I have two tables. Like this.
select * from extrafieldvalues;
+----------------------------+
| id | value | type | idItem |
+----------------------------+
| 1 | 100 | 1 | 10 |
| 2 | 150 | 2 | 10 |
| 3 | 101 | 1 | 11 |
| 4 | 90 | 2 | 11 |
+----------------------------+
select * from items
+------------+
| id | name |
+------------+
| 10 | foo |
| 11 | bar |
+------------+
I need to make a query and get something like this:
+--------------------------------------+
| idItem | valtype1 | valtype2 | name |
+--------------------------------------+
| 10 | 100 | 150 | foo |
| 11 | 101 | 90 | bar |
+--------------------------------------+
The quantity of types of extra field values is variable, but every item ALWAYS uses every extra field.
If you have only two fields, then left join is an option for this:
select i.*, efv1.value as value_1, efv2.value as value_2
from items i left join
extrafieldvalues efv1
on efv1.iditem = i.id and
efv1.type = 1 left join
extrafieldvalues efv2
on efv1.iditem = i.id and
efv1.type = 2 ;
In terms of performance, two joins are probably faster than an aggregation -- and it makes it easier to bring in more columns from items. One the other hand, conditional aggregation generalizes more easily and the performance changes by little as more columns from extrafieldvalues are added to the select.
Use conditional aggregation
select iditem,
max(case when type=1 then value end) as valtype1,
max(case when type=2 then value end) as valtype2,name
from extrafieldvalues a inner join items b on a.iditem=b.id
group by iditem,name
Related
I have a Table (A) with some intervals from start_val to end_val with an attribute for that range of values.
I want a Table (B) in which each row is a number in the interval of start_val to end_val with the attribute of that range.
I need to do that using SQL.
Exemple
Table A:
+---------+--------+----------+
|start_val| end_val| attribute|
+---------+--------+----------+
| 10 | 12 | 1 |
| 20 | 23 | 2 |
+---------+--------+----------+
Table B (Expected result):
+---------+----------+
|start_val| attribute|
|end_val | |
| interv | |
+---------+----------+
| 10 | 1 |
| 11 | 1 |
| 12 | 1 |
| 20 | 2 |
| 21 | 2 |
| 22 | 2 |
| 23 | 2 |
+---------+----------+
Here is a way to do this
select m.start_val + n -1 as start_val_computed
,m.attribute
from t m
join lateral generate_series(1,(m.end_val-m.start_val)+1) n
on 1=1
+--------------------+-----------+
| start_val_computed | attribute |
+--------------------+-----------+
| 10 | 1 |
| 11 | 1 |
| 12 | 1 |
| 20 | 2 |
| 21 | 2 |
| 22 | 2 |
| 23 | 2 |
+--------------------+-----------+
working example
https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_12&fiddle=ce9e13765b5a4c3616d95ec659c1dfc9
You may use a calendar table approach:
SELECT
t1.val,
t2.attribute
FROM generate_series(10, 23) AS t1(val)
INNER JOIN TableA t2
ON t1.val BETWEEN t2.start_val AND t2.end_val
ORDER BY
t2.attribute,
t1.val;
Note: You may expand the bounds in the above call to generate_series to cover whatever range you think your data would need.
This is a variant of George's solution, but it is a bit simpler:
select n, m.attribute
from t m cross join lateral
generate_series(m.start_val, m.end_val) n;
The changes are:
CROSS JOIN instead of JOIN. So, no need for an ON clause.
No arithmetic in the GENERATE_SERIES().
No arithmetic in the SELECT.
You can just call the result of GENERATE_SERIES() whatever name you want in the result set.
Postgres actually allows you to put GENERATE_SERIES() in the SELECT:
select generate_series(m.start_val, m.end_val) as n, m.attribute
from t m;
However, I am not a fan of putting row generating functions anywhere other than the FROM clause. I just find it confusing to figure out what the query is doing.
