECT 0,NULL AS element, 'valuex,valuey,valuz,valuz' AS remainder
UNION ALL
SELECT id+1,
CASE
WHEN INSTR( remainder, ',' )>0 THEN
SUBSTR( remainder, 0, INSTR( remainder, ',' ) )
ELSE
remainder
END AS element,
CASE
WHEN INSTR( remainder, ',' )>0 THEN
SUBSTR( remainder, INSTR( remainder, ',' )+1 )
ELSE
NULL
END AS remainder
FROM table_b
WHERE remainder IS NOT NULL
),
table_a( id,element, remainder ) AS (
SELECT 0,NULL AS element, '2,4,5,7' AS remainder
UNION ALL
SELECT id+1,
CASE
WHEN INSTR( remainder, ',' )>0 THEN
SUBSTR( remainder, 0, INSTR( remainder, ',' ) )
ELSE
remainder
END AS element,
CASE
WHEN INSTR( remainder, ',' )>0 THEN
SUBSTR( remainder, INSTR( remainder, ',' )+1 )
ELSE
NULL
END AS remainder
FROM table_a
WHERE remainder IS NOT NULL
)
SELECT table_b.element, table_a.element FROM table_b, table_a WHERE table_a.element IS NOT NULL and table_a.id = table_b.id;
SQL
SELECT a1.n, b1.s
FROM table_a a1
LEFT JOIN table_b b1
ON (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table_a a2 WHERE a2.n <= a1.n) =
(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table_b b2 WHERE b2.s <= b1.s)
Explanation
The query simply counts the number of rows up until the current one for each table (based on the ordering column) and joins on this value.
Demo
See SQL Fiddle demo.
Assumptions
A single column in used for the ordering in each table. (But the query could easily be modified to allow multiple ordering columns).
The ordering values in each table are unique.
The values in the ordering column aren't necessarily the same between the two tables.
It is known that table_a contains either the same or more rows than table_b. (If this isn't the case then a FULL OUTER JOIN would need to be emulated since SQLite doesn't provide one.)
No further changes to the table structure are allowed. (If they are, it would be more efficient to have pre-populated columns for the ordering).
Either way...
Use something like
WITH
v_table_a (n, rowid) AS (
SELECT 2, 1
UNION ALL
SELECT 4, 2
UNION ALL
SELECT 5, 3
),
v_table_b (s, rowid) AS (
SELECT 'valuex', 1
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuey', 2
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuez', 3
)
SELECT v_table_a.n, v_table_b.s
FROM v_table_a
LEFT JOIN v_table_b ON ( v_table_a.rowid = v_table_b.rowid );
for "virtual" tables (with WITH or without),
WITH RECURSIVE vr_table_a (n, rowid) AS (
VALUES (2, 1)
UNION ALL
SELECT n + 2, rowid + 1 FROM vr_table_a WHERE rowid < 3
)
, vr_table_b (s, rowid) AS (
VALUES ('I', 1)
UNION ALL
SELECT s || 'I', rowid + 1 FROM vr_table_b WHERE rowid < 3
)
SELECT vr_table_a.n, vr_table_b.s
FROM vr_table_a
LEFT JOIN vr_table_b ON ( vr_table_a.rowid = vr_table_b.rowid );
for "virtual" tables using recursive WITHs (in this example the values are others then yours, but I guess you get the point) and
CREATE TABLE p_table_a (n INT);
INSERT INTO p_table_a VALUES (2), (4), (5);
CREATE TABLE p_table_b (s VARCHAR(6));
INSERT INTO p_table_b VALUES ('valuex'), ('valuey'), ('valuez');
SELECT p_table_a.n, p_table_b.s
FROM p_table_a
LEFT JOIN p_table_b ON ( p_table_a.rowid = p_table_b.rowid );
for physical tables.
I'd be careful with the last one though. A quick test shows, that the numbers of rowid are a) reused -- when some rows are deleted and others are inserted, the inserted rows get the rowids from the old rows (i.e. rowid in SQLite isn't unique past the lifetime of a row, whereas e.g. Oracle's rowid AFAIR is) -- and b) corresponds to the order of insertion. But I don't know and didn't find a clue in the documentation, if that's guaranteed or is subject to change in other/future implementations. Or maybe it's just a mere coincidence in my test environment.
(In general physical order of rows may be subject to change (even within the same database using the same DMBS as a result of some reorganization) and is therefore no good choice to rely on. And it's not guaranteed, a query will return the result ordered by physical position in the table as well (it might use the order of some index instead or have a partial result ordered some other way influencing the output's order). Consider designing your tables using common (sort) keys in corresponding rows for ordering and to join on.)
You can create temp tables to carry CTE data row. then JOIN them by sqlite row_id column.
