I want to make a query q1, and use the result of q1 on a second query q2.
I want to display all columns of q1 and q2, so that results are based on a common column.
(Please let me know if title is not so clear)
The example below should display columns [id, publisher, author] in the q1.
I want to pass them to q2, retrieve properties [id, cited_id, category] for all items within the id column of q1.
As results, for each id I want to display all cited_ids and their properties (of both ids and cited_ids).
Alternatively, for better clarity, it is also ok to retrieve an array of cited_ids for each ids, and in a separate query I will decorate my ids and cited_ids with their properties.
Please advise also on the "performance" (I m using bigquery, so if you could explain why a solution is more efficient that would help in saving computational resources!).
I came up with this, but cannot display all columns of q1.
WITH q1 AS (
SELECT id, publisher, a.name
FROM `db.publications`,
UNNEST (publisher) as h,
UNNEST (author) as a
WHERE h Like '%penguin%'
)
SELECT p.id, c.id AS Cited, c.Category AS Cat
FROM `db.publications` AS p, UNNEST(citation) AS c
WHERE p.id IN (SELECT id from q1)
Sample Data:
# result of q1
Row | Id | Publisher | Author
1 | item0 | penguin | Bob
2 | item0 | penguin | Alice
3 | item1 | penguin | Charlie
I want to find other items that are cited by each unique item in q1 (item0, item1).
I wish to have results in an handy format that could be used in this way:
# Citations: books mentioned by item0, item1 ...
item0 : [item10, item15, item100]
item1 : [item23, item0, item101, item15]
..
# Decorators : information about each book:
Row | Id | Publisher | Author(s) |
My question is can achieve both in a single query?
If so, is it convenient or better to split in two separated queries for lower computational resources?
My approach is first query a set of books and their decorators, and then use a list of ids to look for their citations. I could not carry decorators along with above example.
Regarding the first part of your question, instead of using where p.id in(select id from q1), use a join to bring in q1 fields.
WITH q1 AS (
SELECT id, publisher, a.name
FROM `db.publications`,
UNNEST (publisher) as h,
UNNEST (author) as a
WHERE h Like '%penguin%'
),
joined as (
select id, p.citation, q1.publisher, q1.name
from `db.publications` p
inner join q1 using(id)
)
select id, c.id as Cited, c.Category as Cat
from joined
left join unnest(citation) c
Related
So I have 1 single table with 2 columns : Sales_Order called ccso, Arrangement called arrmap
The table has distinct values for this combination and both these fields have a Many to Many relationship
1 ccso can have Multiple arrmap
1 arrmap can have Multiple ccso
All such combinations should be considered as one single bundle
Objective :
Assign a final map to each of the Sales Order as the Largest Arrangement in that Bundle
Example:
ccso : 100-10015 has 3 arrangements --> Now each of those arrangements have a set of Sales Orders --> Now those sales orders will also have a list of other arrangements and so on
(Image : 1)
Therefore the answer definitely points to something recursively checking. Ive managed to write the below code / codes and they work as long as I hard code a ccso in the where clause - But I don't know how to proceed after this now. (I'm an accountant by profession but finding more passion in coding recently) I've searched the forums and web for things like
Recursive CTEs,
many to many aggregation
cartesian product etc
and I'm sure there must be a term for this which I don't know yet. I've also tried
I have to use sqldeveloper or googlesheet query and filter formulas
sqldeveloper has restrictions on on some CTEs. If recursive is the way I'd like to know how and if I can control the depth to say 4 or 5 iterations
Ideally I'd want to update a third column with the final map if possible but if not, then a select query result is just fine
Codes I've tried
Code 1: As per Screenshot
WITH a1(ccso, amap) AS
(SELECT distinct a.ccso, a.arrmap
FROM rg_consol_map2 A
