Find all teams that only won 1 game in tourney #3 (1 column, 4 rows)
My thought process to create this query is that I need to count (WonGame)s for each Team. And that that number cannot be has to equal 1. But When I run my query I get no results (I should get 4 teams).
Experimenting with my query I changed the equals to a greater than and that returned 8 results. So I don't understand why equals 1 returns no results.
Also I checked my Data and there is indeed 4 teams that one only one game during Tournament #3.
select Teams.TeamName
from Teams
join Bowlers on Teams.TeamID = Bowlers.TeamID
join Bowler_Scores on Bowlers.BowlerID = Bowler_Scores.BowlerID
join Match_Games on Bowler_Scores.GameNumber = Match_Games.GameNumber
join Tourney_Matches on Match_Games.MatchID = Tourney_Matches.MatchID
where Tourney_Matches.TourneyID = 3
group by Teams.TeamName
having count(Bowler_Scores.WonGame) = 1;
Bowling League DB Structure
Bowling League Data
The diagram seems to indicate that the relationship between Match_Games and Bowler_Scores is on BOTH of MatchID and GameNumber
If you change your JOIN conditions to be both columns
join Match_Games on Bowler_Scores.GameNumber = Match_Games.GameNumber and Bowler_Scores.MatchID = Match_Games.MatchID
Then you might get the required answer.
I can only speculate on what your data really looks like. However, it is doubtful that this expression:
having count(Bowler_Scores.WonGame) = 1;
does what you want. This counts the number of non-NULL values. Presumably, WonGame as some value such as "1" or "W" for the winner. If the value were 1, then the correct expression would be:
having sum(Bowler_Scores.WonGame) = 1
This is just speculation though without a better description of your data.
EDIT:
Based on the comment:
having sum(convert(int, Bowler_Scores.WonGame)) = 1
Related
I have the following data in table VehiclesAccSummary:
I am not sure how to do this but what I want is a query that would return all rows where there where only two car in the accident and it was a head on crash so in both cars PointOfImpact was 'Front' i know in need to do some inner join on the same table but i don' want to join same car with it self. Any idea ?
The end result should be something like this
You can use a subquery to count the number of "Front' records for each AccRef.
SELECT *
FROM VehiclesAccSummary INNER JOIN
(SELECT VehiclesAccSummary.AccRef, Count(VehiclesAccSummary.PointOfImpact) AS CountOfPointOfImpact FROM VehiclesAccSummary GROUP BY VehiclesAccSummary.AccRef, VehiclesAccSummary.PointOfImpact HAVING VehiclesAccSummary.PointOfImpact="Front") AS FrontCount
ON VehiclesAccSummary.AccRef = FrontCount.AccRef
WHERE VehiclesAccSummary.NumCars = 2 AND CountOfPointOfImpact = 2;
This will limit the records to AccRefs with NumCar = 2 and the count of Front records = 2.
Edit: Since the same car can be listed in multiple records, we need a new approach. Try this:
SELECT VehiclesAccSummary.*, Subquery.CountOfPointOfImpact
FROM VehiclesAccSummary LEFT JOIN (SELECT VehiclesAccSummary.AccRef, Count(VehiclesAccSummary.PointOfImpact) AS CountOfPointOfImpact
FROM VehiclesAccSummary
WHERE (((VehiclesAccSummary.PointOfImpact)<>"Front"))
GROUP BY VehiclesAccSummary.AccRef) AS Subquery ON VehiclesAccSummary.AccRef = Subquery.AccRef
WHERE (((Subquery.CountOfPointOfImpact) Is Null));
Instead of confirming that the count of front accidents is 2, this confirms that the count of non-front accidents is 0.
I have one main table and join other tables via left outer or right outer outer join.One row of main table have over 30 row in join query as result. And I try pagination. But the problem is I can not know how many rows will it return for one main table row result.
Example :
Main table first row result is in my query 40 rows.
Main table second row result is 120 row.
Problem(Question) UPDATE:
For pagination I need give the pagesize the count of select result. But I can not know the right count for my select result. Example I give page no 1 and pagesize 50, because of this I cant get the right result.I need give the right pagesize for my main table top 10 result. Maybe for top 10 row will the result row count 200 but my page size is 50 this is the problem.
I am using Sql 2014. I need it for my ASP.NET project but is not important.
Sample UPDATE :
it is like searching an hotel for booking. Your main table is hotel table. And the another things are (mediatable)images, (mediatable)videos, (placetable)location and maybe (commenttable)comments they are more than one rows and have one to many relationship for the hotel. For one hotel the result will like 100, 50 or 10 rows for this all info. And I am trying to paginate this hotels result. I need get always 20 or 30 or 50 hotels for performance in my project.