CREATE TEMP TABLE temp_a(n integer);
CREATE TEMP TABLE temp_b(n VARCHAR(255));
WITH table_a(n) AS (
SELECT 2 n
UNION ALL
SELECT 4
UNION ALL
SELECT 5
UNION ALL
SELECT 5
)
INSERT INTO temp_a (n) SELECT n FROM table_a;
WITH table_b (n) AS
(
SELECT 'valuex'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuey'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuez'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuew'
)
INSERT INTO temp_b (n) SELECT n FROM table_b;
SELECT *
FROM temp_a a
INNER JOIN temp_b b on a.rowid = b.rowid;
sqlfiddle:http://sqlfiddle.com/#!5/9eecb7/7252
It is possible to use the rowid inside a with statement but you need to select it and make it available to the query using it.
Something like this:
with tablea AS (
select id, rowid AS rid from someids),
tableb AS (
select details, rowid AS rid from somedetails)
select tablea.id, tableb.details
from
tablea
left join tableb on tablea.rid = tableb.rid;
It is however as they have already warned you a really bad idea. What if the app breaks after inserting in one table but before the other one? What if you delete an old row? If you want to join two tables you need to specify the field to do so. There are so many things that could go wrong with this design. The most similar thing to this would be an incremental id field that you would save in the table and use in your application. Even simpler, make those into one table.
Read this link for more information about the rowid: https://www.sqlite.org/lang_createtable.html#rowid
sqlfiddle: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!7/29fd8/1
It is possible to use the rowid inside a with statement but you need to select it and make it available to the query using it. Something like this:
with tablea AS (select id, rowid AS rid from someids),
tableb AS (select details, rowid AS rid from somedetails)
select tablea.id, tableb.details
from
tablea
left join tableb on tablea.rid = tableb.rid;
The problem statement indicates:
The tables are ordered
If this means that the ordering is defined by the ordering of the values in the UNION ALL statements, and if SQLite respects that ordering, then the following solution may be of interest because, apart from small tweaks to the last three lines of the sample program, it adds just two lines:
A(rid,n) AS (SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( ORDER BY 1 ) rid, n FROM table_a),
B(rid,s) AS (SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( ORDER BY 1 ) rid, s FROM table_b)
That is, table A is table_a augmented with a rowid, and similarly for table B.
Unfortunately, there is a caveat, though it might just be the result of my not having found the relevant specifications. Before delving into that, however, here is the full proposed solution:
WITH
table_a (n) AS (
SELECT 2
UNION ALL
SELECT 4
UNION ALL
SELECT 5
),
table_b (s) AS (
SELECT 'valuex'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuey'
UNION ALL
SELECT 'valuez'
),
A(rid,n) AS (SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( ORDER BY 1 ) rid, n FROM table_a),
B(rid,s) AS (SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER ( ORDER BY 1 ) rid, s FROM table_b)
SELECT A.n, B.s
FROM A LEFT JOIN B
ON ( A.rid = B.rid );
Caveat
The proposed solution has been tested against a variety of data sets using sqlite version 3.29.0, but whether or not it is, and will continue to be, "guaranteed" to work is unclear to me.
Of course, if SQLite offers no guarantees with respect to the ordering of the UNION ALL statements (that is, if the question is based on an incorrect assumption), then it would be interesting to see a well-founded reformulation.

SQL Join doesn't match all elements

I was solving this question: How can I randomly do a partial outer join in SQL At the end didnt work because can assign multiple times the same row.
But I have a behavior I can't explain where the query doesn't return the expected number of rows
SQL DEMO
WITH tableA as (
SELECT T.id
FROM ( VALUES (111), (222), (333), (444), (555) ) T(id)
), tableB as (
SELECT *, row_number() over (order by note) as rn
FROM ( VALUES ('a'), ('b'), ('c'), ('d'), ('e'),
('f'), ('g'), ('h'), ('i'), ('j'),
('k'), ('l'), ('m'), ('n'), ('o')
) T(note)
), parameter as (
SELECT 3 as row_limit, (SELECT MAX(rn) FROM tableB) as max_limit
), Nums AS (
SELECT n = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY [object_id])
FROM sys.all_objects
), random_id as (
SELECT tableA.*, T.n, floor(p.max_limit * RAND(convert(varbinary, newid()))) + 1 magic_number
FROM tableA
CROSS JOIN parameter p
CROSS JOIN (SELECT n
FROM Nums
CROSS JOIN parameter p
WHERE n <= p.row_limit ) T
)
-- SELECT * FROM random_id
SELECT R.*, note
FROM random_id R
JOIN tableB
ON R.magic_number = tableB.rn
ORDER BY id
The setup: tableA 5 rows, tableB 15 rows. 3 random tableB rows for each row in tableA. So in total should return 3 * 5 = 15 rows
I create a row_number() from 1 to 15 to match to the magic number
Create the random_id cte to assing three random number to each row of tableA. Here you can see the 15 rows with a random number, also show the problem when assign same value twice
SELECT * FROM random_id;
But the JOIN return a random number of rows. more and less than 15
SELECT R.*, note
FROM random_id R
JOIN tableB
ON R.magic_number = tableB.rn
ORDER BY id
But if I use LEFT JOIN instead always return 15 rows.
