I have a set of shelves and some are not being used but some are. I want to get the percentage of shelves that are being used (I am using an ajax call from javascript) what is a good way to do this and could you please provide an example?
This is the query I have so far which gets the nulls and sets the quantity to 0:
SELECT warehouse_locations.location, ISNULL(product_stock_warehouse.quantity, 0) as quantity
FROM product_stock_warehouse
RIGHT JOIN warehouse_locations ON product_stock_warehouse.location = warehouse_locations.location
WHERE warehouse_locations.location LIKE 'A21%'
ORDER BY product_stock_warehouse.quantity
If the shelf is not 0, it is "Full" and therefore counts towards the percentage being used.
I am using MS-SQL
I think you need aggregation. The idea is something like this:
SELECT wl.location, COALESCE(SUM(psw.quantity), 0) as total_quantity,
(CASE WHEN COALESCE(SUM(psw.quantity), 0) = 0 THEN 'EMPTY' ELSE 'USED' END) as status
FROM warehouse_locations wl LEFT JOIN
product_stock_warehouse psw
ON psw.location = wl.location
WHERE wl.location LIKE 'A21%'
GROUP BY wl.location
ORDER BY psw.quantity;
Some notes:
LEFT JOIN is much easier to follow than RIGHT JOIN. It means "keep all rows in the first table" rather than "keep all rows in some table later in the FROM clause that I haven't seen yet".
Table aliases make a query easier to write and to read.
Use GROUP BY to get one row per "shelf", which I assume is the same as a "location".
Good morning. I'm working in Responsys Interact, which is an Oracle-based email campaign management type SAAS product. I'm creating a query to basically filter a target list for an email campaign designed to target a specific sub-set of our master email contact list. Here's the query I created a few weeks ago that appears to work:
/*
Table Symbolic Name
CONTACTS_LIST $A$
Engaged $B$
TRANSACTIONS_RAW $C$
TRANSACTION_LINES_RAW $D$
-- A Responsys Filter (Engaged) will return only an RIID_, nothing else, according to John # Responsys....so,....let's join on that to contact list...
*/
SELECT
DISTINCT $A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_,
$A$.RIID_,
$A$.FIRST_NAME,
$A$.LAST_NAME,
$A$.EMAIL_PERMISSION_STATUS_
FROM
$A$
JOIN $B$ ON $B$.RIID_ = $A$.RIID_
LEFT JOIN $C$ ON $C$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_ = $A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_
LEFT JOIN $D$ ON $D$.TRANSACTION_ID = $C$.TRANSACTION_ID
WHERE
$A$.EMAIL_DOMAIN_ NOT IN ('none.com', 'noemail.com', 'mailinator.com', 'nomail.com') AND
/* don't include hp customers */
$A$.HP_PLAN_START_DATE IS NULL AND
$A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_ NOT IN
(
SELECT
$C$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_
FROM
$C$
JOIN $D$ ON $D$.TRANSACTION_ID = $C$.TRANSACTION_ID
WHERE
/* Get only purchase transactions for certain item_id's/SKU's */
($D$.ITEM_FAMILY_ID IN (3,4,5,8,14,15) OR $D$.ITEM_ID IN (704,769,1893,2808,3013) ) AND
/* .... within last 60 days (i.e. 2 months) */
$A$.TRANDATE > ADD_MONTHS(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, -2)
)
;
This seems to work, in that if I run the query without the sub-query, we get 720K rows; and if I add back the 'AND NOT IN...' subquery, we get about 700K rows, which appears correct based on what my user knows about her data. What I'm (supposedly) doing with the NOT IN subquery is filtering out any email addresses where the customer has purchased certain items from us in the last 60 days.
So, now I need to add in another constraint. We still don't want customers who made certain purchases in the last 60 days as above, but now also we want to exclude customers who have purchased another particular item, but now within the last 12 months. So, I thought I would add another subquery, as shown below. Now, this has introduced several problems:
Performance - the query, which took a couple minutes to run before, now takes quite a few more minutes to run - in fact it seems to time out....
