I have a stored procedure returning a table that looks like this:
ID | Type | Price | Description
-------------------------------
7 | J | 50.00 | Job
7 | F | 20.00 | Freight
7 | P | 30.00 | Postage
7 | H | 5.00 | Handling
I would like it to return the table like this:
ID | Type | Price | Description | FreightPrice
-----------------------------------------
7 | J | 50.00 | Job | 20.00
7 | P | 30.00 | Postage | 20.00
7 | H | 5.00 | Handling | 20.00
Is there a way that I can use a query such as:
SELECT * FROM Temp WHERE Type = 'F'
but return the 'Freight' row as a column instead with just the 'Price' value?
From what I have seen it appears that I may need to use the PIVOT operator to achieve this but that seems overly complex. Is there a way that I could achieve this result using a CASE or IF expression?
Based on the data you provided, there is one row having the description value: "Freight". Assuming this is the case, then try:
select ID,Type,Price,Description,
FreightPrice = (select Price
from mytable
where Description = 'Freight')
from mytable
where Description <> 'Freight'
If the Freight row is always moved to the right you can hard code this logic (assuming it's always a single row), as in:
select
id,
type,
price,
description,
(select price from t where description = 'Freight') as freightprice
from t
where description <> 'Freight'
Note: this query will crash if your table has more than one row for Freight.
Related
I am trying to build a table that will be used as a conversion chart. I aim to make a simple join with this conversion table on multiple fields (8 in my case), and get a result. I will try to simplify the examples as much as I can because the original chart is a 40x10 matrix.
Let's say that I have these two (I know they don't make much sense and have bad design but they are just examples):
supply_conversion_chart
---
supply (integer)
customer_id (integer)
product_id (integer)
size (varchar)
purchase_type (varchar)
purchases
---
customer_id (integer)
product_id (integer)
size (varchar)
purchase_type (varchar)
and conversion chart would look something like this:
| supply | customer_id | product_id | size | purchase_type |
|--------|--------------|------------|----------|---------------|
| 100 | 1 | anything | anything | online |
| 101 | 1 | anything | anything | offline |
| 102 | other than 1 | anything | anything | online |
| 103 | 1 | 5 | XXL | online |
The main goal was to get an exact supply value by simply doing a join by doing something like:
SELECT supply
FROM purchases p
JOIN supply_conversion_chart scc ON
p.customer_id = scc.customer_id AND
p.product_id = scc.product_id AND
p.size = scc.size AND
p.purchase_type = scc.purchase_type;
Let's say that these are the records on purchases table:
| customer_id | product_id | size | purchase_type |
|-------------|------------|------|---------------|
| 1 | 3 | M | online |
| 1 | 5 | S | offline |
| 12345 | 4 | XL | online |
| 1 | 5 | XXL | online |
| 4353 | null | M | online |
I would expect first record's supply value to be 101, second record's to be 102, third 102, fourth 103, and fifth to be 102. However, as far as I know, SQL won't be able to do a proper join on all of these records except the fourth one, which is fully matching with supply 103 on supply_conversion_chart table. I don't know if it is possible in the first place to do a join using multiple fields when some of those fields are not fully matching.
My approach is probably faulty and there are better ways to get the results I am trying to achieve but I don't even know where to start. What should I do?
The original chart is much bigger that the provided example, and that I will be doing a join on 8 different fields.
You approach is a lateral join:
select p.*, scc.*
from purchases p left join lateral
(select scc.*
from supply_conversion_chart scc
where (scc.customer_id = p.customer_id or scc.customer_id is null) and
(scc.product_id = p.product_id or scc. product_id is null) and
(scc.size = p.size or scc.size is null) and
(scc.purchase_type = p.purchase_type or scc.purchase_type is null)
order by ( (scc.customer_id = p.customer_id)::int +
(scc.product_id = p.product_id)::int
(scc.size = p.size)::int
(scc.purchase_type = p.purchase_type)::int
) desc
limit 1
) scc;
Note: This represents "everything" as NULL. It doesn't have special logic for "customer other than 1". However, it does show you how to implement basically what you are trying to do.
So I have the following problem:
I have 2 tables, one containing different bids for a product_type, and one containing the price, date etc. to which the product was sold.
The tables look like this:
Table bids:
+----------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------+-------+
| Bid_id | Start_time | End_time | Product_type | price |
+----------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------+-------+
| 1 | 18.01.2020 06:00:00 | 18.01.2020 06:02:33 | blue | 5 € |
| 2 | 18.01.2020 06:00:07 | 18.01.2020 06:00:43 | blue | 7 € |
| 3 | 18.01.2020 06:01:10 | 19.01.2020 15:03:15 | red | 3 € |
| 4 | 18.01.2020 06:02:20 | 18.01.2020 06:05:44 | blue | 6 € |
| | | | | |
+----------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------+-------+
Table sells:
+---------+---------------------+--------------+--------+
| Sell_id | Sell_time | Product_type | Price |
+---------+---------------------+--------------+--------+
| 1 | 18.01.2020 06:00:31 | Blue | 6,50 € |
| 2 | 18:01.2020 06:51:03 | Red | 2,50 € |
| | | | |
+---------+---------------------+--------------+--------+
The sell_id and the bid_id have no relation with each other.