WHERE a.ccso = '100-10115' -- this condition defines the ultimate ancestors in your chain, change it as appropriate
UNION ALL
SELECT m.ccso, m.arrmap
FROM rg_consol_map2 m
JOIN a1
ON M.arrmap = a1.amap -- or m.ccso=a1.ccso
) /*if*/ CYCLE amap SET nemap TO 1 /*else*/ DEFAULT 0
SELECT DISTINCT amap FROM (SELECT ccso, amap FROM a1 ORDER BY 1 DESC) WHERE ROWNUM = 1
In this the main challenge is how to remove the hardcoded ccso and do a join for each of the ccso
Code 2 : Manual CTEs for depth
Here again the join outside the CTE gives me an error and sqldeveloper does not allow WITH clause with UPDATE statement - only works for select and cannot be enclosed within brackets as subtable
SELECT distinct ccso FROM
(
WITH ar1 AS
(SELECT distinct arrmap
FROM rg_consol_map
WHERE ccso = a.ccso
)
,so1 AS
(SELECT DISTINCT ccso
FROM rg_consol_map
WHERE arrmap IN (SELECT arrmap FROM ar1)
)
,ar2 AS
(SELECT DISTINCT ccso FROM rg_consol_map
where arrmap IN (select distinct arrmap FROM rg_consol_map
WHERE ccso IN (SELECT ccso FROM so1)
))
SELECT ar1.arrmap, NULL ccso FROM ar1
union all
SELECT null, ar2.ccso FROM ar2
UNION ALL
SELECT NULL arrmap, so1.ccso FROM so1
)
Am I Missing something here or is there an easier way to do this? I read something about MERGE and PROC SQL JOIN but was unable to get them to work but if that's the way to go ahead I will try further if someone can point me in the direction
(Image : 2)
(CSV File : [3])
Edit : Fixing CSV file link
https://github.com/karan360note/karanstackoverflow.git
I suppose can be downloaded from here IC mapping many to many.csv
Oracle 11g version is being used
Apologies in advance for the wall of text.
Your problem is a complex, multi-layered Many-to-Many query; there is no "easy" solution to this, because that is not a terribly ideal design choice. The safest best does literally include multiple layers of CTE or subqueries in order to achieve all the depths you want, as the only ways I know to do so recursively rely on an anchor column (like "parentID") to direct the recursion in a linear fashion. We don't have that option here; we'd go in circles without a way to track our path.
Therefore, I went basic, and with several subqueries. Every level checks for a) All orders containing a particular ARRMAP item, and then b) All additional items on those orders. It's clear enough for you to see the logic and modify to your needs. It will generate a new table that contains the original CCSO, the linking ARRMAP, and the related CCSO. Link: https://pastebin.com/un70JnpA
This should enable you to go back and perform the desired updates you want, based on order # or order date, etc... in a much more straightforward fashion. Once you have an anchor column, a CTE in the future is much more trivial (just search for "CTE recursion tree hierarchy").
SELECT DISTINCT
CCSO, RELATEDORDER
FROM myTempTable
WHERE CCSO = '100-10115'; /* to find all orders by CCSO, query SELECT DISTINCT RELATEDORDER */
--WHERE ARRMAP = 'ARR10524'; /* to find all orders by ARRMAP, query SELECT DISTINCT CCSO */
EDIT:
To better explain what this table generates, let me simplify the problem.
If you have order
A with arrangements 1 and 2;
B with arrangement 2, 3; and
C with arrangement 3;
then, by your initial inquiry and image, order A should related to orders B and C, right? The query generates the following table when you SELECT DISTINCT ccso, relatedOrder:
+-------+--------------+
| CCSO | RelatedOrder |
+----------------------+
| A | B |
| A | C |
+----------------------+
| B | C |
| B | A |
+----------------------+
| C | A |
| C | B |
+-------+--------------+
You can see here if you query WHERE CCSO = 'A' OR RelatedOrder = 'A', you'll get the same relationships, just flipped between the two columns.
+-------+--------------+
| CCSO | RelatedOrder |
+----------------------+
| A | B |
| A | C |
+----------------------+
| B | A |
+----------------------+
| C | A |
+-------+--------------+
So query only CCSO or RelatedOrder.
As for the results of WHERE CCSO = '100-10115', see image here, which includes all the links you showed in your Image #1, as well as additional depths of relations.
