I need to perform a group by and only including if at least one observation matches the constraint. Like I have tried to describe below.
SELECT {some variables}
FROM my_table
GROUP BY A
HAVING {at least 1 row with status='started'}
My initial guess to replace was "at least 1 row with status='started'" was "bool_or(status='started')". Which doesn't work.
Do any of you have a sugestion?
EDIT:
SELECT {some variables}
FROM my_table
GROUP BY A
HAVING bool_or(status='started');
Works fine. The reason it not work for me, was that I used the wrong quotation mark. Thanks for your help and sorry for the inconvenience.
having bool_or(status = 'started') is a nice option in Postgres, and probably your best pick here.
It is actually equivalent to:
having max( (status = 'started')::int ) = 1
For the sake of completness: in standard SQL, you would phrase this with a case expression:
having max(case when status = 'started' then 1 end) = 1
Related
This select statement takes a long time running, after my investigation I found that the problem un subquery, stored procedure, please I appreciate your help.
SELECT DISTINCT
COKE_CHQ_NUMBER,
COKE_PAY_SUPPLIER
FROM
apps.Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_SIGN_STATUS_V
WHERE
plan_id = 40192
AND COKE_SIGNATURE__A = 'YES'
AND COKE_SIGNATURE__B = 'YES'
AND COKE_AUDIT = 'YES'
AND COKE_CHQ_NUMBER NOT IN (SELECT DISTINCT COKE_CHQ_NUMBER_DELIVER
FROM apps.Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_DELIVERY_ST_V
WHERE UPPER(COKE_CHQ_NUMBER_DELIVER_STATUS) <> 'DELIVERED')
AND COKE_CHQ_NUMBER NOT IN (SELECT COKE_CHQ_NUMBER_DELIVER
FROM apps.Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_DELIVERY_ST_V)
Well there are a few issues with your SELECT statement that you should address:
First let's look at this condition:
COKE_CHQ_NUMBER NOT IN (SELECT DISTINCT COKE_CHQ_NUMBER_DELIVER
FROM apps.Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_DELIVERY_ST_V
WHERE UPPER(COKE_CHQ_NUMBER_DELIVER_STATUS) <> 'DELIVERED')
First you select DISTINCT cheque numbers with a not delivered status then you say you don't want this. Rather than saying I don't want non delivered it is much more readable to say I want delivered ones. However this is not really an issue but rather it would make your SELECT easier to read and understand.
Second let's look at your second cheque condition:
COKE_CHQ_NUMBER NOT IN (SELECT COKE_CHQ_NUMBER_DELIVER
FROM apps.Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_DELIVERY_ST_V)
Here you want to exclude all cheques that have an entry in Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_DELIVERY_ST_V. This makes your first DISTINCT condition redundant as whatever cheques numbers will bring back would be rejected by this second condition of yours. I do't know if Oracle SQL engine is clever enough to work out this redundancy but this could cause your slowness as SELECT distinct can take longer to run
In addition to this if you don't have them already I would recommend adding the following indexes:
CREATE INDEX index_1 ON q_coke_ap_checks_sign_status_v(coke_chq_number, coke_pay_supplier);
CREATE INDEX index_2 ON q_coke_ap_checks_sign_status_v(plan_id, coke_signature__a, coke_signature__b, coke_audit);
CREATE INDEX index_3 ON q_coke_ap_checks_delivery_st_v(coke_chq_number_deliver);
I called the index_1,2,3 for easy to read obviously not a good naming convention.
With this in place your select should be optimized to retrieve you your data in an acceptable performance. But of course it all depends on the size and the distribution of your data which is hard to control without performing specific data analysis.
