I have User table which contains same user represented by different entities all around. For example
User Table
==========================
id name
1 John Doe
2 Doe, John
3 Nicholas Cage
4 BlackRiderXXX
5 Nicholas cage
where users John Doe, Doe, John, BlackRiderXXX are the same people. Also, Nicholas Cage and Nicholas cage are the same people. Other tables refer to user.id randomly based on which user object did the action.
For Action table it'll look like
Action Table
==========================
id user_id some_other_stuff
1 1 ...
2 2 ...
3 1 ...
4 4 ...
5 3 ...
Where the actions 1,2,3,4 are all done by John Doe.
I'll have these users merged by the user manually meaning we'd know who is whom. They'd also select which User is the one they'd like to be as their main user account so we need to know this information as well.
I'm simplifiying a bit but I have a dozen tables which are like the Action table I provided above. We have mainly two use cases on how we will need to query:
1) Find actions which are done by user X (which should check all the users entities belonging to user X)
2) Find actions and group unique users
Main point is we will be using it everywhere around the codebase on 100+ queries so we want to design it well. How can I construct a system where the query will be simple enough also powerful enough to handle different querying ways?
Thanks
PS: We are using PostgreSQL
Why not include the "main" user in the first table?
User Table
id name main_user_id
1 John Doe 1
2 Doe, John 1
3 Nicholas Cage 2
4 BlackRiderXXX 1
5 Nicholas cage 2
Then you would join on:
select . . .
from actions a join
users u
on a.user_id = u.id
where u.main_user_id = 1;
If you want this selectable per end user, then use a different table:
create table end_user_users (
end_user_users_id serial primary key,
end_user_id int references end_users (end_user_id),
end_user_user_id int references users (id),
end_user_main_user_id int references users (id)
);
Then the query would look like:
select . . .
from actions a join
end_users_users euu
on euu.end_user_user_id = a.user_id and
euu.end_user_id = $my_id
where euu.end_user_main_user_id = 1;
You can use regexp_replace(),initcap() and trim() functions to refine and extract the common name strings to be grouped, and then generate values for newly created action_id column depending on them :
with new_action0 as
(
select u.id as id,
case when strpos(u.name,',') > 0 then
initcap(trim(regexp_replace(trim(u.name),'(.*),(.*)','\2 \1')))
else
case when lower(trim(u.name))='blackriderxxx' then
'John Doe'
else
trim(initcap(u.name))
end
end as name
from action u
)
select n.id, dense_rank() over (order by n.name) as user_id
from new_action0 n;
Demo
A new decent user table can be created by using this query with create table .. as statement
Related
I have a table friends, which contains the following columns:
friend_id and friend_of (both are storing unique user ids)
lets say the table friends contains the following data:
friend_id | friend_of
-------------------------
123 | 456
456 | 789
456 | 123
So this means that:
user with id=123 have one friend with id=456
user with id=456 have two friends with ids=123 (friend_1) & 789(friend_2)
user with id=789 have one friwnd with id=456
I want to write a query that given a single user id shows every friend that this user has (with their ids).
For example:
if given user with id=123 the output would be users with ids=456
if given user with id=789 the output would be users with ids=456
if given user with id=456 the output would be users with ids=123 and 789
Can you help me with the query I need?
(select friend_id as all_friends from friends where friend_of=ID)
uninon
(select friend_of as all_friends from friends where friend_id=ID)
I suppose you are interested in the case where an id exists only in one of the columns. Above query would address this. Note that union is used here and not union all as unique values are required.
select friend_id, friend_of
where friend_id = '456'
just change ID to get desire ouput
Just use union
Declare #id int = 1;
select f.friendof from
#YourTableName as f where f.friendId = #id
union
select f.friendId from
#YourTableName as f where f.friendof = #id
You can use the query SELECT * FROM friends WHERE friend_id='456', which should get all of the friends of 456. Then do a join on your "users" table using the foreign key friend_of.
