In my dataflow, after some lookups I would get duplicate customer records(They are not exact duplicates only the customer ID is the same), based on some attributes of the customer like city, location. I need to choose one record among them.
How I can achieve this in SSIS dataflow
Here is the sample data:
;with cust (CustomerID,Cutomer_Name,score)
as
(Select 1 as CustomerID, 'abd' as Cutomer_Name, 100 as Score
union
select 1,'abd',null
union select 1,'abd',20
)
select * from cust
From here I need to choose the record the with lowest score and send only that row to the final table.
It's easy to achieve with Rownum function in SQL, but this case occurs during the dataflow in SSIS
Do the source's data access mode on an SQL command.
Use a MultiCast to split it into two Outputs - say Output1 and Output2. One of the outputs connect to a Aggregate transformation and Group by CustomerId and do a Minimum of Score. Now connect back the output of the Aggregate transform to Output2 use a Merge Join in the mapping map Output2.CustomerId = Aggregate Transform.Score and Output2.CustomerId = Aggregate Transform.Score. This would do the trick, but if you have multiple customerIds with the same score then you might need a Sort after this step to remove duplicates. Hope this helps.
This is the solution which helped me to solve my issue
http://paultebraak.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/rank-partitioning-in-etl-using-ssis/
I would like to query a DB2 table and get all the results of a query in addition to all of the rows returned by the select statement in a separate column.
E.g., if the table contains columns 'id' and 'user_id', assuming 100 rows, the result of the query would appear in this format: (id) | (user_id) | 100.
I do not wish to use a 'group by' clause in the query. (Just in case you are confused about what i am asking) Also, I could not find an example here: http://mysite.verizon.net/Graeme_Birchall/cookbook/DB2V97CK.PDF.
Also, if there is a more efficient way of getting both these results (values + count), I would welcome any ideas. My environment uses zend framework 1.x, which does not have an ODBC adapter for DB2. (See issue http://framework.zend.com/issues/browse/ZF-905.)
If I understand what you are asking for, then the answer should be
select t.*, g.tally
from mytable t,
(select count(*) as tally
from mytable
) as g;
If this is not what you want, then please give an actual example of desired output, supposing there are 3 to 5 records, so that we can see exactly what you want.
You would use window/analytic functions for this:
select t.*, count(*) over() as NumRows
from table t;
This will work for whatever kind of query you have.
I've run into a syntax issue with SQL. What I'm trying to do here is add together all of the amounts paid on each order (paid each) an then only select those that are greater than sum of of paid each for a specific order# (1008). I've been trying to move around lots of different things here and I'm not having any luck.
This is what I have right now, though I've had many different things. Trying to use this simply returns an SQL statement not ended properly error. Any help you guys could give would be greatly appreciated. Do I have to use DISTINCT anywhere here?
SELECT ORDER#,
TO_CHAR(SUM(PAIDEACH), '$999.99') AS "Amount > Order 1008"
FROM ORDERITEMS
GROUP BY ORDER#
WHERE TO_CHAR > (SUM (PAIDEACH))
WHERE ORDER# = 1008;
Some versions of SQL regard the hash character (#) as the beginning of a comment. Others use double hyphen (--) and some use both. So, my first thought is that your ORDER# field is named incorrectly (though I can't imagine the engine would let you create a field with that name).
You have two WHERE keywords, which isn't allowed. If you have multiple WHERE conditions, you must link them together using boolean logic, with AND and OR keywords.
You have your WHERE condition after GROUP BY which should be reversed. Specify WHERE conditions before GROUP BY.
One of your WHERE conditions makes no sense. TO_CHAR > (SUM(paideach)): TO_CHAR() is a function which as far as I know is an Oracle function that converts numeric values to strings according to a specified format. The equivalent in SQL Server is CAST or CONVERT.
I'm guessing that you are trying to write a query that finds orders with amounts exceeding a particular value, but it's not very clear because one of your WHERE conditions specifies that the order number should be 1008, which would presumably only return one record.
The query should probably look more like this:
SELECT order,
SUM(paideach) AS amount
FROM orderitems
GROUP BY order
HAVING amount > 999.99;
This would select records from the orderitems table where the sum of paideach exceeds 999.99.
I'm not sure how order 1008 fits into things, so you will have to elaborate on that.
Other have commented on some of the things wrong with your query. I'll try to give more explicit hints about what I think you need to do to get the result I think you're looking for.