So, I wondered if there's an issue having two subqueries, but before I went to think about alternatives to this, I decided to test my new subquery by temporarily deleting the first subquery, so that I had just one subquery similar to above, but with the new item = 11 and within the last 12 months logic. And so with this, the query finally returned after a few minutes now, but with zero rows.
Trying to figure out why, I tried simply changing the AND NOT IN (subquery) to AND IN (subquery), and that worked, in that it returned a few thousand rows, as expected.
So why would the same SQL when using AND IN (subquery) "work", but the exact same SQL simply changed to AND NOT IN (subquery) return zero rows, instead of what I would expect which would be my 700 something thousdand plus rows, less the couple thousand encapsulated by the subquery result?
Also, what is the best i.e. most performant way to accomplish what I'm trying to do, which is filter by some purchases made within one date range, AND by some other purchases made within a different date range?
Here's the modified version:
SELECT
DISTINCT $A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_,
$A$.RIID_,
$A$.FIRST_NAME,
$A$.LAST_NAME,
$A$.EMAIL_PERMISSION_STATUS_
FROM
$A$
JOIN $B$ ON $B$.RIID_ = $A$.RIID_
LEFT JOIN $C$ ON $C$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_ = $A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_
LEFT JOIN $D$ ON $D$.TRANSACTION_ID = $C$.TRANSACTION_ID
WHERE
$A$.EMAIL_DOMAIN_ NOT IN ('none.com', 'noemail.com', 'mailinator.com', 'nomail.com') AND
/* don't include hp customers */
$A$.HP_PLAN_START_DATE IS NULL AND
$A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_ NOT IN
(
SELECT
$C$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_
FROM
$C$
JOIN $D$ ON $D$.TRANSACTION_ID = $C$.TRANSACTION_ID
WHERE
/* Get only purchase transactions for certain item_id's/SKU's */
($D$.ITEM_FAMILY_ID IN (3,4,5,8,14,15) OR $D$.ITEM_ID IN (704,769,1893,2808,3013) ) AND
/* .... within last 60 days (i.e. 2 months) */
$C$.TRANDATE > ADD_MONTHS(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, -2)
)
AND
$A$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_ NOT IN
(
/* get purchase transactions for another type of item within last year */
SELECT
$C$.EMAIL_ADDRESS_
FROM
$C$
JOIN $D$ ON $D$.TRANSACTION_ID = $C$.TRANSACTION_ID
WHERE
$D$.ITEM_FAMILY_ID = 11 AND $C$.TRANDATE > ADD_MONTHS(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, -12)
)
;
Thanks for any ideas/insights. I may be missing or mis-remembering some basic SQL concept here - if so please help me out! Also, Responsys Interact runs on top of Oracle - it's an Oracle product - but I don't know off hand what version/flavor. Thanks!
Looks like my problem with the new subquery was due to poor performance due to lack of indexes. Thanks to Alex Poole's comments, I looked in Responsys and there is a facility to get an 'explain' type analysis, and it was throwing warnings, and suggesting I build some indexes. Found the way to do that on the data sources, went back to the explain, and it said, "The query should run without placing an unnecessary burden on the system". And while it still ran for quite a few minutes, it did finally come back with close to the expected number of rows.
Now, I'm on to tackle the other half of the issue, which is to now incorporate this second sub-query in addition to the first, original subquery....
Ok, upon further testing/analysis and refining my stackoverflow search critieria, the answer to the main part of my question dealing with the IN vs. NOT IN can be found here: SQL "select where not in subquery" returns no results
My performance was helped by using Responsys's explain-like feature and adding some indexes, but when I did that, I also happened to add in a little extra SQL in my sub-query's WHERE clause.... when I removed that, even after indexes built, I was back to zero rows returned. That's because as it turned out at least one of the transactions rows for the item family id I was interested in for this additional sub-query had a null value for email address. And as further explained in the link above, when using NOT IN, as soon as you have a null value involved, SQL can't definitively say it's NOT IN, since you can't really compare to null, so as soon as you have a null, the sub-query's going to evaluate 'false', thus zero rows. When using IN, even though there are nulls present, if you get one positive match, well, that's a match, so the sub-query returns 'true', so that's why you'll get rows with IN, but not with NOT IN. I hadn't realized that some of our transaction data may have null email addresses - now I know, so I just added a where not null to the where clause for the email address, and now all's good.
