I have a long and wide list, the following table is just an example. Table structure might look a bit horrible using SQL, but I was wondering whether there's a way to extract IDs' price using CASE expression without typing column names in order to match in the expression
IDs
A_Price
B_Price
C_Price
...
A
23
...
B
65
82
...
C
...
A
10
...
..
...
...
...
...
Table I want to achieve:
IDs
price
A
23;10
B
65
C
82
..
...
I tried:
SELECT IDs, string_agg(CASE IDs WHEN 'A' THEN A_Price
WHEN 'B' THEN B_Price
WHEN 'C' THEN C_Price
end::text, ';') as price
FROM table
GROUP BY IDs
ORDER BY IDs
To avoid typing A, B, A_Price, B_Price etc, I tried to format their names and call them from a subquery, but it seems that SQL cannot recognise them as columns and cannot call the corresponding values.
WITH CTE AS (
SELECT IDs, IDs||'_Price' as t FROM ID_list
)
SELECT IDs, string_agg(CASE IDs WHEN CTE.IDs THEN CTE.t
end::text, ';') as price
FROM table
LEFT JOIN CTE cte.IDs=table.IDs
GROUP BY IDs
ORDER BY IDs
You can use a document type like json or hstore as stepping stone:
Basic query:
SELECT t.ids
, to_json(t.*) ->> (t.ids || '_price') AS price
FROM tbl t;
to_json() converts the whole row to a JSON object, which you can then pick a (dynamically concatenated) key from.
Your aggregation:
SELECT t.ids
, string_agg(to_json(t.*) ->> (t.ids || '_price'), ';') AS prices
FROM tbl t
GROUP BY 1
ORDER BY 1;
Converting the whole (big?) row adds some overhead, but you have to read the whole table for your query anyway.
A union would be one approach here:
SELECT IDs, A_Price FROM yourTable WHERE A_Price IS NOT NULL
UNION ALL
SELECT IDs, B_Price FROM yourTable WHERE B_Price IS NOT NULL
UNION ALL
SELECT IDs, C_Price FROM yourTable WHERE C_Price IS NOT NULL;
I have a column that has several items in which I need to count the times it is called, my column table looks something like this:
Table Example
Id_TR Triggered
-------------- ------------------
A1_6547 R1:23;R2:0;R4:9000
A2_1235 R2:0;R2:100;R3:-100
A3_5436 R1:23;R2:100;R4:9000
A4_1245 R2:0;R5:150
And I would like the result to be like this:
Expected Results
Triggered Count(1)
--------------- --------
R1:23 2
R2:0 3
R2:100 2
R3:-100 1
R4:9000 2
R5:150 1
I've tried to do some substring, but cant seem to find how to solve this problem. Can anyone help?
This solution is X3 times faster than the CONNECT BY solution
performance: 15K records per second
with cte (token,suffix)
as
(
select substr(triggered||';',1,instr(triggered,';')-1) as token
,substr(triggered||';',instr(triggered,';')+1) as suffix
from t
union all
select substr(suffix,1,instr(suffix,';')-1) as token
,substr(suffix,instr(suffix,';')+1) as suffix
from cte
where suffix is not null
)
select token,count(*)
from cte
group by token
;
with x as (
select listagg(Triggered, ';') within group (order by Id_TR) str from table
)
select regexp_substr(str,'[^;]+',1,level) element, count(*)
from x
connect by level <= length(regexp_replace(str,'[^;]+')) + 1
group by regexp_substr(str,'[^;]+',1,level);
First concatenate all values of triggered into one list using listagg then parse it and do group by.
Another methods of parsing list you can find here or here
This is a fair solution.
performance: 5K records per second
select triggered
,count(*) as cnt
from (select id_tr
,regexp_substr(triggered,'[^;]+',1,level) as triggered
from t
connect by id_tr = prior id_tr
and level <= regexp_count(triggered,';')+1
and prior sys_guid() is not null
) t
group by triggered
;
This is just for learning purposes.
