I am trying to work on public dataset bigquery-public-data.austin_crime.crime of the BigQuery. My goal is to get the output as three column that shows the
discription(of the crime), count of them, and top district for that particular description(crime).
I am able to get the first two columns with this query.
select
a.description,
count(*) as district_count
from `bigquery-public-data.austin_crime.crime` a
group by description order by district_count desc
and was hoping I can get that done with one query and then I tried this in order to get the third column showing me the Top district for that particular description (crime) by adding the code below
select
a.description,
count(*) as district_count,
(
select district from
( select
district, rank() over(order by COUNT(*) desc) as rank
FROM `bigquery-public-data.austin_crime.crime`
where description = a.description
group by district
) where rank = 1
) as top_District
from `bigquery-public-data.austin_crime.crime` a
group by description
order by district_count desc
The error i am getting is this. "Correlated subqueries that reference other tables are not supported unless they can be de-correlated, such as by transforming them into an efficient JOIN."
I think i can do that by joins. Can someone has better solution possibly to do that using without join.
Below is for BigQuery Standard SQL
#standardSQL
SELECT description,
ANY_VALUE(district_count) AS district_count,
STRING_AGG(district ORDER BY cnt DESC LIMIT 1) AS top_district
FROM (
SELECT description, district,
COUNT(1) OVER(PARTITION BY description) AS district_count,
COUNT(1) OVER(PARTITION BY description, district) AS cnt
FROM `bigquery-public-data.austin_crime.crime`
)
GROUP BY description
-- ORDER BY district_count DESC
Related
I'm relatively new to working with SQL and wasn't able to find any past threads to solve my question. I have three columns in a table, columns being name, customer, and location. I'd like to add an additional column determining which location is most frequent, based off name and customer (first two columns).
I have included a photo of an example where name-Jane customer-BEC in my created column would be "Texas" as that has 2 occurrences as opposed to one for California. Would there be anyway to implement this?
If you want 'Texas' on all four rows:
select t.Name, t.Customer, t.Location,
(select t2.location
from table1 t2
where t2.name = t.name
group by name, location
order by count(*) desc
fetch first 1 row only
) as most_frequent_location
from table1 t ;
You can also do this with analytic functions:
select t.Name, t.Customer, t.Location,
max(location) keep (dense_rank first order by location_count desc) over (partition by name) most_frequent_location
from (select t.*,
count(*) over (partition by name, customer, location) as location_count
from table1 t
) t;
Here is a db<>fiddle.
Both of these version put 'Texas' in all four rows. However, each can be tweaks with minimal effort to put 'California' in the row for ARC.
In Oracle, you can use aggregate function stats_mode() to compute the most occuring value in a group.
Unfortunately it is not implemented as a window function. So one option uses an aggregate subquery, and then a join with the original table:
select t.*, s.top_location
from mytable t
inner join (
select name, customer, stats_mode(location) top_location
from mytable
group by name, customer
) s where s.name = t.name and s.customer = t.customer
You could also use a correlated subquery:
select
t.*,
(
select stats_mode(t1.location)
from mytable t1
where t1.name = t.name and t1.customer = t.customer
) top_location
from mytable t
This is more a question about understanding the concepts of a relational database. If you want that information, you would not put that in an additional column. It is calculated data over multiple columns - why would you store that in the table itself ? It is complex to code and it would also be very expensive for the database (imagine all the rows you have to calculate that value for if someone inserted a million rows)
Instead you can do one of the following
Calculate it at runtime, as shown in the other answers
if you want to make it more persisent, you could embed that query above in a view
if you want to physically store the info, you could use a materialized view
Plenty of documentation on those 3 options in the official oracle documentation
Your first step is to construct a query that determines the most frequent location, which is as simple as:
select Name, Customer, Location, count(*)
from table1
group by Name, Customer, Location
This isn't immediately useful, but the logic can be used in row_number(), which gives you a unique id for each row returned. In the query below, I'm ordering by count(*) in descending order so that the most frequent occurrence has the value 1.
Note that row_number() returns '1' to only one row.