I am trying to write a query that looks for a people that have a certain code with the latest period (year) but not if they have another code with that latest period(year). I'll be explicit just so my example makes sense.
I want people who have the code A1,A2,A3,A4,A5 but not AG,AP,AQ. There are people who have an A1 code for a period (like 2014) and an AG code for a the same period. I'd like to exclude them. Not everyone has a code so the field value could be NULL.
Is there a way to express this in a different way (i.e. less characters) than the way I did?
SELECT
people.firstName
FROM
people
WHERE EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM codes
WHERE
codes.people_id = people.id
AND period = (SELECT MAX(period) FROM codes codes2 WHERE codes2.people_id = codes.people_id)
AND code LIKE 'A[1-5]'
)
AND NOT EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM codes
WHERE
codes.people_id = people.id
AND period = (
SELECT MAX(period)
FROM codes codes2
WHERE codes2.people_id = codes.people_id
)
AND code LIKE 'A[GPQ]'
)
Schema is as follows:
People
id (PK)
firstName
Codes
people_id (FK) many to one relation with People table
code (e.g. "A1", "A2", "AG")
period (e.g. "2013", "2014")
There are so many ways you could do that, I'm not an SQL expert but I can't see your query being too bad, if you want to try and reduce the number of sub-queries you could consider using the GROUP BY clause along with a SUM Aggregate function in a HAVING clause.
I started updating your code as follows:
SELECT
people.firstName
FROM
people
LEFT JOIN codes AS a15 ON a15.people_id = people.id AND a15.code LIKE 'A[1-5]'
LEFT JOIN codes AS agpq ON agpq.people_id = people.id AND agpq.code LIKE 'A[GPQ]'
GROUP BY
people.firstName
HAVING
SUM(CASE WHEN a15.code IS NULL THEN 0 ELSE 1 END) > 0
AND SUM(CASE WHEN agpq.code IS NULL THEN 0 ELSE 1 END) = 0
This however doesn't take into account anything to do with period specific requirements described. You could add the period to the GROUP BY clause or add it to a WHERE or one of the JOIN constraints but I'm not quite sure from your description exactly what you're after (I don't believe this is through any fault of your own, I just can't personally align the code provided to the description).
I would also like to point out that the SUM functions above will not give an accurate count of the number of matching codes. This is because if both A[GPQ] and A[1_5] return at least one row, the number returned by each constraint will be multiplied by the number returned for the other, it can however be used to determine if there are "any" returned items as if the criteria is matched it will have a SUM(...) > 0
I'm sure a more experienced SQL Developer / DBA will be able to poke many holes in my proposed query but it might give them or someone else something to work from and hopefully gives you ideas for alternatives to using sub-queries.
I have the following FireBird query:
update hrs h
set h.plan_week_id=
(select first 1 c.plan_week_id from calendar c
where c.calendar_id=h.calendar_id)
where coalesce(h.calendar_id,0) <> 0
(Intention: For records in hrs with a (non-zero) calendar_id
take calendar.plan_week_id and put it in hrs.plan_week_id)
The trick to select the first record in Oracle is to use WHERE ROWNUM=1, and if understand correctly I do not have to use ROWNUM in a separate outer query because I 'only' match ROWNUM=1 - thanks SO for suggesting Questions that may already have your answer ;-)
This would make it
update hrs h
set h.plan_week_id=
(select c.plan_week_id from calendar c
where (c.calendar_id=h.calendar_id) and (rownum=1))
where coalesce(h.calendar_id,0) <> 0
I'm actually using the 'first record' together with the selection of only one field to guarantee that I get one value back which can be put into h.plan_week_id.
Question: Will the above query work under Oracle as intended?
Right now, I do not have a filled Oracle DB at hand to run the query on.
Like Nicholas Krasnov said, you can test it in SQL Fiddle.