What I want to find out is, what is the maximum bid to the time we sold the product_type. So if we take sell_id 1, it should check, which bids for this specific product_type were active during the sell_time (in this case bid_id 1 and 2) and give back the higher price (in this case bid_id 2).
I tried to solve this problem in Power Bi, however, I was not able to get a solution. I assume, that I have to work with SQL-Joins to solve it.
Is it possible, to join based on criteria instead of matching columns? Something like:
SELECT bids.start_time, bids.end_time, bids.product_type, MAX(bids.price), sells.sell_time, sells.product_type, sells.price
FROM sells
INNER JOIN bids ON bids.start_time<sells.sell_time AND bids.end_time > sells.sell_time;
I am sorry if this question is confusing, I am still new to this sorry. Thanks in advance for ANY help!
Your sample data Sell_time should be 18.01.2020, right? You Can try this code (can be resource-intensive in relation to the amount of data due to Cartesian joins). If you are sure that Sell day is always in Bid Start day, then you can add date column to yours tables and use additional TREATAS(VALUE(bids[day], sells[day])
Test =
VAR __tretasfilter =
TREATAS ( VALUES ( bids[Product_type] ), sells[Product_type] )
RETURN
SUMMARIZE (
FILTER (
SUMMARIZECOLUMNS (
sells[Sell_id],
bids[Price],
bids[Start_time],
sells[Sell_time],
bids[End_time],
sells[Product_type],
__tretasfilter
),
[Start_time] <= [Sell_time]
&& [End_time] >= [Sell_time]
),
sells[Sell_id],
"MaxPrice", MAX ( bids[Price] )
)
Say I have a MoneyIN and a MoneyOUT column. I wish to total these entire columns up so I have a sum of each, then I wish to subtract the total of the MoneyOUT column from the total of the MoneyIN column. I also want to display a DateOF column and possibly a description (I think I can do that by myself).
This would be the original database where I get my information from:
+-------------+------------------+---------+----------+-----------+
| Location ID | Location Address | Date Of | Money In | Money Out |
+-------------+------------------+---------+----------+-----------+
| 1 | blah | date | 10.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | blah | date | 2,027.10 | 27.10 |
| 2 | blah | date | 0.00 | 2000.00 |
| 1 | blah | date | 0.00 | 10.00 |
| 3 | blah | date | 5000.00 | 0.00 |
+-------------+------------------+---------+----------+-----------+
I would like to be able to type in a location ID and then have results show up (in this example I type 2 for the location)
+---------+----------+-----------+------+
| Date Of | Money In | Money Out | |
+---------+----------+-----------+------+
| date | 2027.10 | 27.10 | |
| date | 0 | 2000 | |
| Total: | 2027.10 | 2027.10 | 0 |
+---------+----------+-----------+------+
I have tried other solutions (One of which was pointed out below), however, they don't show the sum of each entire column, they simply subtract MoneyOUT from MoneyIN for each row. As of now, I am trying to do this in a query, but if there is a better way, please elaborate.
I am extremely new to SQL and Access, so please make the explanation understandable for a beginner like me. Thanks so much!
This is a table referred to below.
+-------------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| Location ID | Date | Money IN | Money Out | Total Sum |
+-------------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+
| 1 | date | 300 | 200 | |
| 1 | date | 300 | 200 | |
| 1 | date | 300 | 200 | |
| 1 | total | 900 | 600 | 300 |
+-------------+-------+----------+-----------+-----------+
The following should give you what you want:
SELECT DateOf, MoneyIn, MoneyOut, '' AS TotalSum FROM YourTable
UNION
SELECT 'Total', SUM(MoneyIn) AS SumIn, SUM(MoneyOut) AS SumOut,
SUM(MoneyIn - MoneyOut) AS TotalSum FROM YourTable
Edit:
You do not need to alter very much to achieve what you want. In order to get Access to prompt for a parameter when running a query, you give a name for the parameter in square brackets; Access will then pop-up a window prompting the user for this value. Also this parameter can be used more than once in the query, without Access prompting for it multiple times. So the following should work for you:
SELECT DateOf, MoneyIn, MoneyOut, '' AS TotalSum
FROM YourTable
WHERE LocationID=[Location ID]
UNION
SELECT 'Total', SUM(MoneyIn) AS SumIn, SUM(MoneyOut) AS SumOut,
SUM(MoneyIn - MoneyOut) AS TotalSum FROM YourTable
WHERE LocationID=[Location ID];
However, looking at your table design, I strongly encourage you to change it. You are including the address on every record. If you have three locations, but 100 records, then on average you are unnecessarily repeating each address more than 30 times. The "normal" way to avoid this would be to have a second table, Locations, which would have an ID and an Address field. You then remove address from YourTable, and in its place create a one-to-many relationship between the ID in Locations and the LocationID in YourTable.