Question: If random_id cte always return 15 rows how JOIN return more rows, and how return less if all rn values are in the tableB.
And how LEFT JOIN always return 15 rows.
I just test another query where I include the n value and the JOIN
Unfortunately you would have to persist the rows that are using the magic_number to temporary table or other similar construct.
rextester demo here: http://rextester.com/ICS74177
Unfortunately persisting it to a temporary table does result in a loss of elegance of the answer you were attempting. I have run into the same situation in the past trying to do the same thing and encountered the same bug. It's both somewhat exciting and ultimately disappointing when you run into it for the first time, so congrats on that at least!
I can not explain it any better, so please upvote Paul White's answer here: https://dba.stackexchange.com/a/30348/43889
Reference:
bug with newid() and table expressions (ctes)
newid() In Joined Virtual Table Causes Unintended Cross Apply Behavior - Answer by Paul White

Make value from every second row appear in new 3rd column

Lets assume my data looks like this :
Every second row represents old (previous value) in a table that holds historical data.
table 1 :
id value
------------
1 a
1 b
2 c
2 d
3 a
3 b
and i want to get value of every second row to appear in new 3rd column like this :
table 2:
id new_value old_value
------------------------
1 a b
2 c d
3 a b
EDIT:
For clarity ill post the skeleton of query thats producing data i want to transform (so its clear i am already using WITH so cant use additional one due to oracle not yet allowing nesting of WITH elements) :
skeleton code that produces data in table 1 :
with candidates as
(
--select list of candidates
)
SELECT * FROM
(
(
--select new values
MINUS
--select old values
)
UNION
(
--select old values
MINUS
--select new values
)
)
ORDER BY id;
The goal is to finally get only a list of ids that changed with their old and new values.
Thanks in advance.
Use CTE
;WITH CTE AS(
SELECT *, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY ID ORDER BY ID) RN
FROM TableName
)
SELECT ID,
MIN(CASE WHEN RN=1 THEN [value] END) NewValue,
MIN(CASE WHEN RN=2 THEN [value] END) OldValue
FROM CTE
GROUP BY ID
It is quite possible that overall query can be written in a much simpler way. Just join intermediary results with old and new values together on id to put them in two different columns instead of unioning them into the same column.
WITH
candidates
AS
(
--select list of candidates
)
,CTE_NewValues
AS
(
--select new values
select id, value AS new_value
FROM candidates
WHERE ...
-- assumes id is unique, one row per id
)
,CTE_OldValues
AS
(
--select old values
select id, value AS old_value
FROM candidates
WHERE ...
-- assumes id is unique, one row per id
)
SELECT
CTE_NewValues.id
,CTE_NewValues.new_value
,CTE_OldValues.old_value
FROM
CTE_NewValues
INNER JOIN CTE_OldValues ON CTE_NewValues.id = CTE_OldValues.id
WHERE
CTE_NewValues.new_value <> CTE_OldValues.old_value
ORDER BY
CTE_NewValues.id;
If we stick to the skeleton of the query in the question, there are also many ways to do it. Self-join is likely to be less efficient than using analytic functions, like ROW_NUMBER and LEAD.
Sorting just by id is not enough to unambiguously define which value is new or old. You need to have some extra column to resolve it.
You don't "nest" WITH (common-table expressions), you "chain" them. Something like the following. As you do that, make sure to add the sort_order column to be able to distinguish old and new values, if you don't have a similar column already.
WITH
candidates
AS
(
--select list of candidates
)
,CTE_YourQuery
AS
(
SELECT * FROM
(
(
--select new values
select 1 AS sort_order, id, value
MINUS
--select old values
select 1 AS sort_order, id, value
)
UNION ALL
(
--select old values
select 2 AS sort_order, id, value
MINUS
--select new values
select 2 AS sort_order, id, value
)
)
)
,CTE_RowNumber
AS
(
SELECT
id
,value AS new_value
,ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY id ORDER BY sort_order) AS rn
,LEAD(value) OVER (PARTITION BY id ORDER BY sort_order) AS old_value
FROM CTE_YourQuery
)
SELECT
id
,new_value
,old_value
FROM CTE_RowNumber
WHERE rn = 1
ORDER BY id;
Assuming there is some other column which defines the "order" in which the new and old value appears, you can do this:
select t1.id, t1.value as old_value, t2.value as new_value
from the_table t1
join the_table t2 on t1.id = t2.id and t1.sort_order < t2.sort_order
But you have to have some column that distinguishes the row that is considered "old" from the one that is considered "new".