The problem seems to break into distinct sections, first finding the total for each order which you're close to and I think probably started from:
SELECT ORDER#, SUM(PAIDEACH) AS AMOUNT
FROM ORDERITEMS
GROUP BY ORDER#;
... finding the total for a specific order:
SELECT SUM(PAIDEACH)
FROM ORDERITEMS
WHERE ORDER# = 1008;
... and combining them, which is where you're stuck. The simplest way, and hopefully something you've recently been taught, is to use the HAVING clause, which comes after the GROUP BY and acts as a kind of filter that can be applied to the aggregated columns (which you can't do in the WHERE clause). If you had a fixed amount you could do this:
SELECT ORDER#, SUM(PAIDEACH) AS AMOUNT
FROM ORDERITEMS
GROUP BY ORDER#
HAVING SUM(PAIDEACH) > 5;
(Note that as #Bridge indicated you can't use the column alias, AMOUNT, in the having clause, you have to repeat the aggregation function SUM). But you don't have a fixed value, you want to use the actual total for order 1008, so you need to replace that fixed value with another query. I'll let you take that last step...
I'm not familiar with Oracle, and since it's homework I won't give you the answers, just a few ideas of what I think is wrong.
select statement should only have one where statement - can have more than one condition of course, just separated by logical operators (anything that evaluates to true will be included). E.g. : WHERE (column1 > column2) AND (column3 = 100)
Group by statements should after WHERE clauses
You can't refer to columns you've aliased in the select in the where clause of the same statement by their aliased name. For example this won't work:
SELECT column1 as hello
FROM table1
WHERE hello = 1
If there's a group by, the columns you're selecting should be the same as in that statement (or aggregates of those). This page does a better explanation of this than I do.
Given a relation R with n columns. Use sql to returns the tuples having the maximum number of occurrences of the values. I have no idea how to do query horizontally?
SELECT MAX(t.*) FROM mytable t
or
SELECT DISTINCT a, b, c FROM mytable
or
SELECT DISTINCT * FROM mytable
it depends on which SQL implementation you are referring to, and generally more information about the query. but the above examples should get you started so you can google some terms.
I'm not sure what you mean by querying horizontally. Is it one relation with multiple key columns linking the two tables? Sounds like you might just need to group by those columns and order by count(*) descending...
What is the difference between HAVING and WHERE in an SQL SELECT statement?
EDIT: I have marked Steven's answer as the correct one as it contained the key bit of information on the link:
When GROUP BY is not used, HAVING behaves like a WHERE clause
The situation I had seen the WHERE in did not have GROUP BY and is where my confusion started. Of course, until you know this you can't specify it in the question.
HAVING: is used to check conditions after the aggregation takes place.
WHERE: is used to check conditions before the aggregation takes place.
This code:
select City, CNT=Count(1)
From Address
Where State = 'MA'
Group By City
Gives you a table of all cities in MA and the number of addresses in each city.
This code:
select City, CNT=Count(1)
From Address
Where State = 'MA'
Group By City
Having Count(1)>5
Gives you a table of cities in MA with more than 5 addresses and the number of addresses in each city.
HAVING specifies a search condition for a
group or an aggregate function used in SELECT statement.
Source
Number one difference for me: if HAVING was removed from the SQL language then life would go on more or less as before. Certainly, a minority queries would need to be rewritten using a derived table, CTE, etc but they would arguably be easier to understand and maintain as a result. Maybe vendors' optimizer code would need to be rewritten to account for this, again an opportunity for improvement within the industry.
Now consider for a moment removing WHERE from the language. This time the majority of queries in existence would need to be rewritten without an obvious alternative construct. Coders would have to get creative e.g. inner join to a table known to contain exactly one row (e.g. DUAL in Oracle) using the ON clause to simulate the prior WHERE clause. Such constructions would be contrived; it would be obvious there was something was missing from the language and the situation would be worse as a result.
TL;DR we could lose HAVING tomorrow and things would be no worse, possibly better, but the same cannot be said of WHERE.
From the answers here, it seems that many folk don't realize that a HAVING clause may be used without a GROUP BY clause. In this case, the HAVING clause is applied to the entire table expression and requires that only constants appear in the SELECT clause. Typically the HAVING clause will involve aggregates.
This is more useful than it sounds. For example, consider this query to test whether the name column is unique for all values in T:
SELECT 1 AS result
FROM T
HAVING COUNT( DISTINCT name ) = COUNT( name );
There are only two possible results: if the HAVING clause is true then the result with be a single row containing the value 1, otherwise the result will be the empty set.
The HAVING clause was added to SQL because the WHERE keyword could not be used with aggregate functions.
Check out this w3schools link for more information
Syntax:
SELECT column_name, aggregate_function(column_name)
FROM table_name
WHERE column_name operator value
GROUP BY column_name
HAVING aggregate_function(column_name) operator value
A query such as this:
SELECT column_name, COUNT( column_name ) AS column_name_tally
FROM table_name
WHERE column_name < 3
GROUP
BY column_name
HAVING COUNT( column_name ) >= 3;
...may be rewritten using a derived table (and omitting the HAVING) like this:
SELECT column_name, column_name_tally
FROM (
SELECT column_name, COUNT(column_name) AS column_name_tally
FROM table_name
WHERE column_name < 3
GROUP
BY column_name
) pointless_range_variable_required_here
WHERE column_name_tally >= 3;
The difference between the two is in the relationship to the GROUP BY clause:
WHERE comes before GROUP BY; SQL evaluates the WHERE clause before it groups records.