EDIT: I didn't realize friends was a two-way relationship. In that case, use a UNION first, some of the other responses talk about it. :)
I currently have a single table that hosts all of my users. Now some users have team_leaders which reference the user id of the team leader which is also stored in the database.
Now, what I wanted to do do (and can't figure out) is how to query the database where it retrieves a list of the ids of all the team members and the leader in one result set.
For Example
name | id | team_leader
--------------------------------------------------
Jack | 1 | null
--------------------------------------------------
Susan| 2 | 1
--------------------------------------------------
Bob | 3 | 1
--------------------------------------------------
Eric | 4 | null
--------------------------------------------------
SELECT name FROM users where team_leader = '<some user's id>'
returns [ 'Susan', Bob']
But I would like it to return the team leader included, such as
['Jack', 'Susan', 'Bob']
Does anyone have any idea how to include the team leader in the query results?
EDIT:
Okay, so it seems like I have not explained myself 100%, my apologies. so the goal of this query is to do as follows.
I have another table called leads and there is a field there that is called user_id which correlates to the user that has access to the lead. Now, I want to introduce the ability for team leaders to update the leads that are associated with their accounts, so if the current user is a team leader they should have the ability to update the user_id from their id to anyone on their team, from one of their children to another, and from one of the children to themselves, but not to anyone not on their team. So the way I thought of it was to have a WHERE EXISTS or a WHERE IN (this would mean adding a field to the lead table called leader_id) and it checks if the new user_id is in a list of that team leader's members, including themselves.
Based off the example above.
UPDATE lead SET user_id = xxx
WHERE lead.id = yyy
AND ...
-- here is where I would check that the user_id xxx is part of the current
-- user's team which must be a team leader, for example user.id = 1
So my thought process was to get the previous query to then check against.
Hope this clears things up.
If I'm understanding correctly, you can just use or:
select name
from users
where team_leader = 1 or id = 1
WITH CTE AS(
SELECT name,id,team_leader FROM [users]
WHERE team_leader=1
UNION ALL
SELECT u.name,u.id,u.team_leader from [users] u
JOIN CTE ON CTE.empno=u.team_leader`enter code here`
and u.team_leader=1
)
SELECT * FROM CTE
I have two tables in my sql:
Users :
id name roleid
1 David 1
2 Sean 2
3 Joe 1
Roles:
roleid desc
1 copy
2 delete
3 move
Now i use this cmd to select the user with the user permission
SELECT * FROM Users u INNER JOIN Roles r ON u.roleid = r.roleid
Now i want to know if it's possible to build SQL Table(Roles Table), that it's will be dynamically the number of roleid for each user. something like:
Users :
id name roleid roleid2 roleid3
1 David 1 2 3
2 Sean 2
3 Joe 1 3
Use an associative entity to address the many-to-many relationship between Users and Roles. A composite primary key in the UserRole table will prevent duplicate assignment of roles, and foreign keys referencing the Users and Roles table will preserve referential integrity.
See SQL fiddle for a sample implementation.
At first, I suggest you to use many to many relationship. It means trird table: UsersRoles (userid,roleid)
At second, it's impossible create dynamic number of columns in typical SQL statement. But its possible by using stored procedures.
here is working example
sqlfiddle
I have an Access database that has two tables that are related by PK/FK. Unfortunately, the database tables have allowed for duplicate/redundant records and has made the database a bit screwy. I am trying to figure out a SQL statement that will fix the problem.
To better explain the problem and goal, I have created example tables to use as reference:
alt text http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/9243/514201074110am.png
You'll notice there are two tables, a Student table and a TestScore table where StudentID is the PK/FK.
The Student table contains duplicate records for students John, Sally, Tommy, and Suzy. In other words the John's with StudentID's 1 and 5 are the same person, Sally 2 and 6 are the same person, and so on.
The TestScore table relates test scores with a student.
