I have a table as result of some calculations from SQL database and it looks like this:
[ID] [PAR1] [PAR2]
[A] [110] [0.5]
[B] [105] [1.5]
[C] [120] [2.0]
[D] [130] [3.0]
[E] [115] [5.5]
[F] [130] [6.5]
[G] [120] [7.0]
[H] [110] [7.5]
[I] [105] [8.0]
[J] [120] [9.0]
[K] [110] [9.5]
It's sorted by PAR2 - less means better result.
I need to find the best result of SUM PAR2 from 3 rows, where sum of PAR1 is minimum 350 (at least 350). For ex.:
combination of A+B+C give the the best result of sum PAR2 (0.5+1.5+2.0=4.0), but sum of PAR1: 110+105+120=335 <(350) - condition is not ok, can't use the result,
combination of A+B+D give the result of sum PAR2 (0.5+1.5+3.0=5.0), but sum of PAR1: 110+105+130=345 <(350)- condition is not ok, cant's use the result
combination of A+B+E give the result of sum PAR2 (0.5+1.5+5.5=7.5), but sum of PAR1: 110+105+115=330 <(350)- condition is not ok, cant's use the result
combination of A+B+F give the result of sum PAR2 (0.5+1.5+6.5=8.5), but sum of PAR1: 110+105+130=345 <(350)- condition is not ok, cant's use the result
(...)
combination of B+C+D give the result of sum PAR2 (1.5+2.0+3.0=6.5), and sum of PAR1: 105+120+130=355 >(350)- condition is ok!, so we have a winner with best result 6.5
It is an ASP.NET application, so I tried to get the table from database and use VB code behind to get the result, but this is a "manually" work using FOR..NEXT LOOP, takes a time. So it's not nice and good option for calculations like this and also too slow.
I am wondering if there is a better smooth and smart SQL code to get the result directly from SQL Query. Maybe some advanced math functions? Any ideas?
Thanks in advance.
I made some test using forpas solution, and yes, it works very good. But it takes to much time when i added a lot of WHERE conditions, because original table is very large. So I will try to find a solution for using temp tables in function (not procedures). Thank you all for your answers.
forpas, special thanks also for example and explanation, in this way you let me quikly understand your idea - this is master level ;)
You can use a double inner self-join like this:
select top 1 * from tablename t1
inner join tablename t2 on t2.id > t1.id
inner join tablename t3 on t3.id > t2.id
where t1.par1 + t2.par1 + t3.par1 >= 350
order by t1.par2 + t2.par2 + t3.par2
See the demo.
Results:
> ID | PAR1 | PAR2 | ID | PAR1 | PAR2 | ID | PAR1 | PAR2
> :- | ---: | :--- | :- | ---: | :--- | :- | ---: | :---
> A | 110 | 0.5 | C | 120 | 2.0 | D | 130 | 3.0
So the winner is A+C+D because:
110 + 120 + 130 = 360 >= 350
and the sum of PAR2 is
0.5 + 2.0 + 3.0 = 5.5
which is the minimum
Check this. I feel its accurate or close to your requiremnt-
WITH CTE (ID,PAR1,PAR2)
AS
(
SELECT 'A',110,0.5 UNION ALL
SELECT 'B',105,1.5 UNION ALL
SELECT 'C',120,2.0 UNION ALL
SELECT 'D',130,3.0 UNION ALL
SELECT 'E',115,5.5 UNION ALL
SELECT 'F',130,6.5 UNION ALL
SELECT 'G',120,7.0 UNION ALL
SELECT 'H',110,7.5 UNION ALL
SELECT 'I',105,8.0 UNION ALL
SELECT 'J',120,9.0 UNION ALL
SELECT 'K',110,9.5
)
SELECT B.AID,B.BID,B.CID,SUM_P2,SUM_P1
(
SELECT * , ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY CHAR_SUM ORDER BY CHAR_SUM) CS
FROM
(
SELECT ASCII(A.ID) + ASCII(B.ID)+ASCII(C.ID) CHAR_SUM,
A.ID AID,B.ID BID,C.ID CID,
(A.PAR2+B.PAR2+C.PAR2) AS SUM_P2,
(A.PAR1+B.PAR1+C.PAR1) AS SUM_P1
FROM CTE A
CROSS APPLY CTE B
CROSS APPLY CTE C
WHERE A.ID <> B.ID AND A.ID <> C.ID AND B.ID <> C.ID
AND (A.PAR1+B.PAR1+C.PAR1) >= 350
) A
)B
WHERE CS = 1
You might try to cross join the table with itself three times. This way you would have all the combination of three rows pivoted on a single row, thus making you able to apply the conditions required and picking the maximum value.