Sample Query UPDATE :
SELECT
*
FROM
KisiselCoach KC
JOIN WorkPlace WP
ON KC.KisiselCoachId = WP.WorkPlaceOwnerId
JOIN Album A
ON KC.KisiselCoachId = A.AlbumId
JOIN Media M
ON A.AlbumId = M.AlbumId
LEFT JOIN Rating R
ON KC.KisiselCoachId = R.OylananId
JOIN FrUser Fr
ON KC.CoachId = Fr.UserId
JOIN UserJob UJ
ON KC.KisiselCoachId = UJ.UserJobOwnerId
JOIN Job J
ON UJ.JobId = J.JobId
JOIN UserExpertise UserEx
ON KC.KisiselCoachId = UserEx.UserExpertiseOwnerId
JOIN Expertise Ex
ON UserEx.ExpertiseId = Ex.ExpertiseId
Hotel Table :
HotelId HotelName
1 Barcelona
2 Berlin
Media Table :
MediaID MediaUrl HotelId
1 www.xxx.com 1
2 www.xxx.com 1
3 www.xxx.com 1
4 www.xxx.com 1
Location Table :
LocationId Adress HotelId
1 xyz, Berlin 1
2 xyz, Nice 1
3 xyz, Sevilla 1
4 xyz, Barcelona 1
Comment Table :
CommentId Comment HotelId
1 you are cool 1
2 you are great 1
3 you are bad 1
4 hmm you are okey 1
This is only sample! I have 9999999 hotels in my database. Imagine a hotel maybe it has 100 images maybe zero. I can not know this. And I need get 20 hotels in my result(pagination). But 20 hotels means 1000 rows maybe or 100 rows.
First, your query is poorly written for readability flow / relationship of tables. I have updated and indented to try and show how/where tables related in hierarchical relativity.
You also want to paginate, lets get back to that. Are you intending to show every record as a possible item, or did you intend to show a "parent" level set of data... Ex so you have only one instance per Media, Per User, or whatever, then once that entry is selected you would show details for that one entity? if so, I would do a query of DISTINCT at the top-level, or at least grab the few columns with a count(*) of child records it has to show at the next level.
Also, mixing inner, left and right joins can be confusing. Typically a right-join means you want the records from the right-table of the join. Could this be rewritten to have all required tables to the left, and non-required being left-join TO the secondary table?
Clarification of all these relationships would definitely help along with the context you are trying to get out of the pagination. I'll check for comments, but if lengthy, I would edit your original post question with additional details vs a long comment.
Here is my SOMEWHAT clarified query rewritten to what I THINK the relationships are within your database. Notice my indentations showing where table A -> B -> C -> D for readability. All of these are (INNER) JOINs indicating they all must have a match between all respective tables. If some things are NOT always there, they would be changed to LEFT JOINs
SELECT
*
FROM
KisiselCoach KC
JOIN WorkPlace WP
ON KC.KisiselCoachId = WP.WorkPlaceOwnerId
JOIN Album A
ON KC.KisiselCoachId = A.AlbumId
JOIN Media M
ON A.AlbumId = M.AlbumId
LEFT JOIN Rating R
ON KC.KisiselCoachId = R.OylananId
JOIN FrUser Fr
ON KC.CoachId = Fr.UserId
JOIN UserJob UJ
ON KC.KisiselCoachId = UJ.UserJobOwnerId
JOIN Job J
ON UJ.JobId = J.JobId
JOIN UserExpertise UserEx
ON KC.KisiselCoachId = UserEx.UserExpertiseOwnerId
JOIN Expertise Ex
ON UserEx.ExpertiseId = Ex.ExpertiseId
Readability of a query is a BIG help for yourself, and/or anyone assisting or following you. By not having the "on" clauses near the corresponding joins can be very confusing to follow.
Also, which is your PRIMARY table where the rest are lookup reference tables.
ADDITION PER COMMENT
Ok, so I updated a query which appears to have no context to the sample data and what you want in your post. That said, I would start with a list of hotels only and a count(*) of things per hotel so you can give SOME indication of how much stuff you have in detail. Something like
select
H.HotelID,
H.HotelName,
coalesce( MedSum.recs, 0 ) as MediaItems,
coalesce( LocSum.recs, 0 ) as NumberOfLocations,
coalesce( ComSum.recs, 0 ) as NumberOfLocations
from
Hotel H
LEFT JOIN
( select M.HotelID,
count(*) recs
from Media M
group by M.HotelID ) MedSum
on H.HotelID = MedSum.HotelID
LEFT JOIN
( select L.HotelID,
count(*) recs
from Location L
group by L.HotelID ) LocSum
on H.HotelID = LocSum.HotelID
LEFT JOIN
( select C.HotelID,
count(*) recs
from Comment C
group by C.HotelID ) ComSum
on H.HotelID = ComSum.HotelID
order by
H.HotelName
--- apply any limit per pagination
Now this will return every hotel at a top-level and the total count of things per the hotel per the individual counts which may or not exist hence each sub-check is a LEFT-JOIN. Expose a page of 20 different hotels. Now, as soon as one person picks a single hotel, you can then drill-into the locations, media and comments per that one hotel.