Check my other solutions.
performance: 1K records per second
select x.triggered
,count(*)
from t
,xmltable
(
'/r/x'
passing xmltype('<r><x>' || replace(triggered,';', '</x><x>') || '</x></r>')
columns triggered varchar(100) path '.'
) x
group by x.triggered
;
This question already has an answer here:
Why does "select count(*)" from nothing return 1
(1 answer)
Closed 7 years ago.
for a quick check I used a query
select COUNT(*) LargeTable
and was surprized to see
LargeTable
-----------
1
seconds later I realized my mistake, made it
select COUNT(*) from LargeTable
and got expected result
(No column name)
-----------
1.000.000+
but now I don't understand why COUNT(*) returned 1
it happens if I do select COUNT(*) or declare #x int = COUNT(*); select #x
another case
declare #EmptyTable table ( Value int )
select COUNT(*) from #EmptyTable
returns
(No column name)
-----------
0
I did't find explanation in SQL standard (http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt, online source is given here https://stackoverflow.com/a/8949764/1506454)
why COUNT(*) returns 1?
In SQL Server a SELECT without a FROM clause works as though it operates against a single row table.
This is not standard SQL. Other RDBMSs provide a utility DUAL table with a single row.
So this would be treated effectively the same as
SELECT COUNT(*) AS LargeTable
FROM DUAL
A related Connect Item discussing
SELECT 'test'
WHERE EXISTS (SELECT *)
is https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/671475/select-test-where-exists-select
Because without the FROM clause DBMS cannot know [LargeTable] is a table. You tricked it in guessing it's a COLUMN NAME alias
You can try it and see
select count(*) 'eklmnjdklfgm'
select count(*) eklmnjdklfgm
select count(*) [eklmnjdklfgm]
select count(*)
The first 3 examples returns eklmnjdklfgm as column name
Count(*) returned 1 because your sentence is not of SQL.
1) In the first sentences, you accounts a table empty, with an only row, since you don't put to which table want to access.
2) In the second case:
declare #EmptyTable table ( Value int )
select COUNT(*) from #EmptyTable
returns
(No column name)
-----------
0
You put the variable, but don't determine to which table implement him. For this, do a count and go out 0.
I have searched a lot, but most of solutions are for concatenation option and not what I really want.
I have a table called X (in a Postgres database):
anm_id anm_category anm_sales
1 a_dog 100
2 b_dog 50
3 c_dog 60
4 a_cat 70
5 b_cat 80
6 c_cat 40
I want to get total sales by grouping 'a_dog', 'b_dog', 'c_dog' as dogs and 'a_cat', 'b_cat', 'c_cat' as cats.
I cannot change the data in the table as it is an external data base from which I am supposed to get information only.
How to do this using an SQL query? It does not need to be specific to Postgres.
Use case statement to group the animals of same categories together
SELECT CASE
WHEN anm_category LIKE '%dog' THEN 'Dogs'
WHEN anm_category LIKE '%cat' THEN 'cats'
ELSE 'Others'
END AS Animals_category,
Sum(anm_sales) AS total_sales
FROM yourtables
GROUP BY CASE
WHEN anm_category LIKE '%dog' THEN 'Dogs'
WHEN anm_category LIKE '%cat' THEN 'cats'
ELSE 'Others'
END
Also this query should work with most of the databases.
By using PostgreSQL's split_part()
select animal||'s' animal_cat,count(*) total_sales,sum(anm_sales) sales_sum from(
select split_part(anm_cat,'_',2) animal,anm_sales from x
)t
group by animal
sqlfiddle
By creating split_str() in MySQL
select animal||'s' animal_cat,count(*) total_sales,sum(anm_sales) sales_sum from(
select split_str(anm_cat,'_',2) animal,anm_sales from x
)t
group by animal
sqlfiddle
You could group by a substr of anm_catogery:
SELECT SUBSTR(anm_catogery, 3) || 's', COUNT(*)
FROM x
GROUP BY anm_catogery
If you have a constant length of the appendix like in the example:
SELECT CASE right(anm_category, 3) AS animal_type -- 3 last char
, sum(anm_sales) AS total_sales
FROM x
GROUP BY 1;
You don't need a CASE statement at all, but if you use one, make it a "simple" CASE:
Simplify nested case when statement
Use a positional reference instead of repeating a possibly lengthy expression.