select t1.ID, t2.ID, t3.ID, t1.PAR2 + t2.PAR2 + t3.PAR2
from yourTable t1
cross join
yourTable t2
cross join
yourTable t3
where t1.ID < t2.ID and t2.ID < t3.ID and
t1.PAR1 + t2.PAR1 + t3.PAR1 >= 350
order by t1.PAR2 + t2.PAR2 + t3.PAR2 ASC
While this solution should technically work, cross joining tables is not ideal performance-wise, even more when doing it multiple times. If the size of the table is going to grow over time, and you have the option to apply the calculation at code level, I think it would be advisable to do so.
Edit
Changed the where clause including Serg's suggestion
Related
SELECT
SELECT pp.id, TO_CHAR(pp.created_dt::date, 'dd.mm.yyyy') AS "Date", CAST(pp.created_dt AS time(0)) AS "Time",
au.username AS "User", ss.name AS "Service", pp.amount, REPLACE(pp.status, 'SUCCESS', ' ') AS "Status",
pp.account AS "Props", pp.external_id AS "External", COALESCE(pp.external_status, null, 'indefined') AS "External status"
FROM payment AS pp
INNER JOIN auth_user AS au ON au.id = pp.creator_id
INNER JOIN services_service AS ss ON ss.id = pp.service_id
WHERE pp.created_dt::date = (CURRENT_DATE - INTERVAL '1' day)::date
AND ss.name = 'Some Name' AND pp.status = 'SUCCESS'
id | Date | Time | Service |amount | Status |
------+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+--------+---
9 | 2021.11.1 | 12:20:01 | some serv | 100 | stat |
10 | 2021.12.1 | 12:20:01 | some serv | 89 | stat |
------+-----------+-----------+------------+-------+--------+-----
Total | | | | 189 | |
I have a SELECT like this. I need to get something like the one shown above. That is, I need to get the total of one column. I've tried a lot of things already, but nothing works out for me.
If I understand correctly you want a result where extra row with aggregated value is appended after result of original query. You can achieve it multiple ways:
1. (recommended) the simplest way is probably to union your original query with helper query:
with t(id,other_column1,other_column2,amount) as (values
(9,'some serv','stat',100),
(10,'some serv','stat',89)
)
select t.id::text, t.other_column1, t.other_column2, t.amount from t
union all
select 'Total', null, null, sum(amount) from t
2. you can also use group by rollup clause whose purpose is exactly this. Your case makes it harder since your query contains many columns uninvolved in aggregation. Hence it is better to compute aggregation aside and join unimportant data later:
with t(id,other_column1,other_column2,amount) as (values
(9,'some serv','stat',100),
(10,'some serv','stat',89)
)
select case when t.id is null then 'Total' else t.id::text end as id
, t.other_column1
, t.other_column2
, case when t.id is null then ext.sum else t.amount end as amount
from (
select t.id, sum(amount) as sum
from t
group by rollup(t.id)
) ext
left join t on ext.id = t.id
order by ext.id
3. For completeness I just show you what should be done to avoid join. In that case group by clause would have to use all columns except amount (to preserve original rows) plus the aggregation (to get the sum row) hence the grouping sets clause with 2 sets is handy. (The rollup clause is special case of grouping sets after all.) The obvious drawback is repeating case grouping... expression for each column uninvolved in aggregation.
with t(id,other_column1,other_column2,amount) as (values
(9,'some serv','stat',100),
(10,'some serv2','stat',89)
)
select case grouping(t.id) when 0 then t.id::text else 'Total' end as id
, case grouping(t.id) when 0 then t.other_column1 end as other_column1
, case grouping(t.id) when 0 then t.other_column2 end as other_column2
, sum(t.amount) as amount
from t
group by grouping sets((t.id, t.other_column1, t.other_column2), ())
order by t.id
See example (db fiddle):
(To be frank, I can hardly imagine any purpose other than plain reporting where a column mixes id of number type with label Total of text type.)
Imagine a table with only one column.
+------+
| v |
+------+
|0.1234|
|0.8923|
|0.5221|
+------+
I want to do the following for row K:
Take row K=1 value: 0.1234
Count how many values in the rest of the table are less than or equal to value in row 1.