Problem description
Let the tables C and V have those values
>> Table V <<
| UnID | BillID | ProductDesc | Value | ... |
| 1 | 1 | 'Orange Juice' | 3.05 | ... |
| 1 | 1 | 'Apple Juice' | 3.05 | ... |
| 1 | 2 | 'Pizza' | 12.05 | ... |
| 1 | 2 | 'Chocolates' | 9.98 | ... |
| 1 | 2 | 'Honey' | 15.98 | ... |
| 1 | 3 | 'Bread' | 3.98 | ... |
| 2 | 1 | 'Yogurt' | 8.55 | ... |
| 2 | 1 | 'Ice Cream' | 7.05 | ... |
| 2 | 1 | 'Beer' | 9.98 | ... |
| 2 | 2 | 'League of Legends RP' | 40.00 | ... |
>> Table C <<
| UnID | BillID | ClientName | ... |
| 1 | 1 | 'Alexander' | ... |
| 1 | 2 | 'Tom' | ... |
| 1 | 3 | 'Julia' | ... |
| 2 | 1 | 'Tom' | ... |
| 2 | 2 | 'Alexander' | ... |
Table C have the values of each product, which is associated with a bill number. Table V has the relationship between the client name and the bill number. However, the bill number has a counter that is dependent on the UnId, which is the store unity ID. That being said, each store has it`s own Bill number 1, number 2, etc. Also, the number of bills from each store are not equal.
Solution description
I'm trying to make select between the C left join V without sucess. Because each BillID is dependent on the UnID, I have to make the join considering the concatenation between those two columns.
I've used this script, but it gives me an error.
SELECT
SUM(C.Value),
V.ClientName
FROM
C
LEFT JOIN
V
ON
CONCAT(C.UnID, C.BillID) = CONCAT(V.UnID, V.BillID)
GROUP BY
V.ClientName
and SQL server returns me this 'CONCAT' is not a recognized built-in function name.
I'm using Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2
Is the use of CONCAT wrong? Or is it the way I tried to SELECT? Could you give me a hand?
[OBS: The tables I've present you are just for the purpose of explaining my difficulties. That being said, if you find any errors in the explanation, please let me know to correct them.]
You should be joining on the equality of the UnID and BillID columns in the two tables:
SELECT
c.ClientName,
COALESCE(SUM(v.Value), 0) AS total
FROM C c
LEFT JOIN V v
ON c.UnID = v.UnID AND
c.BillID = v.BillID
GROUP BY
c.ClientName;
In theory you could try joining on CONCAT(UnID, BillID). However, you could run into problems. For example, UnID = 1 with BillID = 23 would, concatenated together, be the same as UnID = 12 and BillID = 3.
Note: We wrap the sum with COALESCE, because should a given client have no entries in the V table, the sum would return NULL, which we then replace with zero.
concat is only available in sql server 2012.
Here's one option.
SELECT
SUM(C.Value),
V.ClientName
FROM
C
LEFT JOIN
V
ON
cast(C.UnID as varchar(100)) + cast(C.BillID as varchar(100)) = cast(V.UnID as varchar(100)) + cast(V.BillID as varchar(100))
GROUP BY
V.ClientName
Let's imagine a table with two columns ex:
| Value | ID |
+-------+----+
| 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 2 |
What I am trying to do is to calculate the sum of those with similar id and display them in different table like:
| Sum | ID |
+-----+----+
| 9 | 1 |
| 5 | 2 |
and so on.
I could find a sum of a known id by
SELECT SUM(VALUE) FROM MYTABLE WHERE ID = 1;
However not sure on how to find sum of different id's separately, could you give an idea on how to proceed?
Select SUM(VALUE),ID FROM MYTABLE GROUP BY ID
Use GROUP BY clause:
SELECT SUM(VALUE) Sum, ID FROM MYTABLE GROUP BY ID;
SELECT SUM(VALUE),ID FROM MYTABLE Group By ID
I would like to filter my table by MIN() function but still keep columns which cant be grouped.
