I am working on a SELECT query to generate a specific output file that will be sent between systems relating to company expense reports. I am using data from two tables and am needing to generate a total value each employee owes the company. My query is similar to the following:
SELECT emp.Employee_ID,
invoice.Date,
(SELECT TOP 1 Invoice_Amount from invoice where....) as Amount_Owed
FROM employee as emp
INNER JOIN invoice_data as invoice
on invoice.employee_id = emp.employee_id
GROUP BY emp.Employee_ID, invoice.Date
Now obviously I know there is something wrong with this query, because I am getting results such as the following:
Employee_ID | Date | Amount_Owed
-------------------------------------
1000001 | 20190904 | 15.00
1000001 | 20190905 | 15.00
1000001 | 20190906 | 15.00
1000025 | 20190904 | 25.99
1000025 | 20190905 | 25.99
1000025 | 20190906 | 25.99
How do I change my query so that I can essentially get the invoice total for each employee by date? I have tried change the SELECT in the subquery to SELECT sum(Invoice_Amount from invoice where....), but then I always get errors from SSMS saying that it returns more than a single record so that does not seem to be valid. That same error also prevents me from just doing a SELECT without the "TOP 1" in the subquery.
This is probably a fairly simple issue, but I have spun my wheels too long without any successful attempts, so I would appreciate suggestions as to how I can get the data I want.
Doesn't a simple aggregation work?
SELECT e.Employee_ID, id.Date,
SUM(id.Invoice_Amount) as Amount_Owed
FROM employee e INNER JOIN
invoice_data id
on id.employee_id = e.employee_id
GROUP BY e.Employee_ID, id.Date
Related
My requirement is to display country name, total number of invoices and their average amount. Moreover, I need to return only those countries where the average invoice amount is greater than the average invoice amount of all invoices.
Query for Oracle Database
SELECT cntry.NAME,
COUNT(inv.NUMBER),
AVG(inv.TOTAL_PRICE)
FROM COUNTRY cntry JOIN
CITY ct ON ct.COUNTRY_ID = cntry.ID JOIN
CUSTOMER cst ON cst.CITY_ID = ct.ID JOIN
INVOICE inv ON inv.CUSTOMER_ID = cst.ID
GROUP BY cntry.NAME,
inv.NUMBER,
inv.TOTAL_PRICE
HAVING AVG(inv.TOTAL_PRICE) > (SELECT AVG(TOTAL_PRICE)
FROM INVOICE);
Result: Austria 1 9500
Expected: Austria 2 4825
Schema
Country
ID(INT)(PK) | NAME(VARCHAR)
City
ID(INT)(PK) | NAME(VARCHAR) | POSTAL_CODE(VARCHAR) | COUNTRY_ID(INT)(FK)
Customer
ID(INT)(PK) | NAME(VARCHAR) | CITY_ID(INT)(FK) | ADDRS(VARCHAR) | POC(VARCHAR) | EMAIL(VARCHAR) | IS_ACTV(INT)(0/1)
Invoice
ID(INT)(PK) | NUMBER(VARCHAR) | CUSTOMER_ID(INT)(FK) | USER_ACC_ID(INT) | TOTAL_PRICE(INT)
With no sample data, we can't really tell whether this:
Expected: Austria 2 4825
is true or not.
Anyway: would changing the GROUP BY clause to
GROUP BY cntry.NAME
(i.e. removing additional two columns from it) do any good?
`SELECT C.COUNTRY_NAME,COUNT(I.INVOICE_NUMBER),AVG(I.TOTAL_PRICE) AS AVERAGE
FROM COUNTRY AS C JOIN CITY AS CS ON C.ID=CS.COUNTRY_ID
JOIN CUSTOMER AS CUS ON CUS.CITY_ID=CS.ID
JOIN INVOICE AS I ON I.CUSTOMER_ID=CUS.ID
GROUP BY C.COUNTRY_NAME,C.ID
HAVING AVERAGE>(SELECT AVG(TOTAL_PRICE) FROM INVOICE`
would changing the GROUP BY clause to
GROUP BY cntry.NAME , cntry.ID
Fix your group by columns.
Keep only cntry.name.
It will work.