Iterate through all rows
Output should be:
+------+-------+
| v |output |
+------+-------+
|0.1234| 0 |
|0.8923| 2 |
|0.5221| 1 |
+------+-------+
Quick Update I was using this approach to compute a statistic at every value of v in the above table. The cross join approach was way too slow for the size of data I was dealing with. So, instead I computed my stat for a grid of v values and then matched them to the vs in the original data. v_table is the data table from before and stat_comp is the statistics table.
AS SELECT t1.*
,CASE WHEN v<=1.000000 THEN pr_1
WHEN v<=2.000000 AND v>1.000000 THEN pr_2
FROM v_table AS t1
LEFT OUTER JOIN stat_comp AS t2
Windows functions were added to ANSI/ISO SQL in 1999 and to to Hive in version 0.11, which was released on 15 May, 2013.
What you are looking for is a variation on rank with ties high which in ANSI/ISO SQL:2011 would look like this-
rank () over (order by v with ties high) - 1
Hive currently does not support with ties ... but the logic can be implemented using count(*) over (...)
select v
,count(*) over (order by v) - 1 as rank_with_ties_high_implicit
from mytable
;
or
select v
,count(*) over
(
order by v
range between unbounded preceding and current row
) - 1 as rank_with_ties_high_explicit
from mytable
;
Generate sample data
select 0.1234 as v into #t
union all
select 0.8923
union all
select 0.5221
This is the query
;with ct as (
select ROW_NUMBER() over (order by v) rn
, v
from #t ot
)
select distinct v, a.cnt
from ct ot
outer apply (select count(*) cnt from ct where ct.rn <> ot.rn and v <= ot.v) a
After seeing your edits, it really does look look like you could use a Cartesian product, i.e. CROSS JOIN here. I called your table foo, and crossed joined it to itself as bar:
SELECT foo.v, COUNT(foo.v) - 1 AS output
FROM foo
CROSS JOIN foo bar
WHERE foo.v >= bar.v
GROUP BY foo.v;
Here's a fiddle.
This query cross joins the column such that every permutation of the column's elements is returned (you can see this yourself by removing the SUM and GROUP BY clauses, and adding bar.v to the SELECT). It then adds one count when foo.v >= bar.v, yielding the final result.
You can take the full Cartesian product of the table with itself and sum a case statement:
select a.x
, sum(case when b.x < a.x then 1 else 0 end) as count_less_than_x
from (select distinct x from T) a
, T b
group by a.x
This will give you one row per unique value in the table with the count of non-unique rows whose value is less than this value.
Notice that there is neither a join nor a where clause. In this case, we actually want that. For each row of a we get a full copy aliased as b. We can then check each one to see whether or not it's less than a.x. If it is, we add 1 to the count. If not, we just add 0.
In sql i got a scenario like to add a constant value to one of the condition data of query also the constant data that we going to add is coming from a sub query. The rough sql will be like this(As most of the sql datas are confidential I can't able to share the actual query).
SELECT * FROM test_table tt
INNER JOIN test_table_1 tt1
ON tt.id = tt1.id
WHERE TO_DATE(tt1.CONDITION_VALUE, 'yyyy-mm-dd') >=
TO_DATE('2011-08-25', 'yyyy-mm-dd') + (SELECT CONDITION_VALUE
FROM test_table tt
INNER JOIN test_table_1 tt1
ON tt.id = tt1.id
WHERE CONDITION_SEQUENCE='2') AND
CONDITION_SEQUENCE='1'.
Issue is subselect will return a set of data. So I getting the error ORA-01427: single-row subquery returns more than one row.
Also, what is the best way to address this issue.
Simply: The scenario is, I want to calulate one rows values, based on the value from another row, but of the same parent object.
As far my understanding, now the joins were behaving like this
obj1.data + [set of subquery data]
obj2.data + [set of subquery data]
....
objN.data + [set of subquery data]
Rather I want like
obj1.data + obj1.anotherData
obj2.data + obj2.anotherData
....
objN.data + objN.anotherData
Updated question
Input is purchase date from: 2011-08-19 to: 2011-08-25, that i'll get from UI
Table value:
id | CONDITION_SEQUENCE | CONDITION_VALUE |
------------------------|------------------
1 | 1 | 6 | --- purchase date
2 | 1 | 4 |
3 | 2 | 2011-08-25 | --- stay start date
4 | 1 | 2011-11-25 | --- stay end date
--------------------------------------------
But in the purchase date, I having a value 6, which I want to add or subtract from stay start date. Where all the condition_value belongs to one parent object, that i 'll determine by its parent table
Output: I want to calculate the purchase date as 2011-08-25(stay start date) + 6
(purchase date) = 2011-08-19
To accomplish what you seem to be trying to do you might try something like
SELECT *
FROM test_table tt
INNER JOIN test_table_1 tt1
ON tt.id = tt1.id
WHERE TO_DATE(tt1.CONDITION_VALUE, 'yyyy-mm-dd') >=
TO_DATE('2011-08-25', 'yyyy-mm-dd') + tt.CONDITION_VALUE AND
tt.CONDITION_SEQUENCE = '2' AND
tt1.CONDITION_SEQUENCE = '1'
Best of luck.