So, now we have
select Name, Customer, Location, row_number() over (partition by Name, Customer order by count(*) desc) freq_name_cust
from table1 tb_
group by Name, Customer, Location
The final step puts it all together:
select tab.*, tb_.Location most_freq_location
from table1 tab
inner join
(select Name, Customer, Location, row_number() over (partition by Name, Customer order by count(*) desc) freq_name_cust
from table1
group by Name, Customer, Location) tb_
on tb_.Name = tab.Name
and tb_.Customer = tab.Customer
and freq_name_cust = 1
You can see how it all works in this Fiddle where I deliberately inserted rows with the same frequency for California and Texas for one of the customers for illustration purposes.
Trying to get an overall distinct count of the employees for a range of records which has a group by on it.
I've tried using the "over()" clause but couldn't get that to work. Best to explain using an example so please see my script below and wanted result below.
EDIT:
I should mention I'm hoping for a solution that does not use a sub-query based on my "sales_detail" table below because in my real example, the "sales_detail" table is a very complex sub-query.
Here's the result I want. Column "wanted_result" should be 9:
Sample script:
CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE [sales_detail] (
[employee] varchar(100),[customer] varchar(100),[startdate] varchar(100),[enddate] varchar(100),[saleday] int,[timeframe] varchar(100),[saleqty] numeric(18,4)
);
INSERT INTO [sales_detail]
([employee],[customer],[startdate],[enddate],[saleday],[timeframe],[saleqty])
VALUES
('Wendy','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','5','Afternoon','1'),
('Wendy','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','5','Morning','5'),
('Wendy','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','6','Morning','6'),
('Dexter','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','2','Mid','2.5'),
('Jennifer','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','4','Morning','2.75'),
('Lila','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','2','Morning','3.75'),
('Rita','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','2','Mid','1'),
('Tony','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','4','Mid','2'),
('Tony','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','1','Morning','6'),
('Mike','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','4','Mid','1.5'),
('Logan','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','3','Morning','6.25'),
('Blake','Chris','8/1/2019','8/12/2019','4','Afternoon','0.5')
;
SELECT
[timeframe],
SUM([saleqty]) AS [total_qty],
COUNT(DISTINCT [s].[employee]) AS [employee_count1],
SUM(COUNT(DISTINCT [s].[employee])) OVER() AS [employee_count2],
9 AS [wanted_result]
FROM (
SELECT
[employee],[customer],[startdate],[enddate],[saleday],[timeframe],[saleqty]
FROM
[sales_detail]
) AS [s]
GROUP BY
[timeframe]
;
If I understand correctly, you are simply looking for a COUNT(DISTINCT) for all employees in the table? I believe this query will return the results you are looking for:
SELECT
[timeframe],
SUM([saleqty]) AS [total_qty],
COUNT(DISTINCT [s].[employee]) AS [employee_count1],
(SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT [employee]) FROM [sales_detail]) AS [employee_count2],
9 AS [wanted_result]
FROM #sales_detail [s]
GROUP BY
[timeframe]
You can try this below option-
SELECT
[timeframe],
SUM([saleqty]) AS [total_qty],
COUNT(DISTINCT [s].[employee]) AS [employee_count1],
SUM(COUNT(DISTINCT [s].[employee])) OVER() AS [employee_count2],
[wanted_result]
-- select count form sub query
FROM (
SELECT
[employee],[customer],[startdate],[enddate],[saleday],[timeframe],[saleqty],
(select COUNT(DISTINCT [employee]) from [sales_detail]) AS [wanted_result]
--caculate the count with first sub query
FROM [sales_detail]
) AS [s]
GROUP BY
[timeframe],[wanted_result]
Use a trick where you only count each person on the first day they are seen:
select timeframe, sum(saleqty) as total_qty),
count(distinct employee) as employee_count1,
sum( (seqnum = 1)::int ) as employee_count2
9 as wanted_result
from (select sd.*,
row_number() over (partition by employee order by startdate) as seqnum
from sales_detail sd
) sd
group by timeframe;
Note: From the perspective of performance, your complex subquery is only evaluated once.
EDITED:
I have this query wherein I want to SELECT the first instance of a record from the table petTable.