Ignoring how/why the Student table allowed duplicates, etc - The goal I'm trying to accomplish is to update the TestScore table so that it replaces the StudentID's that have been disabled with the corresponding enabled StudentID. So, all StudentID's = 1 (John) will be updated to 5; all StudentID's = 2 (Sally) will be updated to 6, and so on. Here's the resultant TestScore table that I'm shooting for (Notice there is no longer any reference to the disabled StudentID's 1-4):
alt text http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1954/514201091121am.png
Can you think of a query (compatible with MS Access's JET Engine) that can accomplish this goal? Or, maybe, you can offer some tips/perspectives that will point me in the right direction.
Thanks.
The only way to do this is through a series of queries and temporary tables.
First, I would create the following Make Table query that you would use to create a mapping of the bad StudentID to correct StudentID.
Select S1.StudentId As NewStudentId, S2.StudentId As OldStudentId
Into zzStudentMap
From Student As S1
Inner Join Student As S2
On S2.Name = S1.Name
Where S1.Disabled = False
And S2.StudentId <> S1.StudentId
And S2.Disabled = True
Next, you would use that temporary table to update the TestScore table with the correct StudentID.
Update TestScore
Inner Join zzStudentMap
On zzStudentMap.OldStudentId = TestScore.StudentId
Set StudentId = zzStudentMap.NewStudentId
The most common technique to identify duplicates in a table is to group by the fields that represent duplicate records:
ID FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
1 Brian Smith
3 George Smith
25 Brian Smith
In this case we want to remove one of the Brian Smith Records, or in your case, update the ID field so they both have the value of 25 or 1 (completely arbitrary which one to use).
SELECT min(id)
FROM example
GROUP BY first_name, last_name
Using min on ID will return:
ID FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
1 Brian Smith
3 George Smith
If you use max you would get
ID FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
25 Brian Smith
3 George Smith
I usually use this technique to delete the duplicates, not update them:
DELETE FROM example
WHERE ID NOT IN (SELECT MAX (ID)
FROM example
GROUP BY first_name, last_name)
I have a table called auctions, which has various columns such as username, auction id(the primary key), firstname, lastname, location etc, as well as a category column. The category column is blank by default, unless it is filled in for a particular record by a user.
I have made a new users table, which has username and category columns, as well as aditional fields which will be completed by user input.
I would like to know if it is possible when updating a record in the auctions table to have a category, to insert the username and category from that record into the users table as long as the username is not already present in the table.
For example, if I have the following tables:
auctions
auctionid username firstname lastname category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 zerocool john henry
2 fredflint fred smith
3 azazal mike cutter
Then, upon updating the second record to have a catagory like so:
2 fredflintsoner fred smith shoes
The resulting users table should be:
users
username shoes pants belts misc1 misc2
--------------------------------------------------
fredflint true
With no record have existed previously.
If additional auctions exist with the same username in the auctions table, such as:
7 fredflint fred smith belts
Then even if this auction is added to the category, a new record should not be inserted for the users table, as the username is already , however it should be updated as necessary, resulting in:
username shoes pants belts misc1 misc2
--------------------------------------------------
fredflint true true
What you are looking for is known as a TRIGGER. You can specify something to run after every insert/update in the auctions table and then determine what to do to the users table.
A couple of questions come to mind. The first is, your user table looks denormalized. What happens when you add a new category? Consider a user table in the form of:
id username category
Where you have multiple rows if a user has multiple categories:
1 fredflint shoes
2 fredflint pants
....
The second question I have is, why do you need a user table at all? It looks like all the information in the user table is already stored in the auction table! You can retrieve the user table simply by:
select distinct username, category
from auctions
If you need the separate table, an option to manually update the table when you create a new auction. I'd do it like this (I know just enough about triggers to avoid them):
1 - Make sure there's a row for this user
if not exists (select * from users where username = 'fredflint')
insert into users (username) values ('fredflint')
2 - Make sure he the shoe category
if not exists (select * from users where username = 'fredflint' and shoes = 1)
update users set shoes = 1 where username = 'fredflint'