What do I have to change to get different results from different names.The table should give me the debts of each of them, this is calculated by the amount and the price of the drink. Now it should show all the names with the corresponding invoice that happens after the select
%sql select name, sum(getraenk.preis*schulden.menge) schulden from schulden \
join person on (fk_person = person.id)\
join getraenk on (fk_getraenk = getraenk.id)\
where name like ("dani")
Edit: it should spend all the names with their debts, that is:
dani = 8.5
michael = 12.5
...
Just in case your problem is very simple, you should be able to see all names and values with an SQL that looks like this:
select name, getraenk.preis*schulden.menge schulden
from schulden
join person on (fk_person = person.id)
join getraenk on (fk_getraenk = getraenk.id)
Note that I removed the where clause... this was the part that limited it to one name.
You also don't need the sum clause here unless you are doing a group by
Have you considered simply using GROUP BY name at the end of this query?
https://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_groupby.asp
This will give you the sum of total debt for all names in your table which sounds like the result you are looking for.
You're missing
GROUP BY name
in the query.
Related
I have the following tables below and their schema:
INV
id, product code, name, ucost, tcost, desc, type, qoh
1,123,CPASS 700,1.00,5.00,CPASS 700 Lorem, COM,5
2,456,Shelf 5,2.00,6.00,Shelf 5 KJ, BR,3
GRP
id,type,desc
1,COM,COMPASS
2,BR,SHELF
Currently I have a query like this:
SELECT INV.*,GRP.DESCR AS CATEGORY
FROM INV LEFT JOIN GRP ON INV.TYPE = GRP.TYPE
WHERE INV.QOH = 0
There is no problems with that query.
Right now,I want to know the SUM of the TCOST of every INV record where their QOH is 0.
In this situation, does that I mean all I have to do is to write a separate query like the one below:
SELECT SUM(TCOST)
FROM INV
WHERE QOH = 0
Does it make any sense for me to try and combine those two queries as one ?
First understand that SUM is the aggregate function hence either you can run the Query like
(SELECT SUM(TCOST) FROM INV WHERE QOH=0) as total
This will return Sum of TCOST in INV Table for mentioned condition.
Another approach is finding the Sum based on the some column (e.g. Type)
you could write query like
SELECT Type , SUM(TCOST) FROM INV WHERE QOH=0 GROUP BY type ;
Its not clear on what criteria you want to sum . But I think above two approaches would provide you fare idea .
Mmm, you could maybe use a correlated query, though i'm not sure it's the best approach since I'm not sure I understand what your attempting to do:
SELECT INV.*,
GRP.DESCR AS CATEGORY ,
(SELECT SUM(TCOST) FROM INV WHERE QOH=0) as your_sum
FROM INV LEFT JOIN GRP ON INV.TYPE = GRP.TYPE
WHERE INV.QOH = 0
If you want only one value for the sum(), then your query is fine. If you want a new column with the sum, then use window functions:
SELECT INV.*, GRP.DESCR AS CATEGORY,
SUM(INV.TCOST) OVER () as sum_at_zero
FROM INV LEFT JOIN
GRP
ON INV.TYPE = GRP.TYPE
WHERE INV.QOH = 0;
It does not make sense to combine the queries by adding a row to the first one, because the columns are very different. A SQL result set requires that all rows have the same columns.
I have a table "Bed" and a table "Component". Between those two I have a m:n relation and the table "BedComponent", where I store the Bed-ID and the Component-ID.
Every Component has a price. And now I want to write a select-statement that gives me the sum of prices for a certain bed.
This is what I have:
SELECT Bed.idBed, Bed.name, SUM(src.price) AS summe, Bed.idCustomer
FROM Bed,
(SELECT price
FROM dbo.Component AS C
WHERE (C.idComponent IN
(SELECT idComponent
FROM dbo.BedComponent AS BC
WHERE 1 = BC.idBed))) AS src
GROUP BY dbo.Bed.idBed, dbo.Bed.name, dbo.Bed.idCustomer;
This statement works. But of course I don't want to write the bed-ID hard coded into my select as it will always calculate the price for bed 1. Instead of the "1" i want to have the current bed-id.
I work with MS SQL Server
Thanks for your help.
I think you want:
select b.idBed, b.name, SUM(src.price) AS summe, b.idCustomer
from bed b join
bedcomponent bc
on b.idBed = bc.idBed join
component c
on c.idComponent = bc.idComponent
group by b.idBed, b.name, b.idCustomer;
The idCustomer looks strange to me in the select and group by, but I don't know what you are trying to achieve.
Also note the use of table aliases, which make the query easier to write and to read.
I'm learning SAP queries.
I want to get all the Measure documents from an equipement.
To do that, I use 3 tables :
EQUI, IMPTT, IMRG
The query works but I have all documents instead I only want to get the last one by Date. But I can't do that. I'm sure that I have to add a custom field, but I have tried but none of them works.