Greetings Benevolent Gods of Stackoverflow,
I am presently struggling to get a spatially enabled query to work for a SQL assignment I am working on. The wording is as follows:
SELECT PURCHASES.TotalPrice, STORES.GeoLocation, STORES.StoreName
FROM MuffinShop
join (SELECT SUM(PURCHASES.TotalPrice) AS StoreProfit, STORES.StoreName
FROM PURCHASES INNER JOIN STORES ON PURCHASES.StoreID = STORES.StoreID
GROUP BY STORES.StoreName
HAVING (SUM(PURCHASES.TotalPrice) > 600))
What I am trying to do with this query is perform a function query (like avg, sum etc) and get the spatial information back as well. Another example of this would be:
SELECT STORES.StoreName, AVG(REVIEWS.Rating),Stores.Shape
FROM REVIEWS CROSS JOIN
STORES
GROUP BY STORES.StoreName;
This returns a Column 'STORES.Shape' is invalid in the select list because it is not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause. error message.
I know I require a sub query to perform this task, I am just having endless trouble getting it to work. Any help at all would be wildly appreciated.
There are two parts to this question, I would tackle the first problem with the following logic:
List all the store names and their respective geolocations
Get the profit for each store
With that in mind, you need to use the STORES table as your base, then bolt the profit onto it through a sub query or an apply:
SELECT s.StoreName
,s.GeoLocation
,p.StoreProfit
FROM STORES s
INNER JOIN (
SELECT pu.StoreId
,StoreProfit = SUM(pu.TotalPrice)
FROM PURCHASES pu
GROUP BY pu.StoreID
) p
ON p.StoreID = s.StoreID;
This one is a little more efficient:
SELECT s.StoreName
,s.GeoLocation
,profit.StoreProfit
FROM STORES s
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT StoreProfit = SUM(p.TotalPrice)
FROM PURCHASES p
WHERE p.StoreID = s.StoreID
GROUP BY p.StoreID
) profit;
Now for the second part, the error that you are receiving tells you that you need to GROUP BY all columns in your select statement with the exception of your aggregate function(s).
In your second example, you are asking SQL to take an average rating for each store based on an ID, but you are also trying to return another column without including that inside the grouping. I will try to show you what you are asking SQL to do and where the issue lies with the following examples:
-- Data
Id | Rating | Shape
1 | 1 | Triangle
1 | 4 | Triangle
1 | 1 | Square
2 | 1 | Triangle
2 | 5 | Triangle
2 | 3 | Square
SQL Server, please give me the average rating for each store:
SELECT Id, AVG(Rating)
FROM Store
GROUP BY StoreId;
-- Result
Id | Avg(Rating)
1 | 2
2 | 3
SQL Server, please give me the average rating for each store and show its shape in the result (but don't group by it):
SELECT Id, AVG(Rating), Shape
FROM Store
GROUP BY StoreId;
-- Result
Id | Avg(Rating) | Shape
1 | 2 | Do I show Triangle or Square ...... ERROR!!!!
2 | 3 |
It needs to be told to get the average for each store and shape:
SELECT Id, AVG(Rating), Shape
FROM Store
GROUP BY StoreId, Shape;
-- Result
Id | Avg(Rating) | Shape
1 | 2.5 | Triangle
1 | 1 | Square
2 | 3 | Triangle
2 | 3 | Square
As in any spatial query you need an idea of what your final geometry will be. It looks like you are attempting to group by individual stores but delivering an average rating from the subquery. So if I'm reading it right you are just looking to get the stores shape info associated with the average ratings?
Query the stores table for the shape field and join the query you use to get the average rating
select a.shape
b.*
from stores a inner join (your Average rating query with group by here) b
on a.StoreID = b.Storeid
First of all, sorry for the title. Couldn't think of any better title.
This is what I got:
SELECT study FROM old_employee;
study
---------
STUDY1
STUDY2
STUDY3
STUDY1
STUDY2
SELECT id,name_string FROM studies;
id | name_string
----+-------------------
1 | STUDY1
2 | STUDY2
3 | STUDY3
Now I would like to find the id's based on the first output. This is what i've attempted but obviously it's not working.
SELECT id FROM studies WHERE name_string LIKE (SELECT study FROM old_employee);
My desired output:
id
----
1
2
3
1
2
edit: I'm saving old_employee as a view and i'm wondering if there's a smarter way of including it in the answers below instead of creating this view first.
CREATE VIEW old_employee AS
SELECT *
FROM dblink('dbname=mydb', 'select study from personnel')
AS t1(study char(10));
This can be accomplished without using SQL LIKE Operator. Here is the query.