If the length varies, but there is always a single underscore like in the example:
SELECT split_part(anm_category, '_', 2) AS animal_type -- word after "_"
, sum(anm_sales) AS total_sales
FROM x
GROUP BY 1;
I have a simple SQL query in PostgreSQL 8.3 that grabs a bunch of comments. I provide a sorted list of values to the IN construct in the WHERE clause:
SELECT * FROM comments WHERE (comments.id IN (1,3,2,4));
This returns comments in an arbitrary order which in my happens to be ids like 1,2,3,4.
I want the resulting rows sorted like the list in the IN construct: (1,3,2,4).
How to achieve that?
You can do it quite easily with (introduced in PostgreSQL 8.2) VALUES (), ().
Syntax will be like this:
select c.*
from comments c
join (
values
(1,1),
(3,2),
(2,3),
(4,4)
) as x (id, ordering) on c.id = x.id
order by x.ordering
In Postgres 9.4 or later, this is simplest and fastest:
SELECT c.*
FROM comments c
JOIN unnest('{1,3,2,4}'::int[]) WITH ORDINALITY t(id, ord) USING (id)
ORDER BY t.ord;
WITH ORDINALITY was introduced with in Postgres 9.4.
No need for a subquery, we can use the set-returning function like a table directly. (A.k.a. "table-function".)
A string literal to hand in the array instead of an ARRAY constructor may be easier to implement with some clients.
For convenience (optionally), copy the column name we are joining to ("id" in the example), so we can join with a short USING clause to only get a single instance of the join column in the result.
Works with any input type. If your key column is of type text, provide something like '{foo,bar,baz}'::text[].
Detailed explanation:
PostgreSQL unnest() with element number
Just because it is so difficult to find and it has to be spread: in mySQL this can be done much simpler, but I don't know if it works in other SQL.
SELECT * FROM `comments`
WHERE `comments`.`id` IN ('12','5','3','17')
ORDER BY FIELD(`comments`.`id`,'12','5','3','17')
With Postgres 9.4 this can be done a bit shorter:
select c.*
from comments c
join (
select *
from unnest(array[43,47,42]) with ordinality
) as x (id, ordering) on c.id = x.id
order by x.ordering;
Or a bit more compact without a derived table:
select c.*
from comments c
join unnest(array[43,47,42]) with ordinality as x (id, ordering)
on c.id = x.id
order by x.ordering
Removing the need to manually assign/maintain a position to each value.
With Postgres 9.6 this can be done using array_position():
with x (id_list) as (
values (array[42,48,43])
)
select c.*
from comments c, x
where id = any (x.id_list)
order by array_position(x.id_list, c.id);
The CTE is used so that the list of values only needs to be specified once. If that is not important this can also be written as:
select c.*
from comments c
where id in (42,48,43)
order by array_position(array[42,48,43], c.id);
I think this way is better :
SELECT * FROM "comments" WHERE ("comments"."id" IN (1,3,2,4))
ORDER BY id=1 DESC, id=3 DESC, id=2 DESC, id=4 DESC
Another way to do it in Postgres would be to use the idx function.
SELECT *
FROM comments
ORDER BY idx(array[1,3,2,4], comments.id)
Don't forget to create the idx function first, as described here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Array_Index
In Postgresql:
select *
from comments
where id in (1,3,2,4)
order by position(id::text in '1,3,2,4')
On researching this some more I found this solution:
SELECT * FROM "comments" WHERE ("comments"."id" IN (1,3,2,4))
ORDER BY CASE "comments"."id"
WHEN 1 THEN 1
WHEN 3 THEN 2
WHEN 2 THEN 3
WHEN 4 THEN 4
END
However this seems rather verbose and might have performance issues with large datasets.
Can anyone comment on these issues?