looking to you code .. seems you have redundant where condition the second NOT IN implies the firts so you could avoid
you could also transform you NOT IN clause in a MINUS clause .. join the same query with INNER join of you not in subquery
and last be careful you have proper composite index on table
Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_SIGN_STATUS_V
cols (plan_id,COKE_SIGNATURE__A , COKE_SIGNATURE__B, COKE_AUDIT, COKE_CHQ_NUMBER, COKE_PAY_SUPPLIER)
SELECT DISTINCT
COKE_CHQ_NUMBER,
COKE_PAY_SUPPLIER
FROM
apps.Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_SIGN_STATUS_V
WHERE
plan_id = 40192
AND COKE_SIGNATURE__A = 'YES'
AND COKE_SIGNATURE__B = 'YES'
AND COKE_AUDIT = 'YES'
MINUS
SELECT DISTINCT
COKE_CHQ_NUMBER,
COKE_PAY_SUPPLIER
FROM apps.Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_SIGN_STATUS_V
INNER JOIN (
SELECT COKE_CHQ_NUMBER_DELIVER
FROM apps.Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_DELIVERY_ST_V
) T ON T.COKE_CHQ_NUMBER_DELIVER = apps.Q_COKE_AP_CHECKS_SIGN_STATUS_V
WHERE
plan_id = 40192
AND COKE_SIGNATURE__A = 'YES'
AND COKE_SIGNATURE__B = 'YES'
AND COKE_AUDIT = 'YES'
SELECT DISTINCT Invoice.InvNo, Invoice.OrderNo, Part.PartNo,
orders.orddate AS Order_Date, Invoice.InvDate AS Bill_Date,
MiscChg.Descr, MiscChg.RegFee, Invoice.InvAmt,
Orders.ClaimNo, Firm.FirmName AS Ordering_Firm,
**oppatty.attyid(WHERE oppatty.attyfor = 13)**, Location.Name1 AS Location
The bolded section is the part I'm having trouble with. I know what I have isn't right, but it demonstrates what I would like to accomplish. In the oppatty table, there could be several items listed. I want it to only display "AttyID for the entry that has an ATTYFOR = 13".
Hope this make sense, thanks
Jack
You need to add a CASE WHEN to the select statement.
SELECT DISTINCT
Invoice.InvNo,
Invoice.OrderNo,
Part.PartNo,
orders.orddate AS Order_Date,
Invoice.InvDate AS Bill_Date,
MiscChg.Descr,
MiscChg.RegFee,
Invoice.InvAmt,
Orders.ClaimNo,
Firm.FirmName AS Ordering_Firm,
CASE WHEN oppatty.AttyFor = 13
THEN oppatty.AttyId
ELSE '' END AS attyfor,
Location.Name1 AS Location
FROM
.........
This will display the AttyId field when the row's AttyFor field is equal to 13 and show an empty string when it's not.
Your query has no from or where clause and your question is a bit jumbled, but even so, I think I understand what you want to do. Assuming it's acceptable to fill the "AttyID" values with null where "AttyFor" isn't equal to 13, then you could just use a case statement. Try something like this
select
stuff.things,
case
where oppatty.attyfor <> 13 then null
else oppatty.attyid
end as attyid,
stuff.others
from
oppatty
join stuff on oppatty.ID = stuff.ID
If that's not your desired result, and you'd rather entirely exclude rows where "AttyFor" isnt equal to 13, then just use a where clause.
select
stuff.things,
oppatty.attyid,
stuff.others
from
oppatty
join stuff on oppatty.ID = stuff.ID
where
oppatty.attyfor = 13
I have the following sql statement and I want to update a field on the rows returned from the select statement. Is this possible with my select? The things I have tried are not giving me the desired results:
SELECT
Flows_Flows.FlowID,
Flows_Flows.Active,
Flows_Flows.BeatID,
Flows_Flows.FlowTitle,
Flows_Flows.FlowFileName,
Flows_Flows.FlowFilePath,
Flows_Users.UserName,
Flows_Users.DisplayName,
Flows_Users.ImageName,
Flows_Flows.Created,
SUM(CASE WHEN [Like] = 1 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS Likes,
SUM(CASE WHEN [Dislike] = 1 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS Dislikes
FROM Flows_Flows
INNER JOIN Flows_Users ON Flows_Users.UserID = Flows_Flows.UserID
LEFT JOIN Flows_Flows_Likes_Dislikes ON
Flows_Flows.FlowID=Flows_Flows_Likes_Dislikes.FlowID
WHERE Flows_Flows.Active = '1' AND Flows_Flows.Created < DATEADD(day, -60, GETDATE())
Group By Flows_Flows.FlowID, Flows_Flows.Active, Flows_Flows.BeatID,
Flows_Flows.FlowTitle, Flows_Flows.FlowFileName, Flows_Flows.FlowFilePath,
Flows_Users.UserName, Flows_Users.DisplayName, Flows_Users.ImageName,
Flows_Flows.Created
Having SUM(CASE WHEN [Like] = 1 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) = '0' AND SUM(CASE WHEN [Dislike] = 1
THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) >= '0'
This select statement returns exactly what I need but I want to change the Active field from 1 to 0.