HAVING comes after GROUP BY; SQL evaluates HAVING after it groups records.
References
SQLite SELECT Statement Syntax/Railroad Diagram
Informix SELECT Statement Syntax/Railroad Diagram
HAVING is used when you are using an aggregate such as GROUP BY.
SELECT edc_country, COUNT(*)
FROM Ed_Centers
GROUP BY edc_country
HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
ORDER BY edc_country;
WHERE is applied as a limitation on the set returned by SQL; it uses SQL's built-in set oeprations and indexes and therefore is the fastest way to filter result sets. Always use WHERE whenever possible.
HAVING is necessary for some aggregate filters. It filters the query AFTER sql has retrieved, assembled, and sorted the results. Therefore, it is much slower than WHERE and should be avoided except in those situations that require it.
SQL Server will let you get away with using HAVING even when WHERE would be much faster. Don't do it.
WHERE clause does not work for aggregate functions
means : you should not use like this
bonus : table name
SELECT name
FROM bonus
GROUP BY name
WHERE sum(salary) > 200
HERE Instead of using WHERE clause you have to use HAVING..
without using GROUP BY clause, HAVING clause just works as WHERE clause
SELECT name
FROM bonus
GROUP BY name
HAVING sum(salary) > 200
Difference b/w WHERE and HAVING clause:
The main difference between WHERE and HAVING clause is, WHERE is used for row operations and HAVING is used for column operations.
Why we need HAVING clause?
As we know, aggregate functions can only be performed on columns, so we can not use aggregate functions in WHERE clause. Therefore, we use aggregate functions in HAVING clause.
One way to think of it is that the having clause is an additional filter to the where clause.
A WHERE clause is used filters records from a result. The filter occurs before any groupings are made. A HAVING clause is used to filter values from a group
In an Aggregate query, (Any query Where an aggregate function is used) Predicates in a where clause are evaluated before the aggregated intermediate result set is generated,
Predicates in a Having clause are applied to the aggregate result set AFTER it has been generated. That's why predicate conditions on aggregate values must be placed in Having clause, not in the Where clause, and why you can use aliases defined in the Select clause in a Having Clause, but not in a Where Clause.
I had a problem and found out another difference between WHERE and HAVING. It does not act the same way on indexed columns.
WHERE my_indexed_row = 123 will show rows and automatically perform a "ORDER ASC" on other indexed rows.
HAVING my_indexed_row = 123 shows everything from the oldest "inserted" row to the newest one, no ordering.
When GROUP BY is not used, the WHERE and HAVING clauses are essentially equivalent.
However, when GROUP BY is used:
The WHERE clause is used to filter records from a result. The
filtering occurs before any groupings are made.
The HAVING clause is used to filter values from a group (i.e., to
check conditions after aggregation into groups has been performed).
Resource from Here
From here.
the SQL standard requires that HAVING
must reference only columns in the
GROUP BY clause or columns used in
aggregate functions
as opposed to the WHERE clause which is applied to database rows
While working on a project, this was also my question. As stated above, the HAVING checks the condition on the query result already found. But WHERE is for checking condition while query runs.
Let me give an example to illustrate this. Suppose you have a database table like this.
usertable{ int userid, date datefield, int dailyincome }
Suppose, the following rows are in table:
1, 2011-05-20, 100
1, 2011-05-21, 50
1, 2011-05-30, 10
2, 2011-05-30, 10
2, 2011-05-20, 20
Now, we want to get the userids and sum(dailyincome) whose sum(dailyincome)>100
If we write:
SELECT userid, sum(dailyincome) FROM usertable WHERE
sum(dailyincome)>100 GROUP BY userid
This will be an error. The correct query would be:
SELECT userid, sum(dailyincome) FROM usertable GROUP BY userid HAVING
sum(dailyincome)>100
WHERE clause is used for comparing values in the base table, whereas the HAVING clause can be used for filtering the results of aggregate functions in the result set of the query
Click here!
When GROUP BY is not used, the WHERE and HAVING clauses are essentially equivalent.
However, when GROUP BY is used:
The WHERE clause is used to filter records from a result. The
filtering occurs before any groupings are made.
The HAVING clause is
used to filter values from a group (i.e., to check conditions after
aggregation into groups has been performed).
I use HAVING for constraining a query based on the results of an aggregate function. E.G. select * in blahblahblah group by SOMETHING having count(SOMETHING)>0