For example, my last code :
select min( IMRG~INVTS ) IMRG~RECDV
from IMRG inner join IMPTT on
IMRG~POINT = IMPTT~POINT into (INVTS, IMRGVAL)
where IMRG~POINT = IMPTT-POINT AND
IMPTT~MPOBJ = EQUI-OBJNR
and IMRG~CANCL = '' group by IMRG~MDOCM IMRG~RECDV.
ENDSELECT.
Thanks for your help.
You will need to get the date from IMRG, and the inverted timestamp field, so the MIN() of this will be the most recent - that looks correct.
However your GROUP BY looks wrong. You should be grouping on the IMPTT~POINT field so that you get one record per measurement point. Note that one Point IMPTT can have many measurements (IMRG), so something like this:
SELECT EQUI-OBJNR, IMPTT~POINT, MIN(IMRG~IMRC_INVTS)
...
GROUP BY EQUI-OBJNR, IMPTT~POINT
If I got you correctly, you are trying to get the freshest measurement of the equipment disregard of measurement point. So you can try this query, which is not so beautiful, but it just works.
SELECT objnr COUNT(*) MIN( invts )
FROM equi AS eq
JOIN imptt AS tt
ON tt~mpobj = eq~objnr
JOIN imrg AS ig
ON ig~point = tt~point
INTO (wa_objnr, count, wa_invts)
WHERE ig~cancl = ''
GROUP BY objnr.
SELECT SINGLE recdv FROM imrg JOIN imptt ON imptt~point = imrg~point INTO wa_imrgval WHERE invts = wa_invts AND imptt~mpobj = wa_objnr.
WRITE: / wa_objnr, count, wa_invts, wa_imrgval.
ENDSELECT.
I've got the code below which displays the location_id and total number of antisocial crimes but I would like to get the location_name from a different table called location_dim be output as well. I tried to find a way to UNION it but couldn't get it to work. Any ideas?
SELECT fk5_location_id , COUNT(fk3_crime_id) as TOTAL_ANTISOCIAL_CRIMES
from CRIME_FACT
WHERE fk1_time_id = 3 AND fk3_crime_id = 1
GROUP BY fk5_location_id;
You want to use join to lookup the location name. The query would probably look like this:
SELECT ld.location_name, COUNT(cf.fk3_crime_id) as TOTAL_ANTISOCIAL_CRIMES
from CRIME_FACT cf join
LOCATION_DIM ld
on cf.fk5_location_id = ld.location_id
WHERE cf.fk1_time_id = 3 AND cf.fk3_crime_id = 1
GROUP BY ld.location_name;
You need to put in the right column names for ld.location_name and ld.location_id.
you need to find a relationship between the two tables to link a location to crime. that way you could use a "join" and select the fields from each table you are interested in.
I suggest taking a step back and reading up on the fundamentals of relational databases. There are many good books out there which is the perfect place to start.
I have a PHP page running in postgres. I have 3 tables - workorders, wo_parts and part2vendor. I am trying to multiply 2 table column row datas together, ie wo_parts has a field called qty and part2vendor has a field called cost. These 2 are joined by wo_parts.pn and part2vendor.pn. I have created a query like this:
$scoreCostQuery = "SELECT SUM(part2vendor.cost*wo_parts.qty) as total_score
FROM part2vendor
INNER JOIN wo_parts
ON (wo_parts.pn=part2vendor.pn)
WHERE workorder=$workorder";
But if I add the costs of the parts multiplied by the qauntities supplied, it adds to a different number than what the script is doing. Help....I am new to this but if someone can show me in SQL I can modify it for postgres. Thanks
Without seeing example data, there's no way for us to know why you're query totals are coming out differently that when you do the math by hand. It could be a bad join, so you are getting more/less records than you expected. It's also possible that your calculations are off. Pick an example with the smallest number of associated records & compare.
My suggestion is to add a GROUP BY to the query:
SELECT SUM(p.cost * wp.qty) as total_score
FROM part2vendor p
JOIN wo_parts wp ON wp.pn = p.pn
WHERE workorder = $workorder
GROUP BY workorder
FYI: MySQL was designed to allow flexibility in the GROUP BY, while no other db I've used does - it's a source of numerous questions on SO "why does this work in MySQL when it doesn't work on db x...".
To Check that your Quantities are correct:
SELECT wp.qty,
p.cost
FROM WO_PARTS wp
JOIN PART2VENDOR p ON p.pn = wp.pn
WHERE p.workorder = $workorder
Check that the numbers are correct for a given order.
You could try a sub-query instead.
(Note, I don't have a Postgres installation to test this on so consider this more like pseudo code than a working example... It does work in MySQL tho)
SELECT
SUM(p.`score`) AS 'total_score'
FROM part2vendor AS p2v
INNER JOIN (
SELECT pn, cost * qty AS `score`
FROM wo_parts
) AS p
ON p.pn = p2v.pn
WHERE p2n.workorder=$workorder"
In the question, you say the cost column is in part2vendor, but in the query you reference wo_parts.cost. If the wo_parts table has its own cost column, that's the source of the problem.