yes - the general structure might be like this: (note you don't declare your primary key)
UPDATE mytable
set myCol = 1
where myPrimaryKey in (
select myPrimaryKey from mytable where interesting bits happen here )
Because you haven't made your question more clear in what result you want to achieve, I'll provide an answer with my own assumptions.
Assumption
You have a select statement that gives you stuffs, and it works as desired. What you want it to do is to make it return results and update those selected rows on the fly - basically like saying "find X, tell me about X and make it Y".
Anwser
If my assumption is correct, unfortunately I don't think there is any way you can do that. A select does not alter the table, it can only fetch information. Similarly, an update does not provide more detail than the number of rows updated.
But don't give up yet, depending on the result you want to achieve, you have alternatives.
Alternatives
If you just want to update the rows that you have selected, you can
simply write an UPDATE statement to do that, and #Randy has provided
a good example of how it will be written.
If you want to reduce calls to server, meaning you want to make just
one call to the server and get result, as well as to update the
rows, you can write store procedures to do that.
Store procedures are like functions you wrote in programming languages. It essentially defines a set of sql operations and gives them a name. Each time you call that store procedure, the set of operations gets executed with supplied inputs, if any.
So if you want to learn more about store procedures you can take a look at:
http://www.mysqltutorial.org/introduction-to-sql-stored-procedures.aspx
If I understand correctly you are looking for a syntax to be able to select the value of Active to be 0 if it is 1. The syntax for something like that is
SELECT
Active= CASE WHEN Active=1 THEN 0 ELSE Active END
FROM
<Tables>
WHERE
<JOIN Conditions>
I get an error unless I remove one of the count(distinct ...). Can someone tell me why and how to fix it?
I'm in vfp. iif([condition],[if true],[else]) is equivalent to case when
SELECT * FROM dpgift where !nocalc AND rectype = "G" AND sol = "EM112" INTO CURSOR cGift
SELECT
list_code,
count(distinct iif(language != 'F' AND renew = '0' AND type = 'IN',donor,0)) as d_Count_E_New_Indiv,
count(distinct iif(language = 'F' AND renew = '0' AND type = 'IN',donor,0)) as d_Count_F_New_Indiv /*it works if i remove this*/
FROM cGift gift
LEFT JOIN
(select didnumb, language, type from dp) d
on cast(gift.donor as i) = cast(d.didnumb as i)
GROUP BY list_code
ORDER by list_code
edit:
apparently, you can't use multiple distinct commands on the same level. Any way around this?
VFP does NOT support two "DISTINCT" clauses in the same query... PERIOD... I've even tested on a simple table of my own, DIRECTLY from within VFP such as
select count( distinct Col1 ) as Cnt1, count( distinct col2 ) as Cnt2 from MyTable
causes a crash. I don't know why you are trying to do DISTINCT as you are just testing a condition... I more accurately appears you just want a COUNT of entries per each category of criteria instead of actually DISTINCT
Because you are not "alias.field" referencing your columns in your query, I don't know which column is the basis of what. However, to help handle your DISTINCT, and it appears you are running from WITHIN a VFP app as you are using the "INTO CURSOR" clause (which would not be associated with any OleDB .net development), I would pre-query and group those criteria, something like...
select list_code,
donor,
max( iif( language != 'F' and renew = '0' and type = 'IN', 1, 0 )) as EQualified,
max( iif( language = 'F' and renew = '0' and type = 'IN', 1, 0 )) as FQualified
from
list_code
group by
list_code,
donor
into
cursor cGroupedByDonor
so the above will ONLY get a count of 1 per donor per list code, no matter how many records that qualify. In addition, if one record as an "F" and another does NOT, then you'll have a value of 1 in EACH of the columns... Then you can do something like...
select
list_code,
sum( EQualified ) as DistEQualified,
sum( FQualified ) as DistFQualified
from
cGroupedByDonor
group by
list_code
into
cursor cDistinctByListCode
then run from that...