SELECT s.id
FROM studies s,
old_employee o
WHERE s.name_string = o.study;
Second query (According to what #a_horse_with_no_name said):
SELECT studies.id
FROM studies
INNER JOIN old_employee
ON studies.name_string = old_employee.study
I am not sure how to phrase this question so I'll give an example:
Suppose there is a table called tagged that has two columns: tagger and taggee. What would the SQL query look like to return the taggee(s) that are in multiple rows? That is to say, they have been tagged 2 or more times by any tagger.
I would like a 'generic' SQL query and not something that only works on a specific DBMS.
EDIT: Added "tagged 2 or more times by any tagger."
HAVING can operate on the result of aggregate functions. So if you have data like this:
Row tagger | taggee
--------+----------
1. Joe | Cat
2. Fred | Cat
3. Denise | Dog
4. Joe | Horse
5. Denise | Horse
It sounds like you want Cat, Horse.
To get the taggee's that are in multiple rows, you would execute:
SELECT taggee, count(*) FROM tagged GROUP BY taggee HAVING count(*) > 1
That being said, when you say "select only rows with multiple hits for a specific column", which row do you want? Do you want row 1 for Cat, or row 2?
select distinct t1.taggee from tagged t1 inner join tagged t2
on t1.taggee = t2.taggee and t1.tagger != t2.tagger;
Will give you all the taggees who have been tagged by more than one tagger
I'm very new to SQL and I hope someone can help me with some SQL syntax. I have a database with these tables and fields,
DATA: data_id, person_id, attribute_id, date, value
PERSONS: person_id, parent_id, name
ATTRIBUTES: attribute_id, attribute_type
attribute_type can be "Height" or "Weight"
Question 1
Give a person's "Name", I would like to return a table of "Weight" measurements for each children. Ie: if John has 3 children names Alice, Bob and Carol, then I want a table like this
| date | Alice | Bob | Carol |
I know how to get a long list of children's weights like this:
select d.date,
d.value
from data d,
persons child,
persons parent,
attributes a
where parent.name='John'
and child.parent_id = parent.person_id
and d.attribute_id = a.attribute_id
and a.attribute_type = "Weight';
but I don't know how to create a new table that looks like:
| date | Child 1 name | Child 2 name | ... | Child N name |
Question 2
Also, I would like to select the attributes to be between a certain range.
Question 3
What happens if the dates are not consistent across the children? For example, suppose Alice is 3 years older than Bob, then there's no data for Bob during the first 3 years of Alice's life. How does the database handle this if we request all the data?
1) It might not be so easy. MS SQL Server can PIVOT a table on an axis, but dumping the resultset to an array and sorting there (assuming this is tied to some sort of program) might be the simpler way right now if you're new to SQL.
If you can manage to do it in SQL it still won't be enough info to create a new table, just return the data you'd use to fill it in, so some sort of external manipulation will probably be required. But you can probably just use INSERT INTO [new table] SELECT [...] to fill that new table from your select query, at least.
2) You can join on attributes for each unique attribute:
SELECT [...] FROM data AS d
JOIN persons AS p ON d.person_id = p.person_id
JOIN attributes AS weight ON p.attribute_id = weight.attribute_id
HAVING weight.attribute_type = 'Weight'
JOIN attributes AS height ON p.attribute_id = height.attribute_id
HAVING height.attribute_type = 'Height'
[...]
(The way you're joining in the original query is just shorthand for [INNER] JOIN .. ON, same thing except you'll need the HAVING clause in there)
3) It depends on the type of JOIN you use to match parent/child relationships, and any dates you're filtering on in the WHERE, if I'm reading that right (entirely possible I'm not). I'm not sure quite what you're looking for, or what kind of database you're using, so no good answer. If you're new enough to SQL that you don't know the different kinds of JOINs and what they can do, it's very worthwhile to learn them - they put the R in RDBMS.
when you do a select, you need to specify the exact columns you want. In other words you can't return the Nth child's name. Ie this isn't possible:
1/2/2010 | Child_1_name | Child_2_name | Child_3_name
1/3/2010 | Child_1_name
1/4/2010 | Child_1_name | Child_2_name
Each record needs to have the same amount of columns. So you might be able to make a select that does this:
1/2/2010 | Child_1_name
1/2/2010 | Child_2_name
1/2/2010 | Child_3_name
1/3/2010 | Child_1_name
1/4/2010 | Child_1_name
1/4/2010 | Child_2_name
And then in a report remap it to how you want it displayed