It's a little unclear exactly what you expect without sample data, but I think this is what you want:
SELECT DateOf, SUM(MoneyIN) - SUM(MoneyOut)
FROM YourTable
GROUP BY DateOf
This will subtract the summed total of MoneyOut from MoneyIn at each distinct DateOf
Updated Answer
A UNION will let you append a 'Totals' record to the bottom of your result set:
SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT CAST(DateOf as varchar(20)) as DateOf, MoneyIn, MoneyOut, '' as NetMoneyIn
FROM YourTable
UNION
SELECT 'Total:', SUM(MoneyIn), SUM(MoneyOut), SUM(MoneyIN) - SUM(MoneyOut)
FROM YourTable
) A
ORDER BY CASE WHEN DateOf <> 'Total:' THEN 0 ELSE 1 END, DateOf
Some notes.. I used a derived table to ensure that the 'Total' record is last. Also casted DateOf to a string (assuming it is a date), otherwise you will have issues writing the string 'Total:' to that column.
I have a little SQL task to achieve but to be honest I have no idea how to approach it.
Consider the following table:
**Product ID | Product Name | Product Cat | Price | Amount Sold**
1 | product 1 | cat1 | 0.10 | 1000
2 | product 2 | cat1 | 0.50 | 10
.... | ..... | ...... | ... | ....
500 | ..... | ....... | ... | ....
501 | ...... | ....... | .... | .....
.... | ....... | ...... | ..... | .....
For doing a sales report I have a SQL query which selects all the products, sums all the amount sold fields and calculates the total volume of sales for a product. I'm now asked to do the following:
For a number of certain product ids (f.e. 500, 501) I shall "add a row" to the result set which reads:
**Product ID | Product Name | Product Cat | Price | Amount Sold**
.... | ..... | ...... | ... | ....
500 | ..... | ....... | ... | ....
501 | ...... | ....... | .... | .....
xxx | Sum | ...... | Total | Total
..... | ........ | ........ | ..... | .....
How could I achieve this? Do I have to concat multiple select statements or is there a way with rollups to just group by certrain product ids?
Thanks in advance.
As others in the comments have noted, it makes more sense for this kind of logic to be handled by the reporting solution itself, even if that software is something as simple as excel.
However, if I understand your requirement correctly, you could use a UNION of two SELECT queries;
Something like;
SELECT ProductID, ProductName, ProductCat, Price, AmountSold
FROM YourTable
UNION ALL
SELECT 0, 'Sum of 1 & 2', 0, SUM(Price), SUM(AmountSold)
FROM YourTable
WHERE (ProductID = 1 OR ProductID = 2);
This assumes that your sums, etc will match or be convertable to the data types of the original columns. The use of UNION ALL performs better and prevents your new row from being removed in the unlikely event that all it's columns values match an existing row.
I hope this helps.
I have at table containing procurement contracts that looks like this:
+------+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
| type | text | date | company | supplierID | name |
+ -----+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
| 0 | None | 2004-03-29 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 0 | None | 2007-09-30 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 0 | None | 2010-11-29 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 2 | Strategic | 2011-01-01 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 0 | None | 2012-04-10 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
+------+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
In this example the first three rows the contract is the same. So I only want the first one.
The row with type = 2 is a change in procurement contract with the given supplier. I want to select that row as well.
On the last row the contract changes back to 0, so I want to select that row as well.
Basically I want to select the first row and the rows where the contract type changes. So the result should look like this:
+------+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
| type | text | date | company | supplierID | name |
+ -----+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
| 0 | None | 2004-03-29 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 2 | Strategic | 2011-01-01 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
| 0 | None | 2012-04-10 | 310 | 227234 | HRC INFRA |
+------+-----------+------------+---------+------------+-----------+
Any suggestions to how I can accomplish this?
;WITH cte AS
(
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY date) AS Id,
type, text, date, company, supplierId, name
FROM your_table
)
SELECT c1.type, c1.text, c1.date, c1.company,
c1.supplierId, c1.name
FROM cte c1 LEFT JOIN cte c2 ON c1.id = c2.id + 1
WHERE c2.text IS NULL OR c1.text != c2.text
Demo on SQLFiddle
I don't have SQL server in front of me to test it out so I'm not going to attempt the actual solution for it right now, but fyi there are few things you need:
1) A way to make sure the records are ordered properly. I don't see any kind of an id here which means you have no guarantee that they will appear in that order. I assume there is one so just make sure you order by it
2) You need to do an outer join on the table to itself on whatever the index is, but instead of "table1.index = table2.index" it will look like "table1.index = table2.index + 1". If your indexes aren't sequential then it will make joining them this way more complex than that though.
3) In the where clause you'll specify something like
where table1.type <> table2.type
That will get you most the way there. That won't pick up the very first record though since there is no record before the first record to compare to so you'll need an OR addition to compensate for that. And I'm assuming that type has no NULL values.
Sorry I couldn't be more help with an actual implementation but maybe someone else will take care of that shortly.
might be what you want. Presumingly you dont have type < 0.
SELECT *
FROM [TABLE] as ot where ot.type <>
(select top 1 coalesce(it.type, -1) from [TABLE] as it where it.date < ot.date order by it.date desc)
Also, take not of brandon note to make shure tables are ordered, due i dont see PK.