I have table:
+----+----------+----------------------+
| ID | distance | geom |
+----+----------+----------------------+
| 1 | 2 | DSDGSAsd23423DSFF |
| 2 | 11.2 | SXSADVERG678BNDVS4 |
| 2 | 2 | XCZFETEFD567687SDF |
| 3 | 24 | SADASDSVG3423FD |
| 3 | 10 | SDFSDFSDF343DFDGF |
| 4 | 34 | SFDHGHJ546GHJHJHJ |
| 5 | 22 | SDFSGTHHGHGFHUKJYU45 |
| 6 | 78 | SDFDGDHKIKUI45 |
| 6 | 15 | DSGDHHJGHJKHGKHJKJ65 |
+----+----------+----------------------+
This is what I would like to achieve:
+----+----------+----------------------+
| ID | distance | geom |
+----+----------+----------------------+
| 1 | 2 | DSDGSAsd23423DSFF |
| 2 | 2 | XCZFETEFD567687SDF |
| 3 | 10 | SDFSDFSDF343DFDGF |
| 4 | 34 | SFDHGHJ546GHJHJHJ |
| 5 | 22 | SDFSGTHHGHGFHUKJYU45 |
| 6 | 15 | DSGDHHJGHJKHGKHJKJ65 |
+----+----------+----------------------+
it is possible when I use MIN() on distance column and grouping by ID but then I loose my geom which is essential.
The query looks like this:
SELECT "ID", MIN(distance) AS distance FROM somefile GROUP BY "ID"
the result is:
+----+----------+
| ID | distance |
+----+----------+
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 10 |
| 4 | 34 |
| 5 | 22 |
| 6 | 15 |
+----+----------+
but this is not what I want.
Any suggestions?
One common approach to this is to find the minimum values in a derived table that you join with:
SELECT somefile."ID", somefile.distance, somefile.geom
FROM somefile
JOIN (
SELECT "ID", MIN(distance) AS distance FROM somefile GROUP BY "ID"
) t ON t.distance = somefile.distance AND t.ID = somefile.ID;
Sample SQL Fiddle
You need a window function to do this:
SELECT "ID", distance, geom
FROM (
SELECT "ID", distance, geom, rank() OVER (PARTITION BY "ID" ORDER BY distance) AS rnk
FROM somefile) sub
WHERE rnk = 1;
This effectively orders the entire set of rows first by the "ID" value, then by the distance and returns the record for each "ID" where the distance is minimal - no need to do a GROUP BY.
select a.*,b.geom from
(SELECT ID, MIN(distance) AS distance FROM somefile GROUP BY ID) as a
inner join somefile as b on a.id=b.id and a.distance=b.distance
You can use "distinct on" clause of the PostgreSQL.
select distinct on(id) id, distance, geom
from table_name
order by distance;
I think this is what you are exactly looking for.
For more details on how "distinct on" works, refer the documentation and the example.
But, remember, using "distinct on" does not comply to SQL standards.
I have two tables:
1. Master
| ID | Name | Amount |
|-----|--------|--------|
| 1 | a | 5000 |
| 2 | b | 10000 |
| 3 | c | 5000 |
| 4 | d | 8000 |
2. Detail
| ID |MasterID| PID | Qty |
|-----|--------|-------|------|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 20 |
| 3 | 2 | 2 | 60 |
| 4 | 2 | 3 | 10 |
| 5 | 3 | 4 | 100 |
| 6 | 4 | 1 | 20 |
| 7 | 4 | 3 | 40 |
I want to select sum(Amount) from Master which joins to Deatil where Detail.PID in (1,2,3)
So I execute the following query:
SELECT SUM(Amount) FROM Master M INNER JOIN Detail D ON M.ID = D.MasterID WHERE D.PID IN (1,2,3)
Result should be 20000. But I am getting 40000
See this fiddle. Any suggestion?
You are getting exactly double the amount because the detail table has two occurences for each of the PIDs in the WHERE clause.
See demo
Use
SELECT SUM(Amount)
FROM Master M
WHERE M.ID IN (
SELECT DISTINCT MasterID
FROM DETAIL
WHERE PID IN (1,2,3) )
What is the requirement of joining the master table with details when you have all your columns are in Master table.
Also, isnt there any FK relationhsip defined on these tables. Looking at your data it seems to me that there should be FK on detail table for MasterId. If that is the case then you do not need join the table at all.
Also, in case you want to make sure that you have records in details table for the records for which you need sum and there is no FK relationship. Then you could give a try for exists instead of join.