But if you ever find yourself about to use where rownum = 1 in a subquery, alarm bells should go off, because in 90% of the cases you are doing something wrong. Very rarely will you need a random value. Only when all selected values are the same, a rownum = 1 is valid.
In this case I expect calendar_id to be a primary key in calendar. Therefor each record in hrs can only have 1 plan_week_id selected per record. So the where rownum = 1 is not required.
And to answer your question: Yes, it will run just fine. Though the brackets around each where clause are also not required and in fact only confusing (me).
Edited
I am running into an error and I know what is happening but I can't see what is causing it. Below is the sql code I am using. Basically I am getting the general results I want, however I am not accurately giving the query the correct 'where' clause.
If this is of any assistance. The count is coming out as this:
Total Tier
1 High
2 Low
There are 4 records in the Enrollment table. 3 are active, and 1 is not. Only 2 of the records should be displayed. 1 for High, and 1 for low. The second Low record that is in the total was flagged as 'inactive' on 12/30/2010 and reflagged again on 1/12/2011 so it should not be in the results. I changed the initial '<=' to '=' and the results stayed the same.
I need to exclude any record from Enrollments_Status_Change that where the "active_status" was changed to 0 before the date.
SELECT COUNT(dbo.Enrollments.Customer_ID) AS Total,
dbo.Phone_Tier.Tier
FROM dbo.Phone_Tier as p
JOIN dbo.Enrollments as eON p.Phone_Model = e.Phone_Model
WHERE (e.Customer_ID NOT IN
(Select Customer_ID
From dbo.Enrollment_Status_Change as Status
Where (Change_Date >'12/31/2010')))
GROUP BY dbo.Phone_Tier.Tier
Thanks for any assistance and I apologize for any confusion. This is my first time here and i'm trying to correct my etiquette on the fly.
If you don't want any of the fields from that table dbo.Enrollment_Status_Change, and you don't seem to use it in any way — why even include it in the JOINs? Just leave it out.
Plus: start using table aliases. This is very hard to read if you use the full table name in each JOIN condition and WHERE clause.
Your code should be:
SELECT
COUNT(e.Customer_ID) AS Total, p.Tier
FROM
dbo.Phone_Tier p
INNER JOIN
dbo.Enrollments e ON p.Phone_Model = e.Phone_Model
WHERE
e.Active_Status = 1
AND EXISTS (SELECT DISTINCT Customer_ID
FROM dbo.Enrollment_Status_Change AS Status
WHERE (Change_Date <= '12/31/2010'))
GROUP BY
p.Tier
Also: most likely, your EXISTS check is wrong — since you didn't post your table structures, I can only guess — but my guess would be:
AND EXISTS (SELECT * FROM dbo.Enrollment_Status_Change
WHERE Change_Date <= '12/31/2010' AND CustomerID = e.CustomerID)
Check for existence of any entries in dbo.Enrollment_Status_Change for the customer defined by e.CustomerID, with a Change_Date before that cut-off date. Right?
Assuming you want to:
exclude all customers whose latest enrollment_status_change record was since the start of 2011
but
include all customers whose latest enrollment_status_change record was earlier than the end of 2010 (why else would you have put that EXISTS clause in?)
Then this should do it:
SELECT COUNT(e.Customer_ID) AS Total,
p.Tier
FROM dbo.Phone_Tier p
JOIN dbo.Enrollments e ON p.Phone_Model = e.Phone_Model
WHERE dbo.Enrollments.Active_Status = 1
AND e.Customer_ID NOT IN (
SELECT Customer_ID
FROM dbo.Enrollment_Status_Change status
WHERE (Change_Date >= '2011-01-01')
)
GROUP BY p.Tier
Basically, the problem with your code is that joining a one-to-many table will always increase the row count. If you wanted to exclude all the records that had a matching row in the other table this would be fine -- you could just use a LEFT JOIN and then set a WHERE clause like Customer_ID IS NULL.
But because you want to exclude a subset of the enrollment_status_change table, you must use a subquery.
Your intention is not clear from the example given, but if you wanted to exclude anyone who's enrollment_status_change as before 2011, but include those who's status change was since 2011, you'd just swap the date comparator for <.
Is this any help?