SELECT id,
pet_ID,
FIRST(petName),
First(Description)
FROM petTable
GROUP BY pet_ID;
The problem is I have huge number of records and this query is too slow. I discovered that GROUP BY slows down the query. Do you have any idea that could make this query faster? or better, a query wherein I don't need to use GROUP BY?
"The problem is I have huge number of records and this query is too slow. I discovered that GROUP BY slows down the query. Do you have any idea that could make this query faster?"
And an index on pet_ID, then create and test this query:
SELECT pet_ID, Min(id) AS MinOfid
FROM petTable
GROUP BY pet_ID;
Once you have that query working, you can join it back to the original table --- then it will select only the original rows which match based on id and you can retrieve the other fields you want from those matching rows.
SELECT pt.id, pt.pet_ID, pt.petName, pt.Description
FROM
petTable AS pt
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT pet_ID, Min(id) AS MinOfid
FROM petTable
GROUP BY pet_ID
) AS sub
ON pt.id = sub.MinOfid;
Your Query could change as,
SELECT ID, pet_ID, petName, Description
FROM petTable
WHERE ID IN
(SELECT Min(ID) As MinID FROM petTable GROUP BY pet_ID);
Or use the TOP clause,
SELECT petTable.petID, petTable.petName, petTable.[description]
FROM petTable
WHERE petTable.ID IN
(SELECT TOP 1 ID
FROM petTable AS tmpTbl
WHERE tmpTbl.petID = petTable.petID
ORDER BY tmpTbl.petID DESC)
ORDER BY petTable.petID, petTable.petName, petTable.[description];
I have the following query
select * from
(
SELECT distinct
rx.patid
,rx.fillDate
,rx.scriptEndDate
,MAX(datediff(day, rx.filldate, rx.scriptenddate)) AS longestScript
,rx.drugClass
,COUNT(rx.drugName) over(partition by rx.patid,rx.fillDate,rx.drugclass) as distinctFamilies
FROM [I 3 SCI control].dbo.rx
where rx.drugClass in ('h3a','h6h','h4b','h2f','h2s','j7c','h2e')
GROUP BY rx.patid, rx.fillDate, rx.scriptEndDate,rx.drugName,rx.drugClass
) r
order by distinctFamilies desc
which produces results that look like
This should mean that between the two dates in the table the patID that there should be 5 unique drug names. However, when I run the following query:
select distinct *
from rx
where patid = 1358801781 and fillDate between '2008-10-17' and '2008-11-16' and drugClass='H4B'
I have a result set returned that looks like
You can see that while there are in fact five rows returned for the second query between the dates of 2008-10-17 and 2009-01-15, there are only three unique names. I've tried various ways of modifying the over clause, all with different levels of non-success. How can I alter my query so that I only find unique drugNames within the timeframe specified for each row?
Taking a shot at it:
SELECT DISTINCT
patid,
fillDate,
scriptEndDate,
MAX(DATEDIFF(day, fillDate, scriptEndDate)) AS longestScript,
drugClass,
MAX(rn) OVER(PARTITION BY patid, fillDate, drugClass) as distinctFamilies
FROM (
SELECT patid, fillDate, scriptEndDate, drugClass,rx.drugName,
DENSE_RANK() OVER(PARTITION BY patid, fillDate, drugClass ORDER BY drugName) as rn
FROM [I 3 SCI control].dbo.rx
WHERE drugClass IN ('h3a','h6h','h4b','h2f','h2s','j7c','h2e')
)x
GROUP BY x.patid, x.fillDate, x.scriptEndDate,x.drugName,x.drugClass,x.rn
ORDER BY distinctFamilies DESC
Not sure if DISTINCT is really necessary - left it in since you've used it.
I have a simple query in a tabloid control that gets all the leads in one month. I then use the tabloid control to group them into lead source. And then I have an associated count column. I want to sort my report on the count descending, without doing it in the query. I keep getting an error saying you cannot sort on an aggregate.
Thanks.
you can do one more thing..
just write your query in subquery part and write order by clause in outer query.
(suppose you have group by query as follow-
select lead_source, count(*) cnt
from your_table
group by lead_source
)
so you can do as follow -
select lead_source, cnt from (
select lead_source, count(*) cnt
from your_table
group by lead_source
)
order by cnt
this your_table and group by column list you have to edit accordingly your table structure ..