To do this, I think you should probably have an additional "ORDER" table which defines the mapping of IDs to order (effectively doing what your response to your own question said), which you can then use as an additional column on your select which you can then sort on.
In that way, you explicitly describe the ordering you desire in the database, where it should be.
sans SEQUENCE, works only on 8.4:
select * from comments c
join
(
select id, row_number() over() as id_sorter
from (select unnest(ARRAY[1,3,2,4]) as id) as y
) x on x.id = c.id
order by x.id_sorter
SELECT * FROM "comments" JOIN (
SELECT 1 as "id",1 as "order" UNION ALL
SELECT 3,2 UNION ALL SELECT 2,3 UNION ALL SELECT 4,4
) j ON "comments"."id" = j."id" ORDER BY j.ORDER
or if you prefer evil over good:
SELECT * FROM "comments" WHERE ("comments"."id" IN (1,3,2,4))
ORDER BY POSITION(','+"comments"."id"+',' IN ',1,3,2,4,')
And here's another solution that works and uses a constant table (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/sql-values.html):
SELECT * FROM comments AS c,
(VALUES (1,1),(3,2),(2,3),(4,4) ) AS t (ord_id,ord)
WHERE (c.id IN (1,3,2,4)) AND (c.id = t.ord_id)
ORDER BY ord
But again I'm not sure that this is performant.
I've got a bunch of answers now. Can I get some voting and comments so I know which is the winner!
Thanks All :-)
create sequence serial start 1;
select * from comments c
join (select unnest(ARRAY[1,3,2,4]) as id, nextval('serial') as id_sorter) x
on x.id = c.id
order by x.id_sorter;
drop sequence serial;
[EDIT]
unnest is not yet built-in in 8.3, but you can create one yourself(the beauty of any*):
create function unnest(anyarray) returns setof anyelement
language sql as
$$
select $1[i] from generate_series(array_lower($1,1),array_upper($1,1)) i;
$$;
that function can work in any type:
select unnest(array['John','Paul','George','Ringo']) as beatle
select unnest(array[1,3,2,4]) as id
Slight improvement over the version that uses a sequence I think:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION in_sort(anyarray, out id anyelement, out ordinal int)
LANGUAGE SQL AS
$$
SELECT $1[i], i FROM generate_series(array_lower($1,1),array_upper($1,1)) i;
$$;
SELECT
*
FROM
comments c
INNER JOIN (SELECT * FROM in_sort(ARRAY[1,3,2,4])) AS in_sort
USING (id)
ORDER BY in_sort.ordinal;
select * from comments where comments.id in
(select unnest(ids) from bbs where id=19795)
order by array_position((select ids from bbs where id=19795),comments.id)
here, [bbs] is the main table that has a field called ids,
and, ids is the array that store the comments.id .
passed in postgresql 9.6
Lets get a visual impression about what was already said. For example you have a table with some tasks:
SELECT a.id,a.status,a.description FROM minicloud_tasks as a ORDER BY random();
id | status | description
----+------------+------------------
4 | processing | work on postgres
6 | deleted | need some rest
3 | pending | garden party
5 | completed | work on html
And you want to order the list of tasks by its status.
The status is a list of string values:
(processing, pending, completed, deleted)
The trick is to give each status value an interger and order the list numerical:
SELECT a.id,a.status,a.description FROM minicloud_tasks AS a
JOIN (
VALUES ('processing', 1), ('pending', 2), ('completed', 3), ('deleted', 4)
) AS b (status, id) ON (a.status = b.status)
ORDER BY b.id ASC;
Which leads to:
id | status | description
----+------------+------------------
4 | processing | work on postgres
3 | pending | garden party
5 | completed | work on html
6 | deleted | need some rest
Credit #user80168
I agree with all other posters that say "don't do that" or "SQL isn't good at that". If you want to sort by some facet of comments then add another integer column to one of your tables to hold your sort criteria and sort by that value. eg "ORDER BY comments.sort DESC " If you want to sort these in a different order every time then... SQL won't be for you in this case.