Now, although this COULD work, having to do these counts on an every-time query might get very time consuming. You might want to add counter columns to your main hotel table representing such counts as being performed here. Then, via some nightly process, you could re-update the counts ONCE to get them primed across all history, then update counts only for those hotels that have new activity since entered the date prior. Not like you are going to have 1,000,000 posts of new images, new locations, new comments in a day, but of 22,000, then those are the only hotel records you would re-update counts for. Each incremental cycle would be short based on only the newest entries added. For the web, having some pre-aggregate counts, sums, etc is a big time saver where practical.
I have a complex set of schema that I am trying to pull data out of for a report. The query for it joins a bunch of tables together and I am specifically looking to pull a subset of data where everything for it might be null. The original relations for the tables look as such.
Location.DeptFK
Dept.PK
Section.DeptFK
Subsection.SectionFK
Question.SubsectionFK
Answer.QuestionFK, SubmissionFK
Submission.PK, LocationFK
From here my problems begin to compound a little.
SELECT Section.StepNumber + '-' + Question.QuestionNumber AS QuestionNumberVar,
Question.Question,
Subsection.Name AS Subsection,
Section.Name AS Section,
SUM(CASE WHEN (Answer.Answer = 0) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS NA,
SUM(CASE WHEN (Answer.Answer = 1) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS AnsNo,
SUM(CASE WHEN (Answer.Answer = 2) THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS AnsYes,
(select count(distinct Location.Abbreviation) from Department inner join Plant on location.DepartmentFK = Department.PK WHERE(Department.Name = 'insertParameter'))
as total
FROM Department inner join
section on Department.PK = section.DepartmentFK inner JOIN
subsection on Subsection.SectionFK = Section.PK INNER JOIN
question on Question.SubsectionFK = Subsection.PK INNER JOIN
Answer on Answer.QuestionFK = question.PK inner JOIN
Submission on Submission.PK = Answer.SubmissionFK inner join
Location on Location.DepartmentFK = Department.PK AND Location.pk = Submission.PlantFK
WHERE (Department.Name = 'InsertParameter') AND (Submission.MonthTested = '1/1/2017')
GROUP BY Question.Question, QuestionNumberVar, Subsection.Name, Section.Name, Section.StepNumber
ORDER BY QuestionNumberVar;
There are 15 total locations, with this query I get 12. If I remove a relation in the join for Location I get 15 total locations but my answer data gets multiplied by 15. My issue is that not all locations are required to test at the same time so their answers should default to NA, They don't get records placed in the DB so the relationship between Location/Submission is absent.
I have a workaround almost in place via the select count distinct but, The second part is a query for finding what each location answered instead of a sum which brings the problem right back around. It also has to be dynamic because the input parameters for a department won't bring a static number of locations back each time.
I am still learning my SQL so any additional material to look at for building this query would also be appreciated. So I guess the big question here is, How would I go about creating default data in this query for anytime the Location/Submission relation has a null value?
Edit: Dummy Data
QuestionNumberVar | Section | Subsection | Question | AnsYes | AnsNo | NA (expected)
1-1.1 Math Algebra Did you do your homework? 10 1 1(4)
1-1.2 Math Algebra Did your dog eat it? 9 3 0(3)
2-1.1 English Greek Did you do your homework? 8 0 4(7)
I have tried making left joins at various applicable portions of the code to no avail. All attempts at left joins have ended with no effect on info output. This query feeds into the Dataset for an SSRS report. There are a couple workarounds for this particular section via an expression to take total Locations and subtract AnsYes and AnsNo to get the true NA value but as explained above doesn't help with my next query.
Edit: SQL Server 2012 for those who asked
Edit: my attempt at an isnull() on the missing data returns nothing I suspect because the query already eliminates the "null/missing" data. Left joining while doing this has also failed. The point of failure is on Submissions. if we bind it to Locations there are locations missing but if we don't bind it there are multiplied duplicates because Department has a One-To-Many with Location and not vice versa. I am unable to make any schema changes to improve this process.