You can try using either another derived table or two to do the calculations you need, or using projections (queries in the field list). Without seeing the schema, it's hard to know which one will work for you.
Here is the select statement I'm using. The problem happens with the sorting. When it is like below, it only sorts by t2.userdb_user_first_name, doesn't matter if I put that first or second. When I remove that, it sorts just fine by the displayorder field value pair. So I know that part is working, but somehow the combination of the two causes the first_name to override it. What I want is for the records to be sorted by displayorder first, and then first_name within that.
SELECT t1.userdb_id
FROM default_en_userdbelements as t1
INNER JOIN default_en_userdb AS t2 ON t1.userdb_id = t2.userdb_id
WHERE t1.userdbelements_field_name = 'newproject'
AND t1.userdbelements_field_value = 'no'
AND t2.userdb_user_first_name!='Default'
ORDER BY
(t1.userdbelements_field_name = 'displayorder' AND t1.userdbelements_field_value),
t2.userdb_user_first_name;
Edit: here is what I want to accomplish. I want to list the users (that are not new projects) from the userdb table, along with the details about the users that is stored in userdbelements. And I want that to be sorted first by userdbelements.displayorder, then by userdb.first_name. I hope that makes sense? Thanks for the really quick help!
Edit: Sorry for disappearing, here is some sample data
userdbelements
userdbelements_id userdbelements_field_name userdbelements_field_value userdb_id
647 heat 1
648 displayorder 1 - Sponsored 1
645 condofees 1
userdb
userdb_id userdb_user_name userdb_emailaddress userdb_user_first_name userdb_user_last_name
10 harbourlights info#harbourlightscondosminium.ca Harbourlights 1237 Northshore Blvd, Burlington
11 harbourview info#harbourviewcondominium.ca Harbourview 415 Locust Street, Burlington
12 thebalmoral info#thebalmoralcondominium.ca The Balmoral 2075 & 2085 Amherst Heights Drive, Burlington
You are trying to use an invalid ORDER BY.
ORDER BY (t1.userdbelements_field_name = 'displayorder' AND t1.userdbelements_field_value)
It must reference a table column or returned aliased column.
I really cannot follow how this query would even be possible as you already have limited
t1.userdbelements_field_name = newproject and then you wish to order by the case of it being equal to displayorder.
Could you please modify your question to state exactly what it is that you are trying to accomplish in your order by clause?
From what I understand, you'd have to join to default_en_userdbelements solely for the displayorder value. However, I suspect there's something wrong with your query and that it probably returns duplicate values for userdb_id.
Perhaps you should say what you're trying to actually do, not explain the way you're trying to do it.
SELECT t1.userdb_id
FROM default_en_userdbelements AS t1
JOIN default_en_userdb AS t2 ON t1.userdb_id = t2.userdb_id
JOIN default_en_userdbelements AS o ON (o.userdb_id, o.userdbelements_field_name)
= (t1.userdb_id, 'displayorder')
WHERE t1.userdbelements_field_name = 'newproject'
AND t1.userdbelements_field_value = 'no'
AND t2.userdb_user_first_name != 'Default'
ORDER BY o.userdbelements_field_value,
t2.userdb_user_first_name
You could do something like this:
ORDER BY
(CASE WHEN t1.userdbelements_field_name = 'displayorder'
THEN t1.userdbelements_field_value
ELSE $some_large_number
END),
t2.userdb_user_first_name;
It sorts using the value of t1.userdbelements_field_value when t1.userdbelements_field_name = 'displayorder', but you have to supply some other value of the same type to apply for the ELSE.