This is a hackerrank question.
I have data that looks like this in Redshift:
+-------------+------------+---------+
| Employee_ID | Manager_ID | Revenue |
+-------------+------------+---------+
| 123 | 123 | 1015.24 |
| 541 | 123 | 5587.23 |
+-------------+------------+---------+
I want to write a query that sums manager revenue whenever a Manager_ID is inputted and sums employee revenue whenever an Employee_ID is inputted. Currently, I have a query that looks like this and I have to run it twice:
SELECT
sum(revenue) as revenue
FROM
employee_rev r
WHERE
r.manager_id in ('123','124') --I change this to employee_ID the second time around
If it helps, there is another table like this:
+-------------+------------------------+
| Employee_ID | Role |
+-------------+------------------------+
| 123 | Manager |
| 541 | Individual Contributor |
+-------------+------------------------+
Thank you so much for your time, this seemed really simple and now I'm pretty frustrated.
I think you can just do:
SELECT sum(revenue) as revenue
FROM employee_rev r
WHERE 123 in (r.employee_id, r.manager_id);
That is, for a given id, look in both columns. An employee should never be in the manager column, so this would appear to do what you want.
EDIT:
For multiple ids, you would have to test independently. Either:
WHERE 123 IN (r.employee_id, r.manager_id) OR
456 IN (r.employee_id, r.manager_id)
or:
WHERE r.employee_id in (123, 456) OR
r.manager_id in (123, 456)
Use union to add two selects into one 'table', then sum it. I think this should work
SELECT sum(result) from (
SELECT
sum(revenue) as result
FROM
employee_rev r
WHERE
r.manager_id in ('123')
UNION ALL
SELECT
sum(revenue) as result
FROM
employee_rev r
WHERE
r.employee_id in ('124')
)
I do quite a bit of data analysis and use SQL on a daily basis but my queries are rather simple, usually pulling a lot of data which I thereafter manipulate in excel, where I'm a lot more experienced.
This time though I'm trying to generate some Live Charts which have as input a single SQL query. I will now have to create complex tables without the aid of the excel tools I'm so familiar with.
The problem is the following:
We have telesales agents that book appointments by answering to inbound calls and making outbound cals. These will generate leads that might potentially result in a sale. The relevant tables and fields for this problem are these:
Contact Table
Agent
Sales Table
Price
OutboundCallDate
I want to know for each telesales agent their respective Total Sales amount in one column, and their outbound sales value in another.
The end result should look something like this:
+-------+------------+---------------+
| Agent | TotalSales | OutboundSales |
+-------+------------+---------------+
| Tom | 30145 | 0 |
| Sally | 16449 | 1000 |
| John | 10500 | 300 |
| Joe | 50710 | 0 |
+-------+------------+---------------+
With the below SQL I get the following result:
SELECT contact.agent, SUM(sales.price)
FROM contact, sales
WHERE contact.id = sales.id
GROUP BY contact.agent
+-------+------------+
| Agent | TotalSales |
+-------+------------+
| Tom | 30145 |
| Sally | 16449 |
| John | 10500 |
| Joe | 50710 |
+-------+------------+
I want to add the third column to this query result, in which the price is summed only for records where the OutboundCallDate field contains data. Something a bit like (where sales.OutboundCallDate is Not Null)
I hope this is clear enough. Let me know if that's not the case.
Use CASE
SELECT c.Agent,
SUM(s.price) AS TotalSales,
SUM(CASE
WHEN s.OutboundCallDate IS NOT NULL THEN s.price
ELSE 0
END) AS OutboundSales
FROM contact c, sales s
WHERE c.id = s.id
GROUP BY c.agent
I think the code would look
SELECT contact.agent, SUM(sales.price)
FROM contact, sales
WHERE contact.id = sales.id AND SUM(WHERE sales.OutboundCallDate)
GROUP BY contact.agent
notI'm assuming your Sales table contains something like Units and Price. If it's just a sales amount, then replace the calculation with the sales amount field name.