There is a previous report that I am trying to emulate/update. It used C# logic to process data and run multiple queries to attain the same data. I don't have this luxury. (previous report exports to excel directly instead of SSRS). Here is the previous logic used.
select PK from Department where Name = 'InsertParameter';
select PK from Submission where LocationFK = 'Location.PK_var' and MonthTested = '1/1/2017'
Then it runs those into a loop where it processes nulls into NA using C# logic
EDIT (Mediocre Solution): I ended up doing the workaround of making a calculated field that subtracts Yes and No from the total # of Locations that have that Dept. This is a mediocre solution because I didn't solve my original problem and made 3 datasets that should have been displayed as a singular dataset. One for question info, one for each locations answer and one for locations that didnt participate. If a true answer comes up I will check its validity but for now, Problem psuedo solved.
I have teams, users, and points tables.
When I call get the teams from the database I need to also calculate the points as a generated column and also the number of users in that team as a new column.
I have this so far but it is returning all users in the member count column, not just the members in that team.
SELECT ar_teams.*, COALESCE(SUM(ar_points.amount),0) AS points, COUNT(ar_users.team_id) AS members
FROM ar_teams
LEFT JOIN ar_users ON ar_users.team_id = ar_teams.id
LEFT JOIN ar_points ON ar_points.user_id = ar_users.id
WHERE ar_teams.id = 1 AND ar_users.team_id = 1
GROUP BY ar_teams.id
The results I am getting:
id name name_alt points members
1 UK & Ireland NULL 3076 48
The members count should be 12, at the moment it seems to be counting all people without taking their team into account.
I suspect your problem is the use of count() rather than count(distinct). I think this is what you want:
SELECT ar_teams.*,
COALESCE(SUM(ar_points.amount), 0) AS points,
COUNT(distinct ar_users.id) AS members
I am putting together a nice little database for adding values to options, all these are setup through a map (Has and Belongs to Many) table, because many options are pointing to a single value.
So I am trying to specify 3 option.ids and a single id in a value table - four integers to point to a single value. Three tables. And I am running into a problem with the WHERE part of the statement, because if multiple values share an option there are many results. And I need just a single result.
SELECT value.id, value.name FROM value
LEFT JOIN (option_map_value, option_table)
ON (value.id = option_map_value.value_id AND option_map_value.option_table_id = option_table.id)
WHERE option_table.id IN (5, 2, 3) AND value.y_axis_id = 16;
The problem with the statement seems to be the IN on the WHERE clause. If one of the numbers are different in the IN() part, then there are multiple results - which is not good.
I have tried DISTINCT, which again works if there is one result, but returns many if there is many. The closest we have gotten to is adding a count - to return to value with the most options at the top.
So is there a way to do the WHERE to be more specific. I cannot break it out into option_table.id = 5 AND option_table.id = 2 - because that one fails. But can the WHERE clause be more specifc?
Maybe it is me being pedantic, but I would like to be able to return just the single result, instead of a count of results... Any ideas?
The problem with the statement seems to be the IN on the WHERE clause. If one of the numbers are different in the IN() part, then there are multiple results - which is not good. I have tried DISTINCT, which again works if there is one result, but returns many if there is many. The closest we have gotten to is adding a count - to return to value with the most options at the top.
You were very close, considering the DISTINCT:
SELECT v.id,
v.name
FROM VALUE v
LEFT JOIN OPTION_MAP_VALUE omv ON omv.value_id = v.id
LEFT JOIN OPTION_TABLE ot ON ot.id = omv.option_table_id
WHERE ot.id IN (5, 2, 3)
AND v.y_axis_id = 16
GROUP BY v.id, v.name
HAVING COUNT(*) = 3
You were on the right track, but needed to use GROUP BY instead in order to be able to use the HAVING clause to count the DISTINCT list of values.
Caveat emptor:
The GROUP BY/HAVING COUNT version of the query is dependent on your data model having a composite key, unique or primary, defined for the two columns involved (value_id and option_table_id). If this is not in place, the database will not stop duplicates being added. If duplicate rows are possible in the data, this version can return false positives because a value_id could have 3 associations to the option_table_id 5 - which would satisfy the HAVING COUNT(*) = 3.
Using JOINs:
A safer, though more involved, approach is to join onto the table that can have multiple options, as often as you have criteria:
SELECT v.id,
v.name
FROM VALUE v
JOIN OPTION_MAP_VALUE omv ON omv.value_id = v.id
JOIN OPTION_TABLE ot5 ON ot5.id = omv.option_table_id
AND ot5.id = 5
JOIN OPTION_TABLE ot2 ON ot2.id = omv.option_table_id
AND ot2.id = 2
JOIN OPTION_TABLE ot3 ON ot3.id = omv.option_table_id
AND ot3.id = 3
WHERE v.y_axis_id = 16
GROUP BY v.id, v.name