according to my understanding you can try like below,
SELECT tt.*,tt1.* FROM test_table tt
INNER JOIN test_table_1 tt1
ON tt.id = tt1.id
INNER JOIN
test_table tt2
on tt.id = tt2.id
and tt2.CONDITION_SEQUENCE='2'
WHERE TO_DATE(tt1.CONDITION_VALUE, 'yyyy-mm-dd') >=
(TO_DATE('2011-08-25', 'yyyy-mm-dd') + tt2.CONDITION_VALUE)
AND tt.CONDITION_SEQUENCE='1'
I want to merge adjacent repeated rows into one ,
for example , I have a table demo with two columns ,
data | order
-------------
A | 1
A | 2
B | 3
B | 4
A | 5
I want the result to be :
A
B
A
How to achieve this by one select SQL query in oracle ?
please, try something like this
select *
from table t1
where not exists(select * from table t2 where t2.order = t1.order - 1 and t1.data = t2.data)
The answer suggested by Dmitry above is working in SQL, to make it work in oracle you need to do some modifications.
order is a reserved keyword you need to escape it as follows.
select
*
from
Table1 t1
where not exists(
select * from Table1 t2
where
t2."order" = t1."order" - 1
and
t1."data" = t2."data"
) order by "order"
Working Fiddle at http://sqlfiddle.com/#!4/cc816/3
You can group by a column
Take a look at http://docs.oracle.com/javadb/10.6.1.0/ref/rrefsqlj32654.html
Example from official oracle site:
SELECT AVG (flying_time), orig_airport
FROM Flights
GROUP BY orig_airport
Is there a way to select records based using an if statement?
My table looks like this:
id | num | dis
1 | 4 | 0.5234333
2 | 4 | 8.2234
3 | 8 | 2.3325
4 | 8 | 1.4553
5 | 4 | 3.43324
And I want to select the num and dis where dis is the lowest number... So, a query that will produce the following results:
id | num | dis
1 | 4 | 0.5234333
4 | 8 | 1.4553
If you want all the rows with the minimum value within the group:
SELECT id, num, dis
FROM table1 T1
WHERE dis = (SELECT MIN(dis) FROM table1 T2 WHERE T1.num = T2.num)
Or you could use a join to get the same result:
SELECT T1.id, T1.num, T1.dis
FROM table1 T1
JOIN (
SELECT num, MIN(dis) AS dis
FROM table1
GROUP BY num
) T2
ON T1.num = T2.num AND T1.dis = T2.dis
If you only want a single row from each group, even if there are ties then you can use this:
SELECT id, dis, num FROM (
SELECT id, dis, num, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY num ORDER BY dis) rn
FROM table1
) T1
WHERE rn = 1
Unfortunately this won't be very efficient. If you need something more efficient then please see Quassnoi's page on selecting rows with a groupwise maximum for PostgreSQL. Here he suggests several ways to perform this query and explains the performance of each. The summary from the article is as follows:
Unlike MySQL, PostgreSQL implements
several clean and documented ways to
select the records holding group-wise
maximums, including window functions
and DISTINCT ON.
However to the lack of the loose index
scan support by the PostgreSQL’s
optimizer and the less efficient usage
of indexes in PostgreSQL, the queries
using these function take too long.
To work around these problems and
improve the queries against the low
cardinality grouping conditions, a
certain solution described in the
article should be used.
This solution uses recursive CTE’s to
emulate loose index scan and is very
efficient if the grouping columns have
low cardinality.
Use this:
SELECT DISTINCT ON (num) id, num, dis
FROM tbl
ORDER BY num, dis
Or if you intend to use other RDBMS in future, use this:
select * from tbl a where dis =
(select min(dis) from tbl b where b.num = a.num)
If you need to have IF logic you can use PL/pgSQL.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/plpgsql-control-structures.html
But try to solve your issue with SQL first if possible, it will be faster and use PL/pgSQL when SQL can't solve your problem.