The key thing here is that the value summed should only be the sales amount if the OutboundCallDate exists. If the OutboundCallDate is not NULL, then we're using a value of 0 for that row.
select Agent.Agent, TotalSales = sum (sales.Price*Units)
, OutboundSales = sum (
case when Outboundcalldate is not null then price*Units
else 0
end)
From Sales inner join Agent on Sales.Agent = Agent.Agent
Group by Agent.Agent
So I got this very inconsistent record for example(just an example):
Manager | Associate | FTE | Revenue
Bob | James | Y | 500
Bob | James | NULL | 100
Bob | James | Y | 200
Kelly | Rick | N | 200
Kelly | Rick | N | 500
Kelly | Rick | NULL | 300
So the goal i wanted was to Sum up the revenue, but the problem is in the group by the nulls kinda split them apart. So i want to write an update statement saying basically "well Looks like James and Bob are both FTE, so lets update that to Y and Kelly and rick are not so update that to no."
How can i fix this? Using MSAccess and of course my table is a lot biger with a lot of different name combos.
You can "impute" the value by using an aggregation function. The following query aggregates by manager/associate and takes the maximum value of fte. This is then joined back to the original data to do the calculation:
select ma.fte, sum(Revenue)
from table as t inner join
(select manager, associate, max(fte) as fte
from table as t
group by manager, associate
) as ma
on t.manager = ma.manager and
t.associate = ma.associate
group by ma.fte;
EDIT:
Immediately after posting this, I realized the join is not necessary. Two aggregations are sufficient:
select ma.fte, sum(Revenue)
from (select manager, associate, max(fte) as fte, sum(Revenue) as Revenue
from table as t
group by manager, associate
) as ma
group by ma.fte;
You haven't given the primary key columns, which makes it a bit harder. I've called it {id} below.
With the nulls, many SQL dialects have an "IfNull" function, but it seems MS-Access does not. You can get the same effect this way:
IIF(ISNULL(column),0,column)
You'd use that in a SELECT as so:
SELECT IIF(ISNULL(Revenue),0,Revenue) FROM ...
For a one-off fix you could do this:
UPDATE {table} SET Revenue=0 WHERE Revenue = NULL;
Doing a join to get the FTE from another row is more complex, and I don't have access handy to see just what the limits and syntax are. The easy to understand way is a nested query:
UPDATE {table} a SET FTE = (SELECT max(FTE) FROM {table} b WHERE FTE IS NOT NULL AND a.{id} = b.{id})
The max() function works here because it ignores nulls, where some other functions return null if you pass a null in.
I can't quite get my head around a SQL query because it is not my forté. I'm trying to select the names of rows in an employees table the id's of which appear in a column salesPersonId of another table, accounts. That is, any employee name which is represented in the accounts table.
ACCOUNT
+----+---------------+
| id | salesPersonID |
+----+---------------+
| 0 | 1020 |
+----+---------------+
| 1 | 1020 |
+----+---------------+
| 2 | 1009 |
+----+---------------+
EMPLOYEE
+------+---------------+
| id | firstName |
+------+---------------+
| 1009 | BILL | <-select his name
+------+---------------+
| 1020 | KATE | <-select her name
+------+---------------+
| 1025 | NEIL | <-not this guy
+------+---------------+
Since Neil hasn't got any presence in account.salesPersonID, I'd like to select the other two besides him. I'm not getting very far with it though, and looking for some input.
SELECT * FROM employee e
LEFT JOIN account a
ON a.salesPersonID = e.id
WHERE (SELECT COUNT(salesPersonID) FROM account) > 0
does not work. I wonder how I could select these employee names that are present in salesPersonID. Thank you.
Try this:
SELECT Distinct e.firstName
FROM employee e
JOIN account a ON a.salesPersonID = e.id
The JOIN will take care of the filtering to make sure that you are only returning the records that exist in both tables.
Distinct will make sure that you are only getting each firstName value one time. You can also accomplish this by Grouping by employee.Id or employee.firstName (grouping by Id is the better strategy if you want to return one row for each unique employee, even if they have the same first name, grouping on firstName or using distinct is for when you just want one of each unique name, even if the name is used by more than one employee)
u can have the query like this....
select e.firstname from employees1 e left join account a on(e.id=a.salespersonid)
where e.id= a.salespersonid
group by e.firstname
